If you have "no place to go," come here!

House Ds to Bush and Iraq War: Have some more money! House Ds to the unemployed: Fuck you!


House Democrats are likely to drop a 13-week extension of unemployment insurance benefits from a major spending package that includes continued funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that would create a new education benefit for military veterans returning from the battlefields.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday that the unemployment insurance provision would "probably not" be part of the final package of war and domestic spending, which has become the most important legislative battle this spring between congressional Democrats and President Bush.

After huddling in the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for more than two hours yesterday, House Democrats emerged to say they were still undecided about how to pare down the overall cost of the supplemental spending bill.

Nancy, Steny, nice work! It's good to see you carrying out your 2006 mandate so forcefully, and I'm sure we can expect more of the same come January!

[Reach me that bucket, wouldja hon?]

Oh, and I don't give a fuck that it's the "fiscally conservative" yet somehow pro-Empire Blue Dogs, especially if we get more of them due to a combination of opportunistic Rs jumping ship, and HoHo's 50-state strategery, assuming that hasn't been abandoned. At this point, it's just the D brand.

NOTE Via Fact-esque.

No votes yet


Truth Partisan's picture
Submitted by Truth Partisan on

When did the social and financial and war agenda totally change for some of them??

"Village '08"--no thanks.

Reward pols with your real values wherever you can...

Submitted by jawbone on


For the first time, neighbors are actually talking about their presidential voting choices. Obama, btw. There is anger at the Congressional Dems for not standing up to BushCo.

One neighbor said, without any prompting, that if the Dems had begun impeachment proceedings when the took over the House in '06, we wouldn't be in the econ mess as badly as we are now. His wife agreed emphatically. Oh, both sets of neighbors would have preferred Hillary, but ABB rules: Anyone But Bush (meaning McCain).

I was amazed--these folks have never talked politics, even when I've lawn signs out and dropped off campaign materials!

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

translates into 800 billion for Wall Street, nothing for your street. There's money for everything the Empire needs, but nothing its people need. Post-partisanship, indeed.

No wonder they're running on Republicans are worse, they've got nothing else. There is no argument to be made that any of these people deserve to lead this country beyond "not as bad as Bush." What a standard that is to aspire to. They must be so fucking proud.

BILL MOYERS: And, yet, you say that the prime example of political dysfunction today is the Democratic Party in relation to Iraq.

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I may be a conservative, but I can assure you that, in November of 2006, I voted for every Democrat I could possibly come close to. And I did because the Democratic Party, speaking with one voice, at that time, said that, "Elect us. Give us power in the Congress, and we will end the Iraq War."

And the American people, at that point, adamantly tired of this war, gave power to the Democrats in Congress. And they absolutely, totally, completely failed to follow through on their commitment. Now, there was a lot of posturing. But, really, the record of the Democratic Congress over the past two years has been - one in which, substantively, all they have done is to appropriate the additional money that enables President Bush to continue that war.

BILL MOYERS: And you say the promises of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi prove to be empty. Reid and Pelosi's commitment to forcing a change in policy took a backseat to their concern to protect the Democratic majority.

ANDREW BACEVICH: Could anybody disagree with that?

Submitted by lambert on

And how silly the Ds were in 2006 to run on a platform that people could hold them accountable for!

And how smart the Ds are, this time, to run on "change"!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

You're not supposed to.

Fun little game I'm playing: I put a Palin picture as my Facebook profile pic to see what reactions I get. Interesting observations. If I get a lot, I'll write up a post one them. I should note that I didn't say I supported her, just posted the pic. I also posted a link to JSM's "Subjection of Women" as well as an excerpt at about the same time.

makana44's picture
Submitted by makana44 on

why does anyone want to cement these people permanently into the power seat. A win this year justifies all the means used during the primary, makes permanent the D leadership structure, and removes Anglechels 'losers' from the party altogether and inserts the so-called creative class in their stead. You want a party to call your own? No vote D this year.

Submitted by lambert on

Horseshit vs. bullshit (and not half a shit sandwich vs. a whole one, as I once mistakenly though).

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

apolitiko's picture
Submitted by apolitiko on's always a choice between a Douche and a Turd Sandwhich. So go Vote or DIE!

[South Park/Puff Whatever at the Moment Reference]

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

Is this some piece of appeasement they throw in for good looks and measure, or is it a major part of the package?

In other news, Michigan's unemployment hit 8.9%, this month. It's scary to think we could hit double digits, again, like we had in the 1980's. What's even scarier is that unlike the 80's, our employment base is actually shrinking.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Details here

The Senate approved the measure late Thursday night, 92-6.

Senate action on the bill follows approval of the package by the House last week, after Democratic and Republican House leaders struck a deal with the White House.

The package is made up of two amendments. The first includes $165.4 billion for the wars, which provides funding through the summer of 2009. That figure is reduced to $161.8 billion in the second amendment to provide an additional $3.6 billion for other needs. The Senate considered only the second amendment Thursday night because they had passed the first amendment providing the war funding, 70-26, in May.

The second amendment provides domestic funding, including a boost in veterans' education benefits that can be transferred to spouses and children. The Blue Dog Coalition had asked House Democratic leaders to offset the cost of the increased veterans' benefits, estimated at $62.8 billion over 11 years. But the idea was dropped in the negotiations with the White House.

The second amendment also includes a 13-week extension of unemployment insurance, which is expected to cost $8.2 billion over 11 years. The legislation would retain a requirement under current law that beneficiaries work at least 20 weeks to be eligible for benefits, which was kept in at the behest of Republicans. Democrats had sought to remove the requirement. Democrats also dropped a proposal to provide another 13 weeks of unemployment insurance to states with high unemployment rates.

In addition, the supplemental contains language to block implementation of six of seven White House-proposed regulations for Medicaid and provides $2.65 billion for Midwest flood relief and other disaster recovery. The package would also ensure Israel would get $170 million in aid for fiscal 2009 if Congress does not finish work on the appropriations bills by the end of the fiscal year. After approval of the bill, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., late Thursday underscored the need for a second supplemental package that would fund domestic priorities that were not included in the war supplemental. Byrd led an effort to increase domestic spending in the bill, but was rebuffed by the White House.

"There is more to do," Byrd said in a statement. "I am disappointed that the White House blocked our efforts to add funding to help the Gulf States recover from Hurricane Katrina, to provide additional Low Income Home Energy Assistance, and to invest in our infrastructure.

The thirteen-week extension being debated and apparently dropped in this round of funding is the same additional 13 weeks dropped from the June bill. The initial 13-week extension approved in June remains in effect.

Blame for losing the additional 13 weeks lies squarely on the BlueDogs and Republicans, whether anyone wants to hear it or not. The BlueDogs will not buy in unless taxes are raised to offset the cost, while Bush will veto any tax increase on high earners and Republicans will not support a veto override if it includes tax increase. The two groups are in cahoots, I make no defense of either of them, and welcome any and all suggestions for getting rid of both Rs and BlueDogs at the earliest opportunity.

Until then, Lambert and others, what exactly would you have Pelosi and Reid do? (You can say “defund the war” but that’s a non-starter; simply isn’t going to happen.)