posted by gutSo McCarthy is the first speaker, ever, to be removed.
Nice job, Republicans. Oh well, I guess the Senate still looks good for blocking total Dem control.
Essentially McCarthy agreed to be on a short leash after the 15th vote last January. Whether this is the right way to go about it who knows, but continuing to kick the can down the road as we zoom past $33 TRILLION in unsustainable debt is without a doubt not the correct answer.
posted by QuakerOatsEssentially McCarthy agreed to be on a short leash after the 15th vote last January. Whether this is the right way to go about it who knows, but continuing to kick the can down the road as we zoom past $33 TRILLION in unsustainable debt is without a doubt not the correct answer.
The thing is, nothing will be fixed with this. What's the first thing the temporary speaker did? Booted Nancy Pelosi out of her office, showing this to all be political theater. When the Trumpers and the liberal wackos took over out national dialogue, nothing of any substance got accomplished. This recent vote will not change any of this. We are in a political dark time. I don't see how it goes away. We're listening to the rantings of a guy like Matt Gaetz? Are you kidding me? This guy is a polititard out of central casting. But that's what we get. Maybe he and AOC could elope and move to Cuba - he for the people, she for the system.
posted by gutNo idea, although apparently McCarthy is saying he won't run again.
I'm not sure the Democrats are actually hoping to flip some Republicans to take control. I get the politics angle, but you can't exactly point fingers at Republicans when you voted for this chaos, too.
That the state of politics today, and the danger of partisanship, that with these super narrow majorities partisanship allows the radical wing of either party to cause problems.
Pretty much. On one hand, I can see why the Ds would be cool with McCarthy being ousted, as he is the typical career politician hack whom typical career politician hacks love when he's on their team and HATE when he's on the other team. On the other, larger, hand, it just seems counterproductive to say, "We've got infighting amongst the opposition?!? HAVE AT IT, GUYS!!!!!!" and leave it at that. Just seems that (a) they're allowing the crazy branch of the Rs to gain a larger voice since it was them that basically put McCarthy in their pocket in order for him to be named speaker and it was them that made the move to remove him from the role the minute he went against their wishes and (b) it likely will open the door for them to push, push, push for someone more "fuck working together; my way or nothing" to wind up in the job.
posted by HereticPretty much. On one hand, I can see why the Ds would be cool with McCarthy being ousted
I can't imagine it's serious, but if they pick Trump that would just be classic.
Not to mention, how often would you have to suspend activity because the Speaker had to appear in court? And he's an idiot - he's never going to learn procedural rules or follow them.
posted by QuakerOatsEssentially McCarthy agreed to be on a short leash after the 15th vote last January. Whether this is the right way to go about it who knows, but continuing to kick the can down the road as we zoom past $33 TRILLION in unsustainable debt is without a doubt not the correct answer.
Yes. Mccarthy set himself up to fail as he did agree to the condition that any one member can bring a motion. That is what happened.
The funny thing is, we all know it on here,but it rarely gets mentioned: if we really, really want to tackle the debt, be honest about it. It means drastic cuts to the entitlement programs and the defense budget. But, Republicans know that would get them no where as those are really popular. So,they argue about 20% of federal spending, while ignoring the real causes.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Well, another 20% is about $800B in interest on the debt....So,they argue about 20% of federal spending, while ignoring the real causes.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Yes. Mccarthy set himself up to fail as he did agree to the condition that any one member can bring a motion. That is what happened.
The funny thing is, we all know it on here,but it rarely gets mentioned: if we really, really want to tackle the debt, be honest about it. It means drastic cuts to the entitlement programs and the defense budget. But, Republicans know that would get them no where as those are really popular. So,they argue about 20% of federal spending, while ignoring the real causes.
Agreed, how about both sides just agree to a straight percent cut to all parts of the fed government whatever that percent is to have a surplus…cut everything by that percent.
Then both sides are equally mad.
posted by jmogAgreed, how about both sides just agree to a straight percent cut to all parts of the fed government whatever that percent is to have a surplus…cut everything by that percent.
Then both sides are equally mad.
Problem is, that would be incredibly unpopular. It would be a very hard sell to tell people that they were going to see their benefits, whether SS, Medicare, or Medicaid cut.
It would be painful if it is to be done. Someone would need to have the frank conversation with the public. Ronald Reagan isn't walking through that door, and even he balked at it.
Personally, I'm the type of person who would rather have the bandaid ripped off quickly, have the big ouchie and then get over it. I realize that millions like the idea of peeling it off in stages and staying in their comfort zone.
Either way, it's going to hurt. That bandaid is going to have to come off for healing to happen. The argument is how to get it off and have the big cities believing they like it.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Problem is, that would be incredibly unpopular. It would be a very hard sell to tell people that they were going to see their benefits, whether SS, Medicare, or Medicaid cut.
It would be painful if it is to be done. Someone would need to have the frank conversation with the public. Ronald Reagan isn't walking through that door, and even he balked at it.
I agree. I could even buy into not touching SS payments to elderly who paid into it their whole lives. Take that percent and distribute it everywhere else under one circumstance: the government passes a law that it can NEVER “borrow” from the SS fund again.
I think we need a realistic approach and do not support spending cuts initially even though I know we need to cut spending at least 30-40 %. ( I know I know you guys think I’m a libtard )
I would suggest a spendings FREEZE. No additional spending for 1 year ( or ever for that matter) and force all the departments to identify their own fraud and excesses and make their own initial 10% cuts. We need to identify all spending that is critical and non negotiable, and spending that is prudent but not necessarily required for the operation and security of our Republic. Any other spending would not take place, and if we have a disaster it would come out of the “prudent bucket. Initially, this will not be enough, but with the “FREEZE” it would start paying debt in about 5 years. We have to start somewhere
: End drunk rant
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieThe thing is, nothing will be fixed with this. What's the first thing the temporary speaker did? Booted Nancy Pelosi out of her office, showing this to all be political theater. When the Trumpers and the liberal wackos took over out national dialogue, nothing of any substance got accomplished. This recent vote will not change any of this. We are in a political dark time. I don't see how it goes away. We're listening to the rantings of a guy like Matt Gaetz? Are you kidding me? This guy is a polititard out of central casting. But that's what we get. Maybe he and AOC could elope and move to Cuba - he for the people, she for the system.
She was booted from the office because that office is reserved for the most current former speaker, which is now McCarthy. It was not HER office. McCarthy will now occupy that office space, per longstanding protocol.
posted by Devils AdvocateI think we need a realistic approach and do not support spending cuts initially even though I know we need to cut spending at least 30-40 %. ( I know I know you guys think I’m a libtard )
I would suggest a spendings FREEZE. No additional spending for 1 year ( or ever for that matter) and force all the departments to identify their own fraud and excesses and make their own initial 10% cuts. We need to identify all spending that is critical and non negotiable, and spending that is prudent but not necessarily required for the operation and security of our Republic. Any other spending would not take place, and if we have a disaster it would come out of the “prudent bucket. Initially, this will not be enough, but with the “FREEZE” it would start paying debt in about 5 years. We have to start somewhere
: End drunk rant
One of your more coherent and thoughtful rants. Keep drinking.
There is no way you can cut SS and Medicare across the board after workers contributed and employers matched it, and it was earmarked specifically and individually to those workers. That would be criminal. As it is, the overall return on the contributions are basically criminal to begin with, but that is another discussion. Raising normal retirement age another year, maybe. Other than that, possibly move to a tiered structure where if you are over say, age 50, you get everything you are supposed to get; between 35-50, you can stay in and get a modified amount or a modified start date, but with the option to opt out and have your contributions and matches routed elsewhere; and under 35 you can fully opt out to a privatized system.
The government has proven itself to be a monumental thief; it cannot be trusted; it has to end.
They need to increase SS withholding (Europe's equivalent is 50% higher than ours). That. combined with lower benefit increases designed to lag inflation will pretty quickly make it solvent without any painfully deep cuts. Ending the SS cap will help a good bit, as would means-testing the benefits
Medicare is another animal. We seem to only collect about 1/5 of the benefits we pay out to the average person. So if you bump that, that basically puts you in a FICA range similar to Europe.
posted by QuakerOatsThere is no way you can cut SS and Medicare across the board after workers contributed and employers matched it, and it was earmarked specifically and individually to those workers. That would be criminal. As it is, the overall return on the contributions are basically criminal to begin with, but that is another discussion. Raising normal retirement age another year, maybe. Other than that, possibly move to a tiered structure where if you are over say, age 50, you get everything you are supposed to get; between 35-50, you can stay in and get a modified amount or a modified start date, but with the option to opt out and have your contributions and matches routed elsewhere; and under 35 you can fully opt out to a privatized system.
The government has proven itself to be a monumental thief; it cannot be trusted; it has to end.
I'm against raising the retirement age any further. Doing so won't affect people with desk jobs or even minimal physical labor, but will be detrimental to those blue collar workers who actually break a sweat for a living. They barely make it to retirement age as it is, often with bad crippling health and in the long-term will add to their already out of reach healthcare costs.
posted by Devils AdvocateI think we need a realistic approach and do not support spending cuts initially even though I know we need to cut spending at least 30-40 %. ( I know I know you guys think I’m a libtard )
I would suggest a spendings FREEZE. No additional spending for 1 year ( or ever for that matter) and force all the departments to identify their own fraud and excesses and make their own initial 10% cuts. We need to identify all spending that is critical and non negotiable, and spending that is prudent but not necessarily required for the operation and security of our Republic. Any other spending would not take place, and if we have a disaster it would come out of the “prudent bucket. Initially, this will not be enough, but with the “FREEZE” it would start paying debt in about 5 years. We have to start somewhere
: End drunk rant
Agreed, which is why I liked (I think it was him) Ben Carson’s 1% plan. Reduce every department by 1% each year for 7 years and with tax revenue increases in that 7 years the budget would be balanced and a surplus would start happening.
posted by jmogAgreed, which is why I liked (I think it was him) Ben Carson’s 1% plan. Reduce every department by 1% each year for 7 years and with tax revenue increases in that 7 years the budget would be balanced and a surplus would start happening.
I think it takes a lot longer than that. I haven't looked at the exact numbers in a while, but I'm going to ballpark a $1T deficit on a $4.7T in revenues.
But actually, the math is about right. 7 years is 2.8% growth in revenues, which is a bit high but the deficit has also spiked temporarily because of interest rates.
But, yeah, when 60% of your budget is entitlements, it's REALLY hard to squeeze $1T savings out of $2T discretionary spending (a good chunk of which isn't really discretionary).
And most people don't realize how much money $1T is. A lot of people still seem to think the solution to health care, college tuition, and even wages in general is higher taxes on the rich. $1T is about all the 1% take home after-tax, so ignoring the disastrous consequences, taxing everything on the 1% only balances the budget. So then you have to find another sucker to pay for everyone's free shit.
When you look at per capita spending on a lot of this stuff, the US is near the top on all of it. Not truly a tax or spending problem but HOW we spend it.
posted by gutI think it takes a lot longer than that. I haven't looked at the exact numbers in a while, but I'm going to ballpark a $1T deficit on a $4.7T in revenues.
But actually, the math is about right. 7 years is 2.8% growth in revenues, which is a bit high but the deficit has also spiked temporarily because of interest rates.
He was laughed out by the left, but the math works, its literally 6 years of 1% reductions in spending and normal 2.38% increase in revenue to get back to budget surpluses even at $5.7T spending and $4.7T revenue.
