US Congress: John Boehner STILL Can't Count (But Nancy Pelosi Is A Boss)

enlightenedbum

So a new term of Congress started yesterday. Let's talk about what they've been up to.

1) John Boehner had more members of his party dissent as to his continued speakership than any Speaker of the House since 1860. 25 of them. Louis Gohmert was the preferred candidate among the dissenters. So that's kind of funny.

2) They passed a bill forcing the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The President will veto it. So that was productive.

3) The House introduced a ban on abortions after 20 weeks. This is obviously going nowhere.

4) They stealthily changed a rule to threaten social security. Basically Old age insurance is solvent but disability insurance isn't. Normally Congress just authorizes the transfer of some of the old age insurance trust fund to the disability insurance trust fund because the whole program is fine. But now they've decided that transfer has to be offset with tax hikes or benefit cuts. Guess which one this Congress will prefer!

5) John Boehner still can't count, had a major jobs bill fail today. Because procedural bullshit, basically, but it's still embarrassing.

enlightenedbum

Oh right, also they declared war on math.

Mortious

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Oh right, also they declared war on math.

It's about time, fuck math!

So It Goes

I literally cannot with Congress

so thank you thread, but goodnight, for my sanity

Preacher

Yeah I have resolved to not follow politics for the next two years, because holy shit.

Captain Carrot

Gohmert got 2 votes for Speaker. Dan Webster of Florida got 13. And Boehner is fucking over via committee assignments everyone who didn't vote for him.

SyphonBlue

The CBO forecast that the unemployment rate would fall to 7.6 percent by the end of 2014. If the conservative analysis was correct, and higher tax rates on job creators were depressing job growth, we might expect the unemployment rate today to be higher than the CBO forecast. Instead it is much lower. Unemployment fell below 6 percent by the third quarter of last year. Indeed, the economy appears to be accelerating into a phase of more rapid growth just at the time conservatives predicted that higher taxes would have the opposite effect. This development has not given Republicans even the slightest pause.

CONSERVATISM CAN NEVER FAIL IT CAN ONLY BE FAILED

Sicarii

That CBO fuckery is basically the same shit that happened to the science advisory board. Congress loses another one of it's best tools for crafting researched policies.

Because God forbid we legislate by reality.

Mvrck

Sicarii wrote: »

That CBO fuckery is basically the same shit that happened to the science advisory board. Congress loses another one of it's best tools for crafting researched policies.

Because God forbid we legislate by reality.

That is basically their stance, yes.

Veevee

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Oh right, also they declared war on math.

“Dynamic scoring” allows the Republican majority to impose its own ideological terms on the process of scoring legislation. Many credible economic forecasters would argue that debt-financed tax cuts actually reduce economic growth, and thereby cost the government more, not less, than their static cost. (For instance, a paper by the Brookings Institution concludes that the Bush tax cuts slightly reduced economic growth, because the negative impact of higher debt outweighed the positive incentive impact of lower rates.)

Indeed, two decades' worth of experience would point toward the same conclusion. When Bill Clinton raised the top tax rates, conservatives predicted it would trigger another recession. Instead the economy boomed. When George W. Bush reduced the top tax rates, conservatives predicted it would usher in new heights of prosperity. Instead the economy produced a tepid recovery that was itself inflated by a bubble, culminating in a devastating collapse. The current recovery has picked up speed after the Bush tax cuts for the rich expired. These events do not prove that cutting taxes for the rich causes economic decay and that raising them causes growth. They do suggest that tax rates on the rich have, at best, extremely little impact on underlying growth rates. Republicans are enshrining their doctrine into congressional law at a moment when real-world evidence on its behalf is at a low ebb.

It's just utterly depressing that democrats are so bad at politics that the right can push their shit through even though all evidence says it's wrong with zero repercussions.

Mill

I knew I was going to say fuck this Congress, but many really fuck this Congress.

Veevee, I wouldn't place the entirety of the blame of the Democrats. I think we can give plenty of it to both the media, for failing to do proper journalism and to a sizable chunk of the public, that decided they either don't need to be informed and/or bother voting. I mean it's pretty easy for the shitbags running the current GOP to get away with plenty of shit when the media is quite willing to give them a free blow job, you have voters that don't realize they are getting screwed by voting republican and then smug asshole US citizens that think it's great they didn't vote. I mean the Democrats are pretty bad at the messaging, but I think they would have a very hard time with some of our country's other failings, even if they did get messaging down.

Santa Claustrophobia

I wouldn't say 'zero'. I mean, when we strip the flesh from their bones as we pray to the great god Baal would have to be at least a minor inconvenience to them.

Cantido

Voting rights needs to become an issue in 2016 so this shit stops happening.

moniker

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Oh right, also they declared war on math.

How long until the CRS gets destroyed? I'd put the over/under at 3 Speakers from now.

Cantido

Math is alright, but I would vote to at least publicly denounce Linear Control Networks because seriously what the fuck am I reading.

spacekungfuman

Dynamic scoring has seen use before. It is arguably preferable to ignoring the impact on the economy of a bill, especially since all regulatory actions must state what the financial impact will be, and modern laws get implemented by regulations for the most part. The media is doing a terrible job of covering this.

Viskod

SyphonBlue wrote: »

The CBO forecast that the unemployment rate would fall to 7.6 percent by the end of 2014. If the conservative analysis was correct, and higher tax rates on job creators were depressing job growth, we might expect the unemployment rate today to be higher than the CBO forecast. Instead it is much lower. Unemployment fell below 6 percent by the third quarter of last year. Indeed, the economy appears to be accelerating into a phase of more rapid growth just at the time conservatives predicted that higher taxes would have the opposite effect. This development has not given Republicans even the slightest pause.

CONSERVATISM CAN NEVER FAIL IT CAN ONLY BE FAILED

Hey @Syphonblue it at least gave them some pause.... for enough time as it took to take credit for it.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) appears to be touting the accomplishments of the new GOP-controlled Congress even before its members have gotten the chance to hammer out any legislation.

In a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday morning, the newly elected majority leader suggested that the growing signs of an economic recovery -- 5 percent GDP growth, 320,000 additional jobs in November, all-time highs in the markets on Wall Street and plunging gas prices, to name a few -- just might have something to do with the election of a Republican Congress.

"After so many years of sluggish growth, we're finally seeing some economic data that can provide a glimmer of hope," said McConnell. "The uptick appears to coincide with the biggest political change of the Obama administration's long tenure in Washington: the expectation of a new Republican Congress."

jungleroomx

This thread is giving me heartburn.

nexuscrawler

The Senate is also floating a bill to change the ACA definition of full-time to 40 hours a week instead of 30. To let your boss cut you off from insurance at 39 hours once the mandate kicks in

Dynagrip

spacekungfuman wrote: »

Dynamic scoring has seen use before. It is arguably preferable to ignoring the impact on the economy of a bill, especially since all regulatory actions must state what the financial impact will be, and modern laws get implemented by regulations for the most part. The media is doing a terrible job of covering this.

The CBO doesn't ignore the potential impact of policy changes on the economy. so you're not really arguing correctly here. dynamic scoring as favored by the Republicans is total bullshit, especially when tested against the laboratory that is the real world. At best cutting taxes on the rich as a very minor improvement on the economy, or more likely as shown by the bush tax cuts, they will cause the deficit to explode because of the drastically reduced revenue. Also, increased taxes during the Clinton and recently the Obama era has coincided with improved growth. Dynamic scoring lets Reaganomics seem legit, which again, is discredited by virtually all economists that are not part of the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute.

Do you seriously think Paul Ryan's budget would have made things better, aside from for the riches?

In other magic Republican economic news, McConnell is taking credit for the improved economy. I fucking hate McConnell.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7508129/mitch-mcconnell-says-senate-republicans-traveled-back-in-time-to-fix

spacekungfuman

nexuscrawler wrote: »

The Senate is also floating a bill to change the ACA definition of full-time to 40 hours a week instead of 30. To let your boss cut you off from insurance at 39 hours once the mandate kicks in

That was a much requested change that has been under consideration for a long time.

jungleroomx

spacekungfuman wrote: »

nexuscrawler wrote: »

The Senate is also floating a bill to change the ACA definition of full-time to 40 hours a week instead of 30. To let your boss cut you off from insurance at 39 hours once the mandate kicks in

That was a much requested change that has been under consideration for a long time.

So was deregulating investment banks.

It doesn't mean it's a good idea.

lazegamer

spacekungfuman wrote: »

nexuscrawler wrote: »

The Senate is also floating a bill to change the ACA definition of full-time to 40 hours a week instead of 30. To let your boss cut you off from insurance at 39 hours once the mandate kicks in

That was a much requested change that has been under consideration for a long time.

I feel like the much requested change was to get rid of the employee mandate altogether, which would be a much more sensible option. Placing the 40hr week as the definition in the context of the mandate is the worst of the three options.

nexuscrawler

Its funny because the GOP is again showing they care more about placating the rich business owners than fiscal responsibility

changing the definton will throw million more people onto the exchanges and cost the government billions in additional subsidies

Tenek

spacekungfuman wrote: »

nexuscrawler wrote: »

The Senate is also floating a bill to change the ACA definition of full-time to 40 hours a week instead of 30. To let your boss cut you off from insurance at 39 hours once the mandate kicks in

That was a much requested change that has been under consideration for a long time.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea. If you're going to get rid of the mandate then just do that instead of adding an overwhelming loophole.

Trace

We need a veto counter and a "Times attempted to repeal the ACA -this time-" counter.

Mvrck

So is there anything that Congress can do to stop the FCC from implementing Title II for ISPs like they announced? Because I assume if they can, they will try.

Preacher

Mvrck wrote: »

So is there anything that Congress can do to stop the FCC from implementing Title II for ISPs like they announced? Because I assume if they can, they will try.

They can't I believe, neither can the president outside of urging the FCC to do something and of course appointing people to the FCC. And anything congress attempts to do here would have to go by Obama and I doubt he won't veto the absolute shit out of it.

nexuscrawler

They could try to challenge it in court if they really wanted

Preacher

nexuscrawler wrote: »

They could try to challenge it in court if they really wanted

No standing, though with this batch of supremes I'm sure the dolla dolla bill y'all brigade could get that fixed right as rain.

Mill

Groan, so we stuck praying that Kennedy is on one of his sane days. Man can't get one of the conservative shitbags off the SCOTUS fast enough, just like we can't get the 2016 elections here fast enough to vote out some of the current GOP shitbags, to take away their majority. Ideally, keep them from having a majority until sanity prevails within their party.

Also I wouldn't not be suprised at all if they tried to challenge the FCC change in some form. Though, we can probably expect the FCC to end up with some vacancies until the next Congress . . . fuck, can just expect lots of vacancies all over because the GOP won't be willing to confirm anyone that Obama puts up for an appointment.

yossarian_lives

It may be necessary to avoid the news for the next two years, lest my brain finds a way to throttle itself. I recall Dylan Ratigan once referring to Congress as nothing more than professional wrestling. As in, fake and corny with lots of bullshit drama. I'm thinking their best/worst season is about to hit us all right square in the genitalia. At least the thought of Louie Gohmert in a luchador mask helps ease my mental anguish.

*edit* One a more serious note. What the fuck happens if we face a real crisis with these clowns running the show? The thought is absolutely chilling.

enlightenedbum

yossarian_lives wrote: »

It may be necessary to avoid the news for the next two years, lest my brain finds a way to throttle itself. I recall Dylan Ratigan once referring to Congress as nothing more than professional wrestling. As in, fake and corny with lots of bullshit drama. I'm thinking their best/worst season is about to hit us all right square in the genitalia. At least the thought of Louie Gohmert in a luchador mask helps ease my mental anguish.

*edit* One a more serious note. What the fuck happens if we face a real crisis with these clowns running the show? The thought is absolutely chilling.

Obama crosses the Rubicon.

moniker

enlightenedbum wrote: »

yossarian_lives wrote: »

It may be necessary to avoid the news for the next two years, lest my brain finds a way to throttle itself. I recall Dylan Ratigan once referring to Congress as nothing more than professional wrestling. As in, fake and corny with lots of bullshit drama. I'm thinking their best/worst season is about to hit us all right square in the genitalia. At least the thought of Louie Gohmert in a luchador mask helps ease my mental anguish.

*edit* One a more serious note. What the fuck happens if we face a real crisis with these clowns running the show? The thought is absolutely chilling.

Obama crosses the Rubicon.

God I hope not.

wazilla

Preacher wrote: »

Mvrck wrote: »

So is there anything that Congress can do to stop the FCC from implementing Title II for ISPs like they announced? Because I assume if they can, they will try.

They can't I believe, neither can the president outside of urging the FCC to do something and of course appointing people to the FCC. And anything congress attempts to do here would have to go by Obama and I doubt he won't veto the absolute shit out of it.

Congress can pass a law stating the FCC doesn't have this power.

Obama might not veto depending on what bill it is attached to. It doesn't seem to be a hill any important Democrat feels particularly inclined to die on.

Polaritie

Mill wrote: »

Groan, so we stuck praying that Kennedy is on one of his sane days. Man can't get one of the conservative shitbags off the SCOTUS fast enough, just like we can't get the 2016 elections here fast enough to vote out some of the current GOP shitbags, to take away their majority. Ideally, keep them from having a majority until sanity prevails within their party.

Also I wouldn't not be suprised at all if they tried to challenge the FCC change in some form. Though, we can probably expect the FCC to end up with some vacancies until the next Congress . . . fuck, can just expect lots of vacancies all over because the GOP won't be willing to confirm anyone that Obama puts up for an appointment.

My fear is that if a republican president gets elected at all before one of the conservative wing retires dies... they'll just all retire that term to lock the court up for decades.

Edit: Because I also don't expect them to step down from age unless there's a republican replacement coming.

chrisnl

I just hope President Obama has a healthy supply of ink for his veto pen.

davidsdurions

Bic stock suddenly reaches record highs.

enlightenedbum

moniker wrote: »

enlightenedbum wrote: »

yossarian_lives wrote: »

It may be necessary to avoid the news for the next two years, lest my brain finds a way to throttle itself. I recall Dylan Ratigan once referring to Congress as nothing more than professional wrestling. As in, fake and corny with lots of bullshit drama. I'm thinking their best/worst season is about to hit us all right square in the genitalia. At least the thought of Louie Gohmert in a luchador mask helps ease my mental anguish.

*edit* One a more serious note. What the fuck happens if we face a real crisis with these clowns running the show? The thought is absolutely chilling.

Obama crosses the Rubicon.

God I hope not.

Well, yeah, but that's where we're headed and it's been the fate of I think every other country who adopted a political system like ours. Only our weakly aligned parties have saved us so far.

Coinage

nexuscrawler wrote: »

The Senate is also floating a bill to change the ACA definition of full-time to 40 hours a week instead of 30. To let your boss cut you off from insurance at 39 hours once the mandate kicks in

And they weren't going to cut you off at 29 hours before? I work retail and I can tell you, they are already doing that for the 30 hours, and I would regularly get over 30 hours as a part time employee before.

Mild Confusion

Statistically, it's more difficult to cut someone off at 29 hours than 39 hours. It doesn't mean businesses can't currently do 29, but if the work requirement changes, then many more people will be affected and forced to the exchanges.