Unemployment Bill Fails 57-41

[jtuck004]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-24/senate-republicans-block-u-s-jobless-aid-extension-buyout-manager-tax.html

<snip>
The impasse means unemployment benefits will be cut off to more than 1 million Americans by the end of this week, according to the Labor Department.
<snip>
_________________________________________

On the other hand, it is so much less than what is needed. 15 million out of work PLUS 15 million uneremployed. It would just be a temporary measure, and they would still need jobs when the unemployment numbers increase over the next few months.

We need a really big plan, on the order of a trillion or so, and the opposition knows this. They are deliberately making moves that will keep this economy floundering, perhaps because they have an election coming up in a few months. That is the kind of money that would nearly immediately enter the economy, but perhaps that would keep them from pointing to the deficit as a reason for gutting SSI and medicare.

[Taverner]

1. Fucking Blue Dogs...

[sabrina 1]

10. Mostly Blue Dogs but Feingold?

Why did he vote with the Republicans on this bill?

[PassingFair]

16. He didn't. The only Democrat voting with the Thugs was Ben Nelson

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-us-senate-rollcall-spending,0,7853114.story


Even Lieberman voted YES.....

[rpannier]

17. Thank you for that clarification

I didn't know if Lieberman was a yes vote or had merely not voted
I know he had been skeptical of the bill
I was pretty sure he hadn't voted -- so thanks (It prevents me from posting something stupid like, "If only Coaxley had won and we had 60 votes...")

[PassingFair]

18. Happy to oblige!

:hi:

[ixion]

28. Someone was asking how Nelson keeps his seat in conservative NE

that's how, unfortunately.

[Dawson Leery]

2. Remember those who didn't bother to come out

for Martha Coakley?

[The_Casual_Observer]

6. The "progressives" were out to teach the DLC a lesson!

This is the lesson I guess.

[rpannier]

12. You join in on that tired (and useless) meme all you want

But since Ben Nelson of Nebraska was one of the 41, Coaxley's election would have been irrelevant
Another Republican would have voted to keep it at 41

[The_Casual_Observer]

23. Keep saying that to yourself & everything will be okay.

[rpannier]

24. Terribly sorry that reality got in the way of your bumpersticker

But Nelson has been there to derail or water down most substantive legislation for the past year, as well as being an important vote for Bush's tax cuts.

The idea that having 60 votes would have made one iota difference on this bill lacks any substance what-so-ever.
One only need look at how some Democrats (and that idiot that caucuses with the Democrats) scuttled many important aspects of the Health Care bill to see how Coaxley's vote would have been irrelevant because Nelson still would have voted with the filibuster.
The only difference here would have been that another Republican would have shown up to be vote #41

[rpannier]

11. I think Ben Nelson (and maybe Lieberman) are two of the 41

Even if Coaxley had won, another Republican would have arrived to aid the filibuster

on edit:
Democrats, who control the Senate with 59 votes, needed support from at least one Republican to bring the bill to the floor for a final vote. Democrats focused on winning over Maine Republican Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins after Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson demanded that any legislation not add to the deficit.

[bain_sidhe]

13. How would having Coakley change Ben Nelson's vote?

I mean, I get how everybody wants to blame progressives for not being sufficiently excited about seeing their priorities kicked to the curb time and time again, but just how would this filibuster have been broken, even if Coakley had won?

[rpannier]

14. It wouldn't

It just gives people the opportunity to go after progressives and avoid facing the reality that the Democrats have at least three incredibly crappy Senators in their caucus

It's intellectually lazy, but it works for them

[endless october]

3. 17 percent are unemployed.

i was one of them until March. it always pissed me off when they tried to peg the rate in the nines.

it is hard to find a job out there. i found one, but it was only the grace of God and some luck that got me in there.

hope that everyone currently unemployed finds something good. until then, i hope that they aren't cut off from their benefits.

[DesertFlower]

4. i'm so tired of their bullshit.

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. The WPA & new deal was pushed through because of the fear of a revolution

They wouldn't be doing this shit if they feared a revolt. They figure everybody is so cowed, docile & neutered that they'll find a suitable basement or attic to live in & just disappear.

[Hydra]

7. Yup

No fear at the top. They think they have it all sown up.

Maybe they do? I'm not sure that most people will face those microwave blasters.

[jtuck004]

9. I think people will go if they think they are being treated badly.

If millions of people actually thought they needed to effect change, all they would have to do is start walking on DC. Not with pitchforks and torches, just to sit. And the reaction that would come from the pictures of peaceful citizens being assaulted
by the gov would bring about change. Put sound blasters out, but when the tv got the pictures of the crying children, it would be over in short order.

They are not convinced yet, and there is little making them question whether their current viewpoints are hurting them. We have the additional problem that the country seems to be much more focused on our divisions than our similarities.

But the problem is who would lead the charge? There are lots of very smart people who understand exactly what is going on. Both of the major political parties seem to be controlled by people who want to insure the continuity of the wealthy. The others are too special issue to gather everyone in, imho.

We may simply have to wait for the crash. And a lot of really vulnerable people are going to get hurt.

[Hydra]

19. I don't think it's that simple

Or maybe, it's more simple.

There will be no news cameras. No reporters. Just bodies.

They learned their lesson from the 60s.

[jtuck004]

20. I.m sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it would be simple ;)

And it sure isn't simple for the 31 million or so unemployed or underemployed neighbors of ours today.

But lots of discriminatory laws were overturned because of press attention in the 50's - as long as it was hidden, there was no raising of awareness. And a lot of people in this country began to question their blind obedience to the war and other ideals around that time, partly because of the media.

There needs to be some consciousness raising, but it can't just be "we want our jobs back - take care of us". That's not only not enough for the cost, it wouldn't change anything.

But what we have coming is years of high (and higher) unemployment, deflation, loss of SSI and medicare. And there is nothing that seems likely to change it on the horizon, especially since those at the top can get their profits from the rest of the world outside the United States.

[Hydra]

25. I understand where you are coming from

But the media is bought and paid for. Our protests were never recorded, even when millions showed up...but when 500 bought and paid for teabaggers show up, it's a "big event."

You've hit the nail on the head though, and it's discouraging news. The fact that things aren't getting better is a form of the slow boiled frog. If the changes were sharp and immediate, then the people might jump. Instead, they say "not my problem"...until it is.

I believe as you do that people wanting their old place in the caste system back won't get us anywhere. People aren't willing to sacrifice anything to get that.

[jtuck004]

26. There is some good evidence, I think, that supports your contention

that the media is bought and paid for.

But, only IMHO, of course, if one million people descended on DC, sat down, and said they were
there for the 31,000,000 people who need jobs, and they want a plan to put them back to work,
now, holding signs like "We don't need Teabags - we need jobs" or "You don't need to be a Racist
to support America" it would be all over the news. They should sit on the steps of the Lincoln
memorial, the streets outside the White House, all over the place. Quietly, politely, respectfully.
With good message discipline, and perhaps people wandering through the crowd signing them up
as Green Party voters, because it's pretty apparent that the parties of NO and the party of EXCUSES
aren't doing them much good. MaAybe we could make a third party of NO EXCUSES.

I think the bill that put people to work, in school and began to re-tool manufacturing and develop
some R&D for future work would set a land speed record for passage.

but who knows... ;)

[regnaD kciN]

8. And the reason they feared a revolution...

...was because, back then, the Soviet Union was in expansionist mode, supporting leftist movements throughout the world in the hopes of establishing new Communist states in countries where people were particularly hard-up. Now, in a world where the choice is between free-market capitalism and state-run capitalism (e.g. China), the only choices for the average people are, to quote Alexander Cockburn "work or starve...and, if you can't find work, starve anyway." :-(

[jtuck004]

15. So maybe it's time for a "Full Employment Party"?

Capitalist, in favor of employee ownership, politically leans toward full employment. Could it be anti-corporate?

There might be several million people with nothing better to do. (I remember Chris Hedges wrote back in March about joining the Green Party - all the same arguments would apply here, but my biggest one was that I didn't think people would coalesce around environmental issues. I still don't think so, even with the oil volcano. But jobs? Perhaps...)

Would just a have to win, or even sway, a few local elections to get a grip. Or maybe just be able to sway a thousand votes in a critical election unless some troublesome politicians let go of their sugar daddies and mommies and vote for working people's best interests.

[inna]

21. What is this BS?? This shouldn't require 60 votes, it should be 50!!

There must be some loopholes around that idiotic fake mikki mouse "absolute majority" rule.

People are hurting; this should be the first priority.

Millions of struggling unemployed Americans can't be cut off like that; this is the only source of income for most of them. It is vitally important to have this bill passed.

Unless we have officially descended into neo-feudalism or barbarism.

[westerebus]

22. 100% agree.

51 votes is all should take. Anything else is pure bullshit.

The barbarism is coming unfortunately. How large or for how long is up for comment too.

No one is sure what comes afterward.

And that is a really scary thought.

[JohnWxy]

27. internecine war

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x544362