General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAn "AHH HA" moment ...
Over the last day or so, I've been in a back and forth with folks, regarding the wisdom/capitulation that is the Spending Bill. It is captured here (starting at my post #6) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025976033
Essentially, many are lamenting the Spending Bill, as a completely capitulation to republicans that will be the ruin of America. I, on the other hand, see the Spending Bill, as a strategic move that locked in Democratic gains (at least until September, 2015) and sets us in the top negotiating seat for immigration reform, when the funding for DHS expires.
In short, I have been arguing:
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?
But no one seems to want to answer this point. I have gone over and over this in my head, as to WHY no one will address the point ... then, it dawned on me!
The only reason (I can come up with is) people realize that should we be stuck with the travesty that is the roll back of the push-out rule, and all the other bad stuff in the spending bill, it would be because it would be a failure of some DU favorites (i.e., Warren, Sanders and the Progressive Caucus) to do what is, clearly and readily, available to them ... i.e., write individual pieces of legislation to re-establish the push-out rule, and all the other stuff we hate.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)Looking at all of the fall out of Citizens United,and the total corruption that is play in D.C.,when September comes,I'll predict the opposite. The big pig in the room is the 2016 election cycle,and,with the Rethugs just simply have zero scruples. And if you think agreements made by these same people mean something,forget it. Rethugs are all about reelection and money and power. Were hearing locally the Casino biggee's have already pledged tens of millions toward the Rethugs. At this point,it seems the largest bag of cash is going towards Willard and his cronies. The big key in 2016 are the new voters and were the new immigrants swing to which party.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)What's the point of addressing armchair "strategy"
There is simply no precedent for what you suggest.
Create all the imaginary scenarios you like.
You can clap for Tinkerbell, ask for a pony, and wish for unicorns all day...
the 3rd-Way CAPITULATED, and will continue to sell out the Democratic Party
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Really? What is that you are doing?
I guess I have more faith in Warren, Sanders and the Progressive Caucus, than you do.
You can clap for Tinkerbell, ask for a pony, and wish for unicorns all day...
the 3rd-Way CAPITULATED, and will continue to sell out the Democratic Party
{Sighhh}
So your answer is to bitch and moan and blame about what happened?
I'd far rather work for to bring about the "imaginary scenario" that solves the problem.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Nothing personal, ok. Just debate.
Not rationalizing or excusing bad decisions by 3rd-Way democrats.
I see what you did there...
You excuse the BAD DEAL today, and lay the groundwork for "progressive" blame.
Now that the 3rd-Way has sold out the Public it's Warren & Sanders job to save the day.
I see how that "strategy" of yours is shaping up.
When NOTHING changes in DeeCee for any number of reasons,
it will be "Progressives" who failed and deserve derision. Nice.
Ok, describe this "work".
You going to pen a sternly worded letter to Warren & Sanders?
Tell them to clean up the fiscal mess YOU are applauding?
Or just cheer lead, shake pom-poms, and tell us it's better than nothing?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I have presented what I believe is the thought behind what happened ... and it makes sense to me (and others).
This is met with increasingly personalized comments, in which I am an excusing/rationalizing the 3rd-way, stealthily plotting against progressive, cheer-leading bad stuff, and whatnot, all while saying "nothing personal"? Please.
You disagree with my analysis ... fine. Disengage, place me on ignore or laugh to yourself and call me daffy (to yourself). But do not make this personal.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)but I hope you're wearing your asbestos suit.
Also consider that there's a not-insignificant segment of DUers who want things to go to shit, because then they figure that the great, unwashed masses will blame Republicans for the collapse, and come rushing to join the liberal utopia that will rise from the ashes.
There's no reasoning with that mindset.
Sid
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I know ...
I guess I have more confidence in the DU Heroes (Warren and Sanders) than those that wish to see them President.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)History proves such institutions don't arise magically from the ashes.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
dawg
(10,624 posts)We give away stuff now, in hopes that we might be able to get it back later.
And you think liberals are opposed to that strategy because they think it will make Liz Warren & Bernie Sanders look bad when they fail to *actually* get it back later?
That doesn't make any sense at all.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But it wasn't ONLY giving away stuff ...
Now, do you agree the Spending Bill locked in funding through 2015, preventing a government shut-down (keeping social safety net program funds flowing), preventing the defunding of the ACA, and putting us in a good position to negotiate on immigration.
Do you agree that had the Spending Bill failed, there would have been a government shut-down, at least until Congress passed a stop-gap spending bill?
Do you agree that that stop-gap spending bill (whatever it looked like) would have been set to expire after republicans controlled both houses of Congress?
Do you agree that any Spending Bill passed after republicans are in control of both houses of Congress would include ALL the stuff that the current Bill has, and much, much worse?
Now, do you agree that Warren and/or Sanders and/or the Progressive Caucus can/could draft legislation reversing each and every provisions that are give aways?
Do you agree that NO Democrat (and more than a few, republicans) would be caught dead voting against said legislation?
Now ... Do you agree that the only fly in the ointment is whether someone (presumably, Warren, Sanders or another member of the Progressive Caucus) writes the legislation.
Note: If someone does write the legislation and it fails, we (Democrats, but more importantly, the American public) will be in exactly the same place we find ourselves now; only, we (Democrats) will have 22 months of demonstrating by proof of the vote, and/or the preventing of a vote, on said legislation, that republicans allowed the casino to re-open and stole pensions and all the other stuff we hate in the current bill.
Does this make sense now?
dawg
(10,624 posts)You want to make it all about personalities, when they could not care less about personalities.
You don't have to argue the pros and cons of the Cromnibus with me. I never stated *my* position on the bill, and, in fact, would also have signed it were I in President Obama's position.
But the notion that some liberals opposed it because they thought it would somehow make Warren and Sanders look bad? That is just beyond ridiculous. I don't even think you really believe that yourself.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"Left wingers", at least those here on DU, are ALL ABOUT PERSONALITIES, i.e., all the must appear tough/standing up to bullies references.
Yes, I believe that ... ridiculous, in you view, or not.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)You think that's a good Democratic strategy? Wait until the opposition is stronger before acting?
Why would you try to put the blame for failing to enact your 'unusual' strategy on Warren, Sanders and the Progressive Caucus?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I have already explained why it is good strategy AND where Warren, Sanders and the Progressive Caucus fits into it.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)"the swell of republican/conservative/teaparty opposition to the derivative push-out roll-back"
You can't base 'good strategy' on sci-fi. You yourself said the amendment would have lost republican votes. There's no point in discussing an alternative reality in which Republican politicians suddenly see the light and vote against a pro-money motion they've supported a few months before.
A minority party in the Senate can block change by filibustering. They cannot enforce change. So, if they actually wanted to keep the Dodd-Frank regulations in, it was vital to keep them in now. They'll never be able to get them re-enacted in the next Congress.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The AMENDMENT would have lost republican votes because they had the cover of the larger, must pass, spending bill.
True. But the minority CAN submit legislation, right? And their doing so, will put republicans in the position of going on record voting against legislation to reverse the push out rule, or refusing to bring the bill to a vote. Either way, this will prove damaging going into 2016. No?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)It doesn't matter what a few bloggers say. It's whether a significant number of Republican congressmen will suddenly abandon the money that gets them elected. And of course they won't.
You now seems to be reduced to saying "it would look good if they submit some legislation to wind back what was let through by others, even though we all know it would never get passed". Are you saying to point is they should be on the record saying Obama's tactics were shit?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But doesn't that ignore the tea party effect?
No ... That's the worst case, i.e., the legislation is written and it is either rejected or not let to a vote. I am confident that if the legislation IS written and comes to a vote, ALL Democrats and a significant number of republicans, particularly tea party affected republicans, will support the reversal of the push out rule.
No. Not at all.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)Don't you remember how the 'tea party' crap started? It was a rich trader saying he was against householders who were unable to pay their mortgages being helped, and all the traders with him shouted 'fuck, yeah!!!'. And all the RW idiots lined up behind the financial industry, just like that. It was never against protecting banks from gambling losses. Its message was "bailing out banks 'to protect the economy' is fine, but we shouldn't do anything to help poor individuals".
The Tea Party and Frank-Dodd:
...
Co-sponsors of the legislation, which the Club for Growth and Americans for Prosperity, endorsed, include Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.; Todd Akin, R-Mo.; Tom McClintock, R-Calif.; and Bill Posey, R-Fla.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Michele-Bachmann-Frank-Dodd/2011/01/06/id/382092/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Americans_for_Prosperity#Americans_for_Prosperity_and_the_Tea_Party
http://www.rollcall.com/news/club_for_growth_says_gop_freshmen_not_tea_party_enough-214518-1.html
Your position is, as I said, fantasy.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)It will require the cooperation of the House leadership and they won't. Neither will the new Senate leadership. They don't ever have to let this get anywhere near the floor. The House "rule" is nothing passes without a majority of the GOP and the GOP will never pass anything that looks like it has Warren behind it.
Are you in a wagering mood here? At what point in the future are you willing to admit that you were wrong?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)unless you are only talking about the upcoming majority leadership.
And if the majority leadership doesn't/won't bring the legislation to a vote, then the republicans, and republicans alone, will go into 2016 wearing the mantle of being the party that enabled the re-opening of the casino and the raiding of pensions and the cutting of WIC.
This is not a good position to be in with them faced with having more seats to defend in 2016 than Democrats had in 2016.
What's there to wager on? How would anyone be proven correct or wrong?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)If a vote never comes up to overturn these two things, then there was no strategy of which you allude.
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)would actually bring up a bill that would eliminate elements of the Romneybus bill that they put in it?
Those horrendous parts of the bill will not get repealed until there is a democratic majority in the Senate again (and probably the House too).
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)in the best case, they will bring it to a vote (but I'm not banking on that). On the other hand, if/when they don't, it casts republicans, and republicans only, as the party that enabled the re-opening of the casino, raiding of pensions and cut WIC, just in time for the 2016 elections where republicans have more seats to defend than Democrats had to defend in 2014.
If the worse case comes about, it's going to be a bumpy, bloody time, no doubt.
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)I just don't see anything changing over the next couple of years and Congress being even less productive than the Congress that is now leaving.
It would take a real stroke of luck for the Senate to actually pass an amendment to a spending bill passed by the House that could actually get passed by the House after resolution.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and then, the worse case scenario applies. Maybe the electorate will have a longer memory in 2016!
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)February will bring the budget battle for DHS and then in October will bring the real opportunity for a shut down with the battle of the budget. The question is will the budget battle be something the repubs want to fight going into the election cycle? Maybe Obama will play hardball, but we shall see.
djean111
(14,255 posts)call Democrats and ask them to vote for the spending bill, because Reid had assured her that any bill she wrote next year would sail through Congress. Dimon told each Dem - "This is for Elizabeth Think of Elizabeth!"
