There were NOT enough Democratic votes to pass the auto bill tonight

Ted Kennedy is unable to attend the vote because he's too ill. But even if he had been there to vote 'yes' -- and every other Democrat been present and voted 'yes' -- is there anyone gullible enough to really believe that all the Republicans who voted 'yes' tonight would still have voted 'yes' if it meant the vote would then pass? Not a chance.

Here are the GOP 'yes' votes (10):

Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Collins (R-ME)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Lugar (R-IN)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

plus Lieberman (1):

Lieberman (ID-CT)

Every possible Democrat attending and voting 'yes' (including Kennedy, plus Independent Sanders, but excluding Lieberman) = 49

Therefore, there would need to be 11 more 'yes' votes to pass the bill. There is no way each and every one of the above 11 GOP/Lieberman votes would have remained 'yes' under those circumstances.

They really ought to be funding new, 21st century businesses and let people leaev autos and get new jobs. That's how capitalism is supposed to work. Let 'em fail... AFAIC there should be no bailouts. Anywhere, anytime. Paulson raped the country and I see no need to let others do the same.

with the mess created by those making the decisions? I feel horrible for many friends and family members who will be adversely effected by this decision.

One does *not* work to continue the relationship.

Sure, we could send the "big three" to counseling, and let them keep abusing their workers.

However, that doesn't seem right.

say it again in another form? I can't believe the post above me that seemed to not give a shit about those losing their jobs...stating go find another one is idiotic. I lost my automotive job a year and half ago and my husband lost his a year ago. He found a job here in Nebraska but selling our home was out of the question. I can't understand how someone can just spout off good etc etc.

Now explain to me what you meant? I'm lost...sorry!

They almost always loved their spouses and really wanted to "make it work".

For years (at times), the cycle is something like this:

"He hurts me, but I love him, I'm going back!"

"He beat me again, I'm in the emergency room, it's over."

"He hurts me, but I love him, I'm going back!"

It a rough place to work in (help for the abused) mentally, because the people one deals with *keep going back to be abused more*. Sometimes they die because of it.

Sadly, a great deal of US auto workforce keeps going back to the same spouse (the US car companies), the same abuse.

Those who haven't dealt with the chronically abused are often callous about the situation, offering ideas like "if he beats you, leave", without realizing how emotionally tied people become to their houses, their jobs, the fabric of their life.

It's a struggle between the abused wanting to try and salvage the situation, and people trying to tell the abused about a dead-end situation.

It's more than being "emotionally" tied to their houses and fabric of life, it's "financially" tied to their houses etc. It's easy to say just leave but it's not easy if you are in the situation. In michigan for example you cannot sell your home. You can't even short sell your home because somebody can buy a beautiful foreclosed home for a lot cheaper. Also, where are these other jobs that people are supposed to go get? I am a degreed professional person who just interviewed for a job that probably pays 13 bucks an hour. My last rate of pay was twice that. It's a mess out here.

If the big 3 fail, so do their suppliers and dealers. About 3 million jobs will be lost, further decreasing consumption, which will lower revenue for other businesses and force more layoffs nationwide. In many areas, there are no other jobs, and people can't just move because they can't sell their houses.

I think you are on the wrong site.

I see no thought worthy of the name in such a comment.

You are on the right site, apparently. The right site to support blackmail and the depression of worker's wages, huge transfers of tax money to corporations and support of fascism. Myself, I'm for the people, against corporations, which is why I do not support corporate welfare or fascism. You can support whatever you like, and you ought to know by now that corporate welfare and the transfer of cash to corporations is not, in the long term, at all good for the people, labor or the economy.

because your "let them get jobs" attitude is exactly how we ended up in the first Great Depression.

And while it might be a great little academic example of "free markets", the pain and suffering of millions losing everything, their homes, their life savings, their chance to send their kids to college... well, I guess it's not you, right?

And what about the workers in their late forties or fifties (or even early sixties)? Think they are going to run right out and get new jobs in some field or other where they can maintain their current standard of living? And what jobs are out there right now? Do you know of a secret supply of high paying manufacturing jobs that the 10 (or more like 14) million people already unemployed simply haven't heard of?

And why should THESE people be the ones that suffer? Did THEY create the housing bubble or deregulate the hell out of everything? Did they create credit default swaps and other esoteric financial instruments that even PhDs can't really explain? Did they make all of the management decisions or create the tax credits that pushed SUVs and not hybrids and electric cars though the plants in Michigan? Why should THEY be the ones that suffer for all of this?

And should we throw 3 million more out of work and onto the unemployment lines, think of how many more that work in shopping centers and restaurants and doctors offices and in real estate where these production line workers USED to shop will now be out of work as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I'm a bleeding heart liberal. Because it's in my own self interest to be a bleeding heart liberal.

You cannot support the workers by giving money to corporations. That's a basic design flaw in these bailouts. Hand money to corporations whos sole intention is to make a profit for their shareholders and they will use the money for exactly that, raping the working class and handing the cash to their shareholders and corporate officers. The workers will not see a penny of that cash.

When will people LEARN??

It'll make your commute to your non existent job so much easier.

Both by experience and by reasonable argument. That's your choice, but please don't toss all my money away based on smoke and mirrors, thanks.

To note that a country that doesn't build shit isn't much of an economic force.

The votes just weren't there.

The only people voting against it just want to fuck over the unions, who helped the Democrats win.

The bill is actually conservative enough for the majority of Republicans would support, especially if they voted for the TARP bill. The ones against it are just playing politics.

don't give a shit about everyday people...it's all about what's in it for them. And people continue to vote these fuckers in office.

Where did you see he was out sick? Yes, I know he is ill, but I have seen many statements in the media from him recently.

Just curious.

And from your thread, you didn't even seem to know that Reid's 'nay' was simply a procedural vote.

Yeh I know I am not very smart. I get told that daily here then called a martyr if I correct them.

:shrug:

I counted the votes, they added up. If Kennedy was sick, and Kerry was gone, and Reid had to vote no procedurally....then why did Reid schedule the vote knowing they would lose.

It's like this:

Everyone knows, based on prior conversations, how certain senators will vote on a bill. If, say, Arlen Specter knows that his vote might be the one vote which would make the auto bill pass, the Republicans will pressure him enough so that he'll vote 'nay' instead of 'yea'. However, because he knew beforehand that the bill didn't have enough votes to pass, he was free to vote 'yea' and not have to deal with any consequences from GOP leaders. It's called, "the GOP playing politics".

As for Reid scheduling the vote -- when else was he supposed to schedule it? Of course he knew it was doomed, but that's not the point.

and we don't need to worry.

Why don't you alert that my post be locked.

and your in depth knowledge of the Florida politics and the workings of the Florida primaries was second to none here at DU.

I always appreciate what you have to say.

Keep up the good work!

And it's a fair question to ask why Reid scheduled the vote for tonight. We are in a deep recession which is spinning wildly out of control. Fast action by our government is required. Events are NOT waiting on Holidays, presidential transitions, and normal congressional schedule. If needed, our representatives and senators might actually have to work on Christmas (gasp!) if it means that GM or Chrysler keeps their doors open until March of next year and avoids simply running out of cash.

We are teetering on the edge. I don't really think that many people appreciate just how close we really are.

BTW, my 13 year old niece uses the term "smarticle" to refer to a really smart person. I thought it was cute.

I have wondered why Reid has done that. He has often scheduled votes knowing they would fail. He could have just not brought it up.

Now I see the WH might bail them out from the 700 billion. Maybe that will make these republicans look bad.

If LBJ had been running the Senate Today, he would have either not brought it up or let it go down and put the blame on the GOP, punish them next year by moving federal stuff out of their states.

it's not simply the "game" as played on capital hill. I hope they understand it (but some have played so long it's all they know).

Right now we are teetering on Depression. A depression unlike the previous one, one where there are many many more of us, and most of us by far no longer live on our own farms where we can grow our own food.

I don't know why Reid called it for tonight... perhaps he has an understanding with the White House that Paulson will tap into the TARP funds and do the bailout from the treasury. Or perhaps he knew that the deal breaker wasn't going to go away and simply called it a night, letting the Senators fly home for their holiday... and hopes that there will still be a GM in 3 or 4 weeks from now to bail out again.

I don't know. All I know is that we better hope that GM and Chrysler do not go into bankruptcy before the end of the year.

about having had a Senator who called to ask that he let them leave and schedule the vote for today. He said he couldn't because other Senators were leaving to go home and had families waiting for them. (Many Senators had been there since the wee hours of the morning.) If Reid had the votes yesterday, that would have made at least a little sense - balancing inconvenience - to pick the time. It doesn't make sense if he knew he didn't have the votes AND there was a chance to get enough to win today. There should be no Senator unwilling to reschedule a flight. That would have likely left him able to possibly get Kennedy there. There would have been sufficient time to get Kerry to fly back - and certainly Biden who was in the area could be there. I don't know where Wyden was, but he too could have been back. The fact is that there were still 3 Democrats who voted "no". I do understand what you are saying about the pressure on them, but I think for these people it was already a vote against a leadership pushing hard for "yes".

I also agree with the OP that the reason the Republicans had 10 yes votes was to be able to say what Specter almost immediately said on the floor of the Senate - which was that the it was the Democrats' fault too.

Although it wouldn't have help this time could there could be a change that allows under VERY limited conditions - remote votes. In this case, Reid would have had to have had to have given Kerry many hours (likely 10+) notice that his vote was needed to get him back from an important international convention where he was designated as representing the Senate. Had it come down to one vote, Reid would have delayed the vote and Kerry would have come home. The 1 second needed to vote would have meant that he would lose one of the two days of the conference.

Their base would have them all of sudden (because a democrat is going to be in the white house) become balanced budget small government hawks again. All at the exact wrong time, repeating the mistakes of the Great Depression. But the idiots that make up their base are all for it.

Hopefully, we can get 55% of the people to understand why this is a bad idea, and why big government WPA things (and bailouts) are needed. But they have had years (decades... since Ronald Ray-gun) to push the idea that government is simply bad, and when they are in power... they go about PROVING it (i.e. Katrina). All in an attempt to actually break the federal government.

They have hated the reforms of FDR for two (or now three) generations. Hated them so much that they would bankrupt the government and weaken the United States (and even push us into another Great Depression) just to get rid of those reforms.

And it appears that we have let them do it.

But then there is also the possibility of Sununu, Smith, and Hagel who abstained. If we're going to defend good paying jobs, now is the time to start. If these jobs go down, it's going to be hard for anybody else to stand firm.

:spank:

:)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/247814.php

"The automaker bailout is now, apparently, officially and really dead. Dems were willing to agree to Republican demands that Big 3 employees move to wage parity with Japanese automakers operating in the US. But they wouldn't agree to reach parity by 2009, as Republicans demanded.

Late Update: The AP has a different take on it-- suggesting it wasn't the Democrats who wouldn't agree to the immediate move to wage parity but rather the UAW. Perhaps it's simply a difference in emphasis since I would assume the Dems and the UAW leaders were operating in close consultation in the negotiations.

Later Update: Asian markets already tumbling on the news.

Comment: In the future I think it will be difficult to explain why this happened, perhaps even more challenging to explain why this key national decision was left in the hands of lame duck senate Republicans."

There are plenty of reasons to bash dems in congress, but to make shit up just to attack democrats is crazy. Anyone who thinks that Democrats alone could have passed this bill is dumb.

It really is not productive.

can last until January 6th (really the 7th) of 2009.

That's when our new near super majority takes the Senate.

Only 26 more days.

And he may know that he has the votes then to prevent a filibuster of the bailout. Even if Minnesota goes to Coleman.

Hopefully the Illinois Senate seat is decided before then, even if they have to remove Blago to do it.

That is counting Lieberman and Sanders because for all intents and purposes they are Democrats (unfortunate as it is in the case of Lieberman).

There should be no problem getting 60 in the new senate. From the looks of it there are enough Republicans representing blue collar states that Reid won't even have to cut a deal with them to get to 60. They will vote for this out of fear for political retribution if they don't.

they might even have made a deal (to be announced in the next day or so) that the UAW workers are going to be given a two week shut down period at the end of the year, perhaps at no pay or perhaps at substantially reduced pay, and we eek through to new Senate.

The reason for the vote was to simply put it on record for the UAW members that nothing could be done at this time (without breaking the union) so that they take the 2 week shutdown period.

These "shutdown" periods aren't pleasant for anyone, but they are traditional in Silicon Valley. It can really suck if you are living paycheck to paycheck... and they always happen right at Christmas, which can also suck if you want to buy presents and stuff.

But better than than either losing your job or losing your union completely.

would have still voted "yes." They are from states bleeding jobs.

but, you're right that it was doomed in this Senate, and it wasn't Democrats' fault and it wasn't Reid's fault.

Unfortunately it isn't seated until January.

:sarcasm:

after working my shift at a Chrysler plant just south of Detroit. I don't really know what to say. I am stunned,numb and really wonder what the next six weeks will bring. I just heard about layoffs at another Chrysler facility tonight. And, while i'm not sure of the total amount, i do know that they have nothing to do with the traditional Christmas shutdown.

These are indefinite layoffs.

I tried not to hear any news about what was going on in Washington D.C. because as it is now i can barely function. Not without being in turns very bitter and very fearful and sad. It is very hard to hear so many people discussing your livelihood and so many people getting it wrong. It makes it hard to work. So when i come home i try to catch up with this stuff online, have a drink and then go to bed. And then i see the first posted reply.

There are a lot of misdirected DUers around here who seem to think that manufacturing and labor should just go away and that technology is the great magic cure-all for everything in this country. They probably still believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, The Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot as well. I soooo hope that those cheering the failure of this legislation will get to find out how bad the job market really is out there in very quick, short order. Because skills or no skills, if there is no industry there is no job. For any of us. And no amount of thoughtless, empty platitudes of retraining will do a damn bit of difference.
For anyone. I think Cronus should be first.

of my other friends and family members in Michigan. People truly don't understand. I just moved here to nebraska from michigan after me and hubby lost our jobs there. Just know that most du'ers are standing with the workers on this issue! Much Love!

I've been in high tech for 28 years... and I just got laid off 2 months ago.

High tech is NOT a substitute for a robust manufacturing sector.

As a society, we actually do need every sector (Farming, Extraction, Raw Materials, Light and Heavy Manufacturing, Technology, Transportation, Services, Finance, and Government). We simply cannot outsource all of some segment and leave ourselves to the whims of international corporations. And we are hitting "bottom" in our race to find the cheapest labor component... with the results that I (and many others) predicted over 10 years ago. Couple that with a previously burst high tech bubble, followed by a housing bubble and some really bad decision making on the oversight of our financial institutions... and you have the makings of a Great Depression.

But there is some hope. At least I feel that now having found ourselves in a 20 foot deep hole in the ground, we will at least stop digging!

The next Congress will be seated in 26 days. Bush was, apparently, willing to sign this bailout. Perhaps he will still be able to do so on January 7th. Or perhaps Paulson will take advantage of the fact that there were almost no congressional strings placed on the TARP and he can simply shovel $14 B at your employer(s).

And, yeah, there sure are some unfeeling people around here.

But hey, I spent $19.86 on some groceries today (I have about $10 left, I hope I get a unemployment check next week). With that I was able to buy just enough to make some kick ass Cashew Chicken tonight. So today was a good day!

Keep the faith.

People are having a hard time re-internalizing the idea of collective interest.

The techies wonder when they'll "get" their union, while thanking God that someone else's union didn't get support.

It's a bit like filling a pool with non-swimmers. So long as there's someone to stand upon to keep ones head above water, it's all good.

Bond, Voinovich, Specter, Snowe, Collins, and to a certain extent Lugar were compelled to vote yes on this in the interest of their constituents.

That leaves the lame-ducks: Warner, Dole, and Domenici. Domenici and Warner retired and so they likely have no axe to grid and probably voted their conscience. Dole is a surprising vote given that you would think if anything she would vote NAY to spite the Democrats. Maybe losing makes you grow a conscience. But I doubt at her age she has any interest in trying to run for office again or play a substantial role in the future of Republican politics.

Then there's Brownback who is a pseudo lame-duck given that he is retiring at the end of this term and doesn't seem to have much of a political future. The interesting thing about him though is that in between the homophobia and the championing of embryo rights, his Christian values actually cause him to do the right thing once in a while.

I think the question really would have been not how badly Reid wanted this to pass but how badly McConnell didn't want it to pass.

Good for her.

Good for her.

Many people knew they were pathetic and didn't want to fight Bush on the war. Now unions should recognize that these two couldn't rouse the votes to pass the auto industry bailout.

I've posted before about American cars being crap, but it looked as if the latest version of the bailout plan had good provisions in it and I would have supported it. The problem was that the current Democratic leadership in Congress was so used to bending over for Bush and the Republicans, they forgot to stop bending.

The Senate rules say "3/5 of all senators duly chosen and sworn". Right now there are only 99 "sworn" senators, since resigning from the Senate essentially means ending the oath a senator takes when they are sworn in. 3/5 of 99 is 59.4, which if you follow the rules of rounding is 59.

Based on Tester's comments the other day in committee, I would bet he would have voted the right way if his vote mattered...Baucus might have too. Lincoln I am not so sure about.

Keep in mind that Reid changed his vote for procedural reasons, so there were really 53 yes votes. If Reid had waited for Kerry to get back from Poland it would have been 54, if Baucus and Tester had voted the right way it would have been 56, Wyden from Oregon was absent for an unknown reason...that could have gotten us to 57. Biden was in DC to vote if needed so he could have gotten us to 58, and I don't know what Kennedy's current condition is but I would bet he would have found a way to be there if they really needed him. So I don't know what the hangup was, but it seems to me like they had a way to get the votes if they had just stayed in session a few more days.

Lugar will vote with Dems. With Franken added we will KILL the REpublican brand for 100 years!

Did Biden officially resign? How about Teddy and Hillary were they there?

:(

However, after receiving taxpayer funds, the banking industry has still cut jobs and cracked down on credit, so I'm not seeing much evidence that bailout money does what it's supposed to do yet.