|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 20 2018 08:55 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 08:43 Plansix wrote:
How to get a primary challenger: a centrist democrat story. I am assuming this is mostly just posturing. It's not like the same fight can't be had in a month. A democrat in a red state needs to come across as not tooooooo much of a democrat. By saying "hey, I kept the government running while we talked this through, but when push came to shove and there was no more negotiating to be done, I held strong", she comes across as a lot more reasonable. Am I correct in that understanding? All the same fights can still be had in a month? This is the 4th CR though.
The primary messaging practically writes itself.
|
On January 20 2018 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 08:43 Plansix wrote:
How to get a primary challenger: a centrist democrat story. I am assuming this is mostly just posturing. It's not like the same fight can't be had in a month. A democrat in a red state needs to come across as not tooooooo much of a democrat. By saying "hey, I kept the government running while we talked this through, but when push came to shove and there was no more negotiating to be done, I held strong", she comes across as a lot more reasonable. Am I correct in that understanding? All the same fights can still be had in a month?
The House-passed bill only funds through Feb 16th. CHIP would be funded for 6 years, so that one's off the table.
|
On January 20 2018 08:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 08:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 20 2018 08:08 farvacola wrote:On January 20 2018 08:05 Toadesstern wrote:
Yeah, as shitty of a move it was from GOPs I don't really see DEMs winning the message war on this.
Or maybe it's a close tie at best for them, which is still horrible for people up for re-election in 2018 in not super-dem-leaning states.
I'd say Dems are going to cave soonish. It's a lose-lose for them right now I think you'll revisit this opinion soon, there's a good reason why Dems suddenly grew a spine. Because the healthcare of our children and safety of our immigrants is kind of, sort of, worth it. It also sets the tone for the entire year. Cave now, cave for the rest of the year. Draw the line in the sand and the leadership will know the Dems are not kidding. Right now Republicans are operating under the belief that Dems will cave at the last minute, like they have for more than 20 years.
I agree, although I would still expect the Dems to cave on more things than they should, even with a Republican-controlled government. This is better than nothing, and being resilient during the Obamacare Repeal attempts was good too.
|
On January 20 2018 08:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 08:18 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 08:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Meanwhile in Trumpland:
Trump wants to outlaw 'Birth'. And to think we traded in the editor of the Harvard Law Review for this man.
Literally the only thing I can think of to excuse this is somebody told him mechanically how a csection works and didn't explain why it happens.
|
On January 20 2018 09:05 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 08:24 KwarK wrote:On January 20 2018 08:18 Gorsameth wrote:Trump wants to outlaw 'Birth'. And to think we traded in the editor of the Harvard Law Review for this man. Literally the only thing I can think of to excuse this is somebody told him mechanically how a csection works and didn't explain why it happens.
Maybe he thought that pregnancy is supposed to be 10 months long or something?
|
TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL. V. HAWAII, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In addition to the questions presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue Question 3 presented by the brief in opposition.
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court takes up the court order on Trump's Travel Order #3. Bonus on Establishment Clause arguments.
|
On January 20 2018 09:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 09:05 Gahlo wrote:On January 20 2018 08:24 KwarK wrote:On January 20 2018 08:18 Gorsameth wrote:Trump wants to outlaw 'Birth'. And to think we traded in the editor of the Harvard Law Review for this man. Literally the only thing I can think of to excuse this is somebody told him mechanically how a csection works and didn't explain why it happens. Maybe he thought that pregnancy is supposed to be 10 months long or something?
I'm seriously having a hard time wrapping my head around this one. The man has had his own children. how does he not know how this works? What kind of verbal typo is this, assuming he does know? How's that happen?
|
On January 20 2018 09:15 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 09:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 20 2018 09:05 Gahlo wrote:On January 20 2018 08:24 KwarK wrote:On January 20 2018 08:18 Gorsameth wrote:Trump wants to outlaw 'Birth'. And to think we traded in the editor of the Harvard Law Review for this man. Literally the only thing I can think of to excuse this is somebody told him mechanically how a csection works and didn't explain why it happens. Maybe he thought that pregnancy is supposed to be 10 months long or something? I'm seriously having a hard time wrapping my head around this one. The man has had his own children. how does he not know how this works? What kind of verbal typo is this, assuming he does know? How's that happen?
Remember, the doctor says that Trump's mental acuity is extremely sharp. This couldn't have possibly been Trump misspeaking (and not catching it at all)!
I really have no idea.
|
On January 20 2018 09:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 09:15 NewSunshine wrote:On January 20 2018 09:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 20 2018 09:05 Gahlo wrote:On January 20 2018 08:24 KwarK wrote:On January 20 2018 08:18 Gorsameth wrote:Trump wants to outlaw 'Birth'. And to think we traded in the editor of the Harvard Law Review for this man. Literally the only thing I can think of to excuse this is somebody told him mechanically how a csection works and didn't explain why it happens. Maybe he thought that pregnancy is supposed to be 10 months long or something? I'm seriously having a hard time wrapping my head around this one. The man has had his own children. how does he not know how this works? What kind of verbal typo is this, assuming he does know? How's that happen? Remember, the doctor says that Trump's mental acuity is extremely sharp. This couldn't have possibly been Trump misspeaking (and not catching it at all)! I really have no idea.
I suspect most people who listened to that have no idea what he actually meant by that. I actually wrote it down to try and separate it out into several coherent thoughts, and now I'm even more confused.
|
Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence operations have begun promoting the hashtag #ReleaseTheMemo.
It's a reference to a document written by Rep. Devin Nunes that purports to show abuse by the Obama administration of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The frequency with which the accounts have been promoting the hashtag has spiked by 233,000% over the past 48 hours, according to an analysis.
The most-shared URL has been a link to WikiLeaks' "submit" page.
www.yahoo.com
#ReleaseTheNunesDossier
|
On January 20 2018 07:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:15 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 07:07 Toadesstern wrote:On January 20 2018 07:01 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Logo wrote:On January 20 2018 06:26 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:07 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's also humorous in that CHIP costs 8 billion dollars over 5 years...but apparently needs to be paid for with cuts to other services. Let's be charitable and say it's 20 billion for 10 years. That's 1/50 the amount the Republican tax plan increases the deficit in 10 years.
Policy only needs to be revenue neutral for R's when that lets them gut other programs and doesn't line pockets. Estate tax cuts? Nah, no need to be revenue neutral. Children's healthcare? OH SHIT WE GOTTA BE GUYS! The Republican tax plan reduces revenue. The compromise would reduce spending by a very very very modest amount. OH SHIT WE GOTTA INCREASE SPENDING NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Pretty humorous, I agree. They sure asked those questions to multimillionaires, the only people who benefited from removing the estate tax. At least you realize they ask more questions about children's healthcare than they do about the megarich. It'd be different if any of these proposed changes actually improved CHIP, but they really don't. Mostly because it's a wildly successful on balance cheap program that I'm not sure there's any evidence of any problems with. I do love that you have fully embraced the "continuing any entitlement is increasing spending" philosophy. It'll make future coercion arguments even more bizarre. It would be different if the revenue and spending sides of the equation were both looked at for balancing budgets and tackling the debt and looking for GDP growth and wage growth and American competitiveness. This debate is a microcosm that, while the GOP made inroads in the corporate tax rate to bring us more in line with our first-world competitive partners, they can make zero inroads in spending. I see no progress if the only answer is to increase revenues by raising taxes, and no quarter is given on the spending side. These programs do grow as more are covered and costs increase. So... does that apply to border security and the border wall? Isn't it estimated that deporting the Dreamers would hurt GDP and reduce tax revenue? On January 20 2018 06:28 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:13 Logo wrote:I had more only mildly more success digging since Danglars has obvious motivation to leave it at "cuts elsewhere" But this is what I got: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/house-gop-wants-to-fund-lapsed-chip-with-cuts-to-medicare-and-public-health
The draft bill, posted around 9 p.m. Monday, makes the following cuts and restrictions in order to fund the program:
Charging seniors who earn more than $500,000 a year higher Medicare premiums.
Allowing states to kick out Medicaid beneficiaries if they win the lottery.
Shortening the grace period for people paying their Obamacare premium payments late
Cutting more than $5 billion from the Affordable Care Act’s prevention and public health fund.
Basically yes, they want to cut medicaid/ACA and see using CHIP funding as a way to do that. The first 2 could reasonably be compromise or reasonable cuts, but the last 2 are big issues. An extra 150$ on seniors that earn more than $40,000 a month for medicare. Officially worth more than DACA. I love it. EDIT: Remind me to pull up more The Federalist, National Review, and (shudder) Breitbart to match these TPM summaries. I keep forgetting. You were LITERALLY ASKED to post the bill. You had your chance to post it with whatever spin of sources you could. I posted the best source I could find, which isn't necessarily my top choice but I had little to go on. How the hell can you make a snarky comment about posting the info now AFTER You declined to post said info in the first place. Yes the snark is directed at a TPM source for the bill provided as the "best source I could find." So which of those is a cut too far for funding CHIP? it's not about it being a cut too far. It's about you calling it a "compromise" when there's literally not a single thing bad for Republicans in it. It's 4 Obamacare cuts. Arguably at LEAST 2 of them laughably unimportant but it's still a stretch to call one party having to sign on to 4 cuts that matter to them vs one party having to sign something that has 0 cuts to things that matter to them a compromise. Unless of course you want to argue that Republicans willing to fund CHIP in the first place is the part where they're giving in. But I thought the argument was on it being a thing both parties wanted so that can't be it, right? //edit, and again just to make this clear, for the third time: I spend time trying to find a source on this and couldn't find anything specific on it either. The source may be shit but it's literally everything I have to go on. You're free to give us your source (I don't care if it's Breitbart or whatever else in this instance as it's really hard to find ANYTHING on it, as long as it has the text in the bill itself and not an interpretation without mentioning what's in there) and I will retract that statement if it turns out to have other cuts in there that would matter to Republicans. But right now I just don't have any source on it other than the above despite trying to find one. This is where elections mean something. The Republicans won all three branches of government. Compromises will look a little more like spending cuts where they want them for programs with bipartisan support. If Democrats owned all three branches of government, I'd expect compromises to be found closer to the size of spending increases they demand. Democrats get CHIP with some compensatory cuts, Republicans authorize another spending program budget but gain some cuts elsewhere. They don’t control all three branches. They have the white house and a majority in the house and senate. They do not have a super majority. As designed, the minority party has the power to hold up bills in the senate to have their issues addressed. If the Republicans want to pass any legislation, they must vote on issues the Democrats want voted on.
Right, and "as designed", Ted Cruz shut down the government in 2013 too right? That's just be why I never heard any complaints about "hostage tactics" back then rofl.
|
|
|
On January 20 2018 12:26 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:26 Plansix wrote:On January 20 2018 07:15 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 07:07 Toadesstern wrote:On January 20 2018 07:01 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Logo wrote:On January 20 2018 06:26 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:07 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's also humorous in that CHIP costs 8 billion dollars over 5 years...but apparently needs to be paid for with cuts to other services. Let's be charitable and say it's 20 billion for 10 years. That's 1/50 the amount the Republican tax plan increases the deficit in 10 years.
Policy only needs to be revenue neutral for R's when that lets them gut other programs and doesn't line pockets. Estate tax cuts? Nah, no need to be revenue neutral. Children's healthcare? OH SHIT WE GOTTA BE GUYS! The Republican tax plan reduces revenue. The compromise would reduce spending by a very very very modest amount. OH SHIT WE GOTTA INCREASE SPENDING NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Pretty humorous, I agree. They sure asked those questions to multimillionaires, the only people who benefited from removing the estate tax. At least you realize they ask more questions about children's healthcare than they do about the megarich. It'd be different if any of these proposed changes actually improved CHIP, but they really don't. Mostly because it's a wildly successful on balance cheap program that I'm not sure there's any evidence of any problems with. I do love that you have fully embraced the "continuing any entitlement is increasing spending" philosophy. It'll make future coercion arguments even more bizarre. It would be different if the revenue and spending sides of the equation were both looked at for balancing budgets and tackling the debt and looking for GDP growth and wage growth and American competitiveness. This debate is a microcosm that, while the GOP made inroads in the corporate tax rate to bring us more in line with our first-world competitive partners, they can make zero inroads in spending. I see no progress if the only answer is to increase revenues by raising taxes, and no quarter is given on the spending side. These programs do grow as more are covered and costs increase. So... does that apply to border security and the border wall? Isn't it estimated that deporting the Dreamers would hurt GDP and reduce tax revenue? On January 20 2018 06:28 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:13 Logo wrote:I had more only mildly more success digging since Danglars has obvious motivation to leave it at "cuts elsewhere" But this is what I got: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/house-gop-wants-to-fund-lapsed-chip-with-cuts-to-medicare-and-public-health
The draft bill, posted around 9 p.m. Monday, makes the following cuts and restrictions in order to fund the program:
Charging seniors who earn more than $500,000 a year higher Medicare premiums.
Allowing states to kick out Medicaid beneficiaries if they win the lottery.
Shortening the grace period for people paying their Obamacare premium payments late
Cutting more than $5 billion from the Affordable Care Act’s prevention and public health fund.
Basically yes, they want to cut medicaid/ACA and see using CHIP funding as a way to do that. The first 2 could reasonably be compromise or reasonable cuts, but the last 2 are big issues. An extra 150$ on seniors that earn more than $40,000 a month for medicare. Officially worth more than DACA. I love it. EDIT: Remind me to pull up more The Federalist, National Review, and (shudder) Breitbart to match these TPM summaries. I keep forgetting. You were LITERALLY ASKED to post the bill. You had your chance to post it with whatever spin of sources you could. I posted the best source I could find, which isn't necessarily my top choice but I had little to go on. How the hell can you make a snarky comment about posting the info now AFTER You declined to post said info in the first place. Yes the snark is directed at a TPM source for the bill provided as the "best source I could find." So which of those is a cut too far for funding CHIP? it's not about it being a cut too far. It's about you calling it a "compromise" when there's literally not a single thing bad for Republicans in it. It's 4 Obamacare cuts. Arguably at LEAST 2 of them laughably unimportant but it's still a stretch to call one party having to sign on to 4 cuts that matter to them vs one party having to sign something that has 0 cuts to things that matter to them a compromise. Unless of course you want to argue that Republicans willing to fund CHIP in the first place is the part where they're giving in. But I thought the argument was on it being a thing both parties wanted so that can't be it, right? //edit, and again just to make this clear, for the third time: I spend time trying to find a source on this and couldn't find anything specific on it either. The source may be shit but it's literally everything I have to go on. You're free to give us your source (I don't care if it's Breitbart or whatever else in this instance as it's really hard to find ANYTHING on it, as long as it has the text in the bill itself and not an interpretation without mentioning what's in there) and I will retract that statement if it turns out to have other cuts in there that would matter to Republicans. But right now I just don't have any source on it other than the above despite trying to find one. This is where elections mean something. The Republicans won all three branches of government. Compromises will look a little more like spending cuts where they want them for programs with bipartisan support. If Democrats owned all three branches of government, I'd expect compromises to be found closer to the size of spending increases they demand. Democrats get CHIP with some compensatory cuts, Republicans authorize another spending program budget but gain some cuts elsewhere. They don’t control all three branches. They have the white house and a majority in the house and senate. They do not have a super majority. As designed, the minority party has the power to hold up bills in the senate to have their issues addressed. If the Republicans want to pass any legislation, they must vote on issues the Democrats want voted on. Right, and "as designed", Ted Cruz shut down the government in 2013 too right? That's just be why I never heard any complaints about "hostage tactics" back then rofl.
You know that in 2013 they basically just went back and forth shoving an Obamacare repeal into the budget bill and the debt limit, right? There wasn't a ticking clock beyond discretionary government spending at the time.
In this case, there are two ticking clocks: CHIP and DACA. If either lapse it has material consequence on people's lives.
(also, plenty of people accused Cruz and co. of hostage-taking with respect to discretionary governmental employees, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there)
It also wasn't a question of GOP majority leaders in both houses refusing to put bills on the floor, which is what's happening here (Boehner did stop some colleagues from bringing bills to the House floor though). It was bills passing the Republican House then getting voted own in the Democratic Senate.
|
Yes obviously the lack of meaningless symbolic votes on doomed resolutions makes it totally different this time.
Where's arbiter Zlefin he's needed? We need to know who's being the honest and sound arguer here.
EDIT: It's (un)official! Resolution was rejected!
|
On January 20 2018 12:59 mozoku wrote:
Yes obviously the lack of meaningless symbolic votes on doomed resolutions makes it totally different this time.
Where's arbiter Zlefin he's needed? We need to know who's being the honest and sound arguer here.
EDIT: It's (un)official! Resolution was rejected!
I mean, it's not clear they are doomed in this case, though. I don't think it's obvious the House would reject the Flake bill at all (as of December Flake was pretty optimistic about it). It's not even really clear if Trump would reject it (especially if they throw in some generic tweaks or put the screws on him).
|
On January 20 2018 12:06 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +
Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence operations have begun promoting the hashtag #ReleaseTheMemo.
It's a reference to a document written by Rep. Devin Nunes that purports to show abuse by the Obama administration of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The frequency with which the accounts have been promoting the hashtag has spiked by 233,000% over the past 48 hours, according to an analysis.
The most-shared URL has been a link to WikiLeaks' "submit" page.
www.yahoo.com#ReleaseTheNunesDossier
We're for transparency, except if it's on the FISA warrant used against Trump, in which case it's schemes by the Russians.
Okay. I'll take the FISA application itself. Show me Hillary opposition research wasn't used to justify wiretaps on an American citizen.
|
On January 20 2018 12:59 mozoku wrote:
Yes obviously the lack of meaningless symbolic votes on doomed resolutions makes it totally different this time.
Where's arbiter Zlefin he's needed? We need to know who's being the honest and sound arguer here.
EDIT: It's (un)official! Resolution was rejected!
It's interesting to note, had Schumer complied with requests for an up and down vote (simple majority), it would have passed. Enough Democrats announced support before vote deadline.
(And in case you made the mistake of believing McCaskill, it actually isn't the first time it happened. It's the second time. First was during the Carter years)
|
Carter years are a bit different because before 1981 the government didn't actually shut down
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
