2015 American Politics Thread: The 114th Congress Is in the House!

lol Reid doing some classic knife-twisting here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/harry-reid-paul-ryan-house-speaker_5626879de4b02f6a900e20a4?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592&ref=yfp

only in this bizarro world could a statement of "we'll be able to work with him" be misconstrued as FIRE BAD

Harriet Miers again

A group of conservative House Republicans on Tuesday unveiled a proposal to raise the debt limit through March 2017 that also calls for mandatory spending cuts.

The Republican Study Committee's "Terms of Credit Act" would raise the debt ceiling by roughly $1.5 trillion -- to a total of $19.6 trillion -- through March 2017.

But the committee is setting a steep price for the debt limit increase. The bill would require congressional committees to produce legislation within 90 days that would cut more than $3.8 trillion in mandatory funding over the next decade. Mandatory funding covers programs like Medicare, Social Security and food stamps.

They also have a condition to impose on their colleagues in the Senate: the measure would eliminate the filibuster for an initial procedural vote on spending bills any time after Oct. 1. The legislation would also freeze all regulations until July 1, 2017, several months into the next presidential administration.

The bill would require congressional committees to produce legislation within 90 days that would cut more than $3.8 trillion in mandatory funding over the next decade

hmmmm sounds like a real legislative winner, good luck with that guys

2011 obama/biden might be into that

I like how they think the House can pass laws that apply to Senate rules, really adorable

no joke

all Harry Reid has to say is, "I support these freezes on regulations" and the GOP will drop them.

haha yeah Harry Reid should just say he supports whatever ludicrous shit the Freedom Caucus comes up with

Paul Ryan babbling about solutions, children, and propositions.

Someone needs to form the Too Funky caucus

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/10/20/whats-in-store-for-federal-pay-and-benefits-if-ryan-becomes-speaker-a-likely-hit/

Nothing new in that article regarding Ryan's plans, but maybe it will remind inside the beltway types whom he really is (not likely, but I can dream, and they are probably happy to blame federal government workers )

Grover Norquist talks to Michael Grunewald:

MG: I’m giving you an opportunity to declare victory here. Because it seems like as a percentage of the economy, historically, taxes are pretty low today.

GN: Lower than they have been. Not as low as they should be.

MG: The fiscal cliff deal in 2013 did raise taxes on everyone making more than $450,000 a year, and you were actually OK with that.

GN: That was a phenomenal victory. All the Bush tax cuts were going to expire on January 1. All Obama had to do was twiddle his thumbs and go for a walk, and taxes were going to increase by $5 trillion over a decade. He would have gotten the largest tax increase in the history of western civilization. Not only didn’t he do that, he allowed 85 percent of the Bush tax cuts to be made permanent, for 99 percent of the country.

MG: But taxes went up, and you were OK with it. A lot of people expected you to take the maximalist position, that you can’t vote for anything that allows taxes to go up.

GN: The pledge has been a powerful tool because it’s written down, it doesn’t move, it’s simple. It’s one line: You can’t vote for net tax increases. It’s a binary thing: Fred either voted to raise taxes from the status quo or he didn’t. It’s a guardrail. When the law says a tax cut has lapsed, I can’t say that the failure to renew it is a tax increase, even if I want it renewed. Yes, voters might think that, but the pledge is the pledge. If I changed the pledge to fit the circumstances, Harry Reid would be right when he says, 'Oh, Republicans just do whatever is Grover’s thought of the day.'

MG: My one quibble is that you make it sound like Republicans snookered Obama into cutting taxes for most Americans. I think he was happy to cut taxes for all but the very wealthy. Even Democrats are coming around to the Grover way!

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/10/grover-norquist-tax-interview-000288

The entire GOP platform is boiled down to simple one line pieces of bullshit

and the Dems have absorbed it.

where is the story about Grover Norquist sleeping with a giant Mr. Peanut next to his bed

I was going to pretend that sentence didn't have "next to his bed" on it but I think the attendant nightmares will be too strong

Norquist: The starkest contrast between the parties today is not the divisive issues. There are pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans. There are a few Democrats who won’t steal your guns.

...In 1774, Americans were paying 1 percent or 2 percent income taxes. The Brits thought about raising it a bit and the guns came out. The Civil War, aside from slavery, was partly about taxes. In the 1830s, South Carolina called out its militia over the tariff. People brought the guns out, so they rolled back the tariff.

when people like norquist talk about guns in this way it's creepy as fuck

hen people like norquist talk about guns taxes in this way it's creepy as fuck

LOL @ "Americans" and 1774

good to see partisan political crap can extend back before the country was even born.

lol at "income taxes" and 1774. also bizarre single-issue revisionist takes on the civil war are the fucking worst. "sure sure we all THINK slavery was important... but what they don't tell you in school is that it was really the whiskey excise!"

Shot heard around the world was a whiskey shot for the tax preparers

if it ain't in this book, it didn't happen

http://civilwarmemory.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451bedb69e2010535baf85f970c-pi

H.W. Crockofshit

Well, when you've got the Vatican on your side...

wait wait. why didn't my teacher tell me holidays in the sugar plantation slave state of cuba could have been ours for the taking? i feel so lied to.

lol: http://www.firepaulryan.com/

Rep. Paul Ryan is a "smart" but that doesn't mean he is qualified or conservative enough to lead the people's House

sponsors list is grim/lol

Alan Keyes! keepin it real

I wonder if Alan Keyes sees Ben Carson and is like "shit, that guy is eatin my lunch!"

He's a smart!

How a smart?
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fa8%2Fc4%2F1e%2Fa8c41ed362284c90d8f643215604c307.jpg&f=1

sorry lol hueg

Really bothered by that cartoon eagle reading a paper -- he's got arms AND wings.

I thought he was holding the paper with his feet?

https://firepaulryan-psyclone.netdna-ssl.com/client_assets/firepaulryan/media/picture/561d/d4df/6170/7075/6a09/0000/content_original_thedam.jpg?1444795615

http://www.thedamgoodtimes.com/images/ONLINE-PAPER/SEPT2015-COVER-SM.jpg

A tidy distillation of the history of the 20th century speakership.

https://twitter.com/costareports/status/656950637834424320

Ideologically, Ryan is man of right. He's friendly w/ F. Caucus. Those things in his favor. Not helpful: his long tenure, ties to ldshp

THIS IS INSANE

goole, be a dear and check on your pals at NRO.

Paul Ryan is not "smart", sorry

He is A smart

Compared to you, maybe

Compared to you, maybe

http://i1050.photobucket.com/albums/s402/Albertocrazy86/sw6_2004-palpatine-1.gif

I think you are probably a smart too