Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

Some good reporting this morning on what's at stake with the the combo package of the $1T infrastructure stuff and the progressive's $3.5T give away free shit stuff. Well, maybe "combo" is the wrong term but the progressives are demanding they be linked so, for all intent and purpose it is a combo package. The reporting confirms that Mitch wants the D's to own both the threat of a related government shut down, increased spending through an increased debt ceiling (albeit to cover the cost of already approved legislation) and the free shit bill.

It's a correct characterization of the current government that the D's are running it and they can do just about whatever they want to do even if they don't have the 60 votes in the Senate to push the Biden agenda (the entirety of what constitutes the legislation behind it) through to the president's desk.

One not so much talked about issue is that projected revenue short falls associated with these two bills is that those shortfalls are a result of Trump's tax cuts. I'm not hearing this talked about as a bargaining chip only that Biden "wants to increase taxes." Still goes to McConnell's position on this if the D's want it, they'll own the cost outcomes.

They can do almost anything they want in terms of fiscal policy and the budget. Almost anything else they need 60 Senate votes. The Parliamentarian has consistently ruled against them pushing non-budgetary stuff through reconciliation and despite howls from a handful of Progs, Schumer and Biden aren't overruling the Parliamentarian.

[iam416]

I think it's fairly obvious Buchanan was talking fiscal shit. To that end--and germane to the debt ceiling crap we discussed yesterday, from this article on where the D Agenda is likely to head (https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...enda-headed/):

First, I think the Democrats are going to end up raising the debt ceiling on their own, in a stand-alone reconciliation bill they will push in parallel to their ongoing efforts to pass a massive social-spending reconciliation measure. They can do that alongside their ongoing work on the larger bill, though it will require revising the reconciliation instructions for the year. Section 304 of the 1974 law that created the current budget process allows for this, though it is no simple matter. Among other things, it would expose the Democrats to an extra round of votes on uncomfortable amendments (a so-called “vote-a-rama” in the Senate). And it will also take time. Back when I was a lowly House Budget Committee staffer, my boss used to say that complicated bicameral maneuvers like this would take “more than a week but less than a month.” That seems about right here. That means they do have time to do this, and claims to the contrary at this point are so much spin. But it also means they should start fairly soon.

The Democrats don’t want to do this, not only because they don’t want that extra round of votes but also because they believe it would require them to settle on an amount by which to raise the debt ceiling before they have come to any agreement among their party factions about how much to spend on the larger reconciliation and on what. (It is a widely held view in the Senate, though it isn’t rooted in any parliamentary precedent and hasn’t been tested, that a reconciliation bill has to increase the debt limit by a particular amount, rather than suspending it until a particular date.)

But unpleasant or not, the Democrats are likely going to have to do this on their own. The fact is that they have chosen to use an exceedingly narrow congressional majority to push through an exceedingly partisan agenda on their own, and that means they’re going to need to handle the debt ceiling on their own too. They have the means to do it, and they don’t have the means to force Republicans to cooperate. So it seems like we will ultimately see a bipartisan continuing resolution — which will extend current spending levels into December to avoid a government shutdown — without any increase in the debt ceiling, and then a debt-ceiling-only reconciliation bill that will get only Democratic votes.

So, I would assume the "bold" stuff is true and that gets back to what I said yesterday -- Strangelove assumes they just want to raise the debt ceiling to account for only outstanding debts -- and, technically, that's all they have to do to keep things running (or,even better, just suspend the debt ceiling). However, if they have to settle on an actual amount to raise the debt ceiling that's going to more problematic for the Ds.

I think McConnell definitely wants them on the record passing a specific amount which has the potential to be ginormous.

[iam416]

I think the entire article I linked is pretty spot-on. I quoted the reconciliation stuff as an add on to yesterday, but this point is really the crux of where things are:

And finally, fifth, what’s going on at this point is that the Democrats are being forced to confront the reality of their extremely narrow congressional majority. There has pretty much never been a narrower one. They have about three votes to spare in the House. They don’t have a Senate majority at all, and have to count on the vice president’s vote to get party-line measures through. The president’s public approval is around the 50 percent mark on a great day for him, and a bit lower most of the time now. Of course they’re not just going to pass the second Great Society in this situation. They’re going to pass narrow, modest measures, and they’re going to have to work with some Republicans to get most of them through. The infrastructure bill is an example of the kind of legislative measure that a period like this might be expected to produce under the best of circumstances. The reconciliation bill is not. It is an example of self-delusion.

The author points out, correctly IMO, that the Chairman is a weak president at this point so he can't bring his party into line and hsi bully pulpit is nowhere near as effective as it should be (IMO, he's a fucking disaster whenever he speaks -- he's probably fortunate that the Media is largely on his side).

[iam416]

Any updates from the Chairman as to when the annointed Border Czar will take care of that Haitian problem (and all the other ones)?

[THE_WIZARD_]

...yes Joe came out with the following statement...

Crack that whip
Give the past a slip
Step on a crack
Break your mama's back
When a problem comes along
You must whip it
Before the cream sits out too long
You must whip it
When something's going wrong
You must whip it

[Hannibal]

You're all a bunch of racists.

zv6mUyaTrOkgVUDKnBxg63RQtZu1bzzZBaVWWrN1Fwond8aWnBEEnBSKoAooTssJMZbT_UN8jS8RGA=s1024-nd.jpg

[Kapture1]

News outlets, which were the ones that pumped this story every single day. It's too bad they aren't news outlets and could highlight missing indigenous women anytime they want. Instead, they will use their voice as news outlets to let you know how racist we are because of the reporting by news outlets.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I think it's fairly obvious Buchanan was talking fiscal shit. To that end--and germane to the debt ceiling crap we discussed yesterday, from this article on where the D Agenda is likely to head (https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...enda-headed/):



So, I would assume the "bold" stuff is true and that gets back to what I said yesterday -- Strangelove assumes they just want to raise the debt ceiling to account for only outstanding debts -- and, technically, that's all they have to do to keep things running (or,even better, just suspend the debt ceiling). However, if they have to settle on an actual amount to raise the debt ceiling that's going to more problematic for the Ds.

I think McConnell definitely wants them on the record passing a specific amount which has the potential to be ginormous.

If they have to specify a specific amount and not just suspend the ceiling, I could see that flummoxing them.

For the sake of argument let's say that raising the debt ceiling by a LOT would be politically damaging for the Dems. I don't necessarily accept that but let's take that as a given. If that's the case, why do it? The only thing they HAVE to do is raise it enough to cover existing debts. Maybe there's something I don't know or am not aware of, but to my knowledge nothing requires either party to raise the debt ceiling in advance of legislation that hasn't even been written yet.

[iam416]

I think you are correct, but I'd note the practical realities of the D party: (1) there are a couple strong factions at loggerheads; and (2) they don't have any margin to work with. They could just pass whatever they want. But, it's not clear that you're gonna get everyone to fall into the same line.

[Da Geezer]

lol...whoever came up with "let the next election be a referendum on the election we just had" was a genius. We already consider it "tradition" to do no significant legislation in even-numbered years (cuz election!). Now we're gonna cut out the last four months of every odd-numbered year too?

A great many of us believe that the 2020 election was not a mandate to do the things that the 3.5T bill proposes. Many of us believe that there is no mandate at all to pack the SC or to add (welfare) States to the Union.

DSL may be right, but to completely destroy the social and economic fabric of the US is unwise. McConnel's best career move was to block Merrick Garland from getting to be a SC Justice. A lot of studies have shown that the single biggest factor in Trump's victory in 2016 was the way he handled the Garland issue. He proposed a list of middle-of-the-road judges that he would pick from if elected. Hillary ran from any such list because it would contain basically pink-haired Wokesters. This was decisive (and we now know that Garland is a radical Marxist by the way he is running the DOJ).

The controlled media will never give the GOP air time to argue their beliefs. The tactic that works best for Rs is to propose a "Contract with America" platform and to stick to it. Nationalize the election. IMO, this 3.5T give-away is the perfect vehicle to focus on the green new deal and the entire Marxist agenda.

DSL, I believe Biden was elected primarily because he was not Trump. Almost all of the Ds I know wanted a return to civility and a unifier in the White House. As long as Chairman Joe was allowed to remain hidden, he seemed a perfect "Uncle" to bring this country together. Biden was NOT elected to turn this country into a socialist state. There is absolutely no mandate for what is going on now.

[Da Geezer]

They can do almost anything they want in terms of fiscal policy and the budget. Almost anything else they need 60 Senate votes. The Parliamentarian has consistently ruled against them pushing non-budgetary stuff through reconciliation and despite howls from a handful of Progs, Schumer and Biden aren't overruling the Parliamentarian.

The Parliamentarian has made ONE decision that restrained passing social programs using reconciliation. C'mon man!

[Mike]

You're all a bunch of racists.

If people were to point out the number of shootings that occur in Chicago, Joy Reid would be the first in line to call them racists.

[Mike]

DSL, I believe Biden was elected primarily because he was not Trump. Almost all of the Ds I know wanted a return to civility and a unifier in the White House. As long as Chairman Joe was allowed to remain hidden, he seemed a perfect "Uncle" to bring this country together. Biden was NOT elected to turn this country into a socialist state. There is absolutely no mandate for what is going on now.

Geezer, your entire post is spot on but I wanted to hit on your last point. I'm among the group that voted against Trump, not FOR a socialist takeover of the country. I thought we were essentially voting for Joe Manchin but ended up with AOC. Shame on me. At least now it is crystal clear, anyone with a D next to their name in 2021 isn't fit to run a lemonade stand and needs to be swept out of office at the earliest opportunity. Those people are just plain fucking nuts.

[Dr. Strangelove]

A great many of us believe that the 2020 election was not a mandate to do the things that the 3.5T bill proposes. Many of us believe that there is no mandate at all to pack the SC or to add (welfare) States to the Union.

DSL may be right, but to completely destroy the social and economic fabric of the US is unwise. McConnel's best career move was to block Merrick Garland from getting to be a SC Justice. A lot of studies have shown that the single biggest factor in Trump's victory in 2016 was the way he handled the Garland issue. He proposed a list of middle-of-the-road judges that he would pick from if elected. Hillary ran from any such list because it would contain basically pink-haired Wokesters. This was decisive (and we now know that Garland is a radical Marxist by the way he is running the DOJ).

The controlled media will never give the GOP air time to argue their beliefs. The tactic that works best for Rs is to propose a "Contract with America" platform and to stick to it. Nationalize the election. IMO, this 3.5T give-away is the perfect vehicle to focus on the green new deal and the entire Marxist agenda.

DSL, I believe Biden was elected primarily because he was not Trump. Almost all of the Ds I know wanted a return to civility and a unifier in the White House. As long as Chairman Joe was allowed to remain hidden, he seemed a perfect "Uncle" to bring this country together. Biden was NOT elected to turn this country into a socialist state. There is absolutely no mandate for what is going on now.

You and the rest of hyper-partisan Right use the term "Marxist" and "Communist" as loosely as any Prog tosses around the term "racist". Merrick Garland isn't just a Marxist: he's a radical Marxist. Yikes. Wow. Another Beria.

[Mike]

Well, "socialist" has to be fair play since a significant and growing portion of the D party self-identifies as such. They are, in the parlance of our times, Marxist-adjacent.