breaking...the house failed to pass unemployment extension

[spanone]

there you go....will post link. just reported on m$nbc

link: House fails to extend unemployment benefits

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/18/news/economy/unemployment_benefits_extension/index.htm

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. The House? Or do you mean the Senate?

[NNN0LHI]

2. House

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. WTF? Democrats still control the House until January 3

[spanone]

16. this is why the last election came out the way it did. imho

[Capitalocracy]

92. This is exactly why.

People want leadership. Even if they don't agree 100% with what they do, they want leadership.

[KamaAina]

29. They tried to pass it using the fast-track rules

thus, it needed a two-thirds majority.

[Better Believe It]

41. I think they did it that way so it would be guaranteed to fail. Thank you Nancy Pelosi!

[Better Believe It]

43. It looks like Democratic congressional leaders are always looking for ways to kill good legislation.

Thank you Nancy Pelosi for once again showing us how its done!

[Freddie Stubbs]

51. Then they simply have to pass it under the regular rules

[walldude]

81. Because they haven't learned or because they are stupid?

Those are the last 2 options. When they did this on the 9/11 first responders bill it cost those people dearly so Republicans could continue to line the pockets of their foreign donors. How many times do the Repugs need to show their colors before the Democrats see them?

[eridani]

67. It was fast track, so it needed 2/3

My question is why the fast track?

[de novo]

76. To ensure an excuse for not getting it done?

[Capitalocracy]

93. We think the Republicans are the only ones who can play hardball

But these Dems really stand their ground. They find procedures to make sure they get bipartisanship or nothing! Apparently they're playing hardball, but only when it comes to making sure Republicans are the only ones who can define the agenda.

[MrsCorleone]

62. The House. Link to roll call:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-579

[Hannah Bell]

3. fuckers. just in time for the holidays.

[Brickbat]

4. Fucking ridiculous.

[Old and In the Way]

5. So, I guess they won't be holding this up as hostage on taxcuts?

No reason not to force the vote now on middle class taxcuts.

[quinnox]

6. Meanwhile, tax cuts for the rich will have no trouble passing

Oh well, screw those lazy unemployed people anyway, they need to get off their ass and get in those fields picking berries if they have to! Serves them right.

:sarcasm:

[theaocp]

7. Well, I'm sure the tax cuts will create jobs

:sarcasm: Since I'm on a sarcastic roll here, why not just cut taxes for those in the upper 2% to ZERO and they'll make enough jobs for everybody? Hey, where'd everybody go? What's with all the crickets?

[Crazy Dave]

8. If they would work half as hard for the unemployed....

As they did to keep their own jobs in the mid-terms this wouldn't happen.

[neverforget]

9. Austerity for the poor and the middle classes continues

:argh:

[Mass]

10. delete

[gateley]

11. I. Hate. Them. nt

[PBS Poll-435]

35. 98% of our team voted on it

Weird 2/3rds Rule on this bill.

Can't seem to find out why. Might be related to "increasing the budget defecit".

[Love Bug]

13. I'm not surprised

This is a lame duck session and it's a sure bet once the new Congress reconvenes in January there will be no more talk about tiers or extensions for anyone. The political bonus for them is Obama will get blamed for it because the American public is too stupid to know how their government works.

From: Congress
To: The Unemployed
Merry Fucking Christmas! (now go away and die already)

[tridim]

14. The Republicans just destroyed millions of lives.

Congratulations assholes.

[CherokeeDem]

15. I am one of them....

Most likely in 30 days...I'll be homeless...after 15 months of trying very hard to find a job. I am done with politics. There is no compassion for people...only concern for their corporate gods. Bastards all.

[Love Bug]

18. I feel your pain, CherokeeDem

My UI benefits ran out in August. Currently I'm living off savings but that won't last very much longer. If my own Congress critters weren't good liberals I'd be done with politics, too. I'll support liberals that actually act and govern like liberals but all the rest can go to hell.

[Mojorabbit]

28. Don't Dems still have control of the house? nt

[tridim]

38. Blue dog dems are Republicans.

So no.

[pinto]

48. Here's the vote tally (needed 2/3 to pass)

Democratic: Yeas - 237, Nays - 11, No vote - 7
Republican: Yeas - 21, Nays - 143, No vote - 15

Totals: Yeas - 258, Nays - 154, No vote - 22

[pinto]

17. Fast-track submission - needed 2/3 vote to pass, got a majority, but not 2/3.

"Democrats brought the measure to the floor under fast-track rules that required a two-thirds vote to pass, so the measure fell despite winning a majority."

*************************

The Republicans own this one. And unless another approach is found that works in the short time left, every Dem will carry that message, sadly, home to their district on Thanksgiving break.

Republicans blocked unemployment extension. ~ pinto

[hfojvt]

20. aha, so that detail finally comes out

Of course, Pelosi will still be blamed for choosing to put this on fast track. Yet that's probably the alternative to Republicans offering dozens of amendments or sending it through a couple of committees.

[pinto]

46. Agree. It was a shot, given the time window on the thing.

:hi:

[walldude]

82. Except this fast track has been tried before...

and failed for the same damn reasons. It was tried on the 9/11 first responders vote, because Dems thought there was NO WAY Republicans would deny 9/11 first responders medical care. This excuse is no longer valid. You can't say the Dems didn't have a chance to learn from their mistakes.

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. For all those who voted Republican, there's nothing that can save you now.

[piratefish08]

21. Don't we still control the House? Am I missing something here?

[dixiegrrrrl]

22. 258 lawmakers voted in favor of the extension, while 154 voting against it.

To pass the House, the bill needed to capture two-thirds of the votes --


The bill would have extended special federal unemployment insurance benefits through February, calling for $12.5 billion in emergency spending.

Without an extension, long-term jobless workers will start losing benefits in coming weeks, with about two million cut off by the end of the year.


Anyone find the vote tally yet????

[quinnox]

27. that seems close to 2/3rds, how many did they need to pass it?

Anyone know the number they needed? Maybe they could try again and round up a few more votes.

[dixiegrrrrl]

37. 275 votes were needed, says here:

The $12.5 billion bill that was on the floor Thursday needed two-thirds approval, or 275 votes, a tough hurdle.

The vote was 258 to 154.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/18/news/economy/unemployment_benefits_extension/index.htm

Since we only have 255 Dems....looks like nothing can pass as long as our "majority" House requires 2/3.

and you KNOW the votes are carefully lined up long before the 'public" count.

[quinnox]

39. thanks

Dang, that is a tough number to get. Maybe they can figure something else out to try and get this passed.

[PBS Poll-435]

40. 'Present and Voting'

And you are exactly right.

[MrsCorleone]

58. 275 to pass. nt

[mfcorey1]

23. I want a list of anydemocrat who voted against it. I knew those f@@@ on the right would not vote

for it.

[krawhitham]

26. we only have 251 dems in the house

[dixiegrrrrl]

32. Wiki says we have 255 Dems, Repubs have 178, and there are 2 vacancies.

So, we needed 2/3 of 433 votes =uhhhh......help....somebody calculate that, I am math deficient.

[mfcorey1]

24. I want a list of anydemocrat who voted against it. I knew those f@@@ on the right would not vote

for it.

[mfcorey1]

25. I want a list of any democrats who voted against it. I knew those f@@ks on the right would not

vote for it.

[TwilightGardener]

30. Oh well. This is the kind of result America voted for.

This is what we all get. Happy Thanksgiving.

[PBS Poll-435]

54. Not til January. This was our current House. nt

[PBS Poll-435]

31. Missed it by 1 or 2 votes

Zach Space and Kennedy better have a good reason for missing this vote.

[dixiegrrrrl]

34. Whoa...who all missed the vote?????

[PBS Poll-435]

36. I screwed up. We needed 275 by YOUR math. I was thinking 60/100 rather than 2/3rds.

But 22 did not show up.

Barrett (SC)
Boozman
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Coble
Davis (KY)
Delahunt
Duncan
Fallin
Gallegly
Kennedy
Kirk
Linder
Lynch
McMahon
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Radanovich
Space
Terry
Westmoreland


Mostly 'Pubs.

[dixiegrrrrl]

49. 7 are Dems. Still not enough votes if they had showed up.

But t Kennedy not showing up to vote ?????

[Hannah Bell]

69. isn't that the republican kennedy, not a jfk relation?

[JPZenger]

33. 6 months UC and no help with health insurance

Anyone who becomes unemployed today will only get 6 months of unemployment compensation and no help with health insurance costs.

[csziggy]

42. NAY votes and not voting

On the site, "Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined" so the party designation does not copy.
Go to: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll579.xml

NAYS 154
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (TN)
Djou
Dreier
Emerson
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rehberg
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING 22 ---

Barrett (SC)
Boozman
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Coble
Davis (KY)
Delahunt
Duncan
Fallin
Gallegly
Kennedy
Kirk
Linder
Lynch
McMahon
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Radanovich
Space
Terry
Westmoreland

[PBS Poll-435]

44. A little surprised by some on the Nay list

Djou, Cao, and Bono Mack...

[csziggy]

45. I guess I should call up Boyd's office and complain at him for voting Nay

:wtf: He already lost the election - why not be generous in his lame duckitude?

[csziggy]

50. Took a look at Boyd's page - he supports tax cuts for the richest

While voting against unemployment extensions. :grr:

I called his office and even his Washington office did not know how he had voted on the unemployment extension. I had to tell his people which bill number and which roll call! Then they tried to tell me there is no connection between his stance on tax breaks and unemployment compensation extensions - BS! If he wants to be a fiscal conservative, fine, but don't give billions to rich people who won't spend it while not helping out people who would spend every penny just to stay afloat for few more months.

I told the woman at his office that votes like this are why I did not vote for Boyd in the primaries. That as long as he is going out, he might as well be kind to the average person instead of padding the pockets of the ultra-wealthy That I would be happy to pay more taxes to help out the people who have not been able to get jobs because of the Bush Recession, but I would NOT be happy to support tax cuts for people who don't need them.

FUCK Boyd.:nuke:

[IMATB]

61. We shouldn't have to

pay more taxes for this. America gives money hand over fist to anyone with their hand out and we can't help our own ?

That's fucked up.

There is no way the people in Washington live in the real world. If they did they would NOT have voted the way they did.

How about we the people starve their asses for a few months. See how real they'll get then.

This makes me so angry.

[dixiegrrrrl]

52. we needed 2/3 of 412 votes ( 412 were present to vote)

And 11 Dems voted NO.

So, if all Dems had showed and voted, that would have been 419 voting.

we would have needed 2/3 of 419 votes = 279.

But there are only 276 total Dems, so the votes was doomed to fail unless some Republicans voted for it.

How did Sanders and LIE-berman vote.?

[PBS Poll-435]

53. Sanders and Liebergrinch are in the Senate. nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

66. Never miiind...........

[Better Believe It]

47. So if it looks like a bill will pass the House you switch to "fast track" rules to kill it!

So super-majority votes are now needed in both the House and Senate to pass anything progressive under Democratic leadership rules.

That should help preserve the status quo until Republicans take control of the House and even greater control of the Senate in January.

(Democrats are technically in control of the Senate but some are there to function as Republican enablers)

If Democrats controlled 100 Senate seats they might pass a liberal/progressive agenda .... or maybe not, because at least 41 of them would be southern centrists and everyone knows you need 60 votes to pass legislation in the Senate .... well, that's what they keep telling us anyway.

[pinto]

55. I think it was more a matter of getting it done before the recess and the Dec. 1st expiration date,

not an intent to "kill it". It was introduced on the 17th, voted on today, i.e. fast tracked.

The usual track on bills filed under standard procedures can take weeks to get to the floor out of Committee. Fast track short circuited that, but needed 2/3 to pass under House rules. :hi:

[Better Believe It]

57. Wasn't that bill filed well before the recess began and if not, why not?

Have a 1 hour hearing, vote in committee and move it to the floor.

Act like Republicans!

[pinto]

60. Introduced yesterday -

Rep. Sander Levin, a Michigan Democrat, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee,
introduced the bill with Rep. Jim McDermott, a Washington Democrat, on Wednesday.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/18/news/economy/unemployment_benefits_extension/index.htm

[Igel]

71. Why not?

We watched the same spectacle last time, for precisely the same reasons with precisely the same kinds of claims and counter-claims.

This could have been put to a vote 6 months ago. Or more. It was predictable that it would be needed. No, strike that: It was predicted that it would be needed. Fairly commonly predicted, to be sure.

BUT if it's not an "emergency measure"--no matter how far in advance the emergency can be predicted, no matter how much people delay dealing with the problem until it's suddenly an emergency because of the dawdling--then it's under different budget rules. No longer is it a normal budget matter; no, it's off budget because it's an emergency, and pay-go isn't supposed to apply. That means finding spending cuts or tax increases to make the bill deficit-neutral. Pelosi doesn't want to do that. Pelosi can proudly say that she supports pay-go and abides by it.

But if it's an emergency you need to fast-track it. You can't let the bill's carcass sit around for weeks as it's picked over, chewed on, and amended and debated ad infinitum, even if all the amendments fail and the debate is eventually shut down. Doing that means that it's not really an emergency. And, voila, pay-go kicks in.

"Ooh, look, a petard."
"That's mine! You can't have it, I'm going to be busy tomorrow hoisting myself on it."
"Well, then. Have a blast!"

[PBS Poll-435]

56. Honestly. Rep. Slaughter. New Rule. Passed before the end of the year.

Probably this month.

But terrifying to those that depend who on these benefits to choose between the Holidays and putting food into their kid's stomachs.

[Better Believe It]

59. What did President Obama do to campaign for a yes vote in the House?

[jeanpalmer]

70. Is there a bully pulpit in that WH?

Or have they all donned their pink tutus?

[MadHound]

63. Once again we see the outstanding strategy being used by the Dems

You don't fast track a bill unless you've already got the needed number of votes in your pocket, you just don't. That's House leadership 101. Instead you take the time, submit it early enough so that it can be voted on, and passed, in the normal, non-2/3 margin fashion.

But once again we're going hear lame excuses for poor Democratic strategy. :puke:

[the redcoat]

64. We can't extend unemployment benefits because we have to pay for the top 2%'s tax cuts!

It would be fiscally irresponsible, kind of.

[KillCapitalism]

65. The 3rd worldization of America.

Most third world countries are measured by the number of people who live on less than $2 a day.

If you're unemployed and your benefits expire, technically you're living on less than $2 a day.

[Dragonfli]

68. Fuck them all, I'm done - they only work for the rich at least since Reagan INCLUDING Clinton

and 99% of the so called Democratic party. That party died years ago.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dragonfli]

74. They chose to use an option needing 2/3 guaranteeing a loss, they knew what they were doing

Since you are accusing a fellow DUer of lying, what am I lying about?
Hero worship does not feed the needy, so I suggest you take your pie and feed a family with it that will be living in the street soon.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dragonfli]

89. 99% do work for the rich, I am sorry if you are too fragile to see what is before your eyes.

The party I joined was the one that established the New Deal, not the one that "welfare reformed" people into the streets to live,
not the one that champions trade deals that send all the jobs overseas. That is your party and they appear to have stolen the name.
Just because the alternative is the fascist party GOP does not change the fact that no one will stand up for the non rich in any meaningful way.

I await the return of my party, if they choose to come back home to the people they will get the same support they got from me for thirty years.
It has just become too much for me to take anymore, I am not here to support wealthy people that don't want for anything.

[de novo]

78. Dog and pony show. The Dems could have passed this anytime,

and without the 'fast track' super majority needed. They failed. It can be debated why they failed, but the Democratically held House failed to pass this.

[tridim]

79. It failed because of the Republicans voted against it. Period. nt

[de novo]

80. It failed because the Dems gave the repugs the opportunity to kill it.

Another weak move. The Dems own this, they still own the House. Period.

[tridim]

84. It failed because of the Republicans voted against it. Period. nt

[de novo]

85. Why did the Dems dick around until it had to be fast-tracked, knowing full

well how the repubs would vote?

[tridim]

87. Why are you so eager to blame the Dems for something the Republicans did?

[de novo]

88. Why did the Dems drop the ball?

The each hold some blame. My point is, the Dems know how the repubs vote. They knew what the outcome would be under a fast track. They failed and were ineffective in extending the benefits.

In my opinion, the only thing that actually mattered was extending the benefits, which the Democratic House failed to do.

[bluestate10]

73. If you want to change employment dynamics, buy US made products.

Most of you people whine about unemployment, multi-national corporations, poor paying jobs, outsourcing. Then you hop in your car, the subway or whatever and go to the most convenient shopping. If you want jobs, spend time on the web finding the wonderful US based companies out there that are using US workers to make all manner of products. The very objective of the companies is to manufacture safe, durable products using US workers and sourcing as much of their raw materials from other US companies. Do any of you know the US shoe company that is proud to build in the US? I did not think so, the company is New Balance. I just exchanged a wonderful email with a service Representative for a company in South Carolina and manufactures eco friendly teeshirts, only one of their line is built outside the US and that is built in Haiti, a country which can use the help. I may get moderated, I hope not, but the company is named As tees. As tees will be getting an order from me within a day once I get time to pick shirts and do the order. The web address is Astees.com. As disclosure, I have nothing to do with the company other than finding them on the web and I made sure that they truly manufactured in South Carolina as their site claimed. I will be purchasing their tees and will be proud to do so, they encompass core values that I hold close to my heart.

People, if you want to save your jobs, get off your behinds (or sit on your behinds if doing web searches for USA made products) and take direct action. Macy's will not be getting anymore of my clothing money if I can possibly help it. Once Macy's sees their offerings collecting dust in stores, they will run surveys to find out, then find and buy from USA based clothing, shoe and house-goods manufacturers.

[walldude]

86. LMFAO...

Well thanks for the lesson. This is the wrong site to walk in and berate people for not "buying American" or for not trying to save jobs. Or whatever holier than thou crap you are spewing.

"Most of you people"? LMAO.. nice try.

[readmoreoften]

91. Yeah, show me that union made coffee pot and computer and I'll be all over it.

As someone who has tried to graphic design on union-only products I'm well-aware of the difficulties of buying American. Consumption is not a "power." Production is power. The power is in general strikes, not general boycotts.

[Lucian]

77. That's just not right at all.

How could anyone, let alone Democrats, vote against extending unemployment benefits?

What a sick country we live in.

[fascisthunter]

83. A Mob should go down to DC

[readmoreoften]

90. Fuckin' hell...