General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOnce again, I stand with President Obama on the Budget.
Yesterday, I angered a lot of people when I stood with President Obama. Today, I'm certain to do much of the same.
So what's in the so called Cromnibus bill? Some things we don't like. Some things the Republicans don't like. We get fully funded ACA, more money for early childhood development. EPA money got cut, but was still more than the Administration asked for. We got the Immigration funding for six months.
Does anyone realistically think we'll get a better deal next month when the Republicans take over the Senate? Does anyone think that the Republicans will be more willing to deal then?
We get almost a year of the ACA. We get six months of Immigration funded. We get a lot of things, a whole lot of things, and if we balk at this, the Republicans are just going to pass whatever they want and it will be ten times, a hundred times worse than we have it now.
I'm not happy about the things we don't want. I think it's risky to relax the rules on Wall Street. I think it's asinine to let more political funding go to the parties. But I think that as bad as those things are, losing the funding for the ACA would be way worse.
We lost the midterm election. We lost and next month the Republicans take over the Senate. We need to take what we can get and just swallow the things we don't like. Because if we don't take it now, we'll get it next month, and we definitely won't like it then.
There is a thing called Realpolitik. It means being practical, and it means being willing to accept that sometimes you don't get everything you want.
Because make no mistake, if the Government shuts down, it won't be the Republicans who get the blame, it will be us. We will get the blame, and we will be the ones who shut down the Government during the Holidays because we were poor losers in last months election. Believe me, the Republicans have their bullet points ready, talking about all the things in there that were just what the Democrats wanted.
We need to support the President, and get this done. Because I do not want to write off the next election already. I want us to fight, and win. But we can't do that if we have given the impression that we are nothing more than petulant children.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/10/politics/policy-riders-spending-bill/index.html?hpt=po_c1
We're getting immigration and full funding for the ACA. We're not losing as much as we would next month. It gives us until September to increase public pressure to maintain those funding needs.
It's not great, it's not even very good, but understanding Realpolitik, it's probably the best we can get.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Autumn
(45,057 posts)in the last election. Unless you think that the way for democrats to win is to demoralize the little people democrats.
Response to Savannahmann (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Good to see you.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Demsrule86
(68,552 posts)This bill is a terrible bill and sells out middle America and the poor.
onecaliberal
(32,826 posts)Tell that to people who worked their entire lives only to have bankers rip off their retirement. To those who lost 40% of 401k in a single day. Those who can't afford the 5,000 deductible that let's them use the fucking healthcare they have to buy. The campaign contributions will ensure this stupid bullshit is all we ever get because it buys them the pen that writes this legislation that screws 99% of people.
I could go on but my head is about to explode. You can think republicans getting 95% of what they want all the time is good but I live in reality where it's a bunch of epic fucking bullshit that I'm sick of.
You need a reality check!
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)onecaliberal
(32,826 posts)
MindMover
(5,016 posts)
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,500 posts)shit like that.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)onecaliberal
(32,826 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Nobody. If they still have it invested they have it back and more. That is how people become comfortable in retirement. You buy more when the stock market goes down. You don't sell and any who did needs a financial lesson ASAP.
onecaliberal
(32,826 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Ride out the market. So yeah if he is talking about wealthy people he is right on the money.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)And I NEVER sell stock when the stock market falls.....I buy. That is VERY common knowledge.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)and therefore lost a lot of money. Might be okay if you are wealthy already, but for a working class salary they cannot just simply sit and wait like the rich guy for the stock to go back up. But you knew that already.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Nobody does that. That would be financial suicide and nobody who invests would do that. You wait it out. Look simply 6 years later they would be sitting pretty.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Nevermind I see the point is lost on you totally.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Just like majority.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Nice try.
progressoid
(49,983 posts)Roughly three-quarters of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck, with little to no emergency savings, according to a survey released by Bankrate.com Monday.
Fewer than one in four Americans have enough money in their savings account to cover at least six months of expenses, enough to help cushion the blow of a job loss, medical emergency or some other unexpected event, according to the survey of 1,000 adults. Meanwhile, 50% of those surveyed have less than a three-month cushion and 27% had no savings at all.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/
More than three-quarters of Americans say the five-year bull market in U.S. stocks has had little or no effect on their financial well-being, according to a Bloomberg National Poll.
Seventy-seven percent of respondents dismissed the 176 percent rise in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) since its March 9, 2009 financial crisis low, according to the poll, taken March 7-10. Barely one in five -- 21 percent -- said the market’s gains have made them “feel more financially” secure.
...
The poll’s findings reflect the concentration of financial assets among better-off Americans. Only about half of Americans own stock, either directly or through retirement accounts, according to the Fed’s 2010 Survey of Consumer Finances.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-12/stock-market-surge-bypasses-most-americans-poll-shows.html
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/20/3416808/retirement-savings-survey/
The report from the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal-leaning public policy think-tank, illustrates how the shift from pensions to individual savings accounts has affected retirees. The authors find that it is the wealthiest workers whoare benefiting the most because they can actually contribute enough to make 401(k) plans work for retirement.
"401(k)s were never designed to replace pensions for most workers. They serve primarily as a tax shelter for high earners," said economist Monique Morrissey, the report's co-author, in a statement. "The 401(k) revolution has been a disaster, yet some policymakers are calling for cuts to Social Security, which will be the only significant source of retirement income for most Americans--if they are able to retire in the first place."
The report also found:
Households earning in the top fifth accounted for 72 percent of total savings in retirement accounts in 2010 and were the only income group that had more than their annual income saved in these accounts.
Participation in defined-benefit pensions by workers from 25 to 61 years old declined over the past decade, from 52 percent in 2000 to 45 percent in 2010.
For single people, black and Hispanic households and those headed by someone without a college degree, the median household has no savings in retirement accounts.
On average, white households have more than six times as much saved in retirement accounts as Hispanic or black households.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-401k-retirement-plans-failing-most-workers/
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)progressoid
(49,983 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)and it's best to desert a sinking ship before it completely goes under.
That includes most '90s tech stocks (including Sun Microsystems and Netscape), Woolworths, Montgomery Ward, Sunbeam, TWA, and all sorts of other stocks that have faded away.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)The future I am so privileged. You need a different script. It's wrong.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)eh, Mittens? 
The working class "goes without" almost every single day of our lives and still never have enough to save.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I hope you are saving. That is my point. If not......well I am speechless.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)My God, you sound like a Republican blaming poor people for being poor.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Oh well your boring.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts) yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)yeah, you sell no matter what the market is doing, because you've still got to pay the bills.
And a lot of people tend to lose their jobs at roughly the same time markets tank. I did.
Call it 'financial suicide' if you want, but most of us just call it doing what we have to to pay the bills.
How do you 'wait it out' when you have no income, and you're not simply wealthy enough not to have to work?
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)when you're within a year or two of retirement you don't have time to make it up so spare me the smugness.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)They did EXACTLY what I said they would do. Nobody sells when the stock market falls. Nobody!!!! Within 2 years of retiring is not a problem.....heck out stock market was already back not long after 2008.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Too funny.
Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #42)
MFrohike This message was self-deleted by its author.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)QED
Kingofalldems
(38,451 posts)And it's retirees.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)This is why we need mandatory savings classes for people.
I think what we're seeing in this thread is what I saw with friends and co-workers. After the 2008 crash, many decided that 401k's didn't work and decided to bail.
Now, they don't like being told they were dumb.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)And they had to live on 40% less than before the banksters stole most of it.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Like I said above, why would people who clearly know nothing about investing put their entire nest egg in something they know nothing about?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)This is why I'm so adamantly opposed to privatizing Social Security.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)People will spend spend five extra minutes driving to the gas station with the cheapest gas, but won't spend half an hour reading about basics of saving for retirement.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)That is real hard.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)All for following basic advice taught in 5 minutes.
moriah
(8,311 posts)Instead of being unemployed and having to live on that 40% reduced 401k. Guess they really need financial lessons.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)... enough already...
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)
deutsey
(20,166 posts)Oooo, we scored a point with a vote! Yippie!
How does it translate into benefiting me and other working people struggling to make ends meet?
onecaliberal
(32,826 posts)It directly works to royally screw you and your friends and family
deutsey
(20,166 posts)And I've seen this crap become so ingrained in the political/economic system since the '80s, I don't believe I'll see any significant improvement in my lifetime.
onecaliberal
(32,826 posts)2naSalit
(86,562 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)The Stock Market is nothing but a huge engine used by the 1% to extract wealth from 99%ers who invest.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)
karynnj
(59,501 posts)In fact, if they were not drawing from the IRA, they likely lost nothing ---as it slowly edged back to where it was over the next year or two.
The REAL problem was that it nearly took the economy - the real main street economy - over the cliff with the financial market. Many businesses need to borrow because cash flow does not match when they have costs. The biggest problem in 2008 was that without these routine loans many small businesses risked failing.
I am not disagreeing that this safeguard needs to be kept - and more added. The point I am making is that it not just the investments of everyone - including 401ks, but the entire economy that is risked. It is a much bigger problem - likely felt just as much or more by people with no money to contribute to 401ks.
d_b
(7,463 posts)lol jesus fucking christ
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)additional money for oversight/enforcement with the SEC and the agency that oversees bonds (or something similar, I can't remember exactly) so that may be worth it. I figure if we can catch some crooks in the meantime and then overturn the bill after the 2016 elections it may be a winner for the American people. The chances of a default in the next two years is almost zero.
As to the campaign contributions, I don't like that but since people can donate unlimited amounts to 503 (c)(4) orgs I don't kinow how much it will really hurt. In fact, I'll have to learn more about that.
I think the most important thing is that there is a lot of good and the increased government spending will help the economy and let's face it, it will be the economy that helps the Dems win in 2016. If the economy is turned around people will be much more likely to repeat a Dem president. Like Clinton said, "It's the economy, stupid".
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...
onecaliberal
(32,826 posts)Sorely needed tonight.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)We just opened the door to complete destruction of everything for six months of immigration?
Dodd Frank separation of risky derivative trading from federally insured deposits is the same as a safeguard against nuclear attack. That's not hyperbole. That's REAL POLITICAL ECONOMY. We just gave away the fucking store - our children's future - for half a year of ACA?
This bill was fucking despicable and dangerous beyond description, and your post is profoundly fucking stupid.
FoxNewsSucks
(10,429 posts)and once the speculators get back to business we can kiss reasonable gas prices good-bye.
onecaliberal
(32,826 posts)+1000000
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Losing elections sucks.
Sometimes a shit sandwich is the best item on the menu.
Republican leverage increase next year. They've removed most of their leverage for the next year by punting on spending.
Now if they play hardball it will be in late 2015 as the kickoff to the Presidential campaign. Which will put a damper on their kamikaze caucus.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Autumn
(45,057 posts)
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)FoxNewsSucks
(10,429 posts)won't immediately remove what little Democrats "got" are delusional.
Obviously, no one remembers how the temporary unemployment extension trade off for tax cuts worked.
Immigration funding in trade for putting us all on the hook to socialize wall streets' losses???? Really??? Which one expires in 6 months?
We got sold out. Again.
Marr
(20,317 posts)in exchange for a *permanent* giveaway to the 1%. They keep repeating it over and over.
SamKnause
(13,091 posts)I don't stand with anyone who protects Wall Street.
Remember your support at the next bail out, or maybe even a bail in.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)
postulater
(5,075 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)How many banks got a bailout in 2008? They have just authorized to do it all over again. Bring the economy to its knees, lose millions of jobs for American workers and give the money to the banks. The banks get the promise of more money and American workers have their pensions cut. Not to mention they solidified this country as an oligarchy where only the richest have a say in the government. No, there is nothing good about passing this bill. It is way passed time to take a stand. We must take a stand. We are losing everything. Wake up. It is happening before our very eyes. We are losing everything.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They are always willing to shut the government down.
Rex
(65,616 posts)there own politician now for office. I guess after the SCOTUS decision, this was inevitable.
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)considering he's been the point man for immigration reform in the House!
lunasun
(21,646 posts)For 6 mos carrot on a stick
Rocky888
(297 posts)My husband's pension was handed to Wall Street by Rick Scott, like many state pension plans. This gives them a green light to gamble it right into their offshore accounts with the money they stole in 2007! I don't think all this is a coincidence!
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)What a crock! If your President deserts you in several important
ways, aahh just stick with him anyway.
I think that you can do that, if you are kind of wealthy?
It is stupid to think of another crash, because you may not
be effected. Congrats!
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
BeyondGeography
(39,369 posts)
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Republicans have superior leverage. That has real consequences.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)That's why Jamie Dimon was personally making phone calls, because it won't make much difference.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)Not noble. Not compassionate. Not sensible. Not progressive. Not for people rather than corporations.
But very reasonable.
Skittles
(153,150 posts)THIS is why we get f***ed
lamp_shade
(14,828 posts)was lobbying congress for a yes vote. Now I understand why and it all makes sense.
Thanks for posting this.
P.S. I must admit though that I kind of selfishly anticipated the explosive reaction if the house had voted no.
GeorgeGist
(25,319 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)All the while telling us how pragmatic it is too while we get screwed.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Do you think we'll get a fully funded ACA? Do you think Immigration will be fully funded? How about early childcare/education programs? Do you really think that they'll fully fund that too?
Right now we hold enough cards to get a lot of what we want. January, we hold even fewer cards, in fact, we hold only one. How much fighting do you think an unpopular President entering the lame duck portion of his administration is going to do? When people are starving because SNAP (Food Stamps) hasn't been funded? When people are entering homelessness because Social Security and Welfare are not funded? Do you really think we can get a better deal then?
Realpolitik means we deal with the reality we're in. Now, you can fight for gains, but you have to realize that those gains are going to be smaller. In this case, you fight for the most important thing, feeding the people, housing the people, taking care of their health, and helping the people the best you can.
Or you watch as everything is destroyed. Because if this deal doesn't go through, the Republicans won't negotiate when January comes around, they'll just pass it and leave town, and if the President Veto's it, oh well, it will take a couple days to get everyone back before the negotiations can begin. Perhaps we should take this up next week, because we don't have a quorum right now to bring the Congress back in session.
How much do we stand to lose then?
So tell the starving that they don't need food because you want to make sure that the rich don't get to donate to political campaigns. Tell the single mother that her kids are about to be homeless because you demand that the EPA put water restrictions on farmers who are growing the food they eat. Tell the elderly woman who counts her pennies every month to make it to the next social security check that it's way more important that the IRS be able to target groups based upon their political ideology than it is that she eat. Tell the struggling family that they don't need their health insurance after the ACA collapses from being underfunded.
When we get done shitting on the poor, the people who struggle daily to just survive, we can then tell them to vote for us because we'll fight for... Something, but obviously not them.
Then the Republicans will have the White House as well as both houses of Congress as we start this crap over again looking forward to 2017. That's a great plan, we're an ideologically pure and totally dedicated minority party viewed by the people as a bunch of petulant children. Is that how your plan works? Because that's how it will work out.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Quote you "Then the Republicans will have the White House as well as both houses of Congress as we start this crap over again looking forward to 2017."
Yeah so lets give them this and then they shit over us all again anyway.
You think they won't use the poor and starve them either way?
The short sighted stupidity of this post is so...3rd way.
Give away the store for nothing, because in reality 3rd Wayers are really Republicans anyway.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)No one cared at all by November. They win, they always win, even when "we" win they win.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)I know we haven't agreed on most things, but this time you are right, and I will admit it. Why some don't see just how much worse the bill would have been after the first of the year, is beyond me. If people think "this" bill was bad, and it was, they would go ballistic if we had waited and let the republicans write a new bill in the new year.
People just can't understand the reality of things I guess, and I see where you are now being called a "3rd way" democrat by some simply because you disagree with them. Welcome to the club.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Single issue legislation, or even departmental legislation is fine. Speeches and position papers, great. As an example, let's say you think the CIA torture is totally wrong. I do as a matter of fact. But then a bill to fund the CIA would be the best place to raise those concerns. Voting against that would be commendable.
However, voting against the Wall Street/Campaign Finance sops to the RW are fine, if that was all that was in there. Everything else is in there too. By voting against the Wall Street/Campaign Finance Sops you're voting against funding SNAP, Welfare, Social Security, SSI Disability, and none of the people who depend on those programs can afford a shut down of the Government with their benefits in doubt. Christmas is going to be tough enough for them without this nonsense too.
The less than batshit crazy Republicans offended their RW with this, and if we can't deliver the votes, they have to go back to the RW to get the votes there. That means no ACA funding, or severely reduced at best. That means the Immigration money is gone, and it means reductions in other things that we care about.
Now, we can stand on principle and demand that those things be taken out before we vote for it. If we do that, we lose the deal. Then the Republicans shrug and pass one that they want. The House sends it to the Senate, and leaves town thus making it a take it or leave it deal for the President and the Senate. The Senate still controlled by Democrats for the next couple weeks, says fuck it we're not going to take it. We'll show you.
In the end, who suffers? The Wall Street types? Nope, they'll get their adjustments later, and they know they will. The Campaign Finance bundlers? No, they'll keep pumping millions instead of tens of thousands into the groups like American Crossroads and all that crap. Who suffers? The poorest among us. The ones most desperately in need. Then in January, the New Congress gets sworn in, McConnell decides to bomb the crap out of the Senate with the Nuclear Option because Democrats won't compromise as proven under the Cromnibus bill, and we're left sputtering in ineffective rage about how unfair it is. Oh we'll vote no, and perhaps the President will veto it. But then again, perhaps not since he can't count on the Democrats in the Congress to back his plays to get better deals in a bi-partisan fashion. If you can't trust the support of your allies, then work to get what you can out of your enemies.
I've never seen so many fools who think that you can win, by destroying everything. I've heard of Pyrrhic Victories but this is something else. This is we lost so fuck you burn the entire thing down.
BeyondGeography
(39,369 posts)The shutdown would have been on him, especially coming on the heels of the EO on immigration. The Republicans would have said he is in denial about the midterms and it would have worked.
The President has the sequencing on this right. The Republicans will overreach and he will live to fight another day.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... and people with your mindset don't get.
Ok, would the Republicans have done this anyway? Probably. But then it would be a REPUBLICAN failure when it blows up as it definitely will.
Now, it is a "bi-partisan" failure. Do you GET THAT?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)and then get saddled with the blame for the horrible policy decisions - it's maddening!
sendero
(28,552 posts).... would surmise that they (Dems and Reps) basically work for the same owners. Judging by their actions on almost everything having to do with business, banking, regulation of same.
A cynical person.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)Endorsed and Agreed to by 57 "dems" and a "dem" POTUS.
It is what it is, there is zero "common sense rationalization" for turning this into "We had NO Choice" bs--Again!
They have a Choice and clearly they Made it-They sided with Wall Street, Kochs et al-Period.
There is, imo-Zero justification for tossing Retirees, Native Americans, All Tax Payers, DC Voters and Much, Much More In The GD Garbage.
merrily
(45,251 posts)we may as well just go to the banks en masse and hand them whatever is left of our assets.
In 2008, we had an overwhelming majority in the House, sixty in the Senate Caucus and the Oval Office, all at one time. Yet, supposedly, we could not get done what we wanted.
Let's assume, just for the sake of discussion, that that is the truth. Given (1) how divided the nation is, (2) that the Party obviously believes it should back conservative Democrats, and (3) super majority rules:
When, in your lifetime (or your kids and grandkids) do you realistically believe that we will have supermajorities of leftists in the House and Senate and the White House all at one time?
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)You know the ones in the most exciting football games. The Quarterback throws the ball the length of the field, the Receiver is sprinting to get under it, he catches it and wins the game with that awesome play.
Truth is, that Politics and Football are similar in that it's a game of short gains. If you take the short gains, and you then set and push a little further, a little more, you get another small gain. Eventually you'll find yourself close enough to the end zone to score a win.
On Defense, you try to keep the opposing team from getting enough gains that they can score.
In this case, we got a lot more than we will next month. By opposing it, we lose the debate entirely. By trying to shut the Government down less than two weeks before Christmas we appear to be everything that the RW press paints us to be. Worse, since the legislation was negotiated with Democrats including the White House, the Republicans look Bi-Partisan and willing to negotiate. Obviously having the Republicans look reasonable and willing to make a deal that they aren't happy with either is good for us, or something.
Because here is what the regular people are saying. The best economic recovery in a hundred years or whatever the claim is this week, can't be that good if one regulation is all that is keeping the nation out of another recession. Who gives a damn about political donations. The Midterm election was the most expensive in history, and had the lowest turnout since World War II. So spending all that money didn't do shit to GOTV.
So the mega rich pump more money into campaigns. It didn't help the Republicans in 2008 or 2012. It didn't help them save the House in 2006. Issues and the ability to hear what people are saying and to move to represent those views is what wins elections.
Republicans are making a mistake with this. Several, but not what everyone is focusing on. 51% of the people support decriminalization of Marijuana. Washington DC voted to decriminalize Marijuana. The Republicans have attached a rider that doesn't allow DC to do what the people voted for. That tin eared approach will hurt them in the next election. A lot more than us if we just give enough votes to get it to pass. Just enough.
The only place where Decriminalization failed was Florida when it's been on the ballot. Before you think that this makes a difference to me personally, nope. Because I am one of those who is deathly allergic to it. I'm talking extremely allergic, as in I risk my life if I ever touch the stuff again, which would be the second time.
However, I read the polls, and I want to push the football down the field, and I know that the way to do so is not to take unpopular stands on a lot of issues. If you are going to take one unpopular stand, you have to take a dozen popular ones to counter it. It's the old truth, one aw shit moment can destroy a thousand atta boys.
We can't get a Hail Mary pass to work. We aren't going to win the game with one brilliant play. We're going to win if we stay smart, stay focused, and listen to the people. If we are doing what the people want the ad buys of the Rich and shameless don't matter. We will have the support of the people, and they will come out and vote for us. If we tell them tough shit, Christmas is on hold. We're not going to allow the uber rich to give three times the money they can give now to their candidates, and we don't care if they end up homeless and hungry, we won't win in 2016, or anytime soon.
Pass the damned thing, let the Republicans tear themselves apart because the ACA and Immigration is fully funded. Let the Republicans self destruct, and take the long view that we're on Defense right now, and we have to slow their advance, and then stop it and get possession of the ball. We have to play smart, and remain focused.
We have to win elections through hard work, and every day we have to figure out what we can do to help our constituents. Every single day we have to struggle to represent them. Otherwise, the Republicans will be the ones representing, while we stand and shout in the smallest sections of the Capital.
merrily
(45,251 posts)To the contrary, I call bs.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts) Demsrule86
(68,552 posts)However, you are wrong...the piddling stuff the Dems got amounts to nothing while Wall Street can now bankrupt us again. We sold out our base for crumbs...as for the ACA ...it would be funded anyway...self-funded ...and the Supremes will soon strike it down...already you hear the Dems saying 'maybe it was not a good idea'...only good thing done by dems in 40 years...I am pretty much through with Democrats...this bill should not pass the Senate...it is a terrible bill which will hurt Americans...and make them less likely to vote for Democrats.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)All the bad things that can happen, can still happen next year. Obama's either going to have to start using the veto pen, or he's going to get continuously steam rolled over and over. Why he would not let Pelosi et. al. try to get these horrendous features out of the bill (the House needed dem support to pass this thing) I'll never understand. Well, except for the fact that Obama has never been a fighter for liberal issues.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)He hasn't figured out Washington yet.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Maybe before he even got out of law school.
The notion that the average DUer "gets" the real more than Obama or any Dem holding office in DC--or any of their advisors-- is just not realistic. At some point, we need to realize they are doing pretty much what they want.
Which Republicans forced Obama to nominate Geithner and Gates and re-appoint Bernanke? To buddy up to Jamie Dimon? How did Republicans dupe him into anything like that?
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)I'm just waiting for 2016 now, whoever we get will be an improvement, IMHO.
merrily
(45,251 posts)So far they're talking Jeb, Hills and Mitt for 2016.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)People complain about Hilary being too pro-business...Obama is as well...so no difference there.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)FUCK THIS! 
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)How do you like the idea of President Rand Paul? Or perhaps it will be Jeb Bush. I'm sure the ACA will survive then. Probably keep the Immigration reforms too.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)
Brigid
(17,621 posts)Which, in this case, is not a whole hell of a lot.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)I stand with funding early Childcare/education. I stand with funding the Immigration system.
Now, why do you stand against all those things? Why do you stand against people getting the money they need to eat via SNAP, which will be suspended at Christmas when there is no budget deal? Why do you stand against Social Security and SSI Disability payments being made to the people who desperately need it?
There is a lot more in that Cromnibus package than a sop to wall street and higher limits on donations. While we are opposing one thing, we're voting against all the rest too.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)They didn't get off their asses, and the GOP is going to make things worse with their congressional control.
Who's surprised? If so, they're massively naive.
o1o
(2 posts)Obama (like Bush) is a warmongering corporatist! He can't wait to sign the Wall Street Giveaway (and the TPP) which he knows will further impoverish the 99% and destroy our democracy!