A Deeply Fractured US

[KevinB]

Wait - how is he allowed to post on social media while in the courtroom?

Because he is the Donald, rules don’t apply to him (in his mind).

 

[TacticalTea]

Speaker McCarthy has just been voted out as House Speaker...don't think its in print yet, just saw a special report on TV

Kind of jaw dropping news.

Second time this happens to me today.

(First was the UNSC authorizing a Kenyan mission to Haiti, voted yesterday)

What do Dems gain from this? Collaborating with the radicals...

 

[Lumber]

What do Dems gain from this? Collaborating with the radicals...

Turmoil within the republican party.

 

[PuckChaser]

Folks, if you can't figure out how to make an intelligent argument here without name calling, memes or passive-aggressive dropping news links without any comment, we can just lock this up.

- Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Brad Sallows]

What do Dems gain from this? Collaborating with the radicals...

It interferes with pretty much all House business, including the committee investigations.

Most of the votes for this, as with defeating McCarthy's first attempt to pass a CR to extend the deadline for "shutdown", came from Democrats. The power to improve Congress is not entirely in Republican hands, despite the impression some media try to create. Votes are more legit than pulling fire alarms, though.

 

[TacticalTea]

It interferes with pretty much all House business, including the committee investigations.

Most of the votes for this, as with defeating McCarthy's first attempt to pass a CR to extend the deadline for "shutdown", came from Democrats. The power to improve Congress is not entirely in Republican hands, despite the impression some media try to create. Votes are more legit than pulling fire alarms, though.

Right, I'd almost forgotten about the impeachment stuff.

Lol @ fire alarm

I'm concerned that Dems' handing the radicals this victory will further energize them and their supporters, and continue to drive up cynicism in regular Americans, who may then give up on the center.

Playing with fire, they are.

 

[Remius]

All this shows is that even with majority in congress the GOP can’t get anything done.

 

[IKnowNothing]

All this shows is that even with majority in congress the GOP can’t get anything done.

A couple of years old, but I think this article is relevant to what we're seeing.
America Is Now the Divided Republic the Framers Feared

 

[Brad Sallows]

All this shows is that even with majority in congress the GOP can’t get anything done.

They don't have a majority in Congress. They have a majority in the House.

McCarthy's first attempt to pass a CR was too strong for Democrats and too weak for some Republicans. He managed to cut some sort of deal with Democrats and got a CR passed. Democrats rewarded this with their usual scorpion-stings-frog behaviour. The kicker is that it may not have been simple opportunism - I've read a claim that McCarthy thinks he had an informal agreement with Pelosi for Democratic support in the event of a motion to vacate. Gaetz et al were of course following through on their threats (which they should not have made, because it gave them not much room to back down), by which they were trying to assert some parts of regular order.

So McCarthy got something done, and - unless the deal he thought he had never existed - was betrayed by the faction who wanted it done. For all the time people (including here) lament bipartisanship, how is that ever supposed to be possible when relentless rat-fucking is all that can be expected from Democrats?

 

[Remius]

They don't have a majority in Congress. They have a majority in the House.

Right. My comment still stands at what a mess the GOP is.

 

[QV]

Right. My comment still stands at what a mess the GOP is.

Regardless of what is going on, the GOP, the CPC, and the UCP are always going to be a mess in your eyes.

 

[KevinB]

They don't have a majority in Congress. They have a majority in the House.

McCarthy's first attempt to pass a CR was too strong for Democrats and too weak for some Republicans. He managed to cut some sort of deal with Democrats and got a CR passed. Democrats rewarded this with their usual scorpion-stings-frog behaviour. The kicker is that it may not have been simple opportunism - I've read a claim that McCarthy thinks he had an informal agreement with Pelosi for Democratic support in the event of a motion to vacate. Gaetz et al were of course following through on their threats (which they should not have made, because it gave them not much room to back down), by which they were trying to assert some parts of regular order.

So McCarthy got something done, and - unless the deal he thought he had never existed - was betrayed by the faction who wanted it done. For all the time people (including here) lament bipartisanship, how is that ever supposed to be possible when relentless rat-fucking is all that can be expected from Democrats?

There was a deal on the CR, but McCarthy walked away from it under pressure from the lunatic side of the GOP.
Thinking that he could go it alone with GOP members, but didn’t get support due to the removal of the Ukraine Aid provisions.

He screwed himself. Now he’s back to his old pre speaker role mantra of condemning the MAGA Trump folks // if he’d have stuck to his Jan 6 outlook on Trump, he might have been able to get a true consensus built in the House across the aisles.

 

[Brad Sallows]

There was a deal on the CR, but McCarthy walked away from it under pressure from the lunatic side of the GOP.
Thinking that he could go it alone with GOP members, but didn’t get support due to the removal of the Ukraine Aid provisions.

He screwed himself. Now he’s back to his old pre speaker role mantra of condemning the MAGA Trump folks // if he’d have stuck to his Jan 6 outlook on Trump, he might have been able to get a true consensus built in the House across the aisles.

He screwed himself by making commitments to other Republicans that he didn't keep.

Regardless how badly Republicans have fumbled this, one essential lesson has been re-learned: it is close to impossible to make a deal with Democrats in which the benefits are delivered serially (ie. Democrats get a hamburger today in exchange for payment Tuesday).

There's a strong current of Republican dissatisfaction with the perception that Democrats manage to keep moving the ball one way, and Republicans almost never manage to move it the other. The dissatisfied insist that their team in Congress achieve something, but Democrats repeatedly ensure that phased bipartisan deals can almost never be struck that result in all deliverables being met, leaving only brinksmanship - shutdowns and debt ceilings.

The clock is ticking on the CR expiration (45 days when passed), and both parties had the power to avoid this unnecessary interruption. But the Democrats had at least already got something they wanted, and chose to help throw a wrench into the gears.

 

[Lumber]

Regardless of what is going on, the GOP, the CPC, and the UCP are always going to be a mess in your eyes.

You could have just, not, you know?

 

[Remius]

Regardless of what is going on, the GOP, the CPC, and the UCP are always going to be a mess in your eyes.

Nope. If they have their act together I’ll say so and have. But nice try.

 

[Remius]

You could have just, not, you know?

He’s made a personal attack on me where none was made on my part. Let that stand as far as the validity of his response to the issues.

 

[KevinB]

He screwed himself by making commitments to other Republicans that he didn't keep.

Regardless how badly Republicans have fumbled this, one essential lesson has been re-learned: it is close to impossible to make a deal with Democrats in which the benefits are delivered serially (ie. Democrats get a hamburger today in exchange for payment Tuesday).

Honestly I see it differently, there was a deal, and I don’t see the Democrats being the ones who welched on it.
McCarthy’s issue was he made deals with idiots in the GOP to become Speaker. that made it impossible to actually do anything as those several idiots don’t think about the consequences of their actions.

The entire principle of Democracy is based on consensus and compromise. When you get someone like Matt Gaetz holding the puppet strings you are bound for a shit show.

There's a strong current of Republican dissatisfaction with the perception that Democrats manage to keep moving the ball one way, and Republicans almost never manage to move it the other. The dissatisfied insist that their team in Congress achieve something, but Democrats repeatedly ensure that phased bipartisan deals can almost never be struck that result in all deliverables being met, leaving only brinksmanship - shutdowns and debt ceilings.

Seriously let’s look to the Trump 7.3 Trillion increase in the Debt.
Democrats were willing to work with Republicans despite the recklessness of spending. Yet now all of a sudden Republicans have a financial conscious?

The clock is ticking on the CR expiration (45 days when passed), and both parties had the power to avoid this unnecessary interruption. But the Democrats had at least already got something they wanted, and chose to help throw a wrench into the gears.

Everyone looks like an assclown in the House. They managed to sneak a pay raise in to the 45day CR too.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Seriously let’s look to the Trump 7.3 Trillion increase in the Debt.

I take that stuff seriously, but I don't take seriously criticisms of crisis spending as if it represents something that would normally happen. As another example, Harper was criticized for "most spending ever" on the basis of the 2009 "Economic Action Plan" budget. The spending was done at the insistence of the opposition parties, who later proceeded to criticize the spending. Hypocrites to the bone. I view all responses to COVID the same way, and US federal spending took a big jump to deal with COVID. The question worth examining is what happens after the crisis.

A significant reason for US deficit growth is that the Democrats prefer to use each successive year's discretionary spending as a "baseline" for determining the next year's. It is one of the reasons they resist regular order appropriations (ie. passing twelve distinct appropriations bills) - they simply hold out for one lump which is an increase of several percent over the previous year. Also, early during Obama's administration, he moved the off-budget war expenses to on-budget. The reason given for public consumption was that having it off-budget was some kind of deception, as if it were "hidden". Everything is in open view; the point of the off-budget/on-budget separation is to separate things that are not expected to go on forever from those which are. In fact, the "off-budget" balance was usually a surplus - the "off-budget" in essence paid for itself, to the extent looking at it in isolation makes any sense. As to the real reason for the change, it was no mystery why - war spending was expected to trend down, and moving an off-budget item to on-budget makes it part of the baseline. Voila, one-time permanent jump in baseline. I'm not sure many people understand how the Democrats pulled a fast one on that.

Appropriations (spending) are Congress's job, so the place to look is not the president's office; people who post a history of deficits by presidential administration are being deceitful. Look to the balance of control in the House and Senate.

The Republican Freedom Caucus (or whatever the gang Gaetz belongs to is called if I have that wrong) has been trying to restore regular order. It's pathetic that the American media portrays them as cranks and manages to dupe the American people into believing that restoring ordinary Congressional procedures is some kind of extremism.

 

[KevinB]

I take that stuff seriously, but I don't take seriously criticisms of crisis spending as if it represents something that would normally happen. As another example, Harper was criticized for "most spending ever" on the basis of the 2009 "Economic Action Plan" budget. The spending was done at the insistence of the opposition parties, who later proceeded to criticize the spending. Hypocrites to the bone. I view all responses to COVID the same way, and US federal spending took a big jump to deal with COVID. The question worth examining is what happens after the crisis.

No disagreement there.

A significant reason for US deficit growth is that the Democrats prefer to use each successive year's discretionary spending as a "baseline" for determining the next year's. It is one of the reasons they resist regular order appropriations (ie. passing twelve distinct appropriations bills) - they simply hold out for one lump which is an increase of several percent over the previous year. Also, early during Obama's administration, he moved the off-budget war expenses to on-budget. The reason given for public consumption was that having it off-budget was some kind of deception, as if it were "hidden". Everything is in open view; the point of the off-budget/on-budget separation is to separate things that are not expected to go on forever from those which are. In fact, the "off-budget" balance was usually a surplus - the "off-budget" in essence paid for itself, to the extent looking at it in isolation makes any sense. As to the real reason for the change, it was no mystery why - war spending was expected to trend down, and moving an off-budget item to on-budget makes it part of the baseline. Voila, one-time permanent jump in baseline. I'm not sure many people understand how the Democrats pulled a fast one on that.

100% agreement there.
Oh as well, I am no fan of President Obama, and a lot of the shady shit he did.
There are still a number of hidden things left over from his legacy (that neither President Trump, nor President Biden seem to have any interest in removing.).

Appropriations (spending) are Congress's job, so the place to look is not the president's office; people who post a history of deficits by presidential administration are being deceitful. Look to the balance of control in the House and Senate.

Yes let’s. From Pew Research

45 had 2 years of full control, and lost the Senate in the last two.

The Republican Freedom Caucus (or whatever the gang Gaetz belongs to is called if I have that wrong) has been trying to restore regular order. It's pathetic that the American media portrays them as cranks and manages to dupe the American people into believing that restoring ordinary Congressional procedures is some kind of extremism.

The lunatic Fringe doesn’t though. Believe me, if they actually did stuff to Make America Great Again, I’d be all for it.
But they vote for the weirdest shit, including Tax Breaks for the 1% Richest Americans.
While putting the burden to their constituents.

I hate to give POTUS credit (it really really bugs me) but his economic policies are benefiting all of Americans, not just those who paid for hundred thousand dollar a plate dinners etc.

Both parties are corrupt, and frankly disgust me, I’d gladly vote for a moderate independent party that wasn’t beholden to anyone but their constituents.

 

[mariomike]

I’d gladly vote for a moderate independent party that wasn’t beholden to anyone but their constituents.

Don't know how moderate they are. But, there's already a few on the 2024 menu for eligible voters to choose from.

Third-party and independent candidates for the 2024 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Doesn't do much good if they are not viable enough to get in, though.