McCarthy’s Big Win Forces Biden & Dems to the Table

[Comshaw]

The Senate will have to pass a bill that can garner 60 votes.

(snip)
As an aside think about this, what if the House had the same filibuster rule the Senate does, that they need a 2/3rds affirmative vote to pass legislation? Would anything ever get done? If it's such a good thing to use to foster bipartisanship (as has been argued to support the Senate filibuster rule), why doesn't the House have such a rule? Maybe because it causes gridlock and gums up the works and nothing would ever get done? Yeah, like that.

Comshaw

Worth repeating.

Comshaw

 

[YDB95]

Also worth mentioning that the loudest supporters of the filibuster here tend to be the same people who never shut up about what the founding fathers wanted. Guess what? The Constitution makes no mention whatsoever of the filibuster!

 

[Lazaran]

Also worth mentioning that the loudest supporters of the filibuster here tend to be the same people who never shut up about what the founding fathers wanted. Guess what? The Constitution makes no mention whatsoever of the filibuster!

Exactly.

Everything is situational and selective for the RWCJ “members”: Citations, historical references, etc, etc,….. (And don’t forget “ALTERNATIVE FACTS”.)

They need to twist and contort their words and beliefs to “support” their pathologically specious arguments and positions

That ^ is the standard M. O. of intellectually dishonest and disingenuous sociopathic Deplorables.

SAD!!!

RWCJ “members”

 

[Rightguide]

Also worth mentioning that the loudest supporters of the filibuster here tend to be the same people who never shut up about what the founding fathers wanted. Guess what? The Constitution makes no mention whatsoever of the filibuster!

No, but it makes mention of the House and Senate making their own rules, and those rules allow for the filibuster which is s term for additional debate that is now governed by the Cloture Rule.

​

.

 

[HisArpy]

Worth repeating.

Comshaw

Repeating your fantasy doesn't make it true.

 

[YDB95]

No, but it makes mention of the House and Senate making their own rules, and those rules allow for the filibuster which is s term for additional debate that is now governed by the Cloture Rule.

That still violates the principle of strict constructionism that you are otherwise so fond of.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

They're set to vote on legislation this week.

What day this week?

 

[ll74]

What day this week?

The vote has been delayed as discussions continue.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The vote has been delayed as discussions continue.

Translation: Senate Dems still do not have the votes needed to pass a bill but now recognize they must negotiate with their GOP colleagues.

 

[Lazaran]

So STILL no “big win” from Weaker mccarthy’s DOA ( Dead On Arrival / Default On America) bill.

BabyBoobs

 

[ll74]

Translation: Senate Dems still do not have the votes needed to pass a bill but now recognize they must negotiate with their GOP colleagues.

They have been negotiating. They gave their starting point in February. Republicans have their starting point two weeks ago.

 

[ll74]

And let's be clear - the Democratic line has been known for quite some time. The Republican line is still not. Until Republicans get more specific in what they want to cut versus what they don't, it's still just media fodder.

I expect the GOP will need to call out that social security and veterans benefits are off the table in the bill before they progress.

 

[HisArpy]

That still violates the principle of strict constructionism that you are otherwise so fond of.

What part of

Section 5.​

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

isn't being strictly construed?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

And let's be clear - the Democratic line has been known for quite some time. The Republican line is still not. Until Republicans get more specific in what they want to cut versus what they don't, it's still just media fodder.

I expect the GOP will need to call out that social security and veterans benefits are off the table in the bill before they progress.

Yes, the Democratic line has been a nonnegotiable clean debt limit increase with no spending restraints. To their surprise, the GOP House passed a bill that raises the ceiling and includes top line spending restraints. The Senate has not passed and will not pass a clean debt limit bill. They simply don’t have the votes. The President and Congressional Dems are now forced to negotiate. McCarthy has stated the House bill is the starting point. There will be spending cuts tied to an increase in the debt ceiling and neither side will accept cuts to veterans benefits or SS benefits.

 

[Comshaw]

(snip) There will be spending cuts tied to an increase in the debt ceiling and neither side will accept cuts to veterans benefits or SS benefits.

In essence, you are saying they will demand the elimination of, or much deeper cuts than 22% to some programs to meet the requirement put on it by the Republicans, yeah? And you really believe that the hardcore ultra-right wing side of the Republican House will accept a reconciled bill with a negotiated middle ground? Really? After the debacle of the House Speaker's election to the post? MTG and cohorts don't really give a fuck if they throw the country into default. And in case you've not been watching, none of that extreme side of the party can even say "bipartisanship" much less do such a thing.

McCarthy barely managed to cobble together enough votes to get the bill past by pandering to the extreme side of his party. I can guarantee they won't allow ANYTHING to pass through the house that even smells of a compromise, so a reconciled bill ain't gunna cut it. The only hope the Democrats have is to hang onto their position and hope the Republicans blink first. Again I'll say it: Stupid. Putting the nation and the world into a monetary danger zone with a partisan pissing contest is both ignorant and stupid AND IS NOT GOOD GOVERNANCE!

Comshaw

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Yes, the Democratic line has been a nonnegotiable clean debt limit increase with no spending restraints. To their surprise, the GOP House passed a bill that raises the ceiling and includes top line spending restraints. The Senate has not passed and will not pass a clean debt limit bill. They simply don’t have the votes. The President and Congressional Dems are now forced to negotiate. McCarthy has stated the House bill is the starting point. There will be spending cuts tied to an increase in the debt ceiling and neither side will accept cuts to veterans benefits or SS benefits.

Democrats are not going to get a clean debt ceiling increase and Republicans are not going to get everything in the bill that passed the House. McCarthy has delivered a bill that few thought was possible and he’s reached out to the other side. Eventually the Senate will need to pass a bill. Then it will go to conference. Final passage will be another tough hill for the leaders in each chamber to climb. Clawback of unspent Covid funds is the easiest target to start with, followed by student loan forgiveness and green energy tax credits.

 

[Rightguide]

That still violates the principle of strict constructionism that you are otherwise so fond of.

No, it doesn't. A strict construction allows the Senate to make its own rules to limit debate when there are enough votes to achieve cloture.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Any one who favors cuts in domestic spending has an obligation to be very specific about which programs to cut or eliminate. Every item in the domestic budget has a powerful constituency to protect it. The largest and most expensive programs are the most popular. The domestic budget grew to its present size in response to popular demand.

On the other hand, opinion surveys have for decades indicated popular support for higher taxes on rich people.

 

[YDB95]

No, it doesn't. A strict construction allows the Senate to make its own rules to limit debate when there are enough votes to achieve cloture.

Oh yes it does. Your usual argument is if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say the federal government can do something, then it can't. While the Constitution does allow for the Senate to make its own rules, it doesn't say anything about the filibuster.

 

[Comshaw]

Democrats are not going to get a clean debt ceiling increase and Republicans are not going to get everything in the bill that passed the House. McCarthy has delivered a bill that few thought was possible and he’s reached out to the other side. Eventually the Senate will need to pass a bill. Then it will go to conference. Final passage will be another tough hill for the leaders in each chamber to climb. Clawback of unspent Covid funds is the easiest target to start with, followed by student loan forgiveness and green energy tax credits.

you keep talking like they are going to negotiate and give a little on each side to get to an agreement. Ain't gunna happen. The Democrats are locked into what they want and won't negotiate much if any. They've already said so. The Republicans have the crazy ass side of their party to deal with and those people aren't going to negotiate much either because they have already given up more than they wanted to to get the house bill passed. Nope, it's just gunna be a stand-off until one side blinks. Both sides think that their cause and what they want is a minimum, so if either side gives in they feel they have given away the farm. As I said, poor governance.


Comshaw

 

[YDB95]

Both sides think that their cause and what they want is a minimum, so if either side gives in they feel they have given away the farm. As I said, poor governance.

Or the perfectly predictable result of electing a divided government.

 

[Comshaw]

Or the perfectly predictable result of electing a divided government.

Not really. Even a divided government could, if they desired to have been negotiating this back in January. But the stand of "This is where I'm at and I am not moving" is the problem. Both sides are there. If there was nothing at stake but what those involved would lose, it would be an appropriate thing to do. When what you are doing will affect the fucking world, throw the economy of the country into chaos, it's not the time to play brinksmanship. it's time to get the fucking problem worked out.

Comshaw

 

[YDB95]

Not really. Even a divided government could, if they desired to have been negotiating this back in January. But the stand of "This is where I'm at and I am not moving" is the problem. Both sides are there. If there was nothing at stake but what those involved would lose, it would be an appropriate thing to do. When what you are doing will affect the fucking world, throw the economy of the country into chaos, it's not the time to play brinksmanship. it's time to get the fucking problem worked out.

Comshaw

You're making a crucial error here: you're assuming the Republicans care about doing right by the country. They don't. If anything, they'd welcome "throwing the economy of the country into chaos" because it would improve their chances of beating Biden.

For that matter, you're also falling into the age old trap of "the truth is always somewhere in between". It usually is, but not always: sometimes one side is right and the other is wrong. The Republicans want draconian cuts that would be a disaster for the economy, and the Democrats don't.

 

[JohnEngelman]

you keep talking like they are going to negotiate and give a little on each side to get to an agreement. Ain't gunna happen. The Democrats are locked into what they want and won't negotiate much if any. They've already said so. The Republicans have the crazy ass side of their party to deal with and those people aren't going to negotiate much either because they have already given up more than they wanted to to get the house bill passed. Nope, it's just gunna be a stand-off until one side blinks. Both sides think that their cause and what they want is a minimum, so if either side gives in they feel they have given away the farm. As I said, poor governance.


Comshaw

If the United States defaults on the national debt the international catastrophe will rival what followed the Stock Market Crash of 1929. Only this time, a Democrat president is in the Whites house, so the Democrats will be blamed.

I have always liked Joe Biden. I voted for him last time. I will vote for him next time. However, if the United States defaults on the debt, my vote will be lost in a Republican landslide. Biden needs to recognize that he is not a popular president, and that he needs to go more than half way to meet the Republicans.

 

[YDB95]

Biden needs to recognize that he is not a popular president, and that he needs to go more than half way to meet the Republicans.

He would be a lot more popular if he stopped pretending there was any potential of compromise whatsoever, and took matters into his own hands. He does have that option, and reportedly is considering it.