says the article

They know the tea party nose-led house will never pass it.

sigh.

I'd like to think that some Repubs finally figured out that the banks don't give a damn about them either.
But I think it might be something to do w/ many dems retiring as senators. Something like this lets the Repubs safe face. Because they know that house will most likely be their in 2014, and are focusing on the senate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12526838

There appears to be a bunch of banker wrong-doing and I wondered if this came before the senate.

I don't know if they're trying to get out in front of the story (knowing that the house won't do anything anyway) or if there is something else going on.

I can't help but wonder what happened that caused the senate to march lock step. It happens in the house on emotional issues, but the senate - not so much.

Maybe Repugnant senators may finally "get" what the concept of "going too far" actually means -- at least to the voters.

As far right senators finally grasp that the foundation of the lives of the voting public is crumbling so fast that it might actually make them take to the streets and start screaming in unison, like the Greek citizens we've seen on the MSN this week.... they might be getting a bit worried. There's reason to believe that it could happen here because what the investment banks have done is created a disaster so enormous, that its effects will go on for decades ... not just a few years my DU friends. It's hard to wrap your brain around that. It was for me too.

Yep. How Repugs vote on banking issues in the Senate right now might be their only hope that the public has a short memory and these Rethugs can point to this one vote, this one time and hope to get re-elected.

Just a theory of course.

when it passes the house and it actually gets put to use. Until then, it's just chatter.

Nothing will except Ryan's unholy bill.

Last edited Mon Mar 25, 2013, 08:22 PM - Edit history (1)

only something like 12 voting for Ryan's budget this time around? I could have sworn I read that this morning somewhere.

Edit to self correct: It was Rand Paul's budget I was thinking of, and it was actually 17 votes.

I figured team Romney only chose Paul Ryan because it was close enough 'sounding' to Ron Paul that they'd get people who knew a Paulbot - maybe even looked up to that person (they can be very passionate) but didn't really look into it enough to know who this 'Paul' person was.

They can't have gotten many that way, but there are a lot of people ignorant about politics. I'd never heard of Paul Ryan before he'd been selected; I could see how that could happen to people who don't follow politics at all.

I'm not suggesting that's you. Perhaps you're like me and just have a great deal of disdain for both of them so they occupy space in the brain near each other. Of course Ryan is supposed to be the budget guy - it makes sense that it would have been his budget that was rejected. I didn't know until I read your post that Rand Paul even had a budget.

its a banking crisis. to the bankmobile !

... LOL!

Although there has to be more to this than meets the eye, I still am shocked when I think of a few of the Senators I know---like that asshat from my state, Toomey. I would expect him to implode or spontaneously combust before he would vote for anything Dems are voting for.

Something is very fishy here.

they love giving away the treasury to their corporate masters while screwing the "little people".

This will go nowhere.

and non-binding.

is in the mail......

Does anyone care?

...Exactly which subsidies are they talking about? The TBTF financial institutions have a very complex relationship with multiple federal agencies, GSE's like Freddie, Fannie and Ginne, and most importantly, the Fed. I'm not getting my hopes up that the Senate finally found religion, so to speak. It was like pulling teeth just to get weak, watered down Dodd / Frank through the Senate.

Actually unwinding Federal subsidies to the banking industry will take more than an amendment to a budget bill that will probably not pass the House. All these complex subsidies of various sorts weren't created over night, so ending them all or even some of them in one simple amendment isn't likely to happen. In fact unless this is done carefully, it could destabilize our financial system. I don't like that anymore than anyone else here, but that's the mess we find ourselves in. I'd like to feel positive about this and I do respect Sherrod Brown, but I see more fluff and not much substance.

If they're doing something that 'seems' good...

...Well, check your wallet.

That is what a plutocracy does.