"Liberals thumbed their noses at the bill despite Obama's backing."

[Cetacea]

http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20100304&t=2&i=70378107&w=460&r=2010-03-04T144716Z_01_BTRE623152V00_RTROPTP_0_USA

Nice way to lose the senior citizen block and the disabled. You can stick a fork in the party in November.
If they are ok with this, then it is reasonable to believe that Social Security and Medicare cuts WILL be on the table for the first time since their inception.



By Bob Turner

(AXcess News) Washington - The Democrat-controlled Senate has rejected a measure by a 50 to 47 vote that would have given seniors a one-time Social Security benefit payment of $250 to make up for the lack of a cost of living increase. Liberals thumbed their noses at the bill despite Obama's backing.

The payments which would amount to $13 billion, where earmarked in the jobs bill. But what was odd about the Senate's action was the fact that Social Security payments had been voted in last year in the stimulus bill, making the reversal by Democrats on Capitol Hill a slap in the face of the largest voter segment in the nation - retired Americans.

The badly needed Social Security payments would have helped 57 million seniors, a risky number to overlook considering the fall elections and how badly Democrats are viewed ever since the recession became a reality.

A "no confidence, no vote" outcry is already in the works by senior lobbyists who worked Capitol Hill with a vengeance in trying to gain support for the Social Security payment measure.

Now that lawmakers have slapped seniors in the face the historical return is that this year marks the first time since 1975 that Social Security beneficiaries didn't receive a cost of living increase."

more:

http://www.axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/19739

[anonymous171]

1. Dems are useless. It's like they WANT to get voted out. nt

[Cetacea]

2. To top it off, this was a REVERSAL of a bill that was in place.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[Bitwit1234]

20. In an email from SS I was informed last month that they had the

provisions set up and would start mailing and depositing the checks in March. What a blow that was. Rahm and his blue dogs strike again. I think it is time that a group of Americans stand up and show congress that they WORK FOR THE PEOPLE AND NOT THEIR POCKETBOOKS.

[Cetacea]

23. I wonder if they made a deal to get a few more votes for HCR

Sorry to hear that you will be affected by this. Really nice way to stick it to people during the worst economy since the depression...

The optimist in me hopes that they will attach it to another bill.

[stillwaiting]

27. We have reached a point where there are no downside ramifications to being voted out.

None at all. They are not even pretending to TRY to "work for the American people" any longer.

Our "representatives" in Congress know full well that if they get voted out they will be well taken care of if they continue serving Big Business.

And Big Business will continue this investment strategy to let incoming "representatives" know that what they can count on for their future if they play ball.

We are screwed until we have radical financial campaign reforms, public financing, term limits, and paper ballots.

[Raine]

51. Yeah it's like they're inherantly self-destructive. nt

:-(

[saracat]

3. OMG. There is no way this can be presented as good, no matter what the reason

They will come after us with pitchforks.

[Cetacea]

5. This will PO as many republicans as democrats and indies.

[DrDan]

4. this is a bit more than one month of our crappy war

but the d's would not support it

I hope they are expecting to lose votes - they are certainly going to do so

billions for wall street, the banks, health insurers

but the seniors can suck-eggs

[jgraz]

6. They raided SS to pay for Bush's tax cuts. This is pure class warfare.

If people don't start fighting back, we're going to revert to a feudalist state.

[boston bean]

7. Which Dems voted against it???? nt

[dionysus]

8. the usual suspects, but feingold voted against it too...

:(

[Cetacea]

10. lol. Look at our subjects and the times posted.

[dionysus]

18. wow... great minds and all that

;)

[Uzybone]

25. Feingold is slowly turning into a POS

his principles always seem to show up the worst times.

[Cetacea]

9. The usual suspects plus ...Russ Feingold...

And from what I can tell the others who voted in favour of it didn't put up much of a fight.

[Lasher]

11. One single Republican voted in favor of this legislation.

12 Democrats voted against it. I don't think that justifies the chosen headline. It's almost as though someone wants people to believe Republicans are blameless in this.

Senate Roll Call Vote #36

[Cetacea]

12. It's a given that republicans voted against it.

Why did dems vote against it=, especially when this was part of the stimulus package?

[Lasher]

19. In some people's minds that is not a given.

There are plenty of seniors who vote for Republicans, believing it is they, and not Democrats, who will better watch out for their interests. This is foolishness, of course, but foolish people vote too.

I am also wondering why any Democrat would vote against this. But I have been shocked during the past year by positions some Congressional Democrats have taken. I have made the point I sought to make, and will defer your questin to others.

[boston bean]

13. Here they are:

NAYs ---50
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Brown (R-MA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)

McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Udall (D-CO)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00036

What a clusterfuck! Feingold? Levin???

[G_j]

54. mostly not liberals nt

[joeybee12]

14. Liberals defeated it? What si this site, Drudge 2?

Nice spin, and completely wrong.

[Cetacea]

15. A bit misleading perhaps. "Democrats" would have been more accurate.

Though Feingold certainly fits the description of "liberal".

[joeybee12]

28. I can't find a count to show who voted for it/against it...my understanding is

a few Dems crossed over, but Repukes en masse voted against it.

[Cetacea]

32. More than the usual gang of republicrats.

NAYs ---50
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Brown (R-MA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)

McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Udall (D-CO)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

[OHdem10]

16. They cannot help themselves, it seems,--they appear compelled to

hand the GOP a new talking point a minute??? where are their heads??

[Bryn]

17. Why isn't this in latest breaking news forum?

Is this not important enough?

[Cetacea]

21. It broke yesterday so it would have been a dupe there.

But yeah, I agree that it is important!

[bvar22]

22. Headline is WRONG.

Liberals supported this.
It was the "Centrist" Democrats (DLC Conservatives/DINOS) who killed it.
The same ones who killed the Public Option.
.
.
.
But Feingold?
He usually doesn't run with this "Centrist" Pro-Republican crowd.



Wellstone was correct.
I guess that is why he had to die.
"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans,
family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Cetacea]

26. Liberals are being very quiet about it, too.

"Centrist" Pro-Republican crowd is right. I wonder if some of them just ran as democrats because it was easier to get elected in their respective situations?

[Individualist]

35. Absolutely!

[Cetacea]

36. True. At last count there are 23 liberals.

At least liberals who want a public option. Pathetic.

[Uzybone]

24. -1 for the massively misleading headline

[Cetacea]

29. It's a quote from the article. A kind article, at that...

[bvar22]

33. An unsourced "opinion" of the author.

The correct headline for this piece is:

"Democrats snub seniors, reject $250 Social Security payment

[Cetacea]

34. Lipstick on a pig.

The fact remains that we couldn't even get a simple majority, and a few liberals opposed it along with republicans and blue dogs. It's pathetic no matter how you word it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. How the hell can you call that a 'kind article'?

It's a hit job on Democrats. It says nothing about how most Democrats voted, or the Republicans. It just blames 'the Democrats', although most of the Senators voting down the increase were Republicans. It's incredibily biased against the Democrats.

And what about right-wing crpa like this in it:

"The 'play it safe' President of course voiced concern for seniors ..."

And then it says anyone blaming the Republicans must be 'pro-Democrat':

"Many of the pro-Democratic newspapers where laying the blame at the feet of Republicans after Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) said the bill would defeat the purpose of indexing Social Security payments to inflation."

And that's its entire acknowledgement that Republicans were involved somehow. The piece reads like it was written by Sean Hannity.

[cutlassmama]

30. Thanks for getting the word out there. Seniors should march on Washington.

[Cetacea]

31. They are a forminable group. AARP is probably planning something.

[bvar22]

37. Just WHO do the Democrats figure will be voting for them in 2010/2012?

:shrug:

Those working on Wall Street and in the Health Insurance Industry won't be enough to get anyone elected.

Maybe the Democratic Party Leadership has looked at the REAL economic numbers and said,
"Oh Fuck. There is only time for one more Smash & Grab before the whole thing falls apart.
Fuck 2012.
Take the MONEY and RUN before its too late."

They sure don't seem to be concerned about getting re-elected or maintaining majorities.

LESS than 35% of ALL Americans support Mandates without a Public Option.
Good luck selling that piece of shit to the American People.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. Most Democrats voted for the increase; all but one Republicans voted against this

If what you're concerned about is the effect on the 2010 elections, this will increase the senior Democratic vote compared to the Republican one.

By the way, Reid voted for the increase. What are you saying about "the Democratic Party Leadership"?

[Cetacea]

41. The JOBS bill that just passed will eclipse it anyway.

Pretty neat trick.

[Tesha]

52. Rahm and all of his friends! The rest of us "fucking retards" will be making other arrangements. NT

[deaniac21]

38. Babyboomers vote and there are a ton of them.

[Mari333]

42. over 70 million pissed off boomers

DLC and the blue dogs strike again. hanging themselves by their own petard.

[depakid]

43. How about we have a look at the actual vote before trusting the "AXcess News" characterization

which looks to be as dishonest, poorly written and transparently biased as something one would see from a Murdoch publication.

[Cetacea]

44. At least they wrote about it. It's already yesterdays news.

Soon to be buried by the JOBS bill.

[depakid]

45. The piece blames "liberals" -which is looks to be both inaccurate and intentionally dishonest

[Cetacea]

46. I blame this guy, mostly

[Tesha]

53. The funny part is that Shaheen (DLC, NH), our other Senator voted against it too. (NT)

[EFerrari]

47. That article is incredibly hostile to Democrats and to the president.

the "play it safe" president? That's not news, that's opinion.

[Cetacea]

48. I think the writer is just naive and thought "d" equals "liberal"

And possibly doesn't know about the blue dogs and Russ Feingold...I haven't explored the site that the article came from. I should have read it more carefully before posting it.

[EFerrari]

49. Oh, we might as well know what these people are writing.

I wasn't meaning to slam your post but to point out the tone which seems pretty much meant to piss people off.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. Bollocks - the writer consistently attacks Democrats any way he can

Look through these articles - you can clearly see he's not a journalist, but an opinionated right winger looking for any way to blame Democrats:

http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=site:axcessnews.com+%22bob+turner%22

Seriously, Fox News reports are more objective than his stuff.