US Politics: #Musky DeSaster

[LongRider]

1 hour ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Do Republican voters even know there is a North Dakota?

Isn't that part of Canada?  Sounds cold. 

/s

[DMC]

So, a debt ceiling deal has been reached...for now.  Pretty much what was already reported, but this...

Quote

The agreement includes new policy changes to the TANF and SNAP programs, including time limits on people up to age 54, according to a source familiar with the negotiations who was not authorized to share details publicly. The deal would include new work requirements in TANF for cash assistance recipients but a modified version of the House-passed bill. The changes are likely to be unpopular with House Democrats.

But it imposes no new work requirements for Medicaid, a win for the White House.

This is absolutely not what FDR imagined when he passed welfare nearly a century ago.  It's quite the shame..but at the same time not surprising a guy like Joe Biden would give it up.  Oh well.

Anywho, now we got the 72-hour window ON TOP of all the Senate fuck ups before voting.  It's gonna be a very annoying week.  But, this IS getting pretty damn close.

[Varysblackfyre321]

[Jeor]

9 hours ago, DMC said:

Anywho, now we got the 72-hour window ON TOP of all the Senate fuck ups before voting.  It's gonna be a very annoying week.  But, this IS getting pretty damn close.

What are the chances of this actually passing, though? There will be lots of Republican defections, but I guess Dems will have to do the heavy lifting.

What was the reason Dems didn't get rid of the debt ceiling when they had control of the White House and Congress again...? I don't know why you wouldn't just have gotten rid of it in that lame duck session. 

[maarsen]

10 hours ago, LongRider said:

Isn't that part of Canada?  Sounds cold. 

/s

The really thick headed part of Canada is north of Montana. North of North Dakota is Winnipeg, known for being even colder and Neil Young and the  Guess Who.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I think you meant Manitoba. Winnipeg is pretty much the only city I could name from that province, or is it really directly at the border.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Jeor said:

What are the chances of this actually passing, though?

I dunno, guess I'd put it at about 70/30.  Prolly higher, but I suppose the cynicism of this board is wearing on me.  As I intimated, the far-right is going to whine and cry for a week, but that shouldn't prevent it from passing.  Very rarely does a bill agreed upon by the President and the Speaker of two different parties fail to pass.  At least the House, that is, and the Senate ain't the problem (albeit Mike Lee and others will make it arduous).  

Two closest counterexamples of that I can think of would be the 2007 immigration reform and the first TARP bill.  The latter, of course, was rather immediately resolved.  So the extreme right only has one example this century of killing such a bill to hang their hat on.

As for why the Dems didn't get rid of the debt ceiling during the lame duck, see above.  I'll take the Respect for Marriage Act, ECA Reform, and the budget that they are basing the spending freeze on in this deal over a misguided effort to try and do that.  All day every day.

The interesting thing will indeed be whether McCarthy can get a majority of his conference to vote for it.  I wouldn't be surprised if he can't.

[Jeor]

21 minutes ago, DMC said:

The interesting thing will indeed be whether McCarthy can get a majority of his conference to vote for it.  I wouldn't be surprised if he can't.

In theory he's supposed to if he's going to bring it to the floor (the vaunted Hastert Rule). But I wouldn't be surprised if he circumvents it given current circumstances.

Regardless of how it comes to the floor, if it ends up passing I'm sure McCarthy will face a motion to vacate the Speakership, which will mean breaking out the popcorn. There will be plenty of Republican House members who will be unimpressed with McCarthy's negotiating (not that any of the hard right have ever had to actually be pragmatic themselves).

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Jeor said:

In theory he's supposed to if he's going to bring it to the floor (the vaunted Hastert Rule). But I wouldn't be surprised if he circumvents it given current circumstances.

Sure.  The Hastert Rule isn't an actual rule and has been violated multiple times by multiple Speakers.  As for whether this will lead to a no-confidence vote on McCarthy - no question.  It most certainly will.  Whether he can gain a majority of the majority on this bill will be a good indication on whether or not he will survive such.

[Ormond]

13 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Who now? Do people in North Dakota even know who their Governor is? Do Republican voters even know there is a North Dakota? Talk about starting from behind the eight ball...

Your third question is relevant, but I wouldn't be surprised if people are more likely to know who their governor is in states with very small populations.

[Fez]

It's a question of whether the bill can even get to the floor though. I believe there are enough HFC members on the rules committee to block it, unless the Dems there vote for it. And if their votes become necessary they may demand negotiations to make the bill more palatable to the House Dems. Which there isn't really time for.

[Jeor]

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sure.  The Hastert Rule isn't an actual rule and has been violated multiple times by multiple Speakers.

Yes, hence my use of the "vaunted" adjective.

It would be amusing if the House Republicans have the votes to roll McCarthy but don't have the votes to decide on another Speaker again, but I doubt that will happen in practice. Given the farce it was the first time, the majority of the caucus wouldn't vote him out unless they knew for sure who his replacement was going to be e.g. Scalise.

[LongRider]

2 hours ago, maarsen said:

The really thick headed part of Canada is north of Montana. North of North Dakota is Winnipeg, known for being even colder and Neil Young and the  Guess Who.

Who?

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Jeor said:

It would be amusing if the House Republicans have the votes to roll McCarthy but don't have the votes to decide on another Speaker again, but I doubt that will happen in practice. Given the farce it was the first time, the majority of the caucus wouldn't vote him out unless they knew for sure who his replacement was going to be e.g. Scalise.

Indeed.  The fact even the most cantankerous haven't floated a replacement yet is probably a good sign he'll survive.  If they could find a suitable replacement, he wouldn't be there in the first place.  I agree Scalise is an intuitive alternative option, but for whatever reason that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

[DMC]

50 minutes ago, Fez said:

It's a question of whether the bill can even get to the floor though. I believe there are enough HFC members on the rules committee to block it, unless the Dems there vote for it. And if their votes become necessary they may demand negotiations to make the bill more palatable to the House Dems. Which there isn't really time for.

LOL.  I imagine Norman and Roy will vote against it for position taking.  Maybe Massie too.  But that's about it.  If McCarthy didn't think it'd get through the Rules Committee he wouldn't have made the deal.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

@DMC @Tywin et al.

I’m curious as to why you two think no one has challenged the debt ceiling law under the 14th Amendment?  Are they afraid, without an existing default, it would be kicked on standing?  Or do both parties just like having this sword of Damocles to dangle over the other side periodically?

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are they afraid, without an existing default, it would be kicked on standing?

Yes.  It almost certainly would not survive SCOTUS as currently composed.

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Or do both parties just like having this sword of Damocles to dangle over the other side periodically?

It's not both parties.  It's the House GOP.  Solely.

[Zorral]

The fascist party knows North Dakota very well.

The Dakota Access Pipeline at Standing Rock made the place notorious and the Bakken shale natural gas fracking boom and bust made some rich and destroyed many ND's lives in the western part of the country. 

NoDaks know damned well who the governor is; some of them -- WOMEN -- have been fighting him for a long time, re abortion and health care, the same for LGBTQ NoDaks -- and there are quite a few in the legislature who are far extremists, which the governor doesn't see himself as -- he sees himself a purely rational, reasonable, successful, xtian, white, superior, man who knows what should be done and gets it done.  He wouldn't insult a (married) pregnant female legislator to her face like some of his colleagues did, resulting in censure -- though not removal of course.

 

 

[Fez]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

LOL.  I imagine Norman and Roy will vote against it for position taking.  Maybe Massie too.  But that's about it.  If McCarthy didn't think it'd get through the Rules Committee he wouldn't have made the deal.

Right, and if those 3 voted against and the House Dems on the committee voted against it, that's be a 7-6 vote to block the bill from hitting the floor. House Dems weren't involved in these negotiations and one thing that isn't McCarthy's job is whipping Democratic votes. But if the House Dems feel that the White House has given up too much, things can get complicated fast.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

Right, and if those 3 voted against and the House Dems on the committee voted against it, that's be a 7-6 vote to block the bill from hitting the floor. House Dems weren't involved in these negotiations and one thing that isn't McCarthy's job is whipping Democratic votes. But if the House Dems feel that the White House has given up too much, things can get complicated fast.

I have no idea why you're under the impression any Dem member of the Rules Committee will block a bill their president wants passed.