Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Trump Administration

134689100

Posts

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed regular Registered User regular
    That seems directly related to the fact that reconcilliation is required to be budget neutral.

    So this thing is actually happening, in some form.

    Since they didn't nuke the fillibuster, I kind of assumed they were going to bluster about it until at least the midterms.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden regular Registered User regular
    Mayabird wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    We kind of benefit a lot from the world not dissolving into anarchy. So.

    Russia would relatively benefit from the world dissolving into anarchy. Not that things would get any better there, just that Russia would look less bad by comparison.

    That may not be a good idea, Russia has a significant amount of nukes and dissolving into anarchy would be the perfect opportunity for hostile nations and terrorist groups to steal some during the chaos. They wouldn't need much to cause a shitload of destruction, either.

  • SleepSleep regular Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Wow.

    The GOP is going to kill a -massive- amount of people with this.

    Tried to tell you guys this.

    Trump is going to kill so, so many people

    Harry DresdenEmerlmaster999ImthebOHGODBEESHonkOrcaArdolIncenjucarGiggles_FunsworthToxjdarksunHacksawLeon2309
  • EclecticGrooveEclecticGroove regular Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Wow.

    The GOP is going to kill a -massive- amount of people with this.

    Tried to tell you guys this.

    Trump is going to kill so, so many people

    It's fine. It won't be anyone he cares about, and it won't be personally. So it just won't exist.

    Besides, he can just claim it was liberal policies, or terrorists or something.

    Panda4YouGiggles_Funsworth
  • DunderDunder regular Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Wow.

    The GOP is going to kill a -massive- amount of people with this.

    Tried to tell you guys this.

    Trump is going to kill so, so many people

    Not Trump. The Republican Party will.

    Panda4YouLovelyGiggles_FunsworthGnome-InterruptusMan in the MistsGennenalyse Ruebenjdarksunemp123MegaMekLeon2309
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler regular Registered User regular
    The Dems are basically useless in the fight too. Our best hope is Trump's stupidity leads to party infighting.

    QuidSleepOrcashrykeKraintLovelyGiggles_FunsworthMan in the Mistsemp123Leon2309
  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular

    My fear is that the killings will go both ways. Once they start, it'll be really hard to put a stop to it, and I don't think that anyone wants to think about what happens if the most powerful nation in the world, armed with nuclear weapons, suffers large scale domestic unrest. It doesn't need to be on the level of Syria for it to get really, really bad for all of us.

    I sometimes post pretty pictures to twitter: https://twitter.com/matthewandworld
    Giggles_FunsworthLeon2309
  • EclecticGrooveEclecticGroove regular Registered User regular
    The Dems are basically useless in the fight too. Our best hope is Trump's stupidity leads to party infighting.

    The problem with that is that I doubt it will take them long to figure out the best way to either pull Trump's attention away from what they want, or get him on board like holding bacon in front of an excitable puppy.

    The Dem's could try the same thing, but they aren't on his "team" so I doubt he will pay much attention to them when "his guys" are telling him something.

    I give it a year, 2 tops before they know how to lead The Donald around like a show horse and direct all his outbursts at opponents or irrelevant (to them) topics.

    SleepGiggles_Funsworth
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler regular Registered User regular
    Ryan and McConnell are far savvier polticans for sure but Trumps hordes are conditioned to like stupid and unsavvy

    SleepshrykeLovelyNobeardGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenMegaMek
  • PLAPLA regular The process.Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Wow.

    The GOP is going to kill a -massive- amount of people with this.

    Is this still politics?

  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    That seems directly related to the fact that reconcilliation is required to be budget neutral.

    So this thing is actually happening, in some form.

    Since they didn't nuke the fillibuster, I kind of assumed they were going to bluster about it until at least the midterms.

    Hmm. Does that allow for court challenges? It seems to be stepping into the "Nobody can make a law saying pi=3" territory at that point. I'm not sure how the reconcilliation process is defined.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    My greatest hope for the next 4 years is that the GOP leadership realizes they can't give Trump everything he wants or it will destroy them long term, so they leave the filibuster intact and blame all their failures on Democratic obstruction

    Squigie
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    That seems directly related to the fact that reconcilliation is required to be budget neutral.

    So this thing is actually happening, in some form.

    Since they didn't nuke the fillibuster, I kind of assumed they were going to bluster about it until at least the midterms.

    Hmm. Does that allow for court challenges? It seems to be stepping into the "Nobody can make a law saying pi=3" territory at that point. I'm not sure how the reconcilliation process is defined.

    I believe something similar was done during the Bush years when it came to accounting for the cost of both wars.

    ArdolrockrngerLovelyGnome-InterruptusHacksaw
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe regular Registered User regular
    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-blames-media-intelligence-fight-233212

    “The dishonest media likes saying that I am in Agreement with Julian Assange - wrong. I simply state what he states, it is for the people to make up their own minds as to the truth,” Trump said, splitting his remarks across two posts. “The media lies to make it look like I am against ‘Intelligence’ when in fact I am a big fan!”

    I can't parse this. I'd ask if anyone else can, but I suspect the problem is just that it's more nonsense moonspeak.

    What is this I don't even.
    ElkishrykeLovelyNobeardGiggles_FunsworthGnome-InterruptusMan in the MistsVegemyteMagellLeon2309Squigie
  • HonkHonk Honk is this poster. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    So if I get this right they know it will cost billions to repeal ACA.

    But presumably they want to remove it to reduce federal spending?

    So then the solution is to ignore the cost spending tens of billions of federal money. That way the excel sheet will say that spending was reduced?

    This sounds like how the Greek government viewed numbers until recently.

    PSN: Honkalot
    SleepKayne Red RobeOrcakimePLALovelyNobeardJazzGiggles_FunsworthMan in the MistsCalicaGennenalyse RuebenVegemytejdarksuntynicemp123HacksawMegaMekEchoMagellLeon2309
  • klemmingklemming regular Registered User regular
    I think I hate Trump more for bringing in an era of 'we don't have to tell the truth, just say whatever bullshit other people said, and let people make up their own minds what's true' more than anything else.
    I mean, it's close, but I think that's at the top.

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
    HakkekageShadowhopeSleepLoisLaneGoodKingJayIIIMartini_PhilosopherCommander ZoomLovelyNobeardJazzGiggles_FunsworthInfamyDeferredMan in the MistsGennenalyse Ruebenjdarksunemp123HacksawEcho
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Honk wrote: »
    So if I get this right they know it will cost billions to repeal ACA.

    But presumably they want to remove it to reduce federal spending?

    So then the solution is to ignore the cost spending tens of billions of federal money. That way the excel sheet will say that spending was reduced?

    This sounds like how the Greek government viewed numbers until recently.

    It sounds like they can't avoid a filibuster unless it's revenue neutral, so they're trying to order the CBO to declare it revenue neutral.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    OptimusZedFencingsaxkimeshrykeGiggles_FunsworthGnome-InterruptusMan in the MistsGennenalyse RuebenEtiowsajdarksuntynic
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus premium Registered User regular
    You can't say "just don't count this in our budget analysis calculation" and suddenly it's revenue neutral.

    If I go and spend thousands of dollars on a new home entertainment system setup and don't put it into my yearly budget spreadsheet, that doesn't mean the cost of that home entertainment system doesn't affect my yearly budget.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    HakkekageOrcakimeLovelyNobeardSpoitGiggles_FunsworthMan in the MistsCalicaGennenalyse RuebenVegemytejdarksunemp123
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-blames-media-intelligence-fight-233212

    “The dishonest media likes saying that I am in Agreement with Julian Assange - wrong. I simply state what he states, it is for the people to make up their own minds as to the truth,” Trump said, splitting his remarks across two posts. “The media lies to make it look like I am against ‘Intelligence’ when in fact I am a big fan!”

    I can't parse this. I'd ask if anyone else can, but I suspect the problem is just that it's more nonsense moonspeak.

    Just because I quote a man while voicing the same opinion people are suddenly saying that this means that I agree with his opinion on so called "Intelligence" - which I love by the way. We have great "Intelligence," just tremendous "Intelligence."

    smCQ5WE.jpg
    HakkekageDarkewolfeMartini_PhilosopherNobeardGiggles_FunsworthGnome-InterruptusN1tSt4lkerkediniktynicemp123Magell14357Leon2309Squigie
  • JavenJaven regular Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    You can't say "just don't count this in our budget analysis calculation" and suddenly it's revenue neutral.

    If I go and spend thousands of dollars on a new home entertainment system setup and don't put it into my yearly budget spreadsheet, that doesn't mean the cost of that home entertainment system doesn't affect my yearly budget.

    A spur of the moment analogy I just thought of to bring home to others why this is a bad thing "you wake up one morning to find $1000 missing from your bank account, and when you call your bank, they refuse to tell you where that money went, citing company policy. You definitely don't have that money anymore, but they also won't tell why you don't have it anymore."

    klemmingChiselphaneDarkPrimusOrcaNobeardJazzGiggles_FunsworthMan in the MistsGennenalyse RuebenVegemytejdarksunemp123HacksawSquigie
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    You can't say "just don't count this in our budget analysis calculation" and suddenly it's revenue neutral.

    If I go and spend thousands of dollars on a new home entertainment system setup and don't put it into my yearly budget spreadsheet, that doesn't mean the cost of that home entertainment system doesn't affect my yearly budget.

    Budget neutral, not revenue neutral. Just don't count it as part of the budget. GWB did the same thing with the Iraq war costs in order to keep his budget deficits down.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
    QuidFencingsaxArdolrockrngerGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebentynicMegaMek
  • EclecticGrooveEclecticGroove regular Registered User regular
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-blames-media-intelligence-fight-233212

    “The dishonest media likes saying that I am in Agreement with Julian Assange - wrong. I simply state what he states, it is for the people to make up their own minds as to the truth,” Trump said, splitting his remarks across two posts. “The media lies to make it look like I am against ‘Intelligence’ when in fact I am a big fan!”

    I can't parse this. I'd ask if anyone else can, but I suspect the problem is just that it's more nonsense moonspeak.

    It means they said the same thing. That doesn't mean he agrees with him. If he agrees with him then he will say as much, unless it means something else at that point in time.

    Basically you need to go to Trump himself to know what he thinks about anything at any moment in time regardless of what he has said in the past, saying right now, or will say in the future.

    Hope that clears things up!

    DarkewolfePanda4You
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler regular Registered User regular
    To be fair the Dems did a similar thing when passing the ACA. they spread out the revenues and upfront costs differently to make it look like it saved more money.

    A big problem with American politics is we seem convinced that if we just manipulate the numbers enough anything can be made possible without taxation. It's why we can't have nice things.

    Giggles_Funsworthdispatch.o
  • HonkHonk Honk is this poster. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    So if I get this right they know it will cost billions to repeal ACA.

    But presumably they want to remove it to reduce federal spending?

    So then the solution is to ignore the cost spending tens of billions of federal money. That way the excel sheet will say that spending was reduced?

    This sounds like how the Greek government viewed numbers until recently.

    It sounds like they can't avoid a filibuster unless it's revenue neutral, so they're trying to order the CBO to declare it revenue neutral.

    But then the people demanding it be revenue neutral will know that it isn't actually revenue neutral?

    Since I now know it's not revenue neutral they will of course know this as well.

    PSN: Honkalot
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    To be fair the Dems did a similar thing when passing the ACA. they spread out the revenues and upfront costs differently to make it look like it saved more money.

    A big problem with American politics is we seem convinced that if we just manipulate the numbers enough anything can be made possible without taxation. It's why we can't have nice things.

    That would be literally every part of finance, actually

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler regular Registered User regular
    Honk wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    So if I get this right they know it will cost billions to repeal ACA.

    But presumably they want to remove it to reduce federal spending?

    So then the solution is to ignore the cost spending tens of billions of federal money. That way the excel sheet will say that spending was reduced?

    This sounds like how the Greek government viewed numbers until recently.

    It sounds like they can't avoid a filibuster unless it's revenue neutral, so they're trying to order the CBO to declare it revenue neutral.

    But then the people demanding it be revenue neutral will know that it isn't actually revenue neutral?

    Since I now know it's not revenue neutral they will of course know this as well.

    Its a quirk of the US filibuster system. you can avoid the filibuster of needing 60 votes by using reconciliation but it only works if your bill is revenue neutral. So it's more than just public perception. they literally can't pass it otherwise.

    OptimusZedQuidFencingsaxOrcashrykeGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenVegemytetynicdispatch.o
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed regular Registered User regular
    This is the way they keep the fillibuster, and are thus prevented by the scurrilous Democrats from implementing the rest of the incredibly terrible ideas they sold the base on, while getting the Obamacare repeal to show they actually did something.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    Giggles_Funsworth
  • HonkHonk Honk is this poster. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Honk wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    So if I get this right they know it will cost billions to repeal ACA.

    But presumably they want to remove it to reduce federal spending?

    So then the solution is to ignore the cost spending tens of billions of federal money. That way the excel sheet will say that spending was reduced?

    This sounds like how the Greek government viewed numbers until recently.

    It sounds like they can't avoid a filibuster unless it's revenue neutral, so they're trying to order the CBO to declare it revenue neutral.

    But then the people demanding it be revenue neutral will know that it isn't actually revenue neutral?

    Since I now know it's not revenue neutral they will of course know this as well.

    Its a quirk of the US filibuster system. you can avoid the filibuster of needing 60 votes by using reconciliation but it only works if your bill is revenue neutral. So it's more than just public perception. they literally can't pass it otherwise.

    Oh I didn't know there was a way to avoid filibusters using rules.

    This seems dumb. Why not declare everything revenue neutral forever then.

    PSN: Honkalot
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie regular Registered User regular
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    scherbchendestroyah87kimeshrykeMayabirdIncenjucarMartini_PhilosopherOghulkPanda4YouNobeardGiggles_FunsworthGnome-InterruptusJazzMan in the MistsCalicaGennenalyse RuebenToxVegemytetynicdispatch.oMild ConfusionHacksawemp123Blameless ClericMagell14357Leon2309HefflingRawkking GoodguySquigie
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Honk wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    So if I get this right they know it will cost billions to repeal ACA.

    But presumably they want to remove it to reduce federal spending?

    So then the solution is to ignore the cost spending tens of billions of federal money. That way the excel sheet will say that spending was reduced?

    This sounds like how the Greek government viewed numbers until recently.

    It sounds like they can't avoid a filibuster unless it's revenue neutral, so they're trying to order the CBO to declare it revenue neutral.

    But then the people demanding it be revenue neutral will know that it isn't actually revenue neutral?

    Since I now know it's not revenue neutral they will of course know this as well.

    Its a quirk of the US filibuster system. you can avoid the filibuster of needing 60 votes by using reconciliation but it only works if your bill is revenue neutral. So it's more than just public perception. they literally can't pass it otherwise.

    Oh I didn't know there was a way to avoid filibusters using rules.

    This seems dumb. Why not declare everything revenue neutral forever then.

    Basic honesty.

    :rotate:

    DarkewolfeGiggles_Funsworthdispatch.o
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler regular Registered User regular
    Honk wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    So if I get this right they know it will cost billions to repeal ACA.

    But presumably they want to remove it to reduce federal spending?

    So then the solution is to ignore the cost spending tens of billions of federal money. That way the excel sheet will say that spending was reduced?

    This sounds like how the Greek government viewed numbers until recently.

    It sounds like they can't avoid a filibuster unless it's revenue neutral, so they're trying to order the CBO to declare it revenue neutral.

    But then the people demanding it be revenue neutral will know that it isn't actually revenue neutral?

    Since I now know it's not revenue neutral they will of course know this as well.

    Its a quirk of the US filibuster system. you can avoid the filibuster of needing 60 votes by using reconciliation but it only works if your bill is revenue neutral. So it's more than just public perception. they literally can't pass it otherwise.

    Oh I didn't know there was a way to avoid filibusters using rules.

    This seems dumb. Why not declare everything revenue neutral forever then.

    They don't directly control how it gets analyzed. Bill get submitted to the Congressional Budget Office which is a nonpartisan office which takes the data from the bill and rates it's budget impacts.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed regular Registered User regular
    Honk wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    So if I get this right they know it will cost billions to repeal ACA.

    But presumably they want to remove it to reduce federal spending?

    So then the solution is to ignore the cost spending tens of billions of federal money. That way the excel sheet will say that spending was reduced?

    This sounds like how the Greek government viewed numbers until recently.

    It sounds like they can't avoid a filibuster unless it's revenue neutral, so they're trying to order the CBO to declare it revenue neutral.

    But then the people demanding it be revenue neutral will know that it isn't actually revenue neutral?

    Since I now know it's not revenue neutral they will of course know this as well.

    Its a quirk of the US filibuster system. you can avoid the filibuster of needing 60 votes by using reconciliation but it only works if your bill is revenue neutral. So it's more than just public perception. they literally can't pass it otherwise.

    Oh I didn't know there was a way to avoid filibusters using rules.

    This seems dumb. Why not declare everything revenue neutral forever then.

    They used Reconcilliation to amend the ACA after it had been put in place, to do things they couldn't get through the fillibuster the first time around. It's a thing that's been done. It's supposed to be for budgets and such to avoid fillibustering the government into insolvency (which is where the revenue neutral thing ended up in there).

    The "you can't tell us this isn't revenue neutral thing" is new, because nobody's ever been this brazen about shoving stuff through congress before.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    Giggles_Funsworthtynic
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    This is the way they keep the fillibuster, and are thus prevented by the scurrilous Democrats from implementing the rest of the incredibly terrible ideas they sold the base on, while getting the Obamacare repeal to show they actually did something.

    I still think they're going to use the SCOTUS nomination to get their 'excuse' to kill the fillibuster.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
    Oats
  • Mr KhanMr Khan Not Everyone WAHHHRegistered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    This is the way they keep the fillibuster, and are thus prevented by the scurrilous Democrats from implementing the rest of the incredibly terrible ideas they sold the base on, while getting the Obamacare repeal to show they actually did something.

    I still think they're going to use the SCOTUS nomination to get their 'excuse' to kill the fillibuster.

    Hasn't the new congress already started? The only rules vote that operates by straight majority rule is the vote on day one of a new congress, other votes (including votes to change the rules) are subject to the day one rules, so if day-one you decide you have a filibuster, you can't do a takeback the next day without having to get around the filibuster.

    SpoitGiggles_Funsworth
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe regular Registered User regular
    Honk wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    So if I get this right they know it will cost billions to repeal ACA.

    But presumably they want to remove it to reduce federal spending?

    So then the solution is to ignore the cost spending tens of billions of federal money. That way the excel sheet will say that spending was reduced?

    This sounds like how the Greek government viewed numbers until recently.

    It sounds like they can't avoid a filibuster unless it's revenue neutral, so they're trying to order the CBO to declare it revenue neutral.

    But then the people demanding it be revenue neutral will know that it isn't actually revenue neutral?

    Since I now know it's not revenue neutral they will of course know this as well.

    Its a quirk of the US filibuster system. you can avoid the filibuster of needing 60 votes by using reconciliation but it only works if your bill is revenue neutral. So it's more than just public perception. they literally can't pass it otherwise.

    Let's be cautious here. They can't pass it using this method by traditional convention without it being revenue neutral.

    Except traditional convention is fucked. Trump choked it to death with his tiny hands and pointed out that regardles of whether it's revenue neutral or not, you can simply shout "IT IS REVENUE NEUTRAL" and do what you want.

    And I guarantee that's what they're going to do.

    All the old ways are dead. We're in a new space and we have to start realizing what rules we're playing by.

    What is this I don't even.
    MayabirdHakkekagePLAShadowhopePanda4YouSurfpossumGiggles_FunsworthMan in the Mistsemp123
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe regular Registered User regular
    Honk wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    So if I get this right they know it will cost billions to repeal ACA.

    But presumably they want to remove it to reduce federal spending?

    So then the solution is to ignore the cost spending tens of billions of federal money. That way the excel sheet will say that spending was reduced?

    This sounds like how the Greek government viewed numbers until recently.

    It sounds like they can't avoid a filibuster unless it's revenue neutral, so they're trying to order the CBO to declare it revenue neutral.

    But then the people demanding it be revenue neutral will know that it isn't actually revenue neutral?

    Since I now know it's not revenue neutral they will of course know this as well.

    Its a quirk of the US filibuster system. you can avoid the filibuster of needing 60 votes by using reconciliation but it only works if your bill is revenue neutral. So it's more than just public perception. they literally can't pass it otherwise.

    Oh I didn't know there was a way to avoid filibusters using rules.

    This seems dumb. Why not declare everything revenue neutral forever then.

    They don't directly control how it gets analyzed. Bill get submitted to the Congressional Budget Office which is a nonpartisan office which takes the data from the bill and rates it's budget impacts.

    Except it's a toothless non-partisan office that operates independently only because we agree that's what it is. But the other side doesn't agree with that anymore, and they're going to tell it to just get fucked.

    What is this I don't even.
    Panda4YouGiggles_FunsworthSquigie
  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva regular Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    So if I get this right they know it will cost billions to repeal ACA.

    But presumably they want to remove it to reduce federal spending?

    So then the solution is to ignore the cost spending tens of billions of federal money. That way the excel sheet will say that spending was reduced?

    This sounds like how the Greek government viewed numbers until recently.

    It sounds like they can't avoid a filibuster unless it's revenue neutral, so they're trying to order the CBO to declare it revenue neutral.

    But then the people demanding it be revenue neutral will know that it isn't actually revenue neutral?

    Since I now know it's not revenue neutral they will of course know this as well.

    Its a quirk of the US filibuster system. you can avoid the filibuster of needing 60 votes by using reconciliation but it only works if your bill is revenue neutral. So it's more than just public perception. they literally can't pass it otherwise.

    Let's be cautious here. They can't pass it using this method by traditional convention without it being revenue neutral.

    Except traditional convention is fucked. Trump choked it to death with his tiny hands and pointed out that regardles of whether it's revenue neutral or not, you can simply shout "IT IS REVENUE NEUTRAL" and do what you want.

    And I guarantee that's what they're going to do.

    All the old ways are dead. We're in a new space and we have to start realizing what rules we're playing by.

    Honestly I don't think that would even get thrown out as unconstitution. There's nothing in the constitution that says congress cannot pass laws that are insane or stupid. If congress starts passing laws that say day is night and we can do whatever we want without paying for it and fuck you, its really the role of the American people to vote them out unless it specifically violates a constitutional right or procedure.

    If anything maybe the full faith and credit clause may apply but it is a stretch.

    Edit: fourteenth amendment, not full faith and credit

    Jealous Deva on
    DarkewolfeVeagle
  • BlindPsychicBlindPsychic regular Registered User regular
    Would anything even unconstitutional matter? Its only as strong as the mechanisms willing to enforce it. The big political issue with doing truly heinous shit is the fear that you'll get removed and punished by the people replacing you. It incentivizes doing anything possible to maintain your power.

    MayabirdIncenjucarGnome-InterruptusGennenalyse Rueben
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    This is the way they keep the fillibuster, and are thus prevented by the scurrilous Democrats from implementing the rest of the incredibly terrible ideas they sold the base on, while getting the Obamacare repeal to show they actually did something.

    I still think they're going to use the SCOTUS nomination to get their 'excuse' to kill the fillibuster.

    Hasn't the new congress already started? The only rules vote that operates by straight majority rule is the vote on day one of a new congress, other votes (including votes to change the rules) are subject to the day one rules, so if day-one you decide you have a filibuster, you can't do a takeback the next day without having to get around the filibuster.

    From Wikipedia.
    The nuclear or constitutional option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the U.S. Senate to override a rule or precedent by a simple majority of 51 votes, instead of by a supermajority of 60 votes. The presiding officer of the United States Senate rules that the validity of a Senate rule or precedent is a constitutional question. They immediately put the issue to the full Senate, which decides by majority vote. The procedure thus allows the Senate to decide any issue by majority vote, even though the rules of the Senate specify that ending a filibuster requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100) for legislation, 67 for amending a Senate rule. The name is an analogy to nuclear weapons being the most extreme option in warfare.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed regular Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    This is the way they keep the fillibuster, and are thus prevented by the scurrilous Democrats from implementing the rest of the incredibly terrible ideas they sold the base on, while getting the Obamacare repeal to show they actually did something.

    I still think they're going to use the SCOTUS nomination to get their 'excuse' to kill the fillibuster.

    You can only kill the fillibuster in the rules vote on the first day of class. After that, it's in place for two years.

    So if they still haven't gotten a nominee seated by 2018 and we can't get our shit together before then, maybe.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
This discussion has been closed.