General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHarry Reid(D) blocked the critical amend to strip Citigroup rider from Cromnibus
12/15/14
The amendment forces Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to choose between holding a vote to strip out controversial changes to Dodd-Frank in the House-passed omnibus, or anger the progressive wing of his caucus. Reid had already signed off on the funding bill in its current form, and the White House has also backed the measure and urged its passage.
..."Wall Street has been working behind the scenes to open another loophole so they could gamble with taxpayer money and get bailed out when their risky bets threaten to blow up our financial system," said Warren. "This giveaway that was drafted by Citigroup lobbyists has no place in a critical government funding bill."
"Before Congress starts handing out Christmas presents to the megabanks and Wall Street, we should vote on this bipartisan amendment," Vitter said. "We need to remove these risky derivatives that aren't even necessary for normal banking purposes and would only make future taxpayer funded bailouts more likely."
Reid is unlikely to allow a vote on the amendment during a crowded Senate schedule. The spending bill, including the Wall Street subsidy, is expected to pass by a wide margin.
UPDATE: 6:20 p.m. -- Reid filed cloture on the omnibus and "filled the tree," a procedural maneuver that bars everyone from offering amendments. In other words, Warren and Vitter's amendment has no chance of being added to the spending bill.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/12/elizabeth-warren-david-vitter-wall-street_n_6317098.html
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Cha
(297,314 posts)Accusing a fellow DUer of being a banned disruptor is a personal attack. Following a fellow DUer from one end of this place to the other and accusing him or her of being a banned disruptor is stalking. These things make DU suck.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Dec 18, 2014, 07:17 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Get a grip, alerter.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I agree with two things. That Sid is likely following the poster for mirt and that the poster may be a returning member. Since the admins will see this they can look into the op and settle the question. Also the op has a bad habbit of using right wing sources to attack Hillary so that makes he or she suspicious to me. Having worked with Sid on mirt I can tell you that he is usually right about these things.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It's getting old and tiresome to see this comment.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sid's not accusing anyone of anything. Plus, when sid doesn't accuse someone of something - like he's not doing here- he's usually right about it.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Yeah, a lot of things are getting "old and tiresome" on DU.. don't see me Alerting on them.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)our party & our country is really frowned upon here.
Who would've thunk it? I'm truly surprised & gobsmacked.
Btw, I didn't alert on Sid's post. I didn't even know what it meant. But I always thought he was a troll. Ha! Go figure.
Cha
(297,314 posts)Don't be a victim.. no one I know is against changing things for the better.
And, you calling Sid a "troll" just shows you don't know what you're talking about.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)to have me kicked off of DU. I'm shocked.
But thanks very much to whoever did realize that & alerted. You tried.
See ya!
Zorra
(27,670 posts)It's just what they do.
However, this isn't really mainly a battle between progressives and "centrists" for the soul of the Democratic party, although there is certainly an element of that, and it is certainly understandable for reporters to talk about it in those traditional political battle terms. But what this is more fundamentally about is a battle between the biggest special interest corporations in the world, who tend to have overwhelming sway over everything in Washington, and those of us who want to confront and rein in their power.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025928334
The swarm that immediately greeted your OP could not be more obvious in their intentions. It's almost like they expected it, and were waiting for it.
Your OP is factual, and counter to the Third Way agenda, so they attacked you personally. For the Third Way, facts and truth don't matter. All that matters to the Third Way is pushing the fascist corporate agenda by any means necessary.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)Sid must have done some great stuff here in the past, cuz the quality of posts that I see on here certainly wouldn't elicit the respect he seems to get from the old-timers. I think I've seen one where he actually contributed to a discussion; usually he's just trolling liberals. I figure it's a piece of DU history I'm just not hip to, which is fine.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)^^^this^^^ is all I see from some here. Smacks troll to me!
Marr
(20,317 posts)I've been posting here since 2000 or 2001, though my name was different then (lost my login at some point). I think you've pretty much seen the sum total of his contribution, if my own experience has captured it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Simply refusing to include them means government shut down.
djean111
(14,255 posts)I do not think "Democrat" means what it used to mean.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)It was our lovely wall street dems again.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Democrats! And be better than the GOP! Now, THAT is the real clapping for Tinkerbell.
VERY good point!
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)'Cause it sure sounds like that's what you're suggesting.
Sid
Scuba
(53,475 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)The Republicans have the majority next term, satisfied?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)However, then they wouldn't be insiders with whatever perks that implies. Frankly, it's not worthy selling one's soul to Wall Street Satan IMHO.
appalachiablue
(41,145 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Puglover
(16,380 posts)Canada? Must be.
pocoloco
(3,180 posts)working for you??
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 18, 2014, 11:54 AM - Edit history (1)
Autumn
(45,107 posts)You better believe that. If our Canadian brothers and Sisters had to put up with the shit our politicians like good old Harry are so fond of pulling and then offering those brazen silly excuses and expecting that we vote for them since they don't suck quite as bad as the other side does they might not be as happy with our politicians as they are. Well at least one of them.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)underwater mortgages and homeless families with starving children on the streets.
It MUST be their support of the banking industry!
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)a few more years of harper and his Keystone pipeline, and Canada will be Northern Texas . Not like the left there can unite to vote him out, because le Bloc Quebecois would rather join the EU than Canada
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)JoeyT
(6,785 posts)because all the Canadian liberals are too busy hanging out on the internet making sure people are sufficiently reverential toward a certain American politician.
840high
(17,196 posts)vote for the same shitty people?
Sissyk
(12,665 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:18 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Are you advocating that voters not vote for Democrats?...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5976084
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This poster is constantly harassing liberal democrats on this board but is not even a Democratic citizen of the United States. Why is he allowed to criticize and harass American Democrats? This post is disruptive and inappropriate given this poster should not even be allowed to interfere in American politics.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Dec 18, 2014, 12:24 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Why is he allowed to engage in free speech and call "liberal democrats" who prefer republicans on their shit? I wish you all would fuck off to Free Republic where you belong. There is NOTHING liberal about any of you people who work to put the GOP in office.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hardly alert worthy.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Huh?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It is alerts like this that are giving the jury system a bad name. Very very bogus alerts like this one make members leave some post that shiould be hidden. This is what makes DU suck. -Sissyk
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Last edited Fri Dec 19, 2014, 10:25 AM - Edit history (1)
"....this poster should not even be allowed to interfere in American politics."
Well that certainly narrows down the alerter pool, doesn't it? Good grief, people.
JI7
(89,252 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)Though you rock as well.
I am always so mystified by those who pile onto Sid and always, ALWAYS bring up that he's from Canada. Some of the most unhinged anti Obama posters here have LOUDLY proclaimed that they live in other countries, and some of the loudest, dumbest members of that crew seem to forget that they are too are non-Americans or Americans living in other parts of the world. If their opinions are welcome here, why not Sid's or anyone else's?
So this whole "Sid's CANDADIAN!1!one" thing is not only incredibly stupid it's also dishonest and hypocritical too. That jury did the right thing. Serious props.
7962
(11,841 posts)He said, to paraphrase, "If we run to the middle again and nominate a McCain or Romney and millions of conservative voters stay home again, we'll end up with President Hillary Clinton. And that would be a disaster". Reverse the R & D and the end result is the same.
He's admitting that the far right of the party would rather STAY HOME than vote for someone they consider a "moderate". Which in turn, helped elect Obama twice. So are they happier than if Romney would've won? Are they that stupid? I guess so.
So the reverse of that would be the question here; would one stay home and NOT vote for someone viewed as "not progressive enough" and help elect Bush #3?
The stupidity if that is pretty high, to me.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that would have guaranteed that the bill would have failed. That way government would have shut down, cutting off funds to the government programs that feeds, shelter and clothes folks ... even if the program interruption is for only the "one or two weeks (of) inconvenience" (as one DUer put it), before congress passes a stop-gap that expires in late January/early February, when the republicans have control of both houses of Congress ... when they could/would write a spending bill that has everything we hate and much, much more.
Yeah, that's what should have happened because .... MUST ... SHOW ... STRENGTH!
djean111
(14,255 posts)I would accept your little homily, if I didn't know that Dimon was actually personally whipping votes.
think
(11,641 posts)just like Glass-Steagall was....
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Warren and Sanders come in? Regardless of who was whipping the votes, which Democrats would vote against legislation that re-establish the push back rule (and/or other single pieces of legislation that removes the other stuff) we don't like?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)It just would have removed the Citigroup rider which Citi wrote for itself & the other banks & it lets them play hockey with derivatives again, insured by taxpayer $$$,
This was an amendment in the senate. It wouldn't have shut the govt down.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the spending bill would not have passed without a coalition of republican AND Democratic votes. The amendment would have kept the Democratic votes, but lost republican votes.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)pscot
(21,024 posts)Preemptive capitulation has fed Republican ambitions right from the gittgo. Obama reminds me of Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey was a better Liberal than Obama, but LBJ said if Hubert had been born a woman he'd have been pregnant all the time because he just couldn't say no.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Taking out the Citigroup rider would require the bill to go back to the House for another vote.
Even if you could get the bill through the full Senate, you'd have a hard time getting it through the House. Assuming Captain Orange allowed a vote.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)if the spending bill had failed, there would have been a stop-gap bill ... that would have expired in late January/early February, right?
Then what?
Do you think that, with control of both houses of Congress, the republicans would not have included all the stuff we hate about the spending bill, on top of defunding the ACA and immigration reform?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Oh, and does the President still have veto power, or was does that only apply when Republicans hold the White House?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)is that more important to you than acting to secure funding for the ACA through September 2015, and putting Democrats in the top seat when it comes to immigration reform (i.e., no immigration reform, no funding for DHS)?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I have noticed that everyone "debating/arguing" with me on this are studiously avoiding answering this:
Democrats take advantage of the swell of republican/conservative/teaparty opposition to the derivative push-out roll-back and write individual legislation re-establishing the rule (and removing all the other horrible stuff the spending bill contains; but could only pass as part of the must pass spending bill. All (most) Democrats (and a significant number of republicans) will support the individual legislation, as who, without the cover/lack of transparency of the spending bill, will come out against it?
Other than to rehash the travesty that is the spending bill ... or simply state it won't happen.
The former is resting in yesterday ... The latter indicates people have no faith that Warren, Sanders, Pelosi and the rest of the Progressive Caucus can/would write the individual pieces of legislation.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)can be avoid, if/when Warren, Sanders, Pelosi and/or the Progressive Caucus writes the individual legislation to reverse the stuff we don't like. Right?
Who would vote against the individual pieces of legislation?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Why don't you address this:
Democrats take advantage of the swell of republican/conservative/teaparty opposition to the derivative push-out roll-back and write individual legislation re-establishing the rule (and removing all the other horrible stuff the spending bill contains; but could only pass as part of the must pass spending bill. All (most) Democrats (and a significant number of republicans) will support the individual legislation, as who, without the cover/lack of transparency of the spending bill, will come out against it?
I assume you have already read it; but, are just choosing to ignore it.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... horrible bill that was already passed and the President says he will sign into law, and about the correction that Harry Reid already killed.
Yes, there are in infinite number of opportunities to do better in the future, but for now we have further deregulated banking and allowed even more anonymous money in our elections. Democrats had a chance to say "No" but allowed the Republicans to use their idle threat of shutdown to act as cover.
Perhaps you'll get back to me when a bill correcting these abuses has passed.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)is funded through September of 2015 and the top position the spending bill puts Democrats with respect to immigration.
Now, perhaps you'll join me in contacting Warren, Sanders, Pelosi and/or the rest of the Progressive Caucus to implore them to do their jobs!
Scuba
(53,475 posts)NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)wavesofeuphoria
(525 posts)One measure allows private companies to cut pension payments, affecting potentially millions of workers.
The bill slices $300 million from Pell Grants, which help cover college tuition for some of Americas poorest students, including two-thirds of all black and half of Latino undergraduates.
The Pentagon will get four fighter jets it didnt ask for, to the tune of $479 million.
The bill dismantles labor protections for truck drivers (and endangers public safety) by repealing part of a 2011 Department of Transportation rule requiring adequate rest for drivers.
The nutrition program for Women, Infants and Children will lose $93 million.
Cuts to the Environmental Protection Agencys budget will force the agency to shrink its staff to its lowest level in twenty-five years.
The bill also slashes funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy by 16 percent, while allocating a full 20 percent more money for fossil-fuel development than the White House requested.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/192785/spending-bills-wall-street-giveaway-bad-thats-not-all#
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)None of which can't be reversed through individual legislation, right?
Name one Democrat that would go on the record voting AGAINST individual bills that reverse the above ... well, except, maybe, the slashing of funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy?
wavesofeuphoria
(525 posts)you let all this crap go through and expect that the democrats are going to introduce legislation to reverse these?
Introduce and fight for legislation .. right?
But not fight now, before this bill is passed/voted on?
That's insanity.
Besides ... who cares if they would go on record voting against bills that reverse the above ... they've already voted on record FOR them here!!!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That's where Warren, Sanders, Pelosi, and the rest of the Progressive Caucus comes in.
No ... they voted for a must pass spending bill that had these things buried in it. Again, who would go on record voting against bills that reverse these things?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I don't think "they" (Warren and Sanders, not sure about Pelosi) voted for this bill as you state. I go with Sen Sanders and Sen Warren.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the they we were talking about are them (i.e., Democrats that voted for the Spending bill).
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)We'll fix it later! LOL!
Oh, that one never gets old...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)The cowardly capitulators in Congress?
Man, you're on a roll!
Still waiting on Dems to fix the 2008 FISA Amendments (which would have sunset and returned to pre-Bush status, and all Harry Reid had to do was NOTHING, but no, he brought the bill up for a vote and here we are. Thanks, Harry!)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Warren, Sanders, Pelosi and the Progressive Caucus?
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)to write the legislation. Name one Democrat that would vote against a bill to re-establish the push out rule, or the pension raiding provisions, or the defunding of the PELL program, or WIC, or any of the other provisions in the Speeding Bill, without the must pass cover of the Spending Bill.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)further purchase our "reps" votes & actions.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)legislation can reverse that, too.
Marr
(20,317 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)perhaps, the Progressive Caucus should get on that, as well.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Even when we have control we don't have control and dare not object or speak up or "show strength"
It amazes me how truly weak we are both spiritually and actualy...and we are told it is fate, and there is nothing we dare do about it because the GOP is a scary bunch...while on the right they act and we through up our hands and say "what can we do, we have no power".
What we are witnessing here is the destruction of the Democratic party principles not the party...it will live on as long as the cash flows and the moss grows on the motionless stone.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)We are the party that will soon find ourselves in the minority position. Our power is in acting strategically; rather than, symbolically.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And losing...so that would suggest the strategy is wrong...and it is.
Our strategy is formed out of weakness not strength and they are actors on a stage in the mind of the public, and there is a negative response to weakness...they tune it out and don't vote.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)with this Presidency? I can point to a bunch of stuff we gained.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And may lose the next one if we keep to that strategy of weakness...compromise principles in order to get along with the right who flaunt their power.
And I can point to a bunch we have lost...some of them like our freedom and our privacy and moral standards of humane treatment that blows out of the water anything we have gained.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Which "freedoms" have we lost under this Administration?
DU is sounding more and more like some right wing site, by the day.
I will grant you that we lost the election ... I will grant, further, that an, arguable, reason for that loss is the American public's penchant for preferring form over substance. But I would far rather suffer being seen as weak and getting some of the things I want done; than, appearing strong, and getting none of the stuff I want done ... or worse, watch the most vulnerable among us hurt (as would happen in the case of a government shut down).
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Even with a Senate and the White house in control by the Dems.
And they just passed the spending bill that cuts pensions for retired workers to keep the parks open for them to sleep in I guess...But what they give with one hand does not match up what they take with the other.
But sure, we lost our freedom with the Patriot act...passed by congress with Democratic support...and only a few objected to it...and in 09 we had the white house and congress but did nothing to end the abuses of power or even try to modify it...we stayed silent because we thought we would see change and the caving was just 11 dimensional chess moves...it never happened...Gitmo is still open for business and that travesty has been going on for 6 years under a democratic president...and the list of outrages keeps growing.
But glad you got the things you wanted done...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"appearing strong"?
Why are you avoiding this:
Democrats take advantage of the swell of republican/conservative/teaparty opposition to the derivative push-out roll-back and write individual legislation re-establishing the rule (and removing all the other horrible stuff the spending bill contains; but could only pass as part of the must pass spending bill. All (most) Democrats (and a significant number of republicans) will support the individual legislation, as who, without the cover/lack of transparency of the spending bill, will come out against it?
It explains WHY I am glad for what the spending bill did. Now, how about you join me in contacting Warren, Sanders, Pelosi and/or the rest of the Progressive Caucus to implore them to do their jobs!
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And I am tired of the excuses.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)still haven't addressed the next step; but, okay ...
zeemike
(18,998 posts)The next step is a revolution in the Democratic party to kick out the weak corrupt Dinos...should we dare to take it.
But we will never take it if we just go along to get along with the crazy people in the GOP...being ruled by fear is a weakness in itself.
And the last election shows what people think of it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)still haven't address what I have offered as the next step.
But I understand ... it's far more gratifying to fantasize of a "revolution", than risk pressing Warren, Sanders, Pelosi and/or the Progressive Caucus to write the legislation.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Because yeah, America LOVES a weak LOSER.
Who wants to vote for the milquetoast 98lb weakling...
who gets to keep his lunch money from the bully... for one day!
lol
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)who gets to keep his lunch money from the bully... for one day!
Are you forgetting ... the milquetoast 98lb weakling gets to eat lunch?
BTW, my post was/is not a straw man argument.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Those are not the choices, it's a false premise.
Act from weakness, compromise, and pretend
you MIGHT get something better tomorrow.
What do you call that type of logic...
other than "wishful thinking" or subservience?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)strategically protecting what you have (in this case, until September of 2015), is not acting from "weakness". Nor, is stating what one has the ability to do (in this case writing legislation that re-establishes the push out rule that NO Democrat (and more than a few, republicans) will vote against), pretending that one MIGHT get something better tomorrow, or wishful thinking, or subservience.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)After all the Republican psychotic behavior of the last few years, having a 2015 budget under our belts after Republican landsides is a win!
I know people whose lives have been uprooted because of shutdowns and sequestration, people who had 401 K and investments obliterated.
This shit isn't just existential exercises in political philosophy.
We have to see the forest for the trees, stay out of the tiny little weeds. This spending bill is not going to trigger worldwide financial collapse. This spending bill is not going to end pension payments for all. This spending bill isn't going to set off a global warming/ ice age. This spending bill isn't going to take away our democracy and freedoms and make us servants to the oligarchs.
This spending bill is going to get us to the next battle! Our elected representatives can work on the bad stuff just as you say.
This is a Democratic victory!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the spending bill could be, and likely will, trigger a global banking collapse (unless there is another bail-out), and end pensions, and a bunch of other horrible things, if Warren, Sanders, Pelosi, and/or the Progressive Caucus doesn't get off Facebook, and get to the drafting table to develop the individual legislation to reverse out this stuff.
BTW, prepare to be called all kinds of names ... shortly.
Colorado Liberal
(145 posts)"... if Warren, Sanders, Pelosi, and/or the Progressive Caucus doesn't get off Facebook..."
Now I get it. You think the Progressive Caucus is a waste of time. It's actually a brilliant strategy - vote for a bunch of stuff you claim you don't want in the name of getting a spending bill, and then blame the legislators you don't respect anyway when they don't "fix" it. Whatever keeps your hands clean, I guess...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I have great respect for Warren, Sanders and the Progressive Caucus. They are fighting part of the good fight.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)US Congress. There are currently 69 members, about 20 of whom are also members of the Black Caucus. The Black Caucus itself has 43 current members, so nearly half are members of the Progressive Caucus.
Also, Warren is not a member of the Progressive Caucus. Sanders is the only Senate member, in part because he helped found the caucus when he was in the House, back in 1987 along with my Rep Peter DeFazio, and Maxine Waters (who was my Rep) and three other members who are no longer in Congress. At that time, Warren was a Republican.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)What is being protected?
AND in September 2015, with republican domination,
what will THEY capitulate?
The losses are HUGE.
What was protected and what WILL be gained
with a republican dominated Congress?
When Wall St gets it's next bailout, what will your "strategy" have defended???
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the funding for the ACA, and all of the other social safety net programs, not to mention Federal employees, that would suffer under a government shut-down.
September 2015, will be in the thick of (the beginning of) the 2016 races, where republicans have far more seats (in both houses of congress) to defend, than Democrats had in 2014.
What was protected and what WILL be gained
with a republican dominated Congress?
The POTENTIAL losses are, in fact, huge. All of which can be prevented should Warren, Sanders, Pelosi and the Progressive Caucus act to write the legislation.
Why do you keep referring (presumably, mockingly) to my strategy; while leaving out half of it? ... You know, the part about legislation being written to re-establish the rules.
MsLeopard
(1,265 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)Zero pragmatism gets shown at DU sometimes. Sometimes I think people at DU just 'cry' middle class and poor - because I'm not either one of those -
But I'll take this as it is because I don't want people eating cat food and missing out on our social safety net.
Do I agree with this? Not at all. Spent a few too many nights with a Hedgie from Ireland (went back and forth between NYC and Dublin and London) in 2006/2008. . . It's all a game to them. A literal game. They have no fucks to give about anyone but themselves. Telling a man who grew up dirt poor one of ten kids in a small town in Ireland that he has to monitor himself - that isn't going to work.
Easy peasy - re-implement glass steagall and be done with it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Telling anyone playing the game to monitor themselves - just isn't going to work.
Yep.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)Literally, thank you for the big nothing so many of us have in store for us when everything crashes again.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)The rest is pretty much the same.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)TBF
(32,064 posts)by the billionaires of Wing R. Wing D still has old-school labor supporting dems. Wing R still has church ladies/gents. But the people who have the power are the billionaires buying off whomever they need to in both parties (and they are not really run of the mill R's themselves - they are libertarians).
heaven05
(18,124 posts)no surprise from that one. He and Pelosi have been ducking and dodging and bending to corporate dems/repulsicans will from day one.
Orrex
(63,215 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,660 posts)Marta and I will think twice before donating to him again!
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)but the banksters can?
Got it.
Democrats can's do get anything done in congress
because of mean ole republicans... unless it's for Wall St?
Got it.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Archae
(46,335 posts)He would have had to let the GOP add any other amendment they wanted.
Can you imagine the amendments Ted Cruz was drooling over?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)And there's plenty of them in our government.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)This has really gotten out of hand
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)where you get mugged by the guy who says he's got your back, and then get told it would have been worse if the guy he's protecting you from had done it instead, and you're supposed to be grateful.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Rather than "having my back".
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)having bought the millionaire members of Congress, how could anyone with a working brain cell expect a different outcome? So, a great big hug for Harry and Nancy, two of the POS Dino's who look out for their own well-being without the slightest concern for average American wage-earners.
Oh, you mean Obama and Dimon lobbied hard for the screwing of America? Of course they did.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)it's the worlds oldest profession.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Passing themselves off as "leaders"
Kiss the ladies, shake hands with the fellows
then it's "open for business" like a cheap bordello
And they call it Democracy.
librechik
(30,674 posts)We lose all our power in the complexities which force Reid to just let this monster pass. "The monster we're preventing by letting this other CRonster in is so much worse!"
Or maybe they're all in it together.
I don't know anymore. I only know they don't respond to voter will, no matter what the results of the elections.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Signed,
The Turd Way
librechik
(30,674 posts)turbinetree
(24,703 posts)And the democrats wonder why they keep losing races, its right there in front of there noses, its called having a spine, principles, protect those that put you in office, that is your job.
Warren, Sanders, Brown and others know this, didn't the leadership get the memo, apparently not, or they just don't care, this is outrageous.
dirtydickcheney
(242 posts)Make sure that any meaningful legislation that might challenge corporate power isn't passed.
He might talk a good game, but when push-comes-to-shove he'll listen to big money's interests.
EVERY TIME.
That's it.
midnight
(26,624 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)another crash. Gold is looking pretty good to me right now.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)If we don't want a government shut down, we are stuck giving Republicans things.
Who knew Obama and his good buddy Jamie Dimon would whip Democrats into helping the Republicans? You just can't make this shit up.
treestar
(82,383 posts)There's nothing funny about that. Elections have consequences.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I have noticed that everyone "debating/arguing" with me on this are studiously avoiding answering this:
Democrats take advantage of the swell of republican/conservative/teaparty opposition to the derivative push-out roll-back and write individual legislation re-establishing the rule (and removing all the other horrible stuff the spending bill contains; but could only pass as part of the must pass spending bill. All (most) Democrats (and a significant number of republicans) will support the individual legislation, as who, without the cover/lack of transparency of the spending bill, will come out against it?
Other than to rehash the travesty that is the spending bill ... or simply state it won't happen.
The former is resting in yesterday ... The latter indicates people have no faith that Warren, Sanders, Pelosi and the rest of the Progressive Caucus can/would write the individual pieces of legislation.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And Warren and Sanders next term will be able to do nothing, thanks to being outnumbered by Republicans.
Not unless we want the government shut down.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Should all/any of the three, take advantage of the conservative objections to the push-out roll back, and write the legislation ... it would likely pass, as NO Democrat (and few republicans) would go on record voting against naked legislation that re-establishes the push out rule.
Nor, would ANY Democrat (a more than a few, republicans) vote against naked legislation killing the pension raiding, or much of the other stuff that is in spending bill.
As it stands, assuming that President Obama signs the spending bill, the earliest we would be facing a government shut down would be when Congress takes up the expiring funding of DHS (when Democrats tie the funding to immigration reform ... no reform/no DHS funding).
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)liberals and progressives, scream.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Having them redo the bill in the house would have caused a govt shutdown.
The amendment in the senate that couldn't get voted on b/c it was blocked by Reid would have just taken out the citigroup rider and they could've passed the bill without it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Next term, they don't even have to do that.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)runs into 2016 election season ... Giving Democrats ample opportunity to demonstrate by the proof of the vote (on the reversing legislation), who enabled the re-opening of the casinos and the raids on pensions.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)If the Warren-Vitter Amendment had been included AND if the spending bill had passed (the second one being a big "if" ... the bill would have gone back to the House for a vote. Do you really think the amended bill would have passed the House?
BTW, please address this:
Democrats take advantage of the swell of republican/conservative/teaparty opposition to the derivative push-out roll-back and write individual legislation re-establishing the rule (and removing all the other horrible stuff the spending bill contains; but could only pass as part of the must pass spending bill. All (most) Democrats (and a significant number of republicans) will support the individual legislation, as who, without the cover/lack of transparency of the spending bill, will come out against it?
I can only assume you have read; but, are choosing to ignore it. If so, do so directly.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the ball is in Warren's, Sanders', Pelosi's, and/or the Progressive Caucus' court.
I recommend folks contact them to do their job. Will you join me?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)forgive me for not taking you seriously.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)asking you to join me in contacting Warren, Sanders, Pelosi and/or the rest of the Progressive Caucus to have them write the (naked) legislation to re-establish the push out rule (and take out each of the pieces we don't like) is "be(ing) for wall street"?
Okay!
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Calista241
(5,586 posts)The bill is either open to amendments, or it's not. There is no "special exception" because some senator wants one.
We'd still be holding votes on all the amendments proposed if this had been allowed. Keystone pipeline? I'm sure an amendment would have been added for that. Cancel Obamacare? I'm sure someone would have proposed that.
Fuck the Palestinians? Yep, that got proposed. Eliminate the IRS? Check. Defund the EPA? Check.
Basically, Reid saw we had more to lose than we could gain by allowing amendments. And he was probably right.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)without changing/improving anything?
Seems to me there's no need for a senate if they can't make amendments.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Complete speculation and rationalization.
No basis in reality given the facts at hand.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)Our environment is being flushed down the drain. If keeping the EPA and the Presidents regulations on things like coal depends on not allowing amendments, then I'm for it.
If the bankers want to make more money, and the price for that is the enablement of a bunch of the critical stuff we've fought for, then it's worth it.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)The Repubs helped out maybe a dozen companies and bought a couple thousand votes with this nonsense.
The ACA and all the other programs that were enshrined and funded in this budget will affect millions of people. Millions.
This whole thing is a big win for Dema IMO.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)(Also see it http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025967492 )
They've taken over our treasury dept.
They pay huge bonuses to employees who land high ranking jobs with the federal govt when they leave, as well. So their investment in that and $$$ to the people supposed to be looking out for our best interests is paying off big.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)call it the Crap-on-us bill, because that's what it is.
Response to RiverLover (Original post)
pa28 This message was self-deleted by its author.
CrispyQ
(36,478 posts)Oh & here he is again . . . the one with the glasses.
99Forever
(14,524 posts).... the Democratic leaders loyalties lie?
polichick
(37,152 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)tritsofme
(17,379 posts)The House had already left town, that's where the blame lies.
frylock
(34,825 posts)santroy79
(193 posts)filibuster the bill?
talk is cheap! Do something!
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Imo we should have shined a bright light on the issue of the inclusion of that giveaway. We should have compelled the Republicans to acknowledge it, and to own it. We should have publicly asked if it was a deal breaker if we stripped it away in the Senate.
:shakes head: Instead, they got what they wanted and we can't point out their blatant servitude to the very forces that wreaked havoc on our nation. We can't point it out, at least not as a unified party, because we all too complacently went along with it.
Too much of a rush to just go home. We had right on our side and we passed up a golden opportunity to frame the political environment to our advantage.
A few Democrats were sharp enough to see this. I salute them. :salute:
djean111
(14,255 posts)bad parts of this bill are not rolled back are laughable and pitiful at the same fucking time.
Reid - a damned DEMOCRAT - will not let Warren or anyone else's bills to correct the bad legislation come up for a vote.
To say that it is now on the shoulders of Warren and other liberals to change the minds of the asshole Blue Dogs that outnumber them, plus the GOP, is beyond cynical and is just flat out ridiculous. And this from those who excuse the PRESIDENT of being powerless before all the GOP and DINOs in Congress. The President sure was powerful enough - or Jamie Dimon was powerful enough, what does that say about who is really in charge - to whip the vote his way. Anyone think Dimon was afraid of what the GOP would come up with if the bill failed is really really stupid or perhaps, thinks everyone else is stupid. Dimon wanted the giveaways to Wall Street and the banks. Cutting food stamps and things like that - frosting on the cake.
The spin and the assumption of a lack of logical thought are sadly familiar, though. Blame liberals no matter what.
Reid will file cloture and "fill the tree" and stall bills because those are his wishes and his orders. Baby, that's a fact.