[All caps deleted.]

Joy, the undemocratic Senate, full of Senators from small states get to veto aid to the large states (like CA) that are really hurting.

And now the filibuster on top allows 40% of the senators representing ~20% of the US population to hold up the works.

Feh

(20% was a wild assed guess.)

I hope Reid schedules a vote, and then forces the Republicans to actually filibuster if they're going to. The spectacle of the Republicans going on day after day about how capital gains and corporate tax cuts will solve all our economic problems -- while new layoffs are announced each day -- should turn public opinion and even the corporate-controlled media against them.

Of course, this is Harry Reid we're talking about. So it's more likely he'll offer to keep cutting the stimulus until there's nothing left.

Susan Collins, a centrist. Moose Poop. She's as much a centrist as Rush Limbaugh is a liberal.

Well, Harry Reid gave his word and you can take that all the way to any number of American banks.

A bill that does not give generous aid to states is not worth passing. It would only add to the national debt while discrediting the idea of true fiscal stimulus.

I have a question, to which I have no answer, so I'll ask it here.
Given that the Corporate Media seems to operate on orders from their owners, not the "journalists and reporters" they employ, what would happen if the DOJ, IRS, FCC or some independent investigators went after these owners for the commission of some serious crime, tax evasion/fraud, sexual crimes or other high crimes or misdemeanors? Power being what it is, I am willing to wager that there is plenty of ammunition there to expose corruption at the deepest levels. The challenge would be how to disclose it since the very media that is most public is controlled by these same targets of this investigation. I am seriously wondering if this tactic could work to break open the blockade to public disclosure of what is now well-hidden.

Any suggestions on this?

peace,
st john

It's going to take us all a while to realize that the abuse is over. The mainstream media has turned on a dime because they quite sensibly don't want to tangle body parts with a popular incumbent president.

The essential battle is between the 3%, who don't need any government services and therefore often resent paying a dime for them, and the 97% who use government services and also (like the entire human race)resent paying taxes. The 97% is about to get its cake and eat it too.

Reasonable tax cuts can stimulate the economy although probably not as efficiently as infrastructure spending. By any objective measure, both tax cuts and direct government outlays are "spending" inasmuch as the government is out the money and the economy gets some, probably most, of it. The GOP wants more windfalls for the campaign contributors and are just plain not going to get as many as they are accustomed to getting.

We won in November and are winning now, GOP screeching notwithstanding. Obama's version of bipartisanship, which is mostly getting his own way ( graciously, will hold him in good stead with the public when the real partisan shootouts (health care, energy, and labor reform) begin.

As the late James Brown once said, I feel good. And so, I submit, should the rest of you.

Regarding the comments of Steve High on February 5, 2009 at 2:23 PM

What kind of a High are you on Steve?

Or maybe my question should be 'in what space-time continuum are you existing in'?

There seems to be little in your comments that I can perceive as being reality based.

- Are you declaring that the corporate media is now on Obama's side?
- Are you declaring that tax cuts are in the same range of efficiency in stimulating the economy as infrastructure spending?

If I could get some of what you must be smoking, make I could feel good too!

By any objective measure, both tax cuts and direct government outlays are "spending" inasmuch as the government is out the money and the economy gets some

That's the issue, Mr. High. The Keynsians believe that only govt spending can boost the economy in situations like this, tax cuts will be saved with little stimulative impact.

So I don't feel so good, nor should the rest of you.

If I were one of the GOP Senators, I would withhold unanimous consent and insist that the entire bill be read aloud before allowing a vote on it. Nothing will destroy what little public support that remains for this Obamination faster than having the American people listen to hour after hour for a couple of days of the wasteful government spending that will be authorized by this POS.

the 3%, who don't need any government services - Steve High

I assume these people walk through woods rather than roads, are exempted from police protection, are home schooled, and don't use money. Eh, they probably don't vote either.

Vet, I think I see the future of media coverage, based on presidential successes of the past, but I may be full of it, as you suggest.

Chicounsel - Is CSPAN the only channel you get? Are you chained to the set? What makes you think anyone would watch it?

"The spectacle of the Republicans going on day after day about how capital gains and corporate tax cuts will solve all our economic problems -- while new layoffs are announced each day -- should turn public opinion and even the corporate-controlled media against them."

In a different world, yes. In the real world, no.

What you'd get - what you almost certainly will get - is the corporate MSM running Editorials and Op-Eds claiming that Obama is responsible for sabotaging the Bush Economic Stimulus Plan because of his failure to reach a bipartisan compromise with the GOP.

They already know what they want to write, all they're waiting for is a hook to hang their frame on.

st john asks:
, , , , what would happen if the DOJ, IRS, FCC or some independent investigators went after these owners for the commission of some serious crime, tax evasion/fraud, sexual crimes or other high crimes or misdemeanors?

This sounds like the kind of tactics that Nixon used against those on his "enemy list".

The corporate-controlled media really isn't liberal nor conservative. The corporate-controlled media defends the status quo and embraces "conventional wisdom".

That's why the media continued to call John McCain a "maverick", even after he repudiated all the mavericky positions that he had taken previously. And as soon a Obama won an overwhelming victory in November, the media began climbing on his bandwagon.

The media will go along with the "conventional wisdom" of the cadillac-driving welfare queen, but they also will come down hard on cases of overt racism like the Jenna Six.

For the past 25 years, the "conventional wisdom" has been that Americans pay too much in taxes and that "big government" is bad. The media has embraced "Supply-side economics" in spite of all the evidence that it doesn't work.

That's why I think Obama's strategy of bipartisanship is wrong. Until we kill the canard that Republican-style economics works, until we drive a stake through its heart and stuff its mouth with garlic, the corporate-controlled media will continue to defend it.

Once everyone but the wingnuts agrees that conservative economics has failed, then Obama can begin to reach across the aisle and try for bipartisanship.

Reid said he believes at least two Republicans of "good will"...

He then continued to say that he also believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, + the Tooth Fairy.

-Z

"Do we have the votes? We believe we do," said Reid

translation.... 'hell, no.'

Thanks for talking sense SteveT.

Media is customer driven. It basically tells people what they want to hear. Dems and progresives must learn to harness that.

Read this on another website (Raw Story) and laughed so hard I almost puked.

The only way Harry Reid won't cave to republican pressure is if Obama sits on him and squeezes every last nanogram of testosterone out of his balls into his bloodstream....

SteveT - "I hope Reid schedules a vote, and then forces the Republicans to actually filibuster..."

SteveT is right.

Remember the days when a majority was 51.

This is the perfect opportunity to display Republican abuse of the filibuster.

Chicounsel - "If I were one of the GOP Senators, I would withhold unanimous consent and insist that the entire bill be read aloud before allowing a vote on it."

Yes, then every Senator would have to explain to their drowning constituency why they can't throw them a life preserver.

Bet they're counting on Loyal Joe Lieberman. Good luck!

The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com

So MobiusKlein, do those 20% deserve to be steamrolled over because other states have larger populations?

I come from a state that has a pretty large population (Illinois) but I am not ignorant, as it seems some commentators here are, of the fact that eliminating the Senate's equal representation would effectively silence the voice of the American population that lives in smaller states.

Doing away with the Senate's equal representation would make it "California uber alles". Something that some Californian might like but the rest of the nation, including those of smaller states, would like to have some voice in the matters of the Federal government.

Especially in economic situations like this where the stimulus package, hypothetically, could be written to focus on large population states to the exclusion of smaller population states.

The problem isn't with how the Senate is set up. The problem is the Republican party. They're just exploiting every tool they can to wreak America as revenge for the majority of the country voting them out of power.

SteveT says:
"st john asks:
, , , , what would happen if the DOJ, IRS, FCC or some independent investigators went after these owners for the commission of some serious crime, tax evasion/fraud, sexual crimes or other high crimes or misdemeanors?

This sounds like the kind of tactics that Nixon used against those on his "enemy list"."

No, I am not proposing using the Nixonian tactic. At least, that is no my intention. I see it as more of uncovering the hypocrisy of the media's ownership. If they claim to be Fair and Balanced or The Most Trusted Source for News, then it is not unfair to bring that hypocrisy into view. Had the information on Madoff's fraudulent enterprise been brought to the public's attention when it first surfaced in 2000 or 2001, what might have happened, or not happened? To protect the status quo when the status quo is harmful to most of us is unethical. Is the abuse of women to be protected/covered-up because that is the status quo? The true heroes are those who risk all and tell the truth: MLK Jr., Gandhi, Mandela, and Whistleblowers on Corporate abuse.

We call it shining the Light of Truth into the darkness.

peace,
st john

Dr. Morpheus said:
I come from a state that has a pretty large population (Illinois) but I am not ignorant, as it seems some commentators here are, of the fact that eliminating the Senate's equal representation would effectively silence the voice of the American population that lives in smaller states.

Well doc, as some folk like to say, it's the Constitution. If you don't like it, change it. If you can't, STFU.
So, that's where we are.
Being from a small state myself(Massachusetts), I can see part of your point. And again - the Constitution is what it is(except when Justice Vaffanculo is setting the agenda).
But, I should also point out that my little bitty state(geographically) is bigger in terms of population than 35 other states.
And the Senators from those little-populated states do have an ability to sabotage legislation that is entirely out of proportion to the number of citizens that they represent.
Point, point, there was a point ...
Oh, yeah. I agree with you that eliminating the Senate's equal representation would effectively silence the voices of the population that lives in the smaller(in terms of population) states.
But I think that you would agree that permitting that equal representation gives their voices a volume that is unjustly loud.

Dr. Morpheus, California has more rural citizens than Wyoming, I can bet you that. Why don't they deserve the same say in Congress as those from Wyoming?

It's kind of wacky that WY, with a population of 532,668 has the exact same voting power as California, with 36,756,666 residents. (69 times more residents, same voting power.)

And the rules of the Senate - 60% to pass - combined with the unequal representation, enable the Rs + wavering Ds to gum up the works easily.

The proper course of action is the "Nuclear Option"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

The Republicans have held up progress long enough.

That's exactly right. Am I the only person to notice that we seem to have magically arrived at a place where every piece of legislation automatically requires 60 votes?

Let's get rid of the filibuster, and then get moving. Fuck them.