If Elizabeth Warren decided to run, I'd switch allegiance in a heartbeat. She understands that for any economy to be healthy, that economy must produce a large and healthy middle class.

Not even Democratic Party supported her. She at least needs the Democratic Party to support her. What if she was President? Can she convince Democtratic Semators to support her programs? That is a problem if they don't.

The government keeps running, Obamacare stays funded, deal with this banking shit later. Republicans are in office. There she strikes me as putting something intellectual above people's welfare.

Your prescription is to "deal with this banking shit later." If you mean "enact a law that restores this important provision," that's a fantasy. No such bill could pass either the House or the incoming Senate.

The only way to deal with this was to protect existing law, which is done by Obama vetoing or threatening to veto a bill that repeals it. The Republicans knew that. That's why, instead of putting forward a standalone bill to amend Dodd-Frank, they incorporated Citigroup's demand into a "must-pass" spending bill. Now there will be no way to deal with this later.

Aside from the weakening of Dodd-Frank, the whole process is an open invitation to the Republicans to ignore Obama's veto power. There will be other "must-pass" bills. All they have to do is tack on a bunch of odious right-wing provisions and figure that Obama will sign the omnibus bill.

Even if you don't care about "banking shit" or any of the other bad things in this bill, the process should concern you.

the ones who want to keep their ACA policies, or see immigration reform of any kind, or just people keeping jobs. They don't think the banks are the ones causing their problems.

Republicans were elected. To keep the government going, they get a say. Letting the shut down go on is more damaging to ordinary people. The average person could not care less about banking regulations.

in the 99% did it? Just the bankers got hurt.

The population in general, as taxpayers, will be on the hook for the next bailout.

If you persist in not caring at all about "banking shit" (as if most people were somehow walled off from it), you should still bear in mind the other obnoxious provisions of the bill, such as the one facilitating the Kochs' control over future elections, or the one partially abrogating the self-government of an entire city (Washington, D.C.).

By "population in general" you probably mean the human population, but some of us humans also care about the provision that will threaten species extinction, even if the (immediate) victims are nonhumans.

But let's just say that you don't care in the slightest about any of that, and your concern is solely for the ACA and so on. You still haven't responded to my point about the precedent. To wit: Citigroup and the Kochs and anti-marijuana crusaders wanted specific laws passed, but they knew Obama would veto the bills. Their Republican lackeys in Congress therefore included those provisions in an omnibus bill, trying to get around the veto problem by threatening a government shutdown. It worked. They have established the precedent that simple majorities in each chamber, too weak to override a veto, can nevertheless ram through something that Obama opposes, by using the politics of extortion.

Okay, so what happens at the next deadline (September, I think), when the anti-ACA crusaders say: "In 2014, the House voted to repeal Obamacare, but it died in the Senate. In 2015, with majorities in both chambers, we passed a repeal bill but Obama vetoed it (or we didn't even bother trying because we knew a veto loomed). Now, however, the government is about to run out of money again. We want repeal attached to the continuing resolution. We want you to do for us what you did for other interest groups in the Republican Party." How, exactly, is the Republican leadership supposed to respond? Are they supposed to say that it would be wrong to attach such unrelated provisions to a necessary continuing resolution? Obviously, they can't.

Obama will need to make a stand sooner or later or his final two years in office will be largely ceremonial. Given that, he should have made that stand sooner rather than later.

If anything happens, it's because they chose Republicans. That means government shut down or the Republicans getting something in return. That's what they voted for by giving the Republicans Congress.

The question is, are YOU average? I'm not.

Now, any time the bankers or anyone else wants money all they have to do is threaten a shutdown.

that brought us the 2008 Burndown- high risk CDOs, derivative toxins. People lost their homes, jobs, savings, 401Ks. The worst financial crash in 75 years because of financial deregulation by Bill, Rubin et all. My parents and grandparents survived the 1929 Crash, and the Depression following. Change is coming, for the better.

And note, they survived. The 401s built back up. There was a lot of mitigation for the housing crisis. Unemployment has improved.

derivatives will crash again, it's a mathematical equation and just takes knowing past history or having a shred of common sense. I know very well what went on in finance, banking and mortgage backed securities between NY and Wall Street on the Potomac where I've lived 35 years. Assistance for distressed homeowners was minimal, tragically. And intentionally so. The stock market is on a roll for those who have surplus money to gamble, not regular Americans who are struggling more than ever. New jobs created are much lower paying wages with no benefits and many are on contract basis. You tell me to 'note they (my family) survived'? And you know how they survived? Arrogance abounds.

But this Q helps me understand alot here. Wow.

The average person is simply not interested in this stuff.

is how much more of a shit sandwich would have been tossed in there under the shiny new Congress.

We are well and truly screwn.

First we have to take back Congress, elect a Democrat president and forge onward. This has been done, but it does not mean it can't be changed. We have to get the Senate back first so we can control the SC and lower court positions.

Good to see you back here, love your posts, informative and researched.

She tends to say the same things you do.

Trying for what, exactly?

someone.

trading to a separate entity rsther than as a part of the bank?

If part of the bank the derivative practise gets a higher credit rating and lower borrowing costs as opposed to a separate entity, all because lenders, other banks and hedge funds, see a government bailout as a positive risk fact for getting paid back if the derivative trader goes under, if part of the bank itself it is less likely in the first place and even more so if the whole thing is backed up by a government guarantee, a perceived one.....is it really a big deal to give the cons this? And regulate the derivative trading itself to within limits?

I guess it's time to rail against Republicans instead of denigrating the actual Democrats that have despised Republican and Republican-lite policies to begin with.

I'm sure you will have an ocean of fodder to feed us now that Republicans have Congress, and I hope to hear how it's the fault of everybody that despised Republican policies that voted against them because we weren't team players with Dems that espoused them.

your info is always welcome to the open mind -- but something weird is going on at DU right now, so I'm not sure how many open minds there are on hand

Aside from that, best wishes for the holidays, and a good new year to you.

Hekate

I have to go.Yet KnR!

Funny cause I just mentioned you in my thread and was hoping you were reading what was going on here.

Best to you and yours. To your husband, be well both of you~ she

never change.

But, hey about Cuba!

"As a result of a dialogue at the highest level, which included a phone conversation I had yesterday with President Obama, we have been able to make headway in the solution of some topics of mutual interest for both nations."

Laura Rozen @lrozen
Follow
President Obama spoke with #Cuba's Raul Castro yesterday by phone, highest level US Cuba presidential engagement since Cuba revolution
6:08 AM - 17 Dec 2014 109 Retweets 29 favorites


The White House ✔ @WhiteHouse
Follow
"We will begin to normalize relations between our two countries." —President Obama #CubaPolicy
7:03 AM - 17 Dec 2014 895 Retweets 346 favorites

I'm against monarchies and aristos but we already have de facto corporate Kings, and a kind of House of Lords with a millionaires club Senate. She could be the people's Queen. Sigh..

Once the Republicans take control in January they are going to pass the stupidest fucking things possible and we will have to hope that once Obama vetoes them that they can't line up the votes to override it.