I was right about the false two party paradigm. They did it to you AGAIN!!!

[Dot Com]

You still here ? I thought you were leaving the forum rw drama boi

As to the OP (mine) looks like you people (voters of the two major corrupt parties) got reamed again

 

[Siete]

you vote for either major party & you're a dupe PERIOD!!!

Sneak Attack Congress Slips Controversial Measures into Spending Bill - NBC News

The second measure Congress snuck into the spending the bill will be more galling to some, because it amounts to a pay raise for the two unpopular political parties: It raises the $32,400 maximum that donors could give the Democratic National Committee or Republican National Committee to a whopping $324,000 per year, gutting what's left of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law. The Washington Post says this was inserted on page 1,599 of a 1,603-page bill (!!!). These two measures -- and probably more like them -- will become law because they were jammed into a must-pass spending bill to keep the government open. Remember all the grumbling about transparency? All the grumbling about gigantic bills that many members of Congress never read? Given that, what happened last night was mind blowing.

You Republicrats must feel pretty foolish about now

nah, the Rw's are too stupid to feel foolish. Being on the long end of their own hypocrisy is one of their favorite things.

 

[g5000]

It's a 1600 page bill that has all kinds of good things in it.

Did you read it, or are you just parroting your favorite partisan media source?

 

[Avorysuds]

Hey Dot Com, calm down. You spent most of the thread attacking Republicans despite them agreeing the bill is bullshit and so are the Reps that voted for it.What you have not seen is what many of us point out, no libs coming on here to bitch about how Dems let them down.

You are attacking the Republican voters for being used and then giving their party a pass, yet only Reps are here condemning their party... My question to you is why did it take so long for you to see Dems are just as bad as Reps? Obama started a new war in IRAQ LOLz! I mean where is the fucking war protest this time around? Spying all all american citizens, and allies.... Spending more on military and wars than Bush did... Lying more than any other president in the country's history, and getting caught repeatedly. What clicked over about this spending bill but not the rest of Obama's moronic policies?

 

[Avorysuds]

It's a 1600 page bill that has all kinds of good things in it.

Did you read it, or are you just parroting your favorite partisan media source?

Did you? WIll you? And if you don't what do you think the #1 reason you won't sit back and take 2-3 months off to skim over this bill?

Do you think Obama will take the time to go over this spending bill?

"And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

The Obameter Go line by line over earmarks to make sure money being spent wisely PolitiFact

 

[g5000]

It's a 1600 page bill that has all kinds of good things in it.

Did you read it, or are you just parroting your favorite partisan media source?

Did you?

I have not made any claims about this bill. I did not claim it is full of vitamins and minerals and is good for you like OKTexas did.

 

[g5000]

Hey Dot Com, calm down. You spent most of the thread attacking Republicans despite them agreeing the bill is bullshit and so are the Reps that voted for it.What you have not seen is what many of us point out, no libs coming on here to bitch about how Dems let them down.

It's a House bill, passed by a Republican House.

 

[Avorysuds]

Hey Dot Com, calm down. You spent most of the thread attacking Republicans despite them agreeing the bill is bullshit and so are the Reps that voted for it.What you have not seen is what many of us point out, no libs coming on here to bitch about how Dems let them down.

It's a House bill, passed by a Republican House.

Oh, so you agree with me that Dot Com claimed both parties are to blame but that he is entirely focused on Republicans? Careful, you're moments away from making an ass of yourself again.

 

[g5000]

Here's a link to the actual bill so you can read it for yourself: H.R. 83

Here's the pdf: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-113HPRT91668/pdf/CPRT-113HPRT91668.pdf

 

[Siete]

Hey Dot Com, calm down. You spent most of the thread attacking Republicans despite them agreeing the bill is bullshit and so are the Reps that voted for it.What you have not seen is what many of us point out, no libs coming on here to bitch about how Dems let them down.

It's a House bill, passed by a Republican House.

sssshhhhhhh ... don't confuse them.

 

[Avorysuds]

It's a 1600 page bill that has all kinds of good things in it.

Did you read it, or are you just parroting your favorite partisan media source?

Did you?

I have not made any claims about this bill. I did not claim it is full of vitamins and minerals and is good for you like OKTexas did.

I dono G5.... I don't remember making any claims about the bill.... I guess your comment whipped back and hit you in your hypocritical face eh?

 

[Avorysuds]

Hey Dot Com, calm down. You spent most of the thread attacking Republicans despite them agreeing the bill is bullshit and so are the Reps that voted for it.What you have not seen is what many of us point out, no libs coming on here to bitch about how Dems let them down.

It's a House bill, passed by a Republican House.

sssshhhhhhh ... don't confuse them.

Careful, Dot com might end up attacking you for trying to make this all about Republicans!!!! =D Or prolly not, as I stated. Or even more to my point, that if libs say anything, it will be in defense of Dems and blaming Reps, like you just did =D

 

[g5000]

Section 630 is the section which amends Dodd-Frank.

 

[g5000]

It's a 1600 page bill that has all kinds of good things in it.

Did you read it, or are you just parroting your favorite partisan media source?

Did you?

I have not made any claims about this bill. I did not claim it is full of vitamins and minerals and is good for you like OKTexas did.

I dono G5.... I don't remember making any claims about the bill.... I guess your comment whipped back and hit you in your hypocritical face eh?

Hey, dipshit. OKTexas claimed the 1600 page bill had all kinds of good things in it. So I asked HIM if he had read it.

I was talking to OKTexas. You inserted your dumb ass into the conversation.

OKTexas made a claim, dumbass, and I asked if he had read it or was he just parroting something he heard. I was not talking to you.

So what is your major malfunction, idiot?

 

[dcraelin]

It's a 1600 page bill that has all kinds of good things in it.

Did you read it, or are you just parroting your favorite partisan media source?

Did you?

I have not made any claims about this bill. I did not claim it is full of vitamins and minerals and is good for you like OKTexas did.

I dono G5.... I don't remember making any claims about the bill.... I guess your comment whipped back and hit you in your hypocritical face eh?

The compromise bill shows us the worst of Washington...going past the sequester, breaking budget retraints......re0ublicans backstabbing their base constituents on Obama/Romney care.............and immigraton.......Democrats caving on a wall street sell-out.....

Ends against the middle is one possible way things can improve in DC..and it almost happened here....

the mushy corrupt middle is where the harm is done.

 

[g5000]

you vote for either major party & you're a dupe PERIOD!!!

Sneak Attack Congress Slips Controversial Measures into Spending Bill - NBC News

The second measure Congress snuck into the spending the bill will be more galling to some, because it amounts to a pay raise for the two unpopular political parties: It raises the $32,400 maximum that donors could give the Democratic National Committee or Republican National Committee to a whopping $324,000 per year, gutting what's left of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law. The Washington Post says this was inserted on page 1,599 of a 1,603-page bill (!!!). These two measures -- and probably more like them -- will become law because they were jammed into a must-pass spending bill to keep the government open. Remember all the grumbling about transparency? All the grumbling about gigantic bills that many members of Congress never read? Given that, what happened last night was mind blowing.

You Republicrats must feel pretty foolish about now

Here is the actual text of the campaign finance change on page 1599 in the spending bill:


SEC. 101. SEPARATE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR CON-
3 TRIBUTIONS MADE TO NATIONAL PARTIES
4 TO SUPPORT PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING
5 CONVENTIONS, NATIONAL PARTY HEAD-
6 QUARTERS BUILDINGS, AND RECOUNTS.
7 (a) SEPARATE LIMITS.—Section 315(a) of the Fed-
8 eral Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30116(a))
9 is amended—
10 (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking the semi-
11 colon at the end and inserting the following: ‘‘, or,
12 in the case of contributions made to any of the ac-
13 counts described in paragraph (9), exceed 300 per-
14 cent of the amount otherwise applicable under this
15 subparagraph with respect to such calendar year;’’;
16 (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking the semi-
17 colon at the end and inserting the following: ‘‘, or,
18 in the case of contributions made to any of the ac-
19 counts described in paragraph (9), exceed 300 per-
20 cent of the amount otherwise applicable under this
21 subparagraph with respect to such calendar year;’’;
22 and
23 (3) by adding at the end the following new
24 paragraph:
1 ‘‘(9) An account described in this paragraph is any
2 of the following accounts:
3 ‘‘(A) A separate, segregated account of a na-
4 tional committee of a political party (other than a
5 national congressional campaign committee of a po-
6 litical party) which is used solely to defray expenses
7 incurred with respect to a presidential nominating
8 convention (including the payment of deposits) or to
9 repay loans the proceeds of which were used to de-
10 fray such expenses, or otherwise to restore funds
11 used to defray such expenses, except that the aggre-
12 gate amount of expenditures the national committee
13 of a political party may make from such account
14 may not exceed $20,000,000 with respect to any sin-
15 gle convention.
16 ‘‘(B) A separate, segregated account of a na-
17 tional committee of a political party (including a na-
18 tional congressional campaign committee of a polit-
19 ical party) which is used solely to defray expenses
20 incurred with respect to the construction, purchase,
21 renovation, operation, and furnishing of one or more
22 headquarters buildings of the party or to repay loans
23 the proceeds of which were used to defray such ex-
24 penses, or otherwise to restore funds used to defray
25 such expenses (including expenses for obligations in
1 curred during the 2-year period which ends on the
2 date of the enactment of this paragraph).
3 ‘‘(C) A separate, segregated account of a na-
4 tional committee of a political party (including a na-
5 tional congressional campaign committee of a polit-
6 ical party) which is used to defray expenses incurred
7 with respect to the preparation for and the conduct
8 of election recounts and contests and other legal pro-
9 ceedings.’’.
10 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT RELATING TO DE-
11 TERMINATION OF COORDINATED EXPENDITURE LIMITA-
12 TIONS.—Section 315(d) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 30116(d))
13 is amended by adding at the end the following new para-
14 graph:
15 ‘‘(5) The limitations contained in paragraphs (2), (3),
16 and (4) of this subsection shall not apply to expenditures
17 made from any of the accounts described in subsection
18 (a)(9).’’.
19 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by
20 this section shall apply with respect to funds that are solic-
21 ited, received, transferred, or spent on or after the date
22 of the enactment of this section.

 

[g5000]

SEC. 202. Within 90 days after the date of enactment
2 of this section, the Director of the Office of Management
3 and Budget shall submit a report to the Committees on
4 Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
5 Senate on the costs of implementing the Dodd-Frank Wall
6 Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Public Law
7 111–203).


Gee, I wonder if that was put in there so someone could use the cost of Dodd-Frank as a political hammer.

Nawwww...I think we all know we won't hear someone whining about it on Fox News in a few months. That will never happen.

 

[g5000]

SEC. 203. (a) During fiscal year 2015, any Executive
2 order issued by the President shall be accompanied by a
3 statement from the Director of the Office of Management
4 and Budget on the budgetary impact, including costs, ben-
5 efits, and revenues, of the Executive order.


Notice that is only for the year 2015. Not for any future Presidents. That just would not be fair!

 

[g5000]

SEC. 629. From the unobligated balances available
5 in the Securities and Exchange Commission Reserve Fund
6 established by section 991 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
7 Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111–
8 203), $25,000,000 are rescinded.


The Wall Street cops weren't doing their job, anyway, so we might as well take 25 million bucks away from them just to make sure.

 

[g5000]

SEC. 630. Section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
10 Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (15 U.S.C.
11 8305) is amended—
12 (1) in subsection (b)—
13 (A) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ‘‘in-
14 sured depository institution’’ and inserting
15 ‘‘covered depository institution’’; and
16 (B) by adding at the end the following:
17 ‘‘(3) COVERED DEPOSITORY INSTITUTION.—
18 The term ‘covered depository institution’ means—
19 ‘‘(A) an insured depository institution, as
20 that term is defined in section 3 of the Federal
21 Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813); and
22 ‘‘(B) a United States uninsured branch or
23 agency of a foreign bank.’’;
24 (2) in subsection (c)—
1 (A) in the heading for such subsection, by
2 striking ‘‘INSURED’’ and inserting ‘‘COVERED’’;
3 (B) by striking ‘‘an insured’’ and inserting
4 ‘‘a covered’’;
5 (C) by striking ‘‘such insured’’ and insert-
6 ing ‘‘such covered’’; and
7 (D) by striking ‘‘or savings and loan hold-
8 ing company’’ and inserting ‘‘savings and loan
9 holding company, or foreign banking organiza-
10 tion (as such term is defined under Regulation
11 K of the Board of Governors of the Federal Re-
12 serve System (12 CFR 211.21(o)))’’;
13 (3) by amending subsection (d) to read as fol-
14 lows:
15 ‘‘(d) ONLY BONA FIDE HEDGING AND TRADITIONAL
16 BANK ACTIVITIES PERMITTED.—
17 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The prohibition in sub-
18 section (a) shall not apply to any covered depository
19 institution that limits its swap and security-based
20 swap activities to the following:
21 ‘‘(A) HEDGING AND OTHER SIMILAR RISK
22 MITIGATION ACTIVITIES.—Hedging and other
23 similar risk mitigating activities directly related
24 to the covered depository institution’s activities.
1 ‘‘(B) NON-STRUCTURED FINANCE SWAP
2 ACTIVITIES.—Acting as a swaps entity for
3 swaps or security-based swaps other than a
4 structured finance swap.
5 ‘‘(C) CERTAIN STRUCTURED FINANCE
6 SWAP ACTIVITIES.—Acting as a swaps entity for
7 swaps or security-based swaps that are struc-
8 tured finance swaps, if—
9 ‘‘(i) such structured finance swaps are
10 undertaken for hedging or risk manage-
11 ment purposes; or
12 ‘‘(ii) each asset-backed security under-
13 lying such structured finance swaps is of a
14 credit quality and of a type or category
15 with respect to which the prudential regu-
16 lators have jointly adopted rules author-
17 izing swap or security-based swap activity
18 by covered depository institutions.
19 ‘‘(2) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sub-
20 section:
21 ‘‘(A) STRUCTURED FINANCE SWAP.—The
22 term ‘structured finance swap’ means a swap or
23 security-based swap based on an asset-backed
24 security (or group or index primarily comprised
25 of asset-backed securities).
1 ‘‘(B) ASSET-BACKED SECURITY.—The
2 term ‘asset-backed security’ has the meaning
3 given such term under section 3(a) of the Secu-
4 rities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
5 78c(a)).’’;
6 (4) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘an insured’’
7 and inserting ‘‘a covered’’; and
8 (5) in subsection (f)—
9 (A) by striking ‘‘an insured depository’’
10 and inserting ‘‘a covered depository’’; and
11 (B) by striking ‘‘the insured depository’’
12 each place such term appears and inserting
13 ‘‘the covered depository’’.




Go ahead, boys! Sell them CDS with no insurable interest requirements all you want. The American taxpayer has got your back.