So the Trump White House is supposedly planning a huge nationwide rollout of its tax reform package. Trump rallies in the Midwest, surrogates all over the cable channels, town halls, letters for CEOs to distribute to their employees, etc. Apparently they've decided their problems with passing AHCA/BCRA have primarily been PR and messaging...?
The amusing thing is that they don't appear to realize how much a role ideological differences have played in the health care fight, and so they're gearing up this campaign while there isn't even an agreement among the principals whether tax reform ought to be revenue-neutral:
Another major unsolved problem is how (or if) to pay for all these tax cuts. Some in the White House would happily just blow out the deficit, but Leadership suspects most Republicans wouldn't be on board with that.
Despite not yet agreeing on whether to make it revenue-neutral, they're claiming they'll have a bill ready for committee mark-ups when the August recess ends:
The administration will start pitching the tax reform effort in mid-August, according to sources involved. They're hoping to get the bill itself finalized for mark-ups after Labor Day.
I'll believe it when I see it...
The White House is engaging CEOs across the country, looking for them to hold town halls, do media appearances, and write letters to their employees explaining the benefits of tax reform. They want members to return to their districts in August and hear from business leaders and other influential constituents about why tax reform needs to get done.
Why should even Trump voters believe CEOs who Trump maligned as outsourcers and whatnot?
So the Trump White House is supposedly planning a huge nationwide rollout of its tax reform package. Trump rallies in the Midwest, surrogates all over the cable channels, town halls, letters for CEOs to distribute to their employees, etc. Apparently they've decided their problems with passing AHCA/BCRA have primarily been PR and messaging...?
The amusing thing is that they don't appear to realize how much a role ideological differences have played in the health care fight, and so they're gearing up this campaign while there isn't even an agreement among the principals whether tax reform ought to be revenue-neutral:
Another major unsolved problem is how (or if) to pay for all these tax cuts. Some in the White House would happily just blow out the deficit, but Leadership suspects most Republicans wouldn't be on board with that.
Despite not yet agreeing on whether to make it revenue-neutral, they're claiming they'll have a bill ready for committee mark-ups when the August recess ends:
The administration will start pitching the tax reform effort in mid-August, according to sources involved. They're hoping to get the bill itself finalized for mark-ups after Labor Day.
I'll believe it when I see it...
The White House is engaging CEOs across the country, looking for them to hold town halls, do media appearances, and write letters to their employees explaining the benefits of tax reform. They want members to return to their districts in August and hear from business leaders and other influential constituents about why tax reform needs to get done.
Why should even Trump voters believe CEOs who Trump maligned as outsourcers and whatnot?
So the Trump White House is supposedly planning a huge nationwide rollout of its tax reform package. Trump rallies in the Midwest, surrogates all over the cable channels, town halls, letters for CEOs to distribute to their employees, etc. Apparently they've decided their problems with passing AHCA/BCRA have primarily been PR and messaging...?
The amusing thing is that they don't appear to realize how much a role ideological differences have played in the health care fight, and so they're gearing up this campaign while there isn't even an agreement among the principals whether tax reform ought to be revenue-neutral:
Another major unsolved problem is how (or if) to pay for all these tax cuts. Some in the White House would happily just blow out the deficit, but Leadership suspects most Republicans wouldn't be on board with that.
Despite not yet agreeing on whether to make it revenue-neutral, they're claiming they'll have a bill ready for committee mark-ups when the August recess ends:
The administration will start pitching the tax reform effort in mid-August, according to sources involved. They're hoping to get the bill itself finalized for mark-ups after Labor Day.
I'll believe it when I see it...
The White House is engaging CEOs across the country, looking for them to hold town halls, do media appearances, and write letters to their employees explaining the benefits of tax reform. They want members to return to their districts in August and hear from business leaders and other influential constituents about why tax reform needs to get done.
Why should even Trump voters believe CEOs who Trump maligned as outsourcers and whatnot?
Because these core supporters have a faith about this stuff. This, sadly, isn't about making critical distinctions between various sources of information and the role they play in an overall message.
No, we are presented with a struggle against a peculiar American fanatical zealotry of ignoring facts and evidence. Doubt has no place in certain minds because doubt already fills every other corner. This, this kernel, is the truth, the whole truth, and the only thing that can be believed in. That they have been deceived, been made to scrape and scrounge for what little they have due in no small part by the other side. Nevermind how the other side says they've been trying to make life better for everyone involved. They are constant and consummate liars. How else did they ever get elected?
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
They can't make a tax bill that blows out the deficit because it has to be neutral to pass through reconciliation. That is why Ryan is leaning hard on the Border Adjustment Tax because it's the only way they can tax the lower/middle class to cut taxes on the rich without saying they're doing that.
Yup. I really suggest y'all listen to that The Weeds podcast I linked on page 27 (Meanwhile, House Republicans are trying to write a budget is the title).
They really want to a pass a complete shitburger of a "tax reform" bill that is entirely a handout to rich people. But because of that, they need to do it along party lines. Which means they need to use reconciliation. Which means it needs to be budget neutral. Which is in direct opposition with their goals of passing tax reform.
Ryan is backing the BAT because he's an ideologue and moron and/or because it's the only thing they can find that squares this shit-circle. But nobody fucking likes this idea. Even the Kochs fucking despise it and are lobbying hard right now to kill it. So it's not looking good on that front.
The problem then becomes "Well, wtf do we do then?". The answer is likely to be to push some sort of broad tax cuts because, as noted above, cutting taxes for everyone but mostly for rich people is not all that hard a sell in many ways. Maybe you can peel off some votes for it from Democratic Senators or something. Or maybe you pull some Bush Tax Cut schenanigoats and sunset them in 10 years or some bullshit.
Which overall means that Tax Reform, imo, is most likely to look like the Bush Tax Cuts. Which were really really horrible but hard to undue and not make permanent sadly.
And any energy they try to assemble for this fight is getting fucked over by the fight over FuckthenonrichCare and the upcoming clusterfuck of a fight over the debt ceiling where we find out that even with control of all 3 branches of government the GOP is still insistent on literally destroying the world economy.
Bush Tax Cuts v2 would be a disaster. I honestly don't think you could pry any democrats away in the current environment anyway, but if we did pass something like that it'd have a good chance of debt spiraling the US government.
The problem with campaigning against the BAT(shit crazy idea) is that if you're explaining, you're losing, It's easy for people to understand 20-something million people losing health insurance. But most people don't even understand graduated income tax brackets, much less how the BAT would effect them
Don't explain it then, just tell people that it will make their jeans cost more. Tell them that the rich are getting a tax cut so that you have to pay more for your TV. Tell them it will put Old Navy out of business. Tell them it will kill Strip Malls. Democrats need to mine down to the effect that will happen for most and push it.
The problem with campaigning against the BAT(shit crazy idea) is that if you're explaining, you're losing, It's easy for people to understand 20-something million people losing health insurance. But most people don't even understand graduated income tax brackets, much less how the BAT would effect them
Do you want to pay more for your audis, bmws and mercedes?
I'm not sure how much I trust the CBO to actually call them on the tax cuts--> growth line, unfortunately. They're politically neutral, but sometimes tend towards being a bit too credulous.
I'm not sure how much I trust the CBO to actually call them on the tax cuts--> growth line, unfortunately. They're politically neutral, but sometimes tend towards being a bit too credulous.
I'm not sure how much I trust the CBO to actually call them on the tax cuts--> growth line, unfortunately. They're politically neutral, but sometimes tend towards being a bit too credulous.
They are as credulous as obligated by law.
The Republicans have been amending the law to force them to be rather credulous, yes. Reality, liberal bias, etc.
Well looks like on Monday, we'll have a pretty concrete idea about what democrats will be pushing for in the next budget. They've been talking about how to better message the party and have decided to roll out their vision for the US. With that in mind, I don't see why they wouldn't immediately push for some of those policy goals with this year's budget.
*there are some things I'd love to talk about, but I'm not going to discuss since they aren't exactly relevant to the budget.
Well looks like on Monday, we'll have a pretty concrete idea about what democrats will be pushing for in the next budget. They've been talking about how to better message the party and have decided to roll out their vision for the US. With that in mind, I don't see why they wouldn't immediately push for some of those policy goals with this year's budget.
*there are some things I'd love to talk about, but I'm not going to discuss since they aren't exactly relevant to the budget.
Wow, could that article fellate Paul Ryan any Harder?
During the 2010 congressional campaign cycle that swept Republicans backed by the tea party into power, they were led by rising stars, including future House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and future House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). As House Budget Committee chairman, Ryan starred in online videos that broke down complex plans into simple sound bites. More recently as speaker, Ryan and his caucus have embraced the “A Better Way” agenda that includes conservative proposals to revamp poverty programs, health care and taxes, plus a hawkish national security stance. Last year, the plank was seen as a way to distance congressional Republicans from Trump.
No fucking duh the Dems have a messaging problem when even an puff piece for them is puffing up a stuffed shirt like him even harder
So the Trump White House is supposedly planning a huge nationwide rollout of its tax reform package. Trump rallies in the Midwest, surrogates all over the cable channels, town halls, letters for CEOs to distribute to their employees, etc. Apparently they've decided their problems with passing AHCA/BCRA have primarily been PR and messaging...?
The amusing thing is that they don't appear to realize how much a role ideological differences have played in the health care fight, and so they're gearing up this campaign while there isn't even an agreement among the principals whether tax reform ought to be revenue-neutral:
Another major unsolved problem is how (or if) to pay for all these tax cuts. Some in the White House would happily just blow out the deficit, but Leadership suspects most Republicans wouldn't be on board with that.
Despite not yet agreeing on whether to make it revenue-neutral, they're claiming they'll have a bill ready for committee mark-ups when the August recess ends:
The administration will start pitching the tax reform effort in mid-August, according to sources involved. They're hoping to get the bill itself finalized for mark-ups after Labor Day.
I'll believe it when I see it...
The White House is engaging CEOs across the country, looking for them to hold town halls, do media appearances, and write letters to their employees explaining the benefits of tax reform. They want members to return to their districts in August and hear from business leaders and other influential constituents about why tax reform needs to get done.
Why should even Trump voters believe CEOs who Trump maligned as outsourcers and whatnot?
Wait they are trying to allow full expensing? That's dumb, I'm going to take advantage of that to a savage extent, but it is dumb.
At the end of a Senate subcommittee hearing on Tuesday morning, someone sitting near Chairman Susan Collins (R-Maine) didn’t switch off a microphone. Collins was recorded discussing the federal budget and President Trump’s lack of familiarity with the details of governing with a colleague — apparently Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), the ranking Democrat on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies subcommittee.
After Reed praises Collins’s leadership of the hearing, she laments the administration’s handling of spending.
“I swear, [the Office of Management and Budget] just went through and whenever there was ‘grant,’ they just X it out,” Collins says. “With no measurement, no thinking about it, no metrics, no nothing. It’s just incredibly irresponsible.”
“Yes,” Reed replies. “I think — I think he’s crazy,” apparently referring to the president. “I mean, I don’t say that lightly and as a kind of a goofy guy.”
“I’m worried,” Collins replies.
“Oof,” Reed continues. “You know, this thing — if we don’t get a budget deal, we’re going to be paralyzed.”
“I know,” Collins replies.
“[Department of Defense] is going to be paralyzed, everybody is going to be paralyzed,” Reed says.
“I don’t think he knows there is a [Budget Control Act] or anything,” Collins says, referring to a 2011 law that defines the budget process.
“He was down at the Ford commissioning,” Reed says, referring to President Trump’s weekend event launching a new aircraft carrier, “saying, ‘I want them to pass my budget.’ Okay, so we give him $54 billion and then we take it away across the board which would cause chaos.”
“Right,” Collins replies.
“It’s just — and he hasn’t — not one word about the budget. Not one word about the debt ceiling,” Reed says.
“Good point,” Collins replies.
“You’ve got [Budget Director Mick] Mulvaney saying we’re going to put in all sorts of stuff like a border wall. Then you’ve got [Treasury Secretary Steve] Mnuchin saying it’s got to be clean,” Reed continues. “We’re going to be back in September, and, you know, you’re going to have crazy people in the House.”
At the end of a Senate subcommittee hearing on Tuesday morning, someone sitting near Chairman Susan Collins (R-Maine) didn’t switch off a microphone. Collins was recorded discussing the federal budget and President Trump’s lack of familiarity with the details of governing with a colleague — apparently Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), the ranking Democrat on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies subcommittee.
After Reed praises Collins’s leadership of the hearing, she laments the administration’s handling of spending.
“I swear, [the Office of Management and Budget] just went through and whenever there was ‘grant,’ they just X it out,” Collins says. “With no measurement, no thinking about it, no metrics, no nothing. It’s just incredibly irresponsible.”
“Yes,” Reed replies. “I think — I think he’s crazy,” apparently referring to the president. “I mean, I don’t say that lightly and as a kind of a goofy guy.”
“I’m worried,” Collins replies.
“Oof,” Reed continues. “You know, this thing — if we don’t get a budget deal, we’re going to be paralyzed.”
“I know,” Collins replies.
“[Department of Defense] is going to be paralyzed, everybody is going to be paralyzed,” Reed says.
“I don’t think he knows there is a [Budget Control Act] or anything,” Collins says, referring to a 2011 law that defines the budget process.
“He was down at the Ford commissioning,” Reed says, referring to President Trump’s weekend event launching a new aircraft carrier, “saying, ‘I want them to pass my budget.’ Okay, so we give him $54 billion and then we take it away across the board which would cause chaos.”
“Right,” Collins replies.
“It’s just — and he hasn’t — not one word about the budget. Not one word about the debt ceiling,” Reed says.
“Good point,” Collins replies.
“You’ve got [Budget Director Mick] Mulvaney saying we’re going to put in all sorts of stuff like a border wall. Then you’ve got [Treasury Secretary Steve] Mnuchin saying it’s got to be clean,” Reed continues. “We’re going to be back in September, and, you know, you’re going to have crazy people in the House.”
This is somehow oddly refreshing, actually. Regardless of what they may say publicly, I know at least 1 republican senator actually does understand the situation they're in and sees it similarly to how I do.
I was a bit confused initially, as the syntax makes it look like Jack Reed is a Republican.
Though it is actually mentioned in the article that he's a democrat, it's typical to list it as (party - state), as they did with Collins (R-Maine). Jack Reed being listed as just (R.I.) for Rhode Island, threw me off.
That the candor with which she speaks wasn't what I'd expect her to be with someone from the other side, was what made me have to check that Reed was actually a Democrat. Because I know FOX has regularly done the "mislabel a corrupt or scandaled politician as a (D)".
Not all of us are from the US. Morgan hails from the land down under, for example. ;-)
US Politics make fascinating reading, but the inconsistency threw me too (from up here in the vast frozen north) until I re-read that part and saw them say explicitly that he's a Democrat.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
+5
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
I'm sure there are more R's who would love to boot Trump for Pence, but they're (rightfully) scared if his bully pulpit. Emphasis on bully.
This does give me some more hope that they'll be on board getting rid of him if his approval rating tanks even more.
I'm sure there are more R's who would love to boot Trump for Pence, but they're (rightfully) scared if his bully pulpit. Emphasis on bully.
This does give me some more hope that they'll be on board getting rid of him if his approval rating tanks even more.
They're cowards that need political cover to do it, but will pull the trigger if given the opportunity. Maybe this budget could be it, but I doubt it. It's too complicated for the average Joe to care to try to understand.
So I know there is a ton of shit going on, that the Trump administration is in the middle of in one way or another. I find it's always good to keep track of important matters to the best of my ability; especially, when we have a shitty President, a Shitty Senate Majority Leader and a Shitty Speaker of the House, all of whom will use distractions to try sneaking in really awful policies.
So for starters, we've been seeing plenty of discussion about the Republicans possible not having the votes to get a budget through. Well this article from the Washington Post, talks about how it seems the right has run out of things they can easily target for cutting, while not running into any opposing from within the party. We have now hit the programs that are popular with large swaths of their base. So their is a conflict between the crazy fucker budget hawks and members of their party not keen about pissing of their base. Apparently, there is a growing expectation that they'll have work with democrats to get the budget through. Also likely to cause the GOP to further fracture, since some elements aren't at all happy about potentially losing this fight.
So what's the outlook from the Trump Administration, well have a gander at this quote that Politico got us.
A successful September for many in the administration would include keeping the government open, passing a budget without too much of a showdown, securing some money for the long-promised border wall and beginning talks on tax reform, officials said, while continuing to work on the health care issue.
But other Trump aides have loftier expectations. For some, such as strategist Steve Bannon and his allies, securing money for the wall is a fight worth having. Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney would like spending cuts as part of raising the debt ceiling, but it remains unclear how hard he would be willing to battle for them.
That's right they expect to have a shut down. Your guess is as good as mine about what might be considered "too much" with these clowns. Will be glorious to see Republican divisions result in them not getting a penny for their fucking wall and they don't seem ready to give up on healthcare. Based on their goals and all the whining in the Politico article, I'm not at all confident that they won't intentionally find a way to cause a shut down because they believe people aren't being fair to them and that it's totally worth shutting the government down for some really stupid shit.
Also I really hope someone points at that given what we've seen out of the Trump Administration, September 29th isn't really the deadline that Congress has in regards to the debt ceiling. Expect Trump to be as much of a dick about it as possible. So if I remember my rules right, they probably should aim for not later than the 19th with a veto proof passed debt ceiling increase, since the asshole might sit on it for 10 days out of spite. I think it goes without saying, that they'll need veto proof votes on this, otherwise the assholes will do something stupid (well he always does something stupid, but he might think he can get something better if it isn't obvious that Congress will smack his shit down, like they did with the sanction bill that he didn't like).
A shutdown with RRR control would be a sight to behold. Like tattooing "INCAPABLE OF GOVERNANCE" on the entire caucus' foreheads.
R control of Congress doesn't feel like a unified party like in a Parliament though. The current Republican situation in Congress reminds me a little of the Tory/DUP alliance in Britain. Very shaky, even if they technically run the government.
A shutdown with RRR control would be a sight to behold. Like tattooing "INCAPABLE OF GOVERNANCE" on the entire caucus' foreheads.
Especially after crowing for years about how the Dems couldn't run things.
It still boggles my mind that - with the exception of 2012 - we've had to operate under continuing resolutions of some form for an entire decade. (a lot of shenanigans happened in 2012 that I'm only just digging into while simultaneously trying to figure out how much I care)
IMO, it's a bit like what's being said over in the Charlottesville thread: a bunch of factions with no common agenda or goals besides Hating ____ People.
In the past, party discipline and earmarks and other tools were available to the leadership to keep them all in lockstep and pointing in the same direction, but the gradual erosion of those restraints and now the opportunity/need to actually do stuff, rather than just oppose oppose oppose, has revealed the deep cracks in the party.
The only thing keeping them together right now is the brand identity and the lingering momentum to "roll back everything the last administration did", but they can't even agree on how to do that, and the saner ones are coming to realize that actually following through on all that would probably be really bad (like, for them). Which forces them to finally have to confront the true believers who don't care, burn it all down.
I'm starting to lose count of the number of times "you chucklefucks had 7 years to get your shit in order" has gone through my head this year.
During those 7 years, their in-party civil war has escalated to the point where the wings in control of Congress and the Presidency are almost entirely in opposition to each other. At this point pretty much the only thing they agree with each other on is tax cuts. Even their broad and vague points of agreement like punishing poor brown people come loaded with tons of differences in the details that they can only occasionally reconcile.
Trump's election was a democratic coup of the party, the next phase of what the TEA rallies began. I can't begin to predict what the next step of this is going to be, but worst case is obviously continued surging of the Trump / freedom caucus wing that escalates the dismantling of the federal government. It's hard to imagine their perfect storm continuing in the years to come to make that possible, particularly without a polarizing figure to unite them against, but what we're facing now (actual Nazis, threats of shutdowns with one-party control) is so ridiculous that low probabilities no longer offer relief.
There's one-party control of everything in name and technicality only; gauging "success" by "not failing so hard that nearly everything completely grinds to a halt" is something normally reserved for the most bitterly split government.
Fleur de Alys on
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
OMB sent a letter to the Senate asking to exempt "all military personnel accounts [incl Coast Guard]" from any FY18 sequester should one be employed, but does not apply to "the Joint Committee sequestrstion already ordered for FY18"
Have there been concurrent sequestration policies? I had presumed that term referred to a general-purpose list of spending caps.
I'm guessing certain accounts are exempt so that (for example) the military can keep operating while the budget gets worked out. Considering it's specifically the personnel accounts, I believe it means that soldiers and sailors can still get paid while the Govt is shutdown/sequestered.
Posts
MAGA, duh
trump = gop therefore trump > librul
that's all there is to it!
Because these core supporters have a faith about this stuff. This, sadly, isn't about making critical distinctions between various sources of information and the role they play in an overall message.
No, we are presented with a struggle against a peculiar American fanatical zealotry of ignoring facts and evidence. Doubt has no place in certain minds because doubt already fills every other corner. This, this kernel, is the truth, the whole truth, and the only thing that can be believed in. That they have been deceived, been made to scrape and scrounge for what little they have due in no small part by the other side. Nevermind how the other side says they've been trying to make life better for everyone involved. They are constant and consummate liars. How else did they ever get elected?
I don't think it should be a make or break demand, but if we can get it, then so much better for the country (and the planet, really)
Yup. I really suggest y'all listen to that The Weeds podcast I linked on page 27 (Meanwhile, House Republicans are trying to write a budget is the title).
They really want to a pass a complete shitburger of a "tax reform" bill that is entirely a handout to rich people. But because of that, they need to do it along party lines. Which means they need to use reconciliation. Which means it needs to be budget neutral. Which is in direct opposition with their goals of passing tax reform.
Ryan is backing the BAT because he's an ideologue and moron and/or because it's the only thing they can find that squares this shit-circle. But nobody fucking likes this idea. Even the Kochs fucking despise it and are lobbying hard right now to kill it. So it's not looking good on that front.
The problem then becomes "Well, wtf do we do then?". The answer is likely to be to push some sort of broad tax cuts because, as noted above, cutting taxes for everyone but mostly for rich people is not all that hard a sell in many ways. Maybe you can peel off some votes for it from Democratic Senators or something. Or maybe you pull some Bush Tax Cut schenanigoats and sunset them in 10 years or some bullshit.
Which overall means that Tax Reform, imo, is most likely to look like the Bush Tax Cuts. Which were really really horrible but hard to undue and not make permanent sadly.
And any energy they try to assemble for this fight is getting fucked over by the fight over FuckthenonrichCare and the upcoming clusterfuck of a fight over the debt ceiling where we find out that even with control of all 3 branches of government the GOP is still insistent on literally destroying the world economy.
My favorite chart remains very useful
Don't explain it then, just tell people that it will make their jeans cost more. Tell them that the rich are getting a tax cut so that you have to pay more for your TV. Tell them it will put Old Navy out of business. Tell them it will kill Strip Malls. Democrats need to mine down to the effect that will happen for most and push it.
Do you want to pay more for your audis, bmws and mercedes?
That will piss off suburban affluent voters
They are as credulous as obligated by law.
The Republicans have been amending the law to force them to be rather credulous, yes. Reality, liberal bias, etc.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Vs the assholes that only do this shit for political gain for political gain's sake.
*there are some things I'd love to talk about, but I'm not going to discuss since they aren't exactly relevant to the budget.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Wow, could that article fellate Paul Ryan any Harder?
No fucking duh the Dems have a messaging problem when even an puff piece for them is puffing up a stuffed shirt like him even harder
Top of the list for adding to the House budget bill: Getting rid of the CBO. From The Hill's budget reporter.
Maybe instead of dicking around with how the government operates y'all could pass a fucking budget.
Cause right now that seems way more important than this bullshit.
We currently have a budget. The FY-2018 won't be considered late until October 1st.
This is somehow oddly refreshing, actually. Regardless of what they may say publicly, I know at least 1 republican senator actually does understand the situation they're in and sees it similarly to how I do.
Though it is actually mentioned in the article that he's a democrat, it's typical to list it as (party - state), as they did with Collins (R-Maine). Jack Reed being listed as just (R.I.) for Rhode Island, threw me off.
That the candor with which she speaks wasn't what I'd expect her to be with someone from the other side, was what made me have to check that Reed was actually a Democrat. Because I know FOX has regularly done the "mislabel a corrupt or scandaled politician as a (D)".
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Not all of us are from the US. Morgan hails from the land down under, for example. ;-)
US Politics make fascinating reading, but the inconsistency threw me too (from up here in the vast frozen north) until I re-read that part and saw them say explicitly that he's a Democrat.
This does give me some more hope that they'll be on board getting rid of him if his approval rating tanks even more.
They're cowards that need political cover to do it, but will pull the trigger if given the opportunity. Maybe this budget could be it, but I doubt it. It's too complicated for the average Joe to care to try to understand.
So for starters, we've been seeing plenty of discussion about the Republicans possible not having the votes to get a budget through. Well this article from the Washington Post, talks about how it seems the right has run out of things they can easily target for cutting, while not running into any opposing from within the party. We have now hit the programs that are popular with large swaths of their base. So their is a conflict between the crazy fucker budget hawks and members of their party not keen about pissing of their base. Apparently, there is a growing expectation that they'll have work with democrats to get the budget through. Also likely to cause the GOP to further fracture, since some elements aren't at all happy about potentially losing this fight.
So what's the outlook from the Trump Administration, well have a gander at this quote that Politico got us.
That's right they expect to have a shut down. Your guess is as good as mine about what might be considered "too much" with these clowns. Will be glorious to see Republican divisions result in them not getting a penny for their fucking wall and they don't seem ready to give up on healthcare. Based on their goals and all the whining in the Politico article, I'm not at all confident that they won't intentionally find a way to cause a shut down because they believe people aren't being fair to them and that it's totally worth shutting the government down for some really stupid shit.
Also I really hope someone points at that given what we've seen out of the Trump Administration, September 29th isn't really the deadline that Congress has in regards to the debt ceiling. Expect Trump to be as much of a dick about it as possible. So if I remember my rules right, they probably should aim for not later than the 19th with a veto proof passed debt ceiling increase, since the asshole might sit on it for 10 days out of spite. I think it goes without saying, that they'll need veto proof votes on this, otherwise the assholes will do something stupid (well he always does something stupid, but he might think he can get something better if it isn't obvious that Congress will smack his shit down, like they did with the sanction bill that he didn't like).
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
R control of Congress doesn't feel like a unified party like in a Parliament though. The current Republican situation in Congress reminds me a little of the Tory/DUP alliance in Britain. Very shaky, even if they technically run the government.
Especially after crowing for years about how the Dems couldn't run things.
It still boggles my mind that - with the exception of 2012 - we've had to operate under continuing resolutions of some form for an entire decade. (a lot of shenanigans happened in 2012 that I'm only just digging into while simultaneously trying to figure out how much I care)
In the past, party discipline and earmarks and other tools were available to the leadership to keep them all in lockstep and pointing in the same direction, but the gradual erosion of those restraints and now the opportunity/need to actually do stuff, rather than just oppose oppose oppose, has revealed the deep cracks in the party.
The only thing keeping them together right now is the brand identity and the lingering momentum to "roll back everything the last administration did", but they can't even agree on how to do that, and the saner ones are coming to realize that actually following through on all that would probably be really bad (like, for them). Which forces them to finally have to confront the true believers who don't care, burn it all down.
Trump's election was a democratic coup of the party, the next phase of what the TEA rallies began. I can't begin to predict what the next step of this is going to be, but worst case is obviously continued surging of the Trump / freedom caucus wing that escalates the dismantling of the federal government. It's hard to imagine their perfect storm continuing in the years to come to make that possible, particularly without a polarizing figure to unite them against, but what we're facing now (actual Nazis, threats of shutdowns with one-party control) is so ridiculous that low probabilities no longer offer relief.
There's one-party control of everything in name and technicality only; gauging "success" by "not failing so hard that nearly everything completely grinds to a halt" is something normally reserved for the most bitterly split government.
Have there been concurrent sequestration policies? I had presumed that term referred to a general-purpose list of spending caps.