answer this ...

What happens if the CR had been killed?

Congress passes a temp. budget approval, what they call a "stop gap".

And the Dems know damn well this could be done...all the back and forth was playing to the cameras.
The banks own enough Congress people that they would have won no matter what.

Congress has been a subsidiary of the banks and corporations for quite awhile now.

courtesy of the President appointing one of Citigroup's finest..

This hit me really hard. Someone console me, please.

It would have been kicked on down the road till after the first of the year when the NEW Omnibus would have been written by 'REPUBLICANS". Not only would we still have gotten the part written by Citi bank, but we also would have gotten all the crap republicans have wanted to get rid of for the last 6 years, and democrats would have lost all the fought for in the one that just passed. Sure the one that passed was not a good one, but it is better than we could have gotten if republicans write one when they are in charge of both the House and the Senate.

filibustering all that shit the republicans try to push though for the next two years?

Dodd-Frank next year? Looks like some here are in favor of continuing to pull back. Keep retreating so as not to lose. We've been doing that for 30 years and we've lost. Time to stand and fight.

And I really wish that the democrats would take this opportunity (as republicans talk about gutting regulation) to explain what weakening Dodd-Frank means in regards to bailing out banks and paint this 'decrease regulations' campaign promise as the favor to big corporations that it is.

People get the idea that the republicans are gonna get the homeowners association off their back when they hear about reducing regulations, they need to understand that it's code for 'we want these guys in congress so we can take YOUR money without any pesky oversight'.

This is the failing of the democratic candidates in this last election. They're afraid to take the time to explain why regulations on financial institutions are necessary.

stop gap measure that would expire, and therefore be renegotiated, just as republicans take the house AND senate; than, have a CR that keeps the government running until September?

Okay.

wait until Sept.

But yes ... They can start diluting it in January; but they would have to do it through legislation, and all that entails; rather than, as attached to must pass legislation.

and so, apparently, do they. That's why they went this route. They would not get the Democratic vote in stand alone legislation.

The fact that an action has results is not really any reason to never take action, is it?

Wait. We win what. We trade 10 months of government being funded for a 2 month temporary stop gap that expires just as the republicans take control of the house and the senate. Do you think THAT CR would look worse than what we lost?

All the bad stuff that the GOP wants to pass they'll be able to pass just as well next spring. Why should we have helped them now? Ultimately the dems could have forced a vote without these two provisions. They needed democratic votes to get it. They could have gotten everything in there without those two provisions. The GOP would have merely been forced to try to get it passed next year on some other bill. And then Obama could have VETOED that bill.

Face it, Obama wanted/didn't care about these issues and never has. It was unimportant to him and to some degree he probably agreed with the general principal, if not the letter of the exact law. He's going to do worse next year as he looks to have more legislative "victories" and demonstrate his willingness for bipartisan bills. TPP is coming and it's going to get ugly. The "change" we'll see coming is going to be a lot worse than mandates.

The shutdown is an idle threat. The Republican's owners would be hurt financially by a shutdown and won't let it happen. It's a canard and Obama should have called their bluff by vetoing the bill.

From the comfort of our keyboards ... when we get it wrong, as we often do, and the idle threat turns out to be very real, we get to move on to the next thing ... which in this case would be screaming about the poor unfortunates that going hungry and homeless because of the government shut-down, that we just knew was an idle threat.

No. What would have happened is, rather than having a budget that keeps the government going through September, "the oligarchs would have ordered them (the he gop) to pass a budget, asap", and they would have, in the form of a stop-gap measure that would expire in late January or early February, after the republicans have control of both houses of congress. Then, they would have written a budget that defunds the ACA and immigration reform AND has all the stuff we are objecting to.

But fortunately, as bad a spending bill as it is, the gop will have to figure out another way to do the damage they seek.

If we're going to get Republican policies, we might as well have Republicans to blame.

I'm "okay" with having a functioning government, despite the stuff I don't like, if it will forestall the shutting down of government (something no one that gives a thought about the poorest among us, would want) only to make it easier for the gop to slam me with more stuff that I don't like.

Way to go, Cleveland! Smart move!


Not.

She gave incredible floor speeches protecting worker's rights.

Kaptur was Kaptured.... But why? Dennis was Gerrymandered out, unfortunately, but I always figured Kaptur was one of the best we had.

sigh..

she was mind blowing awesome spot on calling it even better and sharper than Warren does.. This was AFTER the 2008 elections.

Something happened behind the scenes that shut her up or shut her down. Too Bad.

Looks like he called it right again, as usual.

The Rethugs got what they wanted when they fucked with that district.

that all they needed to do could have been done with the stroke of
the pen to take this amendment out.
The repugs did not want a shut down, so it could have been done.

What about the Senate though, any names available there?

Voted for this bill? Yet another reason she needs to be replaced.

I now have a good reply for the next time i get a fund raising email from one Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

for a very legit reason.

WHY DOES THE OP HATE MOTHERHOOD????
WHY DOES THE OP HATE WOUNDED WARRIORS??

- OK, I'm really just having some fun. The OP is fine, but Duckworth is out for a good reason right now.

Hey thanks DEBBIE. Thanks for even more NOTHING, as if your dereliction of duty didn't already cost us plenty aside from this particular vote. SHITTY DNC chair. Absolutely SHITTY job she did. We ate it in not one but TWO midterm elections on her watch. And now this, too.

I also called Brad Sherman's office - elsewhere here in SoCal. Not my Congressman but close enough. And I said "SHAME on him!" to the staffer who answered. She didn't much care for it since my zip code told her he wasn't my representative.

NEVERTHELESS, I insisted. For the following VERY legitimate reasons (and you can, too!):

Because I don't live too far from there.

Because I have loads of friends who DO live in his district - and I am not reluctant to make sure they know what he did and how he voted.

Because I am a campaign contributor, and even while he doesn't technically represent me, he was awfully glad to get my money and use it for his reelection campaign. So I damn well have every right to assert what I want from him. Unless, of course, he's willing to refund my donation (which you know he isn't). *

Because we're both Democrats and DAMMIT we need to stick together and stand firm on what Democrats are supposed to believe in and stand for!

* DO NOT HESITATE to use this one! REGARDLESS where you are versus where they are. IF YOU CONTRIBUTED TO THEIR CAMPAIGNS, you have EVERY RIGHT to weigh in and tell them what YOU want. If you donated to the DCCC or (for a Senator), the DSCC, via the Dems themselves or the DNC in general or ActBlue or one of those - YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT to do this and make these demands.

I used this in a call to Heidi Heitkamp once. I'm from California. She's from North Dakota. On the surface, no, I'm not a constituent and I don't live in North Dakota, nor do I know anybody who does. Certainly nobody in my extended family, to whom I can refer, does either. HOWEVER, I contributed to her first campaign for the Senate - which she won. Her campaign took my donation. Didn't refund it. Didn't give it back or decline to accept it because I wasn't a North Dakotan. NO WAY! So frankly, as long as she's happy to take MY money for her campaign, and MY money helped her win this job she now has, I figure she damn well better listen to me. And I said so! This was after Sandy Hook, when she went on "Good Morning America" and said absolutely nothing will be done to curb access to assault weapons. ENRAGED me! And I told her staffer that when I called in.

DO NOT EVER EVER EVER HESITATE to use this when you call in, no matter who-the-hell it is, or where they call home. IF YOU CONTRIBUTED, IN ANY WAY, to their political campaigns, then you have EVERY DAMN RIGHT to weigh in and force your opinion on them. They gladly took your money. They were delighted and oh-so-grateful for that donation of yours. Therefore their ass is now YOURS, too. I don't care if you're living in Antarctica and they're in Alaska. If you sent in a donation to their campaigns, you OWN their ass. You bought and paid for it. And you have EVERY RIGHT to tell them what to do. You are their employer and underwriter. They HAVE to listen to you because they just might not be in that position if it weren't for you and that donation you sent in to help them awhile back. They OWE you now.

Even better if you have a relative living in their district or state. Relative, best friend, former roommate, ex, whatever. I'd pull whatever string(s) I had in a case like this. Whenever either of my kids were out traveling, and I had reason to call some rep, I made sure to call wherever my kids were. Because that ALSO entitles me to a stake in what that rep is up to. I remember when some insolent staffer for Susan Collins demanded of me "and WHAT does this have to do with the State of Maine?" Answer: "Well, (FUCKER), my nephew and his kids live in the State of Maine and I visit them every so often and spend money there and support the local economy, and we're close, so I am AT ALL TIMES concerned, and PERSONALLY so, with what goes on in the State of Maine - that directly affects them AND me!!! (You little shit-faced PUNK!)"
(Note - the above words in parentheses were not spoken aloud by me in that case. But they're exactly what I was thinking!)

They knew the bill was in danger and put a lot of pressure on Dems to vote for it. I still can't believe that a bank CEO can legally put pressure on a Congressman to vote for a bill that favors his industry. There is no questioning we have an oligarchy, not a democracy.

I used to think very highly of the guy.