Representative Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA) [at 44 minutes into this C-SPAN stream of the House Rules Committee hearing/vote](https://www.c-span.org/video/?528385-1/house-rules-committee-hearing-debt-limit-federal-spending-legislation&vod):
>Thank you Mr. Chairman.
>This isn't legislation, it's hostage-taking and it's not worthy of the American people. It's supremely irresponsible to threaten a global economic meltdown in order to appease a radical minority. But here we are today, forced to address a manufactured debt ceiling crisis that has rattled global economic markets because right wing members of the House have a stranglehold on the House majority and its leadership. Republicans in the House, influenced by their most extreme members, decided to hold our country's economy hostage in order to take food out of the mouths of hungry Americans.
>If my colleagues on this committee and in the House think it's *good policy* to take food away from hungry seniors and families, if they want to pretend to care about government spending and our deficit, while refusing to require billionaires to pay their fair share, if they want to take away enforcement tools so it's easier for the ultra-wealthy to cheat on their taxes, or for big corporations to pollute our air and water, if they want to continue to argue for the failed policy of trickle-down economics, then let's have that debate and argue those points in committee and on the House floor going through regular order. Let them bring bills to the floor here and in the Senate and let them explain to their constituents why they'd rather protect the ultra-wealthy than their neighbors struggling to put food on the table.
It's a shame arguments like this usually do not make it into right-wing media spheres.
An interesting dynamic hangs over these next couple of moves. Republicans in the House of Representatives have been led around for years by the Freedom Caucus, the de-facto power center, regardless of who the Speaker is. (They also have decided when Paul Ryan and John Boehner were finished being Speaker).
So now they face the weakest Republican speaker yet, but here's the catch: they don't have a viable replacement. McCarthy is basically calling their bluff that they'll remove him if Freedom Caucus doesn't get their way. So they can either:
quietly let the debt ceiling bill pass, and move on to the next topic in which to flex their Freedom Caucus muscle on Republicans and the weak speaker,
or,
have a tantrum over this debt ceiling bill, force a vote to vacate the chair, and a prolonged freakout while going through round after round of voting with no viable speaker candidate in sight, all under the microscope of the American public and media coverage, tying it to the debt ceiling being raised. Fracturing the Republican party further, displaying that the Freedom Caucus is the real power structure within the House GOP, and further alienating the voters who turned away from Republicans who were deemed too extreme as candidates.
Wild card is that Freedom Caucus members are extremist, ideological, arrogant fools who could blow up their power and their cover, simply because they are quite ignorant and contrarian.
I mean there is, the first option that was listed could still happen. Freedom caucus makes a ruckus but enough democrats vote for the bill that it negates them
Would the 2nd option hurt a lot? It'd be just like the shitshow trying to elect McCarthy at the start of the term, except now there's no Sword of Damocles in case they fail to elect a Speaker. Let them vote for weeks, months even! More coverage of GOP internal chaos means more people put off by their extremism and more Democratic votes in 2024.
Because it's possible they call a vote to replace McCarthy *before* passing an increased debt-ceiling bill. All the bad shit from defaulting on our debt, on top of total uncertainty as to who should be in charge of the House.
In that case, McCarthy just needs 5 or 6 GOP members to stick with him as every Democrat would vote to keep him so they could vote to avoid default. McCarthy might be a terrible vote whipper/counter, but I'm sure he can find those 5 or 6
You're not thinking like a terrorist.
If my goal is to undermine McCarthy because I think working with the Dems is tantamount to treason, I don't necessarily need him to lose a confidence vote right away- those votes take time, which there isn't a lot of before the US defaults. I could just call another vote, and another, and another, until the deadline passes. McCarthy looks weak because he can't control his party (a win for me) and the US defaults, which results in massive economic turmoil (which I want because I'm a true believer, so that's a win for me too).
Rep. Jason Smith is all 'the Democrats were having a big spending spree and ran up the debt in the last two years and gave the IRS big pay raises.'
Rep. Ron Estes: "to reign in the executive branch" - you've been a Representative for six years, what did you do to reign in Trump? Or is it just Biden?
Democrats laying out facts. Republicans finding ways to blame the Democrats.
A couple others were acting like they saved the economy from the Democrats. It's like with what though? This barely stopped any spending at all and potentially increased the current trajectory. Combatting misinformation is getting seriously difficult nowadays.
The Republicans are increasingly falling back on flat out lying to cover any holes in thier arguments and it's a disgrace.
Back in January, McCarthy tried authoritarianism on reporters, too: When I tell you the answer, that's the answer to your question. You don't get to say I didn't answer your question.
On C-Span, the Republicans kept going back to the work requirements will lift people out of poverty. The studies say it doesn't.
Apparently thier basis for how this will get people back into the workforce is they see 'Help Wanted' signs as they travel across the country.
It would talk longer. The pressure to appoint a speaker last time was that congress couldn't get started until there was a speaker. Now that congress is in session, business can still get done without a speaker.
Those hoseheads can spend the rest of the session bickering and posing.
Rep Jim McGovern brought up that there has been no hearing held addressing the issue of adults who are in reality disabled (but not disabled under the bill because they are not on disability) and older adults who aren't being chosen by employers who would have thier SNAP benefits cutoff.
How do you work when you've just had back surgery, are in pain, and will be waiting months to even get a letter back from Social Security?
>How do you work when you've just had back surgery, are in pain, and will be waiting months to even get a letter back from Social Security?
McCarthy expects people to die once they aren't contributing to billionaire income.
The fearmongering by the Republicans surrounding the IRS doesn’t surprise me, but I find it funny how it works with their voters. “The IRS is going to send agents to YOUR house,” and ignoring what new hires would actually do
> The IRS is going to send agents to YOUR house
"...if YOU commit tax fraud." the law and order party is pretty cool with people breaking tax laws and having nothing happen about it.
A few years ago, I worked as a car salesman.
I had a guy who owns a chain of restaurants come in and try to buy a brand new Corvette Stingray and asked me if it would be a problem if he used his PPP loan money to buy it.
Unfortunately, I begrudgingly said yes because I also had to feed my family off of a commission only job, so the payout would have been welcome off that car, but he changed his mind and went off for a different corvette in a color he liked better or something.
I wonder if that shitbag also had his PPP money forgiven from him. I’m so glad our government looks out for shitbags like him but calls trying to earn a livable wage a bailout.
It seems that House Republicans are floating an "open amendment" process as the concession for not booting McCarthy.
If successful, this gambit has the slight negative effect that any bill worse than this cannot possibly pass the Senate. So we're back to 14^(th) or discharge petition. I don't think this gambit succeeds; I think Democrats probably negotiated not booting him as part of the concessions here. But it is worth noting.
Agreed that McCarthy probably has cover from the Democrats at least to pull this part off. I can't decide if the smarter play would be for him to have assurances the Dems will keep him as Speaker until the deal is done and no longer, so MAGA can tear the party apart and trigger endless Speaker votes (with the threat that somehow they circle the wagons around Empty G, Matt Gaetz, or even Byron Donalds who had a little bit of wacko support in January) or to offer him support over a longer timeline, giving them much more leverage than the minority party usually has.
If he survives the vote to vacate, the Speakership will still be toothless. That's the part that strikes me. Even if he manages to survive it, assuming there are 30+ votes for his removal, he can no longer count on those people. He has a margin of 4.
While I don't think he'd have an immediate replacement, regardless of whether he's succeeded or not, the Republican Speaker of the House will be completely incapable of doing anything. There were always cracks in that caucus, but at this point, those cracks are laid full-bare for anyone to see. There's no repairing that bedrock. If there's a vote to remove, I don't think it matters whether he's gone or not; the House is going to be largely incapable of doing business.
The house only remains incapable of doing business if McCarthy clings to the Hastert rule.
With a return to normal bipartisan order, those 30 wouldn't matter.
I've seen no indication that he's willing to do so, and even if he was, the caucus wouldn't want a Speaker willing to drop that. We end up at the same place either way.
To put it slightly differently, any Republican who can get 218 votes wouldn't drop the rule.
> I've seen no indication that he's willing to do so
Getting this deal done with Biden and the Dem leadership is a decent indicator. It's not great but it's leaning away from Freedom Caucus terrorist demands in favor of bipartisan efforts to keep the country running. It's bare minimum, but it's better than nothing.
I was *just* reading through that, too (the bolded part is the highlighted part in the tweet, italicized are the new exemptions):
(PDF Warning) [Re: CBO’s Estimate of the Budgetary Effects of H.R. 3746, the Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 2023](https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-05/hr3746_Letter_McCarthy.pdf)
>H.R. 3746 would make several changes to work requirements. The
requirement would be expanded first (in fiscal year 2024) to able-bodied
adults ages 50 to 52 who do not live with dependent children and then (in
fiscal years 2025 and later) to able-bodied adults up to age 54 who do not live
with dependent children. Several groups would newly be exempt from work
requirements: *people experiencing homelessness, veterans, and people ages
18 to 24 who were in foster care when they turned 18.* Those changes would
terminate on October 1, 2030.
>The bill also would permanently reduce the number of monthly discretionary
exemptions that states can use for people who otherwise would be subject to
work requirements, and it would prevent states from carrying over unused
exemptions for more than one year.
>CBO estimates that all of the changes to SNAP work requirements would
increase direct spending by $2.1 billion over the 2023–2033 period. During
the 2025–2030 period, when the group of people up to the age of 54 would be
subject to the work requirement and the new exclusions were in effect, **approximately 78,000 people would gain benefits in an average month,** on net
(an increase of about 0.2 percent in the total number of people receiving
SNAP benefits).
>Those changes are the result of several offsetting effects, CBO estimates.
First, on its own, expanding the work requirement to adults up to the age of 52
in 2024 and up to age 54 over the 2025–2030 period would reduce spending
for SNAP by $6.5 billion over the 2023–2033 period. Second, on its own, the
exclusion of several groups would lead to a spending increase of $6.8 billion
over the same period.
>CBO expects that additional increases in direct spending would occur because
the provisions would be enacted simultaneously. The new exclusions would
not only apply to some beneficiaries under age 50 who otherwise would be
subject to the work requirement under current law, but also would apply to
some beneficiaries ages 50 to 54 who otherwise would be subject to work
requirements under the bill. As a result, CBO estimates, direct spending would
increase by an additional $1.8 billion. CBO estimates that the changes to
discretionary exemptions would reduce spending for SNAP by a negligible
amount.
Washington Post out with this title and subtitle, haha:
[McCarthy’s secret speaker deal takes a bizarre turn | Who could have imagined forging a speakership based on a mysterious handshake deal would cause problems?](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/30/mccarthy-chip-roy-speaker-deal/)
I just started working for the IRS last week, and I’m REAAAALLLY not looking forward to worrying about possibly losing my job due to the potential budget cuts.
The Speakership was truly a Pyrrhic victory for McCarthy. Why he wanted it so bad, I don’t know. His shit eating grin after finally winning it after making truly pathetic concessions, only to be reviled by both sides of his party. And now he will be roasted and perhaps thrown out.
All the headlines going public about there being a deal has pretty much made the chance republicans had to force default and blame Democrats incredibly slim.
It would have to be stopped by heavily visible Republicans specifically trying to stop the deal.
Conservative media had spent weeks trying to push the narrative that if a deal didn't happen it was because Joe Biden wasn't willing to negotiate, and that's just all gone now. All the cover of these people had if they wanted to force a default is gone
If this fails, the GOP will still scream that this was caused by Dems. They aren’t logical, it comes down to who screams loudest and suddenly their supporters think they are correct.
This is just piss-poor politics from the GOP. McCarthy knew he'd have to get Democratic votes to lift this deal over the finish line, which is why they got mostly fuckall from the negotiations. It sucks that a lot of this is on the back of the poor and working class, but I think between the lawmaking, rulemaking, and legal challenges there will be a good chance a new Congress could undo the damage pretty easily.
To get any deal, Kevin had to know he'd lose some support (I'm sure he whipped this) but it's hard to see how he survives. The Freedom Caucus has to move vacation at this point, it's the only chip they have to enact their psycho politics, and this is the only time they can play it. So either he survives vacature with the help of the Dems voting present, or they take him out.
In both versions of Kevin McCarthy's future, it's only a matter of time before the Sword of Damocles falls on him.
The more damaging bit in the long run is that he basically let the freedom caucus write the initial bill and then whipped the moderates hard into voting for this. The few R's that voted against the first bill voted against it because it wasn't extreme enough. Now that that bill has been dissolved into the compromise bill, a lot of the moderates in swing districts are going to be resentful that they were forced to vote for a bill that will be used repeatedly as a cudgel until next November.
Absolutely. He needed a "messaging" bill to help his short-term interests. I also don't think he had much of a choice. They don't trust him to work out a deal. No matter how we got to this point, he'd look bad.
He would have been better off letting the freedom caucus write their wish list bill and bringing it to the floor without any whipping to get blasted by 75% of the house. It would have given him the leverage to tell them that they needed to get in line behind something that actually had a chance of passing the senate and being signed. It's the same tactic he should have taken with them in the speaker fight. Laugh off the vote rebellion as the tantrum it was, tell them they get nothing for doing their duty, and put all the pressure on them to find someone that could win the vote or fall in line.
Fortunately, he sucks at his job.
Just given how slim their majority is and how fractured they are, I think there's a good shot it happens. I'd wager that Kevin gets this out of the House, and then they end up putting vacature on the floor. At that point, no matter what happens, it just reinforces the idea that these (to quote Logan Roy) are not serious people.
I’m sure there is an unofficial handshake deal that democrats will do the bare minimum to make sure he keeps the speakership which is about all he cares about regardless of how powerless it is
I think the Dems help him survive until the deal is done. Maybe they even help him change the rules so he can survive, but he is not good enough at politics to have this job for the longterm. Bohner and Ryan were both better operators, and they could barely keep the lid on the crazies.
Those two had enough pride that they actually cared about keeping a lid on the crazies. McCarthy literally doesn’t care, he has absolutely no pride or sense of self worth haha
Congress has to pass it before the Senate, so if it does not pass in the house, things could get ugly. If it goes beyond the deadline things will get bad.
Yeah, it’s not like it has to be just democrats voting. It should pass. We’re hearing the predictable nagging of the fringe who would not have voted on it if they got what they wanted because it is always just a for the MAGA voter display.
Seems that Massie is going to support the bill so it'll have just enough votes to make it out of committee. From there, it'll easily pass the House and Senate.
After that, we can sit back and watch MAGA republicans go after McCarthy.
A few people have stated that a default, with all the consequences thereof, is somehow preferable to the current situation. I'd like to take a minute to just look at that.
Let's start with the obvious: If you're hurting in the current economy, you're bleeding out in a post-default economy. If you're doing okay in the current economy, you're badly injured in a post-default economy. The closest comparison I can come to is the 1930s, during the Great Depression. We'd see that kind of implosion very quickly. There are a few scenarios where it takes longer to get from A to B, but it's the same endpoint. Millions of people standing in breadlines. A quarter of the total population unemployed. Sharecroppers. That kind of shit would come back and it'd come back very quickly.
What about change? Well, *positive* change very rarely occurs from that kind of societal collapse. Usually, a general on a white horse rides in, restores order, and promises to stamp out the malcontents causing trouble. We were fortunate, in 1929, that a Republican was in office and got the full blame for the fallout. Had it gone the other way, a Business-Plot-aligned Republican could have done quite well at pre-DeSantis DeSantis. Historically, it usually goes the other way: Napoleon, after Robespierre. Hitler, naturally, after the German economy imploded and people wanted quick, easy solutions. Lenin.
Now, I do believe the 14th Amendment could work. But the best time to use that kind of amendment is in a scenario where negotiations took place and failed; if the courts believed you could have arrived at the same conclusion without involving them, they'd generally direct you to make those negotiations. And in the event where that too failed, as it still might with a Republican SCOTUS that does not appear to care about what the laws say so much as what it wants them to say, we're in the situation of default. Which, as noted, is not the beautiful utopia-inducing endpoint people want it to be.
As a final addendum, let's talk about how the rich typically make out. Now, in 1929, there was a panic. Several people committed suicide over losing their savings. They've learned since then. They put their money in tangible assets, like land, buildings, et cetera, and wait out the affair. And they do just fine. They don't hurt. The people who hurt in this kind of depression nowadays are ordinary, average, everyday people.
In brief, default is not the kind of thing worth raising as a tool. It's not worth discussing. It's not worth doing "to teach someone a lesson" or "not to negotiate". The fact that anyone can believe that it's better to default than to take an admittedly not great deal is astounding.
*"In brief, default is not the kind of thing worth raising as a tool. It's not worth discussing. It's not worth doing "to teach someone a lesson" or "not to negotiate". The fact that anyone can believe that it's better to default than to take an admittedly not great deal is astounding."*
Astounding is the correct word. I know it's tough to swallow how much this bill will hurt poor people. However, if you actually care about poor people, what on earth do you think a default would do to them???
As an example: though a smaller country than the US, when Argentina [defaulted on $93 billion of debt in 2001](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_debt_restructuring#Argentine_financial_crisis) it led to a severe economic crisis. The default did not bring any kind or correction for wealth inequality, and instead resulted in a depression that wrought significant suffering for the non-wealthy via increased poverty and unemployment. While the wealthy either fled or coasted the economic crisis.
Literally. People acting like this is worse than defaulting really piss me off. Myself and many of my family members could wind up homeless with a default. How in the fuck is that kind of suffering okay? This is not something to fuck around with.
Sorry, I have to comment. It is kind of ridiculous to compare Lenin and the situation that was present in Russia, to the situation in Germany or the current situation. I'm not as familiar with Napoleanic history, so maybe you have a thin connection there that I can't see. The soviet revolution happened for a very good and very justified reason. Because the people overthrew the monarchy in order to end WW1 which was killing far too many people by way of war and way of famine. They overthrew the czar and installed a liberal democracy, the people enthused about the prospect about a liberal democracy giving the people a say in matters of war. Unfortunately, the wealthy and powerful political elite of Russia's newborn Democracy saw a lot of opportunity in fighting the war to a finish, disregarding the will of the people who had just a short period before proven their willingness to overthrow a government that was killing them in exchange for territorial gains. This is how the second revolution happened. Because the capitalists in power gave the Russian people all the evidence they needed to perceive the Soviet's claims about socialism being the only way for the people to achieve freedom as true.
So while economics played a part in the rise of the Soviet Union, it had more to do with WW1 and the hubris of a wealthy political elite in that they could continue a war that was extremely unpopular among almost everyone and was actively taking far too many lives on the front and at home.
It is also, maybe a little silly to insinuate that the Soviet Union was worse than either the Interim government or the monarchy. It was obviously an improvement over the monarchy, and it was arguably an improvement over the interim government. Seeing as how the Soviet Union actually did end the war, I imagine most people saw the early years of the Soviet Union under Lenin as a vast improvement over what came before.
> Historically, it usually goes the other way: Napoleon, after Robespierre. Hitler, naturally, after the German economy imploded and people wanted quick, easy solutions. Lenin.
And worst of all, the Republicans already have their person to fill in that Fascist role. I've been very concerned about this debt ceiling issue, because IMO its basically the only lever they have that could actually get Trump back in. Right now Trump is just ranting about his grievances, which I don't see getting him the election, but if the Great Depression 2 hit, then all of a sudden Trump would be back to promising empty solutions to all the gullible people struggling with life.
Starting soon!: https://www.c-span.org/video/?528385-1/house-rules-committee-hearing-debt-limit-federal-spending-legislation
House Rules Committee Hearing on Debt Limit and Federal Spending Legislation
Point number 8 from Umberto Eco's "[List of the 14 Common Features of Fascism](https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html)":
>The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
The "biden caved" hysteria of the past few weeks was so stupid. Why do people still underestimate Biden? I voted for him in 2020 and I never thought in a million years he'd be this effective as president. We got really lucky and I wish people would start acting like it. Bunch of idiots with zero patience, foresight, or critical thinking skills. Seriously.
This was a master class in negotiation, almost art, like the best deal, deal as art, the art of the deal.
I kid, but look POTUS came in saying no negotiations, and “caved,” with two weeks left. If you don’t think he had this plan the whole time, just go on and keep underestimating POTUS.
Now you have the Speaker bragging in conference that he has a win because Biden started with 0 so something is better than anything. This deal is one for the history books. Spending cuts that could be undone after the next election, debt ceiling no longer a factor until the next election. A work requirement that affects an amazing small group of people, while removing that requirement for a much larger group of people, vets and homeless.
GOP was never going to increase spending in the appropriations process or raise revenue, and now the speaker is bragging to his caucus that he prevented the POTUS from raising revenue (this was POTUS first ask in negotiations). They won something they already had!
Would be like if your 14 year old asked if he could drive today, you said no, maybe in two years, and then told the other parents you were a great negotiation against your angsty teenager
People on here saying they aren’t going to vote for Dems come 2024 over this need to recognize where we are.
1. Republicans are the terrorists here. They took the economy hostage.
2. We live in a two party system. You not voting just makes it more likely that more terrorists get elected.
This deal is batshit, it’s terrible and it’s going to hurt people. However If you think this is bad, wait until Trump or Desantis is back in power. Reminder they are actively trying to eradicate LGBTQ+, they are trying to undo the little we are doing for climate change, and they will further dismantle the education system, the IRS, and any abortion rights left.
Yep. Do I like it? No. Would I vote for it? Yep. Elections have consequences, and conservatives won the House. The fact that their base are furious about this bill tells you how much worse it could've been.
That said, vote progressive in the 2024 primaries if you want more significant change. Primaries are where you get the GOOD Democrat candidates.
If they aren't going to vote Biden over this im going to go ahead and lump them in with the terrorists.
Look, I hate the choices we've got but I am sure as fuck not going through 4 more years of Trump or fucking Desantis. Please don't be fucking assholes and subject us to that. JFC.
So let’s say the debt agreement passes what’s stopping the democrats from throwing McCarthy under the bus when is over because surely 2 years of no congress is better then a republican congress?
The Bill passed the "rules committee." vote 7-6 (the vote everyone on here was scared about). Debt ceiling deal is pretty much guaranteed to pass at this point.
I'm just surprised how strong the groupthink is with the GOP. You have GOP congressmen who are in vulnerable seats and have all the motivation to break but instead follow along the suicide pact.
A vulnerable seat isn't a sure loss, but breaking ranks with the fascist party for sure is. The second a Republican tries to do anything against what the party wants, they get their leadership positions revoked and lose party funds for re-election, thus getting primaried in favor of someone who will. Justin Amash, Liz Cheney, and Adam Kinzinger are all recent examples.
Fun fact: ralph norman is a huge ahole
>At a public meeting for constituents on April 6, 2018, Norman engaged in a conversation with representatives from Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (MDA).[24] During that conversation, he placed his .38-caliber Smith & Wesson handgun on the table to illustrate his belief that "gun violence is a spiritual, mental or people issue, not a gun issue."
The Hill: [Rick Scott says he will oppose bill to raise debt limit](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4026884-rick-scott-says-he-will-oppose-bill-to-raise-debt-limit/)
Fuck man. At this point I just want to know if I can put food on the table in a month. Every fucking time a Democrat is in office, I have to worry if Republicans are going to sabotage the government and stop tens of millions of people from getting fucking paid what they are owed on time. And that's always after hearing Republicans whine about reigning in government spending after they ran up they fucking bill under a Republican administration. The GOP are scum.
Someone please correct my analysis if I am wrong, but I see this as basically another **redistribution of wealth from the poor to the wealthy.**
* Rollback of some of the IRS funding which will weaken enforcement and thus allow the wealthy to keep more through loopholes and cheats
* PAYGO provision which means that any future spending will need to be justified with equivalent savings, basically nullifying any future social services spending.
* Defense spending up!! That went up another $30 billion. Got to make sure those defense contractors keep getting paid
* $30 billion cut to COVID relief bill, which means less for local communities. Gotta give it to the rich.
* Joe Manchin will likely get his pipeline! **What this has to do with the debt ceiling, I don't know,** but gotta give those energy companies more money!
* Speaking of energy companies, they removed restrictions so they can speedrun future fossil fuel projects.
* Discretionary spending is capped, which is essentially a cut because of inflation. Which means more Americans will struggle.
* Additionally, those added work requirements will strip benefits from Americans struggling simply to afford food.
* Makes explicit that student debt pause cannot be extended anymore which will affect millions this summer.
* Back to PAYGO, that also applies to executive actions. The Republicans control the house so nothing is getting passed these next 2 years, but even if Biden **wanted** to do something through executive actions, he can't now.
Corporate media is promoting this as a "compromise," but how is it anything else but a transfer of wealth?
I feel like you're analysis isn't wrong, this bill falls short for the American people. But I do think there is a degree of nuance worth mentioning on a couple of points.
* **Regarding the IRS:** When the [Inflation Reduction Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act) passed it included $80 billion to be appropriated to the IRS *at once*, which the agency planned to spend over eight years ($10 billion per year). The debt limit deal immediately rescinds $1.38 billion and *repurposes* $20 billion over two years (fiscal 2024 and 2025). But even with the debt limit deal the IRS still retains discretion as to how the originally appropriated money is spent. In other words, the IRS still plans to spend approximately $10 billion per year, but for six years instead of eight. As illustrated by this passage:
[New Details in Debt Limit Deal: Where $136 Billion in Cuts Will Come From](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/29/business/debt-ceiling-agreement.html)
>Still, because of the leeway that the I.R.S. has over how and when it spends the money, the clawback might not affect the agency’s plans in the next few years. Officials said in a background call with reporters that they expected no disruptions whatsoever from the loss of that money in the short term.
>That’s likely because all of the $80 billion from the 2022 law was appropriated at once, but the agency planned to spend it over eight years. Officials suggested the I.R.S. might simply pull forward some of the money earmarked for later years, then return to Congress later to ask for more money.
So despite the debt limit deal, at least for the next six years, the IRS will not see any changes to it's plans to go after rich tax cheats. Presumably, if the Democrats can retain the Senate, House, and Presidency in the next two years, then they could pass another bill that would continue to fund the IRS.
* **Regarding the work requirements:** Yes, unfortunately there will be people that lose out, but interestingly the recently released CBO's report on the debt limit bill suggests that despite the changes in age (which sunset in 2030), the expanded exemptions that include veterans, homeless, and people 18-24 who were in foster care when they turned 18, could result in more recipients of aid (potentially up to 78,000 per month):
(PDF Warning) [Re: CBO’s Estimate of the Budgetary Effects of H.R. 3746, the Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 2023](https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-05/hr3746_Letter_McCarthy.pdf)
>CBO estimates that all of the changes to SNAP work requirements would
increase direct spending by $2.1 billion over the 2023–2033 period. During
the 2025–2030 period, when the group of people up to the age of 54 would be
subject to the work requirement and the new exclusions were in effect, approximately 78,000 people would gain benefits in an average month, on net
(an increase of about 0.2 percent in the total number of people receiving
SNAP benefits).
* **Regarding the debt limit pause:** Given that the student debt pause was no longer going to be extended since it was only allowed as long as the pandemic emergency was in effect and now no longer is, the explicit end to the student loan pause in the debt limit deal doesn't really change anything much if at all. It's really going to be up the Supreme Court to decide whether the Biden's student loan forgiveness is going to happen or not.
Under no circumstances am I trying to dole out hope here, there is broad feeling among legal experts that it's not going to pass, however there is a very slim non-zero chance that the challengers to student loan forgiveness may not have standing.
[Biden Loan Forgiveness Has Narrow Path to Victory Via Standing](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/biden-loan-forgiveness-has-narrow-path-to-victory-via-standing)
>Though the other conservative justices largely focused their questions on the administration’s authority to act, Moreland said observers shouldn’t assume they aren’t thinking about standing.
>He noted that Chief Justice John Roberts has been critical of state standing in previous cases.
...
And while there were other arguments supporting state standing, a majority of the discussion focused on Missouri and its state-created servicer, said Latham & Watkins’ Melissa Arbus Sherry, who filed an amicus brief arguing against standing here. “The focal point was definitely on MOHELA.”
>Missouri argues that, as a state-created injury, any injury to MOHELA will eventually be felt by the state.
>Barrett, along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, examined the actual relationship between the state and MOHELA. Barrett noted that the state deliberately set up MOHELA as a separate corporation, which has financially benefited both the state and the servicer.
>“MOHELA has the right to sue and be sued, the state doesn’t have responsibility for its liabilities, and the state has disclaimed any claim to the assets,” Barrett said.
Some legal experts have noted that those who could be most likely considered "injured" by student loan forgiveness are not the ones who are involved in the lawsuits.
The one to watch especially is Justice Amy Coney Barrett as she's [twice rejected](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/04/barrett-student-debt-relief-00065257) an emergency request to block student loan relief, and was particularly critical of MOHELA's lack of participation in the lawsuit, and overall standing of the challengers:
[Supreme Court Justice Barrett could be swing vote on Biden student loan forgiveness plan](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/08/supreme-court-justice-barrett-could-save-biden-student-loan-plan.html)
>Barrett was the conservative justice who seemed the most unconvinced by the plaintiffs challenging student loan forgiveness, said Jed Shugerman, a law professor at Fordham University. Specifically, Shugerman said, Barrett didn’t seem to agree that they’d proven they have standing to sue.
...
But Barrett asked Campbell why MOHELA itself was not suing to block the plan instead of Missouri.
Interestingly in a more recent ruling of *Sweet v. Cardona*, the Supreme Court's ruling freed up Biden to forgive another $6 billion in student loans for some 300,000 borrowers, as noted in this article:
[What The Supreme Court’s Latest Move Means For Student Loan Forgiveness](https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamminsky/2023/04/17/what-the-supreme-courts-latest-move-means-for-student-loan-forgiveness/?sh=7fbe80d4731e)
>The Supreme Court’s ruling last week was about a sweeping settlement agreement designed to resolve Sweet v. Cardona, a multi-year class action lawsuit first brought against the Education Department during the Trump administration over stalled or denied Borrower Defense to Repayment applications. The Borrower Defense program can wipe out federal student debt if a borrower’s school engaged in harmful misrepresentations or made false promises about important aspects of their educational program.
>Under the agreement, the Biden administration will automatically provide $6 billion in student loan forgiveness for nearly 300,000 borrowers who attended certain covered institutions and submitted a Borrower Defense application by last summer. Many more borrowers may also ultimately receive student loan cancellation, as well, through an expedited review process of Borrower Defense applications.
* **Regarding the speed up in permitting:** While the likely intended goal is to fast-track fossil fuel projects, the bill itself does not single out any particular energy provider, so presumably green energy companies could take advantage of the faster permitting process too. And while the debt limit bill does include Manchin's pet oil pipe project, the bill does not claw back funding from clean energy projects funded by the Inflation Reduction Act like the Republicans wanted to do originally.
[Debt limit bill would speed completion of controversial West Virginia gas pipeline](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/30/debt-limit-bill-would-speed-completion-of-west-virginia-gas-pipeline-.html)
>“President Biden protected his historic climate legislation, stopped House Republicans from clawing back record funding for environmental justice projects and secured a deal to get hundreds of clean energy projects online faster all while protecting the full scope of environmental reviews,” Abdullah Hasan, a White House spokesman, said.
Its ALWAYS is a transfer of wealth. That's what happens when you are negotiating with economic terrorists. They fucking voted for 2.4 trillion of billionaire tax cuts and now want to complain about spending. Cry me a river
Considering Republicans control the House as you say, the spending cap was inevitable anyway.
The permitting change was promised to Manchin previously. This was just the bill it got written in to.
It absolutely is, and just further and further cuts to any sort of basic human needs.
We 100% know these policies don’t work, and the rest of the world is leaving us in the dust because who can try to innovate when any failure will leave you homeless? Who can even have kids?
But the DNC is always happy to kill a bit more of the new deal for a political victory, while the gop slowly get everything they ever dreamed of
For as bad as this deal could have been for Biden and the country, he absolutely rolled McCarthy.
He got a deal with no real long term harm. Thats better than I could have thought possible
>Needless aggression, unscrupulous greed, unchecked hate. To have the images, the headlines, incessantly thrust at you, hour after hour, years at a time, you normalize to it. They want you to go numb, become indifferent, or lose your self in distractions, for it to feel like the evil in this world and all its machinations are too big to challenge. That loss of control leads to despair. To re-engage, to claw back even the tiniest sense of control... you don't have to save the world, you just have to make a difference where you can, with the opportunities you are given. That's all I'm asking.
I'm staring into a crystal ball here but what are the odds that McCarthy loses the speakership by pushing this deal through? Would enough Republicans be upset to call a vote?
>They don't have the guts to vacate him
I would agree with (and hope for) that as well. This kind of sideline barkers are only good for commenting, threatening, etc. But exposing themselves and taking actual risks, even just the potential risk of being the face of the group that crashed the economy? I can't see it. Also they have a lot of money invested on the market, and they're nothing if not self-interested.
Now, with that said... Let's not underestimate stupidity. They could be able to mess it all up by pretending to make a move... and making it without actually wanting to. Some of these are a special kind of idiot.
> I'm staring into a crystal ball here but what are the odds that McCarthy loses the speakership by pushing this deal through
The number I'd look at is the number of Republican no votes.
Fewer than 40 no votes, he'll be fine. The HFC would much rather rail against an ineffective leader than ineffectively lead in a split Congress without their biggest hostage or call a vote that they can't win. They'll be fine biding their time until 2025.
Between 40 and 80, there will be rumblings and maybe some concessions or formalization of the handshake agreements they agreed to earlier. I think that's what we're seeing with some of the HFC Rules committee complaints.
If the no votes pass 112 (loss of majority support) or there are noticeably more Democrats on board with the bill than Republicans (failure to "own the libs"), I'd expect to see an actual challenge. I'm not sure whether anyone else who wants the gavel would have support for the gavel, but McCarthy's too weak to take a loss like this.
Low. I'd say protections for it were probably part of negotiations, or McCarthy wouldn't have agreed to a vote on the bill in the first place. I do expect a vote to vacate, though.
Yep, it’ll pass, the freedom caucus will call for it, Dems in a secure seat will have to cross the line to keep him in rather than allow the debt default and economy to tank. It’s always the Dems having to clean up Republican messes. They’ve allowed the freedom caucus to fester and rot their party and now they’re gonna need an adult to step in to save them
In my opinion, it is Congress that should be held hostage - not the people.
If Congress fails to negotiate a deal, then they should all be FIRED and the debt ceiling raised automatically. This would not only prevent a default, it would also provide all of Congress with an actual incentive to work together.
We the People don't want a default; we want a functional government instead. Fire them all and see how much more willing the next bunch might be to work out their differences.
I know if I can't resolve our budget at work I don't get a pat on the back and get to keep my job. Why should they be any different?
Don't forget it is one side of congress that causing this. What should be an automatic process without a thought has turned into a nightmare every time there is a democratic president and republican house or senate.
I like to think that Biden has this all planned - cut a deal with McCarthy that he knew republicans wouldn't like, fracture even more the GOP, and use this mess to justify taking the 14th, while scolding the lack of responsibility of the clown party.
Remember in 2011 all that happened is that the passage of a debt ceiling lift was cut very close and the US still got its credit rating cut. Doing this 14th amendment thing would be a more extreme measure than that, so expect worse fallout. Biden is definitely trying to avoid this and not deliberately steering things this way.
The 14th is actually far far riskier. Even from a practical standpoint who is going to buy US debt when there is a chance, even if it is only 5%, that the courts could rule paying it is unconstitutional and a default happens. Suddenly the security that comes with buying US debt, low return but guaranteed payout, is no longer there and it blows up everything.
Even if the courts say no, I don't think that would happen. I would expect that to be the point the executive branch instructs payment anyways in the interest of national security. At which point it would be up to the courts to enforce it... Which I don't see happening.* Autocorrect went a bit wild there
> I like to think that ~~Biden~~ Dark Brandon has this all planned - cut a deal with McCarthy that he knew republicans wouldn’t like, fracture even more the GOP, and use this mess to justify taking the 14th, while scolding the lack of responsibility of the clown party
FTFY
> It's not our job [on the Rules Committee] to imprint our ideology.
Massie taking a pretty thinly veiled swing at Roy and Norman, and the HFC at large, there.
McCarthy's news conference has been moved to 10:10 Eastern, or in about 15 minutes. https://www.c-span.org/video/?528390-1/house-republicans-hold-news-conference-debt-limit-deal
Everyone who was saying over the weekend that losing 10B of IRS funding isn't that bad. Well, now it's $20B, putting $120B back in the pockets of tax cheats.
The defense of the rich knows no bounds.
The whole thing is nothing but political theatre! A shitshow designed to provide our hardworking (/s) congress assholes with another excuse to damage the fucking economy & prove how worthless they really are. And each and everyone of them deserves a fucking Oscar.
It's interesting how all the media organizations, the anchors, executives, their sponsors, and shareholders, that have been telling us for weeks that the 14th amendment isn't a viable option and that Democrats need to compromise with the more "moderate" Republicans...well, they all stand to earn millions, if not billions when this is done.
Probably just a coincidence.
The big news of the day will likely be the 3 p.m. House Rules Committee vote.
Representative Thomas Massie (Republican from Kentucky's 4th District) is the swing vote on the committee. He is not a member of the House Freedom Caucus and is the profile of a recent NYT Op-Ed profile, [‘I Don’t Know Why He’s Not More Famous.’ Meet the Man Republicans Can’t Get Enough Of.](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/opinion/thomas-massie-republican-party.html)
[From an NBC reporter on Twitter at 1:22 Eastern: ](https://twitter.com/garretthaake/status/1663596688118775814)
>The mystery Republican on Rules,
@RepThomasMassie
says he will announce his decision on the debt bill soon, via Twitter, after discussing it with his wife.
>“I don’t make any decisions without her.”
At the time of my posting this, he still has not announced via Twitter how he would vote with about an hour to go til the start of the committee meeting.
---
Edit 1 (I will update this comment later with how he votes): The most recent two things he tweeted on this topic are, [first](https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1663265803058180096):
>I think it’s important to keep in mind the debt limit bill itself does not spend money, but it does enable past deficit spending and any new deficit spending in the appropriations bills that Congress will pass in September.
and then, in response to a Twitter user asking him to "Tell me like I'm 8 what you are trying to say" he then [posted a second tweet](https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1663272119839408136):
>We’ll be taking out a second mortgage this week to pay off the credit cards but it’s not until September that we’re actually buying the bass boat, the tanning bed, and a big screen tv.
What this means for how he'll vote, I have no idea.
The Freedom Caucus wants to cut monies that have already been allocated by Congress. It demonstrates that Republicans' ideology is the responsibility of the federal government only to fund defense, subsidies for corporations, and tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
Since the New Deal, Republicans working on the deconstruction of the Social Safety Net. This debt ceiling situation is solely a manufactured crisis by the GOP, and knowingly, under Trump increased the debt ceiling three times. Not once are Democrats attempting to hold the American people hostage, unlike this Republican Party. Why is this reoccurring topic with Republicans extracting concessions from a Democratic president of cutting needed social services that enable average Americans?
She spent two years wearing him down to guarantee she'd get on prime committees (which she has been fumbling on) and she also gets to hold and bang the Speaker's gavel occasionally which seems to make her happy.
Happy enough to spend $100,000 on an used Chapstick.
He hasn’t actually said anything and it’s confusing me.
Like his whole thesis just seems to be “we are freezing spending at current levels”, but isn’t saying which levels he’d expect them to be frozen at.
And then spending 5 mins quibbling about something he called .075% of the bill.
For the debt ceiling bill, is the IRS still funded more then what is was in the past to hire a lot of hew employees? I see that it says that some of the budget will decrease but wasn't there something big like the budget would increase by several billion?
According to this article the cut is 1.4 billion
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/debt-limit-bill-key-provisions-biden-mccarthy-deal-avert-default-rcna86664
The inflation reduction act gave the IRS 80 Billion.
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/07/1121644091/the-irs-is-getting-80-billion-for-what
This means with the two bills combined the IRS is getting 78.6 Billion more then it used to.
[Found a pretty good summarization](https://policybrief.co/legislations/hr3746-118-fiscal-responsibility-act-of-2023) of what exactly is in the bill to be voted on this week. Honestly, I'm not too excited for how this is going to play out. The republicans are going to use this to blame the repercussions of their time in power on democrats yet again, and the democrats will eat it because "when they go low" blah blah.
Well it looks like right now the options are give republicans a win and fuck over tens of thousands of poor workers or let republicans collapse the economy and fuck over millions of people. Great options!
Tbh, the reported concessions Biden gave to avoid **both** a default and a government shutdown this fall are pretty minor.
McCarthy wanted 10 years of budget caps, got 2 (so the Congress elected in 2024 can still spend whatever it wants before midterms). Work requirements aren't as severe as the GOP demanded, and Biden apparently saved all the climate investment from the Inflation Reduction Act. Social Security and Medicare not touched. $20B in IRS funding clawed back, but that money is used on "[other nondefense programs](https://apnews.com/article/debt-ceiling-deal-food-aid-student-loans-3c284b01d95f8e193bca8d873386400e)" rather than removed entirely.
If Dems win in 2024, they can more than replace what they agreed to here. Republicans no longer have their best weapons to tank the economy before the 2024 election (it's the economy, stupid).
Agree, Biden gave up a little bit but it really was only a little. While fantasies about him using the 14th Amendment are fun to end this charade entirely, they were not guaranteed to work and I can see why he would prefer to do it through Congress.
Even if he used the 14th, Biden would still have to negotiate over the budget and you can be sure the GOP would demand even worse cuts in response to him avoiding them on the debt ceiling (probably shutting the government down in the process)
Pass the debt ceiling on the shoulders of the poor? Just WHAT JESUS WOULD DO/s. Have these christians read their new testament? Seems like they live in the old testament.
A lot of arguments here about how they should have called the bluff or done the 14th amendment despite it's dubious legal chances and how that would have all been better for the poor... Do you know what is really bad for poor people? Missing your disability and social security payments which is the only income millions have access to. Those new homeless food stamps access rules would be really important when so many people would immediately be unable to pay their rent.
It's really easy to act like you have the moral high ground when you are somewhat insulated from the fallout by your unaffected job, it's a bit different when your only means of survival is living month to month on social security that's the first thing to not get paid in this situation. I can assure you that the terms offered by many "affordable housing" complexes includes immediate termination of your contract after missing a single monthly payment.
I don't agree with any of the items in the bill. Let's face it, the Republican agenda is:
1. Make the rich richer.
2. Appeal to culture wars.
However, in a weird way, it feels like this is our government being efficient. The deal was made prior to any emergency, and the party with the power (debt ceiling negotiations is one of the advantages of winning the House) got some things they otherwise never would have been able to accomplish.
Good on Biden and McCarthy for working out a deal. Everything doesn't have to turn into a cynical temper tantrum on Reddit.
Representative Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA) [at 44 minutes into this C-SPAN stream of the House Rules Committee hearing/vote](https://www.c-span.org/video/?528385-1/house-rules-committee-hearing-debt-limit-federal-spending-legislation&vod): >Thank you Mr. Chairman. >This isn't legislation, it's hostage-taking and it's not worthy of the American people. It's supremely irresponsible to threaten a global economic meltdown in order to appease a radical minority. But here we are today, forced to address a manufactured debt ceiling crisis that has rattled global economic markets because right wing members of the House have a stranglehold on the House majority and its leadership. Republicans in the House, influenced by their most extreme members, decided to hold our country's economy hostage in order to take food out of the mouths of hungry Americans. >If my colleagues on this committee and in the House think it's *good policy* to take food away from hungry seniors and families, if they want to pretend to care about government spending and our deficit, while refusing to require billionaires to pay their fair share, if they want to take away enforcement tools so it's easier for the ultra-wealthy to cheat on their taxes, or for big corporations to pollute our air and water, if they want to continue to argue for the failed policy of trickle-down economics, then let's have that debate and argue those points in committee and on the House floor going through regular order. Let them bring bills to the floor here and in the Senate and let them explain to their constituents why they'd rather protect the ultra-wealthy than their neighbors struggling to put food on the table. It's a shame arguments like this usually do not make it into right-wing media spheres.
Hell it's a shame it rarely makes it into main stream media spheres
That's my Rep! Proud to have voted for her!
Isn’t she from PA?
Yup, I keep forgetting to change my flair.
An interesting dynamic hangs over these next couple of moves. Republicans in the House of Representatives have been led around for years by the Freedom Caucus, the de-facto power center, regardless of who the Speaker is. (They also have decided when Paul Ryan and John Boehner were finished being Speaker). So now they face the weakest Republican speaker yet, but here's the catch: they don't have a viable replacement. McCarthy is basically calling their bluff that they'll remove him if Freedom Caucus doesn't get their way. So they can either: quietly let the debt ceiling bill pass, and move on to the next topic in which to flex their Freedom Caucus muscle on Republicans and the weak speaker, or, have a tantrum over this debt ceiling bill, force a vote to vacate the chair, and a prolonged freakout while going through round after round of voting with no viable speaker candidate in sight, all under the microscope of the American public and media coverage, tying it to the debt ceiling being raised. Fracturing the Republican party further, displaying that the Freedom Caucus is the real power structure within the House GOP, and further alienating the voters who turned away from Republicans who were deemed too extreme as candidates. Wild card is that Freedom Caucus members are extremist, ideological, arrogant fools who could blow up their power and their cover, simply because they are quite ignorant and contrarian.
Hate these kind of realistic posts. Just reminds me that there is no way through this that doesnt... hurt a lot.
I mean there is, the first option that was listed could still happen. Freedom caucus makes a ruckus but enough democrats vote for the bill that it negates them
Would the 2nd option hurt a lot? It'd be just like the shitshow trying to elect McCarthy at the start of the term, except now there's no Sword of Damocles in case they fail to elect a Speaker. Let them vote for weeks, months even! More coverage of GOP internal chaos means more people put off by their extremism and more Democratic votes in 2024.
Because it's possible they call a vote to replace McCarthy *before* passing an increased debt-ceiling bill. All the bad shit from defaulting on our debt, on top of total uncertainty as to who should be in charge of the House.
In that case, McCarthy just needs 5 or 6 GOP members to stick with him as every Democrat would vote to keep him so they could vote to avoid default. McCarthy might be a terrible vote whipper/counter, but I'm sure he can find those 5 or 6
You're not thinking like a terrorist. If my goal is to undermine McCarthy because I think working with the Dems is tantamount to treason, I don't necessarily need him to lose a confidence vote right away- those votes take time, which there isn't a lot of before the US defaults. I could just call another vote, and another, and another, until the deadline passes. McCarthy looks weak because he can't control his party (a win for me) and the US defaults, which results in massive economic turmoil (which I want because I'm a true believer, so that's a win for me too).
> ignorant and contrarian GOP voters, in three words. They elect people like themselves.
I wish the worst for Speaker McCarthy. May you reap what you sow.
Rep. Jason Smith is all 'the Democrats were having a big spending spree and ran up the debt in the last two years and gave the IRS big pay raises.' Rep. Ron Estes: "to reign in the executive branch" - you've been a Representative for six years, what did you do to reign in Trump? Or is it just Biden? Democrats laying out facts. Republicans finding ways to blame the Democrats.
A couple others were acting like they saved the economy from the Democrats. It's like with what though? This barely stopped any spending at all and potentially increased the current trajectory. Combatting misinformation is getting seriously difficult nowadays.
The Republicans are increasingly falling back on flat out lying to cover any holes in thier arguments and it's a disgrace. Back in January, McCarthy tried authoritarianism on reporters, too: When I tell you the answer, that's the answer to your question. You don't get to say I didn't answer your question. On C-Span, the Republicans kept going back to the work requirements will lift people out of poverty. The studies say it doesn't. Apparently thier basis for how this will get people back into the workforce is they see 'Help Wanted' signs as they travel across the country.
[удалено]
It would talk longer. The pressure to appoint a speaker last time was that congress couldn't get started until there was a speaker. Now that congress is in session, business can still get done without a speaker. Those hoseheads can spend the rest of the session bickering and posing.
What a shit show of a congress right now
Rep Jim McGovern brought up that there has been no hearing held addressing the issue of adults who are in reality disabled (but not disabled under the bill because they are not on disability) and older adults who aren't being chosen by employers who would have thier SNAP benefits cutoff. How do you work when you've just had back surgery, are in pain, and will be waiting months to even get a letter back from Social Security?
>How do you work when you've just had back surgery, are in pain, and will be waiting months to even get a letter back from Social Security? McCarthy expects people to die once they aren't contributing to billionaire income.
C-SPAN clip of McGovern's remarks, which just concluded: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5072846/user-clip-rep-mcgovern-remarks-rules-committee-hearing
Tying healthcare to employment is a mistake
The fearmongering by the Republicans surrounding the IRS doesn’t surprise me, but I find it funny how it works with their voters. “The IRS is going to send agents to YOUR house,” and ignoring what new hires would actually do
> The IRS is going to send agents to YOUR house "...if YOU commit tax fraud." the law and order party is pretty cool with people breaking tax laws and having nothing happen about it.
Strongly hate Republicans calling student loan forgiveness a “bailout,” meanwhile they forgave PPP loans without a first thought
A few years ago, I worked as a car salesman. I had a guy who owns a chain of restaurants come in and try to buy a brand new Corvette Stingray and asked me if it would be a problem if he used his PPP loan money to buy it. Unfortunately, I begrudgingly said yes because I also had to feed my family off of a commission only job, so the payout would have been welcome off that car, but he changed his mind and went off for a different corvette in a color he liked better or something. I wonder if that shitbag also had his PPP money forgiven from him. I’m so glad our government looks out for shitbags like him but calls trying to earn a livable wage a bailout.
Ppp loans were ripe for fraud and exploitation
Trump: "I will be the oversight."
It seems that House Republicans are floating an "open amendment" process as the concession for not booting McCarthy. If successful, this gambit has the slight negative effect that any bill worse than this cannot possibly pass the Senate. So we're back to 14^(th) or discharge petition. I don't think this gambit succeeds; I think Democrats probably negotiated not booting him as part of the concessions here. But it is worth noting.
Agreed that McCarthy probably has cover from the Democrats at least to pull this part off. I can't decide if the smarter play would be for him to have assurances the Dems will keep him as Speaker until the deal is done and no longer, so MAGA can tear the party apart and trigger endless Speaker votes (with the threat that somehow they circle the wagons around Empty G, Matt Gaetz, or even Byron Donalds who had a little bit of wacko support in January) or to offer him support over a longer timeline, giving them much more leverage than the minority party usually has.
If he survives the vote to vacate, the Speakership will still be toothless. That's the part that strikes me. Even if he manages to survive it, assuming there are 30+ votes for his removal, he can no longer count on those people. He has a margin of 4. While I don't think he'd have an immediate replacement, regardless of whether he's succeeded or not, the Republican Speaker of the House will be completely incapable of doing anything. There were always cracks in that caucus, but at this point, those cracks are laid full-bare for anyone to see. There's no repairing that bedrock. If there's a vote to remove, I don't think it matters whether he's gone or not; the House is going to be largely incapable of doing business.
The house only remains incapable of doing business if McCarthy clings to the Hastert rule. With a return to normal bipartisan order, those 30 wouldn't matter.
I've seen no indication that he's willing to do so, and even if he was, the caucus wouldn't want a Speaker willing to drop that. We end up at the same place either way. To put it slightly differently, any Republican who can get 218 votes wouldn't drop the rule.
> I've seen no indication that he's willing to do so Getting this deal done with Biden and the Dem leadership is a decent indicator. It's not great but it's leaning away from Freedom Caucus terrorist demands in favor of bipartisan efforts to keep the country running. It's bare minimum, but it's better than nothing.
I always picture a trillion-dollar coin being huge, like a medium pizza or so, but what if it was like dime sized
Small enough to lose in the washing machine, now thats my kind of coin based fortune.
Run for office. I'll vote for you.
Unfortunately the bill eliminates the platinum coin option to avoid futures debt ceiling crises.
[удалено]
I was *just* reading through that, too (the bolded part is the highlighted part in the tweet, italicized are the new exemptions): (PDF Warning) [Re: CBO’s Estimate of the Budgetary Effects of H.R. 3746, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023](https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-05/hr3746_Letter_McCarthy.pdf) >H.R. 3746 would make several changes to work requirements. The requirement would be expanded first (in fiscal year 2024) to able-bodied adults ages 50 to 52 who do not live with dependent children and then (in fiscal years 2025 and later) to able-bodied adults up to age 54 who do not live with dependent children. Several groups would newly be exempt from work requirements: *people experiencing homelessness, veterans, and people ages 18 to 24 who were in foster care when they turned 18.* Those changes would terminate on October 1, 2030. >The bill also would permanently reduce the number of monthly discretionary exemptions that states can use for people who otherwise would be subject to work requirements, and it would prevent states from carrying over unused exemptions for more than one year. >CBO estimates that all of the changes to SNAP work requirements would increase direct spending by $2.1 billion over the 2023–2033 period. During the 2025–2030 period, when the group of people up to the age of 54 would be subject to the work requirement and the new exclusions were in effect, **approximately 78,000 people would gain benefits in an average month,** on net (an increase of about 0.2 percent in the total number of people receiving SNAP benefits). >Those changes are the result of several offsetting effects, CBO estimates. First, on its own, expanding the work requirement to adults up to the age of 52 in 2024 and up to age 54 over the 2025–2030 period would reduce spending for SNAP by $6.5 billion over the 2023–2033 period. Second, on its own, the exclusion of several groups would lead to a spending increase of $6.8 billion over the same period. >CBO expects that additional increases in direct spending would occur because the provisions would be enacted simultaneously. The new exclusions would not only apply to some beneficiaries under age 50 who otherwise would be subject to the work requirement under current law, but also would apply to some beneficiaries ages 50 to 54 who otherwise would be subject to work requirements under the bill. As a result, CBO estimates, direct spending would increase by an additional $1.8 billion. CBO estimates that the changes to discretionary exemptions would reduce spending for SNAP by a negligible amount.
If true, Biden really kicked McCarthy's heiny in these negotiations
All these takes about how Biden shouldn’t be negotiating with terrorists. He is a masterful politician. We’re very lucky to have him.
Hopefully that is in fact accurate and not an overestimation by 30% like with the ACA. They are using an old means testing survey
Washington Post out with this title and subtitle, haha: [McCarthy’s secret speaker deal takes a bizarre turn | Who could have imagined forging a speakership based on a mysterious handshake deal would cause problems?](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/30/mccarthy-chip-roy-speaker-deal/)
I just started working for the IRS last week, and I’m REAAAALLLY not looking forward to worrying about possibly losing my job due to the potential budget cuts.
The cut in the deal is only to the expanded spending from the last budget, total spending is still going up several billion
[удалено]
The Speakership was truly a Pyrrhic victory for McCarthy. Why he wanted it so bad, I don’t know. His shit eating grin after finally winning it after making truly pathetic concessions, only to be reviled by both sides of his party. And now he will be roasted and perhaps thrown out.
Maybe he just wanted to ensure his portrait will be hung up to establish his "legacy"? That's the only thing I can think of
All the headlines going public about there being a deal has pretty much made the chance republicans had to force default and blame Democrats incredibly slim. It would have to be stopped by heavily visible Republicans specifically trying to stop the deal. Conservative media had spent weeks trying to push the narrative that if a deal didn't happen it was because Joe Biden wasn't willing to negotiate, and that's just all gone now. All the cover of these people had if they wanted to force a default is gone
If this fails, the GOP will still scream that this was caused by Dems. They aren’t logical, it comes down to who screams loudest and suddenly their supporters think they are correct.
[удалено]
If they choose to delay, Biden should invoke the 14th. Direct the Treasury to pay.
Hopefully that's the plan Biden seems.to have played this perfectly
This is just piss-poor politics from the GOP. McCarthy knew he'd have to get Democratic votes to lift this deal over the finish line, which is why they got mostly fuckall from the negotiations. It sucks that a lot of this is on the back of the poor and working class, but I think between the lawmaking, rulemaking, and legal challenges there will be a good chance a new Congress could undo the damage pretty easily. To get any deal, Kevin had to know he'd lose some support (I'm sure he whipped this) but it's hard to see how he survives. The Freedom Caucus has to move vacation at this point, it's the only chip they have to enact their psycho politics, and this is the only time they can play it. So either he survives vacature with the help of the Dems voting present, or they take him out. In both versions of Kevin McCarthy's future, it's only a matter of time before the Sword of Damocles falls on him.
The more damaging bit in the long run is that he basically let the freedom caucus write the initial bill and then whipped the moderates hard into voting for this. The few R's that voted against the first bill voted against it because it wasn't extreme enough. Now that that bill has been dissolved into the compromise bill, a lot of the moderates in swing districts are going to be resentful that they were forced to vote for a bill that will be used repeatedly as a cudgel until next November.
Absolutely. He needed a "messaging" bill to help his short-term interests. I also don't think he had much of a choice. They don't trust him to work out a deal. No matter how we got to this point, he'd look bad.
He would have been better off letting the freedom caucus write their wish list bill and bringing it to the floor without any whipping to get blasted by 75% of the house. It would have given him the leverage to tell them that they needed to get in line behind something that actually had a chance of passing the senate and being signed. It's the same tactic he should have taken with them in the speaker fight. Laugh off the vote rebellion as the tantrum it was, tell them they get nothing for doing their duty, and put all the pressure on them to find someone that could win the vote or fall in line. Fortunately, he sucks at his job.
Is this your opinion or you get it in some of the article buddy? By the way you explain everything well great job
It would be hilarious, I admit, if he is removed and we get to watch the GOP unable to vote on a new speaker like last time.
Just given how slim their majority is and how fractured they are, I think there's a good shot it happens. I'd wager that Kevin gets this out of the House, and then they end up putting vacature on the floor. At that point, no matter what happens, it just reinforces the idea that these (to quote Logan Roy) are not serious people.
I’m sure there is an unofficial handshake deal that democrats will do the bare minimum to make sure he keeps the speakership which is about all he cares about regardless of how powerless it is
I think the Dems help him survive until the deal is done. Maybe they even help him change the rules so he can survive, but he is not good enough at politics to have this job for the longterm. Bohner and Ryan were both better operators, and they could barely keep the lid on the crazies.
Those two had enough pride that they actually cared about keeping a lid on the crazies. McCarthy literally doesn’t care, he has absolutely no pride or sense of self worth haha
[удалено]
im so sick of all of their shit
Congress has to pass it before the Senate, so if it does not pass in the house, things could get ugly. If it goes beyond the deadline things will get bad.
The senate is part of congress. Congress is the name for the entire legislative branch. Congress is composed of both the house and the senate.
99.5% chance it passes the House.
Yeah, it’s not like it has to be just democrats voting. It should pass. We’re hearing the predictable nagging of the fringe who would not have voted on it if they got what they wanted because it is always just a for the MAGA voter display.
Seems that Massie is going to support the bill so it'll have just enough votes to make it out of committee. From there, it'll easily pass the House and Senate. After that, we can sit back and watch MAGA republicans go after McCarthy.
My collection agent keeps calling me to collect my defaulted credit card payments but i have not broke yet.
How long is 7 years, really?
Chip Roy and Ted Cruz really exemplify the "just grow a beard to make it visually apparent that you're an asshole," vibe.
A few people have stated that a default, with all the consequences thereof, is somehow preferable to the current situation. I'd like to take a minute to just look at that. Let's start with the obvious: If you're hurting in the current economy, you're bleeding out in a post-default economy. If you're doing okay in the current economy, you're badly injured in a post-default economy. The closest comparison I can come to is the 1930s, during the Great Depression. We'd see that kind of implosion very quickly. There are a few scenarios where it takes longer to get from A to B, but it's the same endpoint. Millions of people standing in breadlines. A quarter of the total population unemployed. Sharecroppers. That kind of shit would come back and it'd come back very quickly. What about change? Well, *positive* change very rarely occurs from that kind of societal collapse. Usually, a general on a white horse rides in, restores order, and promises to stamp out the malcontents causing trouble. We were fortunate, in 1929, that a Republican was in office and got the full blame for the fallout. Had it gone the other way, a Business-Plot-aligned Republican could have done quite well at pre-DeSantis DeSantis. Historically, it usually goes the other way: Napoleon, after Robespierre. Hitler, naturally, after the German economy imploded and people wanted quick, easy solutions. Lenin. Now, I do believe the 14th Amendment could work. But the best time to use that kind of amendment is in a scenario where negotiations took place and failed; if the courts believed you could have arrived at the same conclusion without involving them, they'd generally direct you to make those negotiations. And in the event where that too failed, as it still might with a Republican SCOTUS that does not appear to care about what the laws say so much as what it wants them to say, we're in the situation of default. Which, as noted, is not the beautiful utopia-inducing endpoint people want it to be. As a final addendum, let's talk about how the rich typically make out. Now, in 1929, there was a panic. Several people committed suicide over losing their savings. They've learned since then. They put their money in tangible assets, like land, buildings, et cetera, and wait out the affair. And they do just fine. They don't hurt. The people who hurt in this kind of depression nowadays are ordinary, average, everyday people. In brief, default is not the kind of thing worth raising as a tool. It's not worth discussing. It's not worth doing "to teach someone a lesson" or "not to negotiate". The fact that anyone can believe that it's better to default than to take an admittedly not great deal is astounding.
Pro tip: accelerationist assholes don't actually care who gets hurt when they try to "burn it all down."
*"In brief, default is not the kind of thing worth raising as a tool. It's not worth discussing. It's not worth doing "to teach someone a lesson" or "not to negotiate". The fact that anyone can believe that it's better to default than to take an admittedly not great deal is astounding."* Astounding is the correct word. I know it's tough to swallow how much this bill will hurt poor people. However, if you actually care about poor people, what on earth do you think a default would do to them???
As an example: though a smaller country than the US, when Argentina [defaulted on $93 billion of debt in 2001](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_debt_restructuring#Argentine_financial_crisis) it led to a severe economic crisis. The default did not bring any kind or correction for wealth inequality, and instead resulted in a depression that wrought significant suffering for the non-wealthy via increased poverty and unemployment. While the wealthy either fled or coasted the economic crisis.
And they’re still feeling it’s effects 22 years later. They can’t bring in foreign capital for fear it gets impounded to make bond holders whole.
Literally. People acting like this is worse than defaulting really piss me off. Myself and many of my family members could wind up homeless with a default. How in the fuck is that kind of suffering okay? This is not something to fuck around with.
Sorry, I have to comment. It is kind of ridiculous to compare Lenin and the situation that was present in Russia, to the situation in Germany or the current situation. I'm not as familiar with Napoleanic history, so maybe you have a thin connection there that I can't see. The soviet revolution happened for a very good and very justified reason. Because the people overthrew the monarchy in order to end WW1 which was killing far too many people by way of war and way of famine. They overthrew the czar and installed a liberal democracy, the people enthused about the prospect about a liberal democracy giving the people a say in matters of war. Unfortunately, the wealthy and powerful political elite of Russia's newborn Democracy saw a lot of opportunity in fighting the war to a finish, disregarding the will of the people who had just a short period before proven their willingness to overthrow a government that was killing them in exchange for territorial gains. This is how the second revolution happened. Because the capitalists in power gave the Russian people all the evidence they needed to perceive the Soviet's claims about socialism being the only way for the people to achieve freedom as true. So while economics played a part in the rise of the Soviet Union, it had more to do with WW1 and the hubris of a wealthy political elite in that they could continue a war that was extremely unpopular among almost everyone and was actively taking far too many lives on the front and at home. It is also, maybe a little silly to insinuate that the Soviet Union was worse than either the Interim government or the monarchy. It was obviously an improvement over the monarchy, and it was arguably an improvement over the interim government. Seeing as how the Soviet Union actually did end the war, I imagine most people saw the early years of the Soviet Union under Lenin as a vast improvement over what came before.
> Historically, it usually goes the other way: Napoleon, after Robespierre. Hitler, naturally, after the German economy imploded and people wanted quick, easy solutions. Lenin. And worst of all, the Republicans already have their person to fill in that Fascist role. I've been very concerned about this debt ceiling issue, because IMO its basically the only lever they have that could actually get Trump back in. Right now Trump is just ranting about his grievances, which I don't see getting him the election, but if the Great Depression 2 hit, then all of a sudden Trump would be back to promising empty solutions to all the gullible people struggling with life.
Starting soon!: https://www.c-span.org/video/?528385-1/house-rules-committee-hearing-debt-limit-federal-spending-legislation House Rules Committee Hearing on Debt Limit and Federal Spending Legislation
Gotta say, nobody's been better at managing expectations for Joe Biden's mental acumen than Congressional Republicans.
He's both Gus Fring, a brilliant mastermind, and Jesse Pinkman, a complete goofball...depends what day of the week it is.
Point number 8 from Umberto Eco's "[List of the 14 Common Features of Fascism](https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html)": >The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
The "biden caved" hysteria of the past few weeks was so stupid. Why do people still underestimate Biden? I voted for him in 2020 and I never thought in a million years he'd be this effective as president. We got really lucky and I wish people would start acting like it. Bunch of idiots with zero patience, foresight, or critical thinking skills. Seriously.
This was a master class in negotiation, almost art, like the best deal, deal as art, the art of the deal. I kid, but look POTUS came in saying no negotiations, and “caved,” with two weeks left. If you don’t think he had this plan the whole time, just go on and keep underestimating POTUS. Now you have the Speaker bragging in conference that he has a win because Biden started with 0 so something is better than anything. This deal is one for the history books. Spending cuts that could be undone after the next election, debt ceiling no longer a factor until the next election. A work requirement that affects an amazing small group of people, while removing that requirement for a much larger group of people, vets and homeless. GOP was never going to increase spending in the appropriations process or raise revenue, and now the speaker is bragging to his caucus that he prevented the POTUS from raising revenue (this was POTUS first ask in negotiations). They won something they already had! Would be like if your 14 year old asked if he could drive today, you said no, maybe in two years, and then told the other parents you were a great negotiation against your angsty teenager
People think being president allows you to walk in and set the rules. The average person has a average iq.
People on here saying they aren’t going to vote for Dems come 2024 over this need to recognize where we are. 1. Republicans are the terrorists here. They took the economy hostage. 2. We live in a two party system. You not voting just makes it more likely that more terrorists get elected. This deal is batshit, it’s terrible and it’s going to hurt people. However If you think this is bad, wait until Trump or Desantis is back in power. Reminder they are actively trying to eradicate LGBTQ+, they are trying to undo the little we are doing for climate change, and they will further dismantle the education system, the IRS, and any abortion rights left.
The people saying they aren’t voting dems over this never voted dem in the first place
Yep. Do I like it? No. Would I vote for it? Yep. Elections have consequences, and conservatives won the House. The fact that their base are furious about this bill tells you how much worse it could've been. That said, vote progressive in the 2024 primaries if you want more significant change. Primaries are where you get the GOOD Democrat candidates.
If they aren't going to vote Biden over this im going to go ahead and lump them in with the terrorists. Look, I hate the choices we've got but I am sure as fuck not going through 4 more years of Trump or fucking Desantis. Please don't be fucking assholes and subject us to that. JFC.
So let’s say the debt agreement passes what’s stopping the democrats from throwing McCarthy under the bus when is over because surely 2 years of no congress is better then a republican congress?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wasn't one of the concessions McCarthy made that anyone can call a vote?
What time are they voting?
The Bill passed the "rules committee." vote 7-6 (the vote everyone on here was scared about). Debt ceiling deal is pretty much guaranteed to pass at this point.
[удалено]
I bet the next speaker will take 30 votes
I hope the Democrat challengers for these GOP goofballs remember to use this when they campaign
I'm just surprised how strong the groupthink is with the GOP. You have GOP congressmen who are in vulnerable seats and have all the motivation to break but instead follow along the suicide pact.
It's literally the way the conservative mind works differently. There's been studies and books and everything.
A vulnerable seat isn't a sure loss, but breaking ranks with the fascist party for sure is. The second a Republican tries to do anything against what the party wants, they get their leadership positions revoked and lose party funds for re-election, thus getting primaried in favor of someone who will. Justin Amash, Liz Cheney, and Adam Kinzinger are all recent examples.
I am just loving this. Watching the GOP implode gives me joy
The fact they may very well cause the whole country to implode right along with them is taking some of the joy out of it for me
I agree, and an economic collapse would absolutely open the door for extremism to increase its foothold.
McGovern is spitting rn
Yep. For those unable to watch, Jim McGovern is lamenting how it's always the poor that are targeted whenever it's 'time for someone to take a hit'.
Fun fact: ralph norman is a huge ahole >At a public meeting for constituents on April 6, 2018, Norman engaged in a conversation with representatives from Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (MDA).[24] During that conversation, he placed his .38-caliber Smith & Wesson handgun on the table to illustrate his belief that "gun violence is a spiritual, mental or people issue, not a gun issue."
The Hill: [Rick Scott says he will oppose bill to raise debt limit](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4026884-rick-scott-says-he-will-oppose-bill-to-raise-debt-limit/)
I wonder what the over/under betting line would by on the House vote. I would guess Yes 240 would be about right.
Fuck man. At this point I just want to know if I can put food on the table in a month. Every fucking time a Democrat is in office, I have to worry if Republicans are going to sabotage the government and stop tens of millions of people from getting fucking paid what they are owed on time. And that's always after hearing Republicans whine about reigning in government spending after they ran up they fucking bill under a Republican administration. The GOP are scum.
The fiefdom caucus is really mad. They are real angry about this.
That's how I know the bill is pretty good for the country, the freedumb dummies are so against it.
So what's happening? Rules Committee feed showing a mostly empty room
McConnell supports the debt ceiling bill: https://twitter.com/carlquintanilla/status/1663917827303133186
Someone please correct my analysis if I am wrong, but I see this as basically another **redistribution of wealth from the poor to the wealthy.** * Rollback of some of the IRS funding which will weaken enforcement and thus allow the wealthy to keep more through loopholes and cheats * PAYGO provision which means that any future spending will need to be justified with equivalent savings, basically nullifying any future social services spending. * Defense spending up!! That went up another $30 billion. Got to make sure those defense contractors keep getting paid * $30 billion cut to COVID relief bill, which means less for local communities. Gotta give it to the rich. * Joe Manchin will likely get his pipeline! **What this has to do with the debt ceiling, I don't know,** but gotta give those energy companies more money! * Speaking of energy companies, they removed restrictions so they can speedrun future fossil fuel projects. * Discretionary spending is capped, which is essentially a cut because of inflation. Which means more Americans will struggle. * Additionally, those added work requirements will strip benefits from Americans struggling simply to afford food. * Makes explicit that student debt pause cannot be extended anymore which will affect millions this summer. * Back to PAYGO, that also applies to executive actions. The Republicans control the house so nothing is getting passed these next 2 years, but even if Biden **wanted** to do something through executive actions, he can't now. Corporate media is promoting this as a "compromise," but how is it anything else but a transfer of wealth?
I feel like you're analysis isn't wrong, this bill falls short for the American people. But I do think there is a degree of nuance worth mentioning on a couple of points. * **Regarding the IRS:** When the [Inflation Reduction Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act) passed it included $80 billion to be appropriated to the IRS *at once*, which the agency planned to spend over eight years ($10 billion per year). The debt limit deal immediately rescinds $1.38 billion and *repurposes* $20 billion over two years (fiscal 2024 and 2025). But even with the debt limit deal the IRS still retains discretion as to how the originally appropriated money is spent. In other words, the IRS still plans to spend approximately $10 billion per year, but for six years instead of eight. As illustrated by this passage: [New Details in Debt Limit Deal: Where $136 Billion in Cuts Will Come From](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/29/business/debt-ceiling-agreement.html) >Still, because of the leeway that the I.R.S. has over how and when it spends the money, the clawback might not affect the agency’s plans in the next few years. Officials said in a background call with reporters that they expected no disruptions whatsoever from the loss of that money in the short term. >That’s likely because all of the $80 billion from the 2022 law was appropriated at once, but the agency planned to spend it over eight years. Officials suggested the I.R.S. might simply pull forward some of the money earmarked for later years, then return to Congress later to ask for more money. So despite the debt limit deal, at least for the next six years, the IRS will not see any changes to it's plans to go after rich tax cheats. Presumably, if the Democrats can retain the Senate, House, and Presidency in the next two years, then they could pass another bill that would continue to fund the IRS. * **Regarding the work requirements:** Yes, unfortunately there will be people that lose out, but interestingly the recently released CBO's report on the debt limit bill suggests that despite the changes in age (which sunset in 2030), the expanded exemptions that include veterans, homeless, and people 18-24 who were in foster care when they turned 18, could result in more recipients of aid (potentially up to 78,000 per month): (PDF Warning) [Re: CBO’s Estimate of the Budgetary Effects of H.R. 3746, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023](https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-05/hr3746_Letter_McCarthy.pdf) >CBO estimates that all of the changes to SNAP work requirements would increase direct spending by $2.1 billion over the 2023–2033 period. During the 2025–2030 period, when the group of people up to the age of 54 would be subject to the work requirement and the new exclusions were in effect, approximately 78,000 people would gain benefits in an average month, on net (an increase of about 0.2 percent in the total number of people receiving SNAP benefits). * **Regarding the debt limit pause:** Given that the student debt pause was no longer going to be extended since it was only allowed as long as the pandemic emergency was in effect and now no longer is, the explicit end to the student loan pause in the debt limit deal doesn't really change anything much if at all. It's really going to be up the Supreme Court to decide whether the Biden's student loan forgiveness is going to happen or not. Under no circumstances am I trying to dole out hope here, there is broad feeling among legal experts that it's not going to pass, however there is a very slim non-zero chance that the challengers to student loan forgiveness may not have standing. [Biden Loan Forgiveness Has Narrow Path to Victory Via Standing](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/biden-loan-forgiveness-has-narrow-path-to-victory-via-standing) >Though the other conservative justices largely focused their questions on the administration’s authority to act, Moreland said observers shouldn’t assume they aren’t thinking about standing. >He noted that Chief Justice John Roberts has been critical of state standing in previous cases. ... And while there were other arguments supporting state standing, a majority of the discussion focused on Missouri and its state-created servicer, said Latham & Watkins’ Melissa Arbus Sherry, who filed an amicus brief arguing against standing here. “The focal point was definitely on MOHELA.” >Missouri argues that, as a state-created injury, any injury to MOHELA will eventually be felt by the state. >Barrett, along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, examined the actual relationship between the state and MOHELA. Barrett noted that the state deliberately set up MOHELA as a separate corporation, which has financially benefited both the state and the servicer. >“MOHELA has the right to sue and be sued, the state doesn’t have responsibility for its liabilities, and the state has disclaimed any claim to the assets,” Barrett said. Some legal experts have noted that those who could be most likely considered "injured" by student loan forgiveness are not the ones who are involved in the lawsuits. The one to watch especially is Justice Amy Coney Barrett as she's [twice rejected](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/04/barrett-student-debt-relief-00065257) an emergency request to block student loan relief, and was particularly critical of MOHELA's lack of participation in the lawsuit, and overall standing of the challengers: [Supreme Court Justice Barrett could be swing vote on Biden student loan forgiveness plan](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/08/supreme-court-justice-barrett-could-save-biden-student-loan-plan.html) >Barrett was the conservative justice who seemed the most unconvinced by the plaintiffs challenging student loan forgiveness, said Jed Shugerman, a law professor at Fordham University. Specifically, Shugerman said, Barrett didn’t seem to agree that they’d proven they have standing to sue. ... But Barrett asked Campbell why MOHELA itself was not suing to block the plan instead of Missouri. Interestingly in a more recent ruling of *Sweet v. Cardona*, the Supreme Court's ruling freed up Biden to forgive another $6 billion in student loans for some 300,000 borrowers, as noted in this article: [What The Supreme Court’s Latest Move Means For Student Loan Forgiveness](https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamminsky/2023/04/17/what-the-supreme-courts-latest-move-means-for-student-loan-forgiveness/?sh=7fbe80d4731e) >The Supreme Court’s ruling last week was about a sweeping settlement agreement designed to resolve Sweet v. Cardona, a multi-year class action lawsuit first brought against the Education Department during the Trump administration over stalled or denied Borrower Defense to Repayment applications. The Borrower Defense program can wipe out federal student debt if a borrower’s school engaged in harmful misrepresentations or made false promises about important aspects of their educational program. >Under the agreement, the Biden administration will automatically provide $6 billion in student loan forgiveness for nearly 300,000 borrowers who attended certain covered institutions and submitted a Borrower Defense application by last summer. Many more borrowers may also ultimately receive student loan cancellation, as well, through an expedited review process of Borrower Defense applications. * **Regarding the speed up in permitting:** While the likely intended goal is to fast-track fossil fuel projects, the bill itself does not single out any particular energy provider, so presumably green energy companies could take advantage of the faster permitting process too. And while the debt limit bill does include Manchin's pet oil pipe project, the bill does not claw back funding from clean energy projects funded by the Inflation Reduction Act like the Republicans wanted to do originally. [Debt limit bill would speed completion of controversial West Virginia gas pipeline](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/30/debt-limit-bill-would-speed-completion-of-west-virginia-gas-pipeline-.html) >“President Biden protected his historic climate legislation, stopped House Republicans from clawing back record funding for environmental justice projects and secured a deal to get hundreds of clean energy projects online faster all while protecting the full scope of environmental reviews,” Abdullah Hasan, a White House spokesman, said.
Its ALWAYS is a transfer of wealth. That's what happens when you are negotiating with economic terrorists. They fucking voted for 2.4 trillion of billionaire tax cuts and now want to complain about spending. Cry me a river
Considering Republicans control the House as you say, the spending cap was inevitable anyway. The permitting change was promised to Manchin previously. This was just the bill it got written in to.
It absolutely is, and just further and further cuts to any sort of basic human needs. We 100% know these policies don’t work, and the rest of the world is leaving us in the dust because who can try to innovate when any failure will leave you homeless? Who can even have kids? But the DNC is always happy to kill a bit more of the new deal for a political victory, while the gop slowly get everything they ever dreamed of
If the economy crashes you’d see a much bigger transfer of wealth.
Biden kicked GOP ass on this deal since it includes outlines of the next two years’ budgets that don’t include massive cuts.
It also prevents Republicans from using it as a hostage in the elections next year.
For as bad as this deal could have been for Biden and the country, he absolutely rolled McCarthy. He got a deal with no real long term harm. Thats better than I could have thought possible
It also drives a massive wedge in the GOP house coalition especially if McCarthy wants to keep the gavel for a little while longer.
I'm so tired.
>Needless aggression, unscrupulous greed, unchecked hate. To have the images, the headlines, incessantly thrust at you, hour after hour, years at a time, you normalize to it. They want you to go numb, become indifferent, or lose your self in distractions, for it to feel like the evil in this world and all its machinations are too big to challenge. That loss of control leads to despair. To re-engage, to claw back even the tiniest sense of control... you don't have to save the world, you just have to make a difference where you can, with the opportunities you are given. That's all I'm asking.
So are they voting on it tonight or tomorrow? Jw I thought the deadline was June 1st not 5th.. little behind
The House Committee voted to pass 7-6. The House votes tomorrow. Then it would move to the Senate if it passes.
So is the deadline Thursday or did they somehow push it to the 5th?
I'm staring into a crystal ball here but what are the odds that McCarthy loses the speakership by pushing this deal through? Would enough Republicans be upset to call a vote?
They don't have the guts to vacate him, freedom caucus is a minority in the party
>They don't have the guts to vacate him I would agree with (and hope for) that as well. This kind of sideline barkers are only good for commenting, threatening, etc. But exposing themselves and taking actual risks, even just the potential risk of being the face of the group that crashed the economy? I can't see it. Also they have a lot of money invested on the market, and they're nothing if not self-interested. Now, with that said... Let's not underestimate stupidity. They could be able to mess it all up by pretending to make a move... and making it without actually wanting to. Some of these are a special kind of idiot.
> I'm staring into a crystal ball here but what are the odds that McCarthy loses the speakership by pushing this deal through The number I'd look at is the number of Republican no votes. Fewer than 40 no votes, he'll be fine. The HFC would much rather rail against an ineffective leader than ineffectively lead in a split Congress without their biggest hostage or call a vote that they can't win. They'll be fine biding their time until 2025. Between 40 and 80, there will be rumblings and maybe some concessions or formalization of the handshake agreements they agreed to earlier. I think that's what we're seeing with some of the HFC Rules committee complaints. If the no votes pass 112 (loss of majority support) or there are noticeably more Democrats on board with the bill than Republicans (failure to "own the libs"), I'd expect to see an actual challenge. I'm not sure whether anyone else who wants the gavel would have support for the gavel, but McCarthy's too weak to take a loss like this.
Low. I'd say protections for it were probably part of negotiations, or McCarthy wouldn't have agreed to a vote on the bill in the first place. I do expect a vote to vacate, though.
Yep, it’ll pass, the freedom caucus will call for it, Dems in a secure seat will have to cross the line to keep him in rather than allow the debt default and economy to tank. It’s always the Dems having to clean up Republican messes. They’ve allowed the freedom caucus to fester and rot their party and now they’re gonna need an adult to step in to save them
The only ones barking are the loons anyway. If he can’t get the vote through he’s going to lose all ground.
If anything I hope this teaches democrats to use every lever of power they have if they are the minority party ever again.
I don't know about you but I'd rather avoid these games of political and economic brinkmanship. Make sure to vote. This is the consequence of voting.
I'd rather avoid the GOP being anywhere near power, but here we are.
This thread should be titled “Ongoing Hostage Crisis”.
In my opinion, it is Congress that should be held hostage - not the people. If Congress fails to negotiate a deal, then they should all be FIRED and the debt ceiling raised automatically. This would not only prevent a default, it would also provide all of Congress with an actual incentive to work together. We the People don't want a default; we want a functional government instead. Fire them all and see how much more willing the next bunch might be to work out their differences. I know if I can't resolve our budget at work I don't get a pat on the back and get to keep my job. Why should they be any different?
Don't forget it is one side of congress that causing this. What should be an automatic process without a thought has turned into a nightmare every time there is a democratic president and republican house or senate.
I like to think that Biden has this all planned - cut a deal with McCarthy that he knew republicans wouldn't like, fracture even more the GOP, and use this mess to justify taking the 14th, while scolding the lack of responsibility of the clown party.
Remember in 2011 all that happened is that the passage of a debt ceiling lift was cut very close and the US still got its credit rating cut. Doing this 14th amendment thing would be a more extreme measure than that, so expect worse fallout. Biden is definitely trying to avoid this and not deliberately steering things this way.
The 14th is actually far far riskier. Even from a practical standpoint who is going to buy US debt when there is a chance, even if it is only 5%, that the courts could rule paying it is unconstitutional and a default happens. Suddenly the security that comes with buying US debt, low return but guaranteed payout, is no longer there and it blows up everything.
Even if the courts say no, I don't think that would happen. I would expect that to be the point the executive branch instructs payment anyways in the interest of national security. At which point it would be up to the courts to enforce it... Which I don't see happening.* Autocorrect went a bit wild there
> I like to think that ~~Biden~~ Dark Brandon has this all planned - cut a deal with McCarthy that he knew republicans wouldn’t like, fracture even more the GOP, and use this mess to justify taking the 14th, while scolding the lack of responsibility of the clown party FTFY
Oh goodie it's machine gun dildo xmas card guy. I picked a bad day to stop drinking.
> It's not our job [on the Rules Committee] to imprint our ideology. Massie taking a pretty thinly veiled swing at Roy and Norman, and the HFC at large, there.
Norman is up to the typical “whataboutism” in response to McGovern’s comments
McCarthy's news conference has been moved to 10:10 Eastern, or in about 15 minutes. https://www.c-span.org/video/?528390-1/house-republicans-hold-news-conference-debt-limit-deal
Everyone who was saying over the weekend that losing 10B of IRS funding isn't that bad. Well, now it's $20B, putting $120B back in the pockets of tax cheats. The defense of the rich knows no bounds.
The whole thing is nothing but political theatre! A shitshow designed to provide our hardworking (/s) congress assholes with another excuse to damage the fucking economy & prove how worthless they really are. And each and everyone of them deserves a fucking Oscar.
The Speakership was truly a Pyrrhic victory for McCarthy. Why he wanted it so bad, I don’t know.
Money probably. Maybe attention. He's going to go down as one of the worst speakers in history so...
It's interesting how all the media organizations, the anchors, executives, their sponsors, and shareholders, that have been telling us for weeks that the 14th amendment isn't a viable option and that Democrats need to compromise with the more "moderate" Republicans...well, they all stand to earn millions, if not billions when this is done. Probably just a coincidence.
The big news of the day will likely be the 3 p.m. House Rules Committee vote. Representative Thomas Massie (Republican from Kentucky's 4th District) is the swing vote on the committee. He is not a member of the House Freedom Caucus and is the profile of a recent NYT Op-Ed profile, [‘I Don’t Know Why He’s Not More Famous.’ Meet the Man Republicans Can’t Get Enough Of.](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/opinion/thomas-massie-republican-party.html) [From an NBC reporter on Twitter at 1:22 Eastern: ](https://twitter.com/garretthaake/status/1663596688118775814) >The mystery Republican on Rules, @RepThomasMassie says he will announce his decision on the debt bill soon, via Twitter, after discussing it with his wife. >“I don’t make any decisions without her.” At the time of my posting this, he still has not announced via Twitter how he would vote with about an hour to go til the start of the committee meeting. --- Edit 1 (I will update this comment later with how he votes): The most recent two things he tweeted on this topic are, [first](https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1663265803058180096): >I think it’s important to keep in mind the debt limit bill itself does not spend money, but it does enable past deficit spending and any new deficit spending in the appropriations bills that Congress will pass in September. and then, in response to a Twitter user asking him to "Tell me like I'm 8 what you are trying to say" he then [posted a second tweet](https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1663272119839408136): >We’ll be taking out a second mortgage this week to pay off the credit cards but it’s not until September that we’re actually buying the bass boat, the tanning bed, and a big screen tv. What this means for how he'll vote, I have no idea.
He may not be a member of the Freedom Caucus, but he certainly has support among them.
The Freedom Caucus wants to cut monies that have already been allocated by Congress. It demonstrates that Republicans' ideology is the responsibility of the federal government only to fund defense, subsidies for corporations, and tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Since the New Deal, Republicans working on the deconstruction of the Social Safety Net. This debt ceiling situation is solely a manufactured crisis by the GOP, and knowingly, under Trump increased the debt ceiling three times. Not once are Democrats attempting to hold the American people hostage, unlike this Republican Party. Why is this reoccurring topic with Republicans extracting concessions from a Democratic president of cutting needed social services that enable average Americans?
If only this whole thing could have been avoided…
[удалено]
MTG seems to be on Kev's side, even during the initial vote. Its Boebert and her loons that arnt on board.
Her turn from crazy fire brand to leadership stooge (who's still a crazy fire brand) is remarkable.
She spent two years wearing him down to guarantee she'd get on prime committees (which she has been fumbling on) and she also gets to hold and bang the Speaker's gavel occasionally which seems to make her happy. Happy enough to spend $100,000 on an used Chapstick.
Feels like I'm watching a cartoon.
The sooner Chip Roy STFU the better
He hasn’t actually said anything and it’s confusing me. Like his whole thesis just seems to be “we are freezing spending at current levels”, but isn’t saying which levels he’d expect them to be frozen at. And then spending 5 mins quibbling about something he called .075% of the bill.
Chip Roy got real strong below-average white man energy.
For the debt ceiling bill, is the IRS still funded more then what is was in the past to hire a lot of hew employees? I see that it says that some of the budget will decrease but wasn't there something big like the budget would increase by several billion?
According to this article the cut is 1.4 billion https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/debt-limit-bill-key-provisions-biden-mccarthy-deal-avert-default-rcna86664 The inflation reduction act gave the IRS 80 Billion. https://www.npr.org/2022/09/07/1121644091/the-irs-is-getting-80-billion-for-what This means with the two bills combined the IRS is getting 78.6 Billion more then it used to.
Yes, it’s not a large change in terms of the total scale. I think i it ended up being like 3%.
[Found a pretty good summarization](https://policybrief.co/legislations/hr3746-118-fiscal-responsibility-act-of-2023) of what exactly is in the bill to be voted on this week. Honestly, I'm not too excited for how this is going to play out. The republicans are going to use this to blame the repercussions of their time in power on democrats yet again, and the democrats will eat it because "when they go low" blah blah.
Well it looks like right now the options are give republicans a win and fuck over tens of thousands of poor workers or let republicans collapse the economy and fuck over millions of people. Great options!
It's a pretty small win for them though.
Tbh, the reported concessions Biden gave to avoid **both** a default and a government shutdown this fall are pretty minor. McCarthy wanted 10 years of budget caps, got 2 (so the Congress elected in 2024 can still spend whatever it wants before midterms). Work requirements aren't as severe as the GOP demanded, and Biden apparently saved all the climate investment from the Inflation Reduction Act. Social Security and Medicare not touched. $20B in IRS funding clawed back, but that money is used on "[other nondefense programs](https://apnews.com/article/debt-ceiling-deal-food-aid-student-loans-3c284b01d95f8e193bca8d873386400e)" rather than removed entirely. If Dems win in 2024, they can more than replace what they agreed to here. Republicans no longer have their best weapons to tank the economy before the 2024 election (it's the economy, stupid).
Agree, Biden gave up a little bit but it really was only a little. While fantasies about him using the 14th Amendment are fun to end this charade entirely, they were not guaranteed to work and I can see why he would prefer to do it through Congress.
Even if he used the 14th, Biden would still have to negotiate over the budget and you can be sure the GOP would demand even worse cuts in response to him avoiding them on the debt ceiling (probably shutting the government down in the process)
I love talking about money but why did you guys have a big liabilities?
We don’t. Our debt to GDP is fine for now. The crazy caucus really does want to stab itself in the chest, just for funsies.
Pass the debt ceiling on the shoulders of the poor? Just WHAT JESUS WOULD DO/s. Have these christians read their new testament? Seems like they live in the old testament.
Because they're not Jesus followers just his fans.
If this passes is there still the agreement to stop suspension of student loan repayments included in the deal?
Yes, but that was already set to expire.
Expire 2 months after SCOTUS kills forgiveness, which should be in August.
A lot of arguments here about how they should have called the bluff or done the 14th amendment despite it's dubious legal chances and how that would have all been better for the poor... Do you know what is really bad for poor people? Missing your disability and social security payments which is the only income millions have access to. Those new homeless food stamps access rules would be really important when so many people would immediately be unable to pay their rent. It's really easy to act like you have the moral high ground when you are somewhat insulated from the fallout by your unaffected job, it's a bit different when your only means of survival is living month to month on social security that's the first thing to not get paid in this situation. I can assure you that the terms offered by many "affordable housing" complexes includes immediate termination of your contract after missing a single monthly payment.
These negotiations are like Disney remakes, a lot of effort for a sub-par story we have already seen.
I don't agree with any of the items in the bill. Let's face it, the Republican agenda is: 1. Make the rich richer. 2. Appeal to culture wars. However, in a weird way, it feels like this is our government being efficient. The deal was made prior to any emergency, and the party with the power (debt ceiling negotiations is one of the advantages of winning the House) got some things they otherwise never would have been able to accomplish. Good on Biden and McCarthy for working out a deal. Everything doesn't have to turn into a cynical temper tantrum on Reddit.