home

CNN: Tentative Senate Deal On Stimulus

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 05:18:16 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

CNN is reporting a $780 BN deal on the stimulus. No details reported (e.g. how much was taken out in tax cuts and how much spending -- what type of spending, etc.)

NYTimes says "close to a deal" and pegs the number at $800 billion. Of course, in a legislative conference, the numbers could back up to 900 billion, tax cuts could be added, removed, spending added or removed. This whole game that Ben Nelson and his fellow Beltway "bipartisan" BSers played is pretty shameless. As the Times states:

Once the Senate votes on the package, differences between the Senate legislation and a considerably different version passed recently by the House would have to be reconciled. President Obama has said he hopes all that can be accomplished in time for him to sign the measure within 10 days.

Just another inning, as they say.

< Time For an Up-Or-Down Death Penalty Vote in MD | The Age Of Nelson, Collins and Obama >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    CNN: Tentative Senate Deal On Stimulus | 163 comments (163 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    whatever the deal is (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 05:21:33 PM EST
    it will have to be reconciled with what the House decides. Indeed, it would likely be unconstitutional for the House to pass a Senate spending bill.

    The House should insist on a better bill.

    I Don't Think The House Will Be ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by santarita on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:08:45 PM EST
    able to add much to the Republican, I mean Compromise, Senate Bill.  The Dems would then be in the position of standing in the way of the Economic Stimulus.

    If I heard correctly, Rahm Emanuel was working with the Compromise Bunch.  So what comes out of the Senate will have the blessing of Pres. Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    school construction (none / 0) (#142)
    by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:38:04 PM EST
    well I know they cut ALL the school construction 40 billion in federal to states and 18 billion to locals...frakers..

    I consider the schools infrastructure and good spending if we are building infrastructure which is how we started out down this crazy road to bankruptcy...

    [ Parent ]

    Once the door is opened a crack (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 05:28:31 PM EST
    hopefully we can get the country moving again as JFK said in 1960.

    Ted on his way to Washington to vote.

    Its not the 100 days, but it is a start.

    The more I hear from Republicans, the more I realize how out of the mainstream they are.

    If Ted's vote is needed (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 05:30:08 PM EST
    that's good news.

    [ Parent ]
    Why is that good news? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Intrepid One on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:45:09 PM EST
    To have to get a sick man out of bed to insure a razor thin victory is a good thing? I don't get that.

    What would have been a good thing is to have the bill pass by a comfortable margin and let Ted rest. What would have been a good thing is to have more members of the Senate on the same page in stimulating the economy. What would have been a good thing is to have members of the Senate crying out for more money instead of cutting money out of an already anemic bill.

    Let Ted rest already. Having to go to the Senate is not adding days to his life you know.

    [ Parent ]

    Definition of "razor thin" (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by christinep on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:19:45 PM EST
    My understanding is that Senator Kennedy's vote is needed to filibuster-proof the outcome. That is, we are looking at the 60 to 40 vote split. I suppose that if we want to avoid filibuster at all costs, then somehow a 20-vote spread becomes defined these days as "razor thin" or somesuch.  I wonder how many big bills actually then fall under that definition. (Of particular interest to me is why the decision may have been made to avoid filibuster at all costs when the Republicans would take a great PR risk after a few days of reading the phonebook?!)

    [ Parent ]
    Due respect to Teddy, (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:47:53 PM EST
    but if he really can't do his job and it isn't foreseeable that he'll ever be able to again, he should resign.

    But my point, which seems to be moot, is that any package requiring his vote would be better than any package that did not.

    [ Parent ]

    "Due Respect" (none / 0) (#55)
    by Intrepid One on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:05:59 PM EST
    seems more like heartlessness on your part to me. Not to mention a pretty shameful thing to say.

    If the senate was more together, as I said, a good bill would pass without his vote. And it would have been a better bill than one that required his vote if you try to really think about that for a moment.

    Here I'll help you out and explain. A thin victory is always more of a watered down bill than one which wins by a large margin. When the margin is large and the bill has an easy path to passing it takes away the power of the decenters. So sorry to say you have it all backward.

    [ Parent ]

    You clearly don't know what you're talking about (none / 0) (#58)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:07:55 PM EST
    this:

     

    A thin victory is always more of a watered down bill than one which wins by a large margin

    Proves it.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow! you are lost (none / 0) (#84)
    by Intrepid One on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:22:00 PM EST
    So you are saying that if we had 60 guaranteed votes when the original bill was introduced then that gives the GOP more bargaining power to cut programs and add tax cuts as a price for their support that is not needed?

    Pardon me for laughing.

    [ Parent ]

    That's not what he's saying at all. (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:23:23 PM EST
    There's some misunderstanding going on.

    [ Parent ]
    sure it is what he is saying (none / 0) (#104)
    by Intrepid One on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:49:36 PM EST
    look at where he says I am wrong. I say a bigger margin of victory provides a stronger bill for us. He disagrees with that by disagreeing with my quote he provided.

    [ Parent ]
    What seems missing from you is (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:52:40 PM EST
    an understanding of what it would take to get a bill that paasses with a large margin.
    I think  60% tax cuts would do it.. would that be a bill which is better for us?

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe not. I see what you are (none / 0) (#119)
    by hairspray on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:00:08 PM EST
    saying, but the more people who agreed with it the more likely it will be watered down to please all of the signers.  On the other hand the fewer signers the fewer compromises that had to be made IMHO.

    [ Parent ]
    If I understand what you wrote, you (none / 0) (#65)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:10:01 PM EST
    definitely have it backwards. Rove always argued the reverse: it was better to pass a bill by the slimmest of margins, because such a bill could be more ideologically pure---"stronger".

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't that what andgarden said? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:12:41 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    yes (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:14:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Oh ok. I didn't read that far back. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:14:59 PM EST
    I wasn't 100% sure what Intrepid one was arguing, so I offered my comment.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow you guys really miss the details (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Intrepid One on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:27:57 PM EST
    First of all if Rove is you measuring stick you really need help.

    Secondly if Rove says a thin margin makes it ideologically pure---"stronger", it is only because he had a GOP majority and was able to pull along moderate Dems which effectively takes away the power of the other Democrats because they are left with fewer that 40 votes gin=ving the GOP all the power to make it ideologically pure---"stronger".

    [ Parent ]

    The Democrats didn't vote for (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:31:32 PM EST
    cloture because they agreed with the Republicans---they did it because they are pusillanimous fragtards.

    [ Parent ]
    Another lost detail on your part (none / 0) (#101)
    by Intrepid One on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:45:45 PM EST
    The real reason they didn't vote cloture is that they didn't have 60 votes so why bother? In fact they had less Dem votes than they began with because of guys like Nelson.Instead of being able to get some republicans to join them in the original bill they actually lost some Dems who helped make it a weaker bill.

    You and andgarden are really lost on the entire vote margin thing and what it means to making the bill weaker or stronger. Totally lost.

    Jeebus this diary is all about how the Dems who screwed us are making this a weaker bill and you and andgarden are claiming that the closer margin makes it a stronger bill! What are you guys drinking?

    [ Parent ]

    Your reading comprehension is (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:49:33 PM EST
    poor tonight. My point was that Democrats voted for cloture with REPUBLICANS in the last 8 years, not out of  principle, but because they are spineless. They would vote for cloture on a bill offering benefits to SS veterans.

    [ Parent ]
    I can only read what you wrote (none / 0) (#113)
    by Intrepid One on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:54:31 PM EST
    You didn't originally write what you just now wrote. It's your writing skills that lack.

    [ Parent ]
    Since I was responding to (none / 0) (#117)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:58:19 PM EST
    a comment of yours in which you discussed how Democcrats voted when Republicans were in power, I thought the context would have been obvious.
    I didn't realize that you only read 1-ply depth in the comments.

    [ Parent ]
    God bless and save Ted (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Spamlet on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:28:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Neil Young says it all: (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 05:53:15 PM EST
    "There's a bailout coming, but it's not for you."

    Hey KDog, I picture you singing this song. . . .

    Do watch the background to see the setting, too.

    BTW, there's going to be a vote on this amendment (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:04:58 PM EST
    which I would personally vote against.

    President of GE today (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:30:35 PM EST
    said he thinks 2 trillion in spending might be required. Another big industry guy said something similar - sorry I have no links, I heard the quotes in the radio in the car.

    I tend to agree, but it makes me wonder where these guys have been for the last 8 years when tax cutting and lowering government spending was the order of the day. How much of this economic implosion could have been avoided if consumer spending was not the only thing keeping the economy afloat? Couldn't a steady, responsible amount of infrastructure and other spending have prevented a  lot of this?

    Different times (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by jar137 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:43:06 PM EST
    Corporate heads are saying higher spending is required now because a lot of it will go into their coffers for services and materials.  They recognize there's not enough money in the economy today to keep them in good stead (and corporate jets, etc.).  I don't think they are speaking for the country, but only for their pocketbooks.  This is why they didn't say this when easy credit was being handed out hand over fist.  They were getting their cut then and they want to continue to get their cut now.

    [ Parent ]
    We could have (none / 0) (#25)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:36:27 PM EST
    been in the green and buying the debt of other countries by now.

    Unfortunately we been Bushwhacked beyond repair.

    Sirens were blaring when Bush Jr. showed up in 2000 but happy shopping was the order of the day.

    [ Parent ]

    convenient that GE news... (none / 0) (#148)
    by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:45:34 PM EST
    yes and Immelt conveniently got a seat on Team Os board of economic recovery advisers or whatever the hell he calls it with Volker and Penny Pritzker ugh,

    I say that b/c it is highly unusual for corp CEOs to talk down the economy, doesnt make conumsrs like me want to run out and buy that nifty new washer dryer for 2500 cool ones thats fer shure..

    but GE is about to have to cuit their didvidend and they are up the creek with GE Capital AND they used NBC MSNBC like a frakin Pravda this year and I hate that!!

    /GE rant off

    anywho they and the SEIU AFL-CIO will be deciding how we move forward, if Volcker can get anything past Summers

    the two of them seem to be in a pixxing contest already b/c O has to have so many layers of advisers,

    it sounds like a cluster frak waiting to happen to me with no accountability but wth do I know, LOL

    I would PAY to see Immelt have to unionize GE

    the rat frakker

    BWAAAHAAAA

    [ Parent ]

    Ben Nelson Speaks (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:31:25 PM EST
    Let's be honest, this is the Collins-Specter-Lieberman-Nelson package.

    Idiots.

    Yeh, letting him showboat this (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:34:32 PM EST
    and then list Repubs (I swear, was it only Repubs he named?!) on his thank-you list -- I'm not liking the sound of this at all.

    [ Parent ]
    unfortunately, Nelson has that (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:35:08 PM EST
    older male gravitas which can mask total insanity or stupidity---as with Dick Cneney.

    [ Parent ]
    Nelson was born in 1941. (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:10:52 PM EST
    I thought the point of electing President Obama was to turn over the reigns of power to the younger, more progressive, generation?

    [ Parent ]
    Nelson's not a boomer (none / 0) (#76)
    by caseyOR on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:17:39 PM EST
    Obama was supposed to end the influence of the hated baby boomers. Nelson was born before the baby boom, so he's okay.

    [ Parent ]
    Ya trying to tell me something? Of (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:26:55 PM EST
    course he's not a boomer.  He's worse; he's old.  Obama doesn't need old people.  He has the support of the vital youth of the U.S.  

    [ Parent ]
    Excuse me, Oculus, but (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by sallywally on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:54:05 PM EST
    I thought you had more smarts than to divide people among those useless categories of "old," "boomers," etc.

    I was born in 1945 so OMG I'm even worse than a boomer too.

    I don't run marathons but I had better things than that to do when I was a 25-year-old full of vitality too.

    And I have a lot more brains and creativity than I did then.

    Not saying everyone does, but I was a slow learner, had to work a lot of things through before I could grasp what was going on around me and what I and the nation could be.

    Don't lump me together with Nelson or any other of the right wing no matter what age!

    [ Parent ]

    I'm part of the progressive, younger (none / 0) (#98)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:42:19 PM EST
    generation, because Obama and I both are boomers.

    That's because I believe his birth certificate -- which puts him within the baby boom.

    One of us looks it.  But he will soon, too, because the White House does that to presidents.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, I think he already looks older. (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:49:38 PM EST
    Not much smiling going on, as far as I can tell.

    [ Parent ]
    He's 1 month older than me. (none / 0) (#100)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:44:59 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That's about the same age as (none / 0) (#77)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:17:47 PM EST
    Dick Cheney... just checked, Cheney was born in 1941.

    [ Parent ]
    Front page of DKos says that MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:42:58 PM EST
    says the bill is 42% tax cuts.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course it is, because massive tax cuts (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:44:28 PM EST
    for rich people is "moderate" and "centrist."

    [ Parent ]
    It is dangit (none / 0) (#35)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:49:56 PM EST
    Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said the $780 billion proposal breaks down this way: 42 percent is for tax cuts and 58 percent is new spending.

    MSNBC

    [ Parent ]

    What Pelosi should do (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:52:28 PM EST
    is insist that the "haircut" come out of the tax cuts.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:55:29 PM EST
    Compare that to Rush Limbaugh's proposal that the bill should be 54% spending and 46% tax cuts.

    Even with the size of our majority, we ended up with a whopping 4% more than what Rush Limbaugh wanted to give us.

    Someone is playing this game poorly.

    [ Parent ]

    Barack Obama (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:56:29 PM EST
    The buck stops with him.

    [ Parent ]
    God, just shoot me. I mean it. (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:30:47 PM EST
    We have a Dem pres and Congress and end up with Rush Limbaugh's economic plan?

    And guess what - he will still knock it every day for the next 4 years.

    [ Parent ]

    Well then that is good (none / 0) (#59)
    by Intrepid One on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:08:03 PM EST
    because this is a centrist political blog.

    [ Parent ]
    Remember how well the last 5 tax cuts (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:54:03 PM EST
    did at stimulating the economy? Neither do I.

    [ Parent ]
    we call those "Republican good (none / 0) (#34)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:49:19 PM EST
    ideas" where I come from.

    [ Parent ]
    Well Hey Ben Nelson (none / 0) (#42)
    by Intrepid One on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:57:02 PM EST
    endorsed Obama over Clinton much to the joy of 'so called' Liberal bloggers and blog posters. His endorsement was conformation of Obama's post-partisanship they said - instead of seeing it as a big red flag. Now people who supported Obama want to act as if they had no hand in this fiasco.

    As many real Liberals predicted the Ben Nelsons of the world are rolling Obama. That is why they supported him. They talked to him and saw he had no spine. An easy punk they thought. Mr. Nice guy. LOOK! They were right. There has been no fight put up by Obama on this. His is the world of speeches of dreams not reality. Promises, not results.

    No the Ben Nelson's didn't want a Hillary. She actually has a set.

    [ Parent ]

    I'll agree with this: (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by 1040su on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:52:04 PM EST
    No the Ben Nelson's didn't want a Hillary. She actually has a set
     I'm not sure Obama has no spine though. He's just a little too naive about things.  Hillary was seasoned, tough & had her mind set.  That scared the crap out of them.

    [ Parent ]
    Do we not have one fighter in the Senate? (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:52:17 PM EST
    One who can go to the people and explain what a mess we are in? Does everyone have to lose their job before they'll understand?

    If you don't mind my asking, had (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:56:24 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton been elected President, would her approach to obtaining a stimulus bill been different?  Successful?  (Yes, I know the primaries are over.)

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:59:26 PM EST
    We would have all had ponies.  No question about it!  Why, I'm surprised you even had to ask.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, my question was a serious one. (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:01:56 PM EST
    Given how many people who were part of Bill Clinton's executive branch who were early Obama-adopters, would she have had enough support in Congress to get a stimulus package that didn't look like TARP?  

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:07:43 PM EST
    This is a complicated negotiation with a lot of moving parts.  We can be happy or unhappy with the outcome, but in my opinion it's pretty tough to Monday morning quarterback the specific details of the approach taken.

    Some of us in the primary believed that Hillary understood the Republican opposition tactics better and would therefore be better able to adapt to them.  We were certainly right about what the Republicans would do.  But in terms of how, specifically, Hillary would have handled it better, we can only guess.

    Back here in the real world, there's still room to achieve a better outcome.  What I'd like to see is for Obama to identify a handful of important items that should never have been removed from the bill, and then use the bully pulpit to fight hard for getting them reinserted into the final version.

    [ Parent ]

    I still have hope that when Obama gets (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:10:36 PM EST
    really really mad, he has it in him to go to the people. I just hope he is as mad as I am.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I always thought economic (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:13:42 PM EST
    issues were his weakest area. Nor did he show the passion on the economy that he did on foreign policy. I don't think he showed any mastery. It's all up to the pro-privatization Chicago boys who advise him on economics.

    [ Parent ]
    But his success as a President rides on this. (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:17:58 PM EST
    I think he is starting to see that. I just hope he didn't wait too late by playing nice upfront.

    [ Parent ]
    As long as he sees this in terms (none / 0) (#83)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:21:15 PM EST
    of his personal success, he's not getting the big picture. How many excess deaths worldwide will result in the next 8 years if the world economy slides into a depression? Many millions, I would think.

    [ Parent ]
    Ignorance is supposed to be bliss. (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:27:41 PM EST
    Six hundred thousand jobs lot ought to break through bliss.

    I voted for Obama, I support the admin, but I want a stimulus package that helps...

    [ Parent ]

    Bill Clinton and jimmy Carter (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:30:10 PM EST
    are the only President I have seen (barely remember Johnson) who showed an unmistakeable and vital regard for the welfare of the common man.
    I actually detect none of that in Obama, despite his other virtues.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm old enough to remember (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:33:36 PM EST
    Johnson well. I'd prefer him with a war to fix this economy.

    But I was both a Carter and a Clinton supporter.

    Funny, I work for a living, and these tax cuts don't help me.

    [ Parent ]

    According to AP, Obama is now looking (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:23:48 PM EST
    at 23 months to w/d from Iraq.  Will that stimulate the economy?

    [ Parent ]
    Me too (none / 0) (#157)
    by sallywally on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:12:34 PM EST
    and my group thought he was a fascist! So caught up in that old vs. young thing, a new generation and all. What a shame. His economic policies were working before Vietnam took all the money.

    I supported Carter and Clinton too, and isn't it a shame the nation didn't listen to Carter on the environment and both on the Middle East?

    I'd hate to think the Repubs could sink Obama, but apparently they were able to reduce the national support for "his" bill. I wonder how they'll play this now. They certainly don't want the blame if it flops.

    I sure hope this isn't where he was hoping to end up!

    [ Parent ]

    Me too (none / 0) (#158)
    by sallywally on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:12:47 PM EST
    and my group thought he was a fascist! So caught up in that old vs. young thing, a new generation and all. What a shame. His economic policies were working before Vietnam took all the money.

    I supported Carter and Clinton too, and isn't it a shame the nation didn't listen to Carter on the environment and both on the Middle East?

    I'd hate to think the Repubs could sink Obama, but apparently they were able to reduce the national support for "his" bill. I wonder how they'll play this now. They certainly don't want the blame if it flops.

    I sure hope this isn't where he was hoping to end up!

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry for double post n/t (none / 0) (#159)
    by sallywally on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:13:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think, but don't know for sure, (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:17:21 PM EST
    I'm living in the "real world."  However, I have been out of the U.S.  for over three weeks and am now playing catch-up.  Harsh reality.

    P.S.  New Delhi is in the midst of expanding its subway system.  

    [ Parent ]

    At least Hillary understands that bipartisanship (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by BernieO on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:53:01 PM EST
    cannot be achieved by giving Republicans what they want. She knows all too well that the vicious partisanship of recent years has been coming from the right (Dems are too cowardly to fight back) so she would not have promised to change the tone in DC. Not that I think she could have stopped the Republicans from spewing their propaganda all over the media or stopped the media from buying it. But I can't imagine her making bipartisanship a requirement for success.

    [ Parent ]
    Daily Kos has a chart up as to (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:25:13 PM EST
    which party is getting the most face time on cable news show.  GOP in a landslide.  Whatever became of the media darling?

    [ Parent ]
    He said the Republicans have (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:50:56 PM EST
    good ideas, and that we need to listen to them. What else do you expect would happen?

    [ Parent ]
    Oh darlin', I think we know: go ask MoDo;-) (none / 0) (#172)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 01:15:35 PM EST
    As the wretched, but sometimes observant, Maureen Doed said on Friday: Well, That Certainly Didn't Take Long:
    "We were just tired of being in the White House," the two-week-old president, with Michelle at his side, explained to students at a public charter school near the White House.

    Even as he told the children his favorite superheroes were Batman and Spider-Man, his own dream of being the superhero who swoops in to swiftly save America was going SPLAT!

    It just ain't that easy.

    No, it "ain't that easy", especially when you're green enough to think you can count on MSM 'friends' like MoDo.

    [ Parent ]

    And she said she would FIGHT (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by sallywally on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:15:24 PM EST
    and she would have been true to that promise! But as we all may have feared, she is now muzzled.

    [ Parent ]
    If she could have succeeded, (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:04:22 PM EST
    it would have been due do her greater experience in the Senate. Regardless, there would have been a huge fight. Republicans see a huge opportunity here: they are thinking that if they can saddle Obama with a depression, they could own the White House and Congress for decades.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow, those are the two Democrats I want (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:59:27 PM EST
    up their speaking for me! One even has an "I" beside his name.

    He promises "entitlement reform!" (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:00:38 PM EST
    Yay, let's privatize social security and cut medicaid!!!!

    [ Parent ]
    And it's a GANG (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:02:04 PM EST
    (DAMN RIGHT).

    [ Parent ]
    Handwriting is on the wall, I'm afraid. (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:02:40 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    If is wasn't so scary, I'd truly be laughing. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:03:55 PM EST
    I was always one of those who defended Democrats, no matter what. I'm about ready to join in with the haters that say both parties are bad. I'll bet we could have negotiated this compromise if we were still in the minority. Could it be much worse?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes: the Republicans could be in charge (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:04:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It almost seems they are still. (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:05:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's the ultimate victory for Reagan: (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:08:10 PM EST
    his ludicrous economic ideas are taken as the bedrock of sanity from which all  proposals follow.

    [ Parent ]
    "almost"? (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:08:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Much Worse (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:08:26 PM EST
    It would clearly 100% tax cuts, balancing it off with stripping entitlement programs, education, and social services.

    IOW more of the same but in a bigger dose.

    [ Parent ]

    I know. It's still frustrating. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:13:40 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:19:14 PM EST
    Too bad that the democrats do not use blackmail, and other unsavory tactics to keep their members in lock step.

    But most of them probably will not wind up in jail either like Tom Delay.  

    [ Parent ]

    Hey, Teresa, (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by caseyOR on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:50:59 PM EST
    This is o/t, but great milestone for Pat Summit, 1,000 wins. And every single one of her players has graduated. She is amazing. Wish we had her here.

    [ Parent ]
    This is getting pretty tragic. The (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:02:27 PM EST
    conservatives (not even the moderates, the conservatives) are the leading voices in our party. I don't remember hearing a damn thing out of Ben Nelson's mouth before Obama was elected.

    [ Parent ]
    Courtesy of Wiki: (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:06:35 PM EST
    Stimulus plan
    Nelson is currently regarded as close Senate ally of President Obama and key leader of the so-called coallition with moderate Republicans to pass a bipartisian stimulus bill. TIME magazine (February 6, 2009) called him Obama's "ambassador to the right"[25].


    [ Parent ]
    I used to think Pelosi, Kerry and Daschle (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:08:32 PM EST
    were going to be the ones pulling Obama's strings. If it turns out to be Ben Nelson... well we're all up the creek.

    [ Parent ]
    For Doubting Thomas: (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:19:50 PM EST
    link

    See: Stimulus Plan

    P.S.  Nelson is pro-life.  

    [ Parent ]

    GOt A Link? (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:15:03 PM EST
    Certainly Nelson is no ally, if he is slashinging Obama's bill...

    I checked the Wiki entry on the Stimulus Bill 2008 and it was not there.

    [ Parent ]

    Um, what exactly is Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:19:17 PM EST
    stimulus bill? He's been leaving it up to Congress, right?

    [ Parent ]
    Not Doubting At All (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:34:24 PM EST
    I just wanted to see a link to get some context for your outrageous statement or should I say quote.

    You would paint Nelson as an ally of Obama, which is like saying that China is an ally of the US. Obama certainly needs him to get a fillibuster proof bill through,  but holds little in common with his basically right wing stance.

    And the ally quote, you mention was under the heading of Stimulus plan and must have been added yesterday or today. Other than that, Obama's name is only mentioned once and that is that Ben Nelson endorsed Obama for POTUS.

    [ Parent ]

    What a rant. (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:38:42 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well Deserved (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:41:21 PM EST
    I know what you are up to..

    [ Parent ]
    I think he made that comment (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:43:43 PM EST
    specifically to induce a paranoid rant from you---in fact, I'm sure of it. I would have done the same thing, if I'd thought  of it.
    After all, there's no other reason we come here except to get Squeaky's PUMAdar going.

    [ Parent ]
    He Is A She (none / 0) (#102)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:47:41 PM EST
    And her innocuous comment was meant to be inflammatory to some and a banner to others.

    [ Parent ]
    When you're not paranoid (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:50:45 PM EST
    about PUMA's, you're an interesting commenter.
    At those other times, you're extremely unpleasant, and totally lacking  in insight into yourself or anyone else.


    [ Parent ]
    Not Paranoid (none / 0) (#114)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:55:14 PM EST
    Just allergic to BS. Shovel it, and if I am interested enough I will push it back at you. Nothing more or less about it.

    [ Parent ]
    Try digesting some well ,meant (none / 0) (#115)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:57:00 PM EST
    feedback. I don't recall seeing even one person support you when you hunt PUMAS on here.
    Maybe it's a pointless exercise.. just saying.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks, But (none / 0) (#121)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:03:58 PM EST
    Nice as it may be, getting support here is not my primary motive for commenting at TL. Unlike some, I do not see TL as a support group.

    Besides I do not do believe your statement is accurate.

    [ Parent ]

    Look, almost everyone who comments here (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:06:19 PM EST
    is  a Democrat, and yet you spend many hours every week attacking your fellow Democrats.
    I don't get the point.
    As an example of your cluelessness, I cite last night, where you wondered if I must hate Solis.
    I mean, that really takes the cake for cluelessness. You think because I"m not 100% grade A O-bot, I might be an extreme right wing conservative. That's just weird, buddy.

    [ Parent ]
    Do You Read YOur Own Comments? (none / 0) (#139)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:36:03 PM EST
    Are the O-bots you criticize anything like Hilltards?

    lol

    [ Parent ]

    You could make a ton of money in (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:51:55 PM EST
    India as a "pundit" (read "astrologer"); seems they are consulted as to approprriateness of spouse-to-be in arranged marriages, to set the date for announcing the engagement, and for setting the wedding date.  

    [ Parent ]
    Doubt It? (none / 0) (#116)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:58:14 PM EST
    I am not good at lying. So bad in fact that I only do it in emergencies and then it usually backfires.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Who said the pundits are lying? (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:07:42 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#137)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:34:02 PM EST
    Let's put it this way. If I were to take up your pundit suggestion, I would be lying on the job. Not saying that the Pundits you speak of are lying, not saying that at all.

    [ Parent ]
    Will you venture a response to my (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:10:08 PM EST
    hypothetical?

    [ Parent ]
    Which Hypothetical? (none / 0) (#140)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:36:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Here: (none / 0) (#144)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:41:29 PM EST
    link

    [ Parent ]
    Of Course (none / 0) (#151)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:51:46 PM EST
    That is an easy one. Hillary would have all the GOPers eating out of her shoe, or else. Economy would be rosy. No war. Mid east peace forever, China and Russia would be begging us to throw them a few crumbs, at a exorbitant price that is.. Afghanistan and Pakistan would be BFF, India would let bygones be bygones and open up full relations with Pakistan, because they are our BFF.

    Hillary would have her own reality Teevee show, only because the world gathered 2 billion signatures and petitioned her for it.

    And the obots would be crying sour grapes.. waiting for her to f'up so that they could say 'I told you so'

    [ Parent ]

    Sheesh. Get serious, won't you? (none / 0) (#155)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:03:32 PM EST
    My question was limited to passage of an economic stimulus bill--how, and with what content.

    [ Parent ]
    Point Is (none / 0) (#156)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:11:26 PM EST
    We wouldn't need a stimulus bill, Hillary would be enough to jump start the economy.

    Thought I was clear and to the point.

    [ Parent ]

    Serious CDS infection. (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:16:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Hardly (none / 0) (#162)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:25:13 PM EST
    Not a drop, at worst you can accuse me of being suspicious of playing along with hypotheticals.

    [ Parent ]
    In that case ... (none / 0) (#166)
    by cymro on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 01:16:30 AM EST
    ... why not just say so in the beginning, and spare us your sarcasm?

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#167)
    by squeaky on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 01:55:40 AM EST
    I assume that you are following the plot.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's the former Maverick. Sell out. (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:15:30 PM EST
    I hoped he'd quit trying to get right wing cred after his big loss. Maybe he was always this way and the Maverick was just a myth.

    I thought that was obvious (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by jar137 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:53:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Zzzz .... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:25:12 PM EST
    Wake me up when that change I've heard tell about comes.

    This was the best chance we'd had in more than a generation to pass a truly progressive economic agenda. And have it embraced by a majority of the public.

    What do we get instead?  Ronald Reagan.

    Sheesh.

    This is where you're wrong (none / 0) (#129)
    by bocajeff on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:21:45 PM EST
    To have it embraced by the public would mean that a majority of people want this bill. All polls are showing that they don't want this bill.

    This is a bad bill. It does very little to address the underlying problems in the economy which is the credit markets and toxic debts. Everything else in the bill is stuff to make people feel good as the ship be sinking.

    You want a progressive agenda but it won't happen.

    [ Parent ]

    Digby Rubs it In (5.00 / 7) (#110)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:52:37 PM EST
    Hardball is reporting that the new bill is 42% tax cuts now and 58% spending, which is considered a big win for Republicans.

    And they are still fighting it.

    And when it finally comes to the floor, they won't vote for it anyway.

    That's how a truly ruthless opposition party works. They ruin the legislation, are lauded as winners for ruining the legislation and then vote against the legislation that they ruined. Awesome.

    digby

    And they've done it twice! (none / 0) (#118)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:58:32 PM EST
    Didn't they learn by watching their actions in the House?

    [ Parent ]
    If I were a Democratic operative now, (none / 0) (#120)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:02:26 PM EST
    I would be trying to get candid remarks from REpublicans on tape. I KNOW that there are Republicans who are hoping not only that Obama fails to pass a bill, but that the economy  crashes, the better to blame Obama.

    Republicans actually perfected the art of getting Democrats on tape saying awkward things.
    The pre-arranged questions for Bill Clinton on the Lewinsky affair, for example, or IIRC Kerry's famous "I voted against it/ for it" comment. He didn't say that randomly.. he was prepped for it by Republicans. I don't recall the details though.

    [ Parent ]

    But don't you think it is way more (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:05:49 PM EST
    important to dig up photographic proof George W. Bush sometimes took his coat off whilst working in the oval office?  Save it for the big stuff, partner.

    [ Parent ]
    Never Find One (none / 0) (#133)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:26:37 PM EST
    Bush was OCD when it came to dress codes in the WH. A little thing that held him together like most dictators. I read a telling ancedote where even CHeney got over on him for being so fastidious with dress.

    In June, 2005, [Ben] Bernanke was sworn in at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. One of his first tasks was to deliver a monthly economics briefing to the President and the Vice-President. After he and Hubbard sat down in the Oval Office, President Bush noticed that Bernanke was wearing light-tan socks under his dark suit. "Where did you get those socks, Ben?" he asked. "They don't match." Bernanke didn't falter. "I bought them at the Gap--three pairs for seven dollars," he replied. During the briefing, which lasted about forty-five minutes, the President mentioned the socks several times.

    The following month, Hubbard's deputy, Keith Hennessey, suggested that the entire economics team wear tan socks to the briefing. Hubbard agreed to call Vice-President Cheney and ask him to wear tan socks, too. "So, a little later, we all go into the Oval Office, and we all show up in tan socks," Hubbard recalled. "The President looks at us and sees we are all wearing tan socks, and he says in a cool voice, `Oh, very, very funny.' He turns to the Vice-President and says, `Mr. Vice-President, what do you think of these guys in their tan socks?' Then the Vice-President shows him that he's wearing them, too. The President broke up."

    ANATOMY OF A MELTDOWN
    Ben Bernanke and the financial crisis.
    by John Cassidy     looong but a great read.

    [ Parent ]

    They did Squeaky. I saw it. They also (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:28:51 PM EST
    had one of Saint Ronnie.

    [ Parent ]
    But A Pic Of Dubya (none / 0) (#143)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:39:08 PM EST
    In the oval office with no jacket? I doubt it.

    [ Parent ]
    Here you go.... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:37:50 PM EST
    The hypocrite in chief without his jacket

    [ Parent ]
    hahahahhahaha (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:55:37 PM EST
    What f'ing hypocrites. All that yapping about respect for the Oval office as if it were some sort of holy shrine that Obama was desecrating.  These f'wads border on being racist, imo.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't doubt many of them want him to fail. (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:07:33 PM EST
    I can't imagine how the liberal members of the Senate feel at this point. Powerless, I guess.

    [ Parent ]
    Fabulous (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:13:15 PM EST
    Meanwhile, I still don't have a job.

    But Ben Nelson and the Republicans are happy.

    Only 60 votes (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by caseyOR on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:41:55 PM EST
    CBS news just reported that the new, bipartisan bill will pass the senate with just 60 votes. So, Obama gave in on education, food stamps, health care for the poor and lots of other stuff, and agreed to massive and worthless tax cuts, and all he gets are 60 votes?

    What's wrong with this picture?

    doesn't boast about getting 80 votes now.... (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by suzieg on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:46:41 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Stimulate This! (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by wickedlittledoll on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:55:36 PM EST
    When are the Republicans gonna get a clue and stop shrieking about pork and earmarks when they have no problem authorizing billions on a futile war and unlawful detention at Gitmo?
    http://democralypsenow.blogspot.com/

    Senate about to reconvene (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 05:27:56 PM EST
    Let's see what the majority leader has to say.

    never mind (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 05:32:39 PM EST
    another recess until 7PM.

    [ Parent ]
    Is Bowers right about (none / 0) (#5)
    by magster on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 05:31:07 PM EST
    not needing 60 votes after a conference reconciliation?  If so, then the stimulus might not end up sucking so bad after all.

    No, that's wrong (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 05:33:25 PM EST
    51 vote reconciliation is only for setting spending and tax levels in a budget, not appropriating.

    [ Parent ]
    I think that's wrong (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 05:43:57 PM EST
    After conference, it goes to an up or down vote with no amendments.

    [ Parent ]
    Still confused (none / 0) (#10)
    by WS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 05:50:46 PM EST
    can a conference bill be filibustered?

    [ Parent ]
    I'm 90% sure it's right (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 05:50:59 PM EST
    If the Dems try to pass it as budget reconciliation, the Republicans will make a Byrd Rule point of order, which requires 60 votes to overcome.

    [ Parent ]
    I think Bowers (none / 0) (#13)
    by WS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:02:54 PM EST
    was referring to the conference bill, the bill where they hammer out the differences between the House and Senate versions and make one bill for approval by both houses of Congress.  

    I think that's why Reid didn't try to pass it as a reconciliation because of the Byrd Rule requiring germaneness to a Budget Bill (if I understand that correctly) of which 60 is needed.

    But what about a conference bill?  Does that need 60?

    [ Parent ]

    As I understand it, any bill but an omnibus budget (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:04:28 PM EST
    reconciliation can be required to get 60 votes. This is not an omnibus budget reconciliation.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm Mostly Ignorant on the Rules (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:10:40 PM EST
    But Reid has been going on about having 60 votes for a couple of days now. If 60 were no longer required than why mention it.

    Unless Reid strategy was to send it to conference so he would no longer need the 60, but that does not sound plausible to me.

    [ Parent ]

    Also, there's the (none / 0) (#45)
    by WS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:59:53 PM EST
    separate budget bills that don't require 60 along with an omnibus budget bill if they decide to lump all the budget bills together.  

    These Senate rules can be so confusing.  Are there any advantages to a conference bill that can stymie obstructionism?  

    [ Parent ]

    I guess we can assume (none / 0) (#8)
    by NJDem on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 05:36:46 PM EST
    there's more focus on job creation so Feinstein doesn't have to follow through with her threat?  (in fairness she just said she reserved the right to vote against it)

    And can someone explain what Biden said?  Thanks!

    Axelrod (none / 0) (#17)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:24:08 PM EST
    on PBS in front of a warm fireplace.

    We Believe . . Sometime, anytime, maybe, however, hopefully, at some point, move forward . . .

    Move forward (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:26:41 PM EST
    move forward
    move forward
    move forward
    move forward
    move forward

    still waiting

    [ Parent ]

    Seems they think (none / 0) (#19)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:29:28 PM EST
    Americans all have $250,000 in the bank while we wait for them to make up their minds.

    Vote within 2 days, bill to Obama (none / 0) (#22)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:33:12 PM EST
    on his desk Monday morning for signing, says some network or other that I caught in passing.  That's the plan.  Let's see how it goes.

    not this monday (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:35:14 PM EST
    they mean the following monday surely, the original drop dead date Team O gave Feb 18th ...this still has to go to conference where Pelosi will try to restore everything that the Gang is cutting per Carl Levin tonight...

    so a week to committee it through to Obama by his deadline...

    [ Parent ]

    I'd rather just (none / 0) (#26)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:38:27 PM EST
    get busy and GO FOR IT instead of watching a competition to see who will get to the bottom first.

    Gang of 18 (or so) (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:40:11 PM EST
    Democratic Caucus (11)
    Evan Bayh (IN)
    Michael Bennett (CO)
    Kent Conrad (ND)
    Mary Landrieu (LA)
    Joe Lieberman (CT)
    Clarie McCaskill (MO)
    Ben Nelson (NE)
    Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
    Mark Warner (VA)
    Jim Webb (VA)
    Mark Udall (CO)

    Republican Caucus (5)
    Susan Collins (ME)
    Mel Martinez (FL)
    Olympia Snowe (ME)
    Arlen Specter (PA)
    George Voinovich (OH)

    Rumored:
    John McCain
    Max Baucus

    Populista and Chris Bowers

    Gang of idiots (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:43:18 PM EST
    and sellouts.

    [ Parent ]
    or you know (none / 0) (#168)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 02:29:51 AM EST
    Bluedogs who can't win re-election with a bill that can be easily savaged from the right, the one real sellout on there is Lieberman.

    [ Parent ]
    Also (none / 0) (#32)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:46:56 PM EST
    China isn't even buying our raw paper recycle now to make boxes for the stuff they used to sell us.

    I think she knows (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:24:49 PM EST
    "where the bodies are buried," if you will. If HRC had been president, the bill would be different, also. I think a Clinton presidency would have seen serious arm-twisting, even for Republicans.

    this is a centrist-right bill, more like Hoover than FDR, IMO.

    [ Parent ]

    She wouldn't have given it to the Pelosi to (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by suzieg on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:44:30 PM EST
    write it up - the bill would have come straight from the WH with her wish list, alone!

    [ Parent ]
    Do you even remember (none / 0) (#170)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 02:38:30 AM EST
    How Bill Clinton and the Democratic congress bickered constantly prior to us losing the House and the Senate for the first time in a generation?

    [ Parent ]
    What (none / 0) (#169)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 02:37:16 AM EST
    I remember it being total warfare with Clinton captipualating more often than not- see:

    DOMA
    Welfare Reform
    Gramm-led deregulation

    I mean Clinton won on somethings, stood tall on somethings, etc but you need to remember that Clinton had it relatively easy- decent economy on a minor upswing, middle of internet revolution (which Clinton did as much to do as Bush Sr. did to win the Cold War- they both managed things not caused them) no war, etc. (its why, Clinton will never be considered a Great President, a very competent and astoundingly good but not great, that's reserved for those who were tested) Obama on the other hand is placed in one of those truly trying times in American History.

    ps- This doesn't even get into one of the great political blunders in American Political History- aka the Healthcare Debacle of 1992-1994.

    [ Parent ]

    Personally, I wasn't thinking of the WJC (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 11:14:01 AM EST
    Presidency, but of Hillary's infighting ability, and her ability to compromise. Famous for both, I thought, in the senate, wasn't she?

    Also, I imagine she'd have been working the phones like LBJ.

    Ahh, well, a guy can dream, right?

    [ Parent ]

    What is going on now? Are they getting (none / 0) (#128)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:19:51 PM EST
    ready to vote? I thought I heard her say that but nothing is happening.

    On MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by TheRealFrank on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:23:47 PM EST
    They just said that the Republicans will delay (and delay and delay), and that it'll take until Monday.


    [ Parent ]
    teddy (none / 0) (#136)
    by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:30:04 PM EST
    is teddy already here from Florida? he is flying in for vote?

    [ Parent ]
    voinovich (none / 0) (#135)
    by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:29:23 PM EST
    I think they got Voinovich back by eliminating ALL the school construciton which frakin sucks!!!!!

    Voino. walked out over this school construction being in, and now Feisntein has said it is all gone, thus he must be back in,

    him, collins, spector, snowe and Kennedy flying in passes 60..

    but education lost 58billion, and those ARE JOBS for Voinovich's information, he wanted that to all go to highways, why couldnt STDs go into the omnibus bill? then we could have highways and school construction!

    STDs funding is wonderful but that doesnt create any jobs, the school money saved and created jobs dammit!

    Yet $$$ for ACORN survived (none / 0) (#164)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:10:13 PM EST
    so it's reported.  Imagine that.  

    [ Parent ]
    CNN: Tentative Senate Deal On Stimulus | 163 comments (163 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment