home

The Beltway's "Bipartisan" BSers Idea Of "Stimulus"

Proving how unserious and silly she and every Beltway "bipartisan" BSer is, Claire McCaskill twitted:

Proud we cut over 100 billion out of recov bill. Many Ds don’t like it, but needed to be done. The silly stuff Rs keep talking about is OUT.

What McCaskill is celebrating:

The House puts greater emphasis on helping states and localities avoid wide-scale cuts in services and layoffs of public employees. The Senate cut $40 billion of that aid from its bill . . . The Senate plan, reached in an agreement late Friday between Democrats and three moderate Republicans, focuses somewhat more heavily on tax cuts, provides far less generous health care subsidies for the unemployed and lowers a proposed increase in food stamps.

(Emphasis supplied.) There is not a serious economist in America that will tell you that the Senate plan provides a better stimulus or is truly cheaper than the House plan. Here is one simple change that will improve the stimulative effect in the Senate plan AND lower the overall cost of the Senate bill:

The main fight is likely to be over the Senate’s proposal to cut $40 billion from proposed aid to states. . . .Another big difference is the Senate’s inclusion of nearly $70 billion for alternative minimum tax in 2009 . . .

A serious person truly interested in stimulus and the size of this package would reinstate the state aid and remove the AMT cut. This would make for much more effective stimulus and a reduction of 30 billion dollars in the cost of the package.

But people like Claire McCaskill, like her fellow Beltway "bipartisan" BSers, are not serious people interested in true stimulus. They are only interested in the "centrist" pose, not real results. President Obama has stood with them. And it has led to the failure of the stimulus bill.

Speaking for me only

< Late Night: A New Constitution | McCaskill Tries To Falsely Rewrite Her Role On The Stimulus >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    There's something about Claire... (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:34:10 AM EST
    I always found something very disturbing about Claire McCaskill but I could never put my finger on it.

    Now I know what it is.

    It will be interesting to see (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by pluege on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:51:33 AM EST
    what the democrats do with the estimates coming out that the Senate bill would create 600,000 to a 1 million fewer jobs than the House bill. Obviously, Obama and the democrats could use that information to ram the Senate Bill right up the "centrist's" group arse to get rid of the AMT "fix" and restore state subsidy. But my guess is that Obama won't go that route at all, instead putting pressure on the House not to change the Senate version of the Bill.

    Why? (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:09:10 AM EST
    Why do they keep putting McCaskill out there to speak?  One, she sounds stupid, and Two, she's not a  senior member of anything - she's number 81 in seniority this Congress!  

    She was an early and ardent (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:32:17 AM EST
    supporter of Obama in the primaries.

    Parent
    Obama wants her out there (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by pluege on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:35:17 AM EST
    because she carries his message. Other democrats might point out how much worse than the House Bill the McCaskills and Nelsons have made the Bill.

    Parent
    That's exactly why they want her out there (none / 0) (#55)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:40:53 AM EST
    The media sees her as a representative of what a Democrat looks and sounds like.

    My question is how the people in her state can continue to vote for her after they've witnessed her appearances and heard what she has to say.


    Parent

    Missing one word (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by pluege on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:03:15 AM EST
    The media sees her as a representative of what a[n] acceptable Democrat looks and sounds like.

    Parent
    Additionally, I think she's out there (none / 0) (#87)
    by DFLer on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 02:08:10 PM EST
    because the media latched on to her remarks about bankers "these people are idiots" and her call for a cap on salaries to be no higher than the POTUS.

    So she's some kinda folk hero, to them, I guess.

    Silly though, that remark about a POTUS salary cap for bankers, and typically not well thought out by the MO Senator.

    Would she include the value of the provided housing, staff, food and services at the White House for POTUS? How about the value of the provided vacation home at Camp David and the limo and driver services, and the cost of Air Force One?

    Parent

    What disingenuous grandstanding (none / 0) (#96)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 04:14:12 PM EST
    Wait until we see Claire M support the new bank funding bill to be delivered to Congress tomorrow; more $ for banks that failed with no quid pro quos.

    Frank Rich's column in today's NY Times has a scathing article on the public sentiment today, and why it is so angry at both Dems & Repubs and their appointees who continue to help the entitled. Particularly scathing part about the role of Obama's many economic advisers and their contribution to putting $ down the black hole of banks and why.

    Parent

    They've put it off until Tuesday. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 04:49:04 PM EST
    I guess to keep attention on the stimulus bill and to delay questioning of how hypocritical they are.

    Parent
    And they don't want to step on Obama's first press (none / 0) (#105)
    by jawbone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 05:46:51 PM EST
    conference. And he'll be able to say he can't really answer questions about the TARP II (or TALF, as I've seen it referred to now -- not sure what it stands for).

    Parent
    Speaking from the position of (none / 0) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 01:16:01 PM EST
    one who has not been "careful" with her words in the past.........those who ARE careful with their words seldom trip the idiot determined to get out front with the mike.  And the press loves that idiot too.

    Parent
    So they cut the strongest stimulus measures! (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by BernieO on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:09:25 AM EST
    But let's not forget, it was bipartisan. Whoopeee!!

    I recently saw a chart which gave the figures for how much $1 in stimulus spent on things like food stamps, unemployment insurance and tax cut gives back to the economy. Food stamps gave back the most - $1.76, followed by unemployment insurance. Tax cuts were very ineffective - somewhere around $.30, if I remember correctly.

    I can't find the link anymore. Does anyone else have it? It might have been from Moody's

    Here's one (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by DFLer on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:50:25 AM EST
    mother jones

    I skipped the one from the Heritage foundation.

    here's a google list

    Parent

    that was on (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:45:21 AM EST
    Rachel Maddow's show.  And, I'm disappointed that NO DEMS have come out and quaoted those numbers.

    Parent
    Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:10:08 AM EST
    McCaskill and her blue dog friends need to be SHUT UP.   Obama needs to pay attention to the left, not to the people more interested in getting airtime than the people.

    McCaskill represents Obama--she's saying what he (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by jawbone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 01:59:12 PM EST
    wants put out to the public.

    Alas.

    Parent

    I am heartbroken (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Coral on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:13:09 AM EST
    This isn't compromise. It's capitulation. Been there, done that.

    The prospects for us, with possible loss of teaching job in already stressed public school, and no chance of finding another job as teacher -- with all the layoffs all over the state that are pending -- are terrifying. There goes the health insurance, and maybe the house.

    God Bless (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by jedimom on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:05:47 AM EST
    well we can all go live in our shiny new cars what with the tax credit for buying them,

    so we dont have HOUSES or JOBS or SCHOOLS, we can teach the kids math on the odometer or something

    never did I think they would add that and let the GOP take OUT the real life stuff..

    Parent

    Time to srart complaining (none / 0) (#11)
    by BernieO on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:40:18 AM EST
    to the media, representative, DNC, etc.

    Parent
    It's not capitulation if they agree. (none / 0) (#91)
    by masslib on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 02:47:43 PM EST
    Obama now gfoing to selling (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by pluege on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:20:45 AM EST
    interseting that Obama is now hitting the road to sell the stimulus bill to the people. There would have been no selling necessary for any honest bill that creates jobs and creates them quickly. But what Obama got done is a bill that is a sop to failed republican ideology, passed in the name of responding to a crisis. Accordingly, it indeed needs a lot of selling and Obama's great oratory skills to put lipstick on a pig.

    That Obama has to "sell" this bill to the people is clear indication that it is a bad bill for the people.

    Well, actually-Obama's been reverse selling his (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jawbone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 02:15:04 PM EST
    own stimulus bill. Indeed, he's renounced what he asked the House to do.

    Bcz the Repubs whined and pouted and threw tantrums?

    Or bcz Obama had something in mind but just didn't communicate it to the House committee chairman and Pelosi?

    Or bcz he or someone (Rahmbo, who was supposed to be his big weapon in getting legisaltion through Congress) WANTED to weaken and embarrass the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, the better to DLC the party, Reaganize the party, get goodeis to his Big Bankster Boiz who supported him with the early big seed money?

    Darned if I know. But I have some guesses.

    I never could pin down what Obama actually wanted to accomplish. What I could suss out was anathema to my idea of the principles of the Democratic Party. No FDR he, no LBJ he.

    When he was given the nomination, we could only Hope he would Change, for the better.

    Guess we will have four years to find out just what he wanted/wants to do. Or, at least, actually does do.

    What if he or his advisers do see this economic breakdown as the Shock Doctrine necessary to secure even more wealth to the uberwealthy? What can we do??? Bang on pots in the street? Well, as Naomi Klein points out, that tends to work where the leaders have consciences. (Via the always good posts by Avedon at Sideshow.)

    Here, tasering? Mass arrests? Those rumored camps? The powers that be here do not appreciate hearing from their lessers.


    Parent

    I wonder how long it will take Nancy (none / 0) (#97)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 04:17:30 PM EST
    Pelosi to realize she's been set up.  If she had only not played Queen Bee & helped defeat Hillary, Nancy might have had a strong, like-minded policy ally to work with.

    Parent
    Lessons (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by WS on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:33:18 AM EST
    The Obama team better be taking notes on how the stimulus was bungled.  We might need Stimulus 2 in a few months and the Republicans are going to howl even louder.  

    The Republicans are going after the heart of Obama's Presidency, and if that doesn't change Obama's "bi-partisan" strategy I don't know what will.  

    Royally screwed (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jedimom on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:01:46 AM EST
    I think it's even worse, BTD is right they will hammer him with how this didnt work as unemployment hits double digits

    also the TARP TWO wont be big enuff, Barney told Team Obama NOT to come back for more TARP right now so they are trying the ring around the rosie of bad assets they did with CITI and BofA, and since there is not enough in TARP TWO for that AND a real HOLC, we wont get HOLC either

    so the housing will keep sliding, meaning those ringed assets will keep dropping

    so we have now a stim that wont work
    a tarp two that wont work
    and housing fixes that wont work

    he managed to sell out all three of the MUST HAVES in his first three weeks guaranteeing a horrible 4 years for us all in this economy that wont improve...

    unless it is deliberate to drive us to our knees and thereby achieve world peace somehow, lol, and he is a brother from another planet

    if not then we are just frakked...

    Parent

    lessons?!!!?! (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by sancho on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:22:53 AM EST
    i'm spewing here. obama is not going to learn any lessons when he thinks he is getting what he wants and that what he wants is a good deal. if the stimulus fails, his response will be something along the lines of condi's response after the planes. "no one could have imagined. . ."  we saw who his friends were in the primaries--claire and ben and that guy who got the no child bill passed for bush--and no one should be surprised that obama is a
    ben nelson-claire mc--democrat. it's going to get worse. i fear that afghan will become a larger war than iraq was.

    Parent
    Well, SS money can fund (none / 0) (#27)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:23:57 AM EST
    a larger war, don't worry.

    Parent
    People need to give Obama (none / 0) (#42)
    by WS on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:57:03 AM EST
    more credit.  He's a quick learner.  

    The bully pulpit is there for Obama to use for more of his proposals.  Oddly, he didn't use the bully pulpit effectively on the stimulus.  He needs to find out how best to use that power especially in Maine where the Maine clones need to feel the pressure from a state that voted overwhelmingly for Democrats and Obama.

    His organization in Maine can also help to put pressure on them.  Snowe and Collins live in Blue America not Centrist America; it's high time they understand that.  

    Parent

    the Rebublicans are out to destroy him, (none / 0) (#53)
    by DFLer on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:37:35 AM EST
    and he's still dancing with them.

    Parent
    why would republicans destroy Obama (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by pluege on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:11:29 AM EST
    when he gives them everything they want? The 'lets make Obama fail' is a ruse and a decoy to make everyone think Obama and republicans are antagonists when in reality Obama right now is their savior - he is keeping republicans viable at a time when they have been thoroughly disgraced and could be wiped off the face of the political Earth if Obama wanted to. But he doesn't. There is more going on than meets the eye.

    Parent
    Newt is on ABC (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by BernieO on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:47:07 AM EST
    Saying "let people who failed fail". (Too bad he doesn't apply that to himself.)

    George Will is saying the New Deal did not work.

    How can you be bipartisan with people like this?

    Newt is a great spokesman. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:48:17 AM EST
    He's helping the Democrats much more than McCaskill, with statements like that.

    Parent
    Hmmmm.... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Pianobuff on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:01:14 AM EST
    It seems to be working in public opinion polls on the stimulus (+6% difference between those who disapprove vs. those who approve) and Obama's approval ratings which Rasmussen now has in the 50's.

    Parent
    Senate Compromise Bill PDF out (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jedimom on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:55:34 AM EST
    it is here

    read it and weep, I did

    Might as well get used to the idea that (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Anne on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:42:42 AM EST
    people like McCaskill are the new face of the "new" Democratic party - and they have that distinction because of the guy who was elected - Barack Obama.  They are the ambassadors of pragmatic post-partisanship, captains of the compromise; it will be their job to promote a civil and conciliatory process.  It wouldn't surprise me to find out there is an undisclosed location where they are practicing their finger-wagging so as to be most effective attempting to shame the liberals into S'ing TFU lest they dim the beacon of Barack Obama's light of hope and change.

    What a complete and utter mess.

    Need another example of how these people are f**king things up?

    Here - read this and scream:

    When Barack Obama was campaigning for president, he promised to enact legislation to prohibit the states from limiting the right to abortion. Now that Obama is in the White House and solid Democratic majorities are ensconced in Congress, opponents of abortion rights have been bracing for that and other major changes to abortion laws.

    But there are indications that what those groups dread most and some liberal voters eagerly anticipate as the rewards of victory might not come to pass - at least not yet. Democrats on Capitol Hill say that while they are committed to reversing several Bush administration policies with regard to abortion rights and family planning, they might hold off on pursuing the kind of expansive agenda feared by social conservatives.

    Despite gains in the House and Senate in last year's elections, there are still significant numbers of moderate Democrats, particularly in the House, who either oppose abortion altogether or are not in favor of sweeping changes, instead preferring a more incremental approach. And any large-scale effort involving something as polarizing as abortion necessitates spending political capital, something the Obama White House needs in abundance at the moment to ensure the survival of its economic policies.

    "We deal in reality," said Nancy Keenan, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "You have to be pragmatic, realistic and, in the end, strategic."

    There's that other "P" word again: pragmatic; really coming to hate that word because of what it means I won't be getting, the policies that won't be fought for, the, ahem, change that won't be coming.


    An activsit arguing for "pragmatism" (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:01:43 AM EST
    That is why NARAL is a joke.

    Parent
    Activists on the right (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:11:01 AM EST
    are generally smarter about this stuff. The only counterexample I can think of is Pat Robertson endorsing Rudy Giuliani. But Robertson is a shyster, not an activist. (Oh wait. . .)

    Parent
    Activists need not be Idealogues (none / 0) (#54)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:40:35 AM EST
    They will get a lot more work done by being pragmatists but will not provided the heady and intoxicating feeling that demagoguery elicits in some people.

    Parent
    Tell that to the Right (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:46:05 AM EST
    your comment defies history. Utterly.

    Parent
    No, BTD (none / 0) (#58)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:59:05 AM EST
    The right became a potent force in American politics only after some elements in the left destroyed their credibility among the larger American public in the 1960s, 70s and early 80s through their excesses. If moral outrage against the Vietnam War, racism, women's inequality, etc were expressed in a more disciplined way than they were during those heady times in previous decades, we would not have Reaganism and its accompanying regressive political fall out in subsequent decades.  

    Parent
    Holy sheet (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:25:44 AM EST
    EXCESSES (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:09:46 PM EST
    Fighting FOR ending segregation were EXCESSES....
    Sheesh, I am guessing you are blaming the people who were firehosed for making that poor Bulldog sheriff act so nasty......and I guess it was the damn people sitting in at lunchroom counters for making those white folks riot, blow up black churches....

    Protesting against an UNJUST war was an excess...

    Demanding women get equal rights is an excess.

    Who knew?

    Parent

    Please read before you type (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:31:31 PM EST
    I referred to racial and gender inequalities and unjust wars as "moral outrages". I idolize the Rosa Parks, the Martin Luther Kings, the Gandhis, the Aung Sang Syu Kyis, the Mandelas, the Shireen Abadis and the millions who fight against various forms of injustices without rabble rousing. I do not think much of the bra burners, the free love and other forms of self gratification people and those who spit on folks who served in Vietnam.

    Parent
    DFHs? (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:37:00 PM EST
    I do not think much of the bra burners, the free love and other forms of self gratification people and those who spit on folks who served in Vietnam.

    Guess you learned nothing from your mentors.

    Parent

    What a spectacularly revealing comment (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:43:25 PM EST
    You believe that it was the agitation that conservatives objected to, and not the policy goals. LBJ was smarter than that, thank god.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#79)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 01:09:47 PM EST
    The far right conservatives had objections to policy goals; however in my opinion, the ideologues in the left, lost the all important support of the American middle in politics because of excesses and indiscipline among a significant section of them. The excesses and indiscipline of this section of the left were exploited cynically by the Nixons and Reagans to tar all liberals and progressives in the eyes of a vast majority of people who were in the middle and generally believed in fairness to move the country to the right.

    Parent
    Well, you blame the activists (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 01:12:52 PM EST
    I blame the right wing propagandists.

    Parent
    Actually, I blame both. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 01:22:54 PM EST
    for the lost decades. But more importantly, the left should strive to not make the same mistakes that they made a few decades ago(which the Nixons and Reagans cynically exploited) by remaining focussed, disciplined and united.

    Parent
    Political activism is messy (none / 0) (#83)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 01:26:50 PM EST
    Personally, I can't stand ANSWER. But the solution is to support the effective groups.

    Parent
    So people should not (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 02:06:46 PM EST
    act up to show that injustice is wrong?  
    You honestly believe that just talking to them....works?  

    Give me a break.  It was the excesses, the strikes, the marches, and yes even the bra burning that awakened people.  It may have angers the Roves, the Bushes of the world, but the only way it became a tool against the left was when the pundit class, when the media became the tool of the plutocracy.  

    It was never the excesses that caused the problems..it was the right got away with lying and exaggerating and btw, they still are.

    Parent

    Evidence that you fall for false (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 03:24:58 PM EST
    evidence:  the "bra burners" never happened -- not by the feminists protesting the event.  The right loves to use this crap.  A rightie ad man hired models to stage the pseudoevent after the real event, the real protest.  The ad man had the models burn bras; the feminist protesters never did.

    So you bought that line of nonsense, and so now I know how to adjudge the rest of your "evidence" of our alleged "excesses" in the '60s and '70s.  Yes, there were some people who went too far, but you don't even know who, where, when, etc.  Nor do you understand how they -- and you -- are being used.

    Parent

    "Bra Burners" (none / 0) (#104)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 05:39:42 PM EST
    When I wrote "bra burners", I meant the people who indulged in the collective "activism" of bralessness and "sexual revolution" (that also icluded a section of "feminists"). I was not talking about any single event and do not know what "real event" you are talking about.
    LOL that you think that only the right loves to use this "crap". Jjc2008 in this forum seems to have been "awakened" by events which you think did not happen. Go figure!

    Parent
    Where did I say (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:22:26 PM EST
    I was "awakened" by bra burning.

    Whether or not it happened was irrelevant to me, because I got what the movement was really about.  And for the record, I never could burn a bra....mine are/were too expensive as I was never small enough to go comfortably without...

    Please, if someone wants to know what awakened me, I will be glad to explain on my own.

    Parent

    You did it! You dug yourself (none / 0) (#107)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:48:11 PM EST
    an even deeper hole here.  Not only do you fall for the right-wing labels like bra burner, you have to put feminist in quotes?  Jeesh, how young are you?

    Parent
    Feminism (none / 0) (#108)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:35:50 PM EST
    is belief in the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. That equality is attained though educational and economic empowerment, not through silliness like the activism of bralessness and sexual revolution. I put feminism in quotes in my previous post because I firmly believe that some of the rabble rousers who claimed to be feminists did not really comprehend what it was all about.

    Parent
    "Silliness like the activism" (none / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:11:51 PM EST
    Omg, it just keeps getting better.  You measure feminism by the absence of underwear?  

    And you have absolutely no idea what the basis of the sexual revolution was.  Silly to you?  Do tell:  You have a p*nis, dontcha?

    Parent

    Where did I say (none / 0) (#110)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:22:07 PM EST
    I was "awakened" by bra burning.

    Whether or not it happened was irrelevant to me, because I got what the movement was really about.  And for the record, I never could burn a bra....mine are/were too expensive as I was never small enough to go comfortably without...

    Please, if someone wants to know what awakened me, I will be glad to explain on my own.

    Parent

    Yes, Jjc, I know you got it (none / 0) (#113)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:16:06 PM EST
    and get it.  And you definitely get what is silly about the righties who think that women, paid so much less than men, would burn our $$$$$$! bras.:-)

    If you also got one of the stupid history textbooks (or teachers) that fell for the ad guy's photo of the carefully posed models burning bras, well, now you know the story.  More important is, as well I know from reading you here, that you get what feminism is about.  You silly activist, you.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#114)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:34:47 PM EST
    Well, since I was teaching since before the so called bra burning took place, I knew for sure....that either it was like much of what is in history books (biased because of being edited heavily by the Texas righties.....because TX is so big and could buy so many books, they basically got to say what was in and out of texts...because ultimately the big text book companies, friends of the Bush family, were about making money, not education)

    I am am oldie.....so yea, the urban myths just make me laugh.

    Parent

    Are you the anti-Ayers? (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:06:22 AM EST
    Those "welfare queens" (none / 0) (#62)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:07:49 AM EST
    should have stayed in their place, right?

    Parent
    Andgarden (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:23:37 AM EST
    I am not President Clinton. I think your question should be directed to him. [Here] is President Clinton in his own words.

    Parent
    PFFT (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:27:17 AM EST
    Explain how Clinton is responsible for Reagan invoking "welfare queens."

    Parent
    Clinton and Reagan (none / 0) (#68)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:46:26 AM EST
    Pres. Clinton is not responsible for Pres. Reagan invoking "welfare queens" but he certainly seemed to believe that the Republicans had a point and some correction in spending was in order. He certainly thought that the economic ideologues in his party in the left helped the right to push their agenda and pushed his part towards the economic center.
     

    Parent
    In other words, Clinton is irrelevant (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:49:10 AM EST
    and you're trying to change the subject.

    I think it's hilarious that even today, all Obama cultists can do is harp about Clinton.

    Parent

    Clinton is not irrelevant (2.33 / 3) (#72)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:14:26 PM EST
    to this discussion. Our discussion originated after I mentioned that the right became potent political force in this country because a significant section of the left lost their credibility owing to stubborn adherence to ideological leftism instead of turning to pragmatism. I brought up Clinton because he too subscribed to the same view on the subject of tax spendings.
    I bring up Clinton to provide a perspective because a lot of people in this forum seem to think that the Clintons are the ultimate in political standards. If I commented in a forum where Eisenhower or Jackson were gold standards, I would invoke these names (and not Clinton) more frequently. Nothing more to it!

    Parent
    Say huh? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:20:44 PM EST
    This is completely false.

    My writing on the differences between the 1990s and now are lgion.

    Now you are just spewing falsehoods.

    I do not appreciate it in the least.

    Parent

    Calm down BTD (none / 0) (#75)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:36:13 PM EST
    I brought up Clinton in reply to Andgarden's post, not yours.

    Parent
    Thank you. I Wanted To Respond to ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by santarita on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:38:55 PM EST
    in greater detail to the simplistic cause and effect analysis by the commenter but felt that it would be wildly off topic.  However, you expressed my sentiments more concisely than I could have.

    Parent
    Other Equally or More Important Factors... (none / 0) (#67)
    by santarita on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:30:49 AM EST
    include manipulation of a less than well-informed  populace by a right-wing media, the unholy alliance between religious fundamentalism and wealthy individuals, the rise of right-wing think tanks able to put their gloss on events and package it for a lazy media, etc.

    Parent
    keegan (none / 0) (#40)
    by jedimom on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:51:11 AM EST
    ohh I cant stands her!!!

    grrrr naral endorsing Obama grrr and THIS is what we get for it!!!!!!

    GRRRRRRRRRR!!!!

    Parent

    Barney Frank on MTP (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by kenosharick on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:44:18 AM EST
    I really enjoy watching him put repubs in their place. He is so much smarter than most anyone else in congress and much better spokesperson than Claire.

    But the Shock & Awe fear bombs from BushCo (none / 0) (#89)
    by jawbone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 02:19:21 PM EST
    and Paulson even worked to dull Barney Frank's instincts to get more accountability and transparency into TARP I.

    Parent
    Bipartisanship (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Constant Weader on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:29:37 AM EST
    Paul Krugman has calculated that the Senate's latest "bipartisan" effort will cut 600,000 jobs over the next few years.  Way to go, Senators. That is something to be proud of, isn't it, McCaskill? And a round of applause from Obama, too. Is there any way to shake some brains into these people?

    Atrios posted about McCaskill's twittering about (none / 0) (#90)
    by jawbone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 02:32:20 PM EST
    how proud she is of the cuts. Before bragging about cutting funding for arts and museums, she twittered about going to a museum.

    Wonder how long she'll be twittering like this....

    Today, Atrios notes another bit of her twittering about the great and good compromise from the Group of Screw the People:  

    Nice justaposition. A-Man.

    From the link to the tweets, McCaskills proudly notes that the Group of Screw the People is calling itself "the jobs squad." Guess that depends on which jobs they're talking about, such as their own?

     

    Parent

    Just turned off Face the Nation (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Dadler on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:44:12 AM EST
    Bob Shaeffer asked Kent Conrad about statements just made by Senator McCain about the stimulus, saying McCain made some good points.  Now, this is a major TV reporter of some "maturity", and he is saying McCain had some good points on economic matters WHEN MCCAIN HIMSELF SAID ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT ECONOMICS.

    The media is dead and gone.

    Shaeffer is a moron.

    We are in very deep sh*t.

    Where is Howard Beale?

    The print media (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by KeysDan on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:05:19 AM EST
    is not much better.  Although one of the pom pom waving originals, Frank Rich, does give President Obama a 'dutch uncle' in his NYT column today.  

    Parent
    McCaskill is so cool ... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 01:43:08 PM EST
    she Twitters!  Totally freaking awesome!

    /snark

    Sigh.

    I'm quite relieve to learn (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 04:25:39 PM EST
    "Claire McCaskill twitted" was not, in fact, a sexist label!

    Considering her children are her (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 05:02:16 PM EST
    primary advisors, not surprising at all.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#101)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 04:51:52 PM EST
    She seems really immature to me.

    I confess.Big cheat on diet at dinner. Choclate mousse with raspberry sauce? I don't think so.

    It's like reading a teenager's diary.

    Parent

    She was on CNN wearing the most (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 04:55:18 PM EST
    gawd-awful jacket--black and white and quite fuzzy.  Did her kids really let her out of the house it that?

    Parent
    Commenting on the person (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Samuel on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:39:57 AM EST
    and not the issue!  How do healthcare subsidies / foodstamps / increased taxes stimulate an economy?  Lowered interested rates falsely triggered capital investment - how does this sanctify record breaking expenditure?  The current cyclical trend is what happens when the government controls the money supply - theory predicting this shows that government spending on any level will make this worse - the goal now should be to cut as much as possible and maintain whatever the majorities deem essential.

    Why rely on Okun's "Law" - rather than the scientific method?

    Real economists have explored real ideas alongside the standard schools of "classical/neoclassical/keynesian".  Why are we trusting scholars of theories that cannot explain current market conditions - or the business cycle itself?  Keynesianism doesn't explain why the up and why the down but we're about to give it's uncriticized adherents 700 billion or whatever random number it is this week?

    Nonsense (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:48:40 AM EST
    You just do not accept maintstream economics.

    I will not debate this point with you and I do not appreciate oyur aspersions on me.

    Never comment on me personally again.

    Stick to the subject. do not attack me again.

    Parent

    Liquidity Trap (none / 0) (#39)
    by Samuel on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:51:06 AM EST
    Google.

    Parent
    Precisely (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:08:36 AM EST
    Now, stick to the issues. Do not make any further comments about me.

    Parent
    You sir (none / 0) (#44)
    by Samuel on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:59:39 AM EST
    do not understand mainstream economics yet praise it's abilities to help us now.

    Emperor's New Krugman: "Keynesian Academics Comprise the Vanguard of Apologists for Socialist Policies".  You are economically illiterate and extremely dismissive of ideas you have not yet been exposed to - or never entertained. You ascribe to a theory that cannot explain the business cycle...yet you want it utilized to cure the slump?  

    I was trying to further information at the expense of no one.  You may want to check your approach vs mine during my short stint.  

    All that said - your blog - I respect your personal liberty - if this ban worthy than I have no right to complain.

    Parent

    Stick to the issues (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:07:21 AM EST
    and we will be fine.

    Argue against mainstrweam economics if you like. I said I will not engage you. But you are perefectly free to comment on it.

    My objection was to your attack on ME.

    Stop that immediately.

    Parent

    Does she even know what was (none / 0) (#12)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:44:32 AM EST
    cut out of the bill?? "Silly stuff"? That sounds to me like something her Republican friends told her to say.

    Rumour on the Yard... (none / 0) (#17)
    by jedimom on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:56:32 AM EST
    is that Claire and Susan COllins couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag...

    Parent
    Claire couldn't find the parking (none / 0) (#18)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:59:25 AM EST
     lot of the mall, even if she was looking out of the window of Macy's.

    Parent
    now now y'all (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by DFLer on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:03:17 AM EST
    plenty of dumb men in the Senate too, looking in the windows of, what?, Cabella's

    Parent
    At least one of them is representing (none / 0) (#23)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:07:23 AM EST
    Democrats with McCaskill.

    Parent
    Agree the AMT fix (none / 0) (#24)
    by WS on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:08:00 AM EST
    needs to be in another bill with the shortfall in revenue made up somewhere else (I think it was a "fatcat" tax the last time it was tried).

    That's $70 billion that we can bring some of the cuts back without changing the dollar amount.  

    Orgin of Obama's Stimulus Plan (none / 0) (#25)
    by Saul on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:16:28 AM EST
    Which people are the architects of Obama stimulus plan.  Surely Obama had some general ideas but which people on his staff added the particulars.

    Where online is his plan that he offered to congress to pass.

    Summers (none / 0) (#32)
    by jedimom on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:42:10 AM EST
    ROY is Summers killed the mass transit from the git go, he doesnt BELIEVE in it they say HA!!!

    But then they sent in RAHM to help negotiate the cuts

    wth did they take it all form eduction? Obamas raison d'etre during campaigning

    and Hillary must be pixxed she firmly believes in education funding and each child living up to their full potential

    Hell the kids cant even GROW to their full potential, they cut the school nurtition too

    Parent

    repost from of all places kos (none / 0) (#28)
    by jedimom on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:35:39 AM EST
    i know I know but I think it is worth having a handy list of what was cut when calling Critters, and please keep calling them, we have a week in conference to try and get this straightened out:

    Here, courtesy of Senator Pat Leahy's office via McClatchy, is what the Senate compromise proposes to ax in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009:

        Billion dollar cuts

        $40 billion State Fiscal Stabilization

        $16 billion School Construction

        $7.5 billion of State Incentive Grants

        $5.8 billion Health Prevention Activity

        $4.5 billion GSA

        $3.5 billion Higher Ed Construction (Eliminated)

        $3.5 billion Federal Bldgs Greening

        $2.25 Neighborhood Stabilization (Eliminate)

        $2 billion broadband

        $2 billion HIT Grants

        $1.25 billion project based rental

        $1 billion Head Start/Early Start

        $1.2 billion in Retrofiting Project 8 Housing

        $1 billion Energy Loan Guarantees

        Million dollar cuts

        $100 million FSA modernization

        $50 million CSERES Research

        $65 million Watershed Rehab

        $30 million SD Salaries

        $100 Distance Learning

        $98 million School Nutrition

        $50 million aquaculture

        $100 million NIST

        $100 million NOAA

        $100 million Law Enforcement Wireless

        $50 million Detention Trustee

        $25 million Marshalls Construction

        $100 million FBI Construction

        $300 million Federal Prisons

        $300 million BYRNE Formula

        $140 million BYRNE Competitive

        $10 million State and Local Law Enforcement

        $50 million NASA

        $50 million Aeronautics

        $50 million Exploration

        $50 million Cross Agency Support

        $200 million NSF

        $100 million Science

        $300 million Fed Hybrid Vehicles

        $50 million from DHS

        $200 million TSA

        $122 million for Coast Guard Cutters, modifies use

        $25 million Fish and Wildlife

        $55 million Historic Preservation

        $20 million working capital fund

        $200 million Superfund

        $165 million Forest Svc Capital Improvement

        $90 million State & Private Wildlife Fire Management

        $75 million Smithsonian

        $600 million Title I (NCLB)



    my school (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by jedimom on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:37:18 AM EST
    our little public elementary the ONLY EXCELLING Title I school we have in the district lost out THREE TIMES with the NCLB Title I funding cut, the state ed finding cut, the local ed funding cut AND the head start cut..

    PLUS the only hot meal some of these kids get a day cut..
    sickening and THIS is CHANGE and HOPE? for who retiring rich people?

    Parent

    oh and SUPERFUND (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jedimom on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:39:07 AM EST
    Oh yeah let me not forget the SUPERFUND cut cause we are IN a superfund site not cleaned up for 8 years since DUbyah took over

    Motorola and General Dynamics DUMPED their toxic crap and it leaked into our groundwater but dont worry maybe the kids can learn to read in the car they live in as they glow in the dark...

    unbeLIEEEEVable!!!

    Parent

    We don't have the money. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Samuel on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:49:48 AM EST
    and you act like this spending is slam-dunk...

    Business models are developed with the utmost care and only explored in stable economic climates...but you're confident this stuff will show a return?

    If you like these programs - the time to attempt them is after the deflationary period.  If you care about a program don't use it as a tool to bludgeon our economic recovery.  What was the last profitable government industry again?

    Parent

    OH PLEEEZE (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by jedimom on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:54:56 AM EST
    OH pullezze gimme a break mkay? My dad worked on Wall St for 27 yrs God Bless him I understand economic models and fiscal stimulus just fine

    poor people spend right away, rich people dont, get it?

    and these kids will get BURIED in inflation and taxes to pay for this non stimuluative stimulus mkay?

    so they NEED the education going forward

    that was the whole point of electing a Democrat or we would have McCain wouldnt we?

    I notice electronic medical billing, Obamas pet project, didnt get eliminated? tell me how that stimuluates jack shxt?

    it will result in LAYOFFS for med recs and clerks, it can go in the health bill later

    let's give the kids some damn breakfast and a book and 'mitigate' the asbestos shall we?

    yes we can!

    Parent

    Because (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:59:30 AM EST
    I notice electronic medical billing, Obamas pet project, didnt get eliminated?

    Bush called for this very same thing four years ago.

    Parent

    No surprise (none / 0) (#94)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 03:34:47 PM EST
    It was said on many occasion by those who could not get behind their Democratic candidate that the one who most resembled bush was the one with the (D) behind his name.

    I expect him to be civil, even friendly, to all the living ex-Presidents, but I was always surprised by how sincerely happy he seemed to be when he was around dubya.


    Parent

    Big Surprise (none / 0) (#95)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 03:52:16 PM EST
    then that you were not shocked that HRC offered up her husband to travel around the world with GHW Bush to fix problems in foreign policy if she became President. Would it emotionally scar you if you saw how happy Bill Clinton and GHW Bush looked when they played golf together? Snark.

    Parent
    Different person, but (none / 0) (#99)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 04:41:35 PM EST
    nice try.


    Parent
    You're really smart, for a Republican. (none / 0) (#109)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:36:41 PM EST
    Isn't redstate calling (5.00 / 9) (#47)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:05:03 AM EST
    for more people with your mindset?  Seriously, many of us believe in government programs; many of us believe in public education; a public police force, firefighter force; public utilities; public libraries; public transportation; public roads.

    I have seen first hand the difference in private vs public when our school district had Marriott take over food services from the public running them.  Change?  Food stayed the same, cost went up, and they fired a third of the work force.  So kitchens went from three to one.....food became pre cooked at one place....warmed and distributed at each school.
    End result: Mariott suits and upper management made more money; poor, minimum wage workers either fired or worker harder, longer for same pay; no change in food quality.  THIS is the difference....more profit for already rich, greedy people.

    Now, you believe the spin.  FINE.  That is your right.  But you really make no sense to people in the real world.  Hurry now, the libertarian, right wing mentality calls you.

    Parent

    Hold up... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Samuel on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 11:43:13 AM EST
    Invalid private vs public comparison.  Marriott was hired by a compulsory institution (the public school).  You at no time were given the choice to withhold funds / fire / hire / negotiate with any food service companies.  Marriott though private is receiving public treatment: funding is guaranteed for a set period of time essentially regardless of customer quality.  Just think about this, if you could choose whether or not to pay Marriott based on their service they would do a much better job or you would fire them with no haste.

    Would you agree with what I set forth just now?

    Parent

    ps (none / 0) (#43)
    by jedimom on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:58:12 AM EST
    you can pay for the chemo and shxt like that later as the people go on meicaid cuz they die form toxic crap..I jsut dont see where they picked the things they cut, I agree some crap should never have gotten in ther

    BUT OBAMA DIDNT WRITE THE BILL HE LET CONGRESS DO IT

    get it? a failure on HIS part, but we can electronically bill and recordkeep, yeah thats more important

    whatEVERRRRR

    AZ is going to go wild with our new RED governor thanks Janet for leaving us!

    you dont SEE what happens o the state level so you dont KNOW of nwhat you speak

    AZ is chock full of love canals that need mitigation, and children who cant speak English and work at age 7 when they should be in school...the superfund, it should have been someplace else I agree but I am just royally pixxed right now so Let me rant m'kay? good!

    Parent

    critters (none / 0) (#37)
    by jedimom on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:49:05 AM EST
    all their damn mailboxes are full I cant get thru to anyone even in their state offices

    they r hiding the rats

    I plan to keep calling and FAXING!! Ohh yes faxing!


    Obama's (none / 0) (#45)
    by SOS on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:01:12 AM EST
    leading us through the awful process of cutting our losses.

    So far, the debate has been about how to avoid that.

    It's going to be especially tough (none / 0) (#50)
    by SOS on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:09:04 AM EST
    on those raised on excessive TV advertising (buy! buy! buy!)  

    Wow barely 2 weeks and we have buyers remorse (none / 0) (#92)
    by Bornagaindem on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 02:58:19 PM EST
    Haven't been to this site for a long time ever since it went over to the dark side and wholly supported O-blah-blah. Can anyone tell me what parts of this bill Obama does actually care about? supports? would expend political capital on? He seems to believe that just his appearance on capital hill with the repugs would melt their opposition magically away. How'd that work out for ya?

    And now we hear Obama is going to take his case to the people. Which one is that -again we don't know. Is it the bill with all the extra tax cuts that will do nothing to actually create jobs (we know this because we have had 8 years of tax cuts and paltry job growth even during a huge bubble) or the one that never even got considered? You know the one where all the money would go to new infrastructure, to food stamps and extending unemployment insurance and to the states so they wouldn't  have to lay off more people. Or to investing in cleaner technology and weaning us from foreign oil. Oops except not much of that actually made it into even the  House bill.

    As someone once said you can lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig. Chances are this pig will pass and the media will tell our boob tube nation that it was a victory. Unfortunately unlike the other so called jobs Obama has held he is going to have to actually do something this time. And he will be held accountable (except by people like Pat Robertson who is already touting that it is not Obama's fault).

    Enjoy guys. He is all yours.

    Hey (none / 0) (#106)
    by sas on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:16:10 PM EST
    her children told her to vote for the big O.

    I'm not gonna rag on her, she's just doing what she is told.