"Cromnibus" Spending Bill - Shutdown Averted!

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The Republicans won the election, so let them drive the agenda. Excellent job, Obama, for putting the national interest ahead of petty feuds over minor partisan grievances and compromising like a statesman to avoid a government shutdown.

The Republicans won the election because Democrats didn't stand for things enough. If Obama signs this, it won't even matter who wins the elections any more, unless we can get President Sanders.

In other news of Democrats sucking hard, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that an employer can choose to not pay you for half an hour of mandatory security screening a day.

No, the Republicans won because the stopped nominating nut bag tea party candidates who wanted to shut down the government over every minor slight. Which is exactly what you want Dems to start doing so they can lose even harder.

LOL, the Republicans took a hard-line a year ago, and then did well in the last elections. Are you going to claim to me that Ernst and Tillis are some sort of moderates?

The republicans took a hard line a year ago, true. But then they learned from that by not causing another one last January, last September, or now. Also, instead of ignoring TP primary challengers as they did in 2010/12, republicans nationwide actively invested in primaries everywhere from KY to SC to KS to GA, working to get the best candidates they could (Sure, Tillis isn't great, but he's more electable than Brannon/Harris. Ernst was the strongest candidate in that primary aside from perhaps Jacobs.) . They improved their GOTV massively from 2012. Sure, they spent tons of money on Corbett/Land that they probably should have redirected to RI/CT/NH/VT/VA . But other than that, the republicans campaign operation was pretty flawless and that's why they did so well across the country.

Tillis isn't going to cause a shutdown. As for Ernst...we'll have to see. She is the one that scares me the most.

LOL, I tuned into Fox News for a bit, and Sean Hannity and his panel were bashing Boehner for "not standing up to Obama on immigration," or something like that.  Lol.

Hannity obviously didn't see the part of the bill that only funds Homeland Security until February......

[IceSpear]

Great Cory Booker speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh2RW9PX6zc

Well, he turned out a lot better than I thought.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Great Cory Booker speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh2RW9PX6zc

Well, he turned out a lot better than I thought.

Is it just me, or did the democrats literally give in to everything the GOP asked....

[IceSpear]

The Republicans won the election, so let them drive the agenda. Excellent job, Obama, for putting the national interest ahead of petty feuds over minor partisan grievances and compromising like a statesman to avoid a government shutdown.

Obama also won an election with a bigger mandate than they did, but he didn't get to implement his full agenda because there was divided government. And there is still divided government. Meaning neither side should get everything they want. But in this "deal", the Republicans got everything, and Democrats got essentially nothing. The only thing that Democrats got is that now Boehner will have to wait another year before doing yet another extortion gambit. But even that isn't a real victory since he'll be doing it again in two short months, except solely with DHS funding.

[IceSpear]

Great Cory Booker speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh2RW9PX6zc

Well, he turned out a lot better than I thought.

Is it just me, or did the democrats literally give in to everything the GOP asked....

It's not just you.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The Republicans won the election, so let them drive the agenda. Excellent job, Obama, for putting the national interest ahead of petty feuds over minor partisan grievances and compromising like a statesman to avoid a government shutdown.

Obama also won an election with a bigger mandate than they did, but he didn't get to implement his full agenda because there was divided government. And there is still divided government. Meaning neither side should get everything they want. But in this "deal", the Republicans got everything, and Democrats got essentially nothing. The only thing that Democrats got is that now Boehner will have to wait another year before doing yet another extortion gambit. But even that isn't a real victory since he'll be doing it again in two short months, except solely with DHS funding.

And we hit the debt ceiling on Feb. 15. It's going to be a really contentious month.

[Beet]

The Republicans won the election, so let them drive the agenda. Excellent job, Obama, for putting the national interest ahead of petty feuds over minor partisan grievances and compromising like a statesman to avoid a government shutdown.

Obama also won an election with a bigger mandate than they did, but he didn't get to implement his full agenda because there was divided government. And there is still divided government. Meaning neither side should get everything they want.

Because 2012, like 2010, returned divided results at different levels of government. 2014 did not. Had O been at the top of the ticket he probably would have been wiped out too. We are not a majority right now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Haven't progressives got the death of Keystone? Executive action on immigration? Reform of police militarization? A presidential opinion on net neutrality? All since the election. They may not have gotten anything from this but time, but to say Obama hasn't given them anything recently would be wrong. And 67 Republicans didn't vote against their leadership on this because it was too conservative... this bill is to the left of where the median House Republican would be, probably.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Actually, the democrats did get some small things.

from : http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/10/politics/policy-riders-spending-bill/index.html?hpt=po_c1

More wheat bread for school lunches: Republicans wanted to block new nutritional requirements for school lunches under a program championed by First Lady Michelle Obama. But instead of wiping out the rule, Republicans and Democrats agreed to give local schools more flexibility on how they decided to include whole grain items on school menus.

White potatoes get top billing: A new provision was added requiring that the Women, Infants and Children program that provides food assistance to low income families include fresh vegetables, and includes an explicit requirement for white potatoes.

New sexual harassment training for Hill staffers: The measure requires the Chief Administrative Officer, the office that oversees the thousands of aides working on Capitol Hill, to develop an online training program focused on sexual harassment. Earlier this year, Louisiana GOP Rep Vance McAllister was caught kissing a member of his own staff.

There's also some neutral things that I like:

Old fashioned light bulbs still allowed: The bill blocks new energy efficient standards that would have made incandescent light bulbs obsolete. Consumers had complained about the new requirements.

No more taxpayer money for expensive portraits: Committee chairs and other high ranking government officials in Washington often commission large, often very pricey portraits of themselves to hang in hearing rooms. Under the bill they would need to use private money to pay for any new portraits.


Also, here's what it doesn't do:


The bill doesn't block the president's executive action on immigration. Conservatives wanted to use the spending bill to strip away money for any agencies tasked with implementing the president's new policy. But the legislation continues funding for the Department of Homeland Security through the end of February.

The deal doesn't roll back any major portions of Obamacare - it allows for continued funding at the current levels. Last fall the GOP's effort to defund the health care law as part of the spending bill resulted in a government shutdown, a move leaders pledged they didn't want to repeat this year.


But aside from that, most of which is fairly minor, the democrats got nothing.

[Oak Hills]

…and the Senate has adjourned for tonight.  We'll see what happens tomorrow.  Good night, folks.

[Boston Bread]

Democrats have the power to block anything until real bipartisan deals are reached. Obama needs to shut it down until that moment. If he doesn't he's shown that he's yet to have learned anything.

[IceSpear]

The Republicans won the election, so let them drive the agenda. Excellent job, Obama, for putting the national interest ahead of petty feuds over minor partisan grievances and compromising like a statesman to avoid a government shutdown.

Obama also won an election with a bigger mandate than they did, but he didn't get to implement his full agenda because there was divided government. And there is still divided government. Meaning neither side should get everything they want.

Because 2012, like 2010, returned divided results at different levels of government. 2014 did not. Had O been at the top of the ticket he probably would have been wiped out too. We are not a majority right now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Haven't progressives got the death of Keystone? Executive action on immigration? Reform of police militarization? A presidential opinion on net neutrality? All since the election. They may not have gotten anything from this but time, but to say Obama hasn't given them anything recently would be wrong. And 67 Republicans didn't vote against their leadership on this because it was too conservative... this bill is to the left of where the median House Republican would be, probably.

Is Keystone dead? It seems from the last vote that it will pass once the new Congress convenes. As for the immigration executive order, this very deal is giving Boehner all the cards to confront Obama on the issue in Feburary. After this, I'm skeptical he won't fold. Net neutrality is definitely a big one though, I'll give you that. Though I did just have to check again to make sure this crap sandwich didn't somehow destroy that as well.

As for why 67 Republicans voted against this, I have absolutely no idea. The only thing I can think of is that they're complete morons. And since it was probably people like Gohmert, Stockman, Bachmann, etc. that did so, I'd assume that's a pretty good theory.

[The_Doctor]

Michelle Obama actually lost on the white potatoes thing - the potato lobby won on that. But nutrition guidelines generally survived, with schools winning more latitude. So overall, her nutrition legacy will survive, albeit in a somewhat modified form. (I support her on this, btw).

The cap on donations to party funding is probably a good move, if it steers money back into party coffers, and away from third party groups. The money would be doled out and disbursed by elected representatives, which is probably a step up better from the current arrangement. So I like that. (And I don't like McCain-Feingold). Both parties probably liked that one.

Re, the Wall Street provision. I don't believe derivatives were at the heart of the crash, anyway. The ratings of these derivatives, yes (and how widespread they were), but not the derivatives themselves. So per se, remember the securities agencies and the like got increased funding, so it wasn't a bad provision. It won't be on the scale of Glass-Steagall's repeal (which I don't think caused the crash either).

The DC pot provision is toothless, as the referendum was, apparently according to Delegate Eleanor Norton, self-funding. The measure is just entirely self-funded.

Seems to me a slightly center-right bill that gave some goodies to the GOP but it wasn't a landmark bill. The White House is right. This is the best deal they could have gotten. Any deal negotiated in January would have been much more conservative, given the Senate will pass into Republican hands.

[free my dawg]

Roll call here.

So much for Ann Kuster getting an endorsement from me in the future. And so much for Georack Obamush doing anything to change the current system.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That just means that the parties themselves will become beholden to the wealthy, not just candidates reliant on third party spending. But I agree that it merely makes an already corrupt system even more corrupt.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except rating agencies are subject to the same moral hazards as they were before the crisis, and it was derivatives regulation that was supposed to make it okay. Now even that meager regulation is being stripped away, thanks no doubt to banking interests of a banking system bailed out by the taxpayer. Derivatives, derivatives ratings, and the repeal of Glass Steagall all contributed to the crisis. No one of them was the smoking gun, but together they added up to years of government endorsement of financialization- through minor, seemingly harmless de regulations just like this one, plus banking sector creativity. The overall trend of financialization is what created the crisis, as well as a series of asset price bubbles that continues to this day. These asset price bubbles of course, benefit the already wealthy asset owners over anyone with little property.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not clear how it will play out yet. The Drug Policy Alliance says it's unclear what the implications are.

[Miles]

Matheson voted for it while McIntyre voted against it; they usually vote these same on these high-profile bills. Another sign Matheson is running for something in the future, IMO.

[IceSpear]

The Republican nays are unsurprising...the Tea Party hardliners and the people who vote no on everything. But I'm a bit surprised at Hurt, McKinley, and Webster. I always thought they were relatively "establishment".

There's quite a few surprising Democratic yeas, I'm guessing a lot of which were due to WH pressure.

[Miles]

^ Looks like there were some tea partying Rs who voted for it, too; Palazzo, Hartzler, Yoho, Westmorland to name a few.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Phil Gingrey voted for it. Wow.....

[Stockdale for Veep]

Dems lay down, news at 11. Why can't this party fight for anything...

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

This undercutting of campaign finance reform is revolting.  We need Bernie.  We need Bernie now. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why do people think prohibiting politicians and parties from taking campaign donations will have any more success than prohibiting people from drinking alcohol or taking drugs?  It might not be nice to admit it, but money is the mother's milk of politics.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Why do people think prohibiting politicians and parties from taking campaign donations will have any more success than prohibiting people from drinking alcohol or taking drugs?  It might not be nice to admit it, but money is the mother's milk of politics.

Please don't tell me you're this oblivious. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why do people think prohibiting politicians and parties from taking campaign donations will have any more success than prohibiting people from drinking alcohol or taking drugs?  It might not be nice to admit it, but money is the mother's milk of politics.

Please don't tell me you're this oblivious. 

No, I'm that awake.  What's needed is not campaign finance limits, but extremely strong sunshine laws, perhaps coupled with some degree of public financing.  We would be much better off if our politicians spent their time on governing rather than on fundraising a dribble at a time.

[Beet]

Why do people think prohibiting politicians and parties from taking campaign donations will have any more success than prohibiting people from drinking alcohol or taking drugs?  It might not be nice to admit it, but money is the mother's milk of politics.

True, the ideal solution is a proper level of public funding for campaigns. And I don't see how having a 75 year old socialist lose by a 1984 style landslide would fix anything.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Why do people think prohibiting politicians and parties from taking campaign donations will have any more success than prohibiting people from drinking alcohol or taking drugs?  It might not be nice to admit it, but money is the mother's milk of politics.

Please don't tell me you're this oblivious. 

No, I'm that awake.  What's needed is not campaign finance limits, but extremely strong sunshine laws, perhaps coupled with some degree of public financing.  We would be much better off if our politicians spent their time on governing rather than on fundraising a dribble at a time.

This is about politicans, and therefore votes, being BOUGHT by a group that is becoming more exclusive and more rich.  Money corrupts dude.  Sunshine laws?  Do you think the Koch Bros. give a crap about who knows who they give money to?  Did the public knowledge of their mission to purchase North Carolina make a damn difference?  Enough with this attitude that these guys are gonna get money anyway so who cares.  Money is power.  Power is being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer.  Please explain why this is not a problem.