US congress poisoned spending bill

[MathiasOfAthens]

I saw no thread on this which I thought was odd... surely someone else gives a .

Like the $1000 dollars a month every congressmember now gets to spend on a new car. Or the,
Blocking of Marijuana in DC which was legalized by the voters there. Which is the equivalent of Congress passing a law blocking Marijuana in say Colorado or Seattle.
Corporations can now block pensions of their workers.
Housing Assistance for the homeless? Nope cant afford that... we need new cars. Cuts $300 million from that.
Loan collectors need $300 million dollars so lets cut $300 million from grants to low income students and give it to Corporations.

Wasnt this a GODDAMN ING Spending bill to fund ING Congress?

Oh and wall-street can gamble with taxpayer backed savings...
IRS enforcement budget is being cut... Good idea?
Repeals the "swaps pushout rule" and allows taxpayer backed banks to gamble with high risk instruments. The swaps were a key driver of the last recession.
The bill gives the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) a $250 million budget, which is $65 million less than what the White House asked for and $30 million less than the maximum CFTC budget that would have been allowed under last year’s long-term budget deal. Whistleblowers have already said the agency is understaffed and the staff are overworked and stressed. $50 million of that budget is required to be spent in information technology. Upgrading systems, etc. Why not give $50 million to the Veterans Agency or the IRS so they can upgrade their technology? Nope, the idea is to weaken the agency that polices wall-street. Now the agency's workers will be more stressed while regulating the financial agency.
Finally congress repeals those pesky laws requiring drivers of large trucks to sleep every once and awhile. Surely the real winners here are the corporations that can get their products to their destination sooner.
The cromnibus moves the decimal point on that cap 32,400, allowing annual contributions of up to $324,000 to the Republican or Democratic national committees. Because allowing only donations to the GOP would be corruption to even the dumbest of political observers.

Source (includes links to other sources for each claim.

Is this country ed and just plainly corrupt now? Honestly, seems that way to me.

The investigation into the Bush era torture are nothing but cover for congress to pass this POS deal. Congress is nothing but corrupt. And sadly to say Obama too is ing corrupt to support this POS. Besides Ron Paul the only one opposing this ing is Sarah Palin. Bless her soul. Oh nevermind, she only cares that it doesnt block Obamas immigration efforts.

[Raubritter]

Just more ranting about something other peoples government do.

[Phier]

Lovely rant but think progress isn't a source.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Think progress is a damn source and everything I wrote is true and not hard to ing believe? Why are you denying what I wrote and claiming my sources are not sources Phier... not even you agree with any of this .

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opi..._spending_bill
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6312078.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/12/po...g-bill-friday/
http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/...nt-5949596.php

Are you going to deny these sources as well as liberal propaganda?

Here is Fox news: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...d=cmty_plus_fn

Their only point on financial changes is at the bottom of the page "Warren, now a member of leadership, has fought the bill in an effort to preserve the financial regulatory policy known as Dodd-Frank. Debate in the Senate on the main spending bill could easily last several more days." In the video fox news makes notion that warren doesnt like it for repealing parts of dodd frank but do they go in-depth? No... god no. Political motivations and the next election in 2016 is far more important.

Harry Reid claims this is compromise. that this is corruption? How the is corruption a compromise? Oh we compromise and fund government by giving republicans $1000 a month for a new car and helping banks taxpayers?

[The Despondent Mind]

I really really hope all of this is not true.

[Raubritter]

Progressives have this feeling about themselfs as if they themself would be the only people who know how things should be, when in reality they are just annoying louds.

[Phier]

If Nancy Pelosi is complaining, then its fine.

I only read of the Huf-Po one and of course it only cited those against it, and all democrats. Its huff-po after all..

From from the gist of it, the wall street thing has never been enforced yet, so this is just continuing whats been going on, and my guess is there is a good reason for it, and not the usual reason the far left in this country spews.

In other words, I don't care.

[chilon]

If Nancy Pelosi is complaining, then its fine.
Translation:
I will always go against anything Nancy Pelosi says because she is a Democrat leader.

I only read of the Huf-Po one and of course it only cited those against it, and all democrats. Its huff-po after all..
Translation:
Fox News is the only legitimate media source to quote.

From from the gist of it, the wall street thing has never been enforced yet, so this is just continuing whats been going on, and my guess is there is a good reason for it, and not the usual reason the far left in this country spews.
Translation:
I really don't know anything about this issue but if Nancy Pelosi is against it, I am for it.

In other words, I don't care.
Translation:
I just post to wind up liberals.

[Big War Bird]

Don't see anything poisonous there. I see minor policy adjustments.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Am I that far to the left now that all of this is considered OK to Americans?

I really really hope all of this is not true.

Unfortunately, it is true. These sources are not thedailymail but Bostonglobe and Huffington post which doesnt usually lie.

Progressives have this feeling about themselfs as if they themself would be the only people who know how things should be, when in reality they are just annoying louds.

Progressives often know that they themselves are the best because the world revolves around us. Obviously.

No but seriously man congressional staff are pouring over this bill and relaying the information to the press like CNN and Huff.

If Nancy Pelosi is complaining, then its fine.

I only read of the Huf-Po one and of course it only cited those against it, and all democrats. Its huff-po after all..

From from the gist of it, the wall street thing has never been enforced yet, so this is just continuing whats been going on, and my guess is there is a good reason for it, and not the usual reason the far left in this country spews.

In other words, I don't care.

Nancy is from SF I would be surprised if she supported this.

The GOP have been cutting the enforcement budget for years now so it would be tough to enforce something without money. But the bill specifically repeals parts of Dodd-Frank bill like preventing banks with taxpayer backing to invest in high risk instruments. The "swaps pushout rule" is the largest policy adjustment here and the most dangerous imo.

Don't see anything poisonous there. I see minor policy adjustments.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/1...d-derivatives/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1...c-and-sec.html

The "Swaps pushout rule" in the 2010 Dodd-Frank law contains a provision that forces banks to spin off certain of the derivatives trading activities into units that don’t enjoy access to the government safety net (like federal insurance on bank deposits and the ability to tap the Fed for emergency loans). The idea is to protect taxpayers from having to bail out banks the next time bets made with these complex products sour — as happened in the 2008 crisis. The law specifically targets swaps, which are a type of derivative product that allow financial firms and their clients to hedge against risks or wager on an asset’s value. Now the banks will once again be able to gamble with taxpayer money by repeating the same investments they did in the last recession. Usually people wait decades before repeating the same mistake. These swaps nearly destroyed the American International Group Inc. at the brink of the 2008 crisis.

[Big War Bird]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/1...d-derivatives/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1...c-and-sec.html

The "Swaps pushout rule" in the 2010 Dodd-Frank law contains a provision that forces banks to spin off certain of the derivatives trading activities into units that don’t enjoy access to the government safety net (like federal insurance on bank deposits and the ability to tap the Fed for emergency loans). The idea is to protect taxpayers from having to bail out banks the next time bets made with these complex products sour — as happened in the 2008 crisis. The law specifically targets swaps, which are a type of derivative product that allow financial firms and their clients to hedge against risks or wager on an asset’s value. Now the banks will once again be able to gamble with taxpayer money by repeating the same investments they did in the last recession. Usually people wait decades before repeating the same mistake. These swaps nearly destroyed the American International Group Inc. at the brink of the 2008 crisis.

I carefully read your sources and both indicate that this is a minor policy adjustment.

From the first source:

"Former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke was among those who questioned its efficacy: “It’s not evident why that makes the company as a whole safer. And what we do see is that it will likely increase costs of people who use the derivatives and make it more difficult for the bank to compete with foreign competitors,” he said in 2013."

". . . banks would still have to spin off certain swaps operations in what are called “structured finance swaps” – a complex product designed to protect against losses on asset-backed securities. These were the kinds of swaps that helped bring American International Group Inc. to the brink of failure in the 2008 financial crisis."

:it doesn’t chip away at any of what the White House considers the central planks of Dodd Frank, such as the Volcker rule, which bans banks from making risky bets with the firm’s money."

Frankly I am not sure what to make of someone who considers technical aspects of banking regulation to be sacred ground.

[chilon]

Don't see anything poisonous there. I see minor policy adjustments.

You have no problem with using free riders on gigantic omnibus spending bills to ninja through pork barrel (and sometimes shadier) legislation?

So basically you have no issue with small sets of lawmakers circumventing the intended process and point of a budget in order to ninja through pork barrel and ideological changes?

[Big War Bird]

You have no problem with using free riders on gigantic omnibus spending bills to ninja through pork barrel (and sometimes shadier) legislation?

So basically you have no issue with small sets of lawmakers circumventing the intended process and point of a budget in order to ninja through pork barrel and ideological changes?

If you are going there then you pretty much have to oppose every spending bill, which would put you both to the right of Ted Cruz and to the left of E. Warren.

[chilon]

If you are going there then you pretty much have to oppose every spending bill, which would put you both to the right of Ted Cruz and to the left of E. Warren.

Is every post you make going to fall guilty of the "is - ought to" fallacy?

I asked a simple question about whether or not you are perfectly happy with a political system whereby the majority inserts free riders to get across benefits to special interests or pork barrel?

Everyone knows its the party in power that is gaming conforming to the specific wording of the rules every way they can in order to not really do their job efficiently or properly but rather to further either personal ideological interests or targeted special interests.

You seem to be perfectly OK with that and seem to believe anyone who even questions it is at the same time extreme right wing and extreme left wing.

I guess you think people from Rand Paul to John McCain are both extreme right and left wing as well.

Also, the notion that spending bills shouldn't be ways to ninja in pretty freaking important financial rules that affect the very crisis we are still feeling the effects of is pretty down to earth common sense. Willing to bet a vast majority of Americans would agree with that if asked.
If some Wall Street wants to change the financial rules imposed on them because they ed up the economy the last time they talked Congress into letting them have free reign,at the least it should be done properly in its own bill voted on in Congress and open for public debate.

You do realize that most other first world countries with elections have limits on campaign advertising spending right?

Norway for instance bans all TV and radio political ads.

[Gaidin]

Senate hasn't voted yet. Ironically Cruz and Warren are unofficially on the same side even if they're not talking to each other, if for different reasons.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Spending bills should be just focused on the budget. Not on ideological issues and definitely not pork issues like repealing laws.

[Big War Bird]

I believe in fighting battles one at a time. If this bill is too much for you stomach then call your representative and urge him to oppose it. I have done so from time to time. Can't say I ever called about banking regulation though.

I've posted many condemnations of a political system in that has put everyone in bed with everyone else. And I know I am well outside the mainstream for it.

I am not opposed, in principle at least, to pork barrel spending. It means Congress has tighter control over the budget and the management of the nation is less in the hands of unelected bureaucrats.

[Roma_Victrix]

Frankly I am not sure what to make of someone who considers technical aspects of banking regulation to be sacred ground.

I believe in fighting battles one at a time. If this bill is too much for you stomach then call your representative and urge him to oppose it. I have done so from time to time. Can't say I ever called about banking regulation though.

Really? After the global economy went into a massive recession in the 2008 financial meltdown, you don't see the regulation of the derivatives market as a priority and something to fix? It's certainly not going in the right direction. That should concern you and everyone else, if only because you're a tax-paying citizen who surely has some money in the bank and some tied up in the financial system. That very same money is being gambled with at the highest order by those on Wall Street, day in and day out. I know that, from your ideological point of view, less government regulation of the free market makes for a fairer, healthier system, but certainly not in this case. Wall Street has become one giant casino for the banks that use our money in their bets on the derivatives market that's worth $700 trillion. And when they crash the economy again, they'll be looking to rob you twice-fold by seeking another TARP bailout with tax-payer's money.

So in sum, if the banks betting on the derivatives market win, they keep the cash. If they lose, we pay even more to bail them out.

[Thorn777]

Really? After the global economy went into a massive recession in the 2008 financial meltdown, you don't see the regulation of the derivatives market as a priority and something to fix? It's certainly not going in the right direction. That should concern you and everyone else, if only because you're a tax-paying citizen who surely has some money in the bank and some tied up in the financial system. That very same money is being gambled with at the highest order by those on Wall Street, day in and day out. I know that, from your ideological point of view, less government regulation of the free market makes for a fairer, healthier system, but certainly not in this case. Wall Street has become one giant casino for the banks that use our money in their bets on the derivatives market that's worth $700 trillion. And when they crash the economy again, they'll be looking to rob you twice-fold by seeking another TARP bailout with tax-payer's money.

So in sum, if the banks betting on the derivatives market win, they keep the cash. If they lose, we pay even more to bail them out.

The problem is that simply going after the derivative-market makes the whole card-house collapse. Another example of the prisoners-dilemma that imo has been carefully created all around our economies and politics.

What people need to understand is that neo-liberalism is at the core, left a vast landscape of fundamental destruction, and that the west needs to act in careful accordance while needing to give up some taboos and reemplement capital-controlls, re-nationalise certain segments of the economy and get back to Eisenhauer style taxation- levels for as long as needed.

[Sphere]

Who sponsored the amendment?