Both Sanders and Warren just voted for the bipartisan budget compromise bill

[Cali_Democrat]

Interesting.

Many folks who will try to tie this bill around Obama's neck will also have to throw Sanders and Warren under the bus.

Here's a DU discussion on some of the aspects of the bill:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024189685

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Then I trust it was the best alternative

Because I trust them both.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. "And Obama signs 'em... with gusto"

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Damn! You bet! nt

[Cali_Democrat]

12. Do you think Obama should veto the bill?

[MannyGoldstein]

13. I'm guessing not if Warren and Sanders voted for it. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

15. You seemed to be going after Obama on the budget prior to the Warren and Sanders votes

Talking about him only liking rich kids and smashing the poor. Warren votes for the budget an now you're lost.

This is hilarious.


BTW, legislation has to pass Congress first. Obama hasn't even signed the bill yet, but it seems now that Warren only likes rich kids and wants to smash the poor, right?

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Warren and Sanders want to increase Social Security

Obama wants to slash it.

Warren and Sanders want to stop giving our cash to bankers. Obama dines regularly with Jamie and Lloyd.

One set of actions garners trust. The other, the opposite.

Warren and Sanders may be in a position where they hate this deal, but see no better alternative - perhaps because the President won't veto it, and they worry that Murray will only negotiate a worse deal if they don't do this one.

[ProSense]

17. Is that

"Warren and Sanders want to stop giving our cash to bankers. Obama dines regularly with Jamie and Lloyd.

One set of actions garners trust. The other, the opposite. "

...really a correlation: "giving our cash to bankers" vs "dines regularly with" them?

What does dinner have to do with policy?

SEC Will Require Companies To Report CEO-To-Worker Pay Ratios
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023694931

Regulators Finalize Stricter Volcker Rule - Reuters/HuffPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024158305

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau gets busy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023372682

NLRB to Prosecute Wal-Mart For Violating Workers’ Rights (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024053560

Elizabeth Warren is doing great, and she is the first to acknowledge the progress made thus far to rein in financial institutions.

<...>

When I worked to set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I pushed hard for steps that would increase transparency in the marketplace. The crisis began one lousy mortgage at a time, and there is a lot we must do to make sure there are never again so many lousy mortgages .

CFPB made some important steps in the right direction, and I think we’re a lot safer than we were .

There is no question that Dodd-Frank was a strong bill—the strongest in three generations. I didn’t have a chance to vote for it because I wasn’t yet in the Senate, but if I could have, I would have voted for it twice.

Even so, the law is not perfect. And so it’s important to ask: Where are we now, five years after the crisis hit and three years after Dodd-Frank?

<...>

Powerful interests will fight to hang on to every benefit and subsidy they now enjoy. Even after exploiting consumers, larding their books with excessive risk, and making bad bets that brought down the economy and forced taxpayer bailouts, the big Wall Street banks are not chastened .

They have fought to delay and hamstring the implementation of financial reform, and they will continue to fight every inch of the way .

That’s the battlefield. That’s what we’re up against. But David beat Goliath with the establishment of CFPB and, just a few months ago, with the confirmation of Rich Cordray .

David beat Goliath with the passage of Dodd-Frank. We did that together – Americans for Financial Reform, the Roosevelt Institute, and so many of you in this room. I am confident David can beat Goliath on Too Big to Fail. We just have to pick up the slingshot again .

Thank you .

http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/AFR%20Roosevelt%20Institute%20Speech%202013-11-12.pdf

[MannyGoldstein]

20. One trillion dollars a year. To Jamie, Llloyd and the rest of the gang.

In exchange for junk assets.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-17/fed-s-4-trillion-assets-draw-lawmaker-ire-amid-bubble-concern.html

Keeping the bankers rolling in dough, and keeping asset prices artificially high. Including rents. Is it any wonder that homelessness among children is now at a record, and still climbing?

Meanwhile, anyone to the left of Reagan is persona non grata in the Banker White House.

[ProSense]

22. Ah, so

"One trillion dollars a year. To Jamie, Llloyd and the rest of the gang."

...it's your understanding that Obama created the Fed? Or are you suggesting the Republican alternative?

While any effort to rewrite the law establishing Fed powers lacks support from Democrats who control the Senate, the scrutiny is undesirable for central bankers who believe “independence is priceless,” said Laura Rosner, a U.S. economist at BNP Paribas SA in New York.

<...>

The Fed’s balance sheet exceeds the gross domestic product of Germany, the world’s fourth-largest economy. It’s enough to cover all U.S. federal government spending for more than a year. It could pay off all student and auto loans in the country with $2 trillion to spare, Fed data show. The central bank’s assets are set to exceed the $4.1 trillion held by BlackRock Inc., the world’s largest asset manager.

The third round of quantitative easing probably will total $1.54 trillion before it ends, bringing the balance sheet to $4.36 trillion, according to economists in the survey.

“This is a stimulus of the first order. It’s just unprecedented,” Alabama Republican Senator Richard Shelby said in an interview last week. “The Fed is an independent body, but we can point out what they’re doing.”

- more -

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-17/fed-s-4-trillion-assets-draw-lawmaker-ire-amid-bubble-concern.html

[MannyGoldstein]

23. "“I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen."

Meeting With All The Wrong People

1. Who appointed Bernanke to his position? Who re-appointed him?
2. How many times has Obama publicly decried the Fed's trillion-dollar-a-year banker bailout? For reference, how many times has he called for more middle-class-obliterating "free" trade bills?

[ProSense]

24. Again

“I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen."

...what does that have to do with policy: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024195799#post17

Since you're concerned about the middle class, here's a good article.

Obama Tells New Mayors He’ll Help Fight Inequality
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/nyregion/obama-tells-mayors-hell-help-fight-inequality.html

[MannyGoldstein]

25. So Presidents fill the White House with people they disagree with

And banish their allies.

Got it.

[ProSense]

26. I didn't

"So Presidents fill the White House with people they disagree with And banish their allies."

...say that, but that still doesn't mean dinner = policy.

[yeoman6987]

28. Warren and Sanders may be in a position where they hate this deal, but see no better alternative

They didn't need their votes for the bill to pass. Warren and Sanders obviously approved of the bill. They voted yes to add to the number of votes needed to pass. If they truly didn't like the bill then they should have gone with their principles and voted no.

[Jackpine Radical]

29. Warren & Sanders hare my overall perspective.

They are also in a position in which they sometimes have to make unpalatable choices. To demand everything is sometimes to get nothing.

I have no particular idea what underlies their vote here. It could be a calculation that more harm would arise from voting against. It could be that they're logrolling in order to get something else in another bill. Maybe they're just choosing their battles carefully and saving their oppositional votes for instances where the votes will actually matter. Who knows?

I sure as hell don't have the information needed to micromanage them; the most I can do is to judge where their hearts lie (based on other clear actions and statements) and trust that they continue to be true to their track record.

[KoKo]

34. I think what you say about they want another bill:

"It could be that they're logrolling in order to get something else in another bill."

I also think that from reading around that SS and Chained CPI were avoided because of backlash from both Bernie and Warren speaking out.

The down side was the increased military budget. But, if the saved more cuts in SS that means a lot to ordinary Americans. The way our military is going these days they might just implode on their own from backlash over drones, spying and supporting groups that are more interested in destabalizing the ME than bringing peace. Just my 2 cents.

[woo me with science]

32. Face it, Manny.

Our heroes are dead.

Sanders and Obama are exactly the same now. Exactly.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4198204

[MannyGoldstein]

35. I hadn't seen your linked post before. It's dead on.

Perhaps an OP?

[woo me with science]

39. Can you do it?

I'm tired, and yours are much better.

[Jackpine Radical]

36. I didn't see it either.

Definitely worth working into an OP.

And it really ties neatly to RW projection. "The Climate Change Theorists are just saying that stuff because they make so much money for it." (Like, who the hell is gonna pay big money for them to say that stuff?)

[woo me with science]

40. I think you or Manny should do it. :)

I'm not sure what I'd post, other than what I posted, but it sounds like you have some good thoughts in mind.

Thanks.

[scheming daemons]

37. you were bashing Obama "with gusto" over this budget...

... until seeing that Warren and Sanders voted for the budget, even though their votes weren't needed and so they were free to vote their consciences.

Apparently their consciences are OK with this budget.

You can do one of three things here:

1. Admit your criticism of Obama on the budget deal was misguided and wrong.
2. Admit your faith in Warren and Sanders was misplaced, since they are in favor of this budget.
3. Pretend you never said what you said.

You have been consistently wrong about Obama over and over and over again..... yet you never have the courage to go back and issue a mea culpa.

But you'll start another sarcastic thread, misrepresenting reality, and get your 200 recs from your sycophants and trolls to stroke your ego.

You're a coward, Manny. And those of us in the reality-based world have known it all along.

Read this post quick... because your posse will soon have it deleted.

[JoePhilly]

3. The purity police will look the other way on this I think.

Or maybe declare that Warren and Sanders fixed the deal and made it better.

The notion that they recognized the political reality and then voted accordingly might be too painful for some to admit.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. The purity police eventually have to deal with the fact that votes are taken and recorded

There's a record out there.

Many want to create fictitious politicians in their minds, but they don't exist in reality.

[JoePhilly]

8. Well said.

I like the response above mine.

This budget deal must not be bad, not because of the details, but only because Warren and Sanders agreed to it.

If some one said the same with regard to Obama, perhaps regarding the ACA, they would be (and have been) called a sycophant, or worse.

Ironic. And fun to watch.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. Yes...they refer to Obama as a corporatist lackey doing the bidding of the 1%

But they can't explain why people like Warren and Sanders vote with Obama time and time again.

It's utterly fascinating to watch.

[JustAnotherGen]

31. +100

[winter is coming]

5. Somewhere, a nativity scene is missing its straw. n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

14. Oh, for something this size it must be several. n/t

[quinnox]

6. -

[panader0]

9. Doesn't this deal mean that there will be no "hostage taking"?

No more bi-monthly budget crisis, no more shut down, etc. for two years?
I must admit that I haven't read the details but if the above is true, it would help sell the deal.

[former9thward]

38. No it doesn't.

Lifting the debt ceiling again is right around the corner and you can look forward to more hostages.

[LiberalAndProud]

11. On the other side of that coin, both Fischer and Hagel voted against.

So, do you think there might be a pattern here? hmm...

[jamzrockz]

18. Fischer and Hagel

will not get the benefit of the doubt on this. This just gives me more of a reason to vote against them next election. I know Hagel is retiring. But still F him

Wait a min, did you mean to say Johanns instead of Hagel? Hagel hasn't been a senator for quite a while now.

[LiberalAndProud]

19. I should have already edited this. It was Johanns, not Hagel.

It was Johanns, not Hagel. Chuck is currently our Secretary of Defense. This will probably not cost them their jobs, but they are reliably always on the wrong side of any given issue. Always.

[LWolf]

21. Predictable.

An OP that leads with Sanders and Warren, but isn't about them at all, but just another attempt to attack any who criticize Obama.

Because any political discussion, any position taken, must be about Obama, and the only correct position to take is staunch support no matter what the issue, because issues are always secondary to personality cults.

Please note that I have not, here or anywhere else at DU, expressed any opinion what so ever about the budget bill, with or without Obama.

Do you have something to say about the budget bill, or are you just feeding the neoliberal/liberal party divide? Can you discuss the pros and cons of the bill itself, or can you only attack and support politicians?

[djean111]

30. The use of "purity police" really really CMSU.

What would one call those who hyperventilate and shriek racist if anyone expresses a dislike of any of Obama's policies or anything else? Fucking purity police.
What would one call those who shrilly screech hater! if anyone dares criticize something like, say, the NSA - merely because this is happening while Obama is president? Ridiculous purity police.
Starting to read that stuff for the humor, really. Utter predictability is kinda funny.
And, guess what - it is all just words, nothing anyone here or in the general population says or does affects Obama. Unless there is really something to that bad chi thing, in which case maybe moving some furniture around might help.
Or perhaps criticism of Obama reflects on Hillary the Next?

Because any political discussion, any position taken, must be about Obama, and the only correct position to take is staunch support no matter what the issue, because issues are always secondary to personality cults.

Nailed it. And yeah, who exactly seems to be trying to divide the party? When someone says complete adulation or nothing, did they not consider that some will choose nothing? My way or the highway? Highway, please!

[winter is coming]

33. +1. I'm beginning to think there's a minimum number of threads per day that must be started

to defend the President's honor.

[abelenkpe]

27. Is this the deal that doesn't include extending long term unemployment? Nt