Republicans: Always trying to help the little man

[3Rfan]

Like hiding stuff in the back end of the spending bill that would keep the government funded beyond Friday. it's a little thing that will once again allow the biggest banks in the country to deal in high risk crap and be covered by the FDIC. The same crap that brought the economy to a standstill in 2008. I guess if democrats vote against they can that dems shut down the government. It has nothing to do with funding the government.

They buried one in the back of the defense budget that would give a huge mining company mineral rights to a huge mining company in place called Apache Leap in Arizona. This the same company that was allowed to make a deal with Iran to sell them uranium. The land is a place where indians who were cornered by the army and chose to jump to their death rather than be captured. Still a sacred place for them. What the heck does that have to do with the defense budget?!!

There's a 3rd one they stuck in one these "must pass bills" that I can't remember now.

 

[Duck_walk]

What ever happened to all those Repubs who hated "pork"?
I am in favor of firing squads for anyone in congress who sticks unrelated stuff in the "back end" of bills.

 

[Neutron Monster]

In the "a pox on both of your houses" moment both sides agreed to fund more f-35s and ea-18g planes than the military requested. Why? Because it's pork.

Remember this the next time you hear a politician or military leader whine that there's nothing to be cut in defense.

 

[Expect2Win]

Also in this spending bill, it makes pot illegal in D.C. after the voters voted for it by 60 some percent.

 

[vbsideout]

That would be like torture Ducky

 

[Duck_walk]

Only if they use water guns like the super soaker.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Originally posted by Expect2Win:
Also in this spending bill, it makes pot illegal in D.C. after the voters voted for it by 60 some percent.

Technically, I think it bans them from spending any money on regulating pot.

The mayor-elect has now discussed just decriminalizing pot as is - they really only need the money if they are going to regulate it in some way, i.e. oversee dispensaries and collect taxes.

I think that would be a great response to Congress's stupidity.

 

[hb1025]

Keep on buying them F-18 got 12 more years

 

[3Rfan]

Expect that was the 3rd thing I heard about but couldn't remember. Both sides do this crap and it needs to stop. There is NO reason they should be allowed to bury unrelated junk in a bill that is about defense spending or other government funding or anything else for that matter.

 

[Expect2Win]

Great minds 3R.
I figured that was what you were talking about.

 

[millerbleach]

I thought you guys were all in favor of deal making and working together to do the peoples business? When you see what that actually requires, it's not as pretty. When you just need a few more votes........

 

[Duck_walk]

I thought you were conservative and against wasteful spending???

 

[3Rfan]

I'm all for deal making. I'm all against hiding things in the tale end of 600 pages of legislation that needs to be passed quickly but has NOTHING to do with the main issue the bill is for. And yes I hate it when either side does it. The problem with this one is they want to take away the safety net put in place for tax payers against big banks taking big gambles to make big money. If their gamble turns out good they make even more money, if it turns out bad WE lose money, NOT the big banks.

 

[3Rfan]

There was one more issue stuck in this bill too. They raised individual campaign donation limits by 10 times what they were, up from $3400 to $34,000. So they gave Wall Street a big gift by further gutting Dodd - Frank then gave rich folks a gift by allowing even more campaign money to flow into the coffers of those THEY want elected. Not too many average Joes can donate that kind of money to their favored candidates.

 

[Expect2Win]

Now that you mention that, I remember reading that as well.
It's absurd!

 

[vbsideout]

3r All these things are true and rural America still votes for the Pubs. Maybe 16 year olds should be allowed to vote!

 

[Neutron Monster]

Originally posted by millerbleach:
I thought you guys were all in favor of deal making and working together to do the peoples business? When you see what that actually requires, it's not as pretty. When you just need a few more votes........

I would vote for the bill.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Originally posted by 3Rfan:
There was one more issue stuck in this bill too. They raised individual campaign donation limits by 10 times what they were, up from $3400 to $34,000. So they gave Wall Street a big gift by further gutting Dodd - Frank then gave rich folks a gift by allowing even more campaign money to flow into the coffers of those THEY want elected. Not too many average Joes can donate that kind of money to their favored candidates.

It is pretty funny what the Republican priorities are in the bill. I don't think the Republican base voted in November hoping for banks to get the right to enter into more derivative contracts and for campaign finance reform that helps rich people and political parties.

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by Duck_walk:
I thought you were conservative and against wasteful spending???

I am!!
I oppose this bill. I oppose deal making. I oppose anything that isn't built on principle. This was full of compromise, deal making, and lacks principled stances. All you self proclaimed "moderates" should be celebrating instead of complaining.

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by 3Rfan:
I'm all for deal making. I'm all against hiding things in the tale end of 600 pages of legislation that needs to be passed quickly but has NOTHING to do with the main issue the bill is for. And yes I hate it when either side does it. The problem with this one is they want to take away the safety net put in place for tax payers against big banks taking big gambles to make big money. If their gamble turns out good they make even more money, if it turns out bad WE lose money, NOT the big banks.

1st, It's a lot more than 600 pages.
2nd, how do you make a deal without someone getting what you don't want?
3rd, it's a SPENDING bill.
4th, who do you think is conservative that stuck "stuff" in there? Conservatives voted against it. Boehner and Obama were the ones making deals with people they could buy votes from.

 

[3Rfan]

Maybe it was 6000 pages. There in lies the problem, too easy to hide this junk in a bill that has NOTHING to do with the junk they throw in. These people can't seem to write a bill in simple language with no more than 20 pages. I'm pretty sure I said "republicans." You call them whatever you want. Who made a deal to throw that crap in this bill that is supposed to be a "must pass" bill. I heard some voted for it now because they fear it would get much worse with MORE republican writers in the new congress.

 

[3Rfan]

They also stuck in a provision in there that will cut Teamster pensions. I don't have the details but efforts to get that stripped out before it passed failed.

 

[3Rfan]

Maybe it was 6000 pages with all the grubby cheap shot crap tucked in the end of it. There in lies the problem in Washington. They can't create a bill in 20 pages or less that everyone can understand and know what they're voting on. That and they let lobbyists write the bills.

This post was edited on 12/15 9:56 PM by 3Rfan

 

[Neutron Monster]

Originally posted by 3Rfan:
They also stuck in a provision in there that will cut Teamster pensions. I don't have the details but efforts to get that stripped out before it passed failed.

I'll give you a 5-10 point synopsis:

- Multiemployer pension plans exist with contracts between a union and a group of local employers. This allowed participants to go from company to company and not worry about their pensions. 3R - this really isn't that dissimilar from how the railroad plan worked - the pension formula accounted for all service and pay. Participants and companies had to make contributions for each year that was worked.

- Regulations covering these plans are different than regulations covering pension plans of single companies; notably, the companies aren't as clearly on the hook to pay all the promised benefits if things go south.

- Some of these plans are now terribly underfunded due to poor investment decisions, bankruptcy of some participating employers, and unaffordably increasing benefits for participants. Central States Teamsters Fund is one of the worst cases along with the Mine Workers fund.

- Central States also was crushed by a deal for UPS - they let UPS buy out of the plan in 2007 when the plan was much better funded. This meant their #1 employer wasn't in the plan for the economic collapse.

- These plans have no other source of funding besides employer contributions. Given the low level of contributions to these poorly funded plans, some of them are going to go broke. It's just a matter of when.

- The law change allows such plans to start making benefit cuts now to spread the pain over current and future retirees. The are limits to what can be done for retirees over 80 and disabled retirees.


This post was edited on 12/16 10:22 AM by Neutron Monster

 

[3Rfan]

So no protection for those who paid in their share for 30 years or more and have done nothing to deserve this. The people still working at least have a choice to stay or find something else or figure out a way to supplement their retirement.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Originally posted by 3Rfan:
So no protection for those who paid in their share for 30 years or more and have done nothing to deserve this. The people still working at least have a choice to stay or find something else or figure out a way to supplement their retirement.

Yes. Although the counter to that is, where do you get the money from to fix that? There's no good answer.

They did set a floor benefit as well I believe ($14,000 a year or something like that). And there is still a Federal guarantee fund which covers these benefits at a low, low level.

To me, this is most instructive about the loss of political power by private sector unions. A generation ago, the unions would likely have won a big backstop from the government to the guarantee fund.

 

[Duck_walk]

So tax payers can bail out inept bankers who took absurd risks but not inept pension fund managers who made inept decisions.

And no I don't think the government should pay into underfunded private pensions but ........

 

[Neutron Monster]

I think you can argue the government already has a backstop called Social Security and Medicare plus the guarantee fund.

 

[3Rfan]

If my RR pension was cut I couldn't draw SS. I paid just over $500 into SS in my life. I went to work on the RR before I was 20 and that's the only job I had until they sent me home with back issues after almost 32 years.

 

[Neutron Monster]

That is true for you but that's impossible for anyone in a multiemployer pension plan. By definition those jobs are all covered by SS. Those plans cover private sector workers.

 

[3Rfan]

RR's are not private sector?

 

[Neutron Monster]

I'm excluding the uniqueness that is RR from this.

RR would be much more likely to receive favorable government intervention; I view those plans as quasi-governmental entities.

 

[3Rfan]

Works for me, I don't want em to decide we need a cut too. We had merged with Teamsters not long before I left. Last I knew our pension plan was in pretty good shape and the RR's are doing quite well these days too. They still haul coal even if it ain't being used as much here. Now they haul a bunch of crude oil, something that just wasn't going much when I was on the track.