Skip to main content

Elizabeth Warren on the Daily Show
Overshadowed by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's primary defeat, Senate Republicans continued being Senate Republicans on Wednesday morning and filibustered Sen. Elizabeth Warren's student loan refinancing bill. The bill, which would allow current students to borrow from the government at a low interest rate and allow past students to refinance their debt down to that lower rate, was blocked with 56 votes in favor and 38 against.

Warren's bill would have been paid for by implementing the Buffett Rule, taxing millionaires at a minimum 30 percent rate. Of course Republicans object to taxing millionaires, but then, they would also object to lowering student loan interest rates without offsetting the costs. It's just that the offsets have to hurt lower-income people, not millionaires, to get Republican approval. According to the Obama administration, Warren's plan would have saved 25 million people $2,000 each.

In the wake of the filibuster, Warren urged supporters to continue pressing the issue:

At this point, most Republicans want us to quiet down and fade away. They don't want us to point out that this morning, most Republicans said it was more important to protect the tax loopholes for billionaires than to cut the rates on student loans.

I think it is time to come back louder than ever. I think it is time to show up at campaign events and town halls and ask every single Republican who voted against this bill why protecting billionaires is more important than giving our kids a chance to pay off their loans. I think we need to ask, and ask again, and ask again.

What Elizabeth Warren said. Let's be crystal clear that Republicans are placing low taxes for millionaires and billionaires over affordable interest rates on the loans the children of working families need to be able to attend college. That's what Republicans stand for. And anyone who has student debt or has a kid who's going to need loans to go to college should not only press their senators now, they should remember this vote in November.

Originally posted to Laura Clawson on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 08:04 AM PDT.

Also republished by Massachusetts Kosmopolitans and Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  That is the way to negotiate - (59+ / 0-)

    come back with a stronger position than the one before.  There should be no attempt to soften this reasonable proposal to help our children with college debt, helping spur spending and so help the economy.  The Republicans are so clearly on the wrong side of this - it should be a campaign issue if they do not come around.

    An illusion can never be destroyed directly... SK.

    by Thomas Twinnings on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 08:40:20 AM PDT

    •  Warren v. McConnell (12+ / 0-)

      Hell hath no fury. . . .

      I really believe that each senator with a proactive agenda that McConnell votes against should go with Warren to KY. VA vote comes to mind.

      •  Yes, It's Mitch McConnell, the Minority Leader who (7+ / 0-)

        led the effort to filibuster this bill.
           Fortunately, there is some Instant Karma available for Senator McConnell, as he will now have to answer to the People of his State for his actions here.

           What better rebuke could there possibly be for the People but to vote this obstructionist out of office and out of his leadership role!

        "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

        by elwior on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:18:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hey, I like her, too. But let's be clear (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior, politically indigo

          that we're not talking a "tax policy"--only a "tax principle."

          Consider this statement:

          Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Alan Krueger in prepared remarks before the Center for American Progress, argued that “restoring a greater degree of fairness to the U.S. job market would be good for business” (TAXDAY, 2012/01/13, W.1). In particular, he advocated a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut, returning the estate tax to its 2009 rate and adhering to principles like the Buffet Rule, in which those making more than $1 million annually should not pay a lower share of income in taxes.

          And check out the White House website itself.  The Buffet Rule is described as a "Basic Principle Of Tax Fairness."

          Even the White House doesn't claim that this is an actual tax policy, guaranteed to impose a marginal tax rate of 30% on millionaires.

          At least, if they do, I can't find it.  Instead, I find numerous references by Jack Lew, Gene Sperling, etc., which refer to The Buffet Rule as a principle or philosophy.

          Subsidizing college/technical school tuition on the front end is the most feasible solution, IMHO.

          Actually, I think this may happen with the next twenty or so years, but my "guess" is that the wealthy will NOT pay for it--indeed, it will probably be paid for by the poorest Americans (hint:  the federal cigarette excise tax, or some such tax).

          This is what has been proposed twice by this Administration since 2009 for two other programs (one health, one educational).

          My conclusion is that the progressive community needs to be very clear when they send their message--universal post-secondary education for all should be paid for mostly by wealthy Americans [who so far, continue to be able to escape their "fair share" of taxes].

          Period.  Full stop.  End Of Story.

          But we need something behind this movement/debate with more teeth than just a tax principle.

          And Kudos to Senator Warren for even having this debate!

          P.S.  Please carefully watch the "tax reform" debate, which will probably resume in earnest after the midterms.  From what I've seen and read, it ain't gonna be pretty!



          "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines

          hiddennplainsight--Relaunched 2014!

          by musiccitymollie on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 02:17:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  rebuking McConnell (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Most student loans are made by the federal government. Maintaining high interest rates helps reduce the deficit, a major right-wing goal. The only people in KY who would be inclined to rebuke McC. for this are college graduates (or dropouts) with big loan debts. How many of these are there? If KY were full of college graduates McConnell would not be where he is.

    •  Exactly. It's why I've given up on the Dems. (20+ / 0-)

      They don't have enough Elizabeth Warrens, and they don't treat her the way she deserves.

      Obama and the Dem leadership are notorious for their pre-negotiations.

      Think about the ACA. They took Single Payer completely off the table before negotiations started, and then the public option. Supposedly, they did this to attract GOP votes, but received none anyway. And both things, at the very least, would have positioned the Dems for a better final "compromise."

      The Stimulus negotiations were similar. Bent over backwards to attract GOP votes, gutting essential aspects of the bill, and they still received no GOP votes.

      On taxes. The negotiating position for the Dems was to give conservatives everything they wanted, but to hold firm on a tiny increase at the top. And then they caved on that. They increased income requirements for the top bracket instead.

      And with the debt ceiling stalemate, they started with the GOP-desired sequester cuts in place and went from there, instead of demanding more spending, which the economy needs.

      Always, always ask for more than you actually want. Then the "compromise" gives you what you wanted in the first place.  

      •  Agreed. (12+ / 0-)

        Thomas Frank of "What's the Matter with Kansas" fame said it best.  The reason many folks vote against their best interest by going conservative is the democrats don't look that much different.  Where are the true progressives?  Liz has my attention.

        •  Frank is excellent. (6+ / 0-)

          I know I'm in a minority here, as a leftist, but I would say progressives don't go far enough, either, when it comes to the economy. But they're much better than conservatives. At least when they stand by their principles.

          As in, America would be better off with truly progressive governance. I believe that leftist governance would be even better (than progressive) for America.

          Warren does appear to stand by her principles. But she's in a minority, too.

        •  Come on: "We don't look any different"? Really? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          47songs, johnnyintexas

          The Blue Dogs don't look a lot different from the GOP, in grant you ... but all non-Progressive Democrats? That is sweeping with such broad brush that it doesn't get us anywhere in the near enough future to make any difference.

          The GOP doesn't have to govern, except where it has majorities and a governorship, and it certainly doesn't have to compromise anything ... but we do. We're actually in charge of this Federal government for now, and of enough of it to actually accomplish some things. Not enough. Not fast enough. Not bullying enough. All perhaps, but the one candidate on our horizon is going to stay out there until Hillary gets off her forefront.

          Our job is to get a turnout in 2014. And not default 2016. Yes, and stiffen spines so the elections do mean something important.

          Give up on the Dems if you will, but that'll make us have to turnout someone to replace the disaffected You's. And that won't help anyone in next election.

          2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

          by TRPChicago on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:14:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  As long as people just keep voting for the Dems (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            navane50mg, politically indigo

            no matter what they do, no matter how much further to the right they move, no matter how often they cave to the GOP . . . . there is no incentive for them to change.


            I had high hopes for Obama in 2008. I wasn't naive enough to see him as some progressive savior. But I did think he'd at least try to fight the neoliberal wave just a little bit. Instead, he embraced it, like Clinton before him.

            And the Dem leadership seemed more than happy to accommodate him there.

            What helps hide this is the fact that the GOP has moved even more rapidly to the right, so in comparison, the center-right Dems seem "progressive" when they're not. Only in contrast with the psychotic Republicans, etc.

            I'm in my 50s, and remember actual liberals in both parties. There are none now in the GOP and very few in the Democratic party. In historical terms, the Dems are now where the GOP was roughly twenty-five years ago on most big ticket issues. A few social issues separate them. And, as mentioned, Obama has actually done some things to the right of Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr., especially on the economy and public sector hiring.

            Anyway, they need to earn my vote. After an absence of some time, I gave them another shot with Obama in 2008, and they blew it. Big time. I won't be fooled again. I voted for Jill Stein in 2012.

            •  As long as people like vote like you, republican (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BleacherBum153, duhban, MyOwnReality

              extremists get elected and take this country toward fascism.

            •  I'm 73. And from Minnesota. I remember Hubert... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              47songs, duhban, MyOwnReality

              ... Horatio Humphrey very well and fairly up close. And how well he got along with Sen. Barry Goldwater when they agreed.

              The liberals among Republicans were few. Bob Packwood was quite liberal but flawed and eventually left due to shame-by-dalliances. Senator Mark Hatfield is the only other one I actually saw closeup.

              I don't know the 25 years-ago reference. 1980 was not a banner year for anyone. But you're ignoring that all poetics is relative. Governing deals with the situation of the moment and the quite-short-term with - hopefully - a vision for the future. Now, you can align Barack Obama politically with Nixon and Reagan, but very few others would, I think.

              Your standard for earning your vote makes the rest of us have to work harder and use energy better directed against the other party.

              PS: Who's Jill Stein? (I know. I've heard of her, but I forgot.)

              2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

              by TRPChicago on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:56:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  She was (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                in the "Green" party.

                Nothing matters but the song.

                by 47songs on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 12:06:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I didn't vote for Stein, but In retrospect, I (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  should have. My vote for Obama didn't count either time, since my state went Republican, and I didn't know until later that the Green Party needed a certain percentage of the vote to qualify for funds from the federal Presidential Campaign Fund.

                  At the time I was still under the delusion that my vote mattered. I would have rather my vote went towards something that mattered.

                  •  Winner take all wipes out the voice of (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    the minority parties like Green.  Just not the tea party because they  have become the parasites living in the shell of the Republican party.  And now there are the Tea II partiers, who are meaner and uglier and much more scary.

              •  She ran as the Green Party candidate. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:


                The environment is yet another key issue for me, as an ecosocialist. It's actually supremely important in my view, and both parties are terrible on the issue . . . . with the Dems being better between two rotten options.

                The 25 year thing? I'm just going based on the rightward shift for both parties, which has been almost non-stop since the 1960s . . . while observing the shifting attitudes toward top tax brackets, cap and trade, social security, medicare, welfare in general, deficits, etc.

                A great book on the subject is Walter Karp's seminal Liberty Under Siege, which deals primarily with the Carter years and most of Reagan's presidency. By the time Carter was elected, the Dems had moved quite a bit to the right, embracing the neoliberal revolution a bit more with each passing year. Carter's own party turned on him, big time, and it's not as if he was a radical. Far from it. He was almost as conservative as most of the Dem leadership. But more than a few decided to throw him under the bus in favor of Reagan.

                Anyway . . . as you can see, I've had enough of our two party system. It would be great if the Dems moved significantly to the left, but their trajectory and the stranglehold of the capitalist system argues against that possibility.

                •  Although I do think (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  we need to have the variety of voices that come from different parties, I fear that having a third party, or even a fourth, would result in someone like nutjob Paul LePage winning the Maine governorship with 34% of the vote, but into the WH! Whoa! I think having more parties makes it more difficult for people to understand the complexities of each candidate and their positions and issues (or actually their politics, money, and constantly changing rhetoric!). Not a good excuse, because I wish more people would pay more attention to how the country is governed, but they don't. The majority vote as students of talking points and political headlines.

                  Those of us who are more engaged in the political process need to keep progressive issues as front and center on blogs like DKos and other news sites as possible. I'm still proud of Occupy Wall Street. Their voices are still out there, and they're still fighting the good fight, but on a quieter basis.

                  Getting Jill Stein or, before her Ralph Nader, (or currently our Elizabeth W.!) into the WH would be a dream come true for progressives. The practicality is that it's just too difficult a task to accomplish. But the fight goes on! ;-)

                  Nothing matters but the song.

                  by 47songs on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 12:30:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I think leftists should start locally, and then (5+ / 0-)

                    move outward from there.

                    Local elections, state, then federal.

                    Too often, they seem to want to leap over all of that, all of the party building efforts, and go for the brass ring.

                    I'd love to see a strong Green Socialist party in America, build from the grass roots outward. If they could eventually go toe to toe with the Dems and the GOP, I wouldn't think twice about forever ignoring our two major parties. IMO, they really don't represent us, and they don't listen to those outside the 1%.

                    As always, the caveat: The Dems are the better of the two rotten choices. But they get by far too much on their being "not as bad as the Republicans."

                    I want to vote for people who can actually say with accuracy "we're for 100% of the population, not just the 1%," and can also say "We're the best candidates for the job."

                    As in, vote for something and someone, not merely against the greater evil.

                    •  "they really don't represent us" (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      I do agree with you.

                      I wish more people (me included) had your courage.  Our history is constantly cycling. Something needs to change. And it might. But it might not, too. Lately, we've become more self-destructive than progressive.

                      Nothing matters but the song.

                      by 47songs on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 12:59:09 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  OK, all of you ... if something were to divert... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        ... Hillary, I can think of Democrats Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown for 2016 or 2020. Are either of them acceptable Democrats for you?

                        2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                        by TRPChicago on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 01:12:09 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Our political conversation is more like a sports (3+ / 0-)

                        debate, IMO.

                        I go on various blogs and see the arguments between Dems and Republicans, both sides digging in, supporting their "team."

                        I used to be there, but no longer. I find our discussions incredibly narrow, like politics from A to B, when we desperately need A to Z. And the biggest omission? Neither side questions the capitalist system itself, and to me, that trumps all other considerations. It's where inequality, the environment, social justice and the whole works collide. Class. We don't talk about class in America, apparently believing it doesn't even exist . . . or, in doing so, we're conducting "class warfare" as if that's not being waged against us from the top of the pyramid.

                        Capitalism is leading us over the cliff environmentally, socially, and with regard to morals and ethics. It is the source of the vast majority of our ills. And, to me, it's actually criminal to ignore it, to avoid it, to keep it out of the conversation like it's a taboo or something.

                        And the Dem who is willing to question its existence and talk about alternatives is the Dem who will get me to stand up, listen intently, with enthusiasm and vote for him or her if I like their alternatives.

                        We're too far gone for incremental fixes and small reforms around the edges. Even the increase in the minimum, for example, while needed, is pretty weak tea. $10.10 over time, phased in? It should be $16 at least, now, today, not in three years. And we need far more than that if we continue on with the madness of capitalism. Far more.

                        It's time to go big or go home. Long past time.

                    •  You don't know how right you are (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      A quick check of the #s for the town I live in with a population of approx. 27,000 along with the #s for a the mid-sized city next door with a population of about 130,00 shows why Progressives and Liberals are completely missing the boat when it comes to changing this country.

                      In my town the winner who becomes mayor received just over 500 votes, that's in a town with approx. 27000 people.

                      In Killeen, the mid sized city next door with a population of just over 130,000 the person who won the mayoral race received just over 1100 votes.

                      With such low numbers, a focused, concerted effort to take over both city governments should be doable, but none exists, because there doesn't seem to be any viable Liberal Progressive organization that can help focus such an effort.

                      I've tried to join the local Democratic party, but it seems extinct. A the last county wide meeting held at a local bookstore, all of 5 people attended, including me. It was pathetic.

                      There is no doubt in my mind that there are more than enough liberals and progressives in both towns, getting them to vote or care about these elections is the problem

                      One thing is absolutely clear, you can't win these off year elections with final elections in May instead of November by focusing on the national ticket. LOL

                      This pattern is repeated throughout central Texas in towns and mid sized cities.

                      Why Liberals and Progressives have not capitalized on it is a mystery.

                      It's the reason why I am not particularly optimistic re the chances of Wendy Davis' campaign to win her the governorship. I have seen no effort on their part to do the on the ground work to find the small amount of voters throughout Texas that would deliver her victory.

                      Instead they seem to be attempting to marshal the forces of the extinct Democratic party which they assume exists just like it does in the largest cities of DFW, Houston, Austin and San Antonio.

                      They don't realize that outside those city limits there is not Democratic party to support their efforts.

                      •  I remember the first county Democratic party me... (0+ / 0-)

                        I remember the first county Democratic party meeting I went to. There were 12 people there and the county was red. Now we have 100 people at even off year meetings and the county votes blue. Don't give up. Bring your friends to the meetings, look around for models of county party groups that work and get ready for 6 years from now.

                  •  In this huge and diverse country we need (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    a percentage voting system like parliament where each party gets to send  people equal to the % they received of the total vote.  Of course, this ignores that fewer than half of otherwise eligible voters actually register and vote.  We need a number of things, the first being a resolute and responsible and educated citizenry.

                    •  Agreed. Percentage voting and coalitions. (0+ / 0-)

                      That could really help spur diversity in our governance.

                      Which we sorely need.

                      People forget that our nation was born from meetings among white males of the ruling class,  most of whom owned slaves, with pretty much no input from anyone else, and none from ethnic minorities and women.

                      We started with racism and exclusion and built our party system with that in mind. I think even a little scrutiny of our past and present should stop people from thinking this is the best we can get.

                      We need major changes.

                      •  It's time for changes, to be sure. But those ... (0+ / 0-)

                        .. elitist white males got a lot right at the outset. They had major disagreements at the startup and for years thereafter, yet were willing to compromise to get more of what each wanted.

                        And just because historians didn't write in depth about the women of the time - what kind of record was kept of conversations between men and women, except for the Adams' letters to each other? - I wouldn't conclude they had no input whatever.

                        2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                        by TRPChicago on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 04:57:26 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  They had no legal input. Actual input is another (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          politically indigo


                          I'm guessing the wives and female family members of that very, very tiny boys club were highly influential. But they had no legal powers, and that tiny boys club kept it that way.

                          In reality, I think too many Americans have bought into the myth of this epic, revolutionary change, which actually never happened. Our origin myths inflate, distort and confuse what really happened. Which is, one elitist ruling class took over for another, and created a new government that largely served that ruling class. A few improvements here and there. But it was hardly this great storm of change as has been portrayed for the last two hundred years.

                          Perhaps if they had followed the lead of folks like Thomas Paine, we'd have a different tale to tell.

                          •  Well, they (1) left a monarchy and (2) created ... (0+ / 0-)

                            ... a durable structure for governance to replace it. I don't know of any student of history who doesn't think those were revolutionary events in the world in the late 1700's.

                            On that term "ruling class," isn't every government made up of a "ruling class?" Don't we get who we vote for in a democracy, imperfect as we - and they - are? I do agree that "who they serve" should be all of America, certainly not just the ruling class du jour. We certainly have not succeeded at that as well in the last 50 years as we did in the preceding 30.

                            As for "elite," you use it as a loaded and pejorative term. I'd like the best to be in government just as I want to see the best in medicine, law, academia and at the top of church hierarchies, corporations, foundations. If that's what elite means, deal me in because I do not want the guy next door to be president. (And I like and respect him.)

                            Does "elite" mean privileged? Or a very very small number? Not to me. It doesn't necessarily mean the most qualified on paper, either. Some ordinary people with humble origins and lives have done extraordinary things, and I regard them as the best of their "class." To me, they're more "elite" than Mitt Romney.

                            As a practical matter, governance requires working within an established framework (which is very hard to change in major ways in any reasonable time frame) and with an array of interests. Just like the poor, we will always have Wall Street with us, in one form or another.

                            In our time, change is likely to be incremental. Major change will take more time. Not as long as people might think (gay marriage) nor as hard (ACA), but it will probably not be as dramatic as a Sam Adams or Thomas Paine called for. And got!

                            2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                            by TRPChicago on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 10:38:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  By ruling class and "the elite" I mean . . . (0+ / 0-)

                            those with inherited and/or financial privileges waaaay beyond the average rank and file citizen.

                            The wealthy and the superwealthy. The landed gentry, the slave holders in the case of most of the founders.

                            If they had been truly "revolutionary," they would have taken this once in a generation chance to end class privileges, period. Instead, as mentioned, they replaced the British ruling class with a domestic version, and one that was in many ways far more reactionary. One that was based on ownership of capital, humans and land, rather than inherited titles, capital and land. It would have been "revolutionary" if they had trashed the entire concept.

                            Also, the Brits ended slavery long before we did, and their treatment of Native peoples, while barbaric, was better than the colonials. Both the black population and the Native Americans would have fared better under British rule. "Better" being entirely relative, of course.

            •  I hear Romney is again asking for your vote. (0+ / 0-)
            •  Diomedes77 if u voted for Jill then why r u here? (0+ / 0-)

              If you go to the wiki for the DailyKos you'll find a section titled "What Is the Purpose Of This Site".

              The first sentence is....


              This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together.

              If you support the Greens, why are you here?

              If you have already decided the Democrats are not your party, then you are in the wrong place.

              •  So you put party above country. (0+ / 0-)


                If that's the DKos way -- and my experience here is that it's not -- then you're right. I shouldn't be posting here. But notice that DKos does have an anticapitalist meetup, and other groups which don't believe they're trapped in Democratic Party politics and orthodoxy.

                It's also my hope that the Democratic party changes and moves radically to the left. I'm here for the general conversation. Are you here to play hall monitor?

              •  So you put party above country. (0+ / 0-)


                It's been my experience here that there is enough diversity to include people who aren't Democrats, but are major advocates of democracy. Notice the DKos has an anticapitalist group, which I'm a part of. Notice that this philosophy runs completely counter to anything in the Democratic Party. But it's still here, on this site.

                I think the Democrats need a kick in the pants from the left. They've moved too far to the right and seem to care more about what righties say than their own base -- including DKos. So I'm here for the conversation on the issues and hope the Dems move radically to the left.

                Are you here to play hall monitor?

            •  liberals (0+ / 0-)

              I'm in my 50s, and remember actual liberals in both parties. There are none now in the GOP and very few in the Democratic party. In historical terms, the Dems are now where the GOP was roughly twenty-five years ago on most big ticket issues.

              I'm 78 and can remember when nearly all Republicans were conservatives, i.e., people who wanted to conserve something. Today's Republicans are no longer conservative - they only want to tear down and destroy, they are rabid radical reactionaries. The Dems are no longer liberal, they are (maybe) fighting a rear guard action to conserve the advance of the 20th century.

      •  It's because many of them *want* (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        diomedes77, politically indigo

        to push these disgusting trickle-down, Reaganomics-based policies.

        There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 12:16:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In her discussion with Thomas Piketty, (9+ / 0-)

          Elizabeth Warren said,

          "Wealth does not trickle down, it trickles up. It trickles from everyone else to those who are rich."

          "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

          by elwior on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 12:19:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes. She is right. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior, diomedes77

            A lot of these other "Democrats"--well, I wouldn't be surprised to see them citing the Laffer curve as an argument against raising taxes on the wealthy.

            There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 12:23:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Labor creates value. It doesn't come from the (3+ / 0-)


            M-C-M. Capitalists buy labor to make commodities for money. Labor is also a commodity in that equation. The capitalist makes nothing. His or her workers do that for him.

            "Wealth" is made from the bottom up, for the top. And workers must be radically underpaid for their production in order for the guys at the top to get rich. And that's immoral.

            I used to be a liberal and thought we needed better redistribution, regulation, etc. etc to offset this. It finally dawned on me that, no, redistribution isn't the answer. Getting rid of the system that needs so many corrections is the answer. Getting rid of the system that requires so much offsetting, watchdogging, taxpayer supports, etc. etc. is the answer.

            IOW, we need a system where redistribution isn't even needed, because we get the distribution right up front. We need a system with social justice, fair wages, fair trade, living wages, etc. etc. already built in.

            Ironically, Warren's own assessment of the situation demands that. But liberals typically don't see the logic of their own analysis -- or the logical next step. When they do, they move further to the left.

    •  Abso-fragging-lutely. (0+ / 0-)

      Would you care to take over running the Democratic party? I think I want you in charge.

      There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 12:15:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That strategy has worked marvelously for the GO... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      politically indigo

      That strategy has worked marvelously for the GOP and its agenda so far. Sometimes intransigence must be met in kind. Warren for Empress.

  •  Either that, or students could have a debt strike. (7+ / 0-)
  •  Senator Warren has a meaningful message! (37+ / 0-)

    What kind of society offers the richest bankers and capitalists 0.75% loans while preying on the students and workers in the society by continuing to hold them hostage with 18% interest rates.

    Warren Buffett points out the sheer stupidity of anyone actually believing that a rich man will ever allow his riches to go to the poorest in society.

    The rich are always going to say just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will trickle down to the rest of you. . . I hope the American public is catching on.  Warren Buffett
    Only Tea Party idiots would believe such nonsense.  Dick Cheney was right when he summarized the right wing philosophy, "Pi$$ on 'em!"  Karl Rove and Frank Luntz tried to make the philosophy more politically correct, but it is still basically the same.

    Voters should select people to represent them in their government. People in government should not select people who may vote!

    by NM Ray on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 09:00:37 AM PDT

  •  Warren's "going to war" against McConnell (30+ / 0-)

    She's going to be fundraising and campaigning for Grimes all over Kentucky

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 09:01:22 AM PDT

  •  I just sent bucks to Grimes (25+ / 0-)

    Small dollars, but it's all I got.

    Elizabeth Warren Declares War on Mitch McConnell After He Blocked Her Student Loan Bill

     " ... I’m going to get out there and try to make this happen for her. I hope lots of people give her money at I hope people will support her ..."

    If Liz Warren can take the time to memorize the URL and broadcast it on national TV, I figured I could take the time to contribute.

    Who's with me?

    “Hardworking men and women who are busting their tails in full-time jobs shouldn't be left in poverty.” -- Elizabeth Warren

    by Positronicus on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 09:01:51 AM PDT

  •  Bill will do nothing... (0+ / 0-)

    ...but increase college costs and loan values.

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 09:17:31 AM PDT

    •  You have weighed in (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bensdad, elwior, bryduck

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 09:51:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  LOL (3+ / 0-)

      "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

      by nosleep4u on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:06:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Citations for this statement? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Australian2, cowdab, bluezen

      Citations for this statement?

    •  No, it wouldn't. (13+ / 0-)

      The value in Warren’s legislation is crystal clear to me. If I could refinance my student loans at Warren's proposed rate: 3.84%, it would knock the rate I'm currently paying down by 2.41%. I would save about $125/month in interest and could pay off my loans about 8 years earlier than I will otherwise.

      Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

      by Joe Bob on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:18:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're comment brings to mind a good compromise (0+ / 0-)

        Have the interest rate lowered, but keep the monthly payment the same, so the loan is paid off sooner.  

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 01:46:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  i see your real "concern" is for the debt farmers (0+ / 0-)

          . . . as usual.

          The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~ J.K. Galbraith

          by bluezen on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 03:55:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You must hate the Federal Government (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            as the Federal Government owns the loans.  You must also love the bank processors who would receive decreased fees, under the scenario I mentioned.

            The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

            by nextstep on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:51:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  thanks for proving my point. e/m (0+ / 0-)

              The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~ J.K. Galbraith

              by bluezen on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 06:45:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Colleges already know you're... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nextstep, Joe Bob, mattc129

        ...willing to pay the cash equivalent of 6.2% interest because you signed on the dotted line agreeing to do it.

        If your loans go down to 3.84%, colleges will just raise tuition so the next guy who needs a loan pays 3.84% on a much higher balance, to make the total payment in dollars the same.

        Except that instead of an interest payment you can knock down by overpaying, it will be a principal payment that you cannot.

        If you argue that colleges won't do that, do corporations raise prices as high as they possibly can? Why do you think colleges are any different? They have a lot of basketball courts and $400k/year "administrators" to pay.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:47:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I get it. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          As a market theory, I get what you're saying. In practice I have a hard time seeing a real correlation. Federal student loan interest has bounced around between 3% and 8% over the past 20 years and tuition price escalation seemed relentless regardless.

          Also, when it comes to colleges I think there are a lot of countervailing forces to 'charge what the market will bear.' Public schools still have legislatures and trustees to answer to. Similarly, private schools have donors and alumni to answer to. Unlike explicitly profit-driven businesses, there is a different mission and set of limits with schools.

          Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

          by Joe Bob on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 07:30:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You don't have to agree with me (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Consider a thought experiment.

            Let's pretend all government aid vanished tomorrow. No loans, no grants, nothing.

            No one can pay cash at current prices for colleges, other than rich people of which there aren't many. So one of two things would happen:

            (A) Colleges would go out of business
            (B) Colleges get a lot leaner and learn to make do on less money

            Those are really the only options. Many for-profit institutions and some non-profits will take option (A). But a lot will take option (B), too. There is no option C (keep going as it has been).

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 07:52:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Go away, Sparhawk. You have nothing of value to... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Go away, Sparhawk.

      You have nothing of value to offer anyone here.

      •  sparhawk's a troll. check out his comment history (0+ / 0-)

        if you doubt it.

        the only reasons (i guess) he's allowed to dump his shitty rw talking points here are b/c they're 1) dumb & therefore, innocuous, & 2) he knows where the line between obnoxious & bannable is drawn, & steers clear of it.

        The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~ J.K. Galbraith

        by bluezen on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:04:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Fortunately, the students (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, bluezen, rhauenstein

      in arrears and in default have no effect on our economy either.

      Goodness knows that if I didn't have to pay a percentage of my income every month for the next 23 years to a gigantic corporation, I would not be investing that income in local businesses or pursuing my career as a performing artist with more vigor.

      Instead, I will continue to work at an office job for which I did not go to school just so I can pay Sallie Mae, an already-wealthy corporate person, money.

      You're right, Sparhawk, the bill would've done nothing good whatsoever. Have a great day!

    •  Your posts make me sad. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

      by elwior on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 12:10:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not for the peopel that get lower interest rates. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Elizabeth Warren is a dream come true (27+ / 0-)

    A politician that understands what average people go through and one that has a clear vision of a better America.

    She is eloquent and she is a natural leader.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 09:23:22 AM PDT

  •  You don't need a college education to be a butler. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, mcstowy, Positronicus, Bensdad

    The personal wealth creators need butlers.

    Don't send a teddy bear to the Martinez family, they don't want you to intrude on their grief - send a postcard to a politician Not One More

    by 88kathy on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 09:34:02 AM PDT

  •  LOUDER! (10+ / 0-)

    Not "louder".

    Don't ask: DEMAND.

    Scare them.

    Legal means "good".
    [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

    by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 09:36:56 AM PDT

  •  I'm so sick of minority rule. (12+ / 0-)

    And disgusted with the Democratic party leaders who allow minority rule to continue. The student loan refi bill didn't fail. Harry Reid failed America.

    •  The problem with getting rid of the filibuster is (0+ / 0-)

      what happens when the tables are turned.

      I don't really know the history of the Senate, so I don't know how much the Democrats used the filibuster when the Republicans controlled the Senate, but it seems that it was not that much, nor do I (nor anyone else for that matter) know whether the Republicans would have gotten rid of it if the Democrats acted the way the Republicans currently do. They probably would have.

      It seems that the Democrat's reluctance to do so is simply so they will not be blamed for getting rid of the filibuster. They would rather the Republicans take the blame for that, but then it would already be too late for it to be of much benefit to the Democrats.

      If, however, the Democrats have in the past been reluctant to overuse the filibuster the way the Republicans currently do is simply because they have been afraid of upsetting the Republicans, then what good is the filibuster for the Democrats really.

      •  The fillibuster has not "worked" for the Dems (0+ / 0-)

        in any of their various positions as "in control" or "minority" or whatever.  The GOP because it has no shame is always willing to pay any price to win, even the life blood of this nation.

  •  Yes yes yes (20+ / 0-)
    What Elizabeth Warren said. Let's be crystal clear that Republicans are placing low taxes for millionaires and billionaires over affordable interest rates on the loans the children of working families need to be able to attend college. That's what Republicans stand for. And anyone who has student debt or has a kid who's going to need loans to go to college should not only press their senators now, they should remember this vote in November.
    Make them own their obstruction. I hope more Dems take up this issue and run with it.
  •  I love Elizabeth Warren (18+ / 0-)

    I have been saying for a couple of years now that she must be our next president.  She is the only one in DC who is speaking truth to power.  Hillary, pfah, is beyond a nonstarter.  

    But on this, it is far too little, far too late.  DC has chosen to burn the future of America for present gain.  It's so much easier to accept campaign contributions from banks and universities who are directly profiting from the Student Loan gravy train than it is to question the entire underlying structure of education-for-profit.  

    Future generations will record that this was the historical moment in which the American experiment failed, because cynical forces of repression won.  Our children and grandchildren will hold their ancestry in contempt because we did not stop this.

    They will be right.

    •  I love Elizabeth Warren also BUT... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jobobo, mwm341

      She must be in federal government longer, develop foreign policy skills and much more.  I would hate to see her run and lose; but in eight years she should be kicking butt pretty darn high.  Right now they'd eat her alive for inexperience and not ready for prime time.  
      Meanwhile she can get a lot done for the 99%.  We need her there badly and wasting time as good as hers running this early might be risky. On the other hand the experience would be good for future run.  I'm ambivalent at best..  However, should Hillary not run...............

      •  No, just like with Barack Obama in 2008, this (3+ / 0-)

        coming presidential election will be her moment.
           Eight years would put her past her prime. And besides that, we need her now.

        "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

        by elwior on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 12:48:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You well could be right. It just feels they (0+ / 0-)

          will use her lack of experience in government to compare her to Obama.  With me, that's a good thing but with others it may cost precious votes.  I just  want a democrat in the WH and figure Hillary has the best shot.  Maybe Elizabeth for VP.  Wow! What a ticket!
          One thing sure is that the country and the world can't stand another round of bush-like men or worse.

    •  Maybe we get lucky (0+ / 0-)

      and history records this period when we first voted in a black president, and followed it up with a woman.  

      Hopefully with the last name Warren, Besty or Amelia!

  •  She's clearly not a Very Serious Person (10+ / 0-)

    Who invited this far-left radical purist to the party with her partisan agenda? With a few more like her in congress, the delicate balance in DC established over the past few decades could be permanently destroyed with who knows what dire consequences, like, god help us, higher taxes for job creators or more benefits for the takers. We might even--god help us--have something approaching economic fairness in this country, and we just can't have that!

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 09:50:54 AM PDT

  •  A fight worth having.... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Positronicus, chuck utzman, hooper, mwm341

    ....on the merits, and to position the sides politically.

  •  Hoping she backs it up (10+ / 0-)

    By doing a college tour and some commencement addresses.

  •  Senate Majority Leader Warren (2016) (9+ / 0-)

    That is all.

    Make it happen, Number One.

  •  We have much to remember for November. (0+ / 0-)

    We have much to still learn before those holes are punched and those bubbles filled, or that big button pushed.

  •  This is why Republicans are making it difficult (8+ / 0-)

    for students to vote.

    Republican Health Care Plan: marry a Canadian.

    by shoeless on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:15:07 AM PDT

  •  I prefer that when something linked in a (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Daily Kos article, it is to at least a neutral site.  Reading the comments section at this link deflated any elation I felt about Warren doing the right thing.

    Just my preference.

  •  Rip 'em a new one, Liz. (6+ / 0-)

    The GOP really has no good reason to deny this bill. Closing a tax loophole on those earning over 1 million a year is worth doing on its own but particularly worthy for this cause. Why should the program cost anything but some lost revenue for predatory lenders? Default rates will go down as the payment load is reduced via lower interest. It's a clear win-win just as renegotiating excessive interest loans for underwater houses - better to have reasonable mortgage payments than foreclosure. I hope Liz rips the GOP a new one for this travesty.

  •  Find a different offset if that's what it takes. (0+ / 0-)

    It would take "only" about $5billion per year to make Warren’s student loan proposal budget neutral. Find some other offset to fund it. As much as I agree with the Buffett Rule, proposing that is just waving a red flag in front of Republicans, which guarantees the bill will go nowhere in the House. If the goal is to actually pass something rather than just setting up a contrast vote she needs a different idea.

    Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

    by Joe Bob on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:29:30 AM PDT

    •  That would probably be DOA as well. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, Joe Bob

      If she changed the bill to eliminate the tax increase, the Republicans would just find something else that they don't like.  Any proposal that helps the poor or working class is going to be opposed by these clowns.

    •  Stop insisting on an offset (6+ / 0-)

      The US government is right now charging debt burdened young people exorbitant interest rates.  There's nothing that says the US government is entitled to that money, and any moral sense would say it's wrong to collect that much interest.  So just stop.

      The US will get less revenue. So what? Republicans say they never have to justify a tax cut with revenue increases elsewhere.  Why should we justify lowering interest rates on people with student loans?  

      •  Not really an option (0+ / 0-)

        The PAYGO budgeting rules passed by Congress in 2010 require offsetting revenue increases or cuts elsewhere in the budget for any new spending. Of course, there are lots of exceptions but the Direct Loan program isn't one of them. To pass the student loan bill without the offset it would also require a new PAYGO exemption, which would make it that much harder to pass.

        Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

        by Joe Bob on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 07:15:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Good for her, but she's chosen an inefficient.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, ChuckChuckerson

    ...means. Sending a few people to a campaign stop won't do it.  She definitely has the right idea. Gotta spotlight what they did and keep the spotlight on it.

    And the President needs to fucking say something. Not something equivocal, or something about "Congress" but about the obstructionists who have made this the least productive administration of all time, as planned.

    If you hate government, don't run for office in that government.

    by Bensdad on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:38:40 AM PDT

  •  Damn, I like this lady (7+ / 0-)

    she has the desire to not get pushed around like some there.  Go get'um Senator Warren, you make me feel proud.

  •  I hear it all the time from the GOP (3+ / 0-)

    "If you don't like your wages or job, go to school to better yourself."

    But then they seem to want those people to be crushed with debt.

    They want everyone to fend for themselves.

    :) the above thoughts come from a crazy mind. ;)

    by Shreve on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:45:26 AM PDT

  •  Warren knows what to fight for. (5+ / 0-)

    Warren is neither a Clintonesque triangulator nor an Obamaesque conciliator. She is a throwback to a more combative progressive tradition, and her candidacy is a test of whether that approach can still appeal to voters.-J. Toobin "New Yorker"

    by chuck utzman on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:58:38 AM PDT

    •  She sure does, whether it's for consumer rights, (4+ / 0-)

      against Social Security cuts (and FOR increases), for lowering rates on student loans, for closing tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires, for prosecuting Wall Street criminals, and so on, she goes for the right side of the issue, and she's willing (and able) to fight on the People's behalf.

      "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

      by elwior on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:03:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It lost, 56-38 -- Senate arithmetic (7+ / 0-)

    The burden ought to be on those trying to filibuster.  In stead of 60 votes to proceed being required to break a filibuster, Senate rules should require 41 votes against proceeding to uphold the filibuster.  
    The Republicans might have been able to scrape up 3 more filibuster votes if they'd needed to, but it should have been 3 GOP Senators who had to interrupt their fundraising to get to the Senate floor and vote.  

    We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

    by david78209 on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:59:52 AM PDT

  •  Smart woman. (5+ / 0-)

    Would be nice if a supermajority weren't required for every bill. Wouldn't it?

    There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 12:14:56 PM PDT

  •  sen warren (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChuckChuckerson, HeyMikey, mwm341

    could be the answer to many of our questions and problems, that being said i wonder who is more afraid of her getting more power or maybe even running for pres the gop or the dems.

  •  Draft Warren. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Warren 2016

    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

    by HeyMikey on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 06:37:10 PM PDT

  •  Increase the Heat (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Come back with more intensity.  Don't negotiate against ourselves in traditional Washington style whereby you try something good and then dumb it ever down.  

    we are heroes and believers

    by say it on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 07:32:45 PM PDT

  •  38 against. the onus of cloture really needs to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    be shifted to the obstructionists.

    it's an appalling perversion of minority party voice, as is

    Righteousness is a wide path. Self-righteousness is a bullhorn and a blindfold.

    by Murphoney on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 02:11:30 AM PDT

  •  I really, reallt like her. (0+ / 0-)

    I really, reallt like her.

  •  It has to be done LOCALLY (0+ / 0-)

    Forgive me for screaming, but the filibuster is something to scream about. In addition to Dem politicians going after Republican senators in general,

    Kos readers in each state which has a senator who voted for this travesty of a filibuster should go after that senator.

    Social media.
    Whenever ane wherever.

  •  obstruct -> reach more (0+ / 0-)

    It would be fun to see this played out.  Instead of just being louder I say ask for more...  let's go to 31% tax...  obstruct again let's go higher!

    (oops I'm getting wrapped up in the sports of politics and not the issues)

    still I think it would be fun.

  •  Ask the Republicans why, if reducing rates of d... (0+ / 0-)

    Ask the Republicans why, if reducing rates of default is the goal, interest rates were raised. The higher the interest rate, the higher the default rate. It's a lot like trying to reduce abortion rates by eliminating birth control.

    •  ...Republicans don't care about... (0+ / 0-)

      ...we the people.

      The Republicans filibuster anything that isn't completely from their own brains. And then they'll filibuster even those things if Democrats think it's a good idea.

      Republicans no longer have any interest in governing. Currently 40% of registered Republicans believe Democrats are domestic terrorists who are destroying America. They no longer view Dems as having different ideas, but as a total threat to the country. When you have this kind of feelings by 40% of a party, their "leaders" can only stay in power and get elected if they stop 100% of everything the Democrats want to do. Compromise is NOT an option any longer...

      Welcome to Daily Kos. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Community Guidelines, the Knowledge Base, and the Site Resource Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

      ~~ from the DK Partners & Mentors Team.

      Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences. -7.38; -3.44

      by paradise50 on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 10:19:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Joe Bob, chuck utzman, ferg, mwm341, Powered Grace, emal, Shockwave, eeff, Bob Friend, Creosote, 88kathy, 714day, Nate Roberts, fumie, Alna Dem, dksbook, Joe Bacon, Eyesbright, HeyMikey, musiccitymollie, ybruti, Curt Matlock, rambler american, Josiah Bartlett, Sybil Liberty, xxdr zombiexx, democracy inaction, kefauver, basquebob, Left Coast Resident, fixxit, jane123, not a lamb, jtg, Alan Arizona, kovie, koNko, philipmerrill, gpoutney, real world chick, hlsmlane, jjellin, ZenTrainer, BentLiberal, hooper, Mary Mike, flumptytail, say it, newpioneer, mbh1023, cyncynical, quadmom, leonard145b, fb, JayC, flowerfarmer, Thomas Twinnings, elwior, triplepoint, SottoVoce, exdiplopat, JamieG from Md, bluemoonfever, MufsMom, Domestic Elf, glitterlust, papahaha, Larsstephens, Words In Action, Railfan, smileycreek, Mdfog10, FogCityJohn, kjoftherock, Polly Syllabic, renzo capetti, IQof20, Loose Fur, cocinero, nosleep4u, fiercefilms, slice, allenjo, Liberal Capitalist, slowbutsure, donaurora, FarWestGirl, CoExistNow, Haf2Read, BarackStarObama, VirginiaJeff, TRPChicago, bluedust, leftykook, DRo, Auriandra, allergywoman, quill, bluezen, Eric Nelson, a2nite, kellius, Jake Bodhi, BusyinCA, this just in, jbob, VeloDramatic, poopdogcomedy, minnec, aresea, Shreve, notevenclosetoonepercent, duhban, skepticalcitizen, Tronsix2, rbaillie, Dodgerdog1, navane50mg, Capt Crunch, Virally Suppressed, Zwenkau, sillycarrot, politically indigo, Shaylors Provence, hbk, bobcat41702, cowdab, DemProgStrategist, Older and Wiser Now

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site