Rachel Maddow: Stimulus Showdown
By Heather Tuesday Jan 27, 2009 5:00pmRachel reminds the Democrats that they won the election mainly because the public did not trust the Republicans to run the economy and so they should fight against the GOP obstructing the stimulus bill. From Think Progress, it looks like they already caved on the family planning provision in the bill.
Rachel also takes the editorial staff at the Wall Street Journal to task for their article citing the debunked, nonexistent CBO report which the media has cited 81 times in the last six days. Talk about marching in lock step.
Rachel followed with David Sirota, who opined over why the Democrats are so worried about getting bipartisan support for the bill and what the costs are when appeasing Republicans.
Login or Register to post comments.
Site monitor, John....
I do not see the "Comment" button for the post above for Limbaugh...the new face of the GOP.
Is it me, or is there something wrong?
[It's not you; they're open now-Sitemonitor]
Who won in November?
I'm glad that Obama is sticking to his guns about taking a bi-partisan approach to the stimulus plan.
isn't this problem big enough by itself? Isn't it going to be hard enough to make this work already without having a majority support from the Republicans? Do we really want the leaders of 40% of this country working against us during this crucial period? Let's put an end to this partisanship! As long as the stimulus plan is not doing anything that violates progressive principles, then go with it!
Rachel, you're making bad arguments. McCain didn't lose the election because he was for getting rid of ear marks (everybody wants to get rid of earmarks), nor did McCain lose the election because he was for tax cuts (remember .. Obama campaigned heavily on his promise to cut taxes). McCian lost because he was linked to the Bush Administration's war-mongering, out-of-touch, and partisan brand of politics.
Like Obama said during the campaign, let's start by making progress on the things WE DO agree upon. There will be plenty of time later to do battle on the issues we don't agree on
If 200 million dollars on family planning is controversial now, put it off until later. We need to act fast, and act together to tackle this problem!
sounds so warm and fuzzy. The simple fact is that the vast majority of American's are to the "left" of even the Democrats, forget the Republicans, on the issues. They've openly rejected what the right has to offer. From health care, Iraq, the environment, to the economy. Compromising with the group whose ideas have destroyed the country not only means that we should accept horrible ideas as some sort of illogical compromise, but that the "centrist" position is essentially in between what the people want (and elected the Democrats to do) and what the corporate interests want who tell the Republicans what policies they want passed.
What we agree on is platitudes, nothing more. We can all say we believe, for instance, in "economic justice". We can hold hands and sing folk songs, but what does that MEAN in practice? We can say we want health care available to all Americans, but under what system? Is the profit motive present? If so, will that mean that the fundamental problems in the health care system go unsolved, the best we can do is make a bad situation less bad?
At what point in time do we say that horribly failed policies should not be implemented, that we should take a stand for democracy, not compromises with parasitic elites who are in favor of policies for no other reason than it benefits them?
The problem is that public opinion on the issues is far different than the opinions of those in government. Until they are one and the same we can't say that we have a functioning democracy, especially if failed and rejected policies are forced on us.
It's not centrist to move forward with those things that are not controversial. Move forward on those things we agree together about, and STOP THE PARTASAN PISSING MATCH! (who care what the REpublicans did in the past)
Go back next year and push those more controversial issues related to the environment, and health care, and social security. you don't have to try to do it all at once. In fact, if you try to do it all at once, it almost certainly will fail, and then there really wont be another chance to get those things done.
It is ideological. I am not a Democrat, although I sometimes vote for them while holding my nose. You can go into a fight and pretend that ideology doesn't matter if you want. In the real world, when ideology justifies policies that benefit the owners of both parties, you have to be able to pose alternatives. The economy has FUNDAMENTAL problems. Have any idea what they are? What is not FIXED, not moderately changed, will become even worse in the future. So, to appease the party on the other side, whose policies benefit the already rich and are rejected by the vast majority of Americans, let's "compromise". That means no family planning, the idea would be JOKE anywhere else in the world. This is America though, and one of the political parties are children, so let's hold their hand. Making it easier to form unions, a democratic right, correct? Not at all controversial most anywhere else in the West. Oh well, the other side favors policies that benefit the rich, and will lie and steal to make it happen.
You know, you can say otherwise, but your mindset is not going to change. The right wing's ideas, even in moderation, WILL make the problems we're facing worse. SOLVING the worsening problems will require even more radical measures in the future. When it comes time to do that, you'll say what? Explain at what time you think we should stop compromising and FIX what needs to be fixed.
I will say though that there are powerful interests who stand in the way of needed change. If people aren't organized and don't push these politicians, nothing will change. There are no direct, participatory measures in the constitution, so raising hell (and begging these crook politicians) is our only hope.
Wilber1 right you are, I said this down the page but it's perhaps worth repeating
Let's bring this down to an individual persons level so people can understand, what would we say to someone who is deeply in debt, debt being what has brought them to the brink of ruin.
Their brilliant solution?
Invest in their personal infrastructure by getting more office equipment, and things that will put them to work. To do this they will get more credit cards, lines of credit, and proceed to max them out doing exactly what got them in trouble with deficit spending on doodads.
What would we call someone that does that? Foolish? An idiot? Financially irresponsible?
So if you can use that equipment to make $100,000 a year and put yourself out on a limb for a billion dollars. What we call that person?
I think it starts with the letter F
Think that is a stretch? Well just look at our monetary base.
Base Money (1919 - November, 2008)
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/fredgraph?s[1][id]=AMBNS
"The problem is that public opinion on the issues is far different than the opinions of those in government. Until they are one and the same we can't say that we have a functioning democracy, especially if failed and rejected policies are forced on us."
So, what if I do not agree with the policies and you do? Aren't they then being forced upon me? Your way or my way will never be right or wrong for everyone. Should the Republicans just lay down in front of Obama and let him do anything he wants to do? Should they not represent their constituents wishes? If the rolls were reversed you know you would ask the same of your congressperson. So don't be so surprised when Obama negotiates on some issues. Whenever either party gets a filibuster congress, it is always bad for the country.
"So, what if I do not agree with the policies and you do? Aren't they then being forced upon me?"
Ideally no, but coercion is going to happen in any economic or social system. It could be individual or systematic. The idea is to have the least amount of coercion as possible, and that only happens when the policies of the majority of people are enacted. Who is to say that the Republicans or the Democrats are doing what their constituents want? There are, according to the government, about 20,000 jobs being lost a day. Wages have been stagnating in the US for decades. The economic philosophy that spawned this horrible condition, neo-liberalism is failure in practice without exception. We have the most inefficient and over priced health care system in the world, and the involvement of the market is a big reason why. We have a violent, illogical and reactionary foreign policy that needs to change if our democracy is to survive. Is stopping any fundamental changes because of the wishes of entrenched interests doing what is best for their constituents? Is opposing far better and more logical policies on rigid and illogical ideological or religious grounds really doing what is in their constituents' best interest? The Republican Party has run this country into the ground, whoever they are doing this crap for is irrelevant, they're harming far more people with their nonsense than they're helping. I expect them to act as they expected the minority party to act when they were in power. Shut up and write strong letters in disagreement.
You still miss my point, "Ideally no" well, yes they are being forced upon me if I do not agree with them so how in the world can you say ideally no?
I agree it makes sense to find the common ground on these issues. But the cynic in me says the reason the Democrats wants bi-partisan support is so that if the stimulus package does not work (or at least don't make things better), then they won't be stuck with all the blame.
from the start of this entire fiasco. This is nothing more than partisan political displays to toss the blame back and forth if it doesn't work.
just where do you see the repugs doing anything but f-ing things up again. as for McNut, what a shitbag.
can always tack the family planning funds onto an appropriations bill 'for the troops' or some other such nonsense. Stick it to the 'Pubs the same way they did to the rest of us for the last decade.
This ain't nothin' compared to the fight these mofos are gonna put up over EFCA.
My request to Prez OBAMA:
STOMP THE REPUG'S NECKS DOWN!!
THEY got us to this point!! THEY more than DESERVE it!!
MASH THEM INTO OBLIVION!!! (figuratively, of course)
You can see what listening to the republicans has brought us.
If you listen to an idiot long enough you are in danger of becoming stupid yourself!
18% towards infrastructure?
30% towards tax cuts?
What did they do with the money they were going to spend on rubbers?
It is starting to sound like something that isn't a good idea anymore. But they will pass it because "we need to spend lots of money. Doesn't matter what."
what the media says, you just know CONgress is going to screw this up royally. It'll be nothing more than massive debt by the time all the t's are crossed, and the partisanship deals sealed from both parties.
curtilingous, exactly right, and for the $5 trillionth time, with what money?
Ron Paul is absolutely wrong.
There is precedent for this. During the great depression, after Hoover royally screwed the pooch, Roosevelt borrowed and spent and built infrastructure.
His investment led directly to prosperity not only in individual wealth, but in American influence on world events.
Reagan came in and said that government is the problem, and his approach led directly to where we are today, 9 Trillion dollars in debt.
Ron Paul is a simpleton. Anyone that tells you that everything is black and white and very simple is selling you something.
He is no simpleton, Roosevelt spending made things worst and last longer. You don't help people in debt with more debt. Its like saying we can go out and buy a new house to stimulate your bank account when its empty.
Yes Reagan made things worst WITH HIS SPENDING and some regulations should not have been removed. Fraud should always be discouraged.
That right, Krugman is a clueless spender, you have to cut WORTHLESS spending, not useful spending. Like the overseas empire (over a trillion a year), and you have to stop bailing out banks. Keynesian economics is a fraud and we will learn the hard way with inflation.
He is not GWB, that idiot who took over the White House, House and senate and did as he pleased. The difference is that he understands that winning an election doesn't give you the right to go to an extreme and do as you please. We had 8 years of dictatorship because a president abused his powers.
We can stick to a progressive agenda without being defiant and arrogant like Bush. Otherwise, it's going to be another 8 years of the same crap. I don't expect the president I support to have that kind of attitude, Ms. Maddow. And he represents me too. You don't write policies, everyone do.
Is this a stimulus showdown for Rachel?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn4eky7n0Cg
I'm, ...I'm impressed. I had no idea.
http://www.stinque.com/2009/01/27/electric-co...
I love to see you guys care so much!
You have to check out this new site called {Deleted, Blogwhoring. That's a no no. SiteMonitor}
The site tracks everything the President does day in and day out.
We are unbiased in the reports we pick because we want America to formulate your own opinions!
Check it out it. It truly is and will be awesome! Start checking in on the President everyday!
{ Perhaps you should ask first.SiteMonitor}
so now you want to track Pre Obama. where were you back in 2000. the fact is that bush F-ed up this country with the repugs and as in there way, want to keep F-ing things up and blain it on dems. Dems need to treat the repugs the way they were treated. run there retarted ass out of town.
Were in control we should be telling them whats gonna happen. The dems are so stupid that they are gonna let the minority run the Capitol. I am frustrated.
WTF. the dems won the election. some one tell them, you won, you don't have to suck the repugs dick any more. grow a pare of NUTS!
Democrats act boldly? That's a fascinating idea!
the dems are not taking direction from the "GOP" boogyman. there are these peoples called lobbyists and a whole lot a trappings that come with them. Your dems take direction from the same entities that the GOP did and does. Put a kinder, softer face on it perhaps but trust me, no less bloody.
Our new president became a war criminal 3 days into his term when he ordered drone strikes on Pakistan. killing 20 including 3 kids.
"Our new president became a war criminal 3 days into his term when he ordered drone strikes on Pakistan. killing 20 including 3 kids."
Link?
I'm watching a PBS documentary on the flight of the Monarch butterfly all the way from Canada and the US to Mexico. The people in this area of Mexico cheer their return as that of their ancestors during All Saints/All Souls Day.
Of course Capistrano has their sparrows.
The Tower of London their ravens
And Brownsville Texas their bats.
Canada's political mammals marched back to parliament today as well to table a budget, similar in design to the US one. Oh how I hate when these mammals make that migration to Ottawa.
Sound familiar? Yup, that's what created this clusterf*ck to start with, and they want to help it with more of the same. Is there something wrong with the entire world's political leaders that they just can't comprehend the screaming from the taxpayers?
I know you're drawing the analogy in jest. But it's all part of the synchronicity of life.
I've seen documentaries where normally passive dolphins fought a war, because a stranger tried to leave with one of the women. The war lasted all day, long by animal terms.
Read the last scene in the Thornton Wilder's Our Town.
Listen to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4Eh3exwwcI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CMdqWh_J8I
(Supposedly based on The Tibetan Book of the Dead.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k4PBNWUQEo
a fascinating person. No jest intended.
And also very very drunk.
I wanted to grow up to live in Pepperland.
My drunk fad, was the first couple weeks after getting layed off. Now I'm just a grumpy bastard. Maybe I should go back to drinking.
I'm in no immediate risk of being laid off, but I'm underemployed and underpaid, and at risk of losing my feet.
Although I never cared for this much, I think I may've identified too closely:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cj6zHzTumE
But then we're clearly off topic,
And I have to see if I can catch any crotch shots of Frances Gifford.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lIgIk9BTa0
..must have escaped and made it all the way to PA -'cause last week I had one in my bedroom. Yuck!! No clue how it got in.
They are ugly suckers with their little pink mouths and tiny, nasty looking teeth. I trapped it under a kitchen strainer, the round, mesh kind, and it wiggled some - so I was holding the edge down on it's neck - but it seemed to not be dying. As I was trying to figure how to get it out of the house, I opened the linen closet, hoping to find something I could tr y to put it in to get it out of the house. It was really freaking me out, so I grabbed a spray bottle of Clorox bleach which was within reach and sprayed the sucker - copiously. That did the trick - slid the sucker into a plastic bag and threw the whole thing out the front door - it was about 2 a.m. - where the 15 degree temps ensured it was dead.
I don't think I'll be wanting to visit Brownsville any time soon.
No wooden stake?
P.S. David Sirota is an AIPAC lizard. Its a bad sign that he is getting booked on Maddow.
Oh well, time for another chapter of The Green Hornet Stikes Back, the last chapter of Jungle Girl, and maybe one new chapter of The Drums of Fu Manchu.
God I hate free TV.
did he choose this guy? I love Rachel btw:)
This goes back to the corruption in BOTH parties. The new treasury secretary is a tax cheat, I am not a friend of the income tax, I think it shouldn't exist but if I were to hold him up to the "laws" he wants us to live under he doesn't belong in the position he is in. THIS WASN'T a mistake, he didn't paid the tax on purpose.
Stimulus will not work btw it will destroy the dollar and hurt everyone. Buy some silver or gold (whatever you can afford)they can't hyperinflate that..look at the value of it now. In Canada (my country) its over 1100 dollar mainly because we do not have the worlds reserve currency. We need corrupt crappy companies to dissapear and a recession is the best way to do it. Then we will recover but the government will not let that happen, they will bail out crappy companies so they will stay around.
If Chris Matthews would quit talking about how Public Health = China, I think the MSM will quickly start raking the Republican obstructionists over the coals.
Everyone knows that no matter how much Obama reaches out his hand the Repubes will continue to slap at him. Pelosi can hold the vote tomorrow or the day after and everything will go through.
Republicans opposing this will just hasten their march toward irrelevance.
"Rachel reminds the Democrats that they won the election mainly because the public did not trust the Republicans to run the economy"
So this is the main reason Barack was elected? Isn't it logic like this that C&L rages against when Fox News makes such assertions? Yep, that's why I read, because a lot of the posts do just that. Except, of course, when it's Rachel or Krugman.
This site feels more like Koz more every day.
they were the "better" of two evils. The majority of the country is independent and hoped for real change. What we got was a guy from Goldman to lead Treasury and a Congress and President that wants to spend and borrow money we don't have. The Republicans of course are hypocrites but they realize that they probably lost some of the independent and fiscal voters because they voted for TARP 1.
The stimulus is making the Republicans more relevant . Voters have short memories and both parties know how to waste our money. The Democrats are going to own this stimulus package and it will have similar results to the Republican Iraq War. The qustion will be does the next 2010 "new" 1 Trillion dollar stimulus "surge" be enough to woo independent voters? Probably not.
Login or Register to post comments.