talkpolitics | Entries tagged with house

Biden admits border is not secure amid funding fight

Since nobody seems to know exactly what is in this "immigration deal" really, and all the characterizations are heresy, I find it disingenuous of supporters of the Senate "deal" to withhold key details from the public. Perhaps they think they can calm the waters by being secretive but all they have done is cause more alarmism and polarization.

Till then it is reckless to assume it's "a good deal" or the "best deal" possible. And here are the possible elements that are certain to kill a potential "deal".

1) Amnesty for those who have illegally entered the US of their own volition. Been there, done that, solved nothing and gives another incentive for crashing the border.

2) A failure to substantially toughen requirements for granting asylum, and failure to provide border agents the power to expel those with dubious claims.

3) A failure to restrict parole to a case by case basis, as required in the the law.

4) Failure to provide expedited removal for the vast majority of illegals caught.

5) Any further requirements by Democrats to expand immigration - not the time or relevancy to immediate border security.

Now the House Republicans are strongly pressing for full adoption of HR2. That isn't realistic, but what is certain is that even the House Ukraine supporting Republicans cannot and will not allow for the absence of substantial changes in the areas cited above.

luzribeiro

Rep. Matt Gaetz files motion to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy, throwing House into new turmoil

I'm struggling to see the end game here. Clearly, it's not just Democrats who helped push the funding through the House; there were enough Republicans to help it along as well. I think the vacate and Speakership vote is going to about as well for MAGAs as the funding vote, unless McCarthy decides to resign. But then there would be another round of insanity in picking a new House Speaker.

All Republicans are doing is showing the country why they should NOT be voted for. If I was a GOP strategist, I'd be pulling my hair out right now considering how vulnerable Biden is, how fragile the Dem-controlled Senate is, and how many opportunities to expand their lead in the House. And this is now the face of the GOP in the House. I know that a lot of so-called Independents are really Republicans who just don't like the label, but even some of them have to acknowledge that this is becoming a shit show.

abomvubuso

There's a holiday coming up that's promising to be even scarier than Halloween, and it's tomorrow. Case in point: people marching on the streets in recent days, dressed up like various other people: Christine Blasey Ford haunted Brett Kavanaugh for quite a while; Sen. Elizabeth Warren got so much into the Native American role that she almost forgot what her entire political career was about (hint: it's not being asshole to even grander assholes); Hillary Clinton crawled from under the pile of books she was signing and decided to join the campaign once more like the good die-hard undead warrior that she is - very fitting for Halloween, don't you think?

The nightmares are plenty around the media as well, where each party is trying to draw attention to the scandals that are more convenient to them. The Dems have tried to boost the expected "blue wave" by using the assault on Kavanaugh's integrity; however, according to the polls, this has only riled up the Republican base and halted the "blue wave" somewhat. Then there was the Elizabeth Warren DNA fiasco, where the public learned that she has a staggering 0.1% Native blood, and that was another Trump PR victory.

( Read more... )

ricomsmith77.livejournal.com

Originally posted by

ricomsmith77 at "2 Steps Forward, or 2 Steps Back: How Can Opposites Attract?"

Before I get started on this article, I thought it was would be nice to start off with a little song.

Check out this video first, and then read the rest of the blog afterwards.......

( Read more... )

radiiters.livejournal.com

Here's the full article, to summarize there's been an increasing number of republican votes, but the chart breaks down the different voting groups and we can see which groups voted for which party. I think its interesting to see how the youngest age group isn't as left wing as most people stereotype. The majority is democrat, yes, but over 40% voted for the republican party in the election.

Statistics are here.

I understand discontentment with the democratic party, but the rise of votes for the Republican party is disconcerting. As someone leaning towards the left wing I feel as if much of my generation didn't actually vote in the elections this year. On top of this, midterm elections are a lot less publicized than the presidential election and therefore treated with less importance when in reality they affect our politics much more than a presidential election.

I also feel as if these statistics could have gone into more depth when it came to minority groups. Theres more than just the African Americans, Hispanics and Asians. And it would have been more informative to take a more in depth look at these groups as to so determine the behavior of the population. Natually, personal opinion is a fluid concept and changes a lot over time, but that doesn't make it unreal or unimportant.

Location: Office
Music: TV background noise

ddstory.livejournal.com

Yeah yeah, I know. The Daily Show ain't no news. Right. You can't seriously be taking your news from the Daily Show, etc etc blabla. Right. And yet...

[Error: unknown template video]

Where essentially Jon Stewart blasts the House..., wait for it... Committee on Science, Space and Technology, wondering how far back we have to go to catch these imbeciles up on basic elementary science. Well, we're probably all aware that it's not their ignorance (even if it's willful) that's the main problem, it's the special interests that shape their stances, and thus compel them to act like complete idiots in their desperate attempts to stall on crucial environmental policy, for the benefit of their respective corporate donors.

In a way, the whole exchange at the committee reminds me of the demonstration that one Richard Feynman did at the hearing about the cause of the Challenge shuttle disaster. All Jon Stewart needed was a C-clamp and a piece of O-ring, and he could've repeated that famous demo.

( Lulz & giggles aside, the problem is much deeper )

luzribeiro.livejournal.com

While we're about dysfunctional institutions...

Boehner lashes out at conservative groups on budget deal

""They're using our members and they're using the American people for their own goals," an animated Boehner told reporters at the Capitol. "This is ridiculous."

OooOo, so the ante is upped now!

Hey, it seems likely even McConnell will vote against the Ryan deal. Which, however, doesn't stop it from passing, mind you. The Tea Partiers will still oppose it, while a sufficient number of GOP-ers will likely join with a sufficient number of Dems to have it pass.

One criticism is that GOP-ers are trading away sequestration for virtually nothing - after all, the deal among themselves had been that they shouldn't give up sequestration without a long-term reform in return (which this bill does not do, at least according to their view). The other criticism comes from the likes of Bill Kristol:

"From the point of view of politics, the budget deal is a significant achievement. It averts a meltdown scenario next month, in which it would have become clear that House Republicans don't in fact have the votes in their own conference to insist on the budget caps and sequester. So the real alternative to the deal isn't a more fiscally conservative outcome achieved by Republican unity; it's GOP political disarray and policy defeat. The deal saves Republicans from this fate, while allowing for a focus throughout the next year and in the 2014 election season on Obamacare and other Obama administration failures, rather than on intra-GOP wars and possible government shutdowns."

Let alone that another shutdown would essentially ~~lose 2014 for the GOP~~ kill the momentum they may've gained from Obamacare's shaky launch. The Dems know this pretty well, and they were prepared to respond accordingly. There might be some truth to the notion that this is the best possible deal for the GOP at this point (you know, "Take a step or two back before you leap a few steps forward", etc etc). In a nutshell: IT WAS A TWAP! BUT THEY ESKAP'D IT! YAYZ?

So they'll choose to swallow their pride, eyes still fixed on the bigger prize: November 2014.

Unless they wanna continue looking tough and avoid becoming the "sissies" they constantly accuse their opponents of being, by budging a little bit here, and setting a precedent where they're no longer the "Party of No". Wonder how that'd reflect on their base, eh?

underlankers.livejournal.com

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/brian_beutler/2011/04/10-week/

I must say that the Democrats have thus far given no sign that they've no political organization whatsoever. Instead they tried to Kansas City Shuffle the Republicans into voting for exactly what they claim they want to put on the American people. The GOP's going to have some big problems thanks to this:

That led to the chaos on the House floor late Friday morning. With almost all Democrats voting present, Republicans realized they were about to accidentally pass a plan that was too politically radioactive even to them. So they pressed several of their own members -- including Reps. David Dreier (R-CA), Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), Buck McKeon (R-CA), and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) -- to switch their votes from yes to no. Indeed, when they realized what the Dems were up to, Republicans managed to flip just as many votes as they'd need to kill the RSC plan, even if every Democrat voted "present." Only 15 Democrats declined to switch their votes from "no" to "present." The plan failed by 16 votes.

The same Tea Partiers that are busy trying to pretend that Lawrence v. Texas and the entirety of US political reform since the McKinley Administration was all a Communist plot are now going to have to hold the GOP's foot to the fire now that they've shown that like all politicians they simply wink and nod to the base but do what's politically sensible. The really great thing is that the GOP's going to have brung it on themselves.

The money quote:

"I thought to myself the Republican leadership is probably thinking we're going to defeat it for them," Hoyer told me in a phone interview Friday. "I said to myself I'm not interested in seeing that happen. I want the Republicans to show what they believe. And if a majority of them believe that that's the kind of budget [they want] the American people need to know that."

Mood: amused

paedraggaidin.livejournal.com

So, last week the U.S. House of Representatives voted not to suspend debate on extending certain provisions of the Patriot Act. The freshmen Republicans voted 78-9 for suspending debate. Now, the Act extensions will have to go through the messy debate and amendment process.

My question is, how do those 78 new freshmen Republican congressmen, many of whom ran on a platform of "the government is too bloated, too intrusive into the private lives and freedoms of Americans!," justify trying to ram through the Patriot Act extension without debate, when the Patriot Act is arguably as intrusive as Obama's healthcare reform that they despise so much? You can't even open a bank account without being subject to the Patriot Act's provisions. Sure, I get the whole "protect our country against international terrorism" argument (quoth Michelle Bachman), and I get that for many self-styled small-government types the words "shrink the size of the federal government" apply to everything but national defense, but seriously, how do they reconcile extending the Patriot Act with the promises that won them Congress, reducing the deficit, shrinking the government, and reversing the government's intrusion into private lives?

Because you can ask pretty much any American who is Muslim or of Middle Eastern descent about how the Patriot Act purports to fight terrorism while respecting their individual civil liberties.

Also last week, Republicans failed to get the necessary votes to suspend debate and pass the United Nations Tax Equalization Refund Act, which would demand the return of some $180 million the U.S. overpaid to the United Nations (funny, that, considering how many other UN members are always screaming about how mean and un-supportive the US is WRT the UN). In fact, only two Republicans voted for it! Now, y'all know I'm no fan of the Tea Party, but even I get fed up with the UN's general atmosphere of "Death to America/Israel!" and "We need to appease more cruel dictators!" and wouldn't mind seeing us get every penny of that $180 million back (and hey, let's send it all to Israel, just to piss off the U.N. Commission on Human Rights!). The UN has been one of the great bogeymen of the American right for decades; many conservatives wouldn't cry if we withdrew completely and kicked the UN's headquarters off US soil (I remember, back when I was a conservative myself, the common anti-UN rhetoric). So...why, Tea Partiers, why didn't you take the chance to give the UN a well-deserved black eye?

Mood: curious

sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com

So, the House of representatives went ahead and voted to repeal Obamacare.

Now I'm inclined to agree with others on this forum that this is primarily a stunt that has little chance of getting past the Senate much less a presidential veto. That said, one can always hope.

You see, I think that Obamacare is a mess and that scrapping it would be a good thing. But reading some of the comments on

riotpredicted and

squidb0i's posts on health care and Eliminationism got me thinking.

Personally I harbor a strong distrust of centralised power, and an extreame dislike of buerocracy. In addition I believe that there are strong negative implications to considering health-care a human right. Specifically, the idea of being entitled to the fruits of another person's (the doctor's) labor. As a result I have often argued against federal health-care.

But my personal reasons do not matter, the counter-argument always comes down to into "Well clearly you want people to die" at which point I am at a loss. "People die" I say, and my opponents will see that as proof of thier superiority, without ever acknowledging that there may be other points of view.

It's easy flippant about the "pro-disease party", actual discourse takes effort.

As a metaphor, I'm against torturing puppies. If someone were to argue in favor of a right to torture puppies I'd assume the worse possible motives and conspiracies. I can't imagine any logic or arguments that would sway me from this presupposition. I suspect that in the minds of many on this forum my opposition to Obamacare is comprable to torturing puppies.

telemann.livejournal.com

A non-binding voice vote at the Democratic caucus rejects the White House compromise plan that was worked out with key Republicans in the Senate this week. House Democrats were incensed especially over the estate tax, as well as the way the negotiations were handled. Paul Krugman has suggested that the White House has also screwed up by having all the benefits front-end loaded (e.g. unemployment benefits), and will run out a full year before the 2012 elections, causing the economy to slow down significantly just in time for Republicans to blame the President. House Democratic caucus members are drafting new proposals for the White House to counter-offer, no reaction yet from the President.

Appearing on Fox News yesterday, Representative Anthony Weiner (my Rep, YAY!), explained House Democratic frustration with the current compromise and offered his analysis especially on the estate tax. Rep Weiner is pretty deft on his feet, refusing to be badgered.

UPDATE 2 PM EST: Speaker of the House Pelosi will not hold a floor vote on the compromise.

( Embedded video behind the cut. )

ytterbius.livejournal.com

Pay-as-you-go Rules.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/extension-of-u-s-tax-cuts-will-prompt-congress-to-discard-own-budget-law.html

Who'd have guessed that as soon as budget-hawk Republicans get into control, the rules that require that new spending be offset by cuts elsewhere or tax increases will go away.

Now, before you say that Dems have been using these rules for some kind of insidious purpose, let me just say that I remember even way back in the day under Bush that the Democratic house made my life very painful as support for Alt-Energy fell under the axe of House Pay-go rules. More recently, the small business tax cut bill was required to cut into future food-stamps and assorted other safety-net programs.

Of course, they can't bite the hand that feeds them, so their first mission is to make sure that the top few percent of earners keep their Bush tax-cuts, even though these same earners have done much better in the last 30 years, and even during the last 3 years, than the lower 95%.

I particularly love this quote: "“The thing about paygo is it was specifically designed by the Democrats to encourage spending and discourage tax reductions,” said John Campbell, a California Republican who sits on the House Budget Committee. “We hate it.”" What a freak. For one thing, he's lying. Pay-go in the house hasn't been some great boon to big spending Democrats. However, it does require that Republicans pay for their programs and their tax cuts. Of course they hate them.

malasadas.livejournal.com

So today Democrats in Congress are feeling a bit like Lady Gaga after wearing her "meat dress" at the Westminster Kennel Club show....

...but Republicans are also probably wondering how to make sense of their huge victories in the House and near upset in the Senate, especially as it regards the Tea Party in general and Sarah Palin in particular. It is without a doubt that Governor Palin was a big king maker in the Republican primaries as her support and the subsequent support of the Tea Party swept in many anti-establishment candidates in the Republican primaries. Many of those Palin-backed candidates won yesterday and will arrive in Washington owing her a great deal.

On the other hand, this morning Senator McConnell must wake up this morning wondering what might have been. As of today, Colorado has been declared for the Democrats by Colorado news sources. Alaska is expected to stay Republican, and Washington state is expected to stay with the Democrats. That will give Republicans 47 seats in the Senate. In Colorado, Ken Buck was the Tea Party candidate against the more widely known and establishment Republican Jane Norton. In Delaware, Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell lost a seat in the Senate that was expected to be a sure thing for Mike Castle. And in Nevada, the immensely unpopular Harry Reid bested Sharon Angle -- as it turned out, Ms. Angle's most fierce opponent in the general election was herself.

If Republicans had won Colorado, Nevada and Delaware, the expected split in the Senate would be 50-50 which either would have kept Vice President Biden very busy or could have made Senator McConnell the majority leader if Republicans had convinced Senator Lieberman to caucus with them.

So the argument could be made that the Tea Party and Sarah Palin, by voting against more established candidates in the primaries, cost Republicans a narrow majority in the Senate.

Of course the counter argument could be made that without the enthusiasm of the Tea Party for voting out Democrats that this conversation would not even be being had right now. If that is the case, then the Republicans owe the Tea Party and Sarah Palin rather a lot. And Governor Palin has more or less informed the Republicans that they had better toe the line -- or face some yet to be determined consequence. Not to be outdone, Glenn Beck has even more forcefully reminded Republicans of the fate of the Whigs.

So what's the take home now for the Republicans who are expected to be led in the House by the very establishment figure of Representative Boehner?

devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com

Washington (CNN) -- With an incoming freshman class of conservative and Tea Party Republicans skewing the GOP conference to the right, there will be little mood for compromise or bipartisan legislation on any major issues in the House, most observers say.

Ron Bonjean, a Republican strategist who worked for the last Republican House speaker, Dennis Hastert, put it bluntly:" It's been a hostile atmosphere, but it will be hostile on nitroglycerin."

While Ohio Republican Rep. John Boehner, who would be the next speaker should Republicans regain control of the House, plans reforms that he says will make the chamber work better, he's already signaled he's not planning to negotiate with the White House or congressional Democrats on his party's top priorities.

Asked last week by talk show host Sean Hannity about a fellow Republican's suggestion to hold off on repealing health care, Boehner said, "This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles."

SOURCE:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/01/house.at.stake/

----

I think Boehner's first duty will be to smoothly integrate the new Tea Party members into the Republican Party mindset - probably by demanding they sign a pledge to not stray from the voting block on any issue. If there is a problem, he could recruit Tom Delay to dance on their heads.

Seriously, the "hostility 'on nitroglycerin' " is likely to occur on Boehner's side of the aisle - at least for a while.

What's your take? Will Boehner's head explode before he 'unifies' his troops?

telemann.livejournal.com

Anthony Weiner (D-NY) is my district representative in the House; and he's an articulate speaker. Here is wonderful clip of him blasting GOP delaying tactics on the 9/11 workers health benefits bill. The Republicans have prevented a vote by using an arcane procedural matter, instead of a simple vote. I don't know if Rep. Weiner is entertaining notions of a Senate run, but I certainly hope so. While he's a pain in the side of the Obama administration, he's definitely a rising star.

dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com

Rule #1 in the Code of Official Conduct for the House of Representatives states:

A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.

That being said, the recent behavior of Rep. Alan Grayson (D - Fl) should be called into question and investigated by the House Ethics Committee.

( Read more )

enders-shadow.livejournal.com

Madison writes in the Federalist Papers that "a representative per thirty thousand inhabitants will render [the representatives] both a safe and competent gardian of the interests which will be confided to it"" (56 emphasis original, repeated in 58)

We have ~300,000,000 people in the US (any bets on what it'll be once we have 2010 census data?)

300,000,000/30,000= 10,000? We have what, 435? That's OK for ~13M people. not 300M.

300,000,000/435= ~689,655 That's more than double the original ratio. That's an order of magnitude and then double. And then a little on top of that too.....

At that proportion, the 13 colonies turned states woulda had...less than 13 representatives

....So when the country began, it had ~3M inhabitants and was going to start with 100 reps. and then grow a bit as the population grew...but over time our population exploded and here we are.

Madison writes of the precaution that must be taken to prevent a council from getting too large; as well as of getting too small. A balance must be struck, for sure. But what is that balance? Is it really 435 per 300M?

Alienating 5K people means something in a 30K/rep system. But at ~690K/rep, 5K means way less.

Now, I'm not suggesting a 10,000 person house of representatives[neither would Madison; he said there was some limit that beyond which it would be counter-productive to add more, he never does say what the limit is, however, i feel 10K is probably safely above that limit]. That's crazy talk. I'm highlighting what I believe is a problem [the ratio of representatives to people is out of balance], and asking you for your thoughts on it.

Maybe you have a solution.
Maybe you have a reason it's not a problem.

Either way, penny for your thoughts?

Here's my wooden nickel for your thoughts: "An epiphany awaits you." -that should be a fortune cookie

mijopo.livejournal.com

So, when Scott Brown was elected, everyone acted as if the sky had fallen and that HRC was doomed. Then finally, the Dems. bit the bullet and said, "never mind, we'll use reconciliation on that sumbitch". Then we go through lots of maneuvers in the House, (very well done, btw, Ms. Pelosi), and they vote on the Senate bill and it passes and everyone is whooping it up and saying, "Bravo, Obama" "Bravo, Democrats" and paying scant attention to the "fix it" bill that the Senate still needs to pass and for which they'll use reconciliation.

So, if whatever the House passed last night is the guts of HCR, the reason we're all rejoicing/worrying about the Red Menace, why all the hand wringing about Brown's election and/or reconciliation? When Brown was elected why couldn't we all, all liberals that is, have shrugged and said, "whatever, the House will pass the Senate Bill, let's not sweat the fix-it bill." Did the House pass the Senate Bill only because they believed the fix-it bill would also get passed? Will they have any recourse if the GOP stops the fix-it bill as they pledge to do? What's in the fix-it bill that was apparently so important when Brown was elected but unimportant now?

I realize I could spend some time with my favorite search engine and figure this out, but thought I'd ask here because I'm lazy and in case others might also benefit from the answers.

telemann.livejournal.com

The House of Representatives will not use "deem and pass" this Sunday, but will instead vote directly on the Senate bill. Apparently Speaker of the House Pelosi is very confident of the passage of the final bill with a vote later on reconcilation on differences. That being said, I'm sure those on the conservative side of the aisle will continue to gnash their teeth and rend their garments. Rahm Emanuel will be the focus of a 60 Minute feature this Sunday, with his thoughts about the Republican party. His comments are spot-on: the Tea Party movement has a lot of engery but nothing else, and the fissures within the GOP from the extreme right are hobbling it. Mr. Rahm also thinks its entirely too early to predict the impact of the Tea Party on the mid term elections right now because there are just too many variables up in the air right now. I agree, unemployment figures will impact the races in November: and between now and October is when a good deal of the stimulus package "brick-and-mortar" projects will start impacting those figures.

gunslnger.livejournal.com

If you don't want to take the opinion of some random LJ people, how about that of an actual respected constitutional lawyer?

http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/entries/general/the-truth-about-the-health-care-bills

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

~~Or even a senior legal analyst with the ACLU? (Yes, he has a couple other guys writing the essay with him.)~~ Sorry, it was late when I read this and I misread it. Still, I don't see anything particularly wrong with the article, so again, address the points, not the messengers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624021919432770.html

America's founders intended the federal government to have limited powers and that the states have an independent sovereign place in our system of government. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation to take control of the American health-care system is the most sweeping and intrusive federal program ever devised. If the federal government can do this, then it can do anything, and the limits on government power that our liberty requires will be more myth than reality.

I predict at least 3 people dismissing the essay because it's from the Wall Street Journal, someone will claim that Mr. Connelly is a hack or something, and 5 or more will just chime in about how much we need health care reform no matter what the bills actually say. If we're lucky, there might be 2 people that actually try to counter the actual points presented.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

MONTHLY TOPIC:
AI Regulation: Striking the Balance

DAILY QUOTE:

"Clearly, the penguins have finally gone too far. First they take our hearts, now they’re tanking the global economy one smug waddle at a time. Expect fish sanctions by Friday."

(nairiporter)

July 2025

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

Talk politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods.

Entries tagged with house

The US border security issue

Gaetz vs McCarthy

Scarier than Halloween

"2 Steps Forward, or 2 Steps Back: How Can Opposites Attract?"

3 Charts Show How American Voted in the Midterms

Burn Noticed

GOP establishment strikes back

Good God in the foothills:

Patriot Act vs. "limited government:" the state of the Tea Party revolution

Dogs and Cats living together...

House Democrats reject White House Deal

First thing to go under Republican control of the House?

Sarah Palin's future as the Republican King Maker?

What's at stake in the House: Hostility 'on nitroglycerin'

Anthony Weiner blasts GOP on 9/11 Emergency workers bill

Is This How A Representative Should Behave?

Population booms, representation shrinks. Now what?

What's up with the Fix-it bill?

Rahm Emanuel Tells Katie Couric: 'Fringe Group' Controlling Republican party

Health care bills

Credits & Style Info

Links

July 2025

Summary