Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(127,331 posts)
Sat May 27, 2023, 08:38 PM May 2023

White House and G.O.P. Strike Debt Limit Deal to Avert Default

Last edited Sat May 27, 2023, 11:02 PM - Edit history (4)

Source: New York Times

President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Saturday reached an agreement in principle to raise the debt limit for two years while cutting and capping some government spending over the same period, a breakthrough after a marathon set of crisis talks that has brought the nation within days of its first default in history.

Congressional passage of the plan before June 5, when the Treasury is projected to exhaust its ability to pay its obligations, is not assured, particularly in the House, which plans to consider it on Wednesday. Republicans hold a narrow majority in the chamber, and right-wing lawmakers who had demanded significantly larger budget cuts in exchange for lifting the borrowing limit were already in revolt.

But the compromise, which would effectively freeze federal spending that had been on track to grow, had the blessing of both the Democratic president and the Republican speaker, raising hopes that it could break the fiscal stalemate that has gripped Washington and the nation for weeks, threatening an economic crisis.

Mr. Biden urged the House and Senate to pass the agreement in a late-night statement issued by the White House, saying it would prevent a catastrophic default. "It is an important step forward that reduces spending while protecting critical programs for working people and growing the economy for everyone," Mr. Biden said. "And the agreement protects my and congressional Democrats' key priorities and legislative accomplishments. The agreement represents a compromise, which means not everyone gets what they want."

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/27/us/politics/debt-limit-deal.html



No paywall (gift)

Article updated.

Previous articles -

President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Saturday reached an agreement in principle to raise the debt limit for two years while cutting and capping some government spending over the same period, a breakthrough after a marathon set of crisis talks that has brought the nation within days of its first default in history. Congressional passage of the plan before June 5, when the Treasury is projected to exhaust its ability to pay its obligations, is not assured, particularly in the House, which plans to consider it on Wednesday.
Republicans hold a narrow majority in the chamber, and right-wing lawmakers who had demanded significantly larger budget cuts in exchange for lifting the borrowing limit were already in revolt.

But the compromise, which would effectively freeze federal spending that had been on track to grow, had the blessing of both the Democratic president and the Republican speaker, raising hopes that it could break the fiscal stalemate that has gripped Washington and the nation for weeks, threatening an economic crisis. The two spoke by phone on Saturday evening to resolve final sticking points. In a nighttime news conference outside his Capitol office that lasted just one minute, Mr. McCarthy said the deal contained "historic reductions in spending, consequential reforms that will lift people out of poverty into the work force, rein in government overreach" and would add no new taxes.

He declined to answer questions or provide specifics, but said he planned to release legislative text on Sunday, ahead of the Wednesday vote. "We still have more work to do tonight to finish all the writing of it," he said. The plan was structured with the aim of enticing votes from both parties, though it has drawn the ire not only of conservative Republicans but also Democrats furious at being asked to vote for cuts they oppose with the threat of default looming. Still, it gives Republicans the ability to say that they succeeded in reducing some federal spending -- even as funding for the military and veterans' programs would continue to grow -- while allowing Democrats to say they spared most domestic programs from significant cuts.

The deal would raise the borrowing limit, which is currently $31.4 trillion, for two years -- enough to get past the next presidential election. According to a person familiar with the agreement, it also would impose new work requirements for some recipients of government aid, including food stamps and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. It would place new limits on the amount of time that certain recipients of food stamps -- people under the age of 54, who do not have children -- could benefit from the program. But it also would expand food stamp access for veterans and the homeless, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss details of the package.



Top White House and Republican negotiators on Saturday reached an agreement in principle to raise the debt limit for two years while cutting and capping some government spending over the same period, a breakthrough after a marathon set of crisis talks that has brought the nation within days of its first default in history. Congressional passage of the plan before June 5, when the Treasury is projected to exhaust its ability to pay its obligations, is not assured, particularly in the House.

Republicans hold a narrow majority in the chamber, and right-wing lawmakers who had demanded significantly larger budget cuts in exchange for lifting the borrowing limit are all but certain to revolt. But the compromise, which would effectively freeze federal spending that had been on track to grow, had the blessing of both President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy, raising hopes that it could break the fiscal stalemate that has gripped Washington and the nation for weeks, threatening an economic crisis. The two spoke by phone on Saturday evening to resolve final sticking points.

In a tweet, Mr. McCarthy called it "an agreement in principle that is worthy of the American people." The plan was structured with the aim of enticing votes from both parties, though it has drawn the ire not only of conservative Republicans but also Democrats furious at being asked to vote for cuts they oppose with the threat of default looming. Still, it gives Republicans the ability to say that they succeeded in reducing some federal spending -- even as funding for the military and veterans' programs would continue to grow -- while allowing Democrats to say they spared most domestic programs from significant cuts.

The deal, which was still being finalized and written on Saturday night, would raise the borrowing limit, which is currently $31.4 trillion, for two years -- enough to get past the next presidential election. According to a person familiar with the agreement, the deal also would impose new work requirements for some recipients of government aid, including food stamps and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. It would put new limits on the amount of time that certain recipients of food stamps -- people under the age of 54, who do not have children -- could benefit from the program. But it also would expand food stamp access for veterans and the homeless.



Original article -

Top White House and Republican negotiators on Saturday reached a deal in principle to raise the debt limit for two years while cutting and capping some government spending over the same period, a breakthrough after a marathon set of crisis talks that has brought the nation within days of its first default in history, three people familiar with the agreement said.

Congressional passage of the plan before June 5, when the Treasury is projected to exhaust its ability to pay its obligations, was not assured, particularly in the House. Republicans hold a narrow majority in the chamber, and right-wing lawmakers who had demanded significantly larger budget cuts in exchange for lifting the borrowing limit are all but certain to revolt.

But the compromise, which would effectively freeze federal spending that had been on track to grow, had the blessing of both President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy, raising hopes that it could break the fiscal stalemate that has gripped Washington and the nation for weeks, threatening an economic crisis. The two spoke by phone on Saturday evening to resolve final sticking points.

The people who spoke about the deal did so on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly in advance of a formal announcement.
122 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
White House and G.O.P. Strike Debt Limit Deal to Avert Default (Original Post) BumRushDaShow May 2023 OP
what did we loose ? AllaN01Bear May 2023 #1
What did we tighten? BeyondGeography May 2023 #2
Hopefully the figurative noose dflprincess May 2023 #25
Now, now, be tolerant! DFW May 2023 #61
On top of that BeyondGeography May 2023 #64
Lol Polybius May 2023 #94
It looks like a "freeze" on spending (vs a natural increase - often for inflation) BumRushDaShow May 2023 #3
thanks . if the rs think about getting jobs for snap people , it aint that simple AllaN01Bear May 2023 #4
and yet you'd expect income to increase ... Igel May 2023 #13
A freeze on spending looks like a win to me. Septua May 2023 #22
When I was still working as a fed BumRushDaShow May 2023 #23
So. it's not a win... Septua May 2023 #33
I wouldn't say that BumRushDaShow May 2023 #34
According to a report earlier on MSNBC... Septua May 2023 #41
Okay BumRushDaShow May 2023 #44
Let me guess MASSIVE tax cuts for the filty rich and Corporations is never spending...right? Bengus81 May 2023 #96
Jonathan Alter said that the "work requirements" that the Republicans are pushing for aren't included Rhiannon12866 May 2023 #35
There are a bunch of different programs that they have referenced BumRushDaShow May 2023 #37
John Kasich, not a surprise. He appears to have reemerged, saw him on a couple of news shows recently Rhiannon12866 May 2023 #51
They are and they aren't FBaggins May 2023 #69
You can't lose what you don't have. hay rick May 2023 #7
IRS funding. IRS brings in revenue...Biden wanted to go after wealthy tax cheats like Trump CousinIT May 2023 #71
No matter what, it's meaningless starting in Jan 2025. paleotn May 2023 #72
We loose the ability to respond to clamnities IbogaProject May 2023 #82
The MAGA wing won't pass it. They want the default. ... aggiesal May 2023 #5
Well "every bill" shouldn't have to use the "Hastert Rule" to pass something BumRushDaShow May 2023 #6
If there is any chance of the bill not passing without enough D votes, the D's will come through... bsiebs May 2023 #8
And fuck the NYT... bsiebs May 2023 #12
After the 2022 elections & we knew the (R)'s would be taking control ... aggiesal May 2023 #19
Weren't they about to - until Mancheat and Sinnerma got in the way? peppertree May 2023 #21
Note "Mr. Biden" written in the article. Bluethroughu May 2023 #38
IIRC the Times uses a person's title the first time or two, then the 'Mr., Ms., Mrs. or whatever The Mouth May 2023 #84
Their "style guide" (they call it their "Manual of Style and Usage" ). BumRushDaShow May 2023 #87
Thanks. The Mouth May 2023 #88
I have had a NYT sub since 1976 BumRushDaShow May 2023 #93
Thank you for this information. Bluethroughu May 2023 #99
But If the MAGA wing votes against it ... aggiesal May 2023 #11
That's been discussed for quite a while. Igel May 2023 #14
Define the Democratic extremist wing for me. gab13by13 May 2023 #63
They'll define themselves for you FBaggins May 2023 #66
If so, they should all lose their paychecks and benefits FakeNoose May 2023 #16
There is not enough of them to stop it. Demsrule86 May 2023 #53
Yes they do! And infighting starts now. McCarthy could lose his precious speakership over his fold. machoneman May 2023 #70
This would be the fun part! DemBlue76 May 2023 #81
Welcome to DU! RussBLib May 2023 #97
welcome to DU gopiscrap May 2023 #120
There's not enough of them and too many relatively moderate Repukes in tight districts. paleotn May 2023 #73
That's what I need to hear.. Cha May 2023 #98
Mahalo BRDS for the gift & Cha May 2023 #9
+1,000,000 highplainsdem May 2023 #36
You are welcome and hope you had a four-ever happy day too!! BumRushDaShow May 2023 #39
Hey Aloha! When I wrote Cha May 2023 #42
The Senate will probably be a bigger issue in this case BumRushDaShow May 2023 #46
Oh dear. I don't understand.. Cha May 2023 #47
For regular legislation, they need 60 votes to advance the bill to the debate stage BumRushDaShow May 2023 #49
Oh gawd.. so we could still Cha May 2023 #50
Possibly BumRushDaShow May 2023 #52
Mahalo, I appreciate your input. Cha May 2023 #57
No chance of a filibuster unless something has been misreported FBaggins May 2023 #74
Mike Lee has already indicated that he plans to gum up the works BumRushDaShow May 2023 #77
That sounds like dramatically fewer than 40 FBaggins May 2023 #78
Well you know one... and possibly 2 more BumRushDaShow May 2023 #83
You're making unfounded assumptions FBaggins May 2023 #86
"You're making it founded assumptions" BumRushDaShow May 2023 #91
All I can say is "just watch" FBaggins May 2023 #105
This is what I originally wrote as a reply in this thread - BumRushDaShow May 2023 #106
And you can now see that you were flat wrong FBaggins Jun 2023 #121
FFS. And again BumRushDaShow Jun 2023 #122
Most welcome! BumRushDaShow May 2023 #40
i dig the cut of your jib BRDS. Very good work. IMO Prairie_Seagull May 2023 #65
Thank you! BumRushDaShow May 2023 #67
We're playing with fire... Think. Again. May 2023 #10
Predictable bucolic_frolic May 2023 #15
the MAGA detestable will turn on Kevin.. agingdem May 2023 #17
And MSNBC mentioned tonight that it only takes one to demand McCarthy be removed Rhiannon12866 May 2023 #18
It takes 218 to remove him. former9thward May 2023 #26
The Republican caucus has 222 members BumRushDaShow May 2023 #32
This is why Biden was brilliant. McCarthy will need Democratic votes to retain his speakership. Demsrule86 May 2023 #54
Very well said! Rhiannon12866 May 2023 #56
Thanks! Demsrule86 May 2023 #114
If this passes Congress, perhaps people will finally come out in mass and vote Democratic JohnSJ May 2023 #20
Dems better vet better. They have failed in that PlutosHeart May 2023 #24
Russia thanks you for your input ExWhoDoesntCare May 2023 #62
And you wish to apologize? PlutosHeart May 2023 #107
Democrats are not weak. I think you are completely wrong and wish the insults towards Demsrule86 May 2023 #68
I agree overall they are not. PlutosHeart May 2023 #108
We more votes. Let's work hard to Demsrule86 May 2023 #112
I wonder how many Republican votes it's going to take to pass this in the House. LudwigPastorius May 2023 #27
One debt ceiling increase in 4 years for Biden vs 3 for Trump. Are those the right numbers? keithbvadu2 May 2023 #28
There was a "clean" debt ceiling raise done in December of 2021 BumRushDaShow May 2023 #29
Thanks! Will this one also be a joint resolution? keithbvadu2 May 2023 #43
I don't think so BumRushDaShow May 2023 #45
Now, engage the courts on using the 14th Amendment for NEXT f***n time ! 🤬 Pluvious May 2023 #30
That can't happen. former9thward May 2023 #102
For two years, past the next election. markodochartaigh May 2023 #31
So at first blush it would appear that the rich moniss May 2023 #48
You can't get tax increases when you don't hold the house...seriously, one has to look at the Demsrule86 May 2023 #55
We will never in our lifetimes moniss May 2023 #58
"We will never in our lifetimes get 60 Senate seats." BumRushDaShow May 2023 #59
I agree with you moniss May 2023 #90
You never know BumRushDaShow May 2023 #95
The whole structure of the Constitution is set up that The Mouth May 2023 #85
The last moniss May 2023 #92
agreed Novara May 2023 #110
Get rid of the filibuster. Demsrule86 May 2023 #113
We have a lot of obstruction to overcome moniss May 2023 #115
We need more Senators so the 50 state strategy...is a good idea. Demsrule86 May 2023 #116
I've always thought moniss May 2023 #117
I have no idea why after the election of President Obama, Howard Dean was dumped. We had Demsrule86 May 2023 #118
What I have encountered repeatedly moniss May 2023 #119
When was any of that on the table? FBaggins May 2023 #79
It was on the table moniss May 2023 #89
The car analogy is way off TiberiusB May 2023 #103
Right you are and moniss May 2023 #104
Agreed Novara May 2023 #111
Dark Brandon.... bill May 2023 #60
Seems like McCarthy "blinked". paleotn May 2023 #75
that thought came to me late last nite. AllaN01Bear May 2023 #76
They both did. That's how these deals work. FBaggins May 2023 #80
A freeze is actually a reduction Novara May 2023 #100
A freeze is different from an outright cut or elimination BumRushDaShow May 2023 #101
FY23 spending is already locked in Deminpenn May 2023 #109

dflprincess

(28,057 posts)
25. Hopefully the figurative noose
Sat May 27, 2023, 10:18 PM
May 2023

around the Republican party's figurative neck. (Just to be clear I'm not advocating actual violence against anyone.)

DFW

(54,059 posts)
61. Now, now, be tolerant!
Sun May 28, 2023, 06:23 AM
May 2023

Many good Democrats were exposed to Republicanese at an early age, and still managed to stay/become Democrats. As a quick reminder:

EXCERPTS FROM THE OFFICIAL DICTIONARY OF REPUBLICANESE

In Republicanese, many words that sound alike may be spelled differently at random. A few prominent examples:

In Republicanese, the following words may be spelled at random using any of the three ways given:

A.) Two, Too, To
B.) Their, They're, There
c.) Your, Yore, You're

The Republicanese version of Robin Hood therefore starts with "In days of you're...."

The only rule is that the correct use of them as in English is never permitted twice in a row.

Words with single letters that change meaning when that letter is doubled must never be used in correct English context. The classic example is “lose” vs. “loose.” In Republicanese, if you do not win an election, then you “loose” that election. Conversely, if your (Republicanese: you’re) belt is too tight, you need it more “lose” in order to be comfortable. Another example would be the Republicanese, “I met Donald Trump, and he was rudder than I imagined,” vs. “I grabbed the ruder and was able to steer the boat to shore.”

In English, the contraction for "it is" is written "it's." To show possession referring to something previously mentioned, one writes "its." In Republicanese, it is the other way around. Example:
English: “It's impractical for a building to have its solar panels in the basement.”
Republicanese: “Its impractical for a building to have it's solar panels in the basement.”

In Republicanese, an apostrophe is used to form a plural, whereas this is never correct in English. But it must be done at random, never systematically. For example, Bill and Hillary are "the Clinton's," but Bill, Chelsea and Hillary are "the Clintons." The other way around is also correct. In Republicanese, either form is correct as long as it is not spelled the same way twice in a row.
Example:
In English, one writes "The Clintons like dogs."
In Republicanese, this can be written as "The Clinton's like dogs," or "The Clintons like dog's" or "The Clinton's like dog's." The only version that would be incorrect in Republicanese would be to use no apostrophe at all. Only English is written that way.

BumRushDaShow

(127,331 posts)
3. It looks like a "freeze" on spending (vs a natural increase - often for inflation)
Sat May 27, 2023, 08:46 PM
May 2023

in exchange for a 2 year agreement to get past the election (and apparently none of the draconian cuts - although there was no word on the "work requirement" thing, which is a bit ridiculous because most poor who can work are working - multiple minimum wage jobs and STILL can't make ends meet even if they qualify for SNAP).

And see, that is a whole other issue - the Farm Bill, which also has to get worked on and that contains the budgetary line items for things like SNAP and WIC.

Igel

(35,199 posts)
13. and yet you'd expect income to increase ...
Sat May 27, 2023, 09:13 PM
May 2023

for inflation.

After all, this year we have record federal income (at least for the last several decades), mostly because of, you got it, increased inflation coupled with minimal unemployment.

Septua

(2,234 posts)
22. A freeze on spending looks like a win to me.
Sat May 27, 2023, 09:54 PM
May 2023

Biden has gotten a lot of good spending legislation passed...can't win 'em all.

BumRushDaShow

(127,331 posts)
23. When I was still working as a fed
Sat May 27, 2023, 10:01 PM
May 2023

we had been through many a spending freeze or a "full year C.R." (Continuing Resolution which used the previous fiscal year's budget numbers and was extended for the remainder of a FY).

BumRushDaShow

(127,331 posts)
34. I wouldn't say that
Sat May 27, 2023, 11:19 PM
May 2023

I would say that it's "not unusual" and if anything, is more "par for the course". I.e., it's a "WIN" because it's not a "SLASH AND BURN" from that craptacular mess the GOP passed last month, which was summarized by the Congressional Budget Office -


CBO Scores the Limit, Save, Grow Act

Apr 25, 2023 Budgets & Projections Other Spending


(snip)

The Limit, Save, Grow Act would return total discretionary spending to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 level in FY 2024 and cap annual growth at 1 percent for a decade thereafter; rescind unspent COVID relief funds; repeal most of the Inflation Reduction Act's (IRA) energy and climate tax credit expansions; rescind the IRA's increased Internal Revenue Service (IRS) funding; make changes to energy, regulatory, and permitting policies; impose or expand work requirements in several federal safety net programs; and prevent implementation of President Biden's student debt cancellation and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) expansion.

(snip)

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/cbo-scores-limit-save-grow-act


The "Budget Control Acts" that they forced on Obama were "cuts" and a "sequester" (of anything that went beyond the ceiling) and they put a hard cap on the total spending for 2 years.

Septua

(2,234 posts)
41. According to a report earlier on MSNBC...
Sat May 27, 2023, 11:57 PM
May 2023

..Gym Jordan said if it limits spending to that of last year, he'll take it.

Lawrence O'Donnell has a theory the negotiations turned out just as Biden intended. The gist of the theory: McCarthy can take credit for saving the country from default and Biden doesn't give up anywhere near what the crazy caucus wanted.

Got to wait on the votes and see what happens.

BumRushDaShow

(127,331 posts)
44. Okay
Sun May 28, 2023, 12:06 AM
May 2023

I had mentioned in another reply that they are still writing out the details so that is where the devil is.

But freezing spending at current levels is a common thing. I think some of the frustration has been that with the GOP, this "freezing" almost always happens with "domestic spending" vs "military spending". HOWEVER, we have actually been doing quite a bit of funding for Ukraine in terms of military assistance for equipment, etc, so...

It's definitely NOT going to be that mess they passed last month which would have been DOA in the Senate anyway.

Bengus81

(6,909 posts)
96. Let me guess MASSIVE tax cuts for the filty rich and Corporations is never spending...right?
Sun May 28, 2023, 01:51 PM
May 2023

Nah...of course not. Funny how that works.

Same ole' from goopers.

Rhiannon12866

(203,041 posts)
35. Jonathan Alter said that the "work requirements" that the Republicans are pushing for aren't included
Sat May 27, 2023, 11:24 PM
May 2023

That Joe Biden stood firm on that, that this would be "inhumane." But I guess we'll hear the details when they're released, the agreement still needs to be written up.

BumRushDaShow

(127,331 posts)
37. There are a bunch of different programs that they have referenced
Sat May 27, 2023, 11:42 PM
May 2023

and many forgot that back under Clinton, there was the off-derided "End Welfare as we have come to know it" statement where quite a few limits and work requirements WERE put in place. E.g., there was a time limit of 5 years for how long someone could draw benefits from what was named "TANF" (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), which became the replacement for the old AFDC (Aid to Families and Dependent Children) back in 1996.

H.R.3734 - Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996

(they probably have no idea what was already in law)

Rhiannon12866

(203,041 posts)
51. John Kasich, not a surprise. He appears to have reemerged, saw him on a couple of news shows recently
Sun May 28, 2023, 12:46 AM
May 2023

And of course you're right, the current Republicans are extremely weak on history, not to mention experience. I'm not sure where Jonathan Alter got his information since no details were provided and the agreement has yet to be written up, but he sounded quite sure. He may be basing his comments on what the president said he'd stand firm on.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
69. They are and they aren't
Sun May 28, 2023, 09:09 AM
May 2023

There appear to be some expanded work requirements… but not as draconian or widespread as what they wanted

hay rick

(7,522 posts)
7. You can't lose what you don't have.
Sat May 27, 2023, 09:00 PM
May 2023

What we did lose was too many House elections and this agreement, whatever its final form, is one of many consequences of those losses.

CousinIT

(9,151 posts)
71. IRS funding. IRS brings in revenue...Biden wanted to go after wealthy tax cheats like Trump
Sun May 28, 2023, 09:10 AM
May 2023

....the revenue would go toward the debt + other programs.

MAGAt wants all that cut.

MAGAt: "the debt is too high!"

ALSO MAGAt: "DEFUND THE IRS!"



When you don't have enough to pay the bills and/or the debt is too high - the LAST thing you want is to DECREASE revenue.

Also, the IRS has been underfunded for decades. Computer systems need ugprades + people to run and maintain them, people to process returns, do research, provide phone support and skilled agents + enough to hire those retiring in coming years. Biden provided funding for all that in the IRA. Republicans want it cut - again.

STUPID. But - THAT is Republicans. They never could do math, balance a budget, or even figure one out, or do the economy (except in ways that financially rape everyone but the billionaires and big corporations and an economy won't run that way)

paleotn

(17,781 posts)
72. No matter what, it's meaningless starting in Jan 2025.
Sun May 28, 2023, 09:13 AM
May 2023

IF we take the House back, which will probably be the case.

IbogaProject

(2,696 posts)
82. We loose the ability to respond to clamnities
Sun May 28, 2023, 10:35 AM
May 2023

This will weaken the economy as It freezes most spending, other than military and 'veteran' catagories. I fear this will hobble our ability to fund disasters or respond to economic events. As any increase will also need a debt limit increase.

aggiesal

(8,864 posts)
5. The MAGA wing won't pass it. They want the default. ...
Sat May 27, 2023, 08:52 PM
May 2023

They want the chaos to hurt Biden.

Don't believe me?
I bet Pendejo45 slams the agreement before we all know what it is.

BumRushDaShow

(127,331 posts)
6. Well "every bill" shouldn't have to use the "Hastert Rule" to pass something
Sat May 27, 2023, 08:57 PM
May 2023

(meaning "the majority of the majority when the GOP is "the majority" )

All one needs (assuming they all vote) is 218 votes in the House, in whatever combination that can be cobbled together.

The problem will be getting at least 9 GOP Senators (and all of the (D)s/(I)s) to get it past cloture in the Senate.

bsiebs

(681 posts)
8. If there is any chance of the bill not passing without enough D votes, the D's will come through...
Sat May 27, 2023, 09:03 PM
May 2023

the alternative is lunacy.

bsiebs

(681 posts)
12. And fuck the NYT...
Sat May 27, 2023, 09:08 PM
May 2023

What was with this earlier on-line front page news that this mess was really the fault of the Democratic Party?

From NYT:
Yellen’s Debt Limit Warnings Went Unheeded, Leaving Her to Face Fallout

The Treasury secretary, who considered ways to contain the fallout of a default when she was a Fed official in 2011, had urged Democrats to raise the limit while they still had control of Congress.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/27/us/politics/yellen-debt-limit.html

aggiesal

(8,864 posts)
19. After the 2022 elections & we knew the (R)'s would be taking control ...
Sat May 27, 2023, 09:35 PM
May 2023

I thought then that (D)'s should increase the debt limit while they can.
Never happened.
So yes I blame the (D)'s for not increasing the debt limit when they could have.
They walked into this mess. They need to do better.

peppertree

(21,530 posts)
21. Weren't they about to - until Mancheat and Sinnerma got in the way?
Sat May 27, 2023, 09:51 PM
May 2023

That's what I seem to remember - but then, those two have pulled that garbage so often, it's hard to keep up.

The Mouth

(3,124 posts)
88. Thanks.
Sun May 28, 2023, 11:47 AM
May 2023

Do you recall if what I barely remembered is correct? I just seem to remember them using titles the first time or two and then the generic honorific.

I think this budget deal (if it actually happens) is better than I dared hope for. Let's face it, the party with a majority in the House is going to call a lot of the shots regardless of who holds the Presidency and Senate. Annoying in this case, awesome with the parties are reversed.

BumRushDaShow

(127,331 posts)
93. I have had a NYT sub since 1976
Sun May 28, 2023, 12:12 PM
May 2023

and that is basically what they have done. They will identify them by title initially and then use the "Mr.", "Mrs.". "Ms." It's pretty consistent. In fact, I don't think they even just refer to them by their surname alone - they always "put a handle on it".

And yeah - not having the House means not having "the power of the purse", so they are calling the shots. Similarly, when we didn't have the Senate, we didn't have the power of the confirmation (notably for lifetime judges including the SCOTUS).

I think people forget what Joe Biden was able to shepherd through in his first two years, even if not perfect - the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (dubbed the "BIB" for "Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill" ) and what is a big Climate bill (Inflation Reduction Act) that also lowered prescription drug prices, among other things. That's not counting the COVID Relief stuff.

Bluethroughu

(5,096 posts)
99. Thank you for this information.
Sun May 28, 2023, 03:53 PM
May 2023

I wan't sure if they were being purposefully disrespectful, glad to know they were not.

aggiesal

(8,864 posts)
11. But If the MAGA wing votes against it ...
Sat May 27, 2023, 09:07 PM
May 2023

(D)'s will have to vote for it to cover Biden,
and that will come from the moderate wing.

gab13by13

(20,883 posts)
63. Define the Democratic extremist wing for me.
Sun May 28, 2023, 07:39 AM
May 2023

That talk is making its way across the MSM and that bothsiderism is total BS.

Moderate Joe Lieberman cost this country having a public option included in Obamacare. Moderates Kristen Sinema and Joe Manchin cost Democrats being able to pass a clean debt ceiling in 2022.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
66. They'll define themselves for you
Sun May 28, 2023, 08:42 AM
May 2023

If a Democratic president makes a deal and most of the elected Democrats in Congress vote for it… The ones that refuse to are the extremists.

If they rhetorically opposed things mainly as cover for the president to give him bargaining strength… but then backed him when the deal was done… then they aren’t

FakeNoose

(32,356 posts)
16. If so, they should all lose their paychecks and benefits
Sat May 27, 2023, 09:26 PM
May 2023

And it should be hung as an albatross on Chump's neck.

machoneman

(3,955 posts)
70. Yes they do! And infighting starts now. McCarthy could lose his precious speakership over his fold.
Sun May 28, 2023, 09:09 AM
May 2023

Let's hope they tear each other apart as well.

 

DemBlue76

(78 posts)
81. This would be the fun part!
Sun May 28, 2023, 10:06 AM
May 2023

I'm interested to see the reaction of the crazy caucus. It just takes one to put McCarthy up I believe.

paleotn

(17,781 posts)
73. There's not enough of them and too many relatively moderate Repukes in tight districts.
Sun May 28, 2023, 09:15 AM
May 2023

It will pass. And I predict McCarthy will lose his speakership over it. But that's fine. With the debit limit passed for 2 years, House Repukes can go back to being their own worst enemies for the 24 election cycle.

Cha

(295,929 posts)
98. That's what I need to hear..
Sun May 28, 2023, 03:39 PM
May 2023

Something positive..

I've read That McConnell doesn't want to default.. so if that's true.. I hope he gets it done.

Cha

(295,929 posts)
42. Hey Aloha! When I wrote
Sat May 27, 2023, 11:58 PM
May 2023

that.. I didn't realize that they still have to vote on it.

So Good Luck to us all!

BumRushDaShow

(127,331 posts)
46. The Senate will probably be a bigger issue in this case
Sun May 28, 2023, 12:15 AM
May 2023


So agree, it will take a lot of luck and elbow grease!

BumRushDaShow

(127,331 posts)
49. For regular legislation, they need 60 votes to advance the bill to the debate stage
Sun May 28, 2023, 12:41 AM
May 2023

i.e., "cloture" (that filibuster rule).

BumRushDaShow

(127,331 posts)
52. Possibly
Sun May 28, 2023, 12:47 AM
May 2023

although that would be up to Yellen "finding some more things to shuffle" to give more time for the Senate because jackass teabagger Mike Lee (R-UT) plans on gumming up the works in the Senate to slow it down.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
74. No chance of a filibuster unless something has been misreported
Sun May 28, 2023, 09:15 AM
May 2023

If there’s a bipartisan deal to avoid default… I can’t see 40 senators being willing to take the blame for that collapse-inducing error.

There would be no way to shift the blame to anyone else.

BumRushDaShow

(127,331 posts)
77. Mike Lee has already indicated that he plans to gum up the works
Sun May 28, 2023, 09:30 AM
May 2023

and you have ilk like SSSsssssscott (from FL and from SC), Blackburn, Carnival Cruz, Tuberville, Kennedy, Cotton, Johnson, SPAWN of Ron Paul, and others who would similarly try to thwart it - if anything, enough to delay it so it gets right up to and perhaps past the so-called "X date".

Right now, the Senate has not been involved in the negotiations so it's a matter of getting the usuals (Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sullivan, Tillis, maybe even Graham and/or Assley, etc.) and take into account that Manchin might side with the GOP (although the purported deal has some energy-focused changes), and cobble the votes to get to 60.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
78. That sounds like dramatically fewer than 40
Sun May 28, 2023, 09:33 AM
May 2023

Which Democrats do you think will filibuster their own president?

Not potentially vote against the deal… but actually go nuts and filibuster him?

BumRushDaShow

(127,331 posts)
83. Well you know one... and possibly 2 more
Sun May 28, 2023, 10:40 AM
May 2023

(2 of them being (I)s). But for cloture, they are irrelevant.

Don't forget our numbers. We have 51 (but ONLY because there are 3 (I)s who caucus with us), and they have 49. So if you don't peel away some of the GOP ones, then the thing is dead in the water.

To invoke cloture (end a non-talking filibuster/agree to a motion to proceed to debate) you need 60 votes, so any 41 can block doing that (and again remember that THEY have 49). Not sure why that is hard to understand.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
86. You're making unfounded assumptions
Sun May 28, 2023, 11:31 AM
May 2023

You’ve identified about a dozen on both sides combined that you think will oppose the deal.

You need 41 for a filibuster.

again remember that THEY have 49

And you’re assuming that most of them will vote to filibuster something that their leadership negotiated and the House would have just passed. And you think I’m the one having trouble understanding?

There will be some last-second noise (probably from both ends of the spectrum) trying to get one more concession. But in the end it’s a bipartisan deal negotiated by the leader on both sides. There are a couple dozen who might vote against it in the senate because their base is more likely to support that move… but not filibuster it.

BumRushDaShow

(127,331 posts)
91. "You're making it founded assumptions"
Sun May 28, 2023, 11:59 AM
May 2023

Based on past practices of that body AND based on their threats over the past couple months.

You’ve identified about a dozen on both sides combined that you think will oppose the deal.

You need 41 for a filibuster.

again remember that THEY have 49


And THAT is a fact.

And you’re assuming that most of them will vote to filibuster something that their leadership negotiated and the House would have just passed. And you think I’m the one having trouble understanding?


Huh? When was "their leadership" - i.e., Turtle (Mitch McConnell) sitting in the room this weekend with McCarthy and Biden? They were there at the beginning when Biden invited ALL of them to the Oval office but that is not what happened the past day or so. The Senate doesn't give a shit about Kevin McCarthy.

There will be some last-second noise (probably from both ends of the spectrum) trying to get one more concession.


THAT is a given. But I just told you, and now I will link to it, about what Mike Lee has planned (and Riddick's Rules has all kinds of things that can be used to do it) -

Sen. Mike Lee says he’ll delay debt ceiling deal unless cuts are ‘substantial’


By Suzanne Bates
May 25, 2023, 3:29pm EDT

Sen. Mike Lee said he would use “every procedural tool” possible to delay a debt ceiling deal if it doesn’t contain “substantial” cuts, in a tweet published Thursday morning. Lee’s comments come as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy appears to be trying to moderate expectations over what will be included in the agreement.

“One thing I will tell people is this still won’t solve all the problems. The president took a lot of things off the table, but this will put us in the first step,” McCarthy told Fox News. “Whatever we don’t achieve here, we’ll come back the next day to get it because we’ve got to start working toward being able to balance the budget.”

Negotiations on the debt ceiling are ongoing between McCarthy, R-Calif., and President Joe Biden. With the Senate in recess this week, and without a Senate bill to put up against a bill passed in the House last month, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has appeared to be less engaged in negotiations than McCarthy and Biden.

Schumer, D-N.Y., may also be facing a difficult path to passing a Senate bill because of the close split in the Senate, combined with the need to have 60 senators on board to pass a bill.

(snip)

https://www.deseret.com/2023/5/25/23737492/sen-mike-lee-delay-debt-ceiling-deal


A couple weeks ago, you had this problem -

43 Senate Republicans vow to oppose debt ceiling increase without spending cuts


By Jeremy Diamond, CNN
Updated 5:17 PM EDT, Sat May 6, 2023


CNN — All but six Senate Republicans on Saturday vowed to oppose raising the debt ceiling “without substantive spending and budget reforms,” backing up House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s position.

The group of 43 Republican senators, led by Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, said they are “united behind the House Republican conference in support of spending cuts and structural budget reform as a starting point for negotiations on the debt ceiling” in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat.

The letter underscores the deep rift in Washington over how to avoid a debt default. Republicans have repeatedly advocated spending cuts tied to the debt ceiling while the White House has maintained it will not negotiate on the matter. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Josh Hawley of Missouri and John Kennedy of Louisiana are the only Republicans in the chamber to not sign on to the letter.

A breach of the US debt ceiling risks sparking a 2008-style economic catastrophe that wipes out millions of jobs and sets America back for generations, Moody’s Analytics has warned. The impact could include delayed Social Security payments, late paychecks for federal employees and veterans and a direct hit to Americans’ investments.

(snip)

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/06/politics/senate-republicans-debt-ceiling-raise-spending-cuts/index.html


But in the end it’s a bipartisan deal negotiated by the leader on both sides. There are a couple dozen who might vote against it in the senate because their base is more likely to support that move… but not filibuster it.


That is how it is "supposed to work". But things are broken there because they smell blood in the water. This is why I said they need to "peel away" some GOPers to go along - and THAT is assuming that all (D)s, including Manchin vote for cloture. Mike Lee and the rest of the teabaggers don't have any respect for McConnell and recall what Rick Scott attempted -

McConnell wins leadership race but GOP infighting continues

Updated November 16, 20222:21 PM ET

By Susan Davis, Ximena Bustillo, Lexie Schapitl, Katherine Swartz



Kentucky Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell — already the longest serving GOP leader in Senate history — will extend that run for at least another two years after winning against a longshot challenge by Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott to remove him from power.

Thirty seven senators voted for McConnell. Scott picked up 10 votes and one senator voted present in a secret-ballot election, according to Indiana Sen. Mike Braun who was one of the senators who counted the final votes.

"I don't own this job, anyone that wants to run for it can feel free to do so," McConnell said, adding that he is proud of his vote count. Speaking to reporters in the U.S. Capitol following his win, he said he doesn't plan to go anywhere.

Scott formally launched his bid a day earlier and placed the electoral blame of not gaining enough seats to control the Senate on McConnell even though Scott ran the GOP's 2022 Senate campaign operation. There has been bad blood between the two senators for some time as they tussled throughout the campaign cycle over candidate recruitment in key races and party messaging.

(snip)

https://www.npr.org/2022/11/16/1137104129/mitch-mcconnell-wins-minority-leader-rick-scott-senate-republicans

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
105. All I can say is "just watch"
Mon May 29, 2023, 06:06 AM
May 2023

We’ll both see in mere days whether there was any shot at a filibuster blocking passage.

BumRushDaShow

(127,331 posts)
106. This is what I originally wrote as a reply in this thread -
Mon May 29, 2023, 09:38 AM
May 2023
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3080111

46. The Senate will probably be a bigger issue in this case

So agree, it will take a lot of luck and elbow grease!


And I followed up with this - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3080116

49. For regular legislation, they need 60 votes to advance the bill to the debate stage

i.e., "cloture" (that filibuster rule).


And added this within that subthread - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3080121

52. Possibly

although that would be up to Yellen "finding some more things to shuffle" to give more time for the Senate because jackass teabagger Mike Lee (R-UT) plans on gumming up the works in the Senate to slow it down.


I had nothing in the OP commentary about what a final outcome would be. Yet you managed to dive into those replies that correctly stated Senate procedures and what is a concern for any "controversial" legislation, and managed to propel my stating this, into some other "meaning" that you contrived in order to lecture about whatever it is that you believe.

The 60-vote threshold to end debate IS a fact. Achieving that for any legislation with an almost evenly divided Senate can and has been a slog. There is zero in what I wrote that indicated that whatever was agreed to WOULD die by filibuster. Only that there are members in that chamber who are pushing to do that and/or to delay passage - notably, Mike Lee (R-UT) and that the Senate has 49 GOP members. I even provided links and articles that summarized some of the hurdles based on those efforts while you have done none of the kind, simply relying on the "because I said so" simpleton argument.

Sorry but that kind of logic is lazy and obviously misses the entire point because you have somehow confused me with other DUers who chronically post that "the world has come to an end". I suggest that you try reading a little more carefully and quit with the assumptions about what I am posting.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
121. And you can now see that you were flat wrong
Fri Jun 2, 2023, 07:53 AM
Jun 2023

Oh... you can count. And you appear to understand how a filibuster works.

But your analysis of the Senate being a bigger issue or the cloture process gumming up the works were as far from correct as could be. And that's all I commented on.

The House took months and the Senate took hours. "Any 41" can block a vote on a bill and there were...?

Wait for it...

Zero.

That wasn't a "because I say so" argument. It was simply pointing out that the current structure (red House and slightly blue Senate) meant that once the relevant leadership of both parties (the President and Speaker) had an agreement and it had passed the House... any further blockage was likely gone. There was no way 41 were going to show up and attach themselves to opposing the deal. You can pretend that it was "lazy logic" but "just watch" was the correct response at that point. As I predicted - there were plenty of people willing to vote "no"... but precious few (nobody in fact) willing to block a bipartisan deal to avoid default.

BumRushDaShow

(127,331 posts)
122. FFS. And again
Fri Jun 2, 2023, 08:15 AM
Jun 2023

you failed to read what I wrote and instead projected some other perspective on it out of sheer ignorance.

It is a FACT that there are procedural hurdles that the Senate has to deal with when considering legislation.

Cloture is one of them with a Rule that has a 60-vote threshold and the vote-athon of amendments that happened overnight with 11 of them submitted, debated, and voted on (also with a 60-vote threshold to be successful as an addition) is an example.

The below is what I posted earlier this morning - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3082130

=========================================
Star Member BumRushDaShow (111,860 posts)
14. Looks like there were 11 amendments that were debated


https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3746/all-actions?q=%7B%22action-by%22%3A%22Senate%22%7D

I watched the debate/vote on a couple earlier ones and obviously all failed.

This is the final vote tally on passage of the bill - https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1181/vote_118_1_00146.htm

YEAs ---63
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Capito (R-WV)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Cramer (R-ND)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ernst (R-IA)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hassan (D-NH)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Hickenlooper (D-CO)
Hirono (D-HI)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Kaine (D-VA)
Kelly (D-AZ)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lujan (D-NM)
Manchin (D-WV)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Moran (R-KS)
Mullin (R-OK)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Ossoff (D-GA)
Padilla (D-CA)
Peters (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Romney (R-UT)
Rosen (D-NV)
Rounds (R-SD)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Sinema (I-AZ)
Smith (D-MN)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Van Hollen (D-MD)
Warner (D-VA)
Warnock (D-GA)
Welch (D-VT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Young (R-IN)


NAYs ---36
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blackburn (R-TN)
Braun (R-IN)
Britt (R-AL)
Budd (R-NC)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Fetterman (D-PA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Graham (R-SC)
Hawley (R-MO)
Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
Lummis (R-WY)
Markey (D-MA)
Marshall (R-KS)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY)
Ricketts (R-NE)
Risch (R-ID)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schmitt (R-MO)
Scott (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Tuberville (R-AL)
Vance (R-OH)
Warren (D-MA)
Wicker (R-MS)


Not Voting - 1
Hagerty (R-TN)


For FYI - info and the tally for the one that Tim Kaine submitted -

6/01/2023 Senate S.Amdt.101 Amendment SA 101 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 30 - 69. Record Vote Number: 145.

06/01/2023 Senate S.Amdt.101 Amendment SA 101 proposed by Senator Kaine. To strike a provision relating to expediting completion of the Mountain Valley Pipeline.


Roll Call for Kaine's amendment - https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1181/vote_118_1_00145.htm

YEAs ---30
Baldwin (D-WI)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Hirono (D-HI)
Kaine (D-VA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lee (R-UT)
Lujan (D-NM)
Markey (D-MA)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murphy (D-CT)
Paul (R-KY)
Rosen (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Smith (D-MN)
Van Hollen (D-MD)
Warner (D-VA)
Warnock (D-GA)
Warren (D-MA)
Welch (D-VT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)


NAYs ---69
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blackburn (R-TN)
Boozman (R-AR)
Braun (R-IN)
Britt (R-AL)
Brown (D-OH)
Budd (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Casey (D-PA)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cotton (R-AR)
Cramer (R-ND)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ernst (R-IA)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fetterman (D-PA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hassan (D-NH)
Hawley (R-MO)
Hickenlooper (D-CO)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kelly (D-AZ)
Kennedy (R-LA)
King (I-ME)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lummis (R-WY)
Manchin (D-WV)
Marshall (R-KS)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Mullin (R-OK)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Ossoff (D-GA)
Padilla (D-CA)
Peters (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Ricketts (R-NE)
Risch (R-ID)
Romney (R-UT)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schmitt (R-MO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Scott (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Sinema (I-AZ)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Tuberville (R-AL)
Vance (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)
Young (R-IN)


Not Voting - 1
Hagerty (R-TN)

=============================================================

THIS is what I am talking about. It is the "gauntlet" that needed to be walked through and whoever has command of Riddick's Rules can thrust and parry in such a way as to affect the outcome of legislation. Schumer made use of that by immediately starting consideration of the bill on Wednesday as soon as the bill passed the House (instead of waiting until yesterday) and as Majority Leader, kept the Senate in session (including "Subject to the Call of the Chair" designations) from that point on through to last night.

Stop being an ass and deal with what is factual, that also touches on "politics" instead of trying to manufacture something out of thin air.

Think. Again.

(7,239 posts)
10. We're playing with fire...
Sat May 27, 2023, 09:07 PM
May 2023

We can not continue for very much longer to allow people who put this nation's best interests aside for thier own personal gain to be elected to powerful positions.

It really is up to us, the voting public, to take a much stronger stand on who gets into office. We need to set a much higher standard.

The majority of Americans say they want things a certain way, but how do we get more people to DEMAND that at the voting booth?

bucolic_frolic

(42,681 posts)
15. Predictable
Sat May 27, 2023, 09:17 PM
May 2023

Biden gets bragging rights on fiscal restraint. McCarthy gets same. Amazing how well Biden gets things done. He knows everything.

agingdem

(7,759 posts)
17. the MAGA detestable will turn on Kevin..
Sat May 27, 2023, 09:29 PM
May 2023

Biden and Yellen were never going to let the economy crater...they "played chicken" and won...is there a betting pool as to how long before the loathsome loonies call for Kevin's ouster?

Rhiannon12866

(203,041 posts)
18. And MSNBC mentioned tonight that it only takes one to demand McCarthy be removed
Sat May 27, 2023, 09:34 PM
May 2023

According to their original agreement.

BumRushDaShow

(127,331 posts)
32. The Republican caucus has 222 members
Sat May 27, 2023, 11:00 PM
May 2023

and although obviously, not all would vote to remove him, you could have some on the Democratic side - notably those in the Democratic Congressional Progressive Caucus (there are 100 members) join the extremists on their side to make him nervous.

I.e., in the first 11 rounds of voting for Speaker, there were either 19 or 20 GOP reps who did not vote for him.

Of course going through that exercise would then be a repeat of what happened that last time, where it ultimately took 15 votes to get someone elected as Speaker.

Demsrule86

(68,355 posts)
54. This is why Biden was brilliant. McCarthy will need Democratic votes to retain his speakership.
Sun May 28, 2023, 01:01 AM
May 2023

This is why we got a pretty good deal. I can picture it now Joe says look we can work this so you have some breathing room from Bobert ET AL if we make a deal...here is what it will take etc...This reduces the influence of the MAGA scum.

Rhiannon12866

(203,041 posts)
56. Very well said!
Sun May 28, 2023, 01:31 AM
May 2023

And it sure helps that during these tough times, we have the most experienced POTUS in our history!

JohnSJ

(91,968 posts)
20. If this passes Congress, perhaps people will finally come out in mass and vote Democratic
Sat May 27, 2023, 09:46 PM
May 2023

and I am not talking 50% turnout, I am talking 75% turnout

We cannot govern with such narrow majorities and expect big changes

We should have never lost those seats in NY during the midterms

PlutosHeart

(1,232 posts)
24. Dems better vet better. They have failed in that
Sat May 27, 2023, 10:13 PM
May 2023

sometimes.

Plus Dems will suffer if anything affects the general voter base. Am sure they are being seen as weak in some respects which only leaves the doors open for liars to get in.

PlutosHeart

(1,232 posts)
107. And you wish to apologize?
Mon May 29, 2023, 03:16 PM
May 2023

Since I am Polish and lost members ot my family and all property to all the fighting from Russia to Germany.

I respond because I care and want our Party to win across the board. We cannot afford to leave any openings for more Manchins and others similar. People who switch Parties.

Demsrule86

(68,355 posts)
68. Democrats are not weak. I think you are completely wrong and wish the insults towards
Sun May 28, 2023, 08:57 AM
May 2023

Democrats would stop. They don't appear weak either.

LudwigPastorius

(8,944 posts)
27. I wonder how many Republican votes it's going to take to pass this in the House.
Sat May 27, 2023, 10:22 PM
May 2023

The Democrats who are unhappy with the compromise would surely wait to see before they lodge any protest votes against the bill...I hope.

Frankly, work requirements suck, but this thing has to pass.

keithbvadu2

(36,371 posts)
28. One debt ceiling increase in 4 years for Biden vs 3 for Trump. Are those the right numbers?
Sat May 27, 2023, 10:26 PM
May 2023

Claim:
Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling three times when Donald Trump was president, with no preconditions.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gop-debt-ceiling-trump-presidency/

BumRushDaShow

(127,331 posts)
29. There was a "clean" debt ceiling raise done in December of 2021
Sat May 27, 2023, 10:40 PM
May 2023
S.J.Res.33 - A joint resolution joint resolution relating to increasing the debt limit.

Public Law No. 117-73 (12/16/2021)


[117th Congress Public Law 73]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



[[Page 135 STAT. 1514]]

Public Law 117-73
117th Congress

Joint Resolution



Joint resolution relating to increasing the debt limit.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, {{NOTE: 31 USC 3101
note.}} That the limitation under section 3101(b) of title 31, United
States Code, as most recently increased by Public Law 117-50 (31 U.S.C.
3101 note), is increased by $2,500,000,000,000.

Approved December 16, 2021.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S.J. Res. 33:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 167 (2021):
Dec. 14, considered and passed Senate and House.



Congress.gov

keithbvadu2

(36,371 posts)
43. Thanks! Will this one also be a joint resolution?
Sun May 28, 2023, 12:05 AM
May 2023

They have different ways of doing things so it's hard to keep up with them.

BumRushDaShow

(127,331 posts)
45. I don't think so
Sun May 28, 2023, 12:13 AM
May 2023

This will probably have some bill name to it (the 2021 resolution was done when both chambers were controlled by Democrats and they came up with a single bill for both to consider).

Whatever they put together now will have to get through the Senate. Of course they *could* form a quick "Joint Committee" between the 2 chambers to agree to a single version for both to vote on but I think because they are up against a "clock", they probably wouldn't have enough time to do it since the Senate has not been involved at all in these negotiations. As it is, the teabagger loon Mike Lee has already threatened to gum up the works in the Senate.

former9thward

(31,806 posts)
102. That can't happen.
Sun May 28, 2023, 05:27 PM
May 2023

Federal courts do not give advisory opinions. Whether the 14th Amendment is a viable course of action will have to wait until its actually used.

markodochartaigh

(1,080 posts)
31. For two years, past the next election.
Sat May 27, 2023, 10:53 PM
May 2023

That's pretty impressive. I guess the president got the speaker to realize that if the speaker had to navigate these waters again he might be doing so not as captain, but from a sinking lifeboat. I hope that US voters remember this in the next presidential election.

moniss

(3,950 posts)
48. So at first blush it would appear that the rich
Sun May 28, 2023, 12:41 AM
May 2023

won once again and will keep being able to weasel out of having any increase to their tax obligations under SS/Medicare or for basically anything else. No meaningful SEC enforcement, no give back of any of the huge percentage in tax breaks they got under Bush The Lesser and the Orange Ruski.

Demsrule86

(68,355 posts)
55. You can't get tax increases when you don't hold the house...seriously, one has to look at the
Sun May 28, 2023, 01:04 AM
May 2023

situation realistically...there was never going to be tax increases on the rich. We need more Democratic Senators and to take the House for that to happen.

moniss

(3,950 posts)
58. We will never in our lifetimes
Sun May 28, 2023, 01:55 AM
May 2023

get 60 Senate seats. It won't matter what majority we get in the House. I think the people who are not realistic are in elected office and those in charge of dark money contributions. Realistically we didn't move on all kinds of things for many decades that have now brought us to this point where we are the student on the playground who is supposed to be happy because the bully only takes most of his lunch money every day but leaves him enough for a bag of chips.

The GQP knows the other side will always give in. So they can open negotiations demanding the moon and settle for a half moon knowing they will take additional steps going forward to further decrease what they committed to. It is not possible to get past the GQP obstruction in the Senate and that has been made abundantly clear over the last decades. Now they also have the SC in order to further obstruct and dismantle any progress we might make. That is realistically where we are and world population/needs/climate change issues are growing not receding or staying level. The only way the idea of maintaining static spending levels works is by reducing what is spent per person and reducing expenditures for existing and future initiatives.

It's not just a matter of raising the tax rate on wealthy people. You can increase revenue by eliminating the oil companies subsidies for example. Hundreds of billions in windfall profits in a short time and we still have the madness of shoveling tax dollars to them. The contribution cap level on SS is a joke and everyone knows it but we refuse to do anything about it. So let's keep running at the brick wall with somebody giving us a lollipop every now and then along the way. The result of not changing our ways will guarantee the result. Once again there is no realisitic scenario for the foreseeable decades to get to 60 in the Senate. The budget reconciliation process is too restrictive to be able to make big policy changes. So now what? Anybody being pleased about capping spending in an artificial construct is doing the equivalent of telling your mechanic to go cheap on the car repairs and only spend what he spent last year even though the car is needing more and more severe repairs. We don't have decades more of time with regard to major effects from climate change. We frittered that time away for almost 50 years trying to logically debate with illogical people. Wall Street will rejoice on Tuesday about a budget deal. Nero was thrilled with his violin playing as well.

BumRushDaShow

(127,331 posts)
59. "We will never in our lifetimes get 60 Senate seats."
Sun May 28, 2023, 04:29 AM
May 2023

--unless you can get 51 votes to change the Rule, invoking the nuclear option for certain or ALL legislation.

The current state of affairs, with the House under (R) control but Senate under (D) control, means that what they send over, which could include codifying a federal ban of abortions or repealing the ACA, would not get through.

I think you are preaching to the choir here and I don't fault you for venting. But what needs to happen, which is slowly happening in some states like my own, is to take our states back. That means getting rid of the gerrymandering that was put in place, remove the barriers to voting that many red and purple states have enacted, and make sure that our base turns out so that we can not only control things at the state level (including the judiciary in places where that is elected), but eventually federally.

moniss

(3,950 posts)
90. I agree with you
Sun May 28, 2023, 11:56 AM
May 2023

on the state issues and on needing 51 to change the rule. I don't believe we will get the 51 even if we have 53 seats or so and that's why I believe we are stuck with the 60 vote obstruction for a very long time.

BumRushDaShow

(127,331 posts)
95. You never know
Sun May 28, 2023, 12:39 PM
May 2023

when opportunity comes knocking.

No one expected not only John Fetterman to be elected to a former GOP Senate seat here in PA, but for the first time we have 2 (D) Senators from PA (not counting Harris Wofford who temporarily replaced John Heinz when he died but lost reelection for the full term).

And even more dramatic, you have BOTH the states of GA and AZ that have ALSO sent 2 (D)s to the Senate (although one is now an (I)). Remember that we took bare control of the Senate (due to the VP being a (D)) in 2020 when people crawled over glass to elect Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff in GA (through special elections and runoffs). It was an ugly take-back but one that let us recoup control after having lost it in 2014.

The Mouth

(3,124 posts)
85. The whole structure of the Constitution is set up that
Sun May 28, 2023, 11:18 AM
May 2023

even with a majority it is hard for only one side to do something. This is a very deliberate choice, based on the idea that 55 percent of the population or their representatives shouldn't be able to freely impose their will on 45 percent. that is should be VERY hard for the government to do ANYTHING relating to taxing or changing major laws. It's served the country well at times. Just because half+1 thinks a thing should be done doesn't mean it should be done. This has always frustrated 'True Believers' of both right and left who think they know what needs to be done; the structure is so that compromise with the other side is ALWAYS necessary, regardless.

moniss

(3,950 posts)
92. The last
Sun May 28, 2023, 12:03 PM
May 2023

several decades have brought us minority rule in this country by way of the minority holding the country hostage over and over on all matters.

Novara

(5,755 posts)
110. agreed
Mon May 29, 2023, 06:15 PM
May 2023

And I don't think this is the way things are supposed to work on a permanent basis.

Start with eliminating the electoral college and go with the popular vote.

moniss

(3,950 posts)
115. We have a lot of obstruction to overcome
Tue May 30, 2023, 06:18 PM
May 2023

to even try to get that done. We have at least 2 Senators who have said "never" publicly and there may be some just laying low because they don't have to commit publicly as long as 2 on "our side" are blocking it anyway. We are not in a good position to expect passage. Off course Mitch and Company, if they were in control, would modify the filibuster any way and as many times as they wanted even if it violated Senate rules to change multiple times during a Congressional session because at the end of the day who is going to stop them? Certainly not the Supreme Court.

moniss

(3,950 posts)
117. I've always thought
Tue May 30, 2023, 10:37 PM
May 2023

we never should have left that strategy. I don't believe in uncontested races. A candidate may not be able to get huge resources but they can send the faithful out with good shoes and door knock like hell spreading the message.

Demsrule86

(68,355 posts)
118. I have no idea why after the election of President Obama, Howard Dean was dumped. We had
Wed May 31, 2023, 08:25 AM
May 2023

the best outcome in 30 years or more. And after that states were ignored and we lost governorships...still not really enough being done. The DNC job should not be given for political reasons but to those who actually understand and perhaps won a few elections themselves. It is a very important job.

moniss

(3,950 posts)
119. What I have encountered repeatedly
Wed May 31, 2023, 09:53 AM
May 2023

in Wisconsin is that there seems to be no real organization/management plan. I mean that in the sense that everything seems to be scattershot and directionless. There should be an overall structure and plan for daily activity, outreach, voter registration etc. A certain number of cold calls should be required as an example with a log made of the call/result. All of that info should be compiled on a daily report that would go to headquarters so they can review activity and determine effectiveness and any changes needed.

Those are just some examples of the things that a cohesive, ongoing battle plan would have. Instead when I talk to state party headquarters I get a directionless almost PR like response to the whole subject. I believe you fight for voters and win them one by one when you are at the state and local level. I still believe in a strong door-knocking effort. I believe it matters to people to have someone care enough to come to them personally and I also believe it can help encourage them to attend candidate appearances and most important of all it is an opening to get that voter involved with local activity.

It is the law of large numbers and it always works. You may have to knock on 6 doors a day every day but at the end of 3 months you have knocked on over 500 doors and you will see how many people you got to be receptive to the message and you will for sure pick up a couple of new people for rallies/volunteer work. Now imagine you have been doing it in an organized manner like that statewide for 4 years. Now you have an army of people that are trained, disciplined in their daily efforts and can win battles.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
79. When was any of that on the table?
Sun May 28, 2023, 09:36 AM
May 2023

Your dad just came home with the car the family desperately needed at a price well below what the dealership insisted on (though not as low as mom wanted)…


… and you’re upset that he didn’t also bring home a pony?

moniss

(3,950 posts)
89. It was on the table
Sun May 28, 2023, 11:51 AM
May 2023

from the beginning when McCarthy said no to any revenue increases. When your opponent in a negotiation puts a subject out there it is on the table. Just like when our side said no spending cuts etc. A few weeks later we end up agreeing to forego known and needed near term spending increases for programs by agreeing to freeze spending at existing levels. So, to make a long story short they said no and we said OK. We said no and then said we would.

TiberiusB

(484 posts)
103. The car analogy is way off
Mon May 29, 2023, 02:34 AM
May 2023

It's more like a couple bickering over child support. One agrees to a budget for the kid's needs, but then decides to go back on the deal, insisting that the other parent cut their spending and stop expecting more money when food and school tuition go up (which they inevitably will). So the kids go hungry occasionally, and might suffer academically, all because signed legal obligations don't mean anything. At least it will never happen again, because if you can't trust a lying, dirty dealing blackmailer, who can you trust?

Negotiating with economic terrorists is not a "win". Anyone hoping for a better outcome, and not simply kicking the can down the road by agreeing to "less draconian" pain for the poor and middle class, is not asking for "a pony".

moniss

(3,950 posts)
104. Right you are and
Mon May 29, 2023, 03:07 AM
May 2023

I'm glad you stated the better response to the poster who gave that analogy about the pony. I just sort of give up on responding to people who just accept doing this dance every time the limit comes up. It's predictable, it's possible to strategize against it and we don't.

Another analogy would be a company that continues to enter into contracts with their union promising certain retiree pensions and benefits. Then the company fails to make the payments to those funds necessary to meet the future demands and instead uses the money for other things. Eventually the company comes to the retirees and the union and says it must have reductions in retiree pensions/benefits because the fund doesn't have the money to meet its' promised obligations. That's a real scenario that happens all the time. Then they pit the young workers against the older workers.

Novara

(5,755 posts)
111. Agreed
Mon May 29, 2023, 06:17 PM
May 2023

It's like thanking the arsonist who burned down your garage because he didn't burn down your entire house.

Novara

(5,755 posts)
100. A freeze is actually a reduction
Sun May 28, 2023, 04:39 PM
May 2023

Even with NORMAL inflation, a freeze is a reduction. With inflation the way it is now, who pays? Poor people. The rich still have their tax cuts intact.

This is NOT a good deal. We should never negotiate with terrorists.

The time to negotiate is during appropriations, NOT when we're paying the bills for appropriations ALREADY agreed to by Congress.

BumRushDaShow

(127,331 posts)
101. A freeze is different from an outright cut or elimination
Sun May 28, 2023, 05:22 PM
May 2023

which is what the GOP had in the bill they passed.

Deminpenn

(15,246 posts)
109. FY23 spending is already locked in
Mon May 29, 2023, 03:31 PM
May 2023

That was the last bill passed with D house and Senate.

This deal was essentially a 2 yr budget negotiation and avoided a govt shutdown in Oct.

Jmho, but it was likely the Rs were going to fight about the budget and the govt would be funded with a series of short term continuing resolutions that would have held spending at FY23 levels anyway.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»White House and G.O.P. St...