So when does Michael Steel kick Republicans who voted for cloture and for the bill out of the party? Isn't that how it's done? Or is that just a Tennessee thing?

This is odd:

Fossil energy research
House: $0
Senate: $4,600,000,000, (+$4,600,000,000)

Energy efficiency
House: $11,400,000,000
Senate: $5,800,000,000 (-$5,600,000,000)

Electricity grid
House: $11,000,000,000
Senate: $4,500,000,000 (-$6,500,000,000)

How does it become reconciled with such huge differences?

How long will reconciling take?

It will go to a joint committee and they will hash it out. Obama says he wants it on his desk by the end of the week. We'll see.

P.S. The dollars aren't that far apart (and both are too large in my opinion). The differences are on priorities. There will have to be compromise. Looking at the list, some don't seem all that unreasonable.

I think the senate bill will by & large be the bill that comes out of conference.

My bet is the bill will be on the Presidents desk by weeks end & he will sign it into law.

I disagree R..this bill is one we need.

It's got the right mix of spending & tax cuts to prime the economic pump to start digging out of this deep deep hole we are in.

I didn't say we didn't need it. I just think it might be a little large. I don't have any specifics, though, that's just my gut feel.

The votes are there in the Senate to avoid a filibuster. It will pass the House, even if every Republican votes against it.

The trick for the President and the Democrats is to turn the argument back on the Republicans and to make it look like it was the Republicans who failed to act in a bipartisan manner. Which, from what I have read it was, since Republicans seem to want to have been treated as if they had won in November.

The Republicans hold 41 percent of the House seats, and the Democrats hold 51 percent. Democrats, including Obama, should now be focused on marginalizing the minority.

Make that 59 percent held by the Democrats.

I agree R.

Need was not the right word to use because you did not say we didnt need the bill but that the bill "was too large".

Let me put it this way.

The President as I understood him last night was saying that we can't piecemeal our way out of this mess.

We have to be big & we have to be bold because an incremental approach would be swallowed up in the blackhole that is our economy & we could find ourselves in a "lost decade" of no growth akin to Japan in the '90s.

When the final bill comes out of conference, watch for some Republican House member be for the bill after they were against it.

Like Cooper maybe?

Like Cooper maybe?

That leads to a larger question doesn't it?

Am I the only one who believes that moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats have interpreted what happened in Tennessee in November as indicative of a Republican/conservative mandate or uprising in the state, and as a result have been scared into acting more conservative than they usually are?

The government actually accomplished something that might help someone?
After the last eight years...well...it feels kinda odd. Good, but odd.

At least we may soon be able to shed the stigma of expecting failure from our daily outlook.

Granted Jim's districts have changed alot but he's the same.Too conservative for most Democrats.But he is a Democrat.

When Jim was the congressman from the 4th district he represented Hancock,Hamblen,Grainger,Claiborne,Union,Campbell & Scott.Those voters agreed with him & voted for him.

How his conservatism plays so well in Nashville I dont know but my bet is they know a good congressman when they see one.

I am interested to see how Jim votes on the bill that comes out of conference.

It doesnt really matter in the scheme of things the bill will pass the House with or without Jim's vote.

Believe or not I dont always agree with Jim & on this bill I dont.Unless he goes for the conference bill.