Comments: Promise Made, Promise Kept

Can we DEMAND from these NEW WELFARE RECEPIENTS that they learn NEW SKILLS so that they can find HONEST JOBS ( they will not be allowed to receive benefits by sitting at home and being lazy!! )within a prescribed period? If they do not, they lose their benefits..

Posted by Rupa Shah at October 3, 2008 09:31 PM

Government assistance for the wealthy? You consider that "change"?

Posted by cemms at October 3, 2008 10:14 PM

You consider that "change"?

Not the general phenomenon, but the scale and brazenness in fact are something new.

Posted by Jonathan Schwarz at October 3, 2008 10:18 PM

And it was EASY.

Posted by Mike Meyer at October 3, 2008 11:11 PM

Yeah. And as Arthur Silber once said, "they call them the ruling class because they rule."

I looked at the roll call for today's vote. Three democrats voted against the extra-fat version of the bailout bill. Three. What's that, about 1.5 % of the coalition? (Kucinich was among those who buckled.)

Posted by Jonathan Versen at October 3, 2008 11:53 PM

"Three democrats voted against the extra-fat version of the bailout bill. Three. What's that, about 1.5 % of the coalition? (Kucinich was among those who buckled.)"h

Far be it for me to defend the Democratic Party (Or Kucinich, who serves the function of channeling dissent from the party back into the party, whether he knows it or not. I, frankly, think he knows it.), but all of the above is wrong according to the AP, who I don't think would lie to this brazen an extent (yet).

AP: "Voting yes were 172 Democrats and 91 Republicans.

Voting no were 63 Democrats and 108 Republicans."

Link: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE1r_DuYH2j4rBy8JqBaVQ40MiOQD93J6A400

Kucinich voted no, according to that.

Posted by Rojo at October 4, 2008 12:11 AM

I think we could say this about the last eight years:

"Not the general phenomenon, but the scale and brazenness in fact are something new."

Posted by Susan - NC at October 4, 2008 12:24 AM

Jonathan Versen et al,

You can find authoritative information at the following sites.

For information about legislation, go to:

http://thomas.loc.gov/

(Many useful links and capabilities are to be found at this site, as one might expect considering that it is run by the Library of Congress. Now that's money well spent...)

For vote tallies and various other information concerning the Senate's activities, go to:

http://www.senate.gov/

For similar information concerning the House's activities, go to:

http://www.house.gov/

By availing yourself of the information to be found at these sites, you can be aware of some of the ways in which your representatives give you the business. This differs in subtle and ineffable ways from them responsibly and deliberatively discharging business in your interest.

Posted by JerseyJeffersonian at October 4, 2008 12:49 AM

JV, Well, I've never heard of GovTrack, but clearly either AP or them got it badly wrong.

I do know that my rep, Blumenauer, is listed by GovTrack as having voted for, AP as having voted against, and has a statement on his website explaining why he voted against. Kucinich similarly has a statement on his website explaining why he voted against. I think I trust AP based on the evidence so far.

Posted by Rojo at October 4, 2008 02:18 AM

The date on that GovTrack.com vote Versen linked to is March 5, 2008. At the top of the page is this entertaining word: "Stimulous". But there's further description about how what was voted on Monday was technically a different bill.

This bill was originally introduced in March 2007 and passed the House as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. In October 2008, it was co-opted as the so-called "vehicle" to pass the relief bill with an amendment that rewrites the whole bill. The Senate approved the amendment; it awaits a vote in the House. The House's vehicle was H.R. 3997, but they failed to pass their amendment co-opting the bill.

Rojo, you must be close by. I'm in Blumenauer's district myself.

Posted by darrelplant at October 4, 2008 03:37 AM

Ah yes, Darrelplant, I had heard they had to hollow out and refill an entire other bill because all legislation technically is supposed to originate in the House (am I right on that? It seems to be standard practice to ignore that rule if it exists, perhaps by doing such as what we're discussing.)

That probably explains the discrepancy.

As to being close by, I imagine so, I just last year moved about 4 miles north and across a certain river (starts with W and rhymes with damn it) and wound up leaving Hooley's district and reemerging in Blumenauer's.

Hooley voted yes, but I knew she was a total reactionary already and so wasn't surprised. What district in OR does Defazio represent? I noticed that of the two OR reps voting nay, he was far noisier than Blumenauer in opposing the bill.

Posted by Rojo at October 4, 2008 03:51 AM

Weird, that 2:18 message from me was in response to JV's 12:33 message. The later messages from JV and Jersey Jefforsonian were not visible when I wrote that.

Posted by Rojo at October 4, 2008 03:56 AM

To paraphrase Jefferson: Burn it all down.

Posted by buermann at October 4, 2008 04:21 AM

Here's Kucinich explaining why he voted against:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/03-11

Posted by Paul at October 4, 2008 08:23 AM

One party, two heads.
Gore Vidal, maybe someone before him.
98% don't notice or pretend not to notice.
Worms, as Joe Bageant refers to the American people, who may or may not "deserve better."
The Question for the 2%: what to do?
(And I don't mean phoning or faxing the party stalwarts who are screwing you as they promise to protect you.)
I ain't heard nothing yet. But then, short of a suicidal charge, I don't know either.

Posted by donescobar at October 4, 2008 11:05 AM

The first call ins stopped the first bill. My guess is the call numbers dropped off on the second bill. Some people got convinced on the second bill and didn't call and, of course, the old AMERICAN apathy set in on the rest. The whole IDEA of a political process is to rely on communication instead of suicide charges. "What WE have here is a failure to communicate." (in memory of Paul Newman)

Posted by Mike Meyer at October 4, 2008 12:00 PM

You can only "communicate" with our honorable representatives if they have a reason to li$ten to you. There i$ none.
I'm not proposing a suicidal charge. I just don't know of anything that might work to rattle our ruling elite and the $ystem that has $erved them so well.

Posted by donescobar at October 4, 2008 01:04 PM

Well, WE HAD 700billion dollars worth of rea$on$ yesterday, did ya call? (don't worry, they'll be back)

Posted by Mike Meyer at October 4, 2008 02:03 PM

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml

Dennis voted nay both times, as did Marcy Kaptur of Toledo, and Steve LaTourette of northeast Ohio, and all are getting excoriated by the Plain Dealer (which also took them to task after the first vote). So, PD, we are paying no attention to you men behind the curtain because you truly reek.

Posted by catherine at October 4, 2008 02:47 PM
What district in OR does Defazio represent? I noticed that of the two OR reps voting nay, he was far noisier than Blumenauer in opposing the bill.

DeFazio's district stretches from the mid-Willamette Valley through most of SW Oregon. It includes what is typically considered to be liberal bastion (but having grown up there, I know better) Eugene, but it also includes a lot of small towns that were affected by the loss of timber jobs.

And yes, DeFazio's got a bit more populist fire to him than Blumenauer or Wu.

Posted by darrelplant at October 5, 2008 04:09 AM