spanone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:05 PM
Original message |
breaking...the house failed to pass unemployment extension |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-18-10 02:16 PM by spanone
there you go....will post link. just reported on m$nbc link: House fails to extend unemployment benefits http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/18/news/economy/unemployment_benefits_extension/index.htm
|
Freddie Stubbs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:07 PM
Response to Original message |
1. The House? Or do you mean the Senate? |
NNN0LHI
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
Freddie Stubbs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
12. WTF? Democrats still control the House until January 3 |
spanone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
16. this is why the last election came out the way it did. imho |
Capitalocracy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-19-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
|
People want leadership. Even if they don't agree 100% with what they do, they want leadership.
|
KamaAina
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
29. They tried to pass it using the fast-track rules |
|
thus, it needed a two-thirds majority.
|
Better Believe It
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #29 |
41. I think they did it that way so it would be guaranteed to fail. Thank you Nancy Pelosi! |
Better Believe It
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #41 |
43. It looks like Democratic congressional leaders are always looking for ways to kill good legislation. |
|
Thank you Nancy Pelosi for once again showing us how its done!
|
Freddie Stubbs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #29 |
51. Then they simply have to pass it under the regular rules |
walldude
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-19-10 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #29 |
81. Because they haven't learned or because they are stupid? |
|
Those are the last 2 options. When they did this on the 9/11 first responders bill it cost those people dearly so Republicans could continue to line the pockets of their foreign donors. How many times do the Repugs need to show their colors before the Democrats see them?
|
eridani
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
67. It was fast track, so it needed 2/3 |
|
My question is why the fast track?
|
de novo
(590 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-19-10 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #67 |
76. To ensure an excuse for not getting it done? |
Capitalocracy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-19-10 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #76 |
93. We think the Republicans are the only ones who can play hardball |
|
But these Dems really stand their ground. They find procedures to make sure they get bipartisanship or nothing! Apparently they're playing hardball, but only when it comes to making sure Republicans are the only ones who can define the agenda.
|
MrsCorleone
(844 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
62. The House. Link to roll call: |
Hannah Bell
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:08 PM
Response to Original message |
3. fuckers. just in time for the holidays. |
Brickbat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:08 PM
Response to Original message |
Old and In the Way
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:09 PM
Response to Original message |
5. So, I guess they won't be holding this up as hostage on taxcuts? |
|
No reason not to force the vote now on middle class taxcuts.
|
quinnox
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:10 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Meanwhile, tax cuts for the rich will have no trouble passing |
|
Oh well, screw those lazy unemployed people anyway, they need to get off their ass and get in those fields picking berries if they have to! Serves them right.
:sarcasm:
|
theaocp
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:11 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Well, I'm sure the tax cuts will create jobs |
|
:sarcasm: Since I'm on a sarcastic roll here, why not just cut taxes for those in the upper 2% to ZERO and they'll make enough jobs for everybody? Hey, where'd everybody go? What's with all the crickets?
|
Crazy Dave
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:11 PM
Response to Original message |
8. If they would work half as hard for the unemployed.... |
|
As they did to keep their own jobs in the mid-terms this wouldn't happen.
|
neverforget
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:12 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Austerity for the poor and the middle classes continues |
Mass
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:12 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-18-10 02:15 PM by Mass
|
gateley
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:12 PM
Response to Original message |
PBS Poll-435
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
35. 98% of our team voted on it |
|
Weird 2/3rds Rule on this bill.
Can't seem to find out why. Might be related to "increasing the budget defecit".
|
Love Bug
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:13 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-18-10 02:15 PM by Love Bug
This is a lame duck session and it's a sure bet once the new Congress reconvenes in January there will be no more talk about tiers or extensions for anyone. The political bonus for them is Obama will get blamed for it because the American public is too stupid to know how their government works.
From: Congress To: The Unemployed Merry Fucking Christmas! (now go away and die already)
|
tridim
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:13 PM
Response to Original message |
14. The Republicans just destroyed millions of lives. |
|
Congratulations assholes.
|
CherokeeDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
|
Most likely in 30 days...I'll be homeless...after 15 months of trying very hard to find a job. I am done with politics. There is no compassion for people...only concern for their corporate gods. Bastards all.
|
Love Bug
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
18. I feel your pain, CherokeeDem |
|
My UI benefits ran out in August. Currently I'm living off savings but that won't last very much longer. If my own Congress critters weren't good liberals I'd be done with politics, too. I'll support liberals that actually act and govern like liberals but all the rest can go to hell.
|
Mojorabbit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
28. Don't Dems still have control of the house? nt |
tridim
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #28 |
38. Blue dog dems are Republicans. |
pinto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #28 |
48. Here's the vote tally (needed 2/3 to pass) |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-18-10 03:10 PM by pinto
Democratic: Yeas - 237, Nays - 11, No vote - 7 Republican: Yeas - 21, Nays - 143, No vote - 15
Totals: Yeas - 258, Nays - 154, No vote - 22
|
pinto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:20 PM
Response to Original message |
17. Fast-track submission - needed 2/3 vote to pass, got a majority, but not 2/3. |
|
"Democrats brought the measure to the floor under fast-track rules that required a two-thirds vote to pass, so the measure fell despite winning a majority."
*************************
The Republicans own this one. And unless another approach is found that works in the short time left, every Dem will carry that message, sadly, home to their district on Thanksgiving break.
Republicans blocked unemployment extension. ~ pinto
|
hfojvt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
20. aha, so that detail finally comes out |
|
Of course, Pelosi will still be blamed for choosing to put this on fast track. Yet that's probably the alternative to Republicans offering dozens of amendments or sending it through a couple of committees.
|
pinto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
46. Agree. It was a shot, given the time window on the thing. |
walldude
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-19-10 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
82. Except this fast track has been tried before... |
|
and failed for the same damn reasons. It was tried on the 9/11 first responders vote, because Dems thought there was NO WAY Republicans would deny 9/11 first responders medical care. This excuse is no longer valid. You can't say the Dems didn't have a chance to learn from their mistakes.
|
The Backlash Cometh
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:24 PM
Response to Original message |
19. For all those who voted Republican, there's nothing that can save you now. |
piratefish08
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:28 PM
Response to Original message |
21. Don't we still control the House? Am I missing something here? |
dixiegrrrrl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:29 PM
Response to Original message |
22. 258 lawmakers voted in favor of the extension, while 154 voting against it. |
|
To pass the House, the bill needed to capture two-thirds of the votes --
The bill would have extended special federal unemployment insurance benefits through February, calling for $12.5 billion in emergency spending.
Without an extension, long-term jobless workers will start losing benefits in coming weeks, with about two million cut off by the end of the year.
Anyone find the vote tally yet????
|
quinnox
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
27. that seems close to 2/3rds, how many did they need to pass it? |
|
Anyone know the number they needed? Maybe they could try again and round up a few more votes.
|
dixiegrrrrl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
37. 275 votes were needed, says here: |
|
The $12.5 billion bill that was on the floor Thursday needed two-thirds approval, or 275 votes, a tough hurdle. The vote was 258 to 154. http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/18/news/economy/unemployment_benefits_extension/index.htmSince we only have 255 Dems....looks like nothing can pass as long as our "majority" House requires 2/3. and you KNOW the votes are carefully lined up long before the 'public" count.
|
quinnox
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #37 |
|
Dang, that is a tough number to get. Maybe they can figure something else out to try and get this passed.
|
PBS Poll-435
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #37 |
|
And you are exactly right.
|
MrsCorleone
(844 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
mfcorey1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:32 PM
Response to Original message |
23. I want a list of anydemocrat who voted against it. I knew those f@@@ on the right would not vote |
krawhitham
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
26. we only have 251 dems in the house |
dixiegrrrrl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
32. Wiki says we have 255 Dems, Repubs have 178, and there are 2 vacancies. |
|
So, we needed 2/3 of 433 votes =uhhhh......help....somebody calculate that, I am math deficient.
|
mfcorey1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:32 PM
Response to Original message |
24. I want a list of anydemocrat who voted against it. I knew those f@@@ on the right would not vote |
mfcorey1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:32 PM
Response to Original message |
25. I want a list of any democrats who voted against it. I knew those f@@ks on the right would not |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-18-10 02:34 PM by mfcorey1
vote for it.
|
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:40 PM
Response to Original message |
30. Oh well. This is the kind of result America voted for. |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-18-10 02:41 PM by TwilightGardener
This is what we all get. Happy Thanksgiving.
|
PBS Poll-435
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #30 |
54. Not til January. This was our current House. nt |
PBS Poll-435
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:45 PM
Response to Original message |
31. Missed it by 1 or 2 votes |
|
Zach Space and Kennedy better have a good reason for missing this vote.
|
dixiegrrrrl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #31 |
34. Whoa...who all missed the vote????? |
PBS Poll-435
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #34 |
36. I screwed up. We needed 275 by YOUR math. I was thinking 60/100 rather than 2/3rds. |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-18-10 02:55 PM by PBS Poll-435
But 22 did not show up.
Barrett (SC) Boozman Brown (SC) Brown, Corrine Brown-Waite, Ginny Coble Davis (KY) Delahunt Duncan Fallin Gallegly Kennedy Kirk Linder Lynch McMahon Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Radanovich Space Terry Westmoreland
Mostly 'Pubs.
|
dixiegrrrrl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #36 |
49. 7 are Dems. Still not enough votes if they had showed up. |
|
But t Kennedy not showing up to vote ?????
|
Hannah Bell
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #49 |
69. isn't that the republican kennedy, not a jfk relation? |
JPZenger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:48 PM
Response to Original message |
33. 6 months UC and no help with health insurance |
|
Anyone who becomes unemployed today will only get 6 months of unemployment compensation and no help with health insurance costs.
|
csziggy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:55 PM
Response to Original message |
42. NAY votes and not voting |
|
On the site, "Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined" so the party designation does not copy. Go to: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll579.xmlNAYS 154Aderholt Akin Alexander Austria Bachmann Bachus Bartlett Barton (TX) Berry Biggert Bilirakis Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boehner Bonner Bono Mack Boustany Boyd Brady (TX) Bright Broun (GA) Buchanan Burgess Burton (IN) Buyer Calvert Camp Campbell Cantor Cao Capito Carter Cassidy Chaffetz Coffman (CO) Cole Conaway Cooper Crenshaw Culberson Davis (TN) Djou Dreier Emerson Flake Fleming Forbes Fortenberry Foxx Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Garrett (NJ) Gingrey (GA) Gohmert Goodlatte Granger Graves (GA) Graves (MO) Griffith Guthrie Hall (TX) Harper Hastings (WA) Hensarling Herger Hill Hoekstra Hunter Inglis Issa Jenkins Johnson, Sam Jordan (OH) King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kline (MN) Lamborn Lance Latham Latta Lee (NY) Lewis (CA) Lucas Luetkemeyer Lummis Lungren, Daniel E. Mack Marchant McCarthy (CA) McCaul McClintock McHenry McKeon McMorris Rodgers Mica Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller, Gary Minnick Myrick Neugebauer Nunes Nye Olson Paul Paulsen Pence Peterson Petri Pitts Poe (TX) Price (GA) Putnam Rehberg Roe (TN) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Rooney Roskam Royce Ryan (WI) Scalise Schmidt Schock Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shimkus Shuler Shuster Simpson Smith (NE) Smith (TX) Stearns Stutzman Sullivan Taylor Thompson (PA) Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Upton Walden Wamp Whitfield Wilson (SC) Wittman Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL) NOT VOTING 22 --- Barrett (SC) Boozman Brown (SC) Brown, Corrine Brown-Waite, Ginny Coble Davis (KY) Delahunt Duncan Fallin Gallegly Kennedy Kirk Linder Lynch McMahon Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Radanovich Space Terry Westmoreland
|
PBS Poll-435
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #42 |
44. A little surprised by some on the Nay list |
|
Djou, Cao, and Bono Mack...
|
csziggy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #44 |
45. I guess I should call up Boyd's office and complain at him for voting Nay |
|
:wtf: He already lost the election - why not be generous in his lame duckitude?
|
csziggy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #45 |
50. Took a look at Boyd's page - he supports tax cuts for the richest |
|
While voting against unemployment extensions. :grr:
I called his office and even his Washington office did not know how he had voted on the unemployment extension. I had to tell his people which bill number and which roll call! Then they tried to tell me there is no connection between his stance on tax breaks and unemployment compensation extensions - BS! If he wants to be a fiscal conservative, fine, but don't give billions to rich people who won't spend it while not helping out people who would spend every penny just to stay afloat for few more months.
I told the woman at his office that votes like this are why I did not vote for Boyd in the primaries. That as long as he is going out, he might as well be kind to the average person instead of padding the pockets of the ultra-wealthy That I would be happy to pay more taxes to help out the people who have not been able to get jobs because of the Bush Recession, but I would NOT be happy to support tax cuts for people who don't need them.
FUCK Boyd.:nuke:
|
IMATB
(158 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #50 |
|
pay more taxes for this. America gives money hand over fist to anyone with their hand out and we can't help our own ?
That's fucked up.
There is no way the people in Washington live in the real world. If they did they would NOT have voted the way they did.
How about we the people starve their asses for a few months. See how real they'll get then.
This makes me so angry.
|
dixiegrrrrl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #42 |
52. we needed 2/3 of 412 votes ( 412 were present to vote) |
|
And 11 Dems voted NO.
So, if all Dems had showed and voted, that would have been 419 voting.
we would have needed 2/3 of 419 votes = 279.
But there are only 276 total Dems, so the votes was doomed to fail unless some Republicans voted for it.
How did Sanders and LIE-berman vote.?
|
PBS Poll-435
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #52 |
53. Sanders and Liebergrinch are in the Senate. nt |
dixiegrrrrl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #53 |
66. Never miiind........... |
Better Believe It
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 03:05 PM
Response to Original message |
47. So if it looks like a bill will pass the House you switch to "fast track" rules to kill it! |
|
So super-majority votes are now needed in both the House and Senate to pass anything progressive under Democratic leadership rules.
That should help preserve the status quo until Republicans take control of the House and even greater control of the Senate in January.
(Democrats are technically in control of the Senate but some are there to function as Republican enablers)
If Democrats controlled 100 Senate seats they might pass a liberal/progressive agenda .... or maybe not, because at least 41 of them would be southern centrists and everyone knows you need 60 votes to pass legislation in the Senate .... well, that's what they keep telling us anyway.
|
pinto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #47 |
55. I think it was more a matter of getting it done before the recess and the Dec. 1st expiration date, |
|
not an intent to "kill it". It was introduced on the 17th, voted on today, i.e. fast tracked.
The usual track on bills filed under standard procedures can take weeks to get to the floor out of Committee. Fast track short circuited that, but needed 2/3 to pass under House rules. :hi:
|
Better Believe It
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #55 |
57. Wasn't that bill filed well before the recess began and if not, why not? |
|
Have a 1 hour hearing, vote in committee and move it to the floor.
Act like Republicans!
|
pinto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #57 |
60. Introduced yesterday - |
|
Rep. Sander Levin, a Michigan Democrat, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, introduced the bill with Rep. Jim McDermott, a Washington Democrat, on Wednesday. http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/18/news/economy/unemployment_benefits_extension/index.htm
|
Igel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #57 |
|
We watched the same spectacle last time, for precisely the same reasons with precisely the same kinds of claims and counter-claims.
This could have been put to a vote 6 months ago. Or more. It was predictable that it would be needed. No, strike that: It was predicted that it would be needed. Fairly commonly predicted, to be sure.
BUT if it's not an "emergency measure"--no matter how far in advance the emergency can be predicted, no matter how much people delay dealing with the problem until it's suddenly an emergency because of the dawdling--then it's under different budget rules. No longer is it a normal budget matter; no, it's off budget because it's an emergency, and pay-go isn't supposed to apply. That means finding spending cuts or tax increases to make the bill deficit-neutral. Pelosi doesn't want to do that. Pelosi can proudly say that she supports pay-go and abides by it.
But if it's an emergency you need to fast-track it. You can't let the bill's carcass sit around for weeks as it's picked over, chewed on, and amended and debated ad infinitum, even if all the amendments fail and the debate is eventually shut down. Doing that means that it's not really an emergency. And, voila, pay-go kicks in.
"Ooh, look, a petard." "That's mine! You can't have it, I'm going to be busy tomorrow hoisting myself on it." "Well, then. Have a blast!"
|
PBS Poll-435
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 03:39 PM
Response to Original message |
56. Honestly. Rep. Slaughter. New Rule. Passed before the end of the year. |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-18-10 03:40 PM by PBS Poll-435
Probably this month.
But terrifying to those that depend who on these benefits to choose between the Holidays and putting food into their kid's stomachs.
|
Better Believe It
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 03:58 PM
Response to Original message |
59. What did President Obama do to campaign for a yes vote in the House? |
jeanpalmer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #59 |
70. Is there a bully pulpit in that WH? |
|
Or have they all donned their pink tutus?
|
MadHound
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 04:18 PM
Response to Original message |
63. Once again we see the outstanding strategy being used by the Dems |
|
You don't fast track a bill unless you've already got the needed number of votes in your pocket, you just don't. That's House leadership 101. Instead you take the time, submit it early enough so that it can be voted on, and passed, in the normal, non-2/3 margin fashion.
But once again we're going hear lame excuses for poor Democratic strategy. :puke:
|
the redcoat
(510 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 04:20 PM
Response to Original message |
64. We can't extend unemployment benefits because we have to pay for the top 2%'s tax cuts! |
|
It would be fiscally irresponsible, kind of.
|
KillCapitalism
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 04:28 PM
Response to Original message |
65. The 3rd worldization of America. |
|
Most third world countries are measured by the number of people who live on less than $2 a day.
If you're unemployed and your benefits expire, technically you're living on less than $2 a day.
|
Dragonfli
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-18-10 08:45 PM
Response to Original message |
68. Fuck them all, I'm done - they only work for the rich at least since Reagan INCLUDING Clinton |
|
and 99% of the so called Democratic party. That party died years ago.
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-19-10 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #68 |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
Dragonfli
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-19-10 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #72 |
74. They chose to use an option needing 2/3 guaranteeing a loss, they knew what they were doing |
|
Since you are accusing a fellow DUer of lying, what am I lying about? Hero worship does not feed the needy, so I suggest you take your pie and feed a family with it that will be living in the street soon.
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-19-10 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #74 |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
Dragonfli
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-19-10 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #75 |
89. 99% do work for the rich, I am sorry if you are too fragile to see what is before your eyes. |
|
The party I joined was the one that established the New Deal, not the one that "welfare reformed" people into the streets to live, not the one that champions trade deals that send all the jobs overseas. That is your party and they appear to have stolen the name. Just because the alternative is the fascist party GOP does not change the fact that no one will stand up for the non rich in any meaningful way.
I await the return of my party, if they choose to come back home to the people they will get the same support they got from me for thirty years. It has just become too much for me to take anymore, I am not here to support wealthy people that don't want for anything.
|
de novo
(590 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-19-10 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #72 |
78. Dog and pony show. The Dems could have passed this anytime, |
|
and without the 'fast track' super majority needed. They failed. It can be debated why they failed, but the Democratically held House failed to pass this.
|
tridim
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-19-10 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #78 |
79. It failed because of the Republicans voted against it. Period. nt |
de novo
(590 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-19-10 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #79 |
80. It failed because the Dems gave the repugs the opportunity to kill it. |
|
Another weak move. The Dems own this, they still own the House. Period.
|
tridim
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-19-10 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #80 |
84. It failed because of the Republicans voted against it. Period. nt |
de novo
(590 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-19-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #84 |
85. Why did the Dems dick around until it had to be fast-tracked, knowing full |
|
well how the repubs would vote?
|
tridim
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-19-10 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #85 |
87. Why are you so eager to blame the Dems for something the Republicans did? |
de novo
(590 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-19-10 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #87 |
88. Why did the Dems drop the ball? |
|
The each hold some blame. My point is, the Dems know how the repubs vote. They knew what the outcome would be under a fast track. They failed and were ineffective in extending the benefits.
In my opinion, the only thing that actually mattered was extending the benefits, which the Democratic House failed to do.
|
bluestate10
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-19-10 02:23 PM
Response to Original message |
73. If you want to change employment dynamics, buy US made products. |
|
Most of you people whine about unemployment, multi-national corporations, poor paying jobs, outsourcing. Then you hop in your car, the subway or whatever and go to the most convenient shopping. If you want jobs, spend time on the web finding the wonderful US based companies out there that are using US workers to make all manner of products. The very objective of the companies is to manufacture safe, durable products using US workers and sourcing as much of their raw materials from other US companies. Do any of you know the US shoe company that is proud to build in the US? I did not think so, the company is New Balance. I just exchanged a wonderful email with a service Representative for a company in South Carolina and manufactures eco friendly teeshirts, only one of their line is built outside the US and that is built in Haiti, a country which can use the help. I may get moderated, I hope not, but the company is named As tees. As tees will be getting an order from me within a day once I get time to pick shirts and do the order. The web address is Astees.com. As disclosure, I have nothing to do with the company other than finding them on the web and I made sure that they truly manufactured in South Carolina as their site claimed. I will be purchasing their tees and will be proud to do so, they encompass core values that I hold close to my heart.
People, if you want to save your jobs, get off your behinds (or sit on your behinds if doing web searches for USA made products) and take direct action. Macy's will not be getting anymore of my clothing money if I can possibly help it. Once Macy's sees their offerings collecting dust in stores, they will run surveys to find out, then find and buy from USA based clothing, shoe and house-goods manufacturers.
|
walldude
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-19-10 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #73 |
|
Well thanks for the lesson. This is the wrong site to walk in and berate people for not "buying American" or for not trying to save jobs. Or whatever holier than thou crap you are spewing.
"Most of you people"? LMAO.. nice try.
|
readmoreoften
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-19-10 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #73 |
91. Yeah, show me that union made coffee pot and computer and I'll be all over it. |
|
As someone who has tried to graphic design on union-only products I'm well-aware of the difficulties of buying American. Consumption is not a "power." Production is power. The power is in general strikes, not general boycotts.
|
Lucian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-19-10 03:25 PM
Response to Original message |
77. That's just not right at all. |
|
How could anyone, let alone Democrats, vote against extending unemployment benefits?
What a sick country we live in.
|
fascisthunter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-19-10 03:35 PM
Response to Original message |
83. A Mob should go down to DC |
readmoreoften
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-19-10 04:33 PM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 04th 2024, 03:48 AM
Response to Original message |