Furious Ed Schultz Calls On Obama To Step In And Help Jobless: 'They Are Begging'

[1776Forever]

THE JOBLESS GET JOBBED
Democrats Abandon Aid Package In The Face Of Unified Republican Filibuster

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Video of Ed Schultz on MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/37911345#37911345

[bluestateguy]

1. I am wondering if there is a pot of money that can be appropriated by the president from elsewhere

Un-used TARP money? Un-used stimulus money? Some pot of money that does not require appeasement of the Senate. Of course that would be a temporary solution.

[mth44sc]

3. we seem to be forgetting

that the Senate had 57 votes in favor. The problem isn't Obama. It not the Dems. Its a systems that lets 41 block 57...

[bluestateguy]

5. I don't disagree with you

But fixing that problem could take years, if at all. These people need help now.

[dflprincess]

6. And the Democrats are currently in control of the system

they can change the rules and stop this minority rule BS. Instead they'd rather whine and blame it all on the Republicans while they twiddle their thumbs and claim they're helpless. I don't recall Bush having so much trouble with his agenda when the Republicans controlled the Senate.

[RKP5637]

7. Yep! n/t

[ProSense]

8. "they can change the rules "

They can't get 60 votes for the bill, but they'll get 67 votes to change the rules?

[dflprincess]

13. Then it's time for the nuclear option

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option allows the United States Senate to reinterpret a procedural rule by invoking the constitutional requirement that the will of the majority be effective. This option allows a simple majority to override precedent and end a filibuster or other delaying tactic. In contrast, the cloture rule requires a supermajority of 60 votes (out of 100) to end a filibuster. The new interpretation becomes effective, both for the immediate circumstance and as a precedent, if it is upheld by a majority vote.

Majority vote - what a concept. Of course, not invoking it gives them all an excuse not to do anything that might actually help the serfs.

BTW they only need 67 votes if all 100 Senators are present. Otherwise it's a vote of 2/3 of the Senators present and ready to vote. As long as a majority of senators are on the floor, a quorum is present and such a vote cold be taken. In theory the Democrats could pull off a rule change if they all showed up and just 14 Republicans did not.

[DarthDem]

9. That's Because . . .

. . . he didn't try to pass anything substantive. Virtually 100% of what that criminal did was accomplished via the executive branch. Congress was incidental.

[saracat]

12. Ain't that the truth? The GOP actually is united in its ideology.

That lets themm get things done. The Dems OTOH, are too busy being appeasers. The GOP never appeased anyone! Oddly, they get stuff even when they are in the minority! See the GOP understands bipartisanship doesn't really work.

[William Z. Foster]

14. here is the difference

The Republicans are consistent - they fight relentlessly and ruthlessly for the needs and desires of the wealthy. The Democrats absolutely refuse to fight for the rest of us. It is no more complicated than that, and I cannot understand why people continue to make excuses for them.

[bluestateguy]

17. That is simply false

For starters, you need 67 votes to change the rules, and we are not even close to that anyway.

But your point on Bush is just dead wrong. Bush had a GOP (55-45) Senate in 2005, and his Social Security privatization scheme never came up for a vote. That was no trivial issue.

He never got oil drilling in ANWR out of the Senate.

There were 10 federal judges who never cleared cloture in the Senate under GOP rule.

His constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage went nowhere in the Senate in 2005.

[saracat]

21. Piddley squat compared to what he did get. Thinks about it

And much of the damage still stands today.

[bluestateguy]

26. OK, I'm done thinking.

and the Social Security privatization was not some trivial issue. It was to Bush what health care was to the Clintons in 1994.

[saracat]

32. He was never gonna get Social security. The GOP didn't really dare.

But they did get two wars, environmental corruption and the destruction of the constitution.And they made huge inroads against science and reproductive freedom.

[girl gone mad]

36. Kind of crazy how it works, huh?

When we have a Republican President, he's too powerful to be stopped by the Democrats. When we have a Democratic President, he's too weak to accomplish anything but an extremely watered down version of our agenda.

[dflprincess]

22. They need a 2/3 vote of those present to change rules not 67 votes

(unless all 100 Senators are present)

Be a pity should an elevator or two get stuck and 14 Republicans couldn't make it to the floor to vote on a rule change. :evilgrin:

[Catherina]

37. +1 n/t

[William Z. Foster]

10. never stopped the Republicans

Why should launching wars and cutting taxes for the rich require only 50 votes while saving lives requires 60?

Join me in calling for an end to this unfair system. Tell Majority Leader Reid to modify the rules of the Senate to require only 55 votes to invoke cloture instead of 60. Fill out the form below to sign the petition today!

Dear Majority Leader Reid:

Our party was elected in 2008 with a mandate from the country for major change, from saving the economy to fixing health care. Since then, the House of Representatives has worked hard to pass this ambitious agenda, only to see it stalled by no-mongering Republicans in the Senate. Just the list of bills passed by the House and now waiting in the Senate runs to three pages, single-spaced.

The Senate argues this is a result of their different procedures. The House requires a majority vote to pass legislation, while the Senate supposedly requires a supermajority of 60. But this rule of legislative procedure apparently only applies to Democratic initiatives that help ordinary people. Throughout the administration of President George W. Bush, the Senate passed much of its key legislation by majority vote:

* The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 passed 54-44
* The Energy Policy Act of 2003 passed 57-40
* The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 passed 51-49
* The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 passed 54-44
* The FY2006 budget resolution and Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 passed 52-47
* The Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act passed 55-45
* The FY2007 budget resolution passed 51-49

Today, under the administration of President Barack Obama, the House has passed bills preventing climate destruction and reforming our broken health care system, while the Senate searches for 60 votes in the face of Republican obstruction. Every day the Senate delays, more people die from lack of health care.

The filibuster should apply to the initiatives of both parties or to neither. Why should launching wars, and cutting taxes for the rich, require only 51 votes while saving lives requires 60?

Since the Democrats regained control of the Senate, Republicans have abused the filibuster rule like never before. Until 1970, no session of Congress had more than ten votes on cloture to end a filibuster. Until 2007, the record was 58. But since Democrats regained control of the Senate, filibusters have skyrocketed. The last session had a new record of 112.

The filibuster does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. If the Founding Fathers had wanted it, they would have included it. Instead, this undemocratic rule allows small-state Senators representing as little as 11 percent of the country to thwart the will of the other 89 percent. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes needed to end a filibuster from 67 to 60. Now, with the Party of No blocking majority rule on virtually everything the country needs, we need to do it again.

We therefore call upon you to end this unfair system by using your power as Majority Leader to modify the rules of the Senate, to require only 55 votes to invoke cloture instead of 60. Only by doing so can we end delay that has held up so much crucial legislation, and enact the agenda that we promised the American people that we would enact.

http://salsa.mydccc.org/o/30019/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1

[laughingliberal]

11. +1000 nt

[ProSense]

15. Democrats are not going to become Republicans

and codify their behavior.

Once a bill clears filibuster, it can pass with a simple majority, and certain bills can pass via reconciliation.

Republicans were able to get Dems to vote with them. How many Republicans are going to vote with Dems? The obvious answer on the jobless aid bill is: none.

[William Z. Foster]

18. huh?

Only Republicans can fight?

[ProSense]

23. This has nothing to do with fighting

57 Democrats voted for the bill.

Republicans didn't have to fight to get those bills passed. There were enough Democrats willing to support them.

How many Republicans do you see willing to support the jobless aid bill?

[William Z. Foster]

24. not true

The Republicans passed many bills without 60 votes.

[ProSense]

27. "The Republicans passed many bills without 60 votes. "

Who said they didn't?

Certain bills that clear a filibuster threat can pass without 60 votes.

Still, the point is that Republicans has willing allies among the Dems.

Where do you see Republicans lining up to vote with Dems?

[William Z. Foster]

31. you are relentless

So make them filibuster.

Yes, I can see some Republicans voting for measures that the Democrats are willing to actually fight for and that the public supports - and public support would increase should the Democrats actually fight on their behalf. I see their seats being at risk if they don't. But then I am taking the hopeful attitude and actually want to see change. That may all seem delusional to you, but we had a public referendum on that and the people currently in power received a huge mandate for change and hope. Your relentless promotion of hopelessness and the impossibility of any change is out of step with that. The general public did not vote for what you are promoting.

This is one of the oddest and most perplexing things I have ever seen. The most outspoken advocates and promoters of the winning candidacy in the last presidential election talked of nothing but hope and change of dreams and of possibilities. That is the message that the general public heard. Since the election the same people are arguing the opposite position, lecturing us about "reality" and "practicality." The problem with this is that while in these friendly confines and with this format that supports a talking points crossfire approach to debate you may successfully beast down people, the general public is paying attention and there is a growing sense that they have been betrayed and misled. At the same time they are growing more desperate. This won't go away and there will be Hell to pay - for the country and for the party - should your view prevail.

You are very talented at coming up with endless reasons for why things cannot happen, for why things cannot be done, and attacking and ridiculing any and all calls for change. My question is why would you want to do that - given that you can and that you are good at it. I don't get that.

[Lorien]

33. $.

[William Z. Foster]

34. !

.

[Catherina]

40. .

.

[leftstreet]

25. +1

[AnArmyVeteran]

39. It is when they dont FORCE republicans to actually filibuster...

Why isn't democratic leadership forcing republicans to follow all of the rules of filibustering? Why aren't they forcing them to stand before congress for hours or days at a time? Who in the hell is running their show???

[Nite Owl]

2. Why aren't they being made

to have a real filibuster? Why do they get away with this shit.
Reid took out the medicare doc fix and passed that which is what the GOP was begging for, why did he do that, did he really think he would then gain votes for this.

[xchrom]

4. Have the Pragmatist Choir thrown him under the bus?

I have keep my under the bus list up.

[KonaKane]

16. Trillions can be saved by ending these stupid wars.

But I'm sure that's common knowledge by now.

[LaPera]

19. Ed was right on the money. Rachel Maddow was just as passionate, she too

completely knocked me out with her lead story tonight (MSNBC) on unemployment and the republicans wanting Obama & the Dems to fail so the Bush republican corporate deregulation will be able to it blamed all on the Dems in November, this is the republicans strategy for more of the same with absolutely no concern for the unemployed.

We'll get the same old republican bullshit, always pointing the finger & NEVER accepting blame for their corporate ideology over working people - our tax dollars going to the corporations in subsidies, war for profit and corporate bailouts...deregulation is the republican mantra, allow corporations to police themselves and suck up our tax dollars.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/

[grasswire]

20. MAKE THEM FILIBUSTER IT

Damn!

Call the bluff. Make them stand and filibuster this thing just months before an election.

[Odin2005]

28. K&R for Eddie!

[depakid]

29. Leaders who knew how to play hardball could get this done if they wanted

or else exact an extremely heavy price in return.

Unfortunately, the record thus far indicates that we have neither.

[depakid]

30. dupe

[Imajika]

35. Why are we not pushing the extension by itself?

Why does the unemployment extension have to be part of a bigger package?

Instead of a Jobs Bill with all sorts of tax breaks, state aid, etc, why don't we just make the bill about unemployment benefits and bring that to the floor?

From what I understand, done that way we would be able to peel off at least a handful of Republicans and at least extend unemployment for those that need them.

I really don't think we are going to be able to get anymore Jobs Bills containing state aid. The Republicans are not going to go for it, and they feel emboldened enough now to block it (which is what they always wanted to do). They have always hated that and will never support it going forward. We can probably get at least 3 or 4 to vote for cloture if the unemployment extension was in a clean bill with nothing else attached. We can fight over the rest later. Right now, people need the unemployment extension.

[truedelphi]

38. Any able bodied jobless person can always enlist. Obama has

Shown endless support for the endless wars.

Be the first unemployed person on your block to end up coming homein a box!