OK...so tell me...why is a pissed-down-to-nothing "Financial Reform" bill still WORTH passing?

[Ken Burch]

Is anything this weak, this shrug-offable, this totally inoffensive-to-Wall Street joke of a bill worth even trying to pass?

Why bother with anything that's LESS than half a loaf?

Isn't it time to admit that Feingold's right...and that passing weak legislation simply isn't ever worth it?

We all KNOW nothing will ever be done to try to "fix it" later, since this was the only time we had any chance of beating the banks.

Just sell me on why, once again, we should settle for something that's just barely different, when slight change is historically always worthless?

[leftstreet]

1. Because it's a WIN !!!1111

[ZombieHorde]

2. Financial Reform looks good on a resume. nt

[Ken Burch]

3. Wasn't the resume thing Bush Sr's motivation for running for president?

n/t.

[ZombieHorde]

6. I don't know, but I would not be surprised. POTUS is good for resumes. nt

[FrenchieCat]

4. Yeah....Status quo is really just peachy keen.

and the teabaggers would agree,
as would Palin, and everyone else on the wrong side of the aisle.

But then, in the arc of politics, it is true that the extremes meet.....
and so, there it is.

[Ken Burch]

9. Status Quo isn't the ONLY alternative

And there's almost no difference between this bill and the Status Quo.

Everything that mattered in the legislation has been removed. It's just tiny little pretendy-change things now. Nothing that puts Wall Street on notice in any meaningful way.

Only big finance will celebrate the passage of the legislation in the current form, and it won't be improved later.

With the way the GOP works now, the ONLY way you can get real change is to get it in the ORIGINAL legislation you pass on the subject. If they wouldn't let stuff through in this bill, none of them will let it through later, so, really, why bother?

It's not worth settling for LESS than half-a-loaf, like we did with the healthcare bill.

[BzaDem]

31. Why do you assume that we would EVER get something better before the next crisis?

You say that if it doesn't get better now, it won't get better. I totally get that, and I agree with you.

But why do you assume that if we don't pass it now, it will ever get better? That is the leap of logic you are making that doesn't make sense. In other words, if we assume this is only a tenth of a loaf (which I would obviously dispute vigorously), what makes you think we will ever get more than a tenth of a loaf? In fact, what makes you think that the fraction of a loaf we will get won't steadily decrease over time and never increase?

Why do people always assume that there is some possible way to get what they want?

[Ken Burch]

43. "Why do people always assume that there is some possible way to get what they want?"

Er, because you HAVE to believe that to justify being an activist?

[BzaDem]

49. You are saying that one can't be an activist but also understand reality?

When one reaches such ridiculous conclusions, it is your definition of activist that is the problem (not the idea of passing the bill).

One who works for the most progressive legislation possible in a given political environment, who also works to change the political environment in the next election, can certainly be considered an activist. In fact, I would consider anyone who wanted to kill progressive bills because they "aren't progressive enough" a reactionary who is part of the problem (not the solution). Real activists should be fighting against this nonsense (not aiding and abetting it).

[DireStrike]

55. Here we go with the "reality" talk

Just because it's your viewpoint doesn't make it realistic, or pragmatic, or anything like that.

[BzaDem]

56. If you disagree, please list the 60 Senators/218 reps that would vote for something stronger.

Crickets.

[CrispyQ]

35. And wait! There's more!

More of that pretendy-changey thing coming our way!!

Kerry on Climate Bill: 'We're Prepared to Compromise Further'
Democrats, Obama Willing to Scale Back Energy and Climate Change Bill

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/29-11

snip...

Sens. John Kerry and Joe Lieberman told reporters after the 90-minute West Wing meeting that Obama held firm in his calls for a price on greenhouse gases. But they said the president acknowledged that he could agree to a more limited climate and energy bill than any the senators had previously drafted.

"We believe we have compromised significantly, and we're prepared to compromise further," Kerry said.

[The Green Manalishi]

62. "Nothing that puts Wall Street on notice in any meaningful way."

So true, and the disgusting thing is that the WSJ is *STILL* going to make it seem like a worse fate than that of a burning turtle in the gulf and the imposition of mere trifles a greater injustice than that suffered by entire populations of refugees.

[sabrina 1]

12. Status Quo is not much different than this bill.

It's simply an attempt to make it look they did something about one of he biggest bank heists in history.

As most analysts have said 'Wall St. Won the Day'!

Feingold should hold it up and try to get more to join him.

This was an opportunity to finally return to a sane, regulated financial system. This bill will leave the door wide open for them to go about their business as usual, and as Feingold said, it does nothing to stop what happened from happening again.

[Hannah Bell]

15. the teabaggers had to cancel their national rally for lack of attendance, so give it up already.

[jgraz]

17. Exactly how does this financial bill change the status quo?

Name one specific way that it improves things. Just one.

And please, no cut-and-paste jobs. Use your words.

[tekisui]

26. And so there it is?

Your inane ramblings do not make it so.

Your attempt to paint those who oppose a less-than-great bill or possibly a bad bill as leftbaggers is weak and petty.

Defend the bill, based on its points. Attacking the messenger will only drive more away from your position.

[Jakes Progress]

27. Don't we need a new version of Godwin's?

Maybe just for DU. It would need a little tweaking.

The original says: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches."

Here it doesn't take a long discussion at all. At the drop of a single post that hints at questioning this administration's perfection the poster gets a neo-Godwin: being called a teabagger or being blamed for wanting paliln as president. It is not the eventual slur that Godwin discusses. It is a quick draw, first line of defense for the defenseless position.

[TransitJohn]

57. Delete wrong spot n/t

n/t

[BzaDem]

33. You should be defending your position that a good but not good-enough bill is worth killing.

As a general matter.

After all, there are clearly some provisions that are good about this bill (such as Elizabeth Warren's Consumer protection division). And the rest of the bill (at the very least) does not deregulate the system.

So how could anyone make a valid argument that the bill is worth killing? The burden is on the people who think it is legitimate to kill an otherwise-good bill because it isn't good enough, not the other way around.

[ProudDad]

5. The banksters will soon need more bailout money!! (n/t)

[MattSh]

24. And they'll get it by...

privatizing YOUR Social Security.

[RoyGBiv]

7. False premise in the present context ...

...ergo, your question in unanswerable.

The financial reform bill currently under consideration before Congress is not "pissed down to nothing."

[provis99]

10. agreed. It is worse than doing nothing.

This bill will usher in another recession, deeper than the most recent one.

[RoyGBiv]

11. Your support for this assertion is what?

[inna]

21. Another meltdown is inevitable (in absence of adequate regulations). It's virtually a certainty at

this point, and it's been predicted by every honest economist and acknowledged by everyone who knows anything on the subject.

[Ken Burch]

22. Is there anything IN the legislation that would actually prevent a meltdown, though?

It looks like they're still pretty much allowed to game the system.

[inna]

23. here's what i thought:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Newest Reality]

8. Because it is a perfect match and mate to ...

the Health Care Reform we have just argued and labored through just to cut some initials in the divisive and distracting frosting on the insurance industries victory cake.

We will have no reform that is not consistent with our system's paradigm! Corporations rule for their own sake and our results are simply a form of collateral damage.

What you get is similar to an advertisement for some product that looks fantastic and useful, touting excellent customer support. Then, you obtain one and also read the fine print in the guarantee only to find out what a sucker you are for ads.

I suggest that we contact the dictionary people and add a new definition to the word reform: A means whereby those who are to be reformed have control over the process, (overt or covert) and whereby, end-up protecting themselves and their interests while participating in a facade that is then passed on to the victims as a substantial victory. See: laughing, joke, ripoff, manipulation, business as usual, sorry sucker.

[napi21]

13. I can think of two reasons.

It gives Obamaanother win, and the Pubs don't wat him to have ANY!

It's better than not doing anything.

I would have loved o have Glass/Steigel reinstated, the hugh banks broken up, and have banks be banks & brokerage houses handle everything else, but that's pie in the sky dreaming and I know that too. In this political climate, it simply can't happen.

[blindpig]

46. No, it's not.

Just as the horrendous health care bill is not better than nothing, it ensures that healthcare in the US will be for profit, and that is outrageous.

But we can really expect nothing better as the capitalists own the game.

[Wilms]

14. Have to protect the banks in the upcoming headache.

Banks Face $5.8 Trillion Rollover by 2012
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[democrank]

16. Because......

It`s a Whole New Day. All that matters is the APPEARANCE that something big was done and that triggers the Official Explanation Phase, where excuse makers` shout, "The president can`t do everything in one day!"

[jgraz]

18. For the same reason a a pissed-down-to-nothing "Healthcare Reform" bill was worth passing

(Actual reason left as an exercise for the reader)

[girl gone mad]

19. All holes, no cheese..

In a letter to Senate majority leader Harry Reid and minority leader Mitch McConnell, luminaries including former SEC Chief Accountant Lynn Turner, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, hedge fund owner Jim Chanos, former Lehman Brothers Vice Chair Peter Solomon, former S&L investigator Bill Black, former Senate Banking Committee Chief Economist Rob Johnson, economists Dean Baker, Barry Eichengreen and others pointed out that Dodd’s proposed financial reform legislation wouldn’t have prevented the current crisis … and won’t prevent the next crisis.

Dodd himself has admitted that his bill “will not stop the next crisis from coming”.

The bill won’t break up or reduce the size of too big to fail banks, won’t remove the massive government guarantees to the giant banks, and won’t even increase liquidity requirements to prevent future meltdowns.

Moreover – as Simon Johnson notes – the bill intentionally doesn’t have much in the way of specifics, but just pushes off on regulators the ability to crack down on Wall Street in the future. As Johnson notes, this is a recipe for continued failure to rein in Wall Street.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/04/guest-post-dodd-...

What was the question again?

[inna]

20. I suspect that, if the bill is even marginally good, Feingold will vote for it.

Maybe he's trying to strengthen the legislation at the very last moment.

If he doesn't vote for it, it's a really bad sign, because then it's a sure indication that the bill is completely worthless (or possibly even detrimental), and then... say hello to the next financial crisis/crash, it's only a matter of time...

[BzaDem]

34. Feingold is running for re-election. This has nothing to do with policy.

He will vote against it at first, and switch as needed. See Dennis Kucinich.

[inna]

39. Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with policy.

This is one of his key issues: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I'm really curious if he's going to pull a Kucinich though...

[BzaDem]

50. Unless he thinks this bill will make a meltdown MORE likely, it has nothing to do with policy.

The bill enact the best consumer protection laws in decades. That alone is a reason to support the bill (unless he thinks the bill will somehow make a meltdown more likely, which he doesn't). He knows he is not going to get what he wants, so his position is pure political posturing. He will switch if he is needed (probably after several cloture votes to make his point).

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stinky The Clown]

28. You vill now be told eggzactly vhy. Zit und be qviet.

[uponit7771]

29. ...k so there are NO...NOT ONE ...tangible change in this bill vs status quo?! Seriously? Do you guy

...guys still expect people to listen to you at this point?

TIA

[BzaDem]

30. As a general matter, why do people that say X shouldn't be passed because it doesn't go far enough?

For any X?

I would dispute everything you are saying about the bill. But assuming for a second that you are correct that the bill is less than half a loaf (let's call it a tenth of a loaf for argument's sake). Even assuming that, why is it considered reasonable for one to say that it shouldn't be passed? As a general matter? If a bill moves the country in the right direction, why does it matter what fraction of a loaf it is? Why is that even relevant, let alone dispositive? How can people say with a straight face that we shouldn't pass good bills because they aren't good enough?

[Hosnon]

32. I defer to Elizabeth Warren on this. nt

[IOKIYAL]

36. Are you repeating talking points or do you actually know what the

bill will and will not do? you see what I notice is that once certain opinionators tell readers what they think, readers take their word for it and then spread throughout the blogosphere. so did you read the bill and came to this conclusion yourself or are you picking up someone's talkingpoint?

[emulatorloo]

37. SELF DELETE n/t

[Orsino]

38. To give the next Republican majority more to repeal/undermine. n/t

[ProudDad]

40. Consider the Source

is a good rule of thumb.

Especially when one is evaluating legislation being produced in the corporate-funded sausage factory that is the Congress under the "direction" of another corporate-funded pResident.

In order to finally cease being surprised when the corporate state finds "loopholes" in every piece of legislation passed by those supine bodies and signed by the mouthpiece for capitalism, just assume that whatever they do WILL please their masters. Any help for real people or the real economy would be accidental crumbs from the groaning table and easily overcome by any good team of corporate lawyers.

Come on folks! Stop expecting help from some knight on a white horse. You ain't gonna' get any help from the corporate owned and managed Federal Government.

Look locally, work locally and secede from the madness...Locally

Here are some places to start...
www.transitionus.org
http://www.postcarbon.org /
http://www.relocalization.net /
http://www.radicalrelocalization.com /

[scheming daemons]

41. Mainly because it is NOT a "pissed-down-to-nothing" bill....

The pretense of your OP is false.... no point in addressing it further than that. Not like you'll listen.

[Arkana]

53. Quoting this.

[geek tragedy]

42. Because no credible observer thinks it's worthless.

Some are disappointed, but you won't find a single person outside of FinReg Peacock Russ Feingold of any stature saying it does nothing to make things beter.

[LWolf]

44. Because it can be claimed as a win for Obama. nt

[Festivito]

45. Because we don't pay for elections, the corporations do.

Therefore, our candidates will run on money from corporations, having the media corporations tell us, the voters, what is important and what is not, and this bill will be what they tell us it was.

[Rosco T.]

47. Because it's easier to amend (new legislation) an existing bill than pass one from scratch n/m

[Raineyb]

48. How often does that happen? THey're going to declare victory and move on to their next

capitulation. There will be no fix. Frankly, the time for strong regulations to be put in place was while the bloody banks were begging for our money. Of course we can't have that so we have Democrats passing half-assed legislation that will not actually prevent another meltdown and we're supposed to celebrate as if they'd just passed the updated version of Glass-Steagall.

Par for the course.

[KG]

51. the fact that the financial industry isn't screaming bloody murder tells me all i need to know

about this bill.

[harun]

52. Glad someone is paying attention.

[amborin]

54. K&R more here:

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/dubo...

[TransitJohn]

58. Chess Move® n/t

n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

59. Part 2 is coming

[NHLrocks]

60. so we can claim it as a success and that we have done something

Like HCR

[Canuckistanian]

61. I heard Thom Hartmann say "nibbled to pieces by lobbyist ducks"

And that seems to be the standard procedure for any piece of legislation these days.

After the politicians get through with a major policy change, all that seems to be left is crumbs of the original intent.