I like and respect Sen. Feingold and we certainly agree on the issues with this bill but I feel it is a mistake to throw out the entire bill because it fails to fix some (large) problems. Elizabeth Warren is right about this one — pass the bill.
Good for him. I don’t see the need to conform with the rest of the caucus if their prescription is the policy and regulatory equivalent of having everyone to shave their asses and walk backwards on their own hands. Feingold is right to call their bluff: Obama and the DLC third-way blue-dog Senate is using the GOP as a foil to accomplish their corporatist agenda. When Scott Brown or Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe get their undies in a bunch, everybody falls all over themselves to kiss their fucking asses.
Who’s going to kiss Russ Feingold’s ass?
Exactly.
Nobody.
Someone needs to hand Obama a defeat, and it has to be from the left, because the voters can, and will, come November.
You are wrong, all that will happen is that the senate will have to go back and include amendments putting pre-depression era laws back into the legislation. Dodd already got his payoff. The bill doesn’t go away or die. You don’t vote for a lesser bill in order to pass something watered down. You vote no all in. You keep voting no, no, no, until the bill is fixed. These congress people never get the boot, all they care about is their vacation and getting reelected. WAKE UP!!
Julie — So if this bill is voted down, what makes you think that there will be any sort of financial reform bill passed any time in the foreseeable future?
The Republicans are going to win additional seats in the House and the Senate in the Fall and they have zero desire to pass any sort of reform bill.
In light of that, tell me again how the Dems should pass nothing if they can’t get precisely what they want. Idealism is great and probably more important in planning our objectives than pragmatism but now is the time for pragmatic action. Pass the bill.
JB: You cannot be serious!
Conservative idealism gets trillions of dollars of tax breaks for America’s wealthiest citizens and corporations. *But liberal idealism of getting Glass Steagal back isn’t “realistic.*
Conservative idealism underfunds regulatory agencies and makes their employees suffer at the whim of the people they regulate. *But liberal idealism of making OSHA, the SEC, the OCC, the FDA, and the Fed regulate the industries they were created to regulate wouldn’t be “practical.”*
Conservative idealism gets them exactly what they want. *But we have to settle for what’s “pragmatic.”*
You are a third-way deafeatist corporatist liberal-baiting Obamabot bullshit artist who will be “surprised” at what you “didn’t see coming” when all the pansyass out-of-touch fuckers with a (D) after their name gets voted out of office.
You are a third-way deafeatist corporatist liberal-baiting Obamabot bullshit artist who will be “surprised” at what you “didn’t see coming” when all the pansyass out-of-touch fuckers with a (D) after their name gets voted out of office.
That’s what you pass off as meaningful discourse? You are apparently a worthless douche bag and can’t claim to know the first thing about me. I supported the Glass-Steagall act back when it was repealed and I support returning it into law. I also support proper regulation of industry. The fact is that you are so utterly blinded by ideology that you fail to see the consequences of voting this bill down. Again, if this bill is voted down, what makes you think that there will be any sort of financial reform bill passed any time in the foreseeable future? Until you can answer that, you might as well just STFU. Way to lower the level of discourse.
Russ is looking for a “silver bullet” bill. Silver bullets work good for werewolves, not so much for legislation. He needs to vote for this then start playing “small ball”, he and his friends need to constantly introduce amendments and single issue bills to push this where it needs to go. Most won’t make any impression but some will stick and the constant nudge will start this country moving to where it should.
JB: If this bill is voted up, what makes you think there will be any sort of financial reform bill passed any time in the foreseeable future?
It’s called the financial reform bill. Only it’s not. Why should we be expected to support a non-reform financial reform bill? Because “if we don’t vote for this, we won’t get financial reform sometime in the future?” Are you kidding me? Are you fucking serious? How about financial reform tomorrow? No? Too soon? How about next week? Next year? I know what: Never. I think that’s the timeline you’re working on.
It’s not financial reform. It’s a banking-industry shakedown bill with campaign contributions buying loopholes the size of the beltway.
Stop the circular firing squad. Stop aiming for Feingold. He’s not the problem. Chuck Schumer and Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman and Chuck Grassley and Scott Brown and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and Blanche Lincoln are the problems. Russ Feingold didn’t put your tit in wringer. Chris Dodd did. Russ Feingold sees it for what it is: Bullshit. You want to climb up this pile and fly the flag like it’s Mount Suribachi? That’s your business. But don’t call it “financial reform” and don’t tell us that if we don’t vote for this bunch of bullshit a bunch of bullshit senators are calling “financial reform” so that we can someday vote for REAL financial reform “somewhere, out there” in the “not too distant future” when we’re all riding around in space rockets . . . .
First off, we don’t vote for or against this or any other bill, our representatives do.
Second, it appears that we agree on one thing: Feingold is not the problem. I agree with his ideological position but not his timing. The battle over this bill is basically done and he would rather accomplish nothing than a less-than-full measure. That is what I disagree with. This bill can be passed and other reforms can be passed as you said, tomorrow, next week, etc. If you’re for financial reform, it makes absolutely zero sense to not support this bill.
Third, you argue that this bill does not accomplish reform. Other than the fact that it doesn’t accomplish everything it should, what precisely is your objection to it? What provisions do you find harmful?
Dean Baker wrote a good piece yesterday that analyzes the pros and cons of the current bill. See it hereL
Get it through your head: LIBERALS DON’T OWE ANYBODY ANYTHING. If liberal legislation doesn’t get through, if it gets watered down, if it’s really a dead GOP bill warmed over, we don’t have to support it. We don’t have to defend the people foisting it on us. We don’t have to eat shit and like it.
The Democratic Party has completely lost me. Obama is a slick corporatist bullshit artist who is going to try to get rid of Social Security.
Both houses of congress, and both sides of the aisle, is completely corrupt. Thoroughly. Corrupt.
Where is FEMA in the Gulf? You know where? They were in my local Lowe’s trying to sell flood insurance. Where is DHS? Putting out boom? Nope. Where is OSHA? Enforcing workplace safety rules by ensuring people are wearing safety gear while cleaning up toxic materials? Nope. Where is the FBI? Investigating local police corruption in conjunction with BP? No, the special agents are probably hatching plans to run their own security firms on the take. Where is DOE? Approving ludicrous, ill-conceived oil well drilling schemes, doubtless.
Is the SEC investigating frontrunning allegations? No. Is the Comptroller of the Currency reversing its stance to allow states to regulate the banks operating within their borders? No–after all, Obama’s only been in office for fifteen months. Whaddya expect? One of those republican types who get up early every morning with twenty new ways to fuck up the world? No. We have to give him time to figure out new ways to punch dirty fucking hippies. Because, you know, they have this annoying habit of being right all the goddamn time.
And he’s preoccupied with negotiating this “financial reform” behind the scenes into something his paymasters, the banksters like.
It’s a scam, a farce, not worth our support, not worth defending.
I keep thinking how lucky we were to not have Dems like today’s back during the Great Depression.
We are so fucked. Bad Dems and really hidiously bad Repubs.
The class war has been won, and it’s not anyone like us who have won. There is no organized group of politicians which give a rat’s ass about us — and they’re convinced they can totally get away with bamboozling us and sucking up to Big Corporations and the Uberwealthy.
Jay — Thanks for addressing the issues and questions that I raised. It makes it much easier to simply ignore your diatribe.
JB: Thanks for being a patronizing Third-Way DLC Brookings Institute weenie who thinks they can set the terms of the comments section of a blog. Say hi to David Axelrod for me when you get in the office tomorrow!
Face facts – you’re just a disingenuous tool without any actual argument. Feel free to keep repeating someone else’s talking points.
BTW, enjoy your ideological purity with no bill that will ever suit you.
From Chris Bowers at OpenLeft:
In the extended entry, you will find a very lengthy description of what victories were won in the Wall Street reform bill, what compromises were made, and what defeats were suffered. It is, on balance, an argument for why we should pass the Wall Street reform bill, and a roadmap of where the fight continues.
Senator Russ Feingold is a personal hero of mine. Today, he posted an editorial explaining why he is opposing this bill. I am not going to pick a fight with Senator Feingold over what he could have done, or should have done on the bill. While this is a rebuttal of sorts, mainly it is to let people know that there is a lot of good in this bill, and it is possible to present that information in an honest, self-aware manner that acknowledges where it falls short.
There are a lot of victories in this bill. We need to pass those victories into law. If the bill is defeated by pro-Wall Street forces over the next two weeks, the only parts which will be defeated are the victories, while all of its shortcomings will remain in place. If it is defeated, the 1999 financial deregulation package will remain the basic framework under which our financial system operates, and we all know how that worked out. If it is defeated, no one will ever really take on the banks again, as their victory would demonstrate their invincibility.
“BTW, enjoy your ideological purity with no bill that will ever suit you.”
Hey, thanks for the veiled political eugenics meme. And thanks also for your willingness to compromise only with Republicans, but not liberals. Being so unprincipled you must feel very smug and comfortable without hindrances such as moral convictions or any policies that you know, actually “do anything.” But it wouldn’t be “pragmatic” to have that sort of financial “reform” legislation. Must be pretty awful to get schooled by Republicans on how to pass controversial legislation with a slim majority (not supermajority mind you.) Then get schooled again in how to actually act like loyal opposition. The ideological purity you’re trying to pass off in this financial reform bill isn’t Kool-Aid, it’s antifreeze. The liberal left is trying to tell you something: Don’t drink it!
I like and respect Sen. Feingold and we certainly agree on the issues with this bill but I feel it is a mistake to throw out the entire bill because it fails to fix some (large) problems. Elizabeth Warren is right about this one — pass the bill.
Good for him. I don’t see the need to conform with the rest of the caucus if their prescription is the policy and regulatory equivalent of having everyone to shave their asses and walk backwards on their own hands. Feingold is right to call their bluff: Obama and the DLC third-way blue-dog Senate is using the GOP as a foil to accomplish their corporatist agenda. When Scott Brown or Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe get their undies in a bunch, everybody falls all over themselves to kiss their fucking asses.
Who’s going to kiss Russ Feingold’s ass?
Exactly.
Nobody.
Someone needs to hand Obama a defeat, and it has to be from the left, because the voters can, and will, come November.
You are wrong, all that will happen is that the senate will have to go back and include amendments putting pre-depression era laws back into the legislation. Dodd already got his payoff. The bill doesn’t go away or die. You don’t vote for a lesser bill in order to pass something watered down. You vote no all in. You keep voting no, no, no, until the bill is fixed. These congress people never get the boot, all they care about is their vacation and getting reelected. WAKE UP!!
Julie — So if this bill is voted down, what makes you think that there will be any sort of financial reform bill passed any time in the foreseeable future?
The Republicans are going to win additional seats in the House and the Senate in the Fall and they have zero desire to pass any sort of reform bill.
In light of that, tell me again how the Dems should pass nothing if they can’t get precisely what they want. Idealism is great and probably more important in planning our objectives than pragmatism but now is the time for pragmatic action. Pass the bill.
JB: You cannot be serious!
Conservative idealism gets trillions of dollars of tax breaks for America’s wealthiest citizens and corporations. *But liberal idealism of getting Glass Steagal back isn’t “realistic.*
Conservative idealism underfunds regulatory agencies and makes their employees suffer at the whim of the people they regulate. *But liberal idealism of making OSHA, the SEC, the OCC, the FDA, and the Fed regulate the industries they were created to regulate wouldn’t be “practical.”*
Conservative idealism gets them exactly what they want. *But we have to settle for what’s “pragmatic.”*
You are a third-way deafeatist corporatist liberal-baiting Obamabot bullshit artist who will be “surprised” at what you “didn’t see coming” when all the pansyass out-of-touch fuckers with a (D) after their name gets voted out of office.
You are a third-way deafeatist corporatist liberal-baiting Obamabot bullshit artist who will be “surprised” at what you “didn’t see coming” when all the pansyass out-of-touch fuckers with a (D) after their name gets voted out of office.
That’s what you pass off as meaningful discourse? You are apparently a worthless douche bag and can’t claim to know the first thing about me. I supported the Glass-Steagall act back when it was repealed and I support returning it into law. I also support proper regulation of industry. The fact is that you are so utterly blinded by ideology that you fail to see the consequences of voting this bill down. Again, if this bill is voted down, what makes you think that there will be any sort of financial reform bill passed any time in the foreseeable future? Until you can answer that, you might as well just STFU. Way to lower the level of discourse.
Russ is looking for a “silver bullet” bill. Silver bullets work good for werewolves, not so much for legislation. He needs to vote for this then start playing “small ball”, he and his friends need to constantly introduce amendments and single issue bills to push this where it needs to go. Most won’t make any impression but some will stick and the constant nudge will start this country moving to where it should.
JB: If this bill is voted up, what makes you think there will be any sort of financial reform bill passed any time in the foreseeable future?
It’s called the financial reform bill. Only it’s not. Why should we be expected to support a non-reform financial reform bill? Because “if we don’t vote for this, we won’t get financial reform sometime in the future?” Are you kidding me? Are you fucking serious? How about financial reform tomorrow? No? Too soon? How about next week? Next year? I know what: Never. I think that’s the timeline you’re working on.
It’s not financial reform. It’s a banking-industry shakedown bill with campaign contributions buying loopholes the size of the beltway.
Stop the circular firing squad. Stop aiming for Feingold. He’s not the problem. Chuck Schumer and Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman and Chuck Grassley and Scott Brown and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and Blanche Lincoln are the problems. Russ Feingold didn’t put your tit in wringer. Chris Dodd did. Russ Feingold sees it for what it is: Bullshit. You want to climb up this pile and fly the flag like it’s Mount Suribachi? That’s your business. But don’t call it “financial reform” and don’t tell us that if we don’t vote for this bunch of bullshit a bunch of bullshit senators are calling “financial reform” so that we can someday vote for REAL financial reform “somewhere, out there” in the “not too distant future” when we’re all riding around in space rockets . . . .
First off, we don’t vote for or against this or any other bill, our representatives do.
Second, it appears that we agree on one thing: Feingold is not the problem. I agree with his ideological position but not his timing. The battle over this bill is basically done and he would rather accomplish nothing than a less-than-full measure. That is what I disagree with. This bill can be passed and other reforms can be passed as you said, tomorrow, next week, etc. If you’re for financial reform, it makes absolutely zero sense to not support this bill.
Third, you argue that this bill does not accomplish reform. Other than the fact that it doesn’t accomplish everything it should, what precisely is your objection to it? What provisions do you find harmful?
Dean Baker wrote a good piece yesterday that analyzes the pros and cons of the current bill. See it hereL
http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/06/29/the-financial-reform-bill-a-very-limited-step-forward-13494/
Get it through your head: LIBERALS DON’T OWE ANYBODY ANYTHING. If liberal legislation doesn’t get through, if it gets watered down, if it’s really a dead GOP bill warmed over, we don’t have to support it. We don’t have to defend the people foisting it on us. We don’t have to eat shit and like it.
The Democratic Party has completely lost me. Obama is a slick corporatist bullshit artist who is going to try to get rid of Social Security.
Both houses of congress, and both sides of the aisle, is completely corrupt. Thoroughly. Corrupt.
Where is FEMA in the Gulf? You know where? They were in my local Lowe’s trying to sell flood insurance. Where is DHS? Putting out boom? Nope. Where is OSHA? Enforcing workplace safety rules by ensuring people are wearing safety gear while cleaning up toxic materials? Nope. Where is the FBI? Investigating local police corruption in conjunction with BP? No, the special agents are probably hatching plans to run their own security firms on the take. Where is DOE? Approving ludicrous, ill-conceived oil well drilling schemes, doubtless.
Is the SEC investigating frontrunning allegations? No. Is the Comptroller of the Currency reversing its stance to allow states to regulate the banks operating within their borders? No–after all, Obama’s only been in office for fifteen months. Whaddya expect? One of those republican types who get up early every morning with twenty new ways to fuck up the world? No. We have to give him time to figure out new ways to punch dirty fucking hippies. Because, you know, they have this annoying habit of being right all the goddamn time.
And he’s preoccupied with negotiating this “financial reform” behind the scenes into something his paymasters, the banksters like.
It’s a scam, a farce, not worth our support, not worth defending.
I keep thinking how lucky we were to not have Dems like today’s back during the Great Depression.
We are so fucked. Bad Dems and really hidiously bad Repubs.
The class war has been won, and it’s not anyone like us who have won. There is no organized group of politicians which give a rat’s ass about us — and they’re convinced they can totally get away with bamboozling us and sucking up to Big Corporations and the Uberwealthy.
Jay — Thanks for addressing the issues and questions that I raised. It makes it much easier to simply ignore your diatribe.
JB: Thanks for being a patronizing Third-Way DLC Brookings Institute weenie who thinks they can set the terms of the comments section of a blog. Say hi to David Axelrod for me when you get in the office tomorrow!
Face facts – you’re just a disingenuous tool without any actual argument. Feel free to keep repeating someone else’s talking points.
BTW, enjoy your ideological purity with no bill that will ever suit you.
From Chris Bowers at OpenLeft:
In the extended entry, you will find a very lengthy description of what victories were won in the Wall Street reform bill, what compromises were made, and what defeats were suffered. It is, on balance, an argument for why we should pass the Wall Street reform bill, and a roadmap of where the fight continues.
Senator Russ Feingold is a personal hero of mine. Today, he posted an editorial explaining why he is opposing this bill. I am not going to pick a fight with Senator Feingold over what he could have done, or should have done on the bill. While this is a rebuttal of sorts, mainly it is to let people know that there is a lot of good in this bill, and it is possible to present that information in an honest, self-aware manner that acknowledges where it falls short.
There are a lot of victories in this bill. We need to pass those victories into law. If the bill is defeated by pro-Wall Street forces over the next two weeks, the only parts which will be defeated are the victories, while all of its shortcomings will remain in place. If it is defeated, the 1999 financial deregulation package will remain the basic framework under which our financial system operates, and we all know how that worked out. If it is defeated, no one will ever really take on the banks again, as their victory would demonstrate their invincibility.
Read the whole thing here:
http://www.openleft.com/diary/19301/why-we-need-to-pass-the-wall-street-reform-bill
JB:
“BTW, enjoy your ideological purity with no bill that will ever suit you.”
Hey, thanks for the veiled political eugenics meme. And thanks also for your willingness to compromise only with Republicans, but not liberals. Being so unprincipled you must feel very smug and comfortable without hindrances such as moral convictions or any policies that you know, actually “do anything.” But it wouldn’t be “pragmatic” to have that sort of financial “reform” legislation. Must be pretty awful to get schooled by Republicans on how to pass controversial legislation with a slim majority (not supermajority mind you.) Then get schooled again in how to actually act like loyal opposition. The ideological purity you’re trying to pass off in this financial reform bill isn’t Kool-Aid, it’s antifreeze. The liberal left is trying to tell you something: Don’t drink it!