U.S. Congress Part 116

[Larry]

Odds of this Congress doing anything bipartisan, following the primary victory of Judge Roy Moore?  

 

[visionary]

 

[DogofWar1]

18 hours ago, FanboyOf91 said:

Pure McConnell haterade.

McConnell was never a genius.  He just knew the rules (which most other people kinda skimmed over) and also reflected the party's corporate slave soul accurately.  His strategy of brinksmanship wasn't brilliance but hypocrisy powered by, well, power.  No one ever punished him or the GOP for it, so he kept doing it.

 

Of course now someone ever more representative of the dark core of the soul of the party has emerged, and he finds himself on the outside looking in.

 

But the bigger issue is that the GOP doesn't know how to govern.  They have an opposition mindset.  McConnell can't get things passed because most of his party knows the stuff they're trying to pass is garbage, and there are just enough GOP senators who are willing to vote based on that knowledge to scrap their votes.  It's not really McConnell's fault, but it does expose the fact that he was just a dude who read the manual while everyone else hadn't.

[Larry]

1 hour ago, DogofWar1 said:

But the bigger issue is that the GOP doesn't know how to govern.  They have an opposition mindset.  McConnell can't get things passed because most of his party knows the stuff they're trying to pass is garbage, and there are just enough GOP senators who are willing to vote based on that knowledge to scrap their votes. 

 

I keep reflecting on all the "budgets" that Ryan wrote, under Obama.  

 

You know, the ones where the pillars of the budgets were:  

 

     1)  Pass huge tax cuts, right now.  Starting with completely eliminating all taxes on corporations, and the investing class.  

     2)  Slash discretionary spending by mandating the same dollars as 2006.  (Based on the well-known economic principal of "Anything Republicans do is good, and anything Democrats do is bad".)  

     3)  Mandate that Social Security and Medicare spending will remain the same, in nominal dollars, despite ever-increasing growth in the number of people being covered.  (Note:  In the case of SS, for example, the only way to accomplish this is to cut benefits by 8% a year.  But don't actually say you're going to do that.  Just budget as though it's going to magically happen.)  

     4)  Assume that #3 is going to happen, year after year, every year, forever.  

     5)  Note that #3 results in a situation in which revenues for those programs go up every year, but spending does not.  

     6)  Use the surplus you've created in Step 5, to pay for the deficit you created, in Step 1.  

 

The GOP has no problem at all unanimously voting in favor of those proposals.  When they know that they won't actually take effect.  They only balk when there's a chance that the things might actually take effect, and the voters might actually see the results.  

 

That's where you get things like "The Senate is willing to vote in favor of this 'Health Care Reform Bill'.  But only if the House promises them that it won't actually take effect."  

 

(That's also why every one of the "Health Care Reform" bills they've proposed so far, one of the central pillars is "won't actually take effect till a few elections have gone by".  They know full well that the law will harm the country.  And they're perfectly willing to unanimously do that.  But, only if they think they won't be held responsible for the actions which they fully intend to cause.)  

 

 

Edited September 29, 2017 by Larry

[@DCGoldPants]

Dems again are idiots. All they need to do is propose a tax cut for the most Americans in the history of forever. Then clearly say it is for only the Middle and Lower class earners. Zero for the upper class who don't need a tax cut. No cut for Devos, or Trump, or anybody else on the cabinet who is super wealthy. This is for the everyday American in Texas and Florida and Kentucky. Let them keep more of their money and spend it how they want. The super rich have proven that cuts and bailouts don't equal them making more jobs.

 

Either it'll get rejected (probably) and they can keep hammering the question why the majority doesn't want cuts for those who need them most. Or it'll get passed and most of us will benefit.

[DogofWar1]

Dems are mostly bad at PR and salesmanship.

 

I mean, the payroll tax holiday worked quite well.  Problem is, ask the average joe their thoughts about a "payroll tax holiday" and they'll look at you like you have 6 heads.

 

Compare that with just yelling "tax cut" over and over again with other random words generally denoting positive growth near them.

 

Of course part of it is that good solutions are usually complicated and the average American loses 20% of their interest per word after the 3rd word.

 

It's why Gary Cohn can say dumb stuff like "our tax cut will pay for itself via growth" and not be run out of Washington via pitchforks.

 

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 That's where you get things like "The Senate is willing to vote in favor of this 'Health Care Reform Bill'.  But only if the House promises them that it won't actually take effect."  

If I am ever a teacher of anything involving legislation, I am pretty sure I will make a Top 10 Dumbest Legislative Stunts list for the sole purpose of putting that one at #1.

 

It's a 99 out of 10 on the stupidity scale.  That everyone involved in it isn't a lock to lose in 2018 is a really bad reflection on our country.

[Larry]

27 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

It's why Gary Cohn can say dumb stuff like "our tax cut will pay for itself via growth" and not be run out of Washington via pitchforks.

 

 

C'mon.  I bet a large chunk or Republican voters think that the Reagan and Bush tax cuts have paid for themselves via growth.  

 

In fact, I'd bet that twa will be along shortly, to make that claim.  

 

All you have to do is, have an untrue definition of "paid for itself".  Here's how the shell game is played:  

 

Let's say that revenue has been going up, steadily, every year:  

 

Year Revenue

101   $100

102   $110

103   $120

 

Then in year 104, you pass a tax cut:  

 

Year Revenue

101   $100

102   $110

103   $120

104    $90

 

So, you wait a few years:  

 

Year Revenue

101   $100

102   $110

103   $120

104    $90

105   $100

106   $110

107   $120

108   $130

 

. . . then you point at year 108, point out that it's more than in year 103, announce real loudly that every dime of that growth between 104-108 was due to your tax cut, ignore the fact that, without your tax cut, revenues in year 108 would be $170, and announce that you've just proven that your tax cut not only had zero effect on revenue, that it actually increased it.  

 

[visionary]

 

[88Comrade2000]

1 hour ago, visionary said:

 

He probably wouldn't win but I would definitely vote for a Independent Kasich against Trump and whoever the Dems put up in 2020.  Thing is, unless you happen to be a Billionaire; going independent route for President is cost prohibitive.  Getting on the ballot in all 50 states, would be a huge hurdle.  That alone, would probably doom any independent bid by someone like a Kasich.

[88Comrade2000]

The Roy Moores of the world would probably win in places like Alabama but you nominate a Roy Moore candidate in Nevada and even Arizona; odds are the Dems win.

[visionary]

 

[thebluefood]

Juicy as that is, the "pro-lifer who wanted someone to get an abortion because it was convenient to the pro-lifer" story is almost cliche at this point.

[DogofWar1]

I was coming to post that.  He also apparently abuses staff terribly, so thst's bad too, but the blatant opportunism seen by him on his pro-life stuff should shock the conscience.

 

Should being the key word there.  It probably won't.

[visionary]

[visionary]

 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by visionary

[Cooked Crack]

He'll just have to make sure that all future mistresses get abortions by week 19.

[twa]

Would it be better to be represented by someone that lives contrary to how you wish yet votes how you wish or someone that lives how you wish and votes contrary to your views?

 

****ing congresscritters. 

[Fergasun]

Funny and true story --  I fly to DC from LA-area for business and I recognized at least two Representatives on my commercial plane this week.  One from my own district, and the famous target for conservatives -- Maxine Waters.  Nearly said something to my Rep about the Vegas shooting, especially since I'm a voter and political geek... but nah.   

 

Maxine did not look a day older than 65.... I actually recognized her when I got onto the plane, and as I was stepping into my aisle realized that my Rep was sitting either in the opposite row to me or close enough.... 

[Cooked Crack]

16 minutes ago, twa said:

Would it be better to be represented by someone that lives contrary to how you wish yet votes how you wish or someone that lives how you wish and votes contrary to your views?

 

****ing congresscritters. 

Some things would be deal breakers regardless of how they vote. I'd think this would be one of those for the abortion is murder crowd.

[DogofWar1]

34 minutes ago, twa said:

Would it be better to be represented by someone that lives contrary to how you wish yet votes how you wish or someone that lives how you wish and votes contrary to your views?

 

****ing congresscritters. 

Or, y'know, primaries are a thing.

 

I expect a different GOPer in the 2018 general for the Rs.

[twa]

Just now, Cooked Crack said:

Some things would be deal breakers regardless of how they vote. I'd think this would be one of those for the abortion is murder crowd.

 

But the murder is legal, so not murder.

Now if he made it illegal and then encouraged it there would be a serious problem.

 

I would look for a better option to vote for .....still better than someone that supports it for all.

[Cooked Crack]

9 minutes ago, twa said:

 

But the murder is legal, so not murder.

Now if he made it illegal and then encouraged it there would be a serious problem.

 

I would look for a better option to vote for .....still better than someone that supports it for all.

Would not be able to. If I really thought it was murder regardless of legality would just look to support someone else. It's like if there was a candidate who was obviously racist, I would not be able to support that person even if they voted in a way I like. Some things should be deal breakers.

[twa]

No greater good? 

[Cooked Crack]

2 minutes ago, twa said:

No greater good? 

That's a slippery slope. What other sacrifices would you be willing to accept for the greater good? Would a segregationist be okay if he votes the right way? Would someone who wants to criminalize homosexual acts be okay?

[twa]

Just now, Cooked Crack said:

That's a slippery slope. What other sacrifices would you be willing to accept for the greater good? Would a segregationist be okay if he votes the right way? Would someone who wants to criminalize homosexual acts be okay?

 

Long as they are not voting for segregation or such.

 

Remember ......how they vote.

 

I'd vote for Hillary if assured she would vote as I wish....and no better option