Can McCarthy survive as Speaker?

#303
#303
hog88 said:
Not true, we don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem, no matter how much revenue the federal mafia rakes in they always spend more.
Click to expand...

You are correct. We don't have a revenue problem. But it is fool's gold to think we would ever get a bipartisan consensus on spending cuts without some form or fashion of increasing revenue.

Because at the end of the day to truly enforce spending cuts without touching revenue, you will need a White House, House of Representatives, and Senate on your side and the political will to make those spending cuts.... For the party of crying about spending problems, Republicans had the opportunity to do in from January 2017 - January 2019 and ran far from it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and tbh
#305
#305
volgr said:
McCarthy could have exerted pressure to get those bills out of Committee, and if he couldn't then he is too weak and ineffective to be Speaker, but he didn't. Why? Because they would have exploded the budget, as you say. Why would they have exploded the budget? Because the majority in the GOP, Trump included, don't actually give a damn about fiscal responsibility. It's lip service for votes but those bills coming out committee would have exposed the GOP's scam.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with this. The problem I have you is you have 2 paths. Wait until the next election cycle and hope the people willing to enforce these changes get elected or you try to make incremental changes aka compromise. Congress has a low approval rating, but I don't think that is an excuse to just give up on governing. When I was younger (35 years old now), I was all for the shutdowns and sequesters of the early 2010's..... Not I just don't think we are at a point where we just pick up our toys and go home....

Especially when people have made up their mind on the next 2 years the minute election night was over in November adn they saw for 2 years they would have a 4 seat majority and plotted out how to cause the most chaos possible.
 
#308
#308
JMSqb11 said:
You are correct. We don't have a revenue problem. But you it is fool's gold to think we would ever get a bipartisan consensus on spending cuts without some form or fashion of increasing revenue.

Because at the end of the day to truly enforce spending cuts without touching revenue, you will need a White House, House of Representatives, and Senate on your side and the political will to make those spending cuts.... For the party of crying about spending problems, Republicans had the opportunity to do in from January 2017 - January 2019 and ran far from it.
Click to expand...

Your not wrong (except for the increasing revenue) that any meaningful cuts in spending would require compromise on tax increases.

Tax increases almost never increase revenue, historically they have actually lead to less revenue. But that doesn't matter to the fools in DC, they have to sell any spending cuts with taxing the rich.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and LouderVol
#317
#317
hog88 said:
Your not wrong (except for the increasing revenue) that any meaningful cuts in spending would require compromise on tax increases.

Tax increases almost never increase revenue, historically they have actually lead to less revenue. But that doesn't matter to the fools in DC, they have to sell any spending cuts with taxing the rich.
Click to expand...

If you came to me with a proposal that slashes spending or gets to a balanced budget that requires incremental tax increase, I would take that trade every day of the week. I care more about spending than revenue.... We can be spending hawks all we want, but getting actual cuts would come with some sort of concession unless (as I mentioned earlier) you have total control of the White House and Both Chambers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sudden Impact
#318
#318
JMSqb11 said:
If you came to me with a proposal that slashes spending or gets to a balanced budget that requires incremental tax increase, I would take that trade every day of the week. I care more about spending than revenue.... We can be spending hawks all we want, but getting actual cuts would come with some sort of concession unless (as I mentioned earlier) you have total control of the White House and Both Chambers.
Click to expand...

If I had an ounce of trust in the federal government I too would accept some increased taxes coupled with a spending cut plan that would eliminate the debt and deficit. But alas I don't have any trust in the federal government and they will never come up with a plan to eliminate our debt so screw any more taxes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, AM64, Vol since 77 and 8 others
#319
#319
Two House rules will have to be changed/amended or rescinded. I don't see it happening but epic is a word used to describe it. Without those changes, he can't serve in that capacity.
 
#321
#321
K-town Vol Fan said:
You laugh but this is why your party is in the piss poor shape that it is. Their main goal is trolling the left and owning the libs and do not give a **** about running the country.
Click to expand...
I am sorry, what has been the redeeming focus of the Dems? Going after Trump, right or wrong I don't really care; or giving aid to Ukraine. Not sure what running the country Biden has done in the mean time. Free stuff for Covid, students (but not anyone else with debt), and illegal immigrants. not a lot of hard decision making going on moving the country forward. everything has been reductive. and don't get me wrong, my opinion is the same for all the Rs too. thats just a different color of socialism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, AM64, Vol since 77 and 2 others
#323
#323
Sudden Impact said:
Two House rules will have to be changed/amended or rescinded. I don't see it happening but epic is a word used to describe it. Without those changes, he can't serve in that capacity.
Click to expand...

Correct. If Republicans somehow keep/grow the majority in 2024, I fully expect there to be a new Speaker January 2025. Someone who isn’t currently in the running.
 
#325
#325
I'd like to remind those in the "burn it down" camp that our Forefathers weren't just passionate rebels with torches and no plans.

The Continental Congress was developed for a year or more and in place months before they started "burning it down." They were as measured and sober about the formation of a new government as they were fed up with the King.

My issue with Gaetz and "burn it down" is: the Speaker needs to go but who and what is next? Do we just strike a match to the GOP leadership and hope for the best?

That's really not how it happened in the 1770s. Read some history.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top