Repubs to filibuster continuing resolution and debt limit increase bill but they say they want a debt limit increase too

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
This is weird - I genuinely don't understand the play here. If Republicans filibuster the debt limit increase there are 3 possible outcomes I see, all of which seem bad for them.

1) Catastrophic debt default and global financial catastrophe.
2) Republicans fold yet again on this issue.
3) Democrats abolish the filibuster for debt ceiling stuff, which would theoretically just make them more comfortable with abolishing it for other things.

I can't see how any of those outcomes are something they want.
The Republicans' motivation here is the same as back in 2009-10 when they encouraged homeowners to stop making their mortgage payments. They hoping to prolong the economic pain until the next election.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,939
7,456
136
The Republicans' motivation here is the same as back in 2009-10 when they encouraged homeowners to stop making their mortgage payments. They hoping to prolong the economic pain until the next election.


The Repub leadership can't ever rely on their legislative record as proof of how they are looking out for the best interests of the middle class and the poor of the nation who elect them to office because it would only show how they are owned and operated by the very wealthy of the nation.

So their only recourse is to distract from that sordid record of theirs by demonizing and dehumanizing the Dems, using every vile and dishonest means at their disposal to paint a false picture of whose interests the Dems are looking out for. I know it's plain as day that the Dems are time and again pushing forward legislation that explicitly benefits the middle class and the poor of the nation yet the FUD con job the Repub leadership has been pulling on their rank and file membership has been long in duration and thorough in measure such that their blue collar followers won't think twice about how they are voting themselves into poverty and servitude of the plutocracy class.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,017
8,545
136
True but does that mean she's irreplaceable in four years? I doubt it. Finding another centrerish candidate who won't go out of their way to do what she's doing seems within the realm of possibility. For the sake of efficiency Mark Kelly has got a twin...

Lobbyists have decided she’s the leverage point they have on the Democrats’ agenda and her thinking that there’s no such thing as bad press and that anything she does to raise her public profile is positive. She's in politics to get rich. It's all about Kristen. She has to ensure that she has a pipeline of contributions coming in. Arizona is also still mostly Republican - not quite the deep red Republican it used to be, but it still leans right. She’s probably counting on taking the center position, figuring she can vote with Dems whenever Republicans are in the majority and voting less Republican when the Democrats are in power. Senators like Sinema have an eye beyond their careers; they have opportunities to serve on corporate boards, work as private consultants, and even corporate lobbyists, using their old connections. I'm sure she fears getting blackballed if she sides with Bernie.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
I just had to post this, in part, because of the insanity of Rubio's tweet and because it seems that NOBODY can't get over the $Price Tag$ malarkey. Can we please have one hour evening news programs again - with, you know, factual analysis! Today we get 108 seconds of babble on an important issue like this. I'd like 10 - so that the average Joes/Janes have some detail about what the issues are.

Probably need to click on the tweet to see the OP image.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,017
8,545
136
They have made the calculation that Democrats are in power; therefore, they will get blamed for any shutdowns. What’s at stake is whether they get the bigger stimulus that the Democrats progressive wing wanted. As long as there’s another party that can be blamed, and as long as that party actually has full control of two branches. McConnell wants the illusion that the Republicans are not infighting and are all in. He sees the Democrats are infighting, and this is what he wants. One thing Republicans have learned from previous government shutdowns and debt limit brinksmanship is that even if public opinion blames them (and it usually does), they will pay little or no price at the polls. After forcing debt limit crises in 2011 and 2013, the GOP went on to very small loses in 2012 and sizable gains in 2014.

McConnel isn’t playing chess. McConnel’s greatest strength as Majority Leader isn’t his strategic acumen or political insight, it’s that he does not give one shit what anyone besides his caucus members think of him, and he will do anything it takes to protect them and add to their ranks. He is absolutely immune to being shamed or cajoled based on public opinion, the opinion of non-Senate-Republican peers, or how he will be judged by history or the hereafter. He has no problem at all being the asshole, even allowing his “moderate” members to criticize him when it helps them politically - knowing that they’ll still back him for Majority Leader. He is in no way bound by precedent, decorum, or his own previous words. He doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. He is the Republican Terminator. There’s maybe 4 Republicans who care about continuing to promote “bipartisanship” and trying to find conciliation on significant swathes of public policy, so McConnell simply ignores them. He doesn’t fight with them or antagonize them; he just ignores them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,852
136
They have made the calculation that Democrats are in power; therefore, they will get blamed for any shutdowns. What’s at stake is whether they get the bigger stimulus that the Democrats progressive wing wanted. As long as there’s another party that can be blamed, and as long as that party actually has full control of two branches. McConnell wants the illusion that the Republicans are not infighting and are all in. He sees the Democrats are infighting, and this is what he wants. One thing Republicans have learned from previous government shutdowns and debt limit brinksmanship is that even if public opinion blames them (and it usually does), they will pay little or no price at the polls. After forcing debt limit crises in 2011 and 2013, the GOP went on to very small loses in 2012 and sizable gains in 2014.

McConnel isn’t playing chess. McConnel’s greatest strength as Majority Leader isn’t his strategic acumen or political insight, it’s that he does not give one shit what anyone besides his caucus members think of him, and he will do anything it takes to protect them and add to their ranks. He is absolutely immune to being shamed or cajoled based on public opinion, the opinion of non-Senate-Republican peers, or how he will be judged by history or the hereafter. He has no problem at all being the asshole, even allowing his “moderate” members to criticize him when it helps them politically - knowing that they’ll still back him for Majority Leader. He is in no way bound by precedent, decorum, or his own previous words. He doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. He is the Republican Terminator. There’s maybe 4 Republicans who care about continuing to promote “bipartisanship” and trying to find conciliation on significant swathes of public policy, so McConnell simply ignores them. He doesn’t fight with them or antagonize them; he just ignores them.
McConnell's strength is that he can win control of the senate with about 46% of the popular vote.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
Clean CR has passed the Senate. House will pass today and Biden will sign so no gov shutdown.

Remains to be seen if the BIF will be voted on today in the House.
 

manly

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
11,849
2,806
136
Clean CR has passed the Senate. House will pass today and Biden will sign so no gov shutdown.

Remains to be seen if the BIF will be voted on today in the House.
I don't know how or when this will all end, but I'd be surprised if the BIF bill is passed today. The progressive caucus is furious at Joe Manchin, and I just don't think the votes are there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
I don't know how or when this will all end, but I'd be surprised if the BIF bill is passed today. The progressive caucus is furious at Joe Manchin, and I just don't think the votes are there.

I doubt the BIF passes today but bottom line is that the progressives aren't going to get a promise on a favorable top line from Manchin even holding the BIF hostage. Does it take them a few days or a week to process their grief and just hope Manchin can be worked up some? Probably.
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,053
8,333
136
I don't know how or when this will all end, but I'd be surprised if the BIF bill is passed today. The progressive caucus is furious at Joe Manchin, and I just don't think the votes are there.
The framing of the reconcilation bill has been kind of shit. Stop saying $3.5 trillion, when it's over a 10 year period. We don't frame defense spending as $7.5 trillion over 10 years - we talk about it in annual terms. If they just talked about the reconciliation bill in terms of annual costs, it would be easier to keep it in perspective relative to other discretionary spending and also undercut some of Manchinema's "too expensive, trillion dollars scary" nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba and ElFenix

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,222
10,877
136
The framing of the reconcilation bill has been kind of shit. Stop saying $3.5 trillion, when it's over a 10 year period. We don't frame defense spending as $7.5 trillion over 10 years - we talk about it in annual terms. If they just talked about the reconciliation bill in terms of annual costs, it would be easier to keep it in perspective relative to other discretionary spending and also undercut some of Manchinema's "too expensive, trillion dollars scary" nonsense.
From what Manchin said today about entitlements, he should just go run as a Republican next time. Why don't the Dems start with threatening primarying these F's. Are we that disparate to have these shitbirds in our party. Can't WE have a little purity? Seems to work just fine for the Pubs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,222
10,877
136
So far, 253 to 174 On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment (continuing resolution) in the house. Looks like a winner.
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,053
8,333
136
From what Manchin said today about entitlements, he should just go run as a Republican next time. Why don't the Dems start with threatening primarying these F's. Are we that disparate to have these shitbirds in our party. Can't WE have a little purity? Seems to work just fine for the Pubs.
Good luck primarying Manchin and then winning. We are talking about WV here, where every other statewide office is securely held by a republican.

Elect more Democrats to the Senate and we wouldn't have to whine about Manchin. Manchin is confusing overall, because he should have policy goals, but then he just tossed all ideas about policy in the trash and focuses solely on total costs.

As for party unity - the Democratic party is better thought of as a coalition of different interests - it's just that the coalition is formed during the primary process and not after the general election.
 

manly

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
11,849
2,806
136
From what Manchin said today about entitlements, he should just go run as a Republican next time. Why don't the Dems start with threatening primarying these F's. Are we that disparate to have these shitbirds in our party. Can't WE have a little purity? Seems to work just fine for the Pubs.
Manchin is a DINO from deep-red WV; and although I don't align closely with his policy positions, the Democrats should feel lucky he caucuses with us. The alternative is Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority Leader; is that your preference?

The reality that progressives fail to understand is there is no mandate for a $3.5T reconciliation bill. We have a 6-vote majority in the House, and a tie-breaker majority in the Senate. Although you can fairly argue that if Repubs can shove the regressive Trump tax cuts down everyone's throats in 2017, we should be able to pass our own legislation. But not only is our "majority" in the 50-50 Senate by the barest of margins, that is only true when you count 2 DINOs in our caucus. Based on this math, it's virtually impossible to pass expansive legislation, but kudos to the team for trying to make sausage.

A reasonable social policy + climate bill will be a feather in the cap for Biden/Dems, but the BIF is absolute must-pass legislation. We cannot sacrifice the latter just because Sinema won't give us the former.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
I doubt the BIF passes today but bottom line is that the progressives aren't going to get a promise on a favorable top line from Manchin even holding the BIF hostage. Does it take them a few days or a week to process their grief and just hope Manchin can be worked up some? Probably.
Are we talking about the infrastructure bill, or the build it back better bill? Losing track of acronyms, as usual. Last I read, the infrastructure bill has been whittled down to $1T :(:(. Pathetic. Just absolutely Pathetic.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
They should take out any subsidizing broadband in rural areas out of any bill. Fuck those inbred fascists, they tried to screw over the cities when Trump was president, so fuck them now
LOL! How do you really feel?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,125
30,518
136
They should take out any subsidizing broadband in rural areas out of any bill. Fuck those inbred fascists, they tried to screw over the cities when Trump was president, so fuck them now
Yup, states with 2 Senators that vote against a bill that passes get nothing from the bill. States with one Senator that votes against get half of the amount they'd get if both voted for it. See how long the Republican party lasts with that system.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
Are we talking about the infrastructure bill, or the build it back better bill? Losing track of acronyms, as usual. Last I read, the infrastructure bill has been whittled down to $1T :(:(. Pathetic. Just absolutely Pathetic.

Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. $1.2T which includes $550B above baseline spending (the new money part).
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,695
8,093
136
Yup, states with 2 Senators that vote against a bill that passes get nothing from the bill. States with one Senator that votes against get half of the amount they'd get if both voted for it. See how long the Republican party lasts with that system.
Yes, yes. I've linked to this before and I'll link it again.

 

Ken g6

Programming Moderator, Elite Member
Moderator
Dec 11, 1999
16,360
4,066
75
Can we please have one hour evening news programs again - with, you know, factual analysis! Today we get 108 seconds of babble on an important issue like this. I'd like 10 - so that the average Joes/Janes have some detail about what the issues are.


Unless you're looking for a particular party's spin on the news?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajay