The useless party is going to cut a deal with the evil party:
A proposal by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker to limit bank’s proprietary trading will be either be dropped or significantly modified in the Senate, lawmakers and staffers told dealReporter.
Senate Banking Committee ranking member Richard Shelby (R-AL) said he opposes the so-called Volcker rule and the Obama administration’s call to levy a USD 90bn tax on banks. His comments come as House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) predicted the proposals outlined by President Obama could be law within six months.
Speaking to this news service on Thursday, Shelby said if Democrats push forward with the proposals they risk unravelling much of the bipartisan support already reached regarding the passage of financial regulatory reform in the Senate. Shelby said that the Obama administration risks losing Republican support for the bill if they begin to “politicise” the issue.
However, Shelby said he expects to hold a meeting with Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) regarding the way forward on regulatory reform in two weeks time. A Democratic banking committee staffer confirmed that the meeting between Dodd and Shelby will be critical as Dodd needs to determine the level of bipartisan agreement and the timing of bringing the bill through committee and on the Senate floor.
Not only will watering down the bill in the name of bipartisanship not give us the needed regulatory restructuring that we need, but it is also politically stupid in another way. Let the Republicans come out opposed to regulating the market and the bankers and then beat them to death with it in the fall. Passing a shitty bill with their support blurs the distinctions between the parties.
But then again, given that some of the Democrats are almost as beholden to corporate interests as the Republicans, there really isn’t much to blur, is there? There really isn’t anything quite as worthless as the US Senate, is there?
Zam
So death panels and cries of communism were not politicizing the issue? Seriously what hasn’t the republican party politicized, we only got 10 of their votes on the amendment banning rape.
dr. bloor
Harry Reid could snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in his re-election run if he actually makes the Republicans filibuster against hammering the banksters to a bloody pulp.
There is no doubt that he will not choose to do so. See ya, Harry.
MikeJ
I hope Chris Dodd’s replacement will be better, but since he will also be representing CT I don’t hold out much hope.
ChrisWWW
QFT.
The Democrats deserve what’s coming to them this election. They’ve been stupid on policy and politics.
Anne Laurie
Translation from the Evil: Shelby thinks Frank has a pretty sweet hammer ready to come down on the banksters’ tiny… heads. So he’s trying an end run via the Very Serious News Media to convince those Democrats more beholden to FIRE funds that mucking with the pipeline would be bad news for all Congressmen, so skrew those hoi polloi losers with their ‘votes’ and ‘protests’. Too bad for him Dodd’s already marking off the calendar towards Fvck-You-I’m-Outta-Here Day…
Why oh why
There is something much worse, the US Senate in the new world of campaign finance law.
This Senate will look like a Platonic council of philosophers compared to the super-crooks of the future.
Brian J
Beat whom to death with what? The bankers with reform bills? If that’s what you are suggesting, I am not sure that’s right.
Cat Lady
Aren’t you glad you’re a Democrat now John? See what you’ve been missing all these years?
Full disclosure – I donated to Chris Dodd while he was still interested in being president after his FISA stand in the Senate. Dood – I want my $100 bucks back, asshole. Connecticut (except for Fairfield Co.) deserves better than him and Droopy Dawg.
J. Michael Neal
Clearly, it’s Obama’s fault that Chris Dodd is a useless excuse for a Senator. If only he’d talk more about this he could pressure Dodd into seeing things right by hurting Dodd’s chances for . . . what, you mean Dodd isn’t standing for re-election, thus eliminating all leverage on him?
Rahm fucked us!!!!!!!
The Grand Panjandrum
With Dodd now retiring one would think he would do the right thing and tell Shelby to go fuck himself. But I suspect Dodd has his eye on a cushy job lobbying for the banksters. Time will tell.
jl
Once again, this foolish (or cynical, I am not sure which) obsession with bi-partisan post-partisan policy making trumps sound (and IMHO as an economist, scientifically based) policy and welfare of the average US voter.
I have seen several polls that show that if voters are given the choice of actually implementing good policy or being all nicey-nice post-partisan, they choose actually getting something done.
There is an old saying: “It takes two to Tango’. The saying is not that difficult to apply to situations other than dating, is it?
Perhaps the Senate is so rotten that a few crooks like Nelson, Lieberman and Bayh can kill anything, no matter what Obama does. If that is the case, Obama had better run against the Senate, including some Democratic rotten boroughs. Otherwise it is difficult to see what good the guy is doing as President, other than increasing cynicism and disengagement back to recent record high levels (in Edit: which, is not actually a good thing at all, but I don’t have time to straighten out the sentece. therefore I declare the last sentence to be snark.).
pattonbt
Im sure Shelby just wants to out Grassley, Grassley. It would behoove the Democrats in the senate to maybe learn from their mistakes on the healthcare negotiations and just basically flip the Republicans the bird. Stand up right front center and say “we need this regulation because X, Y and Z and if you cant get on board with that then stuff you”.
Of course this would require spine and belief, neither of which the senate Dems seem to possess.
To delay this on useless negotiations would be suicide. Just ram it through (imperfect as it may be). The senate dems need a big win and to give a big punch in the neck to the Republicans. We deflated dems need something we can cheer and to. And to be honest, we also need some childish bullying wins. This topic is win win for that.
So, then, will this be “health care 2 banking boogaloo”? Unofrtunately, probably yes. Sigh.
Napoleon
I think part of the problem with the Dems is that they were not in the wilderness long enough to clean out the morons that got them into trouble in the first place. Many of the leaders in both houses were either leaders or fairly senior in 1994.
The Democratic leadership from Obama on down is just pathetic.
debbie
If the Democrats don’t pounce on statements like Shelby’s as definitive evidence that the Republicans only want to maintain the status quo and that they aren’t interested in doing everything they can do to ensure that this country never suffers like it’s suffered the past couple of years, then I give up.
And if I don’t hear the teabaggers denouncing Shelby for this kind of statement, then they need to be called out for the hypocrites they are.
Just Some Fuckhead
Great, now you purity centrists are going to cost us financial reform. Why can’t you emocents accept the political reality that with 41 votes, Senate Republicans control the Senate?
:)
I’ll be masturbating to the Edwards Sex tape if ya need me.
eastriver
In re the above, may I suggest the parties replace their mascots with the Dinkies and the Hellephants? (Insert appropriate mental graphics.)
Martin
@jl: Given the polling on the subject, there doesn’t seem to be a bill proposed that goes too hard on the banks. I think Obama and the Dems can swing for the fences and come out on the right side of this, but it sounds like there are just a few too many in the Senate that can’t give up the graft in spite of that.
Honestly, this is one of those times when I think Obama should come out big for regulation/taxes etc. Do it publicly. Have more of these question time sessions with all groups with the cameras rolling. Basically force the Dems to line up and let the public see what’s really going on here.
mr. whipple
That’s what’s odd to me. If he’s outta there, why not push this through, unless he wants a cushy job with the banks? Or, he knows that there’s a number of Dems who won’t vote for this, and he’s giving them cover.
Either way, it sucks.
Martin
@Just Some Fuckhead: It’s not purity centrism. They’re using the GOP for political cover because they don’t want to lose their funding stream.
The Dems in the Senate would be wise to hold the line on this, though. If they can force their colleagues in line, they’ll win big with voters.
mcd410x
Nope.
Next.
General Winfield Stuck
And insane, criminally. You have some wingnuts protecting big finance, you have tea baggers and their ilk, now joined with left wing firebaggers ranting about bailouts and Obama commie or corporatist sellout depending which crazy you ask. And allies such as Jim Bunning wanking on the senate floor we should have let AIG go under whilst Shelby and other senate wingnuts are doing everything they can to see the banksters come out smelling like perfumed shit. Another tricky day in America the late great.
Oh, and all of it is the fault of wimpy tyrant Barrack Obama.
Alan
It’s Dodd’s last hurrah before he collects his golden parachute from whichever investment bank adds him to their payroll.
John O
Gee, that was a cheery post.
Off to stay away from sharp objects like computers (enough sawing and I’m pretty sure I can find a vein) for a while.
Unbelievable.
Napoleon
By the way, both Klein (the good one) and TPM are reporting separate Rep. Congress people have taken the bait that they do not have a plan and are now proposing a plan to balance the federal budget with complete privatization and gutting of the social safety net, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, for all those under 55.
Lets watch Obama and the entire Democratic leadership fall down on “politicizing” it in the quest for bipartisanship.
handy
@Martin:
I’m not sure they even care about winning big with voters, or winning at all with them.
John O
@mr. whipple:
Right. A lot of pols find their conscience on their way out. Apparently Dodd isn’t one of them.
General Winfield Stuck
@Just Some Fuckhead: Christ,, you are dumb. Facing political reality has nothing to do with where you are on the political spectrum and those of us who face political realities does not equate to being “emo centrists” or ordinary centrists, or left wing , or whatever. It just means facing facts.
demo woman
Brown is not going to be sworn in until the 11th. Rather than use their power, they would rather sit on their hands and do nothing.
Zifnab
@The Grand Panjandrum:
Zounds! :-p
The problem with the Senate is that it’s so damn slippery. At best, less than 40% of it’s members are up for an election in the following cycle, The members all tend to be millionaires of one stripe or another, so they don’t care about the legislation they’re passing for their own sakes (unless it’s higher taxes on the wealthy). And the chamber is rigged to jam the moment one peacock in 50 gets its feathers ruffled.
I’d say fuck Richard Shelby and jam the House bill through with 50 votes. Then hang out in September and October, watching the Republicans filibuster banking reform ad nauseum. But we all know that’s not going to happen.
Joe Beese
But Nader still sucks, right?
demo woman
@Joe Beese: Nothing personal but voting for Nader in 2000 certainly led us into this mess.
plaindave
“There really isn’t anything quite as worthless as the US Senate, is there?”
That’d be a very tough question if I hadn’t just come in from cleaning the dog pen.
Zifnab
@demo woman:
It takes six weeks to fart in the Senate. If the Democrats wanted to rush a bill through, the Republicans would have more than enough tools to jam up the proceedings indefinitely.
Given that Democrats in the Senate insist on playing slow-pitch softball while Republicans prefer mafia rules street boxing, it’s not a shock that the Dems keep hitting this gridlock. But it’s not like the entire caucus refuses to move. Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson would have a screaming hissy fit of any legislation wasn’t slow-rolled to failure. If you take out the obstructionist Dems and the asshole Republicans, you don’t really have a majority anymore – much less a Supermajority.
D-Chance.
Nice little racket the Democrats have going. Have 1-2 key members out of the group of 59 seek “bipartisanship”, while the other 57-58 blame the Republicans for their doing nothing. In the meantime, those 57-58 can claim, “hey, not me!” while secretly supporting the 1-2 doing the dirty work.
They get what they want (political lobbying $$$ in perpetuity), they take no blame, they risk nothing. What a gig.
Martin
@handy: Not everyone is on the bank payroll. Those that aren’t would benefit quite a lot from a strong bill. They need to convince the few that are on the payroll to cut those ties.
The truth is the same holds true for the GOP. They would be wise to support this, but as Obama said the other day, they’ve painted themselves in a corner. They could support a strong banking bill to appease the teabaggers, so long as it’s not Obama’s strong banking bill. Go figure that shit out.
Midnight Marauder
@Joe Beese:
Subpar trolling effort. Even for you, Beese.
J. Michael Neal
@Joe Beese:
If you vote for Nader, you probably end up with Richard Shelby running things rather than standing to the side and tossing whatever spanners he can find into the gears.
Lolis
I remember reading a similar story a couple weeks ago, but then Obama said the lack of a consumer protection agency was a dealbreaker. I say we give this is a day and see what White House reaction is.
Zifnab
@D-Chance.: Oh yawn. If you think the Democrats are working in some lockstep conspiracy, you’re daffier than a tea bagger.
We’ve got about 30-40 honestly progressive Democrats in the Senate. Franken, Boxer, Kerry, Sanders, Leahy, and Feingold, just to name a few. But 40 does not a majority make. Hell, with Democrats like Baucus and Conrad on the Finance Committee and Lieberman chairing Homeland Security, it’s hard to even get a majority in the right committees.
There are some serious DINOs in the party to be sure. But calling out all 59 Senators at once is absurd. You need to learn your Congressmen quick. This “they’re all against us” paranoia doesn’t help anyone.
kay
@D-Chance.:
They don’t even have to claim “hey, not me!”. They just have to sort of keep their head down and wait through the interminable committee process.
Making them announce “hey, not me!” would actually be progress. There would be a count, with names attached.
handy
Does it though? If you’re the minority party whose platform has always been “government is too big/government spends too much,” it seems that politically you when by default when your opposition, the controlling party, has ratcheted up the deficit. I don’t think voters are going to hold Repub incumbents accountable in the same was as Dem ones. At least not in this voting cycle.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Joe Beese: Give me a break. At this point, it should be pretty clear it doesn’t matter who we vote for, what with the political realities and Senate rules, near constant excuse-making and soon-to-be huge influx of corporate cash into the process.
We’ve already conceded the game. We’re just trying to figure out how to make sure Republicans get blamed, like that fucking matters. Like they care. Like that will hurt them somehow, magically.
CalD
Are we really going to have the “watering down” conversation again? I know it’s a futile question and one that will surely get me flamed, but with all due respect could we please stop it with this horse shit? You know another word for “watering down” is compromise, and it’s how democracy is supposed to function. The primary reason why our own democracy is so dysfunctional right now is that neither side is willing to do it — certainly not because anyone is really too willing.
Does anyone see a path to end the current impasse that doesn’t involve one party or the other climbing down off their fucking high horse and settling for anything less than 100% of everything on their wish list? No, we don’t. We just think Republicans should be the only ones who have to do it. And they think pretty much the inverse.
So I guess we’re likely to remain pretty much at an impasse until someone summons up the will to make the first move, aren’t we? With that in mind, does anyone really think that it’s in some way helpful or productive to label every effort made toward that end as, “caving,” “watering down” etc., or to reflexively attack the character of anyone who tries to do it by calling them corporatist, bought-and-paid-for whores and sell-outs (or communist tools, whatever)?
Or perhaps we just like the way our government works now so much that we want it to continue to work that way forever (or not work, as it were)? World without end, amen? Is that it?
eastriver
@General Winfield Stuck:
Christ you are a reactionary asswipe.
Firebaggers in league with the teabaggers? WTF are you smoking, Old Man? And you consider yourself a political realist???
Oh. My. Fucking. God.
Go back to your flea-bitten army in Strawmania, Generally Stuck. Those strawmen aren’t going to muster themselves.
Don’t you have some puppy porn you can occupy yourself with?
dr. bloor
@eastriver:
Hey, how’d that Jets game turn out?
Martin
@handy: They’re getting primaried from the right by teabaggers that, among other things, are pissed off about the bailouts and such. So yeah, I think with that crowd, reigning in banking excesses would be a (barely) winning move if they sell it properly – particularly in the south. It’s a very odd spot they’re in. I think the timing of this relative to the election is part of the problem – they can’t win for trying. If they support it, the teabaggers will tear them down for big government, if they don’t, they’ll be called corporate whores. But, they created this mess by dialing every message up to 11. I imagine the GOP caucus will be very fractured over it. That’s a perfect place for Obama to show up to answer questions.
mcc
So what I see in this article is that Shelby, a Republican, doesn’t think it can pass in the Senate.
Is it his decision?
The article goes on to quote a Dodd staffer who implies Dodd will cooperate with Shelby on the bank tax and fight back against the White House rather than risk Republican cooperation.
Didn’t I hear for weeks about how the plan was to put up the bank tax, force the Republicans to oppose it, then either shame the Republicans for opposing it and/or force it over their heads?
Seems like this plan doesn’t work if the Democrats in the Senate, you know, agree to drop the bank tax without a fight. Since the entire point is to make the Republicans fight against it. Either this article goes too far in assuming the Democrats will comply with Shelby’s demands, or the Democrats are very bad at nefarious plans.
I’d be inclined to suspect the article assumes a bit too much. Even if every Republican plus Chris Dodd opposes the bank tax, wouldn’t this be one of the shining-star examples of a law that is perfect for budget reconciliation? I seem to remember the bank tax proposal even had a ten-year window built in (even if reconciliation doesn’t require ten year windows for taxes). Throw the bank tax up against the Senate, watch the Republicans defeat it there, pass it through reconciliation instead, champion Democrats’ success in passing a bank tax the Republicans opposed. This is possible even if, as the staffer in the article article suggests, Dodd passes a larger regulatory reform bill which is engineered for Republican support. All you have to do is engineer one vote, maybe in the form of an amendment after the bill leaves Dodd’s committee, on the bank tax to get the Republicans on the record against it. Why not do this?
eastriver
@dr. bloor:
First half heaven, second half hell.
b-psycho
A bipartisan effort bails out megabanks with money that doesn’t actually exist to use. Right-wing activists use anger at said bailout for their own political benefit. Democratic president, after having defended the architects of such corporate ball-licking including the leftover Republican Fed chairman, proposes targeted tax to get back the slightest bit of the money, and gets blocked by (you guessed it!!!) both Republicans and members of his own party.
See why I reject this entire fucking system, John?
General Winfield Stuck
@eastriver: Dumb as dirt. This is for you, if you know how to read.
MagicPanda
@CalD: Some level of compromise is fine, as long as we can actually twist some arms and peel off votes. If the other side is going to vote in a single bloc regardless of the language in the bill, then the concept of “compromise” doesn’t make sense.
Also, “sticking it to the banks” is both good policy and good politics. This is one area where it should be possible to hold republican feet to the fire. “What? You don’t want to put any laws in place about how banks can gamble with your money? We’ll be sure to remind the voters of that next time you’re up for re-election…”
debbie
It’s like the Republicans are handing chances to the Democrats on a silver platter:
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/rep-hensarling-advocates-cutting-benefits-and-privatizing-social-security.php
Mike in NC
Uh, no. SATSQ.
Martin
@eastriver:
How isn’t he correct on this issue? Who is opposing bank reform other than bankers and corporatists? The best move for the Dems would be to go all-in on reform in Taibbi style and sell it to the teabaggers as a populist move and sell out the rank-and-file GOP and big-money Dems, and just put that much more pressure on Republican incumbents facing primaries this year.
It’s wicked ugly stuff, but it swings the national momentum fully back on the Dems if they pull it off, particularly since I think Obama is in a good position to lead it.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@CalD:
That’s pretty much my take on most issues, but banking reform is where I draw the line in the sand on the logic of democracy = compromise. The investment banks pretty much brought us to the very brink of the abyss (aka Global Great Depression 2.0 – only this time with nukes!). If they can’t tolerate even a modest amount of reform to prevent this from happening again, and use all of the tools in our archaic political system to block it, then we’ve reached the point where there is no compromising or reasoning with these folks – it’s either us or them. Time for scorched earth tactics.
eastriver
@General Winfield Stuck:
Douché! The General got hisself a new set of Dixie Cups today! Mark your calendars!
Please go to the other side, Stuck. The wingnuts crave your vibrant, knife-edged wit.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@MagicPanda:
That’s pretty much what James Fallows said today. Bloc voting means bipartisanship definitionally is dead. The bipartisan Parrot wouldn’t voom! if you ran 10,000 volts thru it.
demo woman
@debbie: The news media can only have approved dems on their program. The repubs have handed out an appropriate list of acceptable dems which is why you see Nelson, Lieberman and Bayh on TV so often.
Wile E. Quixote
@Joe Beese:
Yes, he still does, because he’s an egotistical shitbag who wouldn’t last more than one term in any elected office in this country. The fact that the man held on to contributions from wealthy Republican donors in 2004, donors who wanted him to siphon votes off from John Kerry with the excuse that these donors “…are human beings too” shows that if it comes down to stroking his ego and preening or actually accomplishing any of the things he claims to believe in that Ralph Nader is no better than Joe Lieberman.
eastriver
@Martin:
He isn’t correct by inferring that the “firebaggers” are in league with the teabaggers. That’s the particular slimery and smeariness that I find so vile and offensive. I’m sorry to admit that I stopped reading the General’s scribblings after reading that bit of tripe.
General Winfield Stuck
@eastriver: Your such a cute troll when riled up.
Wile E. Quixote
@demo woman:
For the record. Nader still sucks and people like you who blame Nader for Gore’s loss in 2000 and are still bringing it up in 2010 are shit-ignorant fuckstains and still suck too.
DonkeyKong
The Black Knight Party (It’s only a flesh wound!) vs the Sir Robin Party (RUN AWAY!)
Napoleon
@CalD:
Yes I do. The Dems are in the majority, they should simply pass what they want. Fuck the Republicans. t
chopper
@Napoleon:
oh, please let this be true. i understand the dems are going to screw up everything, but this sorta stuff just helps push the dem’s starting line that much farther forward. if somebody out there in a position of power is smart enough (i know) to get the GOP to recast themselves as the party of privatizing social security and ‘banks gone wild’ i would seriously flip my shit.
please, please, please, i’m praying to you, superman.
eastriver
@General Winfield Stuck:
I laugh at you, Old Man. You make me giggle like a schoolboy.
Now, please, go back to your puppy porn. For me. For the puppies.
General Winfield Stuck
@eastriver:
teehee
eastriver
@General Winfield Stuck:
BTW, do you have a picture of yourself in your General outfit?
(I’m betting you save your Halloween photos.)
Please oh please post a link.
(You don’t have to be holding a puppy, although that would be nice! And bonus points if you’re saluting the flag of Strawmania.)
FlipYrWhig
@b-psycho:
What does that even mean? What are you “rejecting,” and, in real-life terms, how does it happen?
General Winfield Stuck
@eastriver: Please stop making a fool of yerself dude, it’s embarrassing as all hell.
Wile E. Quixote
I wish that the Democrats would figure out that bipartisanship is dead, that it’s not going to happen when you have one party that is going to vote “no” on everything and risks little or nothing for doing so. Ram bills through with reconciliation where possible, hammer the Republicans with being obstructionist dickheads every time a vote comes up (the Franken rape amendment is a perfect hammer) and work on invoking the nuclear option and eliminating the filibuster. John wrote a perfect post last year about the futility of bipartisanship and Fallows elaborated on it, but the Democrats just don’t seem to get it.
eastriver
@General Winfield Stuck:
No picture, huh? (sigh) Not a real general, huh? (sarcastic eye roll)
But the tin foil hat looks cute on ya, I bet.
Keep on truckin’, Old Man.
Chad N Freude
Speaking of bipartisan support, if you believe in that particular version of Tinker Bell, read this James Fallows piece (posted by someone not-me on another thread).
Martin
Alternatively, the GOP could just lie about the whole thing and kill it.
Someone needs to shove that memo down Dodd’s throat. Aim for 50 votes in reconciliation – that’s probably the best the Dems can hope for.
Chad N Freude
Fixed.
Ash Can
Wait a minute here. After reading the article in question, I’m having pretty much the same reaction as mcc is. S/he expressed it in a far more detailed, informed, and intelligent way than I can, but what I get out of that article first and foremost is that this legislation is only in the very preliminary stages, only a few actual legislators contributed information and/or opinion to it, and an awful lot of what they did contribute could very well be little more than posturing. I find talk of bipartisanship — especially on matters of regulation — as cringeworthy as the next person here. However, I’m not convinced that it’s even time to start cringing.
The article says there’s a meeting with Volcker himself coming up, besides this meeting between Dodd and Shelby. Also, the sole source of the indication that Volcker’s proposals are going to be scuttled is one Dodd staffer. What if that staffer isn’t exactly the word from Mount Sinai? Moreover, the counter-proposals mentioned in the article seem pretty reasonable.
Based solely on this article, I’m not ready to grab my torch and pitchfork just yet. I at least want to see what kind of bill actually shapes up.
Chad N Freude
@General Winfield Stuck, @eastriver: Could you guys get a room or take it outside or whatever cliche you prefer?
gwangung
If the counter proposals are reasonable, then use ’em. That’s when you can listen to the other side. When they aren’t, don’t. That’s a consistent message you give to the Republicans and to the public in general.
Mike G
Shelby said that the Obama administration risks losing Republican support for the bill if they begin to “politicise” the issue.
Shorter Shelby:
If you do this, the assholes who have been sabotaging legislation with Lucy-football promises and then refusing to vote for it, who have been openly rooting for you to fail, stirring up bigots, shitting all over you, calling you a Marxist, a traitor and terrorist; will stop being so nice to you.
mclaren
The title of one of your previous posts said is all. Slow-motion suicide is the theme for America in the 2010s.
We’re engaged in so many crazy self-destructive behaviors that the rest of the world must gape open-mouthed in disbelief.
There’s a certain perverse fascination in watching the spectacle and wondering which particular straw will break the camel’s back… Will our endless losing foreign wars finally bankrupt us? Will our unsustainable energy usage egged on Americans tooling around in SUVs finally collapse our economy? Will our national policy of outsourcing every high-paying job to the third world hollow out the American middle class to the point where, as Bruce Sterling put it, “everything is sort of free, and no one has a job”?
Or will the massive dysfunction of our government put an end to the grand American experiment, in a nightmare where nothing good can ever get started and nothing bad can ever be ended in America?
Or will our ever-expanding Orwellian police state simply fall apart, like East Germany, because life becomes unlivable under a state of continual micro-surveillance and incessant police thuggery?
Hard to tell. How long can a nation play Russian roulette before firing a live round into its own head?
eastriver
@Chad N Freude:
Yeah, yeah. My bad. Stuck gets my dander up, then I just can’t help myself.
Sorry for the harsh words, General. I’ll play nice. Promise.
(BTW, nice handle, Chad.)
General Winfield Stuck
@Chad N Freude: Woa dude, who are you the commentariat police? If this little comical exchange harshes your mellow, then why don’t you find another thread to your liking.
Chad N Freude
@Mike G: Fallows puts it more elegantly, but Yeah.
Chad N Freude
@General Winfield Stuck: It’s the bandwidth and the screen space, not to mention the noise level. And that wasn’t a police action, it was a request. If you want policing, I’ll go get my taser.
Ash Can
@gwangung: The counter-proposals mentioned in the article are coming from the House Financial Services Subcommittee and the Senate Finance Committee. The implication is that the Republicans in those groups are participating in a serious manner, but who knows what will happen when it’s time to actually vote on something? Nevertheless, just the fact that Dems are working with Republicans in committee gives the Dems the ability to say “What are you whining about? You agreed to this measure yourself just last week.” (Now, whether or not they actually say it remains to be seen. And also keep in mind that if they do say it, it may be behind closed doors and we may never know about it.)
@Mike G: And this is part of the reason I think it’s too early to write off Volcker’s proposals. Of course Shelby’s going to say this. He’s a professional shmuck. He’ll be saying shit like this till his dying day, or until he gives up politics, whichever comes first. BFD.
Do I think Obama’s going to get exactly the regulatory legislation he wants? Of course not. But to believe the whole issue is scuttled at this stage of the game is premature.
Karoli
You don’t think that’s FT’s way of protecting their own interests? Seems strange to me that Frank Luntz releases his new ‘kill the bill’ memo and suddenly there’s this article.
Sign me,
woman in a tinfoil hat.
General Winfield Stuck
@Chad N Freude:
Noise level? you are a sensitive flower. Request denied.
edit- and it’s not your bandwidth
Chad N Freude
@General Winfield Stuck: Bandwidth is a shared resource. As is noise.
EDIT: I don’t want to be a contributor this
discussioncatfight. I withdraw. You win.General Winfield Stuck
@Chad N Freude:
deleted = fair enough
edit – not much of a catfight, nobody forced you to contribute.
Just Some Fuckhead
Hey Stunk, did yer faggy little purse dog run off again??
I know, I know. I promised Timmy. But someone double-dog-dared me. I can’t look weak in the face of a double-dog-dare.
mcc
So the article does more sense if you consider who the two senators are– Dodd and Shelby are, respectively, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Banking Committee.
Remember, there’s three opportunities for a particular detail in any given bill to become law:
– Put it in the base bill passed out of committee
– Add it as a floor amendment
– Add it when merging bills with the House
Shelby and Dodd, by themselves, when they get around to meeting about this bill will effectively get to determine what the first of these three steps look like.
General Winfield Stuck
@Just Some Fuckhead:
and eastrivers soulmate weighs in. You are just going to further upset Chad’s delicate sensibilities. I don’t want to be a part of that, do you?
besides, since you’ve become the class clown here, it’s just no fun having a flame war with you anymore,
b-psycho
@FlipYrWhig: In the long run, I prefer anarchy over the political system the U.S. currently operates, and believe it’s inevitable that the current system will, and deserves to, collapse. In the meantime, I suggest something along the lines of this as an organizing principle when that collapse comes.
Simple enough?
mcd410x
Why won’t the progs ever properly inflate their tires for essential performance and longevity?
Just Some Fuckhead
@General Winfield Stuck:
I can’t say I’ve ever really made that sorta calculus before commenting. Hmm, is this why I’m missing out on all the Special Ed. hugs around here?
eastriver
@Just Some Fuckhead:
(dude, I just shot spicy black bean sauce out my nose. thank you for that. “faggy little purse dog”. Oh my that’s a rich confection. Douché, mon frere.)
General Winfield Stuck
@Just Some Fuckhead:
I haven’t seen evidence you make calculations about anything when you comment here.
General Winfield Stuck
Sorry Chad, I was trying to leave and they just pull me right back in.
eastriver
@General Winfield Stuck:
ker-SMACK!!!!
How you gonna recover from that one, Effy?
Ailuridae
The inconsistency that the FDL bots here and elsewhere were pushing to do HCR by reconciliation when it would strip out the necessary insurance reforms so they could have their pony but not realizing that they should be pushing financial regulatory reform via reconciliation is awesome.
eastriver
@Ailuridae:
I must’ve missed it. What’s your solution for getting HCR passed? (Besides hopes and wishes and butterfly kisses.)
And pushing for reconciliation on HCR doesn’t preclude reconciliation on finance reform. (But one doesn’t begin with the endgame in the negotiation process, does one?)
Svensker
East and Just and General. Shaddup. Please. The personal flame shit is really annoying and the lack thereof (until you 3 started to get into it) is one of the reasons this blog is a pleasant place to be. Snarky but pleasant. If you wanna poop on the carpets, please find another carpet.
Speaking for myself only.
General Winfield Stuck
@General Winfield Stuck:
This was unnecessary belittling on my part. sorry. I am an asshole sometimes, ok , often. :-)
Svensker
What the hell happened to Dodd? Like Cat Lady, I gave him a buncha money after the FISA thing. Now he’s quitting and he’s throwing us all under the bus? WTF?
General Winfield Stuck
@Svensker: sorry Svensker, don’t agree/ Flaming is and has always been part of BJ, and this one is so minor, I doubt it would rate a one on a flame ten scale. IOW;s pleasant snark. You have scroll, use it.
eastriver
@Svensker:
Hey, enough of the personal attack, Sven. Okay? Leave Dodd alone. If you want to shit on his shinola, take a bus to CT and do your shitting there. And the lack thereof.
Speaking just for myself and the faggy purse dog only.
eastriver
@General Winfield Stuck:
(yes)
El Cid
More great message massaging by the party leadership:
Yeah. That’s a real question. I’d have to think with both brains tied behind my back to answer that one.
marrus
It’s so funny. My dad is a pretty hardcore northeastern wingnut but I specifically remember him saying years ago how Paul Volcker was the guy who deserved the credit for bringing down inflation and all the other good parts of the 80s. Wonder how he likes him now?
I won’t ask though. I hate riling him up about politics. If I wanted to do that I’d just rub it in about my being right about the housing market when he wanted me to buy in 2005. Again.
Svensker
@General Winfield Stuck:
Whatever. If you guys wanna stick out your tongues at each other and screech “my dad can too beat up your dad, poopyhead,” I will indeed scroll.
Ailuridae
@eastriver:
The House should simply pass the Senate bill. If it requires subsequent improvements in reconciliation or a “sidecar”so be it. But the Senate bill, alone, is a very good bill that solves about 85-90% of the problem long term. Its a shame that in hopes of getting something more in lines with what they wanted the FDL crowd has demagogued the Senate bill so much that a progressive can’t vote for it.
As for financial regulatory reform it would be a really good idea if progressives who were so aggressively and stupidly suggesting HCR could be done via reconciliation would organize something similar as financial regulation clearly can be done that way. And it would be a huge policy success. Good politics to boot.
Ailuridae
@Svensker:
Single source writing should probably not be taken as gospel at this point. If its accurate it is incredibly dismaying. If there is an issue that one party wants to “own” forever it would be reigning in banks while the opposition voted in lockstep against it.
eastriver
@Ailuridae:
The progressives aren’t holding up the house bill. But you know that, right? It’s the anti-abortion folk, amongst others. So the FDL pushback isn’t part of the equation. Don’t blame the firebaggers for this.
And this is the exact reconcialiation that everybody is talking about, so your suggestion of this:
… is contradictory. The reconciliation everybody is now pushing for is exactly how you describe it in your second post. The push for reconciliation before the Senate vote was to get Lieberman and the other blue doggies onboard. (They realized that if the bill went to reconciliation, they would lose all their power as the key swing votes.)
Reconciliation is used as a last recourse. First you write the bill, then if it can only pass through reconciation, would it be considered as an option.
I can see a time shortly down the road when reconciliation will be bandied about much more. Especially if the dems lose their super-majority after the midterms.
We shall see.
Ailuridae
@eastriver:
The push for reconciliation before the Senate vote was to get Lieberman and the other blue doggies onboard. (They realized that if the bill went to reconciliation, they would lose all their power as the key swing votes.)
All words don’t mean the same thing. Lieberman isn’t a Blue Dog. And the reason that “doing the bill by reconciliation” was never a credible threat is that all of those whose arms were going to be twisted realized that the insurance reforms and individual mandate had to be passed together and couldn’t be passed by reconciliation. So there was never a threat of reconciliation except to those who don’t understand that a threat has to have a reason to be believed.
Reconciliation is used as a last recourse. First you write the bill, then if it can only pass through reconciation, would it be considered as an option.
Not all bills can pass through reconciliation. I know its fun to keep repeating this but HCR could never be done via reconciliation. Whenever you want to join reality let me know.
Also I did’t realize raul grivalja qualified as an anti-abortion type in his objections. Or Eric Massa. Or Dennis Kucinich.
carlos the dwarf
@Cat Lady:
As a native of Fairfield County, I thoroughly agree.
Uriel
@eastriver:
OMG! That is hilarious! ‘Cause those gays sure do seem to love those little dogs, amirite! Plus all that lisping and hair care! LOL!
Hey, know who else is hilarious? Black people. And don’t get me started on those Mexicans! LOL.
eastriver
@Ailuridae:
I appended “and others” onto “anti-abortion” types in the house not voting for the Senate bill. I believe that covers ANYBODY ELSE AND THEIR DOG. (Yeah, you’re right, all words don’t mean the same thing. Maybe you should read for comprehension next time.)
Yes, Lieberman isn’t a Blue Dog, but he was obstructing in a similar manner as some of the Blue Dogs, so the mislabelling in this instance is beside the point. My point still stands.
While the threat of reconciliation on HCR might’ve been ultimately, legislatively undoable, the threat still had a We Mean Fucking Business element to it. A bare-knuckle-ness that the congress members weren’t showing.
And as you said, most legislation can’t pass through the reconciliation process. But that has NOTHING to do with the fact that you don’t begin drafting legislation with the intent of passing it via a back-door means: reconciliation. That’s just not done. Maybe it should be. But that would be a radical shift, which no one (but you) is suggesting.
Funny. But not in the way you meant.
eastriver
@Uriel:
You’re a little late to the party. Have a drink, scroll back through the thread, and give the exclamation points a rest. Hugs and kisses.
Ailuridae
@eastriver:
Yes, Lieberman isn’t a Blue Dog, but he was obstructing in a similar manner as some of the Blue Dogs, so the mislabelling in this instance is beside the point. My point still stands.
No, Lieberman was obstructing because he is a psychopath. Some people knew this, informed Harry Reid of as much and Reid trusted him anyway. The Senate bill is much worse for Lieberman’s decision and Reids decision to ignore the White House (and Lieberman’s own public statements.
While the threat of reconciliation on HCR might’ve been ultimately, legislatively undoable, the threat still had a We Mean Fucking Business element to it. A bare-knuckle-ness that the congress members weren’t showing.
Threatening something that the other side knows you can’t carry through with doesn’t do anything but make you look like an asshole. If I were to get into an argument and tell the other person that I was going to squish his head “Kids in the hall” style it wouldn’t mean that I “meant business” it would mean I am fucking stupid.
But that has NOTHING to do with the fact that you don’t begin drafting legislation with the intent of passing it via a back-door means: reconciliation. That’s just not done. Maybe it should be. But that would be a radical shift, which no one (but you) is suggesting.
This is gibberish. Once the Senate bill dropped the public option there was talk to pass HCR reform via reconciliation. Heck, you suggested it. That was never a possibility.
pattonbt
@eastriver:
I know I shouldnt….but are you 2 years old? Most of us dont care about your personal pissing match. Im sure if you upgrade your snark a bit, your input would be looked forward to and welcomed. But everything about your “jibes” smacks of dickish “I know you are but what am I?” repeated ad nauseum. It really kills the vibe of this site.
Please, grow up (just a little, as we are all a bit juvenile here and thats why we love it) because you can add good insight to the community here.
And yes, just to pre-empt, Im an idiot and stupid and have cooties, whatever. Just my two cents.
J. Michael Neal
@Ailuridae:
No. No, it can’t. The tax can, but that’s it. Straight up regulation doesn’t have budgetary effects, whether we’re talking health insurance or banks. The really important pieces of bank regulation would get stripped out in a heartbeat. To pass, they are going to need 60 votes. Even to be able to use them as a campaign tool, pretty much all of the Democrats need to be on board.
Chris Dodd can fuck this puppy to death by himself, if he so chooses.
cat48
“Now, the House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. (Applause.) And the lobbyists are trying to kill it. But we cannot let them win this fight. (Applause.) And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back until we get it right. We’ve got to get it right.” —SOTU, President Obama
We’ll see if he vetoes it, if necessary. I think he will.
Koz
God forbid you actually try to do the right thing for the country and take your chances on election day. The D’s are most likely going to get hammered then anyway.
vg
Needed regulatory restructuring is needed.
bob h
Being on the wrong side of Paul Volcker would seem to be a losing proposition, given his legendary status in finance and economics, but the Republican base and the Teabuggers probably don’t even know who he is.
Paul in KY
Why do we give a fuck what Richard Shelby thinks?