Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditFireDogLake founder Jane Hamsher is devoting herself to persuading 39 progressive Democrats to oppose the $106 billion 2009 war supplemental bill for the wars in Iraq and Af-Pak and to bailout European banks through the IMF. Arrayed against her, the Obama administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are aggressively whipping House Democrats to support the legislation.
The opposition has been successful so far and 35 of the necessary 39 members have already pledged to vote no. Moreover, a number of Blue Dog Democrats have their own reasons for opposing the bill.
Watch Hamsher's video, produced by the Brave New Foundation, to see why the stakes are so high and what you can do to help.
The pressure on the progressives is fierce. Hamsher rightly calls it thuggery. Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California, a leader of the antiwar Democrats, said the White House and House leadership is threatening to withdraw support from freshmen legislators who oppose the bill, saying "you'll never hear from us again." Help support them by calling the numbers on the screen at the end of the video and finding out where your legislators stand at FDL's Citizen Whip Count.
PS: If you have extra time on your hands and want to follow me on Twitter -- a micro-blog -- click here. You'll find (slightly) more personal posts, basketball and breaking news and lots of links.
Share this article
Peter Rothberg
Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
High-priority and nil-probability.....progressive causes! So many people with so much time on their hands......
Posted by Happy at 06/15/2009 @ 3:17pm
Just leftist wind...the House doesn't need a single vote from socialist/progressive caucus in order to continue funding of the war effort.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 3:23pm
High-priority and nil-probability.....progressive causes! So many people with so much time on their hands......
Posted by Happy at 06/15/2009 @ 3:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Speaking of time on their hands..... wuddabout endless blogging, Hap?
Bwahaha.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/15/2009 @ 4:13pm
You too Anti.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/15/2009 @ 4:14pm
You too Anti.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/15/2009 @ 4:14pm
I'm semi-retired, I have a good excuse.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 4:26pm
Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/15/2009 @ 4:14pm
If there's nobody to debate, then this blog dies.
It is at it's best when heated.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/15/2009 @ 5:41pm
It is at it's best when heated.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/15/2009 @ 5:41pm
You get the star today.....now, go take a refreshing imagineering dip in the Bermudian water, on me....:)
Posted by Happy at 06/15/2009 @ 6:21pm
Jane is awfully cute, but she should know that as long as we have a bankers' boy in the White House, there will be no end of war. Clinton, Bush, Obama.... all in the pockets of the money men, the Financiers. (Look at Obama's contributions from Wall St.) And who do you think favors war? The money men. Always been this way, and it won't change as long as we keep putting their puppets in power. Mr Hope N. Change is no different. He just appears to be hipper.
Posted by Citizen54 at 06/15/2009 @ 7:40pm
The most interesting piece of this legislation is the IMF bailing out European Banks. It would seem these European Banks would be wise to find another source to borrow from than the IMF.
Posted by whistlinwill at 06/15/2009 @ 8:20pm
Best way to end a war is to win.
Posted by pyeatte at 06/15/2009 @ 9:40pm
If anyone bothers to actually read the bill there is more than war involved. By the way the REAL figure provides for $500,000,000,000. for the IMF in the bill! Funny no one mentions that anywhere except on the rightwing news sourse?! No big deal since the Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats will just fire up the treasury printing presses, right?
Posted by BigPasture at 06/15/2009 @ 11:48pm
Posted by pyeatte at 06/15/2009 @ 9:40pm
Define "win". I believe Sun-Tzu had some things to say about winning wars:
"The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities... It is best to win without fighting."
"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare."
"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."
Posted by srjenkins at 06/15/2009 @ 11:57pm
Posted by BigPasture at 06/15/2009 @ 11:48pm
Who's your daddy? Could it be...
http://www.arthurmag.com/2009/06/15/ wfmu-best-thing-since-pussy/daddydickcheney/
Posted by srjenkins at 06/16/2009 @ 12:01am
The IMF has a history of placing compromising trade regulations on nations it loans money. If the European Banks borrow from the IMF the banks might never be able to repay the debt. Looking at regulations imposed on Jamaica after borrowing from the IMF it would seem the IMF has no interest in seeing nations pay off their debt rather the IMF seems interested in having these nations under the IMF's thumb. I am surprised Hugo Chavez has not approached the European Banks promising to loan money as a way to diminish the power the IMF has.
The best approach for these struggling nations is to place high tariffs on imported goods and low taxes on exported goods. The exact opposite of what the IMF would do.
Posted by whistlinwill at 06/16/2009 @ 11:18am
The best approach for these struggling nations is to place high tariffs on imported goods and low taxes on exported goods. The exact opposite of what the IMF would do.
Posted by whistlinwill at 06/16/2009 @ 11:18am
You must not like Milton Friedman too much! LOL I agree with you whole heartedly by the way.
The IMF and World Bank are both run by the neocon elite and have completely destroyed the economies of many a country. Hoorah for the IMF and World Bank.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/16/2009 @ 11:42am
The best approach for these struggling nations is to place high tariffs on imported goods and low taxes on exported goods. The exact opposite of what the IMF would do. Posted by whistlinwill at 06/16/2009 @ 11:18am |
and what happens when everyone follows this plan?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/16/2009 @ 11:42am
and what happens when everyone follows this plan?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/16/2009 @ 11:42am
Pretty much the same thing that is happening now. The countries producing the goods would subsidize their exports to artificially lower the price to beat out other countries doing the same. But, on the good side, you could keep other countries goods out of your country if you thought they weren't playing by the rules simply by hammering their products with larger tarrifs.
The beauty would be that perhaps more people would buy local and that means everywhere....less international shipping of goods and that includes raw goods which would really piss off the rich guys getting hugely rich off shipping stuff all around the world as well as middle men making profits off the labors of poorer folks overseas.
The international trade situation is way the hell out of balance. What it costs to live in the U.S. isn't the same as in India, China, Europe etc. and the free market system or businessman's honor system has proven not to work too well.
A little protectionism might not be such a bad thing.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/16/2009 @ 12:31pm
Jane is the cutest DNC shill on teh interwebs. Now send your checks in to Jane's fave-rave front group and DIE FOR OIL, SUCKERS!!1!one!
Posted by AlanSmithee at 06/16/2009 @ 5:37pm
A little protectionism might not be such a bad thing. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/16/2009 @ 12:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person A little protectionism might not be such a bad thing. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/16/2009 @ 12:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
it's a terrible idea.
it's way too late for protectionism. take the auto industry. how are you going to slap high tariffs on the foreign manufacturers, when they make the damn foreign cars right here in the USA.
this goes for each and every industry.
we have lowered these barriers for decades now, which has worked reasonably well.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/16/2009 @ 6:02pm
Posted by emile duBois at 06/16/2009 @ 6:02pm
Yes. But protectionism can be understood as protecting from foreign imports and not foreign ownership.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/16/2009 @ 6:07pm
The cost of tariffs to the economy is not trivial. The World Bank estimates that if all barriers to trade such as tariffs were eliminated, the global economy would expand by 830 billion dollars by 2015. The economic effect of tariffs can be broken down into two components: The impact to the country which has a tariff imposed on it. The impact to the country imposing the tariff. In almost all instances the tariff causes a net loss to the economies of both the country imposing the tariff and the country the tariff is imposed on. Impact to the economy of a country with the tariff imposed on it.
http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/tariffs.htm
It is easy to see why a foreign tariff hurts the economy of a country. A foreign tariff raises the costs of domestic producers which causes them to sell less in those foreign markets. In the case of the softwood lumber dispute, it is estimated that recent American tariffs have cost Canadian lumber producers 1.5 billion Canadian dollars. Producers cut production due to this reduction in demand which causes jobs to be lost. These job losses impact other industries as the demand for consumer products decreases because of the reduced employment level. Foreign tariffs, along with other forms of market restrictions, cause a decline in the economic health of a nation.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/16/2009 @ 6:10pm
Posted by srjenkins at 06/16/2009 @ 6:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person
to stay with the car example. even our "domestic" cars are not altogether made in USA. exacting tariffs on the foreign car parts, would hurt our domestic industry.
the issue of ownership too is relevant, as demonstrated by multinationals.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/16/2009 @ 6:29pm
we have lowered these barriers for decades now, which has worked reasonably well.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/16/2009 @ 6:02pm
Shipping raw goods to another country to be processed in one country, to be manufacture yet in another country and then turn around and sold in the country of the originating raw goods is complete insanity.
I wouldn't be quoting World Bank estimates Emile. The World Bank and IMF are two organizations partially responsible for the ills of the world now, not import tarrifs. Of course the World Bank is going to try to lower import tarrifs when it's modus operandi is the free market system.....you are starting to sound like Milton Friedman.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/17/2009 @ 06:56am
Emile, Further proof that import tarrifs didn't cause the meltdown we are now experiencing.
http://rinf.com/alt-news/usa-news/the-american-empire-is-bankrupt/5827/
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/17/2009 @ 07:54am
Wolfie, you are barking up the wrong tree. I did not state what you refute in the last two posts.
the financial meltdown is not related to tariffs or the lack of them.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/17/2009 @ 08:08am