Senate Passes Debt Bill, Obama Speaks at 12:15

They passed 60 votes, the Debt Ceiling bill is passed. Dems voting no: Sen. Harkin and Lautenberg. Dems voting yes included Udall, Bennett, Boxer, Feinstein and Franken.

The Senate votes at noon on the debt bill. 60 votes are needed. Obama will speak at 12:15.

You can watch the vote here on C-Span2 and Obama on C-Span.

The White House Fact Sheet on the bill is here.

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Tuesday Evening Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What a perfect example (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 11:46:16 AM EST

    What a perfect example of Obama mismanagement.  The debt limit could have been raised last year with every Republican voting no.  You know way back when when Pelosi was Speaker and Reid had 60 votes.  Perhaps the man with nearly no executive experience thought off year elections don't matter.


    He did it this way (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 11:49:34 AM EST
    because it's what he wanted...more cuts.

    Yes, he made the mistake (none / 0) (#6)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:00:17 PM EST
    Of thinking members of the Tea Party were human beings, not the traitorous, batsh!t crazy, morally degenerate, mouth breathing mutants  they have shown themselves to be.

    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:21:42 PM EST
    The Tea Party is against this bill too.

    degenerate, mouth breathing mutants (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:28:48 PM EST

    So Obama got bested by "degenerate, mouth breathing mutants."  That says a fair bit about him.



    degenerate mouth breathing mutants (none / 0) (#18)
    by CST on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:32:47 PM EST
    sound like something that could kill you.

    Or a punk band (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:34:29 PM EST
    or a classroom (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 01:10:49 PM EST
    full of 11 year old boys.  lol, I say that with love since a room full of 11 year old boys is one of my favorite things in the world.

    Cradle robber! (none / 0) (#37)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 01:29:53 PM EST
    FWIW, no fan of Obama (none / 0) (#110)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 12:35:08 AM EST
    and, in light of his "never-fails-to-disappoint" persona, "degenerate, mouth breathing mutant" would be a step up.

    don't look behind that curtain (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    oh look it's Palin...oh look it's the fault of the batshit crazy tea party people.  It's not like the democrats have the white house and one of the houses of congress.
    Tea Party is the new Palin

    Yup. Plus he thought the rational behavior (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:08:12 PM EST
    the GOP showed GWB regarding the debt ceiling would apply to him too. Not sure what part of 'we want you to fail' he does not understand.

    But, but (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:25:19 PM EST
    He voted as a Senator in 2006 against raising the debt ceiling, but has since come to "regret it", saying it was a political vote back then.

    Obama has warned that hitting the debt ceiling would be catastrophic, but he's had to answer for his Senate vote when the same problem came up in 2006 during President George W. Bush's administration.

    "I think that it's important to understand the vantage point of a Senator versus the vantage point of a President," Obama told Stephanopoulos on Thursday. "When you're a Senator, traditionally what's happened is this is always a lousy vote. Nobody likes to be tagged as having increased the debt limit for the United States by a trillion dollars or a trillion and a half, whatever the number is. And so, traditionally the president's party ... bears the burden of passing it.

    "As President, you start realizing, `You know what? We can't play around with this stuff. This is the full faith in credit of the United States.'"

    So I guess it's just a "political vote" for those who voted against it.


    Oh, good catch. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:50:19 PM EST
    Sure, a vote against something (4.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 07:59:13 PM EST
    knowing it will pass anyway can be done to make a statement, as Obama did. Do you really think he would have voted 'no' if it would kill the bill? I don't.

    I don't think the tea partiers would have either. They held out to get the best deal possible, then voted no anyway when it was clear it would pass.


    Add to that Reid's December quote (none / 0) (#31)
    by BTAL on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 01:20:30 PM EST
    (posted here on TL) stating that they (the dem leadership) wanted to hold the debt ceiling debate and vote so that "the Republicans will have to take ownership in 2011" (paraphrased).

    Oh, the evil TP mutant mouth breathers must have really twisted poor Harry's arm to get that concession.


    Obama is so disingenuous ! (none / 0) (#78)
    by samsguy18 on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 06:47:32 PM EST
     He's always playing games.Does the man stand for anything other than himself.

    Obama made no (none / 0) (#25)
    by observed on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:46:30 PM EST
    mistake.  His masterful Brer Rabbit shtick still fools some people.

    He's a puppet ... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:49:13 PM EST
    he does what he's told.

    Lamborn used another term (none / 0) (#58)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 03:46:03 PM EST
    A Congressman in Colorado (winger from ColoSprgs Doug Lamborn) just finished apologizing for using another descriptor from Uncle Remus in describing the President.  Uncle Remus must be being read again, uh.

    Fact sheet is a bad joke (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:39:04 PM EST
    Begins with ". . . no one will be able to use the threat of the nation's first default now, or in only a few months, for political gain . . . ."  and goes downhill form there.

    That's like me not worrying about losing my hair now that I am bald.

    And the House GOP will in any version of the universe ever pass revenue increasing measures in an up & down vote.

    The White House ought to recognize the extent to which this fact sheet confirms what a piece of crap this legislation is.

    The fact sheet (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:45:55 PM EST
    just p*sses me off, especially because it takes a lot of imagination to see some of those bullet points as "facts."  Most glaring to me is this one:

    The Enforcement Mechanism Complements the Forcing Event Already In Law - the Expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts - To Create Pressure for a Balanced Deal: The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester would go into effect. These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts.

    If the veto pen comes out, it's going to veto an extension of all the tax cuts, not just the high-income ones.  The WH statement here is just blatantly false.

    To paraphrase digby from yesterday, the WH should just stop trying to sell this deal to liberals.  There's really not a lot to like about it.  Move on to stimulus, jobs, unemployment extension, something.


    Oh, President Obama will try to move on (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 01:55:11 PM EST
    to talking about jobs and unemployment, probably as joint ventures with the private sector, as soon as he finishes  the obligatory marketing of the deal and the slipping of talking points out the back door to the media and planted bloggers.  Then, the short memories of the electorate will be depended upon along with roll-out and opaqueness.  Also, there is always the diversion of wars, old and new.

    The two stage process starting with the initial $1 trillion over ten years, equal parts security/non-security discretionary funding has a firewall only for the first two years.  The second part with its $1.5 trillion cuts, will have the super congress working in a sealed tube until something is released just in time for turkey day and, if it move forward,  an up and down, quick vote around Christmas. And, these cuts will begin in 2013.  


    The "pivot to jobs" will be getting the (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 02:14:36 PM EST
    trade deals done with Korea, Panama and Colombia.  What are the chances this will create jobs here, as opposed to sending more of them overseas?

    Also, consider this, from Dean Baker, and see if you can figure out - I can't - where the money will come from to create anything (my emphasis):

    Many readers of the NYT and Post may not have a good sense of how much $2.4 trillion in cuts over the next decade is. Unfortunately, the major news outlets do not consider it their responsibility to tell us.

    The government is projected to spend $46 trillion over the next 10 years. This means that the proposed cuts are a bit more than 5 percent of projected spending. However, large categories of the budget are protected. More than $27 trillion of projected spending goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest. If these areas escape largely untouched, the projected cuts would be around 13 percent of the remaining portion of the budget.

    In fact, since some other areas of the budget, like unemployment insurance, are also likely to be largely protected, the cuts to the remaining portion of the budget will be even larger.

    The government is projected to spend $7.8 trillion on the military over the next decade. If this area is largely protected, then most of the cuts would likely come from the $6.7 trillion of spending on the domestic discretionary portion of the budget. This is the portion that includes spending on infrastructure, education, research, and other areas that are considered investment.

    People hear or read "discretionary" and think that means cuts there aren't going to hurt - but they really are.  A lot.

    I don't know - this doesn't seem to be a recipe for job creation to me, but maybe someone else can explain it to me.


    The pivoting to jobs (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 02:53:29 PM EST
    will  be restricted to talk, unless it can be accomplished without spending.   If the auto-cuts come into play, there will be additional cuts to discretionary spending, with the most vulnerable programs and people affected (e.g., low income housing, energy assistance, and even popular programs such as head start).  The upside to this mess is that the social safety nets would be spared, including the critical Medicaid.  Medicare cuts will be capped up to 2 percent and limited to providers (which means on the one hand, a cascade down to powerless beneficiaries, and on the other, a powerful hospital/medical lobby group to get around it).

    Cat Food Two has the range of cutting additional discretionary funding, cuts to any and all social safety nets (including Medicaid hampering the prime component of ACA) and increasing revenues (taxes and loop holes).  From this early vantage point, it appears, to me,  that the dreaded auto-cuts are the lesser of the two evils, especially when consideration is given to the damage the Super Congress is likely to do on the spending side and the unlikelihood of obtaining significant new revenue. We were better off that Cat Food I died a natural death and my bet is on the same fate for Cat Food II.


    So Boxer and Feinstein (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 01:13:46 PM EST
    may have voted yay in order for Dem Senators in less blue states could vote nay?

    It's a CA tradition (none / 0) (#53)
    by waldenpond on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 02:55:56 PM EST
    I know all govts do it, but it's a looooong time tradition here.  If you've ever watched these guys, even on a very local level, they trade their votes.  Watching them bicker before they go out to have the official vote (I can't vote for this!  My constituents will kill me!  ok I'll vote for it, but you have to vote for that one!) is nauseating.  

    Then they go out and put on a performance, pretend to listen to public comments and have a vote that was predetermined (just like congress).  One member was recently sniveling to the paper about how poor turnout for council meetings is.


    Factoid in politicalwire today (none / 0) (#59)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 03:50:24 PM EST
    notes a strong correlation between district & house members' votes on the agreement...those from safe districts tended to vote "no," while those from swing districts tended to vote "yes."

    As for Senators, there were only 6 Dems who voted "no."  One curiosity, at first, was that both Sen. Harkin (D) and Sen. Grassley (r) from Iowa voted "no." Anything to do with ethanol, maybe...since it is expected that the subsidies for ethanol would be cut during this reduction process upcoming.


    Once the deal is made they divvy up the votes (none / 0) (#85)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:05:22 PM EST
    according to the politics of the situation. That's why I don't pay a lot of attention after the fact. More important to see where they stand during the negotiations.

    Of course they posture then too, so really, it is all a waste of time.

    I'm so cynical this week.


    Your move S&P... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 01:22:21 PM EST
    we still might be downgraded cuz the rating agencies wanted bigger cuts, or maybe because they've got eyes on a kickback from Wall St. for all the fees generated by a US debt sell-off, or maybe they just wanna make Obama look bad as the pres who was at the desk when we got sent down to AA ball...no rhyme no reason required, just their opinion of our credit worthiness, much like the individual credit reporting agencies opinion of all of us...no rhyme, no reason, no rules, no fairness.  Remember these are the outfits who rated the toxic waste bundles of bad consumer debt Wall St. was slinging AAA.  

    Not that I think the US is credit worthy or anything, but imo I woulda downgraded our arse at Reagan's inauguration.

    Yet, despite all you say, the Powers That (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 01:27:34 PM EST
    Be are concerned about S & Ps rating of U.S. creditworthiness.  

    Can anyone explain... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 01:48:18 PM EST
    this slavish devotion to the arbitrary opinion of a proven shady and corrupt, unelected ,unresponsible to anybody credit reporting agency(s)?

    Nevermind, its the only game we know, the only game in town, and as Dadler would say we are lacking in the imagination to come up with a better way to play.

    It's a national security issue when one outfit can cost you hundreds of billions of dollars on their whim, further weakening the safety net in the process, American lives and limbs...we've performed pre-emptive violent aggression over far less threats, have we not?


    And isn't it true the bond ratings agency (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 07:26:28 PM EST
    are pd. by those who offer bonds for sale to rate sd. bonds?  incest.  

    Another LOL from the WH "fact" sheet-- (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by jawbone on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 03:27:09 PM EST
    The bill will result in "protecting Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries and low-income programs"....

    Well, except the Politburo can cut any program. Only if the Committee of Twelve Caesars' recommendation is voted down are those programs protected. And then only for 2012 and 2013. Medicare providers get a 2% (iirc) haircut, but, supposedly, Medicare recipients don't take any hits. Until 2014.

    In 2014, every social safety net program, low income programs, veteran's pensions, etc., are subject to the automatic cuts if the Cat Food Commission II's recommendation is not voted for by the Congress.

    From CBO letter.

    Now, by 2013 there will be a new Congress, so all this fall apart.

    In thinking (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 07:34:09 PM EST
    about and reading about the deal today, I still come away with a fairly easy to understand bottom line about why we got the deal. You just can't escape this:

    "Sixty five percent approve of deal's spending cuts. But it gets worse. Of the 30 percent who disapprove, 13 percent think the cuts haven't gotten far enough, and only 15 percent think the cuts go too far. One sixth of Americans agree with the liberal argument about the deal." - Greg Sargent

    Now let's imagine a world where Obama does everything people here demanded that he do over the past few months: he draws a hard line. He threatens to go over the ledge and default. He yells a lot and plays his poker hand better and goes to the mat and all of those silly euphemisms.

    He probably brings the number who agree with liberals up to 2 out of 6.

    The question: does that extra 15% of the population change the deal? Maybe a little on the fringes.  Maybe we get a payroll tax extension, let's say.  Maybe we get a little stimulus here or there.  Maybe the spending cuts are less by a few hundred thousand.

    Does that change perceptions of the Deal? It shouldn't honestly because those changes really aren't material. People still hate the deal here. They still think Obama sold them out. And everyone here drawing a line in the sand and telling us that they will never vote for him probably does the same thing.

    Meanwhile the moderates, who comprise a larger and more important voting block are more angry at the dems and Obama. So instead of just furious liberals, he's facing fury by the folks that hold the key to preventing a government take over by republicans.

    Tells me two things:

    1. Obama doesn't have to be a closet conservative to have surveyed the situation and decided that this was the best way to proceed to protect democratic ideals long term.  Now you may disagree with that assessment but it is a legitimate one. Not one driven by a manchurian candidate out to hurt babies and senior citizens.

    2. The real failure occurred before Obama too office and quite possibly before Bush did.  Liberals are simply losing the battle of ideals.  And their righteous indignation has them blaming the new guy to lead when the failure was there when Obama gave the speech in 2004 where he laid out his vision and basically made it clear that Dems had to run as the party of pragmatists (check that speech and nothing that has happened in his presidency is much of a surprise at all).

    And we're falling into the same trap again.  While our lasers are targeted on our own, our opposition targets us.

    And then we wonder how we got to this place.

    It would be interesting for someone to do analysis on the number of posts devoted to bashing the GOP in the last year, let's say, and the number geared towards bashing dems.  And then running the same study for the conservative blogs.

    1 out of 6 believe the liberal position on the debt deal.

    But it's all Obama's bad negotiating in the past 6-12 months.

    My sense is that the aliens watching this unfold from their neutral position on Planet Whatthefuckia are fairly confused by this logic.

    A bad deal is a bad deal (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:02:00 PM EST
    If Obama wins re-election, he'll get to preside over a funeral procession.  That is all any of this noise boils down to.

    The Republican and Democratic Parties are more unified now than ever -- they are both entirely beholden to big money and nothing or no one else.

    Pass me that fatty, will ya?


    How (none / 0) (#87)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:08:38 PM EST
    you look at what occurred a argue that the parties are unified is beyond me.

    Clearly they aren't.  A bad deal isn't symbolic of agreement.  That's just a narrative that helps justify our frustration IMHO.


    Apologies (none / 0) (#105)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:58:33 PM EST
    But look at it from my perspective. We are at the stage here where is you dare say that Obama isn't primarily to blame then you are an idiot or ignorant or what have you.  

    If you aren't very angry at Obama your position is kind of getting crapped on regularly. But that's fine.

    Zingers get thrown. Zingers get thrown back.

    Doesn't change the fact that John Stossel is on fox news telling me and O'Reilley to keep the dems out of office while MSNBC is telling me how angry the liberals are at the dems (the good guys) for making this happen.

    That's what we should be worried about.  Not Obama's secret motivations.  


    Now, please take note: (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:16:48 PM EST
    I'm not calling you stupid. But that was the stupidest collection of disjointed, unintelligible, wrong headed, pile of dung that you've written here. And for you, that's saying a lot.

    I realize that re-electing this duplicitous, immoral, con artist is more important than life itself, but first, may I ask you something? Do you drink? I mean, do you drink excessively, and have you lifted the glass a few too many times tonight?

    If not, here's a second question: is Obama a deaf-mute? Is he the President, or a sofa surfing, popcorn eating spectator? In the far reaches of that echo chamber that masquerades as a mind, did you ever, even one time, consider that Obama, while he has totally & completely abdicated & surrendered his role as this country's leader, could try to teach the public about the issues we're discussing here? This guy had the ability to mesmerize & brainwash a majority of voters  into electing him to the Presidency, but laying out the issues to the American public is just too incredibly difficult?

    Obama, supposedly, wants to do good things for the people; The Republicans want to destroy the people's lives and their futures. A six year old could get that message out there, but for this Harvard Law Review President, its simply impossible.

    My God, we're not talking Mensa here, but for Obama, he seems to belong to "Densa."

    Jeez, I wonder if he could sell food to starving people?

    This is surreal.


    That easy huh? (none / 0) (#102)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:27:18 PM EST
    Two decades head start on the radio.  A decade's head start on TV.  And a greater willingness to twist the truth to boot.  

    And Obama comes in and he is to blame because he hasn't changed the entire trajectory of economic opinion by rushing as hard as he can to the left.

    They impeached the guy with the southern accent who actually conceded more liberal ground to them than any president for years. On almost every issue.

    We tend to forget where we were before Bush started doing really stupid things.

    My favorite question is who would be president right now if our last president had been competent.  What you think of Obama should hinge a lot on the answer to that question.


    "Uh, Huh, that easy (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:14:11 AM EST
    Hillary had a 20 year head start on our wunderkind, and it took him, what, a few months to make her history. I refer you back to my "a six year old could do it" quote up above.

    I don't know the "hands on" experience you've had as an adult, and/or in your career, but (and I'm truly not being disrespectful) it seems your conclusions are derived much more from theory & deductive analysis than from actual experience.

    I know I've pointed this out before, but I was the Director of Dealer Development (and Chief Negotiator) for a Fortune 500 Company ( and, a one-time DOW Company) and I can attest to hundreds of instances where a single personnel move changed the performance of a Company, Division, or Subsidiary 180 degrees. Right off the bat, Steve Jobs comes to mind.

    While I've made no secret of my disappointment in Obama's performance, his brilliant victory over the Clinton juggernaut will be a case study taught in MBA curricula for decades to come.

    So, its not a question of whether Obama could have had the public eating out of his hand," Yes, We can," but, it was his unfortunate decision to go instead with, "but, I don't want to."


    I find that when I ask people (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:40:42 PM EST
    ignorant of the facts about issues, they tend to answer according to generalities.

    Polls and pollsters do the same.

    In other words, garbage in, garbage out.

    Give a market researcher a spreadsheet, s/he thinks s/he's a quantitative methodologist.


    Well, see here's the thing: (4.50 / 2) (#101)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:26:14 PM EST
    Obama could have been the president who used his bully pulpit to make the argument for why spending cuts and austerity were the wrong thing to be doing in a down economy - there are substantive historical precedents that support that position.  He could have pointed to Britain and Ireland and Greece as examples of how austerity doesn't grow economies, it kills them.

    He could have educated the public on how our monetary, fiscal and budgetary system works, explained why the US budget is not at all like a household budget.  

    He could have explained what "sovereign in our own currency" means.

    He could have harnessed the power of government to create a program for mortgage relief that acknowledged the pernicious role the financial industry played in the whole mess, allowing as many people as possible to stay in their homes, providing much more stability in the housing market.

    He could have made the argument for raising the ceiling on wages subject to Social Security as a way to extend its solvency.

    He could have made putting people back to work as Priority No. 1, building on the power of government to step in and create the conditions that lead to improvements in the quality of people's lives.

    But first, he would have had to believe in all of these things, and he doesn't.  He pays lip service to them, sprinkles the code phrases into his speeches and comments, but there's nothing to back it up.  He throws bones to people and expects them to be happy that he talks about what people need, but that's the extent of his interest.  He walks away, goes behind closed doors and back to what he intended to do all along - and it was never anything close to what the people wanted.

    It's like this whole business about the current tax rates: he says he wants to make the wealthy pay more, but when it comes time to fish or cut bait, he gives them up.

    The Republicans have already announced that the hostage-taking will now be a regular thing - they're not going to play nice now that they've gotten 98% of what they wanted in this go-round.  And they're going to do it because they can, because Obama played along, because he and other Democrats made the first move.

    Obama's out there talking about how this deal is a win for the economy - but what's his game plan when it proves not to be?  What then?  What else does he give away, how much more will ordinary, average people have to "sacrifice" so a Democratic president can keep selling Republican policy?

    Reading your comments is like being trapped in talking-point land, like you're reading off a teleprompter with no understanding of what you're saying, and with no interest in the details of the policies.  It's been suggested to you more times than I can count that you take the time to educate yourself, but it's clear you believe you get all you need to know from polls.  

    You can keep coming here and belittling the liberal position, but this isn't the kind of crowd that responds well to that tactic; in fact, I would guess that the more you put it down, the more people realize how deeply they believe in the liberal position, and how important it is to keep it alive - even if all around are those who want to kill it.

    We're made of stronger stuff; can't imagine why you haven't figured that out.


    This is like (none / 0) (#106)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 11:02:33 PM EST
    The third time in two days that I have been told that the crowd here doesn't need to hear some position.

    I don't think that is quite the good thing that people believe it is.

    If there is no room for this type of talk we are in more trouble than I thought.


    Then maybe you have to be honest and (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 11:23:26 PM EST
    own up to the fact that you are not a liberal - or that you are a liberal who hates his liberalness - because it makes no sense for a liberal to want to keep belittling the liberal position on a lefty blog.

    Seems to me that a liberal who believed in the liberal position would stop trying to find ways to keep lowering the bar for what seems to be the sole purpose of elevating the actions of one person - Barack Obama - who doesn't seem particularly engaged in or connected to the liberal point of view.

    As I see it, we can either work to be better at what we believe in, or keep accepting mediocre representation and pretending it's good enough; part of being better at what we believe in is holding those who represent us to higher standards, instead of adjusting our standards to what they're willing to do.

    You get the kind of response you do because you are not perceived as honest or authentic; you can either do something about that, or not, but stop blaming us for who you are.


    How's this (none / 0) (#89)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:07:21 PM EST
    10% of America currently identifies with the tea party, and yet they held all the power in negotiations.  By your logic, that's simply impossible!  How could that have happened!  They don't reflect the majority of Americans!!

    You argue as if we were a country ruled by referendum.  

    If so the ACA would never have passed.

    Guess what, most Americans support revenue increases in a deal like this.  That's why Obama mentioned it all the time.  But did that come to pass.  No!

    Politics is about more than majority rule in polls (which can fluctuate significantly).

    I think ruffian points at something important above - maybe Obama's not the bad negotiator, progressives are.  

    Personally, Obama could've had a clean debt ceiling bill when McConnell brought it up originally.  Getting some degree of deficit reduction done was important to him in terms of policy though, so I don't think that route was explored as thoroughly as it could have been.

    I recall you saying you would be on here celebrating that if it had happened.  Instead, you're coming up with apologias for Obama, again.

    I suppose that at least suggests you realize something is wrong.

    Believe me, I was hopeful after Obama's third press conference that a clean debt ceiling bill would pass.  But we did end up pretty much where we feared we would be, and the only reason it feels better is that Obama's fake (or was it fake?) negotiating strategy never came to pass.


    Moderates (none / 0) (#97)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:08:10 PM EST
    That's the point of those numbers.  The majority of moderates in this country believe the fundamental rule of the conservatives: the government is wasting money, it is too big and it is spending too much.

    This core idea, central to the tea party, is believed completely and absolutely by every person who considers themselves a republican.  And the blue dog dems. And a fair piece of our moderate core.

    Now how does that translate into the core point of your response: you will also remember the immediate and direct rejection of McConnell's concept by the GOP as soon as Reid embraced it. They were able to do that because of the percentages of the population who believe the comservative's core principle. People agreed with them and the idea died.  That was the people rejecting the idea of doing nothing. But that wasn't Obama and the dems losing. That was the result of an argument lost years ago.

    We need to refocus on winning the moderates because they are the way that progressive legislation is possible.


    Furthermore, (none / 0) (#91)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:24:17 PM EST
    by your logic, Obama should never have been elected President.  I mean, basically your argument is "we are a center-right nation."  I don't believe that's true, and that's certainly an unhelpful thing to put out there.

    Well (none / 0) (#98)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:11:34 PM EST
    The joke is that you had to have the worst president we have ever had to get the population to elect a black guy named Hussein.



    Well you won't catch me (none / 0) (#99)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:21:18 PM EST
    saying Bush and Obama are the same.  God only knows what would happen if Bush was President right now.

    With the debt ceiling behind us, hopefully Obama will hammer increasing revenue by taking away the unjust cuts given to the rich.  Having the tax cuts on the rich expire is a popular idea.  IMO, he needs to emphasize the ideas on our side that are popular more.  Ex., people love Medicare and Social Security.


    I agree (none / 0) (#107)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 11:13:21 PM EST
    Lilburro.  Our energies should be focused on that one singular issue. From day one. Right now.

    We should be talking about the tax cuts expiring on the rich as if it were already a done deal. Not as if we know it will be conceded.  That's what the GOP does.

    We are ho'ing to waste months bashing dems and wasting time and air. The GOP will be bashing us.

    And there we will be again.


    I agree (none / 0) (#109)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 11:32:11 PM EST
    the Bush tax cuts for the rich expiring need to be the biggest issue.  That will require

    1. spreading the word that they will not hurt the economy.

    2. arguing for progressive taxation.

    3. ensuring these dumb committees do not pass some tax reform that brings in less revenue and avoids this fight.

    I know you like your polls, but come election season, Obama is going to have to reapproach liberal blog lights, such as our wonderful blog hostess.  An angry 1% means more than a complacent 20%.  That's been proven in American politics, over and over.  The Tea Party is but one example.

    I don't have a lot of confidence that Obama, today, transported to late 2012, would let the Bush tax cuts expire.  

    I don't know that blogs necessarily have leverage, but it would be nice to make Obama win our votes.  On this issue.  It's achievable.

    IMO, we have a year to push Obama where we want him to go on this issue.  It's important and it has to be done.  


    It won't happen (none / 0) (#112)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 01:27:29 AM EST
    you won't get 60 votes in the Senate to up the tax on the rich, so you'll have to settle for the next best thing which is all Bush tax cuts expire.

    Now there is a problem with that too. Obama promised not to raise taxes on the middle class. Personally I'd prefer everyone's taxes revert back to where they were, but it will also give the election to the Republican nominee for president because all they have to do is spin a commercial with Obama saying "Read my lips".


    NY Senators (none / 0) (#1)
    by PatHat on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 11:34:47 AM EST
    I have asked both my Senators to vote against this bill. It's not like the Democrats HAVE to sell their souls...just offer a straight debt ceiling bill and it will pass.

    btw, Anne Buerkle, the Rep from Syracuse voted NO. So I wont be demonstrating in front of her office like MoveON suggests.

    Gillibrand voted no. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 11:43:11 AM EST
    So we got one.

    Corrected (none / 0) (#10)
    by PatHat on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:17:08 PM EST
    Thanks, I saw that Gillebrand voted No. But why do I feel that she was "permitted" to vote No since the deal passed anyway.

    You're not wrong to think it (none / 0) (#11)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:20:07 PM EST
    That's how they do their deals. Same thing happened yesterday in the House. The game is rigged.

    Oh sure, (none / 0) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:27:47 PM EST
    she's up for re-election in '12.  But at least she understands that voting "no" might help her re-election chances.  The same can't be said for others.

    Gillibrand also voted NO (none / 0) (#65)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 04:26:54 PM EST
    - against the Dec. 2010 'Deal'.  I think she is her own person, and this quality may be the reason the powers that be tried to replace her with C Kennedy.

    Nobody tried to replace her with (none / 0) (#67)
    by tigercourse on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 04:40:25 PM EST
    Kennedy. Kennedy was the original talked about candidate before Patterson chose Gillibrand instead.

    Sorry to disagree (none / 0) (#68)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 04:48:23 PM EST
    I think Gillibrand was top woman on a shortlist before Caroline threw her hat in the ring, so to speak.

    Obama and the party wanted kennedy, (none / 0) (#74)
    by tigercourse on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 05:46:00 PM EST
    despite the fact that she was clearly not ready for prime time - she more or less refused to discuss what her position would be on issues and seemed never to have traveled north of the city. Governor Patterson more or less picked Gillibrand out of nowhere and pissed alot of people off because she was a more or less conservative 1st termer. But she flipped most of her positions pretty darn fast to suit the rest of the state.

    It turned out to be a good decision, but was hardly the expected one.


    As I recall that mess (none / 0) (#103)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:36:54 PM EST
    of an appointment, Paterson had told her when he initially strongly signaled to her that she would be his pick, not to engage with the media but instead to quietly go around the state and get to know the right people.  Then as that processed dragged on and on needlessly, she came under more pressure to speak out, but felt constrained by Paterson's rules.  

    And when she did offer a few remarks, some in the media, including quite a few knee-jerk anti-Kennedy types on the left (the anti-dynasty types and others, including a few prominent lefty bloggers) made much of her uh-and-ah speaking style, which was supposed to mean she wasn't very smart but which actually was a quite common speaking quirk, and not unlike that of her Uncle Ted.

    I think she would have made for a fine senator and would have grown into the job as Ted did, only quicker.  And there never should have been any question that she was and is a liberal.

    A real botched job by Paterson, something that should have been handled quietly and quickly.  But apparently he found political advantage in dragging the thing out publicly, at least until things turned very negative about her and the stupid process he had tried to stage manage from the wings.

    That's my recollection anyway.

    But it turned out lucky for us as Gillibrand has become a mostly solid liberal voice in the senate, and a rising star for the party.  Definitely 2016 material for president.


    IMO "Conservative" (none / 0) (#113)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 01:06:02 PM EST
    is a misnomer when it comes to Gillibrand.  Look at her voting record.  Her one stance that is can be fairly labeled conservative is on guns.  Again, look at her voting record -- against the Dec 2010 and Aug. 2011 'deals', etc.

    Some strong Democratic states (none / 0) (#61)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 03:52:38 PM EST
    make that the easier thing to do. See correlation info out today.

    ARGH (none / 0) (#2)
    by PatHat on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 11:41:27 AM EST
    Neither Senator Schumer nor Gillibrand get my vote or my money next time.

    Why not Gillibrand (none / 0) (#66)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 04:27:22 PM EST
    her voting record is pretty liberal

    Revised (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by PatHat on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 05:28:50 PM EST
    Gillibrand voted NO, so she's still OK by me. I might even send her money just to reward the correct vote.

    Time to abandon ship (none / 0) (#7)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:08:00 PM EST
    They saved the country from disaster! Too bad consumer spending bottomed out and the market is down 152 points. I can hardly wait to hear the positive spin Obama will put on this.

    It seems everyone in DC is h#ll bent on throwing us into the "New" Great Depression.

    I'm more charitable. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by sweetthings on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:21:52 PM EST
    I don't think anyone in Washington (with the possible exception of some of the Tea Party) WANTS the economy to collapse....they're just not sure how to stop it.

    I know the conventional wisdom here is that if we simply had a bigger stimulus or a different kind of stimulus, we could have avoided our current predicament, but I'm unconvinced. I think our underlying problem is far more structural, and one that no amount of stimulus is going to fix. Put simply, we're getting much too productive.

    Automation is steadily eating away at the value of labor. Once upon a time, the world really did need ditch diggers, but these days all you need is one guy with a backhoe. This wasn't so bad when it was just ditch-diggers that were being replaced, but as computers have gotten more sophisticated, the number of people they displace grows ever larger. I should know...I'm a programmer. The software I've written over the last 7 years has eliminated at least 20 positions at my office over time. They weren't glamorous jobs by any means, but they handed out a regular pay check and benefits. Now a computer does it all. And there are lots and lots of guys like me out there.

    I'm terrified that we're rapidly approaching a world where a significant portion of the population simply cannot leverage their labor profitably. They won't have any skills to offer that a machine can't do cheaper. I have no idea how our current economy could deal with that, and I suspect our political leaders don't either.


    except (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by dandelion on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:42:19 PM EST
    We lost 7 million jobs in one year.  Did we suddenly become so much more productive, all in one year?  I don't think so.

    None of those jobs have come back.  

    And.... look around.  There is a ton of work that could be done with that excess labor and industrial capacity in this country.  China's building high-speed rail and mag-lev trains all over -- why aren't we?  Nearly every single school in this country needs major construction work.  Our roads and bridges earn a D grade from civil engineers.  We could be doing a whole lot of work on alternate energy technology.

    The list is endless.  

    Where does the money come from?  Where it always comes from:  the government spends money into existence.  

    Would this be inflationary?  Possibly -- but only once wages and capacity start to maximize.  But since we're in a deflationary trap, we need inflation.

    The money is there, the willing workforce is there, the need is there.  The only thing missing is the will, and why is that?  


    charitable, or . . . ? (none / 0) (#23)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:45:33 PM EST
    I think our underlying problem is far more structural, and one that no amount of stimulus is going to fix. Put simply, we're getting much too productive.

    i think that this is the wrong analysis - you write as if from the twilight of the Eisenhower era

    Now a computer does it all.

    and that computer is in Bangalore

    I'm terrified that we're rapidly approaching a world where a significant portion of the population simply cannot leverage their labor profitably.

    rapidly approaching? that ship has long since sailed

    I have no idea how our current economy could deal with that, and I suspect our political leaders don't either.

    no, no . . . immiseration of the U.S. population is their policy -  it's a feature, not a bug


    It is common sense to consider (none / 0) (#38)
    by hairspray on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 01:33:42 PM EST
    that our population grows unabated and the jobs aren't growing unless you count nail salons and gyms. I think you have hit on an important part of this whole plot.  Of course weatlh distribution is another part of it.

    I'm more cynical than you! (none / 0) (#46)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 02:24:05 PM EST
    We're represented in Congress by a group of millionaires that haven't a clue of what the real world struggles are all about.

    When they aren't in session, they're fund raising among the elite. Or they're on a all expense paid "fact finding" tour.

    I wonder how many of them could even tell you what the price of a gallon of milk is today?


    even more (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by dandelion on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 02:44:11 PM EST
    And even more cynical here:  jobs aren't coming back to the US until the American work force is competitive with China's.

    The immiseration is designed to get us to a new socially acceptable living standard based on new low low wages.  

    Not to mention the asset-stripping bonus for the wealthy.


    Cantor did have money in that hedge fund voting (none / 0) (#55)
    by jawbone on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 03:15:58 PM EST
    for default (if US defaulted, Cantor woud make money).

    He is saying good things (none / 0) (#9)
    by Madeline on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:14:48 PM EST
    but is it a campaign speech or just words.  I would like him to say that he will fight for it, no matter what.

    with Obama (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 01:21:14 PM EST
    you have to watch what he does not what he says.  He'll say anything any group wants to hear as long as he is before him.  Watch what he does.  That is all that counts.

    he is before THEM.....N/T (none / 0) (#33)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 01:21:59 PM EST
    Would you believe him if he did? (none / 0) (#21)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:40:20 PM EST
    If so, there's a bridge in Brooklyn . . .

    both the MA senators (none / 0) (#17)
    by CST on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 12:30:50 PM EST
    voted for it, which is to be expected since they just looooove the centrist label.

    Only 3 out of 10 in the house did though.  Of course one of those 3 is mine, which was also to be expected.  But it's not like I've ever voted for him or supported him in the past.

    I'm ready for Elizabeth Warren to run for senate any day now.  Pretty please.

    When Hillary steps down at State, (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by itscookin on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 02:48:31 PM EST
    if Obama fulfills Kerry's dream and makes him SoS, then Warren should run for Kerry's seat. Warren is an attractive candidate because she doesn't represent the New Democratic Party, but she'll be another Coakley if she runs against Brown.  She'll only get strong support from the DNC if she promises to fall into line, and she'll lose to Brown if she does. Coakley was coasting to victory until Obama declared she'd be another voice for him in DC. Brown was running just for the experience of running until that opening presented itself. Coakley was going to be the voice of Democratic dissent until she wasn't. Brown drove his truck through that opening. Warren needs to run when there isn't an incumbent with high approvals to have a good chance to win or risk being another woman who "ran a bad campaign".

    Coakley (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by CST on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 02:53:57 PM EST
    was a pretty terrible candidate all on her own.  Some of her public statements were completely out of touch.  And yes, she was running in a highly charged atmosphere, right after all the unions revolted against the "cadillac" tax in the health care bill.

    I don't think Scott will be easy to beat, but I think Warren is the only one right now that stands a chance.  And Brown is absolutely worth beating.  If she loses, she can come back for Kerry's seat.  This will be different from Coakley because rather than blowing what everyone expected to be an "easy" win, she will lose a race people expect her to lose.  It makes a difference.

    She'll get DNC support either way because they are desperate.  This is one of the only seats Dems even have a possibility of picking up, and even that doesn't look great.


    she might be great in the senate (none / 0) (#35)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 01:24:49 PM EST
    what other suggestions does anyone have for smart gutsy women who can run for office?  Women should have 52 percent of the seats.  It's way past time we were represented since we've been paying taxes forever.

    One good note (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Madeline on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 02:36:53 PM EST
    New U.S. rules require insurance coverage for contraception

    In a news conference Monday, Sebelius cast the new rules as part of a broader effort in the new health-care law to build a nationwide system focusing on prevention. But she also said they were crucial to another of the law's goals: "to bring fairness to the health insurance market for women."

    New U.S. rules require insurance coverage for contraception.


    The rules cover all prescription contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including emergency options such as the so-called morning-after pill sold as Plan B and the more recently approved drug sold as Ella.

    "Since birth control is the most common drug prescribed to women ages 18 to 44, insurance plans should cover it," Sebelius said. "Not doing it would be like not covering flu shots."

    The new rules also apply to:

    ●"well-woman" checkups at least once a year and more frequently if necessary

    ●screening for diabetes in pregnant women

    ●DNA testing every three years for human papillomavirus (HPV) -- which is linked to certain cancers -- in women 30 years and older

    ●annual screening and counseling for HIV

    ●counseling to determine whether a woman is at risk for other sexually transmitted infections

    ●breast-feeding support, counseling and supplies such as breast pumps

    ●annual screening and counseling for domestic violence

    ●sterilization methods.

    Great news for women as states are cutting back services and demonizing birth control.  

    Thanks to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius


    throwing (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 02:49:08 PM EST
    Plan B in there too was fairly gutsy, in a good way.

    A wonderful move (none / 0) (#62)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 03:59:11 PM EST
    And, one that may have longer term ramifications for our society--beginning with the economically disadvantaged--than any number of the issue-of-the-day kind of thing. Another step in extending coverage...bit by bit.

    Not so much (none / 0) (#69)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 04:52:26 PM EST
     for those of us on individual insurance.

    Our rates will likely go up to the point where we're paying for it out of pocket anyway...and it may be more costly when it comes from increased premiums than if we just had to pay for it at the counter.

    These things are NEVER free...sorry to burst your bubble.


    preventative care (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by CST on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 05:16:47 PM EST
    drives down the cost of health care in the long run.

    Birth control is a lot cheaper for insurance companies to cover than pregnancies.


    asdf (none / 0) (#75)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 05:51:42 PM EST
    If that were true, insurance companies would be covering it this way already.  Birth control does not prevent WANTED pregancy, which is the majority of pregnancy.

    And the insurance companies only consider anything preventative care until you're diagnosed...

    For instance, a blood test is preventative until you're diagnosed with high cholesterol....then it's monitoring.

    A pap is only preventative until it's abnormal.

    A colonoscopy is only preventive if they don't find polyps.

    And guess what...the preventative care stipulation of the insurance law has already raised my rates...by a far greater amount than I paid out of pocket for preventative care....Dear, unless you are paying the full price of your own insurance, you lead a sheltered life.


    as recently (none / 0) (#76)
    by CST on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 06:42:11 PM EST
    as 2001, about 50% of all pregnancies are unplanned.  Link

    I was going to respond something longwinded to the rest but it got a bit too personal.  Let's just say that not being able to afford birth control has not always been a hypothetical situation for me, and for my own reasons, I feel pretty strongly about this.  But life is better now.  And I hope it will be for you someday soon.


    The whole (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 06:42:49 PM EST
    preventative care thing is a farce. My husband had a colonscopy and this is about the only time I have ever believed something Obama said. Obama lied when he said insurance would now cover colonoscopies. It does not. They found ONE benign polyp in my husband's colon and so we are out $1300.00. What a bunch of crap flows out of Obama's mouth w/r/t to HCR. I thought the bill was bad but it's EVEN WORSE than I thought.

    In Colorado Kaiser , colonoscopy is covered (none / 0) (#86)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:05:26 PM EST
    beginning this year. My husband's this summer was $0 (and, by chance, two other individuals whom I know also.) Previously, it was @$300.

    It's a bit more complex than that (none / 0) (#92)
    by Towanda on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:47:53 PM EST
    because preventive care, and catching a problem when it's small, come from seeing a physician regularly.

    One of the main reasons that women 20-40 will see a physician regularly is for birth control, perhaps an unexpected upside of the (unfair) bargain -- for women only -- that Margaret Sanger had to strike, i.e., that female birth control be by prescription, requiring that they see physicians regularly.

    That is, ob/gyns will tell you (as many in my family and among friends and neighbors have told me) that those appointments for birth control often are when the docs can do physicals and catch early cancers and other problems.

    So many women -- with insurance, anyway -- will be healthier because of forcing companies to provide better coverage, and catching more problems early ought to eventually reduce costs that soar for us all owing to late-stage cancers and the like.


    especially w/r/t Plan B (none / 0) (#70)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 05:01:20 PM EST
    we may finally be looking at a credible reason why Democrats will do better than Republicans at protecting women's reproductive freedom

    it's not hard to imagine that Plan B coverage will be the first thing to go if the GOP controls HHS


    She would be buried in the senate. (none / 0) (#39)
    by hairspray on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 01:38:54 PM EST
    She needs to be on a platform with Denis Kucinich.  He was the only person I heard calling out the ratings organizations for their malfeasance during the Bush years when they gave A+ ratings to the crap the hedge funder were selling.

    this is a terrible argument (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by CST on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 02:05:18 PM EST
    You're basically saying that anyone worth anything should not run for senate.

    And so we are left with the senate we have.  What's the point in complaining if we just accept that it will always $uck?

    We can only change politics if we are willing to actually change it.


    Has that happened recently? (none / 0) (#114)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 05:44:01 PM EST
    I still remember when HRC wanted to take on health care after she lost the primaries and she was buried by Kennedy, Kerry, Baucus and a few more like that.  She had a lot to offer but she wasn't going to be allowed to do so.  Pecking order you know.

    Durbin (none / 0) (#43)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 02:08:41 PM EST
    apparently consulted the Senate chaplain for advice on how to vote on this.  

    What made Durbin aka Mr. Super Committee of all people suddenly see some difficult moral issue in this, I do not know.  Durbin's presence in the Senate is one of the primary reasons I thought just about anything could get through, including a Grand Bargain.


    Some things are said for the TV cameras, all to (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jawbone on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 03:19:40 PM EST
    fool the rubes (aka voters).

    Lots of good, strong things were said yesterday, but then the person voted FOR the Obama abomination.

    I watch Jackson-Lee's speech, and I would have sworn she was going to vote NO.  But she voted Yes.

    14 House Dems who sent a letter strongly denouncing the legislation voted Yes.

    Infuriating, but the denunciations can be used in campaign ads.


    Maybe he did it so he can report that (none / 0) (#45)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 02:16:39 PM EST
    "God told him" to vote the way he did; isn't that the most popular justification these days?

    Don't blame God (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 03:03:38 PM EST
    for this disaster.  Speaking for Him (since everyone else seems to do so), I'm sure he's thinking "Leave me out of this disaster!"

    Everyone Loses (none / 0) (#60)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 03:50:53 PM EST
    If Republicans think they won, they may be in for a surprise. No one won on this.

    Congressional approval ratings are down to 12% and:

    "The survey also included an unusual question that dramatizes the way Americans feel about the overall debate. More than three out of four respondents said elected officials in Washington that have dealt with the debt ceiling debate have behaved "mostly like spoiled children" (77 percent) rather than "responsible adults" (17 percent)".

    We may have another election cycle when being an incumbent can be dangerous to your political health.

    clean sweep in Iowa (none / 0) (#63)
    by desmoinesdem on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 04:11:19 PM EST
    Both senators and all five U.S. House reps from Iowa voted no to this deal (for very different reasons, obviously). All the Democrats said it was imbalanced and put too much burden on the middle class while protecting the wealthy. All the Republicans said it didn't cut spending enough.

    To my knowledge, Iowa is the only state whose entire Congressional delegation rejected this deal. South Carolina came close, but Clyburn was a yes in the end.

    Ethanol subsidies might be expected to be cut (none / 0) (#64)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 04:22:55 PM EST
    during the reduction phase of the agreement. Any connection?

    Cutting ethanol subsidies would be good news (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Farmboy on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 05:12:23 PM EST
    for everyone but ConAgra and their friends, so it isn't going to happen.

    And yes, despite it all, I still laugh when some Tea Party farmer threatens, "gumment better keep away from my subsidies."


    I recall a connection to those subsidies (none / 0) (#100)
    by Rojas on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:25:32 PM EST
    and a former director of the EPA....
    All good science doncha know.
    Rhymes with downer.