[PassedOut]

Bbradley62, on 2014-December-14, 11:32, said:

All that passed yesterday was a resolution to vote on the actual bill that will keep the government running until September. That vote is still upcoming.

Senate approves $1.1 trillion spending bill

Quote

The Senate approved a sweeping $1.1 trillion spending bill Saturday night to fund most of the federal government through the next fiscal year.

[blackshoe]

cherdano, on 2014-December-14, 06:22, said:

Well, I strongly oppose most efforts to make distinctions for convicted felons who have served their sentence. It makes for some probably successful (but in my view disgusting) political posturing, but it runs counter to the goal of reintegrating them to the society. (Yes, I also think they should be allowed to vote.) As an aside, on a practical level it probably means that everyone receiving food stamps now has to fill out a slightly longer form with questions about past convictions, thus making what's probably a humiliating experience for many slightly more tedious and humiliating.

I agree with your position on convicted felons. The way things are, if you get convicted of a felony, you are never going to be considered "reintegrated into society". You might as well just shoot yourself.

cherdano, on 2014-December-14, 06:22, said:

On a larger point, Republicans have gotten away with obstructing completely common sense bills or nominees, just for the sake of obstructing them. Why did they get away with it? Because too many voters apply the logic "if it/he/she is backed by all Democrats and opposed by all Republicans, it must be a crazy left-wing bill".

Or "crazy right-wing bill" from the other side of the spectrum.

I'm not sure there are any "completely common sense bills".

[Bbradley62]

PassedOut, on 2014-December-14, 11:47, said:

Senate approves $1.1 trillion spending bill

ok. good. that was 5 hours after OP created this thread. Glad to see it was done.

[cherdano]

cherdano, on 2014-December-14, 06:22, said:

On a larger point, Republicans have gotten away with obstructing completely common sense bills or nominees, just for the sake of obstructing them. Why did they get away with it? Because too many voters apply the logic "if it/he/she is backed by all Democrats and opposed by all Republicans, it must be a crazy left-wing bill".

Bbradley62, on 2014-December-14, 08:01, said:

Did you see the vote I posted on this bill? Clearly supported by a higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans. And you seem to think it's draconian, whereas I'm calling it reasonable.

I clearly wasn't talking about this specific bill. You could have guessed so, because the vote count does not match my description of the bills I am talking about. The phrasing "On a larger point" might also have hinted at the fact that I was, ahem, making a more general point not directly related to this bill, but to your principle "If Warren supports it, it must be a bad bill".
As an aside, the restriction to felons wasn't the only cut to foodstamps - you certainly wouldn't save 1% from that over the next 10 years, as most of the felons it applies to will still be behind bars.

Back to the specific bill. I don't think HR 2642 is a terrible bill by any means. But my guess it that Warren objected it because of the cut to foodstamps. I agree with her. I also guess that Cruz objected to it because it didn't cut farm subsidies enough.(*) I agree with him.

So by your logic, the bill was better because neither Warren nor Cruz got their way. In my view, the bill would have been better on the merits if both Warren and Cruz had gotten their way.

(*) E.g. that is the reason Freedomworks opposed it, see
http://congress.free...10739&tab=bill.

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on 2014-December-14, 12:03, said:

I clearly wasn't talking about this specific bill. You could have guessed so, because the vote count does not match my description of the bills I am talking about. The phrasing "On a larger point" might also have hinted at the fact that I was, ahem, making a more general point not directly related to this bill, but to your principle "If Warren supports it, it must be a bad bill".
As an aside, the restriction to felons wasn't the only cut to foodstamps - you certainly wouldn't save 1% from that over the next 10 years, as most of the felons it applies to will still be behind bars.

Back to the specific bill. I don't think HR 2642 is a terrible bill by any means. But my guess it that Warren objected it because of the cut to foodstamps. I agree with her. I also guess that Cruz objected to it because it didn't cut farm subsidies enough.(*) I agree with him.

So by your logic, the bill was better because neither Warren nor Cruz got their way. In my view, the bill would have been better on the merits if both Warren and Cruz had gotten their way.

(*) E.g. that is the reason Freedomworks opposed it, see
http://congress.free...10739&tab=bill.

I was listening to Diane Rehms a couple days back. According to the panelists, Warren's major object was related to relaxing section 716 of Dodd-Frank (the so called swap push out rule). This would allow banks to increase the scope of their swap trading while maintaining FDIC insurance to cover the loses.

No one discussed Cruz specifically, but they described the main objection of the Tee Party as relating to increasing the amount of money that individual donors can provide directly to political parties.

[kenberg]

To bang my own drum a little more, this last post illustrates the complexity of modern life. I do not know what the swap ush out rule is, and really, please don't tell me. We have to be able to run the coutry witholut every citizen having aninforemed opinion on the swap push out rule. Of course I could just memorize "Warren good, Cruz bad". of course others memorize the reverse of this. When playing a bridge hand, I find it useful to assume that my opponents are neither idiots nor geniuses. I try to analyze a hand under the assumption that they are human like me. This seems to work in bridge. In politics, maybe not.

[cherdano]

hrothgar, on 2014-December-14, 12:57, said:

I was listening to Diane Rehms a couple days back. According to the panelists, Warren's major object was related to relaxing section 716 of Dodd-Frank (the so called swap push out rule). This would allow banks to increase the scope of their swap trading while maintaining FDIC insurance to cover the loses.

No one discussed Cruz specifically, but they described the main objection of the Tee Party as relating to increasing the amount of money that individual donors can provide directly to political parties.

Note that you are talking about a different bill. Sounds like another example where both Warren's and Cruz' objections would have made the bill better.

[barmar]

cherdano, on 2014-December-14, 07:42, said:

You blame the senators. I blame the ones who put them in charge.

You assume that we actually have a realistic choice. The choice is mostly between dumb and dumber. Mr. Smith doesn't go to Washington these days. The people who run for office are mostly career politicians.

[blackshoe]

"If we become a people who are willing to give up our money and our freedom in exchange for rhetoric and promises, then nothing can save us." -- Thomas Sowell

[cherdano]

barmar, on 2014-December-15, 20:46, said:

You assume that we actually have a realistic choice. The choice is mostly between dumb and dumber. Mr. Smith doesn't go to Washington these days. The people who run for office are mostly career politicians.

If voters would choose to regularly punish those who constantly use procedural blocks, not out of any strong objections to the individual measure but just to hold things up overall, then senators would stop constantly using procedural blocks.

[kenberg]

cherdano, on 2014-December-16, 07:59, said:

If voters would choose to regularly punish those who constantly use procedural blocks, not out of any strong objections to the individual measure but just to hold things up overall, then senators would stop constantly using procedural blocks.

It's a problem. My Senators are Ben Cardin and Barbara Mikulski, my Representative is Chris Van Hollen. Before I moved, my Representative was Steny Hoyer. I actually feel pretty favorably toward them all. Th Post this morning, commenting on recent events, mentioned Mikulski and Hoyer. See WP. It has often been noted that voters have contempt for our elected representatives as a class, but our favorably disposed toward their own. I plead guilty.

I do think that the worst of this started with the Tea Party movement. The original Tea Party, a couple of hundred years back, was an act of insurrection. The idea was not "How can we work with Geore" but rather "Let's dump George". I think tha thew Tea Party of today takes this seriously. They may be crazy, but they are seriously crazy. They have no intention of any sort of cooperation. But the ideologues on the left are not helping either. They really are very comfortable with the idea, expressed here and elsewhere, that Americans are just stupid and lazy and they, the enlightened, know best. There could be some merit in that view, but less merit than they think and it sure as hell is not a way to win elections.

[barmar]

cherdano, on 2014-December-16, 07:59, said:

If voters would choose to regularly punish those who constantly use procedural blocks, not out of any strong objections to the individual measure but just to hold things up overall, then senators would stop constantly using procedural blocks.

Many seats changed hands in the midterm elections because of a "throw the bums out" feeling. Voters don't see this this problem as being caused by certain individuals, they see it as a failing of Congress as a whole. So Congress's opinion rating is at an all-time low, and voters voted in the opposition as the only hope they see of any improvement.

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2014-December-16, 11:34, said:

Many seats changed hands in the midterm elections because of a "throw the bums out" feeling. Voters don't see this this problem as being caused by certain individuals, they see it as a failing of Congress as a whole. So Congress's opinion rating is at an all-time low, and voters voted in the opposition as the only hope they see of any improvement.

Not so many. Per Wikipedia: In 2006, 23 incumbents won re-nomination and lost re-election. In 2010, the number was 54. In 2014, the number was 13. Yes, some failed to be re-nominated, but there was not a ground-swell this year compared to other recent midterm elections.

[barmar]

Bbradley62, on 2014-December-16, 19:32, said:

Not so many. Per Wikipedia: In 2006, 23 incumbents won re-nomination and lost re-election. In 2010, the number was 54. In 2014, the number was 13. Yes, some failed to be re-nominated, but there was not a ground-swell this year compared to other recent midterm elections.

The way they were reporting on the election, it sure seemed like there was much more switching of parties than usual. Maybe it was just because the number was enough to change the balance of power.