Senators reach tentative $780B stimulus deal, sources say

[kpete]

Source: CNN

Senators reach tentative $780B stimulus deal, sources say Watch Now: Live on CNN.com.

February 6th, 2009
Stimulus agreement reached, sources say
Posted: 05:46 PM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Democratic and Republican Senate negotiators have reached a tentative agreement for a $780 billion stimulus package, according to two Democratic sources and a GOP negotiator.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has taken the list of cuts to the nearly $900 billion Senate bill to fellow Democrats, the sources said.

The Senate plans to reconvene at 6:30 p.m. ET.


Read more: http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/06/stimulus-agreement-reached-sources-say/

---

another good link with more info:

Tentative stimulus deal reached, sources say
Word comes after day of negotiations led by bipartisan group

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29050187/

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. hot

damn.

good.

[wryter2000]

2. I'm hopeful n/t

n/t

[acmavm]

8. Oh?

Eliminations:

Head Start, Education for the Disadvantaged, School improvement, Child Nutrition, Firefighters, Transportation Security Administration, Coast Guard, Prisons, COPS Hiring, Violence Against Women, NASA, NSF, Western Area Power Administration, CDC, Food Stamps

[GinaMaria]

12. heartbreaking.

Aren't food stamps one of the fastest acting methods to stimulate an economy? I thought I read that somewhere here. These are terrible losses. I hope they can be restored and delivered soon. They are needed.

[Believing Is Art]

15. I think that's from Moody's Economy

Food stamps and unemployment, then infrastructure. Corporate tax cuts are the worst, losing 70 cents on ever dollar of tax cut.

[earcandle]

33. 42% of the package is for tax cuts

[NeoConsSuck]

39. And that is a sellout

by the Democratic "leadership". I hope to hell it is voted down.

It has been shown tax cuts are the most inefficient way to create jobs. Obama did not want tax cuts.

They cut out a large portion of education spending and aid to states. And increased military spending.

Same old same old.

[GinaMaria]

52. so 70% of that we will never see a return on, correct?

This is depressing me.

[RantinRavin]

16. They have not said what the deal is yet

Those are nothing more than speculation.

[bdamomma]

18. maybe they can sneak it into another bill.

[jwirr]

25. Yes and they have not been raised in years. FU greedy bastards. nt

[No Elephants]

74. Seems as though Republicans hate to see poor people eat. Yet, they profess to be

"compassionate" conservatives and also profess to believe in the teachings of Jesus.

Go figure.

[truebrit71]

17. Are you joking or is that really what was negotiated out of the deal by our brave leader Reid?

If that is the case then we need to SERIOUSLY start a campaign to get rid of him as Senate Majority leader. He is absolutely fucking useless....

[No Elephants]

75. I emailed my Senators about replacing Reid as majority leader a couple of weeks ago. I

don't remember what triggered me then, LOL. Could have been anything. But, I'll do it again. I am so on board to dump him, just let me know when. While we're on the subject, it's probably time he retired from the Senate anyway.

[bdamomma]

20. TSA hmm... no more taking our shoes off perhaps?

damn those are vital programs they are cutting sickening.

[ConcernedCanuk]

53. only if you are going to throw them

.
.
.

:silly:

[DallasNE]

30. This Is Getting Real Close To A No From Me

But the devil is in the details. When I see Sen. Collins talking about increased defense spending while $80 billion is trimmed in overall spending it gives me chills. Then I saw your list of eliminations and understand. More tax cuts and more defense spending spells less stimulus and that is no good. Also, I think the CBO is a little overboard in the degree of "crowding out" of the private sector this would cause. First of all, the private sector will not be expanding any time soon with the huge inventory they still have to move. It could take up to two years before the private sector begins any meaningful hiring. Ben Nelson needs to explain how this compromise is an improvement.

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. Where does that list come from?

It's just that the articles I can find say food stamps are still in the bill - eg http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29050187/

[Hawkeye-X]

3. Negotiators? NEGOITATORS?! WHY THE FUCK ARE WE NEGOTIATING WITH THE ENEMY?

Republicans should be shut out of important bills like this one. All they do is fucking whine about tax cuts, tax cuts, more defense spending, tax cuts, oh and did I mention more tax cuts?

FUCK THEM.

PASS THE ORIGINAL BILL - YOU'LL BE SURPRISED HOW MANY REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO SUPPORT THE ORIGINAL BILL INSTEAD OF THE PORKOVIATED BILL!

I already emailed my senators to vote NO.

Hawkeye-X

[IndianaGreen]

6. Negotiating with the GOP is as counter productive as negotiating with the North Koreans

during the Korean War. They just want to beat us to death while we are talking to death in hopes of an armistice.

[unkachuck]

41. "They just want to beat us to death..."

....exactly....if reid had balls he would have put the House bill up for a vote and let the repugs knock it down....

....let's see how wall street and main street reacts when they hear the cavalry ain't comin'....after several weeks of public mutiny, and much brotherly and sisterly bonding between Obama and our repug friends, put the same House bill up again for another vote....repeat until the repugs get it right....

....wait a minute, maybe reid should ask bush for permission first....

[The Stranger]

4. Will the Right Wing Lying Echo Chamber continue with the 24/7 lies about "too much spending?"

Now that those pieces of shit are on board as to signing this thing?

Or are they going to pull the carpet out from under Reid at the last minute again?

[tom_paine]

58. Sure. RW Lies and Disinformation NEVER STOPS. Repetition works. Repetition works.

And the Bushies have, thanks to advances in pyschology, marketing, PR, and all-around manipulation of the unwitting consumer (not citizen), taken such doctrine to the penultimate heights.

It could have only worked if the Democratic Leadership remained clueless and frightened as the steel chains wrapped around them, where every conversation started with the Democrats in a hole and fighting uphill.

The Bushies can do whatever they want and suffer few consequences. They don't NEED voters. Statistical psychology makes sure they have the few they need, and those crazies don't need to be maintained in their loyalty, no matter what. Apparently, they can ostensibly "lose power" and still basically run things, and that doesn;t include the hundreds of Bushies now entrenched in our executive agencies who will continue to undermine the national strength as they ahve always done.

What has been done to us is an amalgam of the strategies of histories greatest tyrants, from Hitler and Caeser to the Afrikaeners' insidious methodology for disempowering the "Liberal British" in the 1940s.

Which is a lot to say that the overall answer is "yes", but it may be that the Bushiganda chooses, like the Commuists, to 100% reverse course. It's not like their followers would notice or do anything but obey the New Bushiganda, whether or not it contradicts the old Bushiganda.

[Duer 157099]

5. I almost hope that EVERY repug votes against it

FUCK THEM!!!

Even if it means the bill fails - because first off, they need to all all that stuff BACK IN that they pulled out - food stamps, etc - and then take it to the mat, let the fuckin' pukes fillibuster, at least let them have the blood all over their hands and faces, for all to see.

Reid needs to RESIGN!!

[liberalmuse]

10. I told him as much just now in an email.

I asked him to please render his resignation immediately and let someone with cojones like Boxer or Feingold take his place. I also told him he was the only person I'd ever regretted voting for (When I lived in Vegas--I've always voted Dem, and had not regretted it until he came along). I can't effing believe this shit. We need to purge DC of 98% of these fiends.

[quidam56]

7. The Republicans wouldn't think twice if W sent this bill in the form of more money for Wall Street.

Their America sure isn't My America http://www.wisecountyissues.com

[Mass]

9. What was cut? Tax cuts or help for the poorest? I would not bet.

F*ck Reid.

[Still Sensible]

11. Reid probably didn't even get a reach around. n/t

[glinda]

13. I'd like to see a bill over a cool trillion and get it right

[earcandle]

34. Me too!

[bemildred]

14. Heck, lets go for 2 trillion, it's our money, right?

Why be cheap about it?

[earcandle]

37. it's printed, and the federal reserve charges banks interest, with kick backs, I hear.

Why bother with these commercial banks and trying to get the
rich to lend and spend. 

Our collective taxes need to go to our own bank, a national
federal bank, the pays us more interest on savings and we pay
less interest on loans and the government now makes money on
our money instead of budgeting it out to earmarks.  

Let other banks work the interest, investment, and securities
side, but leave housing, auto, and start up funding and grants
to our own banks.  I can help!  

I think we can start looking at the bigger picture 
and redo what worked before and then get inventive. 

[Earth Bound Misfit]

19. They still need 1 more repuke...

Reid had met with key Republican moderates Susan Collins of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Both hoped to pare back nonessential spending items in the measure, while a third moderate, Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, worked with Democrats to trim the bill's $340 billion in tax cuts by perhaps $25 billion.

Reid suggested to reporters that he had two GOP backers for the bill but needed at least one more because neither wants to be the crucial 60th vote if all 58 members of the Democratic caucus support Obama.

[bdamomma]

21. are they still debating, just vote huh?

I wish President Obama walked in right now to shake things up.

[defendandprotect]

22. Good news if it passes and can always be expanded . . .

Looks like Reid was rather busy trying to placate "moderates" --- ???

I'm with the liberals ---

"The world is waiting to see what we're going to do in the next 24 hours," said Reid who has spent much of the week trying to balance demands among moderates in both parties with pressure for a larger bill from liberals in his own rank and file.

By midday, the majority leader had spoken once with Obama by phone and five times with Emanuel. He met with Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, but it was not immediately clear whether a deal was within reach.

[depakid]

23. "negotiations led by bipartisan group"

In other words- those willing to sell out the country for their own petty, ideological purposes. Dems going along with this need to face consequences- or else this will be the pattern for the next four years, just as it's been for the last 15+

Better yet:

If a compromise on trimming the bill cannot be reached — or if it will not fly with Democratic loyalists — the alternative for Senate Democrats to try to ram the measure through with just a few Republican supporters, such as Snowe.

That however would require courage and political fortitude- not characteristics currenly associated with the Democratic "leadership."

[MaineDem]

24. The only Dem in the group of four is Ben Nelson

Specter, Collins, and Lieberman are the others. Is this truly bi-partisan?

I don't know what to think. Although, I still detest Susie Collins.

[depakid]

26. I don;t understand why an otherwise sensible state like Maine keeps voting Republican

Their two Senators vote with the far right FAR MORE OFTEN than they side with the Dems. Boggles the mind why they're still in office.

[RBInMaine]

28. They are local heroes and convincingly brand themselves as "moderates." Also, folks up here often

vote person before party. Again, Snowe and Collins are well liked as individuals. Also, in the last election, Tom Allen, the D congressman who ran against Collins, ran a SHITTY campaign. WORSE than Dukakis. WORSE than McGovern. IT TOTALLY SUCKED. I voted for him, but his campaign frigging stunk to high heaven. Some Dems need to learn how to run a fucking campaign !

[depakid]

31. How with their voting records could they be percieved as moderates?

:shrug:

[tom_paine]

59. Because, like in Nazi Germany, the very infrastructure of shared reality has been broken down.

It's quite unbelievable. Because of the infested, parasitized, neutralized media, and the rest of the massive Bushiganda Goebbels v2.0, any Bushie can say damned near any lies and have it laundered into "truth", or at least throw up so much squid ink in the water that the disinterested just throw their hands up in confusion.

This benefits the tyrants and liars. In other words, the Bushies and what remains of the old Republican Party.

On the flip side, as Bradbury, Huxley and a host of dystopian novelists correctly predicted, the 2-1 silencing of the Dems on TV works as it has always worked. As the laws of advertising and PR and statistical behavioral psychology dictate it will work. It is a psychological fact that repetition lends verisimilitude to lies, and blocks any facts from getting through. The "last word" theory and the Discount Rate (as it pertains to primate psychology), to name two.

Anyway, the Bushies built this machine, and the Democratic Leadership let them. The machine is built and now cemented as Conventional Wisdom, where all conversations start. The Nutsies are as zealous and indefatigable as Nazis.

Vitter gets diapered by prostitutes and gets a standing ovation in the well of the Senate. Spitzer goes to a call girl and is immediately and without fail destroyed.

How can they be perceived as moderates? Easy. The Bushies moved the goalposts, which is a little to cover a LOT of stuff, much more than I have brought up in this post. Every Bushie, so long as they aren't openly calling for the murder of liberals, are "moderates".

FDR Democrats and people who believe in the words of the Founding Fathers are Communist Stalinists.

That's the way it is, and even the "sensible middle" internalizes these insane re-engineered conventional wisdoms. That's the nature of good advertising and PR. The nature and aim of it: to burrow into the subconscious where people can't defend against it.

Our Democratic Leaders let it cement into stone, and now I am not sure there is any way to undo it.

Obama is trying, using the power of the Enlightenment...reason and brilliant words, motivation and exhortation, like Jefferson, Madison and Paine.

Your question has led me to perhaps the Ultimate Question? Can the Enlightenment and the Founding Fathers triumph against the cold modulate propaganda machine, itself patterned after Hitler's and Stalin's media takeovers?

We shall find out. The jury is still out, but the signs don't look good. Of course, while I have been correct about alot of shit, I have been wrong sometimes, too.

So maybe these signs aren't as bad as I think. We are in this for the long haul.

[RBInMaine]

27. I say FUCK THE R's too, BUT you need 60 votes. The problem is the F-ING Senate rules. I say take

the compromise. Dems still got most of what they wanted. Re-PUKES wanted to gut it and take it down to 500 billion or less.

[debbierlus]

29. That is NOT true. You need 51 votes to pass a bill. They won't filibuster, they are cowards

And, if they did, NOOSE it around their necks and expose them as the treasnous cowards that they are...

[NeoConsSuck]

48. You need 60 votes

on any bill that raises the federal deficit.

Although even if they only needed 51, Reid still would have caved.

[RBInMaine]

57. Reid would not have caved. Also, you need 60 votes for cloture or NO bill vote happens.

[No Elephants]

78. If true, that is only because of a Senate Rule, not the COTUS. A majority of the

Senate can change the rule.

[earcandle]

32. This is bullshit.

The 4 members of the "Bi-Partisan" decision:

(D) (Nelson)the conservative one
(R) Three Republicans: Snow
(R) Three Republicans: Spector,
(R) Three Republicans: Collins? Maine?
(I) Lieberman, an Independent, representing as the second
Democrat?

Why are these conservative senators making these decisions?  
There is not one progressive person in that group.

Why don't we leave Dennis in charge of these things? 

Harry Reid is so soft and stupid.  He is so not there. 
Dennis will rile them all up to something evolutionary,
demanding authenticity, until the group gels.  


Man, our representatives should be doing acting exercises 
together to develop their ability to be assertive, authentic.
They need assertiveness training, or be exposed as
non-representing.

42% of the Stimuls is for tax cuts but for the workers its
about $25 per week.
But for a lot of us it means nothing cause most of us do not,
cannot, pay any taxes, 
and those who can continues on their Bush policies.   

Nothing in here on the sub-prime?  Do they intend to genocide
these people?  
Or is there another "stimulus" finally coming for
foreclosures? 
Why are foreclosures last, when foreclosures were the platform
upon which the first TARP was even allowed? 

I never thought I would suggest this: 

Take their decision, and do a signing statement. 
Get us out of this cesspool using their tactics. Bush did it. 
Give the America folks the things you declared on your
website. 
Get your group to go to work raising money for the projects
while collecting interest on taking on our debts.  
And once we get to work, we'll put our payroll taxes in their
as well.  And Social Security can be a part of
that bank and get replenished again.  We, who need it soon,
worked and paid into that, and expect it to be there. 
Set up federal national banks, buy the toxic assets, abandon
the commercial banks and recoup the money there.

Don't do any more wars.  

BTW: Why are we in Afghanistan?  Wasn't it originally to get
Bin Laden?
Hiding out in Pakistan?  Uh, you say we created some
insurgents there?  Somebody to kill? 
This is an industry, a profit making industry using people as
gun fodder.  What the fuck?
Are we done with these bastards yet?  

Select Dean or Harkin for HHS. 

These four war mongers soothe sleepyheads and conformists
alike, 
when preaching so nice to the sheeples and the meekles. 

I get so riled up myself. 

[bottomtheweaver]

35. Hoo-ray, it's now bipartisan, just like the billionaire bailouts.

Tax cuts for developers, bankers, brokers, and new car buyers, because, well just because. Sorry about all you jobless and homeless suckers, but money's kinda tight these days ya know?

And anyway it's bipartisan!!

[CLANG]

36. Susan Collins is deplorable

"Collins circulated a roster proposing $88 billion worth of net cuts from the measure. She proposed eliminating money in the bill for K-12 education while boosting funding for Pentagon operations, facilities and procurement by $13 billion.":mad:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29050187/

[lelgt60]

38. Question: What's wrong with Forbes suggestion for eliminating payroll tax?

I'm watching this now CNN. I bring it up here because the posters here are interested in this subject.

While most DU'ers dislike Forbes, on the surface, he seems to have a point here. It would be immediate. It immediately helps low income people.

Am I missing something?

[bottomtheweaver]

42. If he's talking about FICA, it's another ploy to kill Social Security.

And that's what somebody else was suggesting on NPR, so I guess this is the latest puke ploy.

[lelgt60]

45. Hadn't thought of that. I thought he meant withholding...

I guess that would also require a tax cut or you'd just end up paying it later.

Now I'm not sure what he meant.

[bottomtheweaver]

46. Some "economist" mentioned a 3-month withholding tax holiday on NPR

and the announcer clarified that he was talking about FICA, so that's all I know, but if Forbes is for it, it's a pretty good bet that's what this is -- yet another dishonest attempt to wreck the SSA.

[placton]

40. Dems selling out out!

42% is tax cuts - all reductions in spending to help real folks. Nader was right. Dems,with 51 votes, can eliminate 60 votes for filibuster, replace with 51. We got fooled again - watch Obama tell us how great this is.

[janx]

43. I've been watching this on C-Span.

There are some who will always be pissed off, and I don't agree with all in the bill, but I'm impressed with what has happened so far.

[placton]

47. My friend please explain what impresses you? n/t

[jeanmarc]

44. We are in for tough times

If the initial figures of 40-50% of the stimulus is tax cuts, it's weakening an already too weak stimulus.

I'm going to be very disappointed if the spending in needed areas was cut.

[natrat]

49. yea i was reading that that 200 billion in cuts equates to 2 million jobs not created

[ConcernedCanuk]

54. " We are in for tough times" - yup I'm afraid you are correct

.
.
.


AND

Most of us have no idea HOW tuff

[GeorgeGist]

50. Mr. Profit is not happy tonight.

Only $420 billion for him?

[xchrom]

51. not enough spent on infrastructure. nt

[AyanRand Is Dead]

55. Even when we win, we lose.

Damn

[OneBlueSky]

60. maybe Obama should just attach a "signing statement" to the bill . . .

re-allocating the funds the way he wants them to be allocated . . . what's good for the goose, as they say . . .

[OnionPatch]

61. Now you're talking!

If only......

[newspeak]

62. It's really a shame that some Americans

still listen to knuckledraggers, like Limpballs. For approximately five years, the American taxpayer has paid for a bogus war, an unnecessary war, that we pay approximately ten billion dollars each month. When Rumsfeld was in the Pentagon, he admitted that approximately two trillion dollars, get that, two trillion dollars were unaccounted. We paid for a bank bailout, with little or no accounting. But, the minute a bill comes across to help working Americans and save our infrastructure, it is "soiled" by the same assholes that put us in the present condition. Limpballs got his corporate soapbox, telling his ditto heads that this bill is nothing but entitlements, blah, blah, blah. We have had eight years of tax cuts, especially to the wealthiest in this country, and the majority of American taxpayers have foot the bill for their corporate welfare. But, anything to help create jobs or help the elderly or help those losing their houses--all of a sudden, it's an entitlement. This bill sucks big time, if the Democrats have to kiss repug ass by giving more tax cuts to the unworthy, to give working Americans just a little relief. Okay, everybody let's keeping saying it over and over until the clueless get it-TRICKLE ON ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK-even Poppy Bush called it "voodoo economics"--your god Reagan was wrong.

To me, this bill should be close to a trillion dollars, instead of a thousand small bloody cuts by the Repugs. To jump start a spiraling down economy-we need major reform!!!!

[earcandle]

63. it is written! twice

Do the signing statement thing, Obama.

Stop kissing ass for fence sitters and adversarial time wasters.

Just do your job, as promised, and let the good times roll.

goose/gander........like the DUers above suggested.

Let get some new business happening in America!

I be if we focus on disease prevention we could cause a whole new industry.

We got to stop taking those pills.


If you do decriminalize pot, you can reduce crime economy funding a lot because those kids who are dealing pot on the street will be able to legitimately handle their child care support cases, get out of the gang and street related crimes, and a whole slew of crimes currently taking tax dollars for something that should be sold over the counter, or from these already in place dealers with a little start up expense for small business training and development.

And, again.... why are we in Afghanistan? Wasn't it to go after Bin Laden? Why have we created "insurgents" out of people who live in their own lands? Didn't we train the Taliban to take down Russia. Didn't they help us? Why are we invading their country again? Can someone help me out here? I don't want troops in Afghanistan. It is stupid and dangerous for those people. We have been stealing their opium and selling it on the black market. That is what we are doing there, right?

[margotb822]

64. Deal announced on emergency econ stimulus bill

Source: AP

WASHINGTON – With job losses soaring nationwide, Senate Democrats reached agreement with key Republicans Friday night on an economic stimulus measure at the heart of President Barack Obama's plan for combatting the worst recession in decades.

"The American people want us to work together. They don't want to see us dividing along partisan lines on the most serious crisis confronting our country," said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one of two GOP senators who signaled support for the bill.

Officials put the cost of the measure at $780 billion in tax cuts and new spending combined. No details were immediately available, and there appeared to be some confusion even among senators about the price tag as floor debate continued late into the night.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/congress_stimulus

---

I hope this doesn't include those crappy cuts in the plan from earlier today, but I think it does. Ugh...

[willing dwarf]

65. Never thought I see the day

When $780bil just didn't seem like very much to me. But looking at the Yahoo article my first thought was, why did they pare it down to so little? This is pathetic, this will stimulate, maybe, the pinky and ring finger of the whole economy. I'm worried it's really going to be too little too late.

Americans are resourceful people, but we've had the ground dug out under our feet. How are we supposed to build on that?

[placton]

66. We get sold out again

42% tax cuts - my god - there are ppl starving and homeless. This pretty much tears it for me. Obama and a big majority - rolling over again. Nader was right all along.

[femmocrat]

68. Why the f*ck are the repubs still pulling the strings?

This really has me upset. What kind of tax cuts anyhow? Dammit.

[tom_paine]

71. Because America is not a democratic-republic anymore, but an Inverted Totalitarianism.

If you think about it, the Repugs ruled during Clinton, and they rule now, as much as is possible without tipping their hands that freedom and democracy are long in the past for the American Subject Populace.

And until the crash hits hard, anyway, this was the nicest Totalitarian Tyranny that ever was.

Yes, the Repugs are still calling the shots. Yes, it's a puzzlment, much as it was in the very early 1930s when the Nazis had not yet gained majority power and the Chancellorship, yet still started running things in the "soft power" way long before Hitler ascended.

That was Hitler's Plan, to destroy the hated freedoms from within, after he had been defeated when trying it the "old fashioned way".

Quite frankly, the Bushies, after being defeated in their own Nazi-like putsch attempt in 1934-5, seem to have made a similar vow and have been successful at fufilling it.

Now, America is completely prostrate and unable to defend itself. Bushie Lies, so similar in structure and shameless audacity as Nazi Lies, are now our conventional wisdom.

I am sure the Bushies wanted to steal this election, but this is not Nazi Germany and ths such ham-fisted tactics cannot yet be performed.

But there will come a time. The Bushies will be back, and resume right where they left off.

UNLESS, Obama's Enlightenment strategy of reason and Old American Values is going to work against Nazis or Bushies. It never has before, and in the "kinder and entler nazi Way" that IS the Bushies, it certainly got it's ass kicked this time.

[Ishoutandscream2]

73. Sadly, you are exactly right

Nazi power was actually waning a bit when Hitler was made chancellor. And yet, the Nazis' "soft power" (excellent term) somehow pushed them into power. The Republicans are that soft power today, and after the way they have been dominating the media these past few days, it's no wonder. The whore media is complicit with these goons, and the propaganda has been flowing like fine wine.

Inverted totalitarianism is so true. I have not wanted to believe it, but I believe it's where we're at. it is truly frightening.

[No Elephants]

76. Refresh my recollection: When the Pubs ruled Clinton, were they in the majority? (If

Dems are letting Pubs rule them with the kind of majorities the Dems have now, Dem voters are so screwn.)

[tom_paine]

81. Yes. I checked. Obama has the exact same majority in the house Clinton did in '93.

A little smaller in the Senate. Obama has a LARGER margin in the Senate (Clinton had Dems 56-44, I think).

So yes, when you say Dems are letting Pubs rule them with the kind of majorities the Dems have now that is factually 100% correct.

And yes, Dem voters are so "screwn", as ultimately, is the entire cause of human libertyu, if it survives Bushification andthe coming of global Inverted or Classical Totalitarianism.

Obama rode in and the Bushie Lie Machine spit him out like he was nothing, no observable change in the customary Corporate M$M template. Same as 2001, same as 1998, same as the Ollie North Psyops of '87 and '88, test prototypes to see how easy it was to fool the M$M with obvious lies, and have the M$M launder said lies for them.

Answer: It was EASY! Ollie North has a 92% approval rating! :rofl:

We let it get too far, and now it very likely cannot be stopped except by .

[No Elephants]

82. Oh, I thought you might know off the top of your head. I did not mean for you to

check on my behalf. I'd never expect anyone to do that.

I've just googled to see if the Dems actually do need sixty votes to increase the budget deficit. Apparently they do. And, if this source is correct, the only reason they need sixty votes for this, instead of a simple majority, is that the Dems decided that some time between 2006 and now. Arrrggghhh!

http://litterblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/this-fact-could-have-been-mentioned.html

[hangman86]

67. Ugh! A compromise of two Republicans, a DINO, and LIEberman!

If fucking Franken was in the Senate and Kennedy wasn't sick, things might have been a little different. But why dwell on that now? This is a disgrace. Spineless Dems and Ditto-Head Repukes will drag this country to the grave. And who do you think the wing-nuts are gonna blame if this bill doesn't do it's expected job? Obama. And what reason will they give? Not enough tax cuts!

ARGHHHHHH! :mad: :argh: :freak: :hurts: :grr: :nuke:

[margotb822]

69. Yea

I have no idea how the Repugs got any say. They're counting on, what, two Repub votes? Fuck them like they fucked us...

[RBInMaine]

70. Hold on now folks, WE NEED 60 VOTES. With that, there is NO choice to compromise a little bit.

I say FUCK THE R's too. HOWEVER, you MUST have 60 votes. We ain't got it. So, we have to bend some. BUT, consider this, if we get around 800 billion and MOST of the investments we want with MOST tax cuts for working people, it is at least a semi-FUCK YOU to the R's who wanted complete trickle down and to gut the bill entirely. Make no mistake, MOST R's will still vote against it, and yet it WILL pass. So please see the big bicture. Obama and Dems will get an 80% to 90% victory out of this, and we WILL be able to give the bird to MOST Republicans in Congress. It's the Senate rules folks. We DID NOT just lay down and roll over.

[tom_paine]

72. Why, then, does it always work the same, no matter how much of a majority the Dems have.

Don't know how long you have been hip to what has been going on in this country, but I was one of the handful who saw it coming in 2000, and recognized the elements of what was coming far sooner, though I couldn't piece together the full puzzle until the Bushies showed their hand of naked tyranny in 2000 and beyond.

You've got some catching up to do. Let me try to be brief about some huge concepts that don't lend themselves to brevity.

Ask yourself. Why does it ALWAYS take 60 for the Democrats to pass something and why does it always take 50 when Bushies need and get something passed? Please, no civics lessons - I know my civics, I am asking you to think beyond such trivia as the civics of the filibuster and see the forest for the trees. Why do the Bushies ALWAYS drive the debate, whether they are in or out of power? Why do Democrats continue to yield after decades of knowing quite well that the Republicans view it like the nazis, foolish liberal weakness.

You are looking at things in the Old American way, but that nation is gone and it's probably not coming back. We live in this new creation of the Bushies. Our National Dialogue is infantilized and insane, our media is incapable of performing it's job, unless it's job is helping to build False Bushie Realities and following in the slime trail of Bushie Psycholinguistic Frames and memes, which are now the Conventional Wisdom of our national Dialogue much in the same way the nazis made their insanity the Conventional Wisdom of German Dialogue.

And established conventional wisdom is the place from which all conversations start.

Now, you have a start. Here are a few books and other things to read to further help you understand this new nation in which we all live.

http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/20080515_chalmers_johnson_on_our_managed_democracy/

http://www.amazon.com/Blinded-Right-Ex-Conservative-David-Brock/dp/1400047285/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234016404&sr=8-1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/jaspers02.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Defying-Hitler-Memoir-Sebastian-Haffner/dp/0312421133/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1234016608&sr=8-1

The bottom line is this: What you say makes perfect sense, if this was 1978 or 1962. But this nation has almost nothing to do with what went on in that wholly different nation (as different as the Roman Republic was from the Roman Empire that followed it).

You are thinking "in CNN" and that is as disastrous in many ways as believing the German Media, even the 'liberal parts", in 1934.

Is there the possibility that Obama can turn this around. Absolutely. But you must understand, ultimately, the magnitude of what is trying to be turned around.

[No Elephants]

77. IMO, nothing is going to turn around from the top (or from

the media).

It's going to be up to us, but we are American voters are way too apathetic. Not only that, but talking and posting has become a substitute for action. Worse, talking and posting has come to be equated with action.

Unless we find some way to motivate people, band together and take concerted action, we are screwn. And, while I am a believer in setting and accomplishing goals, I fear we are screwn.

[tom_paine]

79. I hope you are wrong, but believe you are likely right...

:-(

[No Elephants]

80. After I posted, I clicked on your truthdig link and started to read. My analysis

is certainly not as detailed as his, but I noted he and I agree as to apathy:

“Every apathetic citizen is a silent enlistee in the cause of inverted totalitarianism.”

(I see his "silent" and raise him "clueless.")

If Peter Zenger could do it with broadsides, no Internet and no automobiles, trains, etc., we should be able to do it, but I am not sure how. I wish I knew how to make something go viral.