US Politics: #Musky DeSaster

[Mlle. Zabzie]

17 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Basically? From what I can gather Biden was able to essentially give McCarthy a lot of lip service without giving up particularly that much in actual value. The biggest actual loss is defunding of the IRS funding increases. Everything else is a loss without being a loss and is not actual losses. 

It still sucks in the sense that the Republicans got something for their terrorist behavior but it's not painful, and the fact that it's McCarthy that is having the hardest time selling it seems to show that.

Eh, the IRS piece honestly isn't too big a give the way the WH is viewing it.  The tax bar is tending to agree.   FWIW the view is that because the money can be spent whenever, it doesn't actually affect the enforcement initiatives. About $20 billion is getting allocated currently to other priorities during FY 24 and 25.  The current spend will continue (and may actually accelerate) and as and when they want more money they can ask.  Basically this just accelerates the spend on the remaining $58.5 and enforcement, etc. will continue to accelerate.

[Tywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

Probably unnecessary to say the school canceled the play because a minority group of adults screamed it was obscene? 

Make these shitheads read the material and do a full book report before they can complain. If what they do is worthy of an A, maybe they have a point. If not, fuck off.

Edited May 31 by Tywin et al.

[Gaston de Foix]

What the WH has gotten, IMHO, is a freedom from the terrible world of short-terms CRs which made future planning within USG challenging to impossible.  The duration of this agreement is its single best feature.  A Dem House and (mildly) Republican Senate in 2025 will result in a very different appropriations process.  

I mean there is another which is that the same people who are insisting that the deficit and national debt are an existential threat to the nation are also insisting (i) no new revenue; (ii) no defense cuts, and agreeing with the WH that there is (iii) no need for entitlement reform.  That is a schiziophrenic position.  

[Zorral]

What the effin' eff???????  O Canada   O US   O Americas from the Arctic to Tierra del Fuego. 

Tyler Russell, a Canadian nationalist leader of the America First movement, has called for Donald Trump to be installed as "dictator" in a "Trumpian Reich."

https://www.rawstory.com/tyler-russell-trumpian-reich/

Quote

 

.... "All of these DeSantis, you know, libertarian populist people that are like, we need to actually have political substance," he complained. "No, I don't give a f--k about that, okay? I don't care about your political substance."

"I want a Trump Reich," he continued. "And I want Trump's face to be, you know, projected onto every single tallest skyscraper in every city around America, okay?"

"We want a total Trumpian Reich, okay?" he said. "That's what we want. We want a total Trumpian Reich. We want dictator Trump."

"We want Trump to rule forever and ever and make America great again," Russell added. "And we want all these people who are acting in bad faith, who are traitors to this nation, to go to jail. That's what we want."

 

 

[DMC]

4 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Help me out here: Who has hoodwinked who over this Debt Limit bill...?

As others mentioned, the main "cuts" in the deal can essentially be chalked up to accounting tricks.  And as Zabs intimated, even the IRS rescissions are probably not going to in effect be "cuts."  The boost they would be taking that $20 billion out of was spread out over 10 years.  So they can delay those "cuts" until a later date and (likely) recoup any of those "cuts" that are promised.

The biggest concession which has the left pissed off are the expanded work requirements.  But even there, the CBO projects that if this deal is passed, the number of people eligible for SNAP will actually go up:

Quote

According to the Congressional Budget Office, however, the number of people eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will actually go up as a result of the agreement.

How it works: At the moment, work requirements are in place for able-bodied adults under the age of 50 who do not live with any dependent children. Under the new law, the age cap will be increased to 54 after 2025 — but a new slew of exemptions will also be enacted.

Adults under 54 — including many under 50 who are covered by existing work requirements — will be exempted if they're veterans or experiencing homelessness, including individuals temporarily living in someone else's home.

Adults under 24 will also be exempted if they were in foster care when they turned 18.

Perhaps most importantly, once the Republicans won the House in November a deal like this was inevitable once October rolled around and the parties had to agree to continue to fund the government.  Frankly, if this deal was made in October completely absent of any debt ceiling mishegoss, it still would have been a good deal for Biden/the Dems.

Now, the caveat there is perhaps McCarthy (and even McConnell and the GOP Senate) will insist on further cuts come October.  But - if this deal is passed - they just gave up by far their biggest leverage.  They can shutdown the government, of course, but that NEVER works for Republicans.  And the public is even less likely to go along with the GOP only four months after all this.

Only real leverage the GOP will have come September/October is if it looks like we're in and/or heading into a recession.  Then I suppose the American public may get on board with MOAR CUTS!!!!

[Tywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, Zorral said:

What the effin' eff???????  O Canada   O US   O Americas from the Arctic to Tierra del Fuego. 

Tyler Russell, a Canadian nationalist leader of the America First movement, has called for Donald Trump to be installed as "dictator" in a "Trumpian Reich."

https://www.rawstory.com/tyler-russell-trumpian-reich/

 

Everyone knows Canadians are every bit as dangerous as the Australians.  

[Fragile Bird]

36 minutes ago, Zorral said:

What the effin' eff???????  O Canada   O US   O Americas from the Arctic to Tierra del Fuego. 

Tyler Russell, a Canadian nationalist leader of the America First movement, has called for Donald Trump to be installed as "dictator" in a "Trumpian Reich."

https://www.rawstory.com/tyler-russell-trumpian-reich/

 

Hey, every country has young nutters. He’s from the heart of Conservative rural Ontario, he’s in his 20s, he’s been condemned for his racist views. What can you say?

[Ran]

How has no one mentioned this? For the latest example of the theatre of the absurd which is politics, Biden accuser Tara Reade has "defected" to Russia.

[DMC]

Just now, Ran said:

How has no one mentioned this? For the latest example of the theatre of the absurd which is politics, Biden accuser Tara Reade has "defected" to Russia.

Saw that.  Didn't think it was worth mentioning.

[Ran]

Just now, DMC said:

Saw that.  Didn't think it was worth mentioning.

I mostly mention it because I remember a couple of people somehow convincing themselves she was legitimate and not a grifter who had committed fraud repeatedly in her life, but hopefully this latest move of hers might make any still clinging to the validity of her claims to give pause.

[Jace, Extat]

2 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

  

I mean there is another which is that the same people who are insisting that the deficit and national debt are an existential threat to the nation are also insisting (i) no new revenue; (ii) no defense cuts, and agreeing with the WH that there is (iii) no need for entitlement reform.  That is a schiziophrenic position.  

What about me? I think it's baseline-moronic to just run a deficit as a matter of course. If only because debts have interest rates and therefore cost more money than not-debts. 

It's a simpleton's comprehension of economics but it's mine.

And I would have the heads of every defense contractor placed on my desk as my first action as your president. It would help encourage the non-murder complicit barons to pay my new taxes and reform socialized conservation efforts throughout the country. 

So, uh, no.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

I mostly mention it because I remember a couple of people somehow convincing themselves she was legitimate and not a grifter who had committed fraud repeatedly in her life

Yeah I get it, just being a smartass.  IIRC, the posters on these threads advancing Reade's claims at the time have not posted in quite awhile.

The full House just passed the rule, opening debate on the final floor vote.  52 Democrats bucked convention and voted for the rule to ensure its passage (the overall vote was 241-187).

[TrackerNeil]

14 minutes ago, Ran said:

I mostly mention it because I remember a couple of people somehow convincing themselves she was legitimate and not a grifter who had committed fraud repeatedly in her life, but hopefully this latest move of hers might make any still clinging to the validity of her claims to give pause.

Ohhhh, do I have some gloating to do on Facebook! 

I'll bet that not a single person who praised Reade as a hero and whatever will turn around and say, "Huh, maybe I got that wrong."

[Week]

I do wonder if this will ever get real legs.

 

[DMC]

Speaking of news not worth mentioning, both Mike Pence and Chris Christie will announce their presidential bids next week.  Great to see the non-Trumpists fill up the primary field.  Again.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Secretary of Eumenes said:

What about me? I think it's baseline-moronic to just run a deficit as a matter of course. If only because debts have interest rates and therefore cost more money than not-debts. 

It's a simpleton's comprehension of economics but it's mine.

And I would have the heads of every defense contractor placed on my desk as my first action as your president. It would help encourage the non-murder complicit barons to pay my new taxes and reform socialized conservation efforts throughout the country. 

So, uh, no.

The entire explanation for why voters can be duped into voting against their own best interests and that of the nation summed up in one short sentence.

Govts should always run deficits, because govts can never run out of money and, stupid debt ceilings notwithstanding, always pay their debts. When as a cheque/check from the US govt ever bounced?

So long as inflation is reasonable and foreign exchange value is stable the size of govt debt and deficit really doesn't matter, as Dick Cheney rightly said "deficits don't matter". Govt deficit is private savings. Govt surplus is private debt. Running surpluses is arguably immoral. There rightly should be discussion about what govt should spend money on and how much, but even if you cut govt spending by 50% tax revenue should also be cut by 50% and the govt should continue to run deficits.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Yeah I get it, just being a smartass.  IIRC, the posters on these threads advancing Reade's claims at the time have not posted in quite awhile.

The full House just passed the rule, opening debate on the final floor vote.  52 Democrats bucked convention and voted for the rule to ensure its passage (the overall vote was 241-187).

Did they have to draw straws to identify the 52 who would vote for it?

[Jace, Extat]

19 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The entire explanation for why voters can be duped into voting against their own best interests and that of the nation summed up in one short sentence.

Govts should always run deficits, because govts can never run out of money and, stupid debt ceilings notwithstanding, always pay their debts. When as a cheque/check from the US govt ever bounced?

So long as inflation is reasonable and foreign exchange value is stable the size of govt debt and deficit really doesn't matter, as Dick Cheney rightly said "deficits don't matter". Govt deficit is private savings. Govt surplus is private debt. Running surpluses is arguably immoral. There rightly should be discussion about what govt should spend money on and how much, but even if you cut govt spending by 50% tax revenue should also be cut by 50% and the govt should continue to run deficits.

So it's smarter to run a deficit, thereby paying extra on each dollar spent (because it's borrowed) simply because government checks don't bounce? That's a terrible argument. 

I think a government shouldn't run a forever-deficit because it's just not good money management. 

I ain't over here saying we need to go back to the gold standard. I just value smarter spending. 

If we HAD a surplus it might be easier to push for improvements to entitlements and public services when a need arises. 

We will never know.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Did they have to draw straws to identify the 52 who would vote for it?

Here's the roll call.  The 52 were certainly not random.  At a quick glance, almost all of them are members of the New Democratic Coalition - the "moderate-to-liberal" caucus among House Dems (they have 94 total members).  High profile exceptions include Ruben Gallego, Steny Hoyer, and Sheila Jackson Lee (indeed they may well be the ONLY exceptions).  Notably, no members of Dem leadership voted for the rule, albeit I suppose you could call Hoyer an emeritus member of leadership.

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Secretary of Eumenes said:

So it's smarter to run a deficit, thereby paying extra on each dollar spent (because it's borrowed) simply because government checks don't bounce?

It's important to distinguish between a national debt and running a deficit.  Every government needs to establish a national debt, that's how the world economy works since, like, John Locke.  Running a deficit?  Well that's a whole other BOW.  The classic Keynesian theory is to balance the budget during good times and run deficits to spend your way out of it during bad times.