Jump to content

Kevin McCarthy poised to lose first-round vote for Speaker for the first time in a century | Update: McCarthy "wins" Speakership in the FIFTEENTH round...on a technicality

CitizenVectron
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ominous

Ominous

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Nokra said:

Is it though? Seems kinda defeatist... 

 

More so their party, but it will still make the next 2 years unproductive outside of stuff to criticize on here. 

 

Maybe we can get some photo ops at the border of people "going to it" so they can uhhh then do nothing about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jason

Jason

Posted
Posted
  • Any member can call for a vote to oust the speaker
  • McCarthy’s leadership PAC won’t play in safe open primaries
  • A debt ceiling hike must be paired with spending cuts
  • Freedom Caucus members get three of the nine seats on the House Rules Committee, which controls what bills and amendments reach the floor
  • The House will cap fiscal 2024 spending bills at fiscal 2022 levels, which translates to about $130 billion less than the recent omnibus spending bill
  • A new point of order against unauthorized appropriations in a general appropriations bill in excess of the most recent enacted level.
  • A new House Judiciary subcommittee, led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), to probe the “weaponization” of the federal government
  • Votes on a border security plan by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a Freedom Caucus member, that calls for finishing the border wall and expelling migrants attempting to cross the border
  • A promise to move 12 appropriations bills individually, not in an omnibus
  • The House will only consider spending bills under open rules, meaning any member can offer amendments that could gut or kill the bills
  • The House will remove metal detectors from outside the chamber and end proxy voting, both policies put in place by Pelosi
  • Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), who conservatives wanted for speaker instead of McCarthy, is McCarthy’s chosen appointee for the House GOP Steering panel, which decides committee assignments
  • A ban on taxpayer dollars going toward abortions, even though federal law already prohibits this.
63bc666d260000610004f418.jpeg?cache=7x9w

All The Things Kevin McCarthy Gave Away To Become House Speaker

WWW.HUFFPOST.COM
In the new House, hard-line GOPers will dominate on the powerful Rules Committee and any lawmaker can try to kick him out of his job.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ominous

Ominous

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, chakoo said:

 

Yeah, Goo luck with that. I look forward to them going on FoxNews and tell seniors they need to learn to live on even less while prices for the basics have gone up.

 

It's easy. 
"The democrats want to cut social security so they can pay for their hippy electric bisexual dildos. We don't need to cut SSI if they cut their gay electric stuff."

 

 

Pretty sure they'll thrown in Woke and something else as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Commissar SFLUFAN

Commissar SFLUFAN

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, chakoo said:

 

Yeah, Goo luck with that. I look forward to them going on FoxNews and tell seniors they need to learn to live on even less while prices for the basics have gone up.

 

 

Quote

The Republican Study Committee proposed a budget for fiscal 2023 that would gradually increase the eligibility ages for Social Security and Medicare, and change the Social Security benefit formula for people 54 and younger, while not changing it for people closer to receiving benefits.

 

  • Guillotine 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PaladinSolo

PaladinSolo

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

 

 

This seems like a really bad idea for them, a good portion of Gen X is in that group getting screwed which is the GOPs strongest age grouping now, and then you have Millennials which are now the largest population block hitting the prime age for voting, while boomers are going to start dropping like flies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
unogueen

unogueen

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Jason said:
  • Any member can call for a vote to oust the speaker
  • McCarthy’s leadership PAC won’t play in safe open primaries
  • A debt ceiling hike must be paired with spending cuts
  • Freedom Caucus members get three of the nine seats on the House Rules Committee, which controls what bills and amendments reach the floor
  • The House will cap fiscal 2024 spending bills at fiscal 2022 levels, which translates to about $130 billion less than the recent omnibus spending bill
  • A new point of order against unauthorized appropriations in a general appropriations bill in excess of the most recent enacted level.
  • A new House Judiciary subcommittee, led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), to probe the “weaponization” of the federal government
  • Votes on a border security plan by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a Freedom Caucus member, that calls for finishing the border wall and expelling migrants attempting to cross the border
  • A promise to move 12 appropriations bills individually, not in an omnibus
  • The House will only consider spending bills under open rules, meaning any member can offer amendments that could gut or kill the bills
  • The House will remove metal detectors from outside the chamber and end proxy voting, both policies put in place by Pelosi
  • Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), who conservatives wanted for speaker instead of McCarthy, is McCarthy’s chosen appointee for the House GOP Steering panel, which decides committee assignments
  • A ban on taxpayer dollars going toward abortions, even though federal law already prohibits this.
63bc666d260000610004f418.jpeg?cache=7x9w

All The Things Kevin McCarthy Gave Away To Become House Speaker

WWW.HUFFPOST.COM
In the new House, hard-line GOPers will dominate on the powerful Rules Committee and any lawmaker can try to kick him out of his job.

 

Is this winning?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CitizenVectron

CitizenVectron

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Conservative gov in Canada tried raising the retirement age to 67...and lost the next election. Liberals not only lowered it back to 65, they increased contributions to CPP (especially at the higher end of earners), which is going to increase the CPP amount from 25% your top salary to 33% your top salary (there are maxes, of course), and phasing it in over the next few decades starting now.

 

My point is that strong retirement funds are popular, and raising retirement age is not.

  • True 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fizzzzle

Fizzzzle

Posted
Posted

So...  One of the main reasons why inc wealthome tax became a thing was tied to prohibition. In 1910, something like 25% of the federal government's revenue came from alcohol excise taxes. Therefore prohibition meant a drastic cut in government revenue, hence income tax. 

 

The thing is that the rich almost immediately found ways to just not pay income tax, because they don't really make "income" the way the rest of us do. Their wealth is based on assets and leverage to the point that it's easy to dodge taxes because they never "make" money, they just own things, which they never pay taxes on.

 

I would be very interested to see how the GOP plans on keeping up the military budget without income tax that doesn't involve massively taxing the rich in ways we haven't seen before. Since we know that a drop in military budget isn't an option, I kind of weirdly see this as a net win for the people z regardless of how they fuck it up.

 

There really isn't a better way to fuck over poor people than having the primary source of revenue for the government by income tax that the rich basically don't pay.

 

So, I dunno... I'm intrigued. I wonder if the GOP is backing themselves into a position that unintentionally hurts the rich and helps the poor simply because you cannot get rid of income tax without either massively reducing the military budget or taxing the rich, both of which are objectively good things.

  • Halal 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuperSpreader

SuperSpreader

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Fizzzzle said:

 

 

So, I dunno... I'm intrigued. I wonder if the GOP is backing themselves into a position that unintentionally hurts the rich and helps the poor simply because you cannot get rid of income tax without either massively reducing the military budget or taxing the rich, both of which are objectively good things.

 

That's what I'm hoping. The GOP fumbles their way into a more equal tax system 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...