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

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136

Unless you're looking for a particular party's spin on the news?
Ugh, forgot. I need to see if I can stream it. THX!
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,161
136
McConnell's strength is that he can win control of the senate with about 46% of the popular vote.

This is where we need TERM LIMITS. Like.... we need term limits really really bad. The US president was term limited during FDR because FDR became too powerful, the presidency became too powerful of the three branches of government.
Well, what we have today is a situation where senators and in particular one republican senator has the power of the presidency, actually more power than the actual US presidency, yet Mitch McConnell is not held accountable and his power grows and grows year after year. THIS has got to stop.
And I don't consider McConnell's getting reelected time after time as being held accountable. Voters can be wrong. Voters can be fooled. Money fools voters. McConnell is the power of money.

Consider life long US senator Chuck Grassley. Announcing that he will run for yet another term. Grassley will be 95 years old at the end of his term if he wins another term. NINTEY FIVE!!!
And it's not his age, its that Chuck Grassley has been in the US senate for 40 years ""FOURTY YEARS"" and Mitch McConnell for 36 years. And a US president, 8 years at best. Now something is really wrong with THAT. Until we have term limits for all, this will only get worse and worse until the demise of American democracy. America will have a dictatorship but not in the presidency, America will have a dictatorship within the US congress.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. $1.2T which includes $550B above baseline spending (the new money part).
Thanks for the info.

Now, I just want to scream! I wanted a $4-5T infrastructure bill to rebuild this country's infrastructure while building out a new de-carbonized economy. So glad so many congress critters can only see the tips of their noses. How can so many not see that we need a new New Deal. What do we need for people to see that, the sky lighting on fire??!!

$550B in new spending :mad:. The UK has committed to ~ $120£ (IIRC) in pure infrastructure spending. Our GDP is ~ 8 times that of their much smaller country. Now how come one can never find a howitzer when one needs to blow off some steam.
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,053
8,333
136
This is where we need TERM LIMITS. Like.... we need term limits really really bad. The US president was term limited during FDR because FDR became too powerful, the presidency became too powerful of the three branches of government.
Do you think the US president is weaker or more powerful today than in the 1930s? Because if you think the former, well, I have some great news about some beachfront property in New Mexico to sell you.

As for term limits: we have them in the form of elections. If the constituents stop liking their rep, they can vote them out. Term limits on legislatures will just increase churn and decrease institutional knowledge, giving more power to unelected people and lobbyists that know how to work the system.
 

DarthKyrie

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2016
1,545
1,305
146
If we accept, for the sake of argument, that deficits and debt are bad in the context of US federal spending, I think we can also accept that going cold turkey would be, at the very least, incredibly risky.

The point of setting a hard cap yet distant cap is similar to why we set international emission targets for certain dates. It's easier to adapt gradually knowing a specific constraint needs to be met at a specific time.

In terms of the debt limit, capping it at some far-away large number in a way that's difficult to undo accomplishes two things: First, this kind of jockeying around government shutdowns would thankfully cease for a few decades. Second, it gives ample time for adaptation. And while a number like 100T sounds like a lot today, with compounded gradual inflation it's only a matter of time before it isn't all that significant relative to government income.

Someone needs to read up on how Alexander Hamilton set up our financial system, here's a hint the debt that the 13 States ran up during the Revolution was used to build the credit of the United States.

You don't think that going cold turkey would be risky? Or you're unwilling to accept hypotheticals for the sake of argument? Either way, a weird comment.



That kind of logical cancellation is only valid in a strictly either/or scenario, not when there's a third option: in this case, the status quo.



When I make an argument for balanced budgets, you ignore that and ask why a cap is a good mechanism. When I make an argument for the why the cap is a good mechanism to get balanced budgets, you ask why we would want to adapt to balanced budgets. This circular argumentation is not in good faith.

How would paying off our debt benefit the United States and the people of the United States when the debt is owned by the people of the United States in the form of Treasury Bills?

Again, all I am asking is why your plan is a good idea. You have worked very hard to avoid answering this.

He can't answer because it would cause incredible harm to our economy as well as the world's economy due to how much business is done in US Dollars. If we did as this asshat suggests we would be in a situation much worse than the Great Depression because our dollar would end up almost worthless.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,161
136
Term limits on legislatures will just increase churn and decrease institutional knowledge
True. The institutional knowledge on how to abuse the system.

Net worth senator Chuck Grassley: $3.8 Million.
Salary senator Chuck Grassley: $193,400 Per Year.

Net worth senator Mitch McConnell: $35 million.
Salary senator Mitch McConnell $193,400 Per Year.

Net worth senator Dianne Feinstein $90 million.
Salary senator Dianne Feinstein $193,400 Per Year.

Net worth senator Chuck Schumer $1.5 million.
Salary senator Chuck Schumer $193,400 Per Year.

Beginning to see the trend here?
Mitch McConnell would have needed to save 100% of his yearly senate salary over his 36 years, and even then Mitch would only have around 6 million in the bank.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie
Dec 10, 2005
25,053
8,333
136
True. The institutional knowledge on how to abuse the system.

Net worth senator Chuck Grassley: $3.8 Million.
Salary senator Chuck Grassley: $193,400 Per Year.

Net worth senator Mitch McConnell: $35 million.
Salary senator Mitch McConnell $193,400 Per Year.

Net worth senator Dianne Feinstein $90 million.
Salary senator Dianne Feinstein $193,400 Per Year.

Net worth senator Chuck Schumer $1.5 million.
Salary senator Chuck Schumer $193,400 Per Year.

Beginning to see the trend here?
Mitch McConnell would have needed to save 100% of his yearly senate salary over his 36 years, and even then Mitch would only have around 6 million in the bank.
How will term limits solve this?
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,161
136
How will term limits solve this?
Never was this meant to be a life long career. In fact, public service was intended as "donating" ones time for the good of the community, never for personal gain.
Put it this way, we've tried everything else and look at where we are. But, we have never tried term limits.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,040
136
Term limits on legislatures will just increase churn and decrease institutional knowledge, giving more power to unelected people and lobbyists that know how to work the system.

Staffers will become the institutional knowledge. Further separating voters from the actual power in Washington.

Term limits are the reason Bill Clinton had to step down and George Bush got to start the Iraq war.
Term limits are the reason Barrack Obama had to step down and Donald Trump became President.

Think about how much better America would have been if term limits were not brought forth to attack good Presidents.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,079
136
Term limits means they only have political pull for so long a time, and most of their power and influence comes from their political pull. They get book deals and lobbyists and special opportunities to make tons of money because they have political pull. Of course, if they could only do 8 years it stands to reason they might spend their entire 8 years just working on making their own lives better.

I mean, most of them really dont do shit for their constituents and somehow keep getting re-elected. Some of them have close to 50 years in congress.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,161
136
Staffers will become the institutional knowledge. Further separating voters from the actual power in Washington.

Term limits are the reason Bill Clinton had to step down and George Bush got to start the Iraq war.
Term limits are the reason Barrack Obama had to step down and Donald Trump became President.

Think about how much better America would have been if term limits were not brought forth to attack good Presidents.

We don't know, and that's the risk we take with the unknown, but term limits are better than guaranteed corruption of power.
But enough with the term limits because it's never gonna happen as long as those who would be term limited are calling the shots. What would you think Mitch McConnell prefers, his term limited or to remain in power so to seek even more power? Mitch is very aware of his power, they are all aware of their power, and they will never give that up. And there is a reason for that.
Take Donald Trump. Trump definitely does not believe in term limits especially when imposed on him. We're going thru that experience right now.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,161
136
So..... moving on.... what ever happened to that Thursday night vote thing in the house? I actually believe the media hoped that Biden would fail so they could move on to covering the Biden train wreck.

And many in the media now sympathetic to Manchin? The fools actually believe that Manchin would actually vote for a plan that he would insist on, but we know he will refuse supporting his own plan in the end. At least the liberals in the process know who they are dealing with Joe Manchin and they don't trust him. Why the hell should they? I would feel a lot better if it were the liberals in the party to sink the plan rather than cave to the faked demands of Joe Manchin. If America really really wants the build-back-better, they can do exactly as Manchin suggested. Elect more liberals then pass the plan. And that could be the true path forward because, Americans really want this Biden agenda. They need it. They realize that, now....
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,648
26,746
136
Staffers will become the institutional knowledge. Further separating voters from the actual power in Washington.

Term limits are the reason Bill Clinton had to step down and George Bush got to start the Iraq war.
Term limits are the reason Barrack Obama had to step down and Donald Trump became President.

Think about how much better America would have been if term limits were not brought forth to attack good Presidents.
Staffers and lobbyists. In many states with term limits the role of crafting legislation is effectively outsourced to lobbyists and special interest groups like ALEC who provide "Example legislation" that is often just adopted as is.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,648
26,746
136
Never was this meant to be a life long career. In fact, public service was intended as "donating" ones time for the good of the community, never for personal gain.
Put it this way, we've tried everything else and look at where we are. But, we have never tried term limits.
We've tried term limits at the state level. It's a shit show. Fuck that. Fix redistricting so that more races are competitive and extremists are much less likely to hold office and those elected to office have to actually respond to a broad portion of society instead of the most rabid base.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the fix is more representatives. Congress capped the number and I’m pretty sure if challenged the law that capped it would be ruled unconstitutional.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,116
14,484
146
True. The institutional knowledge on how to abuse the system.

Net worth senator Chuck Grassley: $3.8 Million.
Salary senator Chuck Grassley: $193,400 Per Year.

Net worth senator Mitch McConnell: $35 million.
Salary senator Mitch McConnell $193,400 Per Year.

Net worth senator Dianne Feinstein $90 million.
Salary senator Dianne Feinstein $193,400 Per Year.

Net worth senator Chuck Schumer $1.5 million.
Salary senator Chuck Schumer $193,400 Per Year.

Beginning to see the trend here?
Mitch McConnell would have needed to save 100% of his yearly senate salary over his 36 years, and even then Mitch would only have around 6 million in the bank.

It’s really not as cut and dry as you think.

Being a civil servant our salaries top out just under that of Congress.

If you’ve been a professional who ends their career making in the low 6 figures while maxing out your retirement, especially with the market returns over the last 30 years it’s not extremely difficult to end up with more than $1M in your retirement account.

In fact there’s almost 100K civil servants with more than $1M in their TSP accounts.

So the senators you have up there who are in their 50’s-60’s worth single digit millions it isn’t that out of the norm for working professionals at the end of their career - especially if their spouse makes similar money.

Schumer and Grassely aren’t even in the top 1% of wealth which starts at $4.4M.

So for many of them, even though they are well off by average American standards it’s not impossible to be that well off without kick-backs or under the table / illegal payments.

Feinstein and McConnell obviously have money from other sources. I’m pretty sure In McConnells case a big chunk came from his wife who has ties to Chinese business interests.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie and Ajay

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
Term length isn't the problem in congress. The big problems are the structure of the Senate and that the US House has not increased in size since 1911.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,852
136
Term length isn't the problem in congress. The big problems are the structure of the Senate and that the US House has not increased in size since 1911.
The problem with Congress is that one party doesn't need to win over anywhere close to a majority of voters to gain power. Democracy is fundamentally a popularity contest and one of the two parties found out it doesn't need to be popular to win.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
The problem with Congress is that one party doesn't need to win over anywhere close to a majority of voters to gain power. Democracy is fundamentally a popularity contest and one of the two parties found out it doesn't need to be popular to win.

This is what my post was meant to imply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fskimospy

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,040
136
The problem with Congress is that one party doesn't need to win over anywhere close to a majority of voters to gain power. Democracy is fundamentally a popularity contest and one of the two parties found out it doesn't need to be popular to win.
I feel this is because republicans have been looking at the long game for decades, winning control of local and State governments, and with their latest of now taking control of who can verify elections, makes Democracy very unstable in the near future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie and Ajay

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,222
10,877
136
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the fix is more representatives. Congress capped the number and I’m pretty sure if challenged the law that capped it would be ruled unconstitutional.
Bingo! Under representation is driving all of this! Double HOR at a minimum!
 
  • Love
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
The problem with Congress is that one party doesn't need to win over anywhere close to a majority of voters to gain power. Democracy is fundamentally a popularity contest and one of the two parties found out it doesn't need to be popular to win.
Isn't the problem really present when the parties are close to 50/50 splits in both houses. Then a couple of congress persons/Senators can really hold sway. I'm not a big supporter of 50%+1 rule. I'd rather have 60%+1 being the required minimum to pass legislation. As I endlessly forget provisions of the constitution, I'm not sure if that possible.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
Bingo! Under representation is driving all of this! Double HOR at a minimum!
What do we get with a sizeable increase in the number of representatives in the house? It's population based, so I don't understand how it is failing.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,852
136
Isn't the problem really present when the parties are close to 50/50 splits in both houses. Then a couple of congress persons/Senators can really hold sway. I'm not a big supporter of 50%+1 rule. I'd rather have 60%+1 being the required minimum to pass legislation. As I endlessly forget provisions of the constitution, I'm not sure if that possible.
Why would a supermajority requirement be better?

The senate effectively has a 60%+1 rule in effect for a lot of legislation as it is and I think most people would agree that the Senate is completely paralyzed and dysfunctional.