Obama, Progressives Move to Restore Stimulus Spending

posted by John Nichols on 02/11/2009 @ 09:22am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (79)

Subscribe Now

After the Senate passed a stimulus bill that key members of Congress now say "recklessly" shed much of the stimulus spending endorsed by the House, the Obama White House has been prodding members of the conference committee that will reconcile two very different proposals to restore funding for schools, health insurance and aid for struggling states.

"To make room for added spending, the White House, joined by House Democratic leaders, is pressing to scale back certain Senate-passed tax breaks," according to the Wall Street Journal.

This is a dramatic step in the right direction by the Obama administration. And it seems to be working; House and Senate negotiators were meeting Wednesday amid mounting speculation that aid for school construction would be restored and money for the states would be increased.

Pressured by Senate Republicans, Democrats in that chamber bartered off too much of the stimulus spending, creating a bill that is less likely to provide the boost that is needed for a sagging economy. As Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) co-chairs Lynn Woolsey and Raul Grijalva note in a new letter to House leaders, "We are especially concerned that the Senate package does not invest in jobs -- be they focused on 'green' technology, veterans, or sustaining the local prevailing wage."

"Simply put," argue progressive House members, "the Senate-passed version will not address the urgent fiscal, social, and educational needs of this country."

Obama and his aides appear to have recognized this fact, and are now taking behind-the-scenes steps to address the damage done by the Senate.

Grijalva and Woolsey and the caucus they represent, which now includes roughly a third of all Democrats in the House (far more than the conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, some of whom have sided with the Senate) are pushing for specific moves to renew a stimulus proposal that, after the battering it took in the Senate, is sagging almost as badly as the economy.

Here's the letter the CPC co-chairs sent to House speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and House Appropriations Committee chair David Obey, D-Wisconsin:

As co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, we write to you today to express our great concern about H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009. Simply put, the Senate-passed version will not address the urgent fiscal, social, and educational needs of this country. In fact, we fear that we may only get one bite at this apple. Therefore, we must take this opportunity to act boldly now.

With the Senate having recklessly cut more than $100 billion from the House-passed package, our concerns are wide-ranging. We do believe, however, the most urgent attention must be paid to the following sectors:

1. Investing in America's Future (Children): In the Senate bill, almost half of the funding cuts come from education. This is irresponsible and short-sighted. Eliminating funding for school construction not only hurts our nation's children but it also impedes job growth. Additionally, the Senate cut funding for Head Start and Early Head Start from $2.1 billion to $1.05 billion. This chips away at our nation's future and places an overwhelming burden on families already feeling the strain of a bleak economy. We request that you return funding to House-passed levels.

2. Investing in America's States and Local Communities: Recognizing the squeeze being put on state and local governments, the House rightfully set aside assistance to ease the financial crisis at home. The Senate slashed that funding to $39 billion, a $40 billion reduction. States are seeing crises within education, healthcare, job training, and welfare programs. It is unclear how many states and localities will be able to function without the above mentioned funding streams. We request that you return funding to House-passed levels.

3. Investing in America's Future Homeownership: As one of the key elements in the Bush recession, the housing crisis can be felt from Wall Street to Main Street. That's why the Senate action is wrong-headed. The Senate bill zeroes out $2.25 billion in funding for the neighborhood stabilization program, which would have provided funds to states and localities to purchase and rehabilitate abandoned and foreclosed homes. The House allocated $4.19 billion for the program. We request that you return funding to House-passed levels.

4. Investing in America's Healthcare: As fewer Americans have access to insurance and healthcare, the House appropriately invested in immediate and preventative care. The Senate bill cuts $5.8 billion that was directed towards grants and contracts to prevent illness through health screenings, education, immunization, nutrition counseling, media campaigns and other activities. The House has set aside $3 billion for prevention and wellness. Furthermore, the Senate version would cut $5 billion that is intended to help unemployed workers pay for health insurance, reducing the federal subsidy under COBRA coverage to 50% from 66%. Practically speaking, that ignores the fact that in many states the monthly amount of Unemployment Insurance benefits that newly unemployed workers will receive to pay for food and housing will be virtually wiped out by what they will have to pay to continue their health insurance coverage. We request that you return funding to House-passed levels.

We are especially concerned that the Senate package does not invest in jobs -- be they focused on "green" technology, veterans, or sustaining the local prevailing wage. While the above mentioned are just the tip of the iceberg, they are among the most urgent. As the House and Senate bills move towards conference, we urge you to stand strong and advocate for the above mentioned House-passed funding, because a bill modeled on the Senate version could be difficult for many progressives to support.

Again, we look forward to working with you to bring back balance to the recovery package.

The proposal from Grijalva and Woolsey for renewing the stimulus package is hardly radical. It simply proposes the restoration of spending for job creation--the essential goal of the White House and its congressional allies. What makes it especially valuable at this point, however, is the specificity. The CPC co-chairs have provided Democratic leaders in the House, the White House and progressives around the country with a baseline from which to operate during what will be an difficult, at times bitter, struggle to change not just a piece of legislation but a Washington mindset that offers a compromised response to the worst economic crisis the country has experienced since the Great Depression.

Comments (79)

It's "Conference", Mr Nichols...which means likely splitting the difference, and TYPICALLY closer to the Senate version...

especially where Reid wouldn't want to lose Collins, Snowe, or Specter.

BTW, the reason for keeping those three IS political, but not in the way the Right thinks (i.e. "cover for Obama and the Dems").

The reason is so that it locks the anti-stimulus Repubs into an untenable situation of being permanently linked to their 28% Bush Club base, come 2010.

By that I mean, TEN of the Repub Senators (including the Three above) came from States that Obama won. Which means that guys like Richard Burr (R-NC) (in Darin's homestate) will be voting against their own State on economic reccovery and Burr is up in 2010 (after only defeating Bowles by 5% in 2004).

As long as those guys are intimidated by the ditto-heads, they can't do what they NEED to do to keep their seats. In fear of a primary challenger or just "they stay home", if the stimulus works...they lose the Middle of the electorate and their seat in the Senate.

And if it works, by having Snowe, Collins, and Specter, there's no cover for guys like Burr (or others)....

as the question immediately comes up "The bill had SOME Repub support...why didn't YOU vote for it, Senator Burr?"....and Burr is stuck cuz he can't say it was a "radical left-wing bill" and explain why The Three voted for it...and he can't explain why he voted against economic recovery for North Carolina except "Rush Limbaugh told me not to".

But keeping The Three is important...because it shows that there WERE still some moderate Repubs and the stimulus wasn't a "radical left-wing socialistic bill". And it paints those who voted against it as in the pocket of the Fringe.

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2009 @ 09:42am
Reckless cuts of $100 billions in a multi trillion dollar spending spree bill?

Only in a loon world.

What's reckless is the size and scope of the spending and where is is Not going.... That being in areas that might actualy stimululate the engine of economic growth, the private sector ... Instead we get drunken spending that in a years will not be noticed otherthsn the same addicts standing in line looking for more and lamenting draconian cuts.

Posted by YourJomamma at 02/11/2009 @ 09:42am
BTW, in fairness, if the stimulus (and other things) don't work....the Repubs and their Fringe will of course benefit.

(Which is why Limbaugh in a rare instance of honesty, admitted he wants Obama to fail.)

Of course if that happens, likely a real non-hyperbole-from-the-Internet-Left fascist dictatorship would emerge....

but hey, MAASCH/HAPPY/LVLIB/SJCHER/Darin will be in the clear with Homeland Security.

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2009 @ 09:46am
All Burr has to say is I won't vote for a bill that the only purpose is to spend more money with no hard targets or goals in there which would create any jobs.

Posted by YourJomamma at 02/11/2009 @ 09:46am
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/11/2009 @ 09:46am

MAASCH, didn't read what I said...

I'm talking about if the economy improves and the stimulus bill is seen to have helped that.

If so, Burr is screwed. Again, he's in a state that Obama won and is suffering pretty badly...and "ideological purity" won't count for much with the guys in Charlotte, Asheville, Raleigh, and Wilmington who saw Burr vote against them getting jobs....will it?

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2009 @ 09:48am
look...the point of the bill is SPENDING.

spend money...stimulate economy by the money thusly spent.

now, not disputing the fact that any piece of legislation produced by imperfect human beings is going to be imperfect. if perfection is our goal, lets all just shoot ourselves because thats an unatainable goal.

but if the object of republican obfuscation is naught more than obfuscating and trying to prove their goddamned ideology...

well..."if"?

if...and if...

i think its all about the ideology and grandstanding and hubris. they have no earthly idea at this point how to do naught but prevent their opposition from accomplishing anything effective.

beginning to wonder if things will indeed be going to hell in a handbasket if the GOP has its way.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2009 @ 10:39am
No Ibble,

I believe it is about the focus of the spending. The repubs already signed off on the spending. It is the amount and where it will be spent.

That much is genuine, I believe. Politics is never far away, look what Pelosi did with the rules in the Hoyse designed for partisanship or designed to freeze out repubs and then dominate ... Right out of marxist hand book with one party rule and a muted nurtered opposition.

Posted by YourJomamma at 02/11/2009 @ 10:53am
Politics is never far away, look what Pelosi did with the rules in the House designed for partisanship or designed to freeze out repubs and then dominate ... Right out of marxist hand book with one party rule and a muted nurtered opposition.

Posted by YourJomamma at 02/11/2009 @ 10:53am

Wow, talk about your historical revisionism. Go look up what the Republicans did with House rules after 1994 (and especially after about 1997), then what Pelosi and company did in 2006. The come back and let us know what you've found.

Posted by richcarl at 02/11/2009 @ 11:40am
"The" = "Then" of course.

Posted by richcarl at 02/11/2009 @ 11:44am
Right out of marxist hand book with one party rule and a muted nurtered opposition.----Posted by YourJomamma at 02/11/2009 @ 10:53am

Sort of like that Marxist Karl Rove and his "permanent GOP majority" desire?

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2009 @ 11:50am
Sorry correction....

that was the lovely and talented TOM DELAY....who is a Marxist.

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2009 @ 11:54am
i guess those "hard targets" that republicans are seeking to stimulate the economy have nothing to do with pulling the most vulnerable americans out of complete and total misery.

let me just give you an example: if funds are stripped from state health for services like planned parenthood, more low income, minority women will end up making poor decisions, as a result of a lack of education (thanks to our rotting, underfunded public school system, whose funds for reconstruction will also visit the chopping block), and will ultimately drive up the health care costs to the state.

and when nancy pelosi merely describes the reality of this situation, in a mature fashion, stephanapolous and the entire right wing NOISE machine, reply, "do you have any regrets about that?" what do you mean, "regrets" george? it's as if george and hannity were suggesting that EVERYONE has to either: a) use condoms all day long; or b) get abortions.

that's not what she was talking about. she was talking about educated CHOICES for women. period. it lowers costs. DUH.

Posted by darladoon at 02/11/2009 @ 12:08pm
The link below is tied in nice with this article...just in how the corporate chieftans stole millions of the bailout money.

You idiots worrying about bailing out school programs, people on welfare, people losing their homes etc. are either so far removed from reality that you are blind, or are some of the very people that need to be investigated by the FBI for stealing money yourselves.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29138583/

I'll bet the rethugs will drag their feet on pursuing any prosecution of the corporate masters. So, in the GOP playbook, corporate handouts from the fed are a must, but money or jobs provided from the fed to it's citizens is a no no. What a bunch of jerks.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/11/2009 @ 12:17pm
Leave it to Nichols to describe $800B in NEW spending instead of $900B in NEW spending as some sort of draconian cut. Something which is zero now, starts at $40B, and winds up at $30B is described as "gutting" programs. What a joke!

Posted by sntauri at 02/11/2009 @ 12:18pm
sntauri doesn't get it, wolfgang does.

cutting food stamps is definitely draconian, in light of the fact that we've already given trillions to banks.

Posted by darladoon at 02/11/2009 @ 12:21pm
Posted by sntauri at 02/11/2009 @ 12:18pm

Anybody think sntauri had a problem spending $650 Billion to create an Iranian-friendly government in Baghdad and kill 4100+ GIs?

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2009 @ 12:27pm
In 48 hours we will be delivering to the conferees a list of everyone who has emailed their Members of Congress in support of the Pickens Plan elements of H.R. 1. So it's important you email your Members of Congress today!

Please vote for final passage of H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and please support inclusion in that bill of the House DOE grant program, which is critically important to helping wind and solar energy grow through the economic downturn.

I also urge you to support enactment of a strong national renewable electricity standard that meets President Obama's goal of securing 25% renewable electricity by the year 2025.

We can, and need to, do more. What's missing is the other part of the Pickens Plan - natural gas used as a vehicle fuel. If we switch just 350,000 of the 6.5 million heavy trucks running on the nation's Interstate Highways to domestic natural gas from imported diesel, we could cut our oil imports by over five percent.

In December alone that would have kept nearly $1 billion from being shipped off shore. Congress needs to go further to achieve that goal and to get more vehicles on the road that use clean and domestic natural gas.

In the meantime, I hope you will join me in supporting the wind components of the Pickens Plan that are part of H.R. 1 - which need to be kept intact - and urge you to support future measures that would get more natural gas trucks on our roads.

P. S. Savings bonds could be help in economic crisis!

While Washington tries to "fix" the banking and Wall Street mess created by subprime "gotcha" adjustable rate mortgages defaulting en masse, many of us are looking for a safer place to put at least some of our retirement, college funds, etc.

And we also want ou

Posted by jameseveritt at 02/11/2009 @ 1:23pm
Posted by jameseveritt at 02/11/2009 @ 1:23pm

Doesn't the "Pickens Plan" make a lot of money for...."Pickens"?

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2009 @ 2:19pm
MAASCH, didn't read what I said...

I'm talking about if the economy improves and the stimulus bill is seen to have helped that.

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2009 @ 09:48am

And how many beats of the tomtom will make the sun reappear?

Average Joe won't know who to beleive in two years time. Weather the economy is growing again or not, will it be a result of increased spending at planned parenthood?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/11/2009 @ 2:32pm
Give it up, folks. Obama was not the FDR avatar that you pinned your hopes on.

Posted by lnp3 at 02/11/2009 @ 2:41pm
Given the nature of the GOP cuts, one has to once again wonder what grudge these people have against America; or is it they just want to lead us into the dark ages?

Many in the GOP have opposed the importation of engineers and people with other technical skills lacking in the american job market.

Microsoft is moving a facility to Vancouver simply because of Canada's open immigration policy to help fill these highly technical positions. What this tells us about the failure of education in America would fill volumes.

But even at the grass roots level of new schools as proposed in the stimulas bill. Schools require the employment of hundreds of people in the design and construction of each one. And of course the purchase of furniture and supplies etc. that also create jobs for the multitude of suppiers of these items. Plus the ongoing employment of teachers and staff after completion. How anyone cannot be in favor of schools is beyond comprehension, but Republicans can. Even periodically attempting to gut the curriculum of our schools to favor a Sunday school type of education for all Americans. What is it Republicans don't get about this? are they really that dumb or are they some how mentally handicapped?

Posted by ROinReno at 02/11/2009 @ 2:42pm
The loss of jobs has a tremendous economic and social impact. Those laid off lose their ability to support families and pay their mortgages. Without income, many can no longer afford health care coverage. Sharing available work would increase the employee base. If employees agree to a cut in salaries and tighten their belts less would lose their jobs. An agreement to work at reduced pay, would also increase feelings of job security. Another way to share the work would be by sharing the work week. Working one week and staying home the next one is better than being unemployed. Sharing the pain and sharing the gain is the American way. Workers are entitled to a piece of the pie not all of it.

Posted by melpol at 02/11/2009 @ 2:55pm
WE ARE STIMULATED!

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2009 @ 3:06pm
and geithner rambles on......

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2009 @ 3:08pm
Average Joe won't know who to beleive in two years time. **Weather** the economy is growing again or not, will it be a result of increased spending at planned parenthood?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/11/2009 @ 2:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

.

It's an absolute **dead certainty** that, when the economy turns around, you'll be saying it had nothing whatsoever to do with the stimulus package, whether it was the stimulus package...

...or the weather.

Posted by Lillian at 02/11/2009 @ 3:19pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/11/2009 @ 2:32pm

Yep, Lil's right, Darin.

You'll be posting "Natural business cycle! Natural business cycle!"...soon as Rush finishs his "first hour monologue".

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2009 @ 4:21pm
"Many in the GOP have opposed the importation of engineers and people with other technical skills lacking in the american job market.

Microsoft is moving a facility to Vancouver simply because of Canada's open immigration policy to help fill these highly technical positions. What this tells us about the failure of education in America would fill volumes. "

The GOP and anyone else with a brain does not oppose educated immigrants..it opposes throwing 1 more dime at a failed education system that has become a union shop day care center with free lunches that indoctrinates social issues instead of teaching what is needed to function on an even remeadial level..as in.."can I afford this loan and will I have to pay it back?"

Fix school system and watch Vancouverans come here for engineers....real ebgineeers, not social engineers or Rail Road.

Posted by YourJomamma at 02/11/2009 @ 4:30pm
are they really that dumb or are they some how mentally handicapped?

Posted by ROinReno at 02/11/2009 @ 2:42pm

RR, I am sorry to say that you answered your own question....yes, they are mentally handicapped or put in the p.c. way, mentally challenged and certainly morally challenged though they claim to take the high ground on moral issues.

The rethug slogans should be.....War is better than living in peace, ignorance is better than knowledge, and the bible supercedes all proven scientific data.

The GOP is the party that wishes to march back in time to the days where everyone knew the world was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/11/2009 @ 4:44pm
The GOP is the party that wishes to march back in time to the days where everyone knew the world was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/11/2009 @ 4:44pm

Oh, that is a funny one Wolf (not)....I realize that leftists like yourself love to spread misinformation (after all, Marxism makes it practically a demonstration of dedication to the International), but it does nothing to actually introduce real dialogue or produce anything productive.

So, keep it up, the Improv likes having bad acts to make the good ones look better.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/11/2009 @ 5:11pm
The GOP and anyone else with a brain does not oppose educated immigrants..it opposes-- 'ever funding our own people's education'...

Posted by YourJomamma at 02/11/2009 @ 4:30pm

How do you propose even getting a brain and living in this country----- moving to another one?

BBBbbbbwwwaahahahahahah

WHAT A BRAIN!

ANYONE?!?!?

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/11/2009 @ 5:34pm
War is better than living in peace, ignorance is better than knowledge, and the bible supercedes all proven scientific data.

Wolf, that reminds me of Orwell: war is peace, etc.

Posted by FDR43 at 02/11/2009 @ 5:35pm
So, keep it up, the Improv likes having bad acts to make the good ones look better.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/11/2009 @ 5:11pm

Evidently I must have struck a chord with you or you would have remained quiet.

Tell me, which part of what I said is incorrect? The bible thumping, the shut the schools down theories, or the fact that most rethugs think the 50's were our greatest shining moments in history....and I mean the 1850's?

I used to be considered a centrist about 20 years ago, now, like Dean, Nixon's White House attorney, I appear to be a left wing socialist. I haven't changed that much in 20 years, but the republican party has shifted so far to the right it's obscene, and the democratic party has shifted to the right as well which in turn makes me appear to be one of those whacky socialists you appear to want to rant about, but I'm far from it.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/11/2009 @ 5:35pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/11/2009 @ 5:11pm

Oh please, how many hands went up at the new con repub presidential the-baits --- when asked about being anti-evolutionary science?

The GOPee has trickled DOW'n... devolvedddd.

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/11/2009 @ 5:40pm
Fool,

My hope would be to scrap the failed school system and start over. The public school complete with union mentality with its legendary failure rate is no different, in fact, could be compared to our economic crisis with the schools system being the govt/banking complex and the unions being govt/Wall Street.

Failed and rotten with one thing in common to both... Govt controled involvement and the average guy bring victimized by all.

Posted by YourJomamma at 02/11/2009 @ 5:46pm
YoMa 02/11/2009 @ 5:46pm,

They fail because they're so underfunded and demeaned via new con blood sucking tick draining strategy. And it's been going on for so long that people are now dumbed down enough to fall for new con blood sucking tick logic. Now with their density-- we're all falling into a new con repub blood sucking tick depression. Everything is going get scrapped that's for sure-- if new con repub blood sucking ticks keep having their way.

What really needs to be scrapped big time are the new con blood sucking ticks!

LIKE , OH DUH!

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/11/2009 @ 6:05pm
Like haven't new con blood sucking ticks been wrong about everything-- like EVERYTHING, but not about this one single thing--- EDUCATION?!?!?!

When they've been sooooo dumb about EVERYTHING!?!?! It's education they KNOW all about!

What a dementedly sad thing to attempt to push as yet another failed new con repub blood suckingly tickish anti-logical thing as their EDUCATION expert proclamation that less funding is needed because the educational needs have increased--- even as their funding HAS been decreasing. YES starving our education system is a way to improve it. I'm sure all the Ivy league schools will agree with that brilliant analysis...

Oh duh, I forgot that a dark anus = a brilliant analysis, to a new con blood sucking tick.

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/11/2009 @ 6:32pm
See if only the new con repub blood sucking ticks had succeeded in dumbing down our educational system just a little more this might have succeeded:

"One of the talking points that the GOP has attempted to deploy in the battle over the stimulus package is, "Hey! Remember that New Deal dealie? Boy, howdy, wasn't that a massive failure!" Oooh, oooh! And what if the Nazis had gotten the bomb? Then we'd be in some serious doo-doo, tra-la-la!"

Anyway, freshman Representative Steve Austria heard that talking point and decided that it could be made way awesomer. And in an environment where his colleagues are playing fast and loose with the facts, who can blame him? Still, I think this revision took things a step too far with the editors of the Columbus Dispatch:

The day before, as Austria was explaining his opposition to the huge federal stimulus package backed by President Barack Obama, he told The Dispatch editorial board: "When Roosevelt did this, he put our country into a Great Depression. ... He tried to borrow and spend, he tried to use the Keynesian approach, and our country ended up in a Great Depression. That's just history."

Uhm, yeah. That led the Dispatch to point out that "Roosevelt took office in March 1933. Many historians date the Depression from the stock-market crash later dubbed Black Tuesday, which happened in 1929."

And so, Austria had to get back on point:

"I did not mean to imply in any way that President Roosevelt was responsible for putting us into the Depression, but rather was trying to make the point that Roosevelt's attempt to use significant spending to get us out of the Depression did not have the desired effect. Roosevelt did not put us into the Depression, but rather his policies could not pull the nation out of the recession."

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/11/2009 @ 6:52pm
I guess now is as good a time as any to offer Austria the chance to familiarize himself with what the New Deal accomplished, via the handy graph Rachel Maddow deployed Monday night:

http://tinyurl.com/csmrrw

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/11/2009 @ 6:53pm
I guess someone forgot to tell cable news watchers that the country is moving to the left as our leftist friends are fond of telling us every week (and I think in some respects,they are unfortunately right-the price you pay for the dumbing down of our citizenry)

but it seems their new idols, Keith O and Rachel Maddow are sinking slowly into oblivion.

CABLE NEWS RACE TUES NITE, FEB 11, 2009 VIEWERS

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,494,000

FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,658,000

FOXNEWS BECK 2,370,000

FOXNEWS BAIER 2,305,000

FOXNEWS SHEP 2,190,000

FOXNEWS GRETA 1,847,000

CNN KING 1,761,000

MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,485,000

CNN COOPER 1,286,000

CNN BLITZER 1,246,000

MSNBC MADDOW 1,240,000

How bad is it when Larry King beats you in the ratings?

Posted by antisocialist at 02/11/2009 @ 7:45pm
"Give it up, folks. Obama was not the FDR avatar that you pinned your hopes on."

Posted by lnp3 at 02/11/2009 @ 2:41pm

Like I said/was right about, an FDR would not have been, openly, vetted. The most efficient power the people have is their voice; you seemingly, think we can be governed without it? Obama was-is, an orders of magnitude better tactical-logistical choice of the two, we, the citizens sufficed to have offered unto us. We the people pushing for what is in our best interest(s) and facing the potential, the possibility that our will may perchance go un-heard and un-listened to, has to happen before we get to the part of the piece where some of us were pinning what it was we deigned to pin…

So speak for yourself my friend or recognize your projection upon us. Any good done as, and so long as we sleep is ephemeral, can be taken away … and therefore, but a delaying tactic, at best.

Posted by V at 02/11/2009 @ 8:22pm
"How bad is it when Larry King beats you in the ratings?"

Posted by antisocialist at 02/11/2009 @ 7:45pm

No matter how bad it is, to be so limited so as to try, to make the point you wish to make, is worse ...

Posted by V at 02/11/2009 @ 8:27pm
Microsoft is moving a facility to Vancouver simply because of Canada's open drug policy. viva BCbud

Posted by emile duBois at 02/11/2009 @ 8:28pm
"It's an absolute **dead certainty** that, when the economy turns around, you'll be saying it had nothing whatsoever to do with the stimulus package, whether it was the stimulus package... ...or the weather. Posted by Lillian at 02/11/2009 @ 3:19pm

Well, why don't we just get it on record from the progs. When will the stimulus package turn the economy around? In 6 months? One year? Three years? Don't be shy. Since you are all in favor of the stimulus, when will it take effect?

Posted by twillie at 02/11/2009 @ 9:47pm
"if funds are stripped from state health for services like planned parenthood, more low income, minority women will end up making poor decisions" Posted by darladoon at 02/11/2009 @ 12:08pm

How does that work? If "funds are stripped", women won't be able to keep their knees together? And men will continue to try to father as many children with as many different women as possible?

Now, if some part of the stimulus forced responsibility on irresponsible people, I could get behind that.

Posted by twillie at 02/11/2009 @ 9:55pm
http://tinyurl.com/csmrrw

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/11/2009 @ 9:59pm
Now, if some part of the stimulus forced responsibility on irresponsible people, I could get behind that.

Posted by twillie at 02/11/2009 @ 9:55pm

How could anyone ever tell?

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/11/2009 @ 10:03pm
"Like haven't new con blood sucking ticks been wrong about everything-- like EVERYTHING, but not about this one single thing--- EDUCATION?!?!?!" Posted by hsuBfools at 02/11/2009 @ 6:32pm

Well, not about everything. They favor vouchers for private schools, to allow even the poor to escape failing public schools. So, you could say Repubs favor private over public schools, and Dems favor public over private schools.

So of course Obama sent his kids to DC public schools to demonstrate his support..... wait a minute..... no, he didn't.

So, how are the Repubs wrong on education?

Posted by twillie at 02/11/2009 @ 10:05pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/11/2009 @ 7:45pm

I think those ratings just prove that people need to be educated to tune into good programming. Obviously, if they choose to listen to FoxNews they are in severe need of some re-education. To remedy this, we Democrats have come up with the "Fairness Doctrine", which you will be hearing more about soon. Through this we will force broadcasters to air programs that people would not otherwise listen to. Kind of like the way we had to force banks to give loans to people they would not otherwise have given them, and you can see how well that worked out.

Another problem is factory workers who are not intelligent enough to fill out unionization ballots without the proper guidance from union organizers. To address this, we progressives are planning on implementing our 'Free Choice' program, whereby we will make sure that all workers filling out unionization ballots will have a helpful union organizer at their elbow instructing them on the proper way to fill out such ballots. Through this program, we can ensure that the great success unionization has been in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania can be transferred down south where all the jobs have mysteriously, if not suspiciously moved to.

This is what we progressives have in mind, and like some other things, it's inevitable so you might as well sit back and enjoy it.

Posted by pontificus at 02/11/2009 @ 10:32pm
I'm really disappointed in my Senator Snow, whom I have voted for. I think she is the one that insisted on those cuts. Of course White Plains New York or the Hamptons don't need that money we just gave them 350 billion in tarp money, but here in Maine people are literally burning their furniture to stay warm. That lady needs a reality check. I don't know what that lady means by stimulative.

Posted by julien38 at 02/11/2009 @ 10:49pm
Posted by julien38 at 02/11/2009 @ 10:49pm

Don't worry, Julien, the government will be along to take care of you soon, poor fellow! And we may even let you look at a pair of balls, too.

Posted by pontificus at 02/11/2009 @ 10:58pm
ROinReno: The quality of education has a lot more to do with the quality of the home life of the student than the physical plant of the school. In fact, the last priority is the physical plant - below school administration, district politics and the teachers union. You want money for physical plant? Get rid of the useless Dept of Education - billions there.

If the house succeedes in getting their way in conference, the senate will lose the republicans and the whole thing will go down in flames. This would be the best outcome because it would force a new bill that might actually stimulate job creation. If you insist on raw left wing liberal programs, come up with a separate bill called the "Raw Left-Wing Liberal Programs Swamp". Just keep it separate from the jobs stimulus bill.

Posted by pyeatte at 02/11/2009 @ 11:19pm
So, you could say Repubs favor private over public schools, and Dems favor public over private schools.

So, how are the Repubs wrong on education?

Posted by twillie at 02/11/2009 @ 10:05pm

So you could say new con repubs blood sucking ticks favor money going only to certain schools that already have money that aren't funding starved public schools. Oh gee wiz how can that possibly be wrong!?!? Kinda like separate but unequal... isn't there like a 50:1 ratio of public to private schools, so most students really don't have a choice to attend if there were no public schools: special needs students - outa luck, not too smart/not too rich outa luck, not a senator's son - outa luck,... So the whole reason for creating a public school system is anathema to new con blood sucking ticks for an obvious reason. It's harder to put the death clamps on a well educated society that wants to better itself and not the few.

Oh and as far as vouchers-- isn't that like a bail out to private schools? Turning any private school into a public school as soon as they accept a voucher-- kinda like the banks that took some TARP now being cowed by the senate. Not to mention possible violation to separation of church and state?

Yes, one could say the new con repub blood sucking ticks are wrong about education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_education

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/12/2009 @ 01:28am
So, you could say Repubs favor private over public schools, and Dems favor public over private schools.

this is a crock. you could not say this without backing it up with facts.

rich people can send their kids to private schools. they can also hire their own police force, and they do. that does not mean we should disband the police force.

public education has been around for a long time, and with great results. I went to a public college, one that had more graduates who won nobel and other prizes.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/12/2009 @ 10:47am
the right wingers want to take tax dollars to give to private schools, while at the same time cutting tax aid to public schools. despicable really.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/12/2009 @ 10:53am
one that had more graduates who won nobel and other prizes than Harvard.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/12/2009 @ 11:07am
but here in Maine people are literally burning their furniture to stay warm. That lady needs a reality check. I don't know what that lady means by stimulative.

Posted by julien38 at 02/11/2009 @ 10:49pm

Julien,

Are people in Maine that dumb that they burn their furniture rather than the multitude of trees that surround them?

Posted by antisocialist at 02/12/2009 @ 12:31pm
are you really that dumb, that you do not realize that many people in Maine live in cities? I know that you are.

PORTLAND, Maine -- Sky-high prices for oil, kerosene and other fuels have put pressure on an alternative heating source in New Hampshire and all of New England: good, old-fashioned firewood.

Demand for firewood is up across the Granite State and northern New England this season, driving firewood prices to unprecedented highs. Even in the nation's most heavily forested states, some dealers are scrambling to find enough raw supply to cut into logs.

New Hampshire Agriculture Commissioner Steve Taylor said the supply of firewood has dwindled because loggers are busy supplying the sawmills. Plus, he said, there are not enough loggers to meet the growing demand for wood.

At the same time, more Granite Staters are turning to firewood because the skyrocketing price of home heating fuel.

Jeff Taylor at Fireplace Village in Bedford said woodstove sales are up substantially. So much so, one maker of woodstoves, Hearthstone, has a waiting list two months long.

How much wood... A hundred gallons of home heating oil generates roughly 14 million BTUs of heat. A cord of hardwood firewood generates about 20 or 21 million BTUs of heat. Using that formula, it's a simple matter of math to figure out how much consumers can save using wood to heat their home.

If a home uses 1,200 gallons of heating oil over a winter, it would cost $1,800 to heat at $1.50 a gallon, or $2,160 at $1.80 a gallon. The average statewide price of oil last week was $1.91 a gallon, according to the State Planning Office.

A homeowner would require about eight cords of wood to generate the same amount of heat. If the wood cost $150 to $200 a co

Posted by emile duBois at 02/12/2009 @ 12:45pm
Posted by emile duBois at 02/12/2009 @ 12:45pm

so what is your point Emile?

wood is ample in Maine, much more so than NY City. to burn your furniture still seems idiotic to me when you can gather wood or chop down a tree

I live technically in a city, but am semi rural. I have cut down 6 of my own trees (still have 100 remaining) or I can travel to forest land and cut more firewood with my chain saw.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/12/2009 @ 2:38pm
wood is ample in Maine, much more so than NY City. to burn your furniture still seems idiotic to me when you can gather wood or chop down a tree

you are an ass.

picture a grandma freezing in her home. is she going to go out with an ax? or the single mom, hire a babysitter so that she can drive to a forest and start chopping?

you are an ass, no matter what you call yourself.

just a note, I have never been banned from these pages.

so eat shit banned ones.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/12/2009 @ 2:42pm
in New Hampshire, for instance, folks buy their fire wood in April for the next winter. those that neglect to do so, find that in october fire wood is a lot more expensive, if available.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/12/2009 @ 2:46pm
you are an ass.

picture a grandma freezing in her home. is she going to go out with an ax? or the single mom, hire a babysitter so that she can drive to a forest and start chopping?

you are an ass, no matter what you call yourself.

just a note, I have never been banned from these pages.

so eat shit banned ones.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/12/2009 @ 2:42pm

so, grandma has no children or grandchildren who care enough to help her?

do her neighbors despise her and wish to see her freeze to death?

Emile, you seem to always see govt as the only answer, not people.

And what is truly bizarre is the way it awakens a verbal violence in you (while you protest physical violence).

Posted by antisocialist at 02/12/2009 @ 2:47pm
hey bub, I said nothing about gov't.

verbal violence?

According to the University of Cincinnati, there is no universally accepted definition of emotional or verbal attack.

oh and eat sh*t.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/12/2009 @ 2:55pm
you bet I protest physical violence. how about you?

Posted by emile duBois at 02/12/2009 @ 2:57pm
this one is for you liverty

http://vimeo.com/2998698

Posted by emile duBois at 02/12/2009 @ 3:02pm
From National Review:

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Keeping Our Eyes on the Real Ball [Michael G. Franc]

The broad outlines of a stimulus have been announced....focus on how much we will borrow to "stimulate" the economy--$789.5 billion. Remarkably,....Charlie Rangel (D., NY) groused over the "cuts" that brought the total down below $800 billion. "Hardly anybody's happy," he said, "with having to go backward."

Go backward? Huh?

....Under the guise of stimulating the economy, this one bill contains a generation's worth of liberal policymaking.....

The pork and the overall spending are every bit as bad as the critics say, but....The real damage comes from other, less noticed provisions in the bills.

The House and/or Senate stimulus bills would undo the 1996 welfare reforms, explode entitlement spending by a cool quarter trillion dollars, lay the groundwork...

Not bad for the first month of unified liberal rule in Washington, eh?

Reversing the 1996 Welfare Reforms

For the first time since 1996, the federal government would begin paying bonuses to states that increase their welfare caseloads....the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare; this matching rate is far higher than it was under the old AFDC program.

The original goal of promoting employment and self-sufficiency...has been replaced with the perverse incentive of adding more families to the welfare rolls...provides $4 billion per year to reward states to increase their TANF caseloads....

If these welfare expansions are made permanent--as history indicates they will--the welfare cost of the stimulus will rise another $523 billion over ten years. The total ten-year cost of welfare increases in the bill will not be $264 billion but $787 billion.....

Posted by Happy at 02/12/2009 @ 5:16pm
Well, not about everything. They favor vouchers for private schools, to allow even the poor to escape failing public schools.

So, how are the Repubs wrong on education?

Posted by twillie at 02/11/2009 @ 10:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

.

Twillie, why don't you explain how, exactly, does supplying vouchers **fix** failing public schools?

(Whatever backtracking, circular, twisting of logic that you come up with in response should provide a clear and obvious answer to your question.)

Posted by Lillian at 02/12/2009 @ 7:00pm
Twillie, why don't you explain how, exactly, does supplying vouchers **fix** failing public schools? (Whatever backtracking, circular, twisting of logic that you come up with in response should provide a clear and obvious answer to your question.) Posted by Lillian at 02/12/2009 @ 7:00pm

It doesn't. It forces public schools to improve, or disappear. But more importantly, it allows the poor to escape the prog institutions that offer the soft bigotry of low expectations. But hey, it sounds like you are OK with that, lillian, emile, and hSuBfOoLs.

BTW hSuBfOoLs, you seem to be perseverating with that "new con repubs blood sucking ticks" stuff. you might want to get that checked by a doctor.

Posted by twillie at 02/12/2009 @ 10:49pm
the right wingers want to take tax dollars to give to private schools, while at the same time cutting tax aid to public schools. despicable really. Posted by emile duBois at 02/12/2009 @ 10:53am

Reeeally? What's more despicable? Claiming you support public schools while signing your kids up at the best private school in town? Or offering poor kids a chance to escape failing schools (which the rich, both Dem and Repub, and most middle class have already abandoned?)

Posted by twillie at 02/12/2009 @ 10:54pm
Twitty, I do not care that rich people send their kids to private schools. that is their prerogative.

rich people do not have to live under a bridge while they give a helping hand to the homeless.

you are an apparatchik who does not take the trouble to think. just a parrot, really.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 08:35am
Who am I parroting, Blanche? And what's more despicable? Obama's actions, or school vouchers?

Posted by twillie at 02/13/2009 @ 12:10pm
school vouchers are a shuck, and so are you.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 1:53pm
Twillie, why don't you explain how, exactly, does supplying vouchers **fix** failing public schools?

Posted by Lillian at 02/12/2009 @ 7:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

.

It doesn't.

Posted by twillie at 02/12/2009 @ 10:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

.

A rare moment of clarity from the right-fringe.

Posted by Lillian at 02/13/2009 @ 3:24pm
vouchers are public money being used for private enterprises.

in practical terms they are never enough to pay for a private education. also most private schools are religious schools, mostly catholic. and they're almost all going broke. tough shit.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 3:35pm
What's more despicable? Claiming you support public schools while signing your kids up at the best private school in town? Or offering poor kids a chance to escape failing schools (which the rich, both Dem and Repub, and most middle class have already abandoned?)

Posted by twillie at 02/12/2009 @ 10:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

.

What's "more despicable" is pretending that school vouchers = "offering poor kids a chance to escape failing schools". That's baloney, and any parent who has EVER tried to get their kid into a private school KNOWS it!!

Private schools have waiting lists. No 'school voucher' would EVER get you past that list. Not ever!

AND, when (if) your kid's name comes up, private schools have 'entrance standards' - which is why they 'appear' to fail far less often than public schools...they **only** take the brightest kids with the best academic records, and kids who are'disciplinary problems' need not apply (or would be promptly weeded out if they somehow slipped in.)

Of course, there are exceptions to the above - really, really expensive private schools that will waive the above - for the right 'contribution' to the school's building fund. But then, a 'school voucher' there will go about as far as food stamps will get you at...

...the Fogo de Chao restaurant in Beverly Hills!

Posted by Lillian at 02/13/2009 @ 3:47pm
Offering school vouchers is like seeing a guy begging on the street and tossing a quarter into his cup, then thinking you've 'done something' about...

...the homeless problem.

Posted by Lillian at 02/13/2009 @ 3:52pm
"vouchers are public money being used for private enterprises."

Kind of like the stimulus package?

"Private schools have waiting lists. No 'school voucher' would EVER get you past that list. Not ever! AND, when (if) your kid's name comes up, private schools have 'entrance standards' - which is why they 'appear' to fail far less often than public schools...they **only** take the brightest kids with the best academic records, and kids who are'disciplinary problems' need not apply (or would be promptly weeded out if they somehow slipped in.) Of course, there are exceptions to the above - really, really expensive private schools that will waive the above - for the right 'contribution' to the school's building fund. But then, a 'school voucher' there will go about as far as food stamps will get you at... ...the Fogo de Chao restaurant in Beverly Hills!" Posted by Lillian at 02/13/2009 @ 3:47pm

Wow. You seem to know alot about private schools, and Beverly Hills. Limousine liberal?

Posted by twillie at 02/14/2009 @ 12:14am
Posted by twillie at 02/14/2009 @ 12:14am | ignore this person | warn this person

you're not really equipped to carry on a discussion, are you?

Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 09:47am
"you're not really equipped to carry on a discussion, are you?" Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 09:47am

Sure I am. And what's more, I'm able to do it without sniping personal attacks. Eh, Blanche?

"you are an ass, no matter what you call yourself. just a note, I have never been banned from these pages. so eat shit banned ones." Posted by emile duBois at 02/12/2009 @ 2:42pm

"oh and eat sh*t." Posted by emile duBois at 02/12/2009 @ 2:55pm

"you are an apparatchik who does not take the trouble to think. just a parrot, really." Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 08:35am

Posted by twillie at 02/14/2009 @ 12:19pm
We don't care about NeoCONS any more. Nor do we care about the DemoPublicans stuffing the Senate (laughingly called 'Blue Dog' Democrats). They can--and should, immediately--be impeached, for being Republicans in Democrat clothing. A growing number of the American people recognize this. The NeoCONS are now irrelevant--but should always be watched closely, lest they ever regain power again.

Posted by jvaljon1 at 02/15/2009 @ 5:18pm