Jump to content

American Politics MDCLXVIII - Warning! May contain non SB1070 posts


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

Trisk posted a great link about Geithner and the whole economic response of the administration, it's worth reposting.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/66188/index4.html

I found this quote especially telling

But one of the city’s most successful hedge-fund hotshots offers a different surmise: “The majority of Wall Street thinks, ‘Hey, you lent us money. We did a trade. We paid you back. When you had me down, you could have crushed me, you could have done whatever you wanted. You didn’t do it! So stop your bitching and stop telling me I owe you, because I already paid you everything! The fact that I’m making money now is because I’m smarter than you!’

In other words, Wall Street would have respected Obama more if he had tried to kick them when they were down.

I guess it makes sense, Wall Street believes in kicking America when America is down.

I'd also like to propose that all posts regarding the new AZ law be moved to another thread. it comprised about 98% of the last thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My hypothesis is that the Democratic party considers illegals to be "undocumented Democrats". - potential voters they want to co-opt through intentionally lax enforcement of immigration laws, co-opting hispanics who are already citizens in the process. When Republicans complain about the problem, Democrats consider that to be an opportunity for political mileage rather than a significant problem to be addressed.

*shrugs* Reid & Kennedy were working with Bush and McConnell in 2007 to pass reform. My understanding is that it collapsed in the Senate due to a Republican split, not a Democrat rebellion. If you want to throw stones about holding it hostage, then I think you should at least acknowledge the two way street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they're just spending smarter.

Obama's Department of Homeland Security has been deporting more undocumented immigrants than President Bush's ever did.

I had seen this a couple of days ago but couldn't remember where. It's interesting that my Google did not reveal any perceived conservative or even mainstream sites covering this. Damn liberal media.

I just wanted to re-post this here, because I'm sure FLoW, Tempra and others who have been defending Arizona's new law while trying to hammer Obama as being "lax" would gladly ignore proof that they're spouting nonsense.

I'm really surprised that financial reform isn't getting more attention in the media. It's a pretty big piece of legislation. There are a lot of questions about how impactful it will be, but the GOP lines against it have been pretty weak.

It's not surprising at all that Snowe and Collins voted for it. It's fucking awesome that Scott Brown voted for it (I love this guy!).

What is interesting to me is that Grassley did vote for it, yet no one else did beyond these four. It's like McConnell's party of no held fast for all of the typical players, but Grassley decided he couldn't do it. Was it because he decided this was a wise vote for his re-election campaign? If he did, I'm just surprised that he was the only one because it's going to be a lot harder for Republicans to spin their votes against this bill than it will be to spin their votes against the health care bill.

I don't think it's a major surprise that it's not getting attention. It goes against the media narrative for the upcoming elections. Republicans don't want to make too much noise about it and create soundbites that can come back to haunt them, and there are more "important" subjects for them to argue about now, i.e. subjects that might actually allow them a point in their favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a major surprise that it's not getting attention. It goes against the media narrative for the upcoming elections. Republicans don't want to make too much noise about it and create soundbites that can come back to haunt them, and there are more "important" subjects for them to argue about now, i.e. subjects that might actually allow them a point in their favor.

Honestly, I think it's more that financial reform is so technical. HCR was pretty technical too, but the media narrative largely boiled down to a few simple debates (for or against the public option; for or against the individual mandate; etc.). Financial reform doesn't really have anything like that. It looked like there was going to be a debate over the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, but business groups caved on that. The big concern for Wall Street now seems to be Blanche Lincoln's tough derivatives language, but the Democrats don't want to water that down while she's still in a run-off. Meanwhile, Republicans haven't been able to come up with a consistent line about the bill; last time Mitch McConnell said that it would lead to endless bailouts, Bob Corker came forward to say that that was bullshit.

So because it hasn't boiled down to a simple argument, it's hard to put forward a clear narrative of what the financial reform bill is about beyond the vaguest generalities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I think it's more that financial reform is so technical. HCR was pretty technical too, but the media narrative largely boiled down to a few simple debates (for or against the public option; for or against the individual mandate; etc.). Financial reform doesn't really have anything like that. It looked like there was going to be a debate over the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, but business groups caved on that. The big concern for Wall Street now seems to be Blanche Lincoln's tough derivatives language, but the Democrats don't want to water that down while she's still in a run-off. Meanwhile, Republicans haven't been able to come up with a consistent line about the bill; last time Mitch McConnell said that it would lead to endless bailouts, Bob Corker came forward to say that that was bullshit.

So because it hasn't boiled down to a simple argument, it's hard to put forward a clear narrative of what the financial reform bill is about beyond the vaguest generalities.

Well, we know it doesn't do anything about Fannie and Freddie, nor does it do anything about underwriting standards. But it sure makes good politics.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/37314297

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*shrugs* Reid & Kennedy were working with Bush and McConnell in 2007 to pass reform. My understanding is that it collapsed in the Senate due to a Republican split, not a Democrat rebellion. If you want to throw stones about holding it hostage, then I think you should at least acknowledge the two way street.

The Democrats actually controlled the Senate in 2007, not the Republicans. But it's true there was a split on both the right and left over that bill. If someone wants to start another thread to discuss this stuff further, fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we know it doesn't do anything about Fannie and Freddie, nor does it do anything about underwriting standards. But it sure makes good politics.

That doesn't bother me, because I don't think either is nearly as relevant to the financial crisis as conservatives think: the housing slump would have just been a housing slump, except that Wall Street put up a lot of money and took out a lot of debt based on the assumption that there could never be a housing slump.

But this is another opportunity where a deal could have been reached if somebody like Bob Corker had been willing to offer his vote on the final package in exchange for better underwriting standards or something. Conservatives who largely exempted themselves from the legislative process in favor of endless opposition have nobody to blame but themselves when the final product doesn't pay heed to their priorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the housing slump would have just been a housing slump, except that Wall Street put up a lot of money and took out a lot of debt based on the assumption that there could never be a housing slump.

I wonder why they thought that....

But this is another opportunity where a deal could have been reached if somebody like Bob Corker had been willing to offer his vote on the final package in exchange for better underwriting standards or something. Conservatives who largely exempted themselves from the legislative process in favor of endless opposition have nobody to blame but themselves when the final product doesn't pay heed to their priorities.

Republicans have offered amendments on both Fannie/Freddie and underwriting standards but were voted down. How is that exempting themselves from the legislative process? The majority evidently opposes any additional regulation on Fannie/Freddie, or on underwriting standards, and they have the votes. I may not like that result, but isn't that the way the process is supposed to work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republicans have offered amendments on both Fannie/Freddie and underwriting standards but were voted down. How is that exempting themselves from the legislative process? The majority evidently opposes any additional regulation on Fannie/Freddie, or on underwriting standards, and they have the votes. I may not like that result, but isn't that the way the process is supposed to work?

Bob Corker was in negotiations with Chris Dodd for months over financial regulation; had he been willing to credibly promise his vote in exchange for better underwriting standards, then it would have been included in the bill before it was passed out of committee. But Corker backed out of the process because he was unwilling to stand up to pressure from other Republicans. Hence, he has less influence than he otherwise might have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob Corker was in negotiations with Chris Dodd for months over financial regulation; had he been willing to credibly promise his vote in exchange for better underwriting standards, then it would have been included in the bill before it was passed out of committee. But Corker backed out of the process because he was unwilling to stand up to pressure from other Republicans. Hence, he has less influence than he otherwise might have.

What if Corker didn't like the rest of the bill, though? I don't have any problem with compromises when the final deal is something you like. But if Corker thought there were other things in the package he couldn't support, which there apparently were, I don't think he should promise his vote just to get one good thing added. As far as I know, he thinks that consumer protection agency has too much power/discretion, and its a deal-killer for him.

Personally, I really dislike that concept of a commission anyway, because its a way to avoid having clear, predictable rules. It's also a way to avoid making tough choices, and tossing them to unelected bureaucrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if Corker didn't like the rest of the bill, though?

That's up to him, obviously. But that goes back to what I was saying before: Republicans who choose to opt out of the process aren't going to have their concerns taken seriously. I'm not saying that Corker (or any Republican) should have made the deal. I _am_ saying that there was a deal to be made, but Republicans weren't willing to make it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's up to him, obviously. But that goes back to what I was saying before: Republicans who choose to opt out of the process aren't going to have their concerns taken seriously. I'm not saying that Corker (or any Republican) should have made the deal. I _am_ saying that there was a deal to be made, but Republicans weren't willing to make it.

I guess my objection is to you characterizing that as "opting out of the process". To me, "opting out" is refusing to discuss the issues, or not offering any substantive amendments except intentional poison pills. I don't think it's "opting out" if you refuse to support a piece of legislation because you think it's bad law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my objection is to you characterizing that as "opting out of the process". To me, "opting out" is refusing to discuss the issues, or not offering any substantive amendments except intentional poison pills. I don't think it's "opting out" if you refuse to support a piece of legislation because you think it's bad law.

The thing is, if you, the legislator, think its a bad law and will not vote for it. Than why on earth should should the majority party vote in favor of your amendments if they don't like them? If it ensured their votes on the final bill, then I'm sure Dem leadership could've mustered up the votes for some of the failed Republican amendments that weren't too onerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, if you, the legislator, think its a bad law and will not vote for it. Than why on earth should should the majority party vote in favor of your amendments if they don't like them?

They shouldn't. I'm not complaining at all about the process -- that's the way votes are supposed to work. I was simply commenting that I think this law deserves criticism because it omits something important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanted to re-post this here, because I'm sure FLoW, Tempra and others who have been defending Arizona's new law while trying to hammer Obama as being "lax" would gladly ignore proof that they're spouting nonsense.

I don't think anyone here is denying that George W. Bush is a complete fuckup. But to praise Barack Obama for being only 99.8% of a fuckup is to curse him with the, ah, soft bigotry of low expections, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They shouldn't. I'm not complaining at all about the process -- that's the way votes are supposed to work. I was simply commenting that I think this law deserves criticism because it omits something important.

Ah, my apologies then. Although one could argue that even if a legislator 100% hates a bill, if they know it will pass without their vote, then voting for it anyway and giving the Dems that "bipartisanship" they care about so much, in exchange for getting some amemdments passed that turn the bill into something they only 95% hate would make sense. They could still go on the record that they hated most of it, but could talk about making the most of a bad situation, and trying their best a tough environment to fight for what's right, etc., etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my objection is to you characterizing that as "opting out of the process". To me, "opting out" is refusing to discuss the issues, or not offering any substantive amendments except intentional poison pills. I don't think it's "opting out" if you refuse to support a piece of legislation because you think it's bad law.

Call it what you want. If conservative politicians really wanted there to be underwriting standards in the bill, they would be there. The large majority of them--including Corker, who wrote large portions of the Senate bill--chose a policy of obstructionism, and so that didn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another GOP circular firing squad has assembled in North Carolina. The mainline party is trying to crush the campaign of a Teabagger.

D'Annunzio is seeking the GOP nomination to take on Rep. Larry Kissell (D-NC) this fall. He was the leader in a primary earlier this month, but didn't win enough of the vote to avoid a runoff in June. The state and national party is backing his opponent, former T.V. sportscaster Harold Johnson. And how.

"I consider Mr. D'Annunzio unfit for public office at any level," Tom Fetzer, the North Carolina GOP chair, told reporters recently. "What he could do to the party as our nominee is secondary in my view to what he could do to the country if he got elected." And a spokesman for the NRCC said: "The issue is, do we give Democrats a candidate that they can absolutely tear apart in the general election? I don't think most Republicans want to see that happen."

To undermine D'Annunzio, the state GOP has been circulating records from his 1995 divorce and from a 1998 child support judgment. In the latter, as the Charlotte Observer reported Sunday, the judge called D'Annunzio "a self-described religious zealot," and wrote that D'Annunzio had "described the government as the 'Antichrist'."

In the divorce case, Anne D'Annunzio said her husband had told her that "God was going to drop a 1,000-mile high pyramid" on Greenland, and also that he had found the Ark of the Covenant in Arizona, among other unusual beliefs.

In addition, a doctor wrote in the custody proceedings that D'Annunzio told him he had once received treatment for heroin dependence, and was jailed three times for offenses that included burglary and assaulting a police officer.

D'Annunzio says his personal problems are in all in the past. But the Born Again candidate still has some pretty extreme political ideas. On a blog he writes, entitled "Christ's War," D'Annunzio declared earlier this year that he wanted to "abolish the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Energy, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Transportation, Treasury, and Home Land Security," and the IRS, as well as "any appellate court that has shown an anti Constitutional activism." He also advocated giving control of Social Security and Medicare to the states.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/gopers_try_to_derail_tea_party_favorite.php?ref=fpa

Couple that with John McCain releasing an ad calling his primary opponent JD Hayworth "one of the dumbest members of Congress." Which is probably true, as Hayworth gave McCain this opening by announcing that the United States' recent policy of not declaring wars while fighting abroad is permissible since we never actually declared war on Nazi Germany...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/mccain-web-video-hayworth-among-the-dumbest-members-of-congress.php?ref=fpblg

Anyway, it's always fun to watch Republicans shanking each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...