General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf Sanders's jobs bill doesn't pass, will he be accused of "not fighting hard enough" for it here?
I'm kind of curious how that will go down.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)I have no doubt about that.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)expects the Repugs to pass ant Dem bill.
So no.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that is the constant claim here, regarding President Obama ... he could have gotten {Insert policy here} if he had only fought harder for it.
I think that is the OP's point.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)between the President and a minority Senator.
It also seems at times that Obama doesn't even offer the progressive course of action. It's not a matter of trying harder, he sometimes doesn't even try.
We will never know if he could have gotten the public option because he took it off the table for example.
It's not true as much as some people claim, but at times he doesn't try hard enough, or it isn't really his agenda.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)But he sure has come up short when it comes to helping the working man and woman. Shareholders love him, banksters, and the establishment do too.
The snide underhanded remarks from some of you, op included, do nothing for the working people's unity and for our struggles. Ya'll should just stop.
Obama needs to have his feet held to the fire. Some of you lick his feet. Just stop.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Pointing out the double standard being applied to this President, might be seen as snide underhanded remarks; but, applying an double standard, does nothing to aid the working class, either.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)What are you up to?
Are you protecting a weak president and in doing so compare him to a senator, just to make the weak president to look better in our eyes?
This type of thread is just bullshit, crapola. F'n embarrassing for DU. Ya'll should just stop.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and answered, "No" ... I am not protecting a weak president and in doing so compare him to a senator, just to make the weak president to look better in our eyes ... I am pointing out the double standard is (and has been) applied to this Democratic President.
For this to occur on DU; but more, to deny this is occurring IS (or should be) f'ng embarrassing for DU. But it isn't.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)So, you criticize DU for not reaching your standards.
DU has no power, but the president of the US does.
Yet all you do is criticize the powerless.
Victim blaming is all it is and it's BS.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)sheshe2
(83,747 posts)These days Obama S**ks when he inhales and when he exhales. As noted by that last poster.
Geeze....usss.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)3 responses and out.
Or, in this case, I would have lead with a Civics lesson on the role of the POTUS; then, within that context, provide a list of the progressive initiatives President Obama has put forward; then, explain life in the real world of politics, i.e., In big legislation, you never bring to the table that which you don't have nearly the votes (in your own caucus) to pass ... you don't get a second shot ...
But alas ... it's the New Year, so I refrained.
randys1
(16,286 posts)what would work and what wouldnt.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We know there weren't enough votes.
There wasn't time to take some big stand on it where we'd end up looking like losers when we had to give it up.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I mean, literally, he tried to establish Medicare as a universal program and couldn't, even with majorities that Obama could only dream of, and Republicans who were willing to vote with him.
So, no, we know Johnson couldn't because he tried and wasn't able to.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)If we had Obama's back and supported him more strongly, we could have kept Congress blue or made it bluer and by now we might have a public option.
The continual claiming Obama is personally not as good as LBJ is a dumb point. LBJ is long dead. He was white in a time when white men had unfair power, too, so the comparison is never a fair one.
Times are different now. Bullying is no longer admired and does not work. Use of LBJ to put down Obama is execrable.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the first time, President Obama did anything approaching LBJ's arm-twisting?
Yes, it is truly a different day, politically and for politicians.
Response to treestar (Reply #46)
treestar This message was self-deleted by its author.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)Geez.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)are the minority Party in the Senate.
All the Dems are minority Senators.
The GOP are majority Senators.
Therefore the GOP can keep Dem Bills from making it out of committee.
Jeez yourself.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)There are 12 democrats and 10 republicans. Sanders is the leader. He will have more power than he has ever had.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)The GOP took over the Senate?
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/227175-senate-gop-announces-new-committee-assignments
They gain seats.
sheshe2
(83,747 posts)It will always be about how much Obama sucks. ALWAYS.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)I was explaining why Sanders isn't in the same situation Obama and why hedoe get some responsibility for things.
Wall Street prosecutions is another area he gets some blame for.
A minority Senator is not the same.
on point
(2,506 posts)Obama's problem is he proposes bad things that he doesn't have to (like chained CPI or TPP), or caves immediately in negotiations with the repukes, or doesn't veto bad things he should.
Sanders proposes and goes the distance, even if he loses.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)President Obama has put forth Jobs Initiatives.
Weigh what was gained through President Obama's "caving", versus what would have been lost had he not "caved." (Note: I do not see taking what can be got, "caving" ... I do, however, view vanity/ego statuses, as stupid)
Please list the "bad legislation" that President Obama should have vetoed. Thank you.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)on point
(2,506 posts)Obama doesn't get a pass from me on his horrible proposals
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)proof....
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)tricky and insinuate that people here give more respect to Sen Sanders than the President. Not sure why he can't come right out and say it in lieu of the insinuations. And I think you are exaggerating the "constant claim here".
I do remember a claim by progressive back in 2011 that the President wasn't trying hard enough to close Gitmo. But now those that are applauding his going the extra mile (fighting harder for) now, don't see the irony.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I am predicting, confidently, that
1. Sanders's jobs bill won't get any farther than Obama's past six have, and
2. Sanders will not face the criticism for that failure here like Obama has, despite actually having a vote in the committee and the Senate, which Obama doesn't.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)quite a few times. His soft-sell on torture crimes, his secret TPP, his siding with the NSA/CIA Security State, Arne Duncan, etc.
You OP was quite clear to me that you are upset that Sen Sanders gets more respect than the President. Your insinuations are clear.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)giving a pass for, what you would/have previously criticized ... what we have here is a plain old double standard.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)especially, when the context is obvious.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Who needs to motivate.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Response to Recursion (Reply #26)
aspirant This message was self-deleted by its author.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That's Presidency-obsession. The POTUS has to do it all with no help, even where it could easily be given.
Response to Recursion (Original post)
Autumn This message was self-deleted by its author.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Here is a remark - from YOU - in the thread about this bill, yesterday -
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6037999
Of course he isn't trying to get this passed. He's grandstanding.
Just like his introducing single payer every single year. There's nothing wrong with that in particular, but it doesn't actually do anything.
So, I find your question a little odd.
Autumn
(45,064 posts)it. Thanks for the post.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Its failure has been blamed, by many on DU, on his unwillingness to "fight" for it. So, I'm curious if the same criticism will be leveled at Sanders, and if not, why not?
djean111
(14,255 posts)Also, I believe the TPP has some provisions against specifically hiring Americans and/or buying American goods and materials, and promotes sending jobs offshore - so a politician who is pushing the TPP does not, somehow, seem as sincere as a politician who is against the TPP.
Bernie Sanders has always seemed to be a fighter to me. And seems to operate with a bit more transparency than Obama. So, we shall see. Never hurts to keep submitting bills like this, either, keeps the issues front and center.
Maybe Obama should ask Jamie Dimon to whip votes for his jobs bill.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Do you? Why?
Bernie Sanders has always seemed to be a fighter to me.
Why?
And seems to operate with a bit more transparency than Obama.
Who are his five largest campaign donors?
djean111
(14,255 posts)do not care for anyone to challenge Hillary or the TPP, or whatever. You will not change anyone's mind about who they support, and it just may be that there will be other candidates who are Not Hillary, and are Progressive/liberal, will show up and grab some of Bernie's supporters. Nt a personality contest.
Anyway, I believe that all contracts over a certain amount must be open globally.
http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=5414
The procurement chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would require that all firms operating in any signatory country be provided equal access as domestic firms to U.S. government procurement contracts over a certain dollar threshold. To implement this "national treatment" requirement, the U.S. would agree to waive Buy American procurement policies for all of the firms operating in the TPP countries.
Some corporate TPP proponents argue that this is good for America because these rules would apply to all signatory countries, so U.S. firms would be able to bid on procurements contracts in other countries on a national treatment basis. The notion that new access for some U.S. companies to bid on contracts in the TPP countries is a good trade-off for waiving Buy American preferences on U.S. procurement is ridiculous: Taking even the most favorable cut on other countries' markets, the total U.S. procurement market is about twice the size of the combined procurement market of all other TPP negotiating parties: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.
I don't think non-American firms who get contracts will necessarily be hiring Americans.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The procurement clause applies to government contracts, not the private sector. And it will surprise me if that clause passes.
djean111
(14,255 posts)cut out, it is all or nothing, no exclusions, no additions, just an up and down vote.
An infrastructure jobs bill would seem to be a government contract sort of thing, I would think.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)joshcryer
(62,270 posts)It's always been continuing resolutions.
Obama's introduced budgets were the most progressive budgets since I'd say FDR.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)said yesterday that this is the first challenge to our new rulers. Here is what the people want now what are you Rs going to do about it.
The Rs understand that if it does not pass they will be held accountable.
tblue
(16,350 posts)I Bernie Sanders precisely because he is consistent and always fights for exactly the right thing. Integrity is precious, especially in this day and age.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Because that's how it's framed in this neck of the woods these days.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)First you need to show us how his bill can pass. If not the question is mute.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I think it's a great bill. I think it would be awesome if it passed. I also think Sanders has no illusions about its passing, any more than I do.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Senate Budget Committee?
Of course he doesn't have illusions but that doesn't stop every other Senator from sponsoring legislation that fails to become law and this is a Senator that actually got a bill to become law in 2013.
On edit - He has sponsored legislation infrastructure jobs bills while Reid was Majority leader but you can also find examples here at DU of people doing the "Why isn't his legislation passing?" game.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)and one of the better parts of the law.
I just want to be clear, again, that I'm tweaking DU, not Sanders.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)That gives him a bit more power.
But yeah, Sanders isn't known for fighting for legislation and getting people to co-sponser.
treestar
(82,383 posts)At least it is when President Obama can't get a bill like that out of a Republican Congress.
lamp_shade
(14,828 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)those same causes through his contrary actions.
QC
(26,371 posts)If Sanders pretends publicly to support his bill but privately undermines it, then he will deserve criticism.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)When Reid still had the gavel.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)If you think that Sen Sanders is trying to do something, why don't you present your case in lieu of the tricky (?) questions?
QC
(26,371 posts)It's a popular strategy among those who don't want to commit themselves to a position but do want to provoke others.
There's also a term for those whose participation in a forum is intended solely to provoke and antagonize other participants, but we're not allowed to say it here.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Offering sensible legislation that would help people if it passed.
It won't pass.
I'm predicting a double standard in DU's response to Sanders's bill not passing and Obama's jobs bill proposal not passing.
QC
(26,371 posts)and wants to make the president look bad.
Or it could be because he's the ranking minority member of a relevant committee now.
Or it could be because he believes that total teabagger control of the Congress makes it more important than ever before to put forth an alternative economic/social vision.
There are many possibilities. Perhaps you could share your own take on the issue, rather than engage in this coy wink-wink-nudge-nudge business that's nowhere near as clever as you imagine it to be.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I imagine a lot of ranking members will put forward good bills now.
My point is that the failure of Obama's legislative initiatives are blamed here on the idea that Obama didn't "fight" for them (whatever that means). I am predicting that the failure of Sanders's jobs bill will not be blamed here on Sanders's not "fighting".
kentuck
(111,082 posts)...and there is the impossible. The fight should be only for the possible.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)This is probably one of them. I want to make clear I'm not criticizing Sanders here.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)bills that show the country that we at least would if we could. This is not a new way to point out the difference between the two parties. We want jobs they do not. The only way they can change that is to vote for the bill.
kentuck
(111,082 posts)It's good to make a stand, if only for show.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)it's making a "statement" ... the difference being, one is a line not to be crossed, the other is a line that produces benefit, if crossed.
The former is tactical; the latter, is strategic.
kentuck
(111,082 posts)Thanks!
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)While I like the political ground he stakes out, I want to see him develop followship before I'll have confidence in a Sanders presidential run.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)His 2013 report card - https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357/report-card/2013
Here's something a little more recent -- http://thehill.com/policy/defense/208396-sanders-mccain-reach-deal-on-va-bill
He is also in the top 5% in working with the House.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)joshcryer
(62,270 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)If Sanders' Jobs Bill doesn't pass, it will somehow be Obama's fault.
Sid
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)No doubt!
Obama should have written the bill and fought for it to start - and should not have expected any help from Bernie or Liz!!!!!!
As long as Bernie or Liz are not President, no one can ever disprove the assertion that they would have been real leaders and gotten Congress to follow!!!! After all, what we really need in a Congress is that they follow the President. The rest of us can criticize him but Congress should be fawning BOGGERs.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Example, all of the politicians who have sputtered out their intolerant views toward LGBT people over the years tried really hard and yet they failed. All of the 'I'm a Christian, God is in the mix, we are allowed to discriminate' people lost. Their ideas lost. But we remember how hard the moderate centrists and conservatives fought and spewed and cursed us, we remember the hate preachers and the declarations of sanctity.
They fought and they lost. 'Only civil unions are possible'. They also fought and they also lost. We remember them too.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)It is clear when someone fights for something, and loses despite doing everything they could.
It is also clear when someone doesn't fight, and loses.
It's not that difficult to tell the difference.
JanMichael
(24,885 posts)It is the old "better killed on my feet than live on my knees" quote that many have used.
You can usually tell when a fight was had and lost as opposed to no real fight ever taking place.
Weirdly I just defended the idiots that ran the NC marriage vote to keep marriage limited. They did fight a losing cause and have obviously lost but at least their supporters know that they fought for them regardless of their loss. Big difference there.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Only in prison and on the school yard ... losing in politics is a loss that diminishes the ability to fight and win later.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)That is invariably what is said about strong and independent people. Narcissists trying to "stay relevant". God, why am I still here? I feel like Methuselah sometimes.
JanMichael
(24,885 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)So, if the failure of Obama's jobs bill is because he didn't "fight" hard enough, wouldn't the failure of Sanders' bill reflect even more badly on him?
JanMichael
(24,885 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)But this won't happen. Bernie is a TRUE LEADER. He will lead those Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats down the right path!!!! With Elizabeth Warren bringing up the rear!
You'll get the usual claim that he is not President, and that is the only powerful position in our government.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Some bills will have several supporters names listed (even R names sometimes, lol!), other bills will have very little support. Try a search with the bills name/number listed and you may find it easier.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Obama has tried for infrastructure repair and he did not receive a bill on his desk to sign so if asking for a bill is fighting hard enough is good enough for Bernie then it is good enough for Obama.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)You can read how many times the bill has been presented for debate/discussion on the floor.
Most of the bills & riders added to bills never get public 'news' coverage. I'm not sure but I think it's Congress (Boehners gang) who keep the infrastructure repair bill off the presidents desk. They know he will sign it.
We have the worse Congress in history, they don't care that shelving bills means harm to Americans and our economy.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Plans to contact. This is a problem, bills gets sponsored, they go to a committee and die there, those who sponsor them don't care enough to push the bill through the committee and if the bill gets out of committee they don't fight to get it passed. Yes this has been the worst congress ever and nothing to get bills passed. Sponsoring a bill is small compared to getting it passed, this us the fight.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)But sometimes they do pass if there is 'public pressure' and that's letters, emails and calls to your reps. They keep track of citizen contacts and tallys count for something. That's what Obama meant when he said "Make me"
One issue dear to my heart took a couple years of 'public pressure'. Thousands of contact to our gov. officials. I even 'nagged' in a nice way President O. on the white house 'contact' webmail. Then Biden met face to face and talked with a couple from my group. Biden got the issue in a bill early last year as a 'rider'. And it passed!
Also like to think I had a small hand in finally getting rid of Salazar. That took 6+ years to get him to resign his perch.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Bernie needs to talk to other senators and ask them to support his bill. If he is fighting to support the working people then he needs to be pushing his bill and get the votes to get the bill passed. Senators needs to promote their bills, get them through committees, make deals with other senators to work with them on bills they may sponsor, it is working together if he is serious about getting the infrastructure repair.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)You see, He Walks on Water. He's pure and flawless and can do no wrong.
phantom power
(25,966 posts)I get the sense (based on the use of the term Green-Lantern) that when people such as myself say "Obama should advocate more liberal policy X" that other people interpret that as "we want him to advocate liberal policy X because we think that will make it pass." I can only speak for myself, but my thinking is more like: "Obama should advocate liberal policy X because such advocacy moves the Overton window back toward the left, over time"
The Conservatives get this. Back in the 70s and 80s they advocated all kinds of stuff that didn't fly, but they never quit either. Now, 40 years later, their political philosophies are ascendant.
I like to see people such as Sanders, or Warren, or Obama, advocating liberal policies not because I think it will magically make them happen (green-lantern style), but because that is what has to happen to start moving the Overton window back from the conservative abyss.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)This is me being irritated at DU, not at Sanders.
onecaliberal
(32,831 posts)To get his message out. He is trying to educate people. I don't see many others doing that. You are trying to compare apples to oranges.
In case you weren't paying attention democrats ran away from the positive things POTUS had done during the last election cycle. They weren't defending their policy. Bernie stands for something, for the people. Always. He isn't for these fucking trade deals or nominating walls streeters to regulate wall street. He isn't for cutting pension or social security or unemployment benefits. He fights for vets and students.
dawg
(10,624 posts)Or will he just blather on about how it wouldn't have passed anyway?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)He's ranking member and bills like this are what being ranking member is about.
dawg
(10,624 posts)Most liberals don't blame Democratic politicians for losing votes in Washington. We blame them for not even trying.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Will Sanders face the same attacks on DU about "not trying" that Obama has, when his bill fails like Obama's have?
dawg
(10,624 posts)People will say that the American people would never vote for someone so "radical" to be their President, despite the fact that opinion polls consistently show that voters' opinions are much closer to Sanders on domestic issues than they are to the "centrists" the party keeps insisting upon.
onecaliberal
(32,831 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)question would be reasonable and valid.
There is a republican RW extremist majority in the House and Senate, which you already know.
Which leads us to wonder why you would post such an apparently senseless, unreasonable question.
What is your agenda here?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If Obama's jobs bills have failed because he, apparently, didn't "fight" hard enough, I'm saying it's hypocritical to not similarly attack Sanders should his bill fail, since people seem to think "fighting" is what gets bills passed.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)are corporate property. Most people recognize when someone does the right thing, even if it is largely symbolic.
So over the past six years, even with large Democratic majorities, it has been impossible to pass any necessary progressive legislation that goes against the wishes of the financial centers.
During the first two years of the Obama administration, Democratic legislators could be accused of not fighting hard enough for constructive, effective progressive legislation if it was clear they were not supporting it and promoting it in earnest, at least making a sincere effort.
The ineffectiveness of the Obama administration and large Democratic majorities in getting critical progressive legislation passed led to the awful situation we are in now, with fascists having large majorities in both the House and Senate.
Through their ineffectiveness during the first two years of the Obama administration, Democrats either deliberately or foolishly lost all the political capital they had gained in the 2008 elections. water under the bridge, yes, but it happened and many people lost faith in the Democratic party and we will continue to pay for Democrat's squandering our capital for generations if, not forever.
Now, unfortunately the Democratic Party is basically done. Stick a fork in it. It created a hopeless situation for America during those first two years of the Obama administration, and the best that real Democrats can hope for now is a few necessary changes in the social aspects of life in America, clever Executive Orders, and a busy and effective veto pen in the Oval Office.
For anything else, mass non-violent revolution is the only way to regain any semblance of democracy in America.
I support Bernie Sanders for President. But I know that the 1% will never allow him to be nominated for POTUS, let alone become President, even if elected. I know they already have their candidate groomed and ready to go for the election. They don't really care who wins, as long as they don't try to go against their global financial affairs
They wouldn't even allow Al Gore become POTUS, even after he was elected, so obviously, they're not going to let a real Democrat (I know, he's an independent) like Bernie near the White House.
It's all bullshit; the only reason I'm even here supporting the Democratic party is because Democrats are generally much better than republicans. So, as part of my microscopic capacity to try to bring about constructive change, I am making a sincere effort to do promote Democrats doing the right thing, even if it has become largely a symbolic gesture.
So what am I going to do? Obviously, I need to do everything in my power politically to ensure that Jeb Bush does not become President. So I'll eventually have to support Democratic Corporate Candidate "X" in order to do what I can to prevent another deadly fascist from becoming the Commander in Chief of the US.
I really don't like not ever having any real options in my choices for who I permit to govern me. I have no doubt whatsoever that the only way can institute democracy and bring about change for the 99% is mass non-violent revolution.
And there ain't much hope of that happening either, so long as people continue to sit, hypnotized and homogenized to the point of insipid, in front of their much beloved television.
"fighting" is never really defined. It's this dumb macho sounding bit that is truly meaningless.
OnionPatch
(6,169 posts)He doesn't say one thing and then do the other. He doesn't stand for one thing in front of one group of people and then allude to the opposite in front of another. I can't say the same for most politicians, so no, I personally wouldn't accuse him of not fighting hard enough. I KNOW what he stands for and how hard he fights, which is why I love him and probably why so many other people do.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)What does that phrase mean? How does a politician "fight"? (Short of caning-of-Charles-Sumner stuff, which I hope isn't what people are advocating.)
OnionPatch
(6,169 posts)But I assume for a politician it means they are consistent and reliable about where they stand and vocal about the issues they care about. Fighting hard would be the opposite of merely giving lip service.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)He'll fight for it as hard as he can as a single Senator with no special clout.
Your disingenuous attempt to compare his capabilities to that of a president is laughable.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)I don't wonder whether Obama will sign a bill that says if Wall Street loses a bunch of money in risky derivatives they can rob the taxpayers to get it back. I mean no one would do anything like that to us after what Wall Street did in 2008 right?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)A lot of people here seem to be.
The FDIC is funded by fees from banks.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)not for Wall Streets failed investments.
I'm under the impression that I already bailed Wall Street out, yes they played risky games and I ENDED UP PAYING FOR IT. While I can't afford my wives medications assholes are partying on my fucking dime. Democrats and Republicans not only allowed this to happen but passed a bill so that it can happen all over again, legally. If you want to stand up for that well, you just made the ignore list. Buh Bye.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If Bank of America buys some hedges that go south and is in debt for a trillion dollars, the FDIC will not bail that out. The FDIC will bail out the insured deposits in the retail checking accounts. And it won't cost the taxpayers anything.
I'm under the impression that I already bailed Wall Street out, yes they played risky games and I ENDED UP PAYING FOR IT.
No, you didn't. The government made money on TARP.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)and I already feel about of snark fatigue coming on.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Employee Non Discrimination Act. Since 1994, every Congress but the 109th has failed to get it passed both chambers. The first form of the bill, called the Equality Act, was introduced in 1974 and it of course did not pass and did not pass in several subsequent attempts in later Congresses. This is a process started by Bella Abzug and Ed Koch in the House, both of them are dead and the process has not yet completed.
Each person who has sponsored, advanced, fought for or even voted for these bills did the right thing while those who stood by or even voted against them did the wrong thing and are on record as having done so.
Only an idiot would say that Bell Abzug did not fight hard enough because a bill she was right to put forward was rejected by people who were wrong to do so.
And only a fool would look at a legislative body that can take decades to resolve a simple employment discrimination injustice and suggest not starting the ball rolling as soon as possible on anything we want to do at any time in the future. Let them vote it down until the bridges start falling. But make them vote it down. Don't not introduce an idea because they won't like it. That is moderate centrist nonsense.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)No days off until all their work is done.
When Pres. O took office they had windows XP in the white house and our DOI used papermaps! Our Veterans had paper files medical records, some files were 2 feet thick.
He has done so much to 'upgrade' everything but we still have a long way to go. This worse Congress in history has not helped at all. I agreed when President Obama called them 'Selfish and Sloths'.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Warpy
(111,253 posts)People on Main Street are just stupid marks to them, people they con votes out of every couple of years so the GOP can keep on stealing them blind.
Rex
(65,616 posts)He is a scary anti-Wall Street SOCIALIST! Authoritarian/Turd Way types are just as scared of that word as hardcore repukes. He will be lambasted by those that hate anything but the status quo.
So now "fighting hard" for something is the new speak for doing your fucking job? Pathetic...a few days into 2015 and already with the propaganda. It seems to never end.
I think all politicians fight like hell to get what they want...good or bad for the nation. They all have an agenda, some even pretend it is for 'the people'. Even dumber ones believe it.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)abandoned by it's original author.
I'm not sure when it was decided that anyone's effort was being measured by passage, making me wonder why the assumption is baked into the cake of the question.
I've been following politics a while, I've not noticed any widespread acceptance of such a school of thought except from corporate conservatives lamely attempting to poke fun at the liberals they stymie and frustrate while feigning solidarity and as a weirdly desperate defense for advancing bad legislation ie "it isn't law so that proves it was never really on the agenda" by similar or the same folks.
Is the framing of the question an indicator of your own school of thought and if not then why assume it is motivating anyone else's?
Cha
(297,167 posts)I would never accuse either one of them of not "fighting hard enough".. that would be a silly lie.
840high
(17,196 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)What do you see that convinces you of that?
840high
(17,196 posts)cares about the 99%.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I asked what do you see that convinces you he "fights"? (And by implication I'm asking what "fight" means to you.)