Thursday, December 11, 2014

Averting Government Shutdown At What Cost?...

What has thrown the plan into chaos is that numerous House Democrats are defecting over extraneous policy provisions that would weaken derivative trading rules on big banks and loosen campaign finance laws. The bill likely will need significant Democratic support to pass.

If ever there was or is a reason to oppose a federal spending bill to fund the government the above is it. We absolutly do not need looser campaign finance laws and a relaxation on derivative trading rules. Risky bank behavoir and loose campaign finance laws is a dandy recipe for disaster.

TPM - House Republican leaders are skating on thin ice with the government funding bill, facing stiff opposition from the left and the right that threatens passage just hours before a midnight deadline to avert a shutdown.

GOP leaders temporarily recessed the House and postponed a final vote scheduled for the afternoon, while informing members to be ready to vote.

"Leadership teams are still talking to their respective Members. A vote is still planned for this afternoon," a House Republican leadership aide said.

Republicans long expected some opposition from their right flank due to the fact that the $1.1 trillion spending bill doesn't block President Barack Obama's executive actions on immigration.


he Democratic opposition is being led by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (MD) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA), who call the bank provision a giveaway to Wall Street.

According to multiple sources, the legislation was negotiated by GOP and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. House Democratic leaders stress that they don't support all the provisions in the bill but want to keep the government open. They say they are not whipping against the bill.

The White House came out for the bill after it cleared a test vote in the House by a narrow 214-212 margin earlier on Thursday. It said it objects to the weakening of Wall Street reform but signaled Obama would sign the bill anyway.

A fallback plan Republican leaders are considering is to pass a short-term spending bill for two or three months to maintain the status quo and kick the task to the next Congress.

There is always a fall back plan. One way or another the Amerian people are likely going to get screwed.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. Yup, I am total agreement. The spending bill is a sham ... and a victory for lobbyists who saw a golden opportunity in a "must pass" bill to feast orgiastically off the middle class. Raising the campaign spending limit ten-fold gives oligarchs a ten-fold bigger advantage in politics. Weakening the Wall Street reform provisions on derivative trading will privatize profits for just 5 banks - the "too-big-to-fail" banks - but force the public to once again bail out their bad bets.

    The PBGC modification is another giveaway - the sleaziest of all. The PBGC is an agency inside the Treasury Department that administers the pension funds of corporations that are insolvent due to bankruptcy filings. In many cases, the government was forced to seize assets, unlawfully hidden in offshore accounts, to protect retirees (note: bankrupt corporations, such as USAir, forced pensioners in the PBGC system to accept less than 50% what was originally promised). Now, the enablers of criminals want to impoverish these retirees even more.

    Wonder why the Democrats lost BIG in November? Milksop Democrats abandoned their own rhetoric about helping the middle class ... leaving the field wide open for thieves and scoundrels.

    Third party, anyone?

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. I have been a proponent for a a strong third party for some time.

    I fail to understand why we keep electing individuals that fall for this bullsh*t over and over again. It doesn't seem to matter when new faces are elected. In fact it just gets worse.

    The issues in this spending bill discused here are as big a (or bigger) threat to our security as is the national debt and deficits. Yes we really do need to get thse things under control but the potential for destruction of the USA economy as a result of these things mentioned is great.

    As the nation continues to allow snake oil salesmen to sell us rancid product. I never thought I would agree with Warren on anything. But on this I do.

  4. I ran across the following and hits the nail on the head. It was recognized 200 yers ago.

    Before there was John Kenneth Galbraith or Joe Stiglitz or Nouriel Roubini, or Simon Johnson or Niall Ferguson or Occupy Wall Street– there was one of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson giving an advance warning of 2008 some 200 years ago. An awesome foreboding it was, too.

    “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies,” Jefferson wrote. ” If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around(these banks) will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

    “ The issuing power of currency shall be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

    We should all meditate on that amazing predi



As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.