Is This Triangulation?

After making the splashy headline about limiting executive compensation pay (which is fine, but does nothing to help the economy), Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) stuck in the shiv to House Democrats. From a HuffPo interview:

McCASKILL: I think that there have been some mistakes made [by House Dems]. From my perspective there have been mistakes made on the stimulus bill. There has been such a starvation diet for some of these programs that the appropriators got a little over anxious in the House. They probably did some things they shouldn't have...

We do need to look at the safety net side of the stimulus bill that can get into the economy quickly. But we can't right every wrong in terms of programs we support in the stimulus bill. And the other thing is, whether it is the National Endowment of the Arts or some of the STD funding or contraceptive funding, all we did was just tee up ammunition for the other side to tear this thing down. And I would like to think we are smarter than that. I'm hopeful on the Senate side we will be smarter than that.

[MORE . . .]

We will pull some of this stuff out that is not stimulative and we will have safety net in there that will get into the economy quickly, because that is what these tax breaks do, and the unemployment insurance benefits and the food stamps. People need them and they'll spend it, and it will go into the economy quickly. But I think we have to remain very focused on how we are creating jobs in this thing. And I am hoping we will find that middle ground.

But I should shut up about this because we all know our new Obama Dems are playing 11 dimensional political chess that we peons could not possibly understand. What looks like good old fashioned triangulation to you and me is really a multi-move trap being set by Obama and his Dems. Even Ben Nelson knows this. I admit I can not see it.

Speaking for me only

< Inmate Accuses Madoff of Defrauding Prisoners | What Is The Purpose Of The Buy America Provisions In The Stimulus Plan? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Her kids (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 08:23:06 AM EST
    Are probably the ones who told her that polls show a majority of the country now are not happy with this stimulus package and have questions. She's also going on the record so when she is up for re-election, she doesn't want to be tagged with it, since she'll lose for so many other reasons.

    The secret plan is so complex (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by ricosuave on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 08:31:00 AM EST
    that it may take decades for mere mortals like us to truly understand and appreciate it.  But in 2049 you will be amazed when you see all the pieces in place.

    Or it could just be Will Rogers was right (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 08:47:53 AM EST
    "I am not a member of any organized party - I am a Democrat".

    The Stupid Party? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 08:52:16 AM EST
    on some days and some members (none / 0) (#15)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 09:38:47 AM EST
    On any and every day (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 10:03:44 AM EST
    with Claire "I Wanna Be Cool With My Kids" McCaskill.  I keep getting the sense that she was not one of the cool kids who could get elected to student council and is compensating for it by getting elected to Congress.  

    The Demo Crap Party (none / 0) (#24)
    by Dadler on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 10:21:45 AM EST
    Demonstrating crappy politics year after year.

    What does that say... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by kdog on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 10:36:52 AM EST
    about the citizenry who vote for these winners election after election after election?  Brand D and Brand R of the same product...organized crime.  

    I mean the faux differences we apply to D and R are just like the differences we apply to Palmolive and Sun Light...not exactly the same but both dish soaps when the job we need to do is replace the drain and p-trap because the f*ckin' sink is leaking.

    Could the Greens or the Libertarians or the Marijuana Reform Party do any worse?  I wonder...


    They COULD do worse... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Dadler on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:17:38 PM EST
    ...but I'd have a hard time putting any of my own money on it, and not just because I have less of it right now.  Wouldn't be a great bet, in other words, which, as you say, really says it all.

    Obama loses very first challenge (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by pluege on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 08:51:16 AM EST
    the Obamaians have incredibly blown this very first no brainer, easy-as-pie bill to get done.

    Americans wanted action. The republican/conservatives, their economist enablers, and the corporate media were all back on their heals; the CW was that "big spending had to be done, and done now" - it was a done deal. Until, Obama and his genius supporters step in and turned the simplest of things into crap.

    Aside from not getting anything useful done (which may have been the ulterior motive), Obama and the Vichy Dem Congress are seriously damaged by their inability to quickly get done this simplest of things that Americans want and need.

    I think that is exactly right (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 08:52:02 AM EST
    I give you (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:25:44 PM EST
    Bill "Template" Clinton.

    Who did more for trinagulation than Pythagorus.


    The difference, (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by seeker on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:47:02 PM EST
    as most of us know, is Clinton's "triangulation" was necessitated by Republican majorities in Congress after 1994.  What excuse does Obama have?!

    My point exactly (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 07:57:44 AM EST
    Yes, it seems that (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 11:30:46 AM EST
    what the Obama administration saw as 'slam dunk' legislation could be its vehicle to demonstrate uncanny  powers of consensus building.  But, rather, it is becoming clear to the legislation's detriment, that (a) economic policy has historically separated parties, and most Republicans are ill-equipped by political genetics to enable government spending that does not support the rich and powerful, (b) achievement of consensus on foundational differences requires the abandonment, if not the dishonoring, of  entrenched views, (c) 'compromises'  become, in effect, changes in intent and purpose, and (d) Republicans, like barracudas, have limited vision but know how to bite.

    My question is this: is he dumb/naive enough (none / 0) (#51)
    by magnetics on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:33:16 PM EST
    to think he can actually deal with these people (the 'thugs) on any terms other than naked power?

    It is a mystery to me, (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 03:32:38 PM EST
    President Obama is where he is because he is a brilliant politician; he has veterans of  political wars around him, such as Rahm Emanuel; and he, himself, is a product of  rough and tumble Chicago politics with the master, Mayor Daley, at its epicenter.  So, I keep thinking and hoping  that I am missing the new way.

    Actually hasn't been (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:12:25 PM EST
    in national politics long enough to merit "brilliant."  He surrounding himself, yes, with brilliant campaign strategists.

    They campaign; they don't govern.  He is just beginning to surround himself with brilliant, actual politicians experienced in governance -- and at the national level.  Chicago politics is really apropos training only for, maybe, mud-wrestling.  


    In other words (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:15:39 PM EST
    I give him mixed reviews for these first weeks' stumbles (where, oh where, is the FISA promise?), which were to be expected from reliance on a group trained to campaign, not to govern -- while those will govern are still getting appointed, in place, etc.

    I give him time.  Not that he has much time.  It really is a narrow window within to work, with the state of the economy.  But it has been not even 10 days, so let's see the next 90 -- starting with the next 20.  Then you can bet that the media mantra will be "how has he done in his first month?"


    I don't know (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 03:51:29 PM EST
    but I can  speculate that some of the bi-partisan schtick may have come from a deep seated conceit, that he could do what no one else could do and it would all be for the greater glory of Obama.

    Neither he nor his avid supporters seem to understand why he was elected.  He was elected only because the incumbent party enacted and executed truly awful, damaging policy.

    I've never believed that bi-partisan was a good thing, the opposite in fact.  That the inevitable compromise simply yields ineffective policy.

    Obama has to abandon his conceit quickly and learn that real, effective policy is his assignment from the electorate. He has to go to war against the other side with all weapons and no holds barred.


    Vichy Dems (none / 0) (#9)
    by jussumbody on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 09:01:31 AM EST
    Love that term.  I haven't heard that one in a while, but I've been searching around in my memory for that one.  Quislings just isn't as pithy.

    I've been praying Obama and his team weren't as naive as their supporters, that all the bipartisanship was just a bunch of phony schtick and its failure was part of their plan.  But I've got a sinking feeling in my stomach (and my retirement portfolio).


    More appropriate than ever (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by pluege on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 12:23:23 PM EST
    • first we have 6 years of Democrats not being an opposition party, not fighting bush on anything and giving him carte-blanche to start disastrous illegal, unnecessary wars, eviscerate the government with corrupt and incompetent cronies,  and Vichy Dems even engage in complicity for bush regime criminality
    • Then, even before the 2006 Democratic Congressional landslide Pelosi takes the most justified impeachment in US history "off the table", thereby subjecting Americans to 2 yeras of bush regime criminality and ruination of the US.
    • Once in command of Congress, Pelosi, Hoyer, and Reid lead Congress in an unparalleled string of do-nothingness, capitulation, and malfeasance-enabling, not doing or accomplishing anything they were elected to do and continuing to cover for bush regime criminality and infestation of the government with a legacy of republican cronies and incompetents.

    Now, with no republicans in power to hide behind in the on-going government malfeasance, incompetence, and ruination, it is as clear as a bell that while Obama and the dems are willing to twiddle around the edges with policy, when it comes to the real meat and potatoes issues, particularly those involving government largess, they are at-one with the republican/conservatives in their plutocratic mission to financially rape America for themselves.

    For a very long time, the fundamental underlying republican/conservative tactic has been that of waging class warfare. And while today's democrats vomit a lot of platitude lip-service to concern for the average, and disadvantaged Americans, powered evermore by Obama's rhetoric, when it comes to meaningful action, they are on the side of the plutocrats, they are true Vichy Dems actively engaging in action against the majority the American people, unresponsive to the needs and direction.


    She herself sounds as if she has no clue on what (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by iceblinkjm on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 08:59:47 AM EST
    to do with the economy. Anyhow not surprised, it's McCaskil who I've never liked and am so glad she's not my Senator.

    Republican lite (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 09:04:36 AM EST
    She's an example of why I would rather force the voters to choose between a true Democrat or Republican rather than a "Republican Lite" or Republican. I think the parties principles are strong enough to hold in an election. We often compromise too much on candidates when it isn't necessary.

    I don't say they all have to be card carrying members of the progressive wing, but they should at least endorse basic party values. McCaskill opinions and voting record are an embarassment to the Democratic Party.

    You are funny (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Steve M on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 09:06:43 AM EST
    Read fivethirtyeight.com and all the secret strategies shall be revealed to you, grasshopper.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 09:11:19 AM EST
    As I say, peons like myself fail to see how this is any different from the much reviled triangulation of the 90s - with the caveat that Democrat actually control Congress now.

    Hence (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by oldpro on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 10:48:37 AM EST
    no need for this crap.

    The difference is that 90's triangulation (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by magnetics on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:36:58 PM EST
    put us on a glide path to balancing the federal budget.  Give Bill his due on that.

    heh (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 09:38:50 AM EST
    Perfect Steve. 100% spot on.

    McCaskill's probably still doing a (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 09:43:58 AM EST
    slow burn about not being offered a plum job in the administration after all her devotion to the Obama cause, and probably blames someone like Rahm Emmanuel for blocking the way.  Seriously, could it be that the "pit-a-pat" we could hear was not the sound of her heart palpitating with adoration, but her brain struggling to process?  Did I say that out loud?  Sorry, but Claire does not strike me as being the sharpest knife in the drawer.

    Whatever McCaskill's particular problem is, there's a lot of it going around, and if "Dems in Disarray" is not a headline somewhere, it's only a matter of time before it is.  And it would be spot-on.

    What we needed in the WH - or running the show, anyway - was someone who could take this situation by the throat, grab everyone else by whatever anatomical appendage would cause the most pain, and exert such order and unity of purpose and focus that a real plan - not just one lame-a$$ bill with a huge price tag - would be before the Congress, the GOP would not know what hit them, the people would be cheering in the streets and the message that change was here would be unmistakable.

    But...no.  We have Executive Order Obama ("hey, if I can do it with a stroke of the pen - I'm your guy!  Big picture stuff?  Not so much") who can't seem to round up his own party because he is more interested in wining and dining Republicans, and has yet to settle on a consistent message and follow through on it.

    This should have been the most exciting two weeks in a long, long time, but after the foreplay of the inauguration, let's just say that the main event has been less than satisfying.

    These morons actually believe (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 10:02:06 AM EST
    the Republican swill on the value of tax cuts.
    30 years of Reaganomics education has warped their brains. I've said this before----Reagan was a much more important bad President than Bush. When will we be free of the influence of his mendacious acolytes?

    Has nothing to do with belief. (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by pluege on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 12:35:07 PM EST
    "Trickle-down economics always had everything and only to do with class warfare, and preserving and promoting the American plutocracy. The idea that enriching a handful of the already very wealthy is a way to stimulate growth and thereby provide wealth to the masses is, and always was preposterous. Only the vile, the ignorant, and the drunk ever believed in it, and still do.

    That's the tthing. I know the (none / 0) (#39)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 12:36:46 PM EST
    Republicans don't believe that garbage, but I'm pretty sure some Democrats do.

    Not anytime soon (none / 0) (#23)
    by SOS on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 10:09:03 AM EST
    Rush Limbaugh will probably run for president next time. If not another Bush.

    But "The One" (none / 0) (#62)
    by CDN Ctzn on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 09:30:16 PM EST
    called for Tax Cuts. How can they possibly be bad?

    I agree with her on one thing (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 10:24:26 AM EST
    I would like to think we are smarter than that.

    Unfortunately, Dems like Rep. McCaskill keep proving me wrong.

    Makes you wish she were (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 10:28:24 AM EST
    Commerce Secretary or something

    With friends ... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 10:57:53 AM EST
    like this ...


    Not to mention the (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by oldpro on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 11:06:51 AM EST
    disconcerting images of the Obamas partying with the Rs while thousands of voters line up at unemployment offices.

    What's the message?

    Does any other group, mammal or otherwise (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by vicndabx on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 11:29:05 AM EST
    eat it's own so frequently?

    Maybe we should ask (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by DefiantOne on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:10:56 PM EST
    Hillary and Bill Clinton. I'm sure they'd have some thoughts.

    There is a bill to stop bonuses (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:24:42 PM EST
    The House passed a bill, HR 384, that would limit compensation and claw-back those bonuses. Why isn't the Senate passing this bill? Let's read Chris Bowers:

      ----     [HR 384] Adds the stricter executive compensation limits from the auto bailout bill to firms that receive TARP money. The stricter limits include a ban on bonuses and incentives for to the 25 most highly compensated employees of a company, "any compensation plan that would encourage manipulation of such institution's reported earnings to enhance the compensation of any of its employees," and a mandate to divest in private airplanes. Notably, these stricter limits would apply retroactively to executives from companies that have already received TARP money.
    This legislation was passed by the House only eight days ago, over the objections of all but 18 House Republicans. It is still be possible for Senate Democrats to pass a mirror to HR 384, and send it to President Obama's desk. In fact, such a bill would have to first be passed through the Banking Committee, chaired by Senator Dodd. Further, if Democratic Senators were urged to pass this legislation by the Obama administration, it is likely that such legislation could be passed next week, given the massive influence President Obama has with Senate Democrats. And then, poof, the excesses of the bonuses would be solved.
    However, as reported on multiple occasions on Open Left, this simply isn't happening. Instead of passing this law, and stopping the bonuses, Senator Dodd and White House NEC chair Larry Summers simply exchanged letters of assurance. They could have stripped these bonuses, but they themselves chose not to do so.------

    So, why aren't Obama and Dodd acting on this? Oh, right, talk is cheap, and, I guess, with this economy, action costs too much.

    This is (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by JThomas on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 04:57:05 PM EST
    much ado about nothing. Obama's group gives the framework for a big bill to the house. The House does what they always do...lard it a bit as they answer to a district and need to be re-elected in 20 months. The GOP rips it for having crap.

    It goes to the Senate and gets marked up, winnowed down, sharpened with both sides in the fray..Senate sees big picture.
    Schumer said last nite that the tax cuts for the middle class and poor will get pared down to 20% from 25%..and infrastructure will get bigger.
    This will get some GOP senate votes as GOP governors are clamoring for it even. Then it goes to conference and gets finalized and finally gets passed and signed right on schedule in mid-late Feb.

    Then they start on the next bill...TARP redux..and the bad bank...and finally at the same time another bill on foreclosure/housing aid.. Schumer said last nite to expect three big bills attacking this problem. It is gonna be expensive,but even the conservative economist and Jack Welch on Charlie Rose said they will hold their noses and support it.

    Obama and co..see the whole picture and know that they need to at least placate the GOP somewhat with 2-3 trillion coming down the pipe.
    I predict this stimulus will end up at a trillion with 200 billion in tax cuts..and 400 billion in infrastructure and 400 in aid to states and unemployment ect..

    That's fine, except that (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:55:12 PM EST
    the infrastructure spending is about 1/3 of what it needs to be.

    There is no need to placate the (none / 0) (#60)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 05:55:38 PM EST
    GOP. Now is the time to remind Americans that the GOP has run the country into the ground, and that they need to step aside for Obama's plan.

    Condescending, isn't she? (none / 0) (#3)
    by snstara on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 08:45:10 AM EST
    'Oh, those dumb Democrats in the House! Tsk, tsk!'

    If I were a House Democrat, I'd be sure not to save her a seat at the cafeteria table...

    Carrots and sticks (none / 0) (#13)
    by jussumbody on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 09:12:16 AM EST
    Seems to me the way to get bipartisan support (since Obama did make such a fuss about it during the campaign, he probably needed to make something more than a symbolic effort) should have been to split the bill into two.  All the needless concessions (i.e. tax breaks) to the R's and Blue Dogs should have been put in a second bill that would not have come up until the first one passed.

    Fear of success (none / 0) (#14)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 09:22:34 AM EST
    Even McConnell admitted that the Republican Party was in danger of being reduced to a "minor regional party" because of their continued losses. So the question becomes, what and who are the Democrat's afraid of? Fear of actually leading. They seem to prefer to hide in the middle of the crowd.

    Not "afraid", most "in" on it (none / 0) (#42)
    by pluege on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:04:50 PM EST
    most democrats are millionaires and completely disconnected form the outlook of their constituents. About half are as corrupt as 100% of republicans - no difference.

    They serve as foils for republicans and the corporate media to disparage progressivity and liberalism, and to distract and confuse the very simple issue that the rich have been waging class warfare against Americans since Reagan.


    I was glad to see (none / 0) (#17)
    by Lil on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 09:42:11 AM EST
    some passion expressed, even if it was some theater. I was glad to see it. Better than listening to Reid's droning. I can't imagine there won't be a major backlash if this thing doesn't get done. The question is which side gets blamed.  I don't care if there is triangulating; I wish it were different but whatever it takes to get something done.

    "No One Has (none / 0) (#19)
    by SOS on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 09:59:25 AM EST
    a God Given Right to a Job." Carly Fiorina

    If McCain won that's what we would be hearing instead of the real truth about the "idiots" gambling our country away at the Las Wall Street Casino.

    No one has a right to live in thisc (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 10:03:04 AM EST
    oountry without paying an equitable share of the taxes, is my answer.

    It's like driving up on (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 11:14:34 AM EST
    massive roadkill.....Ugh.....moving along now.

    How many Democrats in Congress (none / 0) (#32)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 11:19:59 AM EST
    are calling Karl Rove for advice, I wonder.

    Claire probably listens to the (none / 0) (#37)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 12:34:35 PM EST
    behemoth of Cape Girardeau every chance she gets.

    Triangulation it may be (none / 0) (#40)
    by Manuel on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 12:46:24 PM EST
    but McCaskill is mostly right even if she did not express it in the most artful way.

    It seems that congress just can't help but to try to sneak into a bill tangential provisions(remember the wooden arrows?) which no matter how just or desirable aren't central to the issue at hand.  Perhaps that is how the sausage normally gets made but couldn't they restrain themselves for such an important bill where everyone is watching.

    Targetted tax cuts and significant infrastructure spending.  That is what should be on this bill.  Anything else is a distraction and an overreach.

    Hogwash. Every bill has (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 12:51:04 PM EST
    add-ons. That IS the way bills are done in Congress. If you consider the number of issues that need to be addressed, I don't see how it could be any other way.
    Also, Republican opposition to the bill has absolutely NOTHING to do with birth control, or any other tangential issue. It's an expression of 2 principles: First, help the rich; second, oppose any bill of the Democrats which might succeed.

    Unfortunately it's not about the merits (none / 0) (#63)
    by Manuel on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 02:03:45 AM EST
    It is about the public perception and expectations.  Also, any spending that is in the bill that doesn't qualify for efficient fiscal stimulus shouldn;t be there.  That is what Obama promised and what people are expecting.  Let's see what emerges after reconsiliatio.

    Wonderful! (none / 0) (#47)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:18:22 PM EST
    "The federal government's $700 billion bailout program continues to lack adequate oversight to make sure that banks receiving the taxpayer funds are using them properly, congressional investigators said yesterday.".......GAO Report, Wash.Post Jan.31, 2009

    Ha. Even Peggy Noonan sees it (none / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:23:24 PM EST
    and refers to the CBO in more detail, too:

    Consider the moment. House Republicans had conceded that dramatic action was needed and had grown utterly supportive of the idea of federal jobs creation on a large scale. All that was needed was a sober, seriously focused piece of legislation that honestly tried to meet the need, one that everyone could tinker with a little and claim as their own. Instead, as Rep. Mike Pence is reported to have said to the president, "Know that we're praying for you. . . . But know that there has been no negotiation [with Republicans] on the bill--we had absolutely no say." The final bill was privately agreed by most and publicly conceded by many to be a big, messy, largely off-point and philosophically chaotic piece of legislation. The Congressional Budget Office says only 25% of the money will even go out in the first year. This newspaper, in its analysis, argues that only 12 cents of every dollar is for something that could plausibly be called stimulus.

    Uh, worse -- that's the new bill (none / 0) (#50)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:24:51 PM EST
    that Neener, Neener Noonan is discussing, atop the debacle of the first bailout.  (Just to be clear.)

    It get's better.... (none / 0) (#49)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 02:23:33 PM EST
    "In finalizing the plan, officials have made a policy decision that could dismay lawmakers. The administration is likely to refrain from imposing tougher restrictions on executive compensation at most firms receiving government aid but instead retain looser requirements initially included in the Treasury's $700 billion rescue program, a source familiar with the deliberations said. Officials are concerned that harsh limits could discourage some firms from asking for aid."


    Anger should be towards politicians (none / 0) (#65)
    by plutosdad on Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 01:29:26 PM EST
    One thing I wonder, is anyone really angry with wall street or banks? Why be angry with these people that took money from the government (which means from us). Shouldn't we rather be angry at the politicians who took so much from special interests and are now funnelling our money to them?

    I'm much more angry at the Republicans and Democrats who passed TARP, and the ones who are going to pass this new bill (I'm convinced Republicans will jump on board once they get more spending added to the bill for their friends).

    It's not the banks, not wall street, it's Congress who is selling out our children's future to hand money to those with better political connections than we do. Who cares if we add regulation for how they are spending the money since for one money is fungible, and for two, it's still our money going to people who gave huge campaign donations. And that's the bottom line.

    These bills have got to be the biggest scam and theft from the American people in my lifetime - which is only 40 years.