House Speaker Vote Live 2nd Thread

[sneakypete]

You are already defeated before you started. The spending madness is rapidly destroying the country. It is going to consume everything. And no one is even attempting to put on the brakes.

@DB

I disagree with the statement in bold. There are a lot of people who want the brakes put on spending to buy votes. The problem is we are outnumbered,and the Dims are importing more Dim voters every day through out open border with Mexico. The DNC has an absolute LOCK  on their votes because they are entirely dependent on goobermint handouts for the first generation,at a minimum.

Unless there are radical political changes that start taking effect VERY soon,there will be no America by the time the second generation is old enough to work and free themselves from the gooberment checks and housing.

In FACT,we will ALL be living in gooberment housing unless we piss off one of the masters,and then we will be living in the parks,the forests,or in a rehabilitation center somewhere.

[sneakypete]

So you think a block of 30 can dictate the results in a body of 425?  Not going to happen.

What they can do is push for the most conservative agenda for which 218 votes can be mustered, which is going to mean they won't get everything they want, and are going to have to make some concessions to some other members of the GOP.

Because if they don't, and just hang on to absolutist positions of refusing to compromise on anything, the most liberal members of the GOP caucus will end up cutting deals with the Democrats rather than the conservatives, and that will be a worse deal.

One of the most ugly absolute truths. It should be carved in stone somewhere.

 
[/quote]

[Hoodat]

Conservative 101: NONE of them can be trusted - And least of all, those that control the power... And least among them, McCarthy and MurderTurdle.

Damn straight you don't trust em. And hold their feet right IN the fire, Every minute of every day, because you already know damnwell they ain't going to do your bidding otherwise.

Absolutely.  The goal here should not be getting the Republican agenda passed.  The goal should to block the Uniparty from getting their agenda passed.

[Mesaclone]

I'm for the approach that results in the most conservative spending possible being enacted.  That is NOT what is going to happen if the FC refuses to compromise on anything and insists on 100% of its agenda.

Not true.  I was in favor of fighting for some of the concessions -- the committee on FBI/CIA, for example.  I do think the insistence on meaningless votes for terms limits and a balanced budget was stupid, and a complete waste of time.  I don't like all off the new rules, and I absolutely did not like how Gaetz went public with a bunch of personal attacks.  The tactics were crappy.

When has anything ever been won with stupidity?

Crushing it again, Major!

[Hoodat]

I have not been able to 100% monitor this fast moving thread.  Can somebody please tell me what "FC" means?

F*** Communism

[Mesaclone]

@berdie

Not true. ANY of them can be trusted if the voters would hold their feet to the fire and PROMISE they they will lose their offices/positions unless they "toe the line".

The people most at fault in this clusterbiden are "we,the voters" because we let them get away with this crap if they just support one bill that benefits US.

We need to look past "Me,me,ME,DAMMIT!",and start paying some serious attention to "US,US,US,DAMMIT!" or there is going to be no "US". All the power is going to belong to "THEM",and I can guarantee you that 99 percent of you ain't gonna like it.

Also. Crushing it.

[Hoodat]

The path we were on sure wasn't working!

The victory I see out of this is not only rules being changed, but we have 20 Pubs who are willing to fight for us! It's been a long time since I could say that.

Truth.

[Mesaclone]

Absolutely.  The goal here should not be getting the Republican agenda passed.  The goal should to block the Uniparty from getting their agenda passed.

But that's the problem. You won't be blocking them. As Sneaky and the Major made clear, all you'll do is force the 5-10 lib Republicans into alliance with the Dems...who will vote in a solid block...and you'll get a far more liberal and spendy legislation than you would if you'd worked within the caucus. And it is ugly, as Sneaky said...but its also the truth of the situation. The only way to really slow and reverse spending is to get enough voters on board to elect a STRONGLY conservative Congress. Its just that simple.

[Hoodat]

I'm for the approach that results in the most conservative spending possible being enacted.

I oppose anything where the word 'spending' is preceded by the qualifier 'most'.

Again, the ONLY goal that will work towards restoring a positive future for this country is to reduce spending below 19% of GDP (for starters).  Anything short of this will result in more debt.

A Republican President could get this done without Congress.  But it would require a Republican President who shares the economic and political philosophy of the 20 Conservatives who stood in the gap.

[Hoodat]

But that's the problem. You won't be blocking them. As Sneaky and the Major made clear, all you'll do is force the 5-10 lib Republicans into alliance with the Dems...who will vote in a solid block...and you'll get a far more liberal and spendy legislation than you would if you'd worked within the caucus.

To claim that keeping the status quo would result in less spending than we now have with these new rules is obtusely ludicrous.  Everyone here is now dumber for hearing that.

And it is ugly, as Sneaky said...but its also the truth of the situation. The only way to really slow and reverse spending is to get enough voters on board to elect a STRONGLY conservative Congress. Its just that simple.

I agree with that.  But there is zero connection between that and what occurred these last few days with the Congress we have.

(See:  Logical Fallacies - Non-sequitur) 

And don't forget that one of the hard-won 'demands' of the Conservatives was that Establishment Swampers like Kevin McCarthy stop using PAC money to get Conservatives defeated in safe Republican districts.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I oppose anything where the word 'spending' is preceded by the qualifier 'most'.

Well, the "most" qualifier was applied to "conservative", not to "spending", but if you don't like "most conservative", than you just do you!

[bilo]

I oppose anything where the word 'spending' is preceded by the qualifier 'most'.

Again, the ONLY goal that will work towards restoring a positive future for this country is to reduce spending below 19% of GDP (for starters).  Anything short of this will result in more debt.

A Republican President could get this done without Congress.  But it would require a Republican President who shares the economic and political philosophy of the 20 Conservatives who stood in the gap.

The only chance for even getting close to that target is to return to a process that requires appropriations bills to come out of their specific committee and limits amendments to only be specific to that subject. Oh wait a minute, isn't that what the 20 FC members just fought for?

It won't be easy, but we sure have a better chance with the rule changes then we did before. 

[bilo]

But that's the problem. You won't be blocking them. As Sneaky and the Major made clear, all you'll do is force the 5-10 lib Republicans into alliance with the Dems...who will vote in a solid block...and you'll get a far more liberal and spendy legislation than you would if you'd worked within the caucus. And it is ugly, as Sneaky said...but its also the truth of the situation. The only way to really slow and reverse spending is to get enough voters on board to elect a STRONGLY conservative Congress. Its just that simple.

Guess what, by the time voters realize the gravity of the situation it will be too late.

The world is changing and the post WWII American Empire is coming to an end. The dollar will not be the world reserve currency forever and when that ends we better be on solid fiscal ground. Right now we have 6-8.5% inflation, just imagine a country with 15-20% inflation. The govt. is having a hard time paying the interest on our debt at 4%.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

And don't forget that one of the hard-won 'demands' of the Conservatives was that Establishment Swampers like Kevin McCarthy stop using PAC money to get Conservatives defeated in safe Republican districts.

That's actually one of the things I liked.  I don't think it is proper for funds donated to a House PAC to be used to pick and choose between GOP candidates in primaries.  It should be used to defeat Democrats in general elections.

And I do understand the argument that the House PAC cares about electability of the various candidates in the GOP primary, but that's discretion that is just too easily abused.

[Hoodat]

The only chance for even getting close to that target is to return to a process that requires appropriations bills to come out of their specific committee and limits amendments to only be specific to that subject. Oh wait a minute, isn't that what the 20 FC members just fought for?

It won't be easy, but we sure have a better chance with the rule changes then we did before.

Yep.  Yet we're being bullshitted with the ridiculous claim that this new setup will result in more spending than if we stuck by the old Pelosi rules.

[Hoodat]

Well, the "most" qualifier was applied to "conservative", not to "spending", but if you don't like "most conservative", than you just do you!

Try 'most Conservative budget cutting'.  I want less spending, not more.  Every Democrat pet project for the last 40 years, I want gone.  Forever.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Try 'most Conservative budget cutting'.  I want less spending, not more.  Every Democrat pet project for the last 40 years, I want gone.  Forever.

Good luck getting that with 25 House members.

[Hoodat]

Good luck getting that with 25 House members.

Better chance now with the rules changes than there would be had the status quo establishment won.  But we'll put you down for the usual 5% increase in taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, since that is in keeping with the old rule status quo.  For our side though, it will be easier omitting it from one smaller appropriation bill than from one giant omnibus screw-you to the American people.

[Cyber Liberty]

Better chance now with the rules changes than there would be had the status quo establishment won.  But we'll put you down for the usual 5% increase in taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, since that is in keeping with the old rule status quo.  For our side though, it will be easier omitting it from one smaller appropriation bill than from one giant omnibus screw-you to the American people.

I think we all know the purpose of the Omnibus bills is to force people to swallow what they don't want.  American as apple pie.

End the omnibus bills, kill that Christmas Tree.

[bilo]

I think we all know the purpose of the Omnibus bills is to force people to swallow what they don't want.  American as apple pie.

End the omnibus bills, kill that Christmas Tree.

 

Lets try and have a representative republic.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

For our side though, it will be easier omitting it from one smaller appropriation bill than from one giant omnibus screw-you to the American people.

I agree.  Passing those 12 individual appropriations bills is the way to go.  That's going to be difficult to do under these rules, and with only a 4 vote cushion, but perhaps it could be done if the entire caucus was committed to actually passing those bills.  But here's the problem:

Absolutely.  The goal here should not be getting the Republican agenda passed.  The goal should to block the Uniparty from getting their agenda passed.

You seem to have very little interest in actually passing those those 12 smaller appropriations bills.  You just view having that rule as a way to stymie Democrats, not a way to actually pass legislation.  And I suspect Gaetz and Co,. agree with you.  Hope I'm wrong, but I suspect not.

In any case, what that means is that when it gets down to the wire in September/October, and there still are a few of the biggest bills outstanding, what do you suppose is going to happen when the Freedom Caucus refuses to budge on anything?  Well...the Rules can be changed by a majority of the House, and a "Speaker in a straightjacket" isn't going to be able to stop it even if he wanted to.  And you'll have a half-done or more Nancy Mace types unwilling to be held responsible for the government shutting down, and they'll cave.  So you'll end up with a coalition of 212 Democrats and a half-dozen plus Republicans amending the rules, and ramming through that last-minute omnibus spending package.  And because the Freedom Caucus will have made themselves irrelevant by refusing to compromise on anything, the Democrats will hold all the cards.  So rather than getting the most conservative bills that the RINO's will accept, we'll get the most leftist ones that they'll accept.

If you want separate appropriations bills to work, you have to start with the goal of actually getting them passed.  But that doesn't appear to be the case.

[roamer_1]

I agree.  Passing those 12 individual appropriations bills is the way to go.  That's going to be difficult to do under these rules, and with only a 4 vote cushion, but perhaps it could be done if the entire caucus was committed to actually passing those bills.  But here's the problem:

You seem to have very little interest in actually passing those those 12 smaller appropriations bills.  You just view having that rule as a way to stymie Democrats, not a way to actually pass legislation.  And I suspect Gaetz and Co,. agree with you.  Hope I'm wrong, but I suspect not.

[...]

If you want separate appropriations bills to work, you have to start with the goal of actually getting them passed.  But that doesn't appear to be the case.

In theory then, it would be better not to try at all, right? *rolls eyes*

Of course, that jibes with your insistence earlier that these inept Conservatives would have been better leaving well enough alone... Leaving you with your chips bet upon the Rino-liberal status quo.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

In theory then, it would be better not to try at all, right? *rolls eyes*

I'm all for it if they're actually going to try to pass those bills.  But there's a bit of "this is all a facade because we're really going to try to stop anything from getting passed" attitude to this.

Of course, that jibes with your insistence earlier that these inept Conservatives would have been better leaving well enough alone... Leaving you with your chips bet upon the Rino-liberal status quo.

I don't think having the right intentions or goals is enough.  I think you have to actually think through a plan for getting there.  As I said, this might work if the Freedom Caucus is willing to make some compromises to get those 12 separate appropriations bills passed.

[roamer_1]

I'm all for it if they're actually going to try to pass those bills.  But there's a bit of "this is all a facade because we're really going to try to stop anything from getting passed" attitude to this.

I don't think having the right intentions or goals is enough.  I think you have to actually think through a plan for getting there.  As I said, this might work if the Freedom Caucus is willing to make some compromises to get those 12 separate appropriations bills passed.

Well VOI - friggin- LA.
PLAN is advancing with outstanding success, and going according to Hoyle.

[Free Vulcan]

In any case, what that means is that when it gets down to the wire in September/October, and there still are a few of the biggest bills outstanding, what do you suppose is going to happen when the Freedom Caucus refuses to budge on anything?  Well...the Rules can be changed by a majority of the House, and a "Speaker in a straightjacket" isn't going to be able to stop it even if he wanted to.  And you'll have a half-done or more Nancy Mace types unwilling to be held responsible for the government shutting down, and they'll cave.  So you'll end up with a coalition of 212 Democrats and a half-dozen plus Republicans amending the rules, and ramming through that last-minute omnibus spending package.  And because the Freedom Caucus will have made themselves irrelevant by refusing to compromise on anything, the Democrats will hold all the cards.  So rather than getting the most conservative bills that the RINO's will accept, we'll get the most leftist ones that they'll accept.

If you want separate appropriations bills to work, you have to start with the goal of actually getting them passed.  But that doesn't appear to be the case.

Let Republicans like Nancy Mace do that kind of thing. They can answer for it in the '24 primaries. If they manage to override the FC, then we are at a no worse position than when we started. If they can do it - I would expect the far Left to hold out on most things.

For the most part though, yes it will be hard to pass bills. That is the point. The Rats and Old Sniffy need to be reigned in. You're not going to get any kind of reform or improvement past the Senate anyway.