House Speaker solution...

[Seattle]

Why not just pick an elderly Republican Statesman like Kasich as House Speaker? I'm sure Kasich could negotiate with the Democrats to get some to vote "present" in return for a promise to keep Jim Jordan from becoming Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and in return for not shutting down the government when it's time to raise the debt limit.

Those are the main Democrat concerns and everyone likes Kasich more than McCarthy and the "Freedom Caucus" could just be ignored/marginalized if enough Democrats votes "present".

 

[Tiassa]

Why not just pick an elderly Republican Statesman like Kasich as House Speaker?

House Republicans.

I'm sure Kasich could negotiate with the Democrats to get some to vote "present" in return for a promise to keep Jim Jordan from becoming Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and in return for not shutting down the government when it's time to raise the debt limit.

Huh?

Those are the main Democrat concerns and everyone likes Kasich more than McCarthy and the "Freedom Caucus" could just be ignored/marginalized if enough Democrats votes "present".

Do you just make this stuff up as you go?

†​

Democrats actually do have a role, here: How stupid would they have to be to trust any Republican in any deal like that?

The problem here is that what passes for conservatism in these United States has long been fundamentally dishonest, but has become so superficial and insincere, and can only harm. It's one thing to countenance the well-meaning but neurotically dysfunctional conservative conscience, but that sort doesn't exist, these days, and likely never really did, because when it came time to deliver on the well-meaning part, all those neurotic consciences could manage was conservative dysfunction.

There is nothing for Democrats to compromise with. Even without the rabid, extremist wing getting in his way, Kevin McCarthy really is unsuitable and insufficient, as both a Congressman and a human being.

Even if Republicans flipped right now and tried to summon Liz Cheney back to Congress, Democrats would be wise to leave them to it and continue to demonstratively back their caucus leader.

There is no Republican that Republicans can bring who anyone else can trust. That's just who conservatives are. They've had decades, even generations to show a different face, but the mere suggestion offends their delicate sensitivities.

It's wise enough to accept that there is no Republican that Democrats can trust.

 

[Seattle]

House Republicans.



Huh?



Do you just make this stuff up as you go?

†​

Democrats actually do have a role, here: How stupid would they have to be to trust any Republican in any deal like that?

The problem here is that what passes for conservatism in these United States has long been fundamentally dishonest, but has become so superficial and insincere, and can only harm. It's one thing to countenance the well-meaning but neurotically dysfunctional conservative conscience, but that sort doesn't exist, these days, and likely never really did, because when it came time to deliver on the well-meaning part, all those neurotic consciences could manage was conservative dysfunction.

There is nothing for Democrats to compromise with. Even without the rabid, extremist wing getting in his way, Kevin McCarthy really is unsuitable and insufficient, as both a Congressman and a human being.

Even if Republicans flipped right now and tried to summon Liz Cheney back to Congress, Democrats would be wise to leave them to it and continue to demonstratively back their caucus leader.

There is no Republican that Republicans can bring who anyone else can trust. That's just who conservatives are. They've had decades, even generations to show a different face, but the mere suggestion offends their delicate sensitivities.

It's wise enough to accept that there is no Republican that Democrats can trust.

You're kind of dense aren't you? I just realized that.

 

[exchemist]

Why not just pick an elderly Republican Statesman like Kasich as House Speaker? I'm sure Kasich could negotiate with the Democrats to get some to vote "present" in return for a promise to keep Jim Jordan from becoming Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and in return for not shutting down the government when it's time to raise the debt limit.

Those are the main Democrat concerns and everyone likes Kasich more than McCarthy and the "Freedom Caucus" could just be ignored/marginalized if enough Democrats votes "present".

From what I have read, the Democrats are, for now, content to let this absurd soap opera play out, so that voters can see the Republican party is too riven with internal factions (and too full of nutcases), to govern. But your suggestion could be something they opt for, after a bit, once some deadlines for decision start looming up. Saddling the Republicans with a Speaker half of them have no time for would be funny in itself.

 

[wegs]

Didn't like 18 Republicans vote against McCarthy? It's not like there were a few on the fence or something, that's a high number, so it leads me to think there are bigger problems in that party. Even if we don't align ourselves with a particular political party, these problems affect the US as a whole. There's been a lot of mudslinging on both sides of the aisle, and while I don't identify as Democrat or Republican, this internal strife is bad for the country. The US government needs a uniter, regardless of their party affiliation - not sure who that person could be. The US political landscape at this point, appears cartoonish and it isn't solving any of the country's issues.

 

[geordief]

Does the speaker in the British House of Commons hold anything like the power wielded by the Speaker in the US Congress?

There doesn't seem to be the same ructions with Parliament even though Big John was famously unpopular with the Tories who were in power.

Could the US follow this example and emasculated the speaker

Would not be hard starting with McCarthy as he is famously lacking in the tackle department.

 

[sideshowbob]

Big shoes to fill? Elect the guy with the biggest clown shoes.

 

[Seattle]

Didn't like 18 Republicans vote against McCarthy? It's not like there were a few on the fence or something, that's a high number, so it leads me to think there are bigger problems in that party. Even if we don't align ourselves with a particular political party, these problems affect the US as a whole. There's been a lot of mudslinging on both sides of the aisle, and while I don't identify as Democrat or Republican, this internal strife is bad for the country. The US government needs a uniter, regardless of their party affiliation - not sure who that person could be. The US political landscape at this point, appears cartoonish and it isn't solving any of the country's issues.

George W. Bush said he was a "uniter, not a divider" but I suppose he is out as Speaker.

I think our party structure is too strong. It tends to favor the interests of large donor since it can focus the power and promise results.

Without a strong party structure it can be chaos, like trying to herd cats but you have to pick your poison I suppose.

 

[pjdude1219]

what scares me is that mccarthy has apparantly given in to the freedom caucus's demand that the republicans hold the global economy hostage to get concessions they want. given mcarthy's weakness to give the literal worst elements of congress basically free reign to impose their delusional and destructive ideas on governance it looks like the republicans may finally succeed in their decades long quest to destroy america's global power and prestige

 

[Seattle]

One of the interesting things to me is that the last group of people that I would want in power or that I would trust, have the better argument in one regard.

The U.S. is deeply in debt, the spending only goes up and no one does anything about it. Now I don't expect that this group will actually contribute to financial stability and I doubt that they will be effective or positive in any contribution that they make but, at least in theory, they are right regarding the debt issue.

It kind of reminds me of that saying that even a stopped clock is right two times a day.

 

[billvon]

One of the interesting things to me is that the last group of people that I would want in power or that I would trust, have the better argument in one regard.

The U.S. is deeply in debt, the spending only goes up and no one does anything about it.

That's a point in favor of democrats.

Under democrats, spending goes up and taxation goes up.
Under republicans, spending goes up and taxation goes down.

One of those leads to high taxes and lower productivity as a result. The other leads to financial ruin.

 

[Seattle]

That's a point in favor of democrats.

Under democrats, spending goes up and taxation goes up.
Under republicans, spending goes up and taxation goes down.

One of those leads to high taxes and lower productivity as a result. The other leads to financial ruin.

I haven't seen a lot of taxes going up under anyone. One lowers taxes and the other blames the rich and never actually raises taxes on enough people to make a difference.

The end result is the same as is obvious by watching our debt increase to now about 115% of GDP and a $1.7 trillion budget was just pushed though with no debate.

 

[Baldeee]

Does the speaker in the British House of Commons hold anything like the power wielded by the Speaker in the US Congress?

No.
In the UK the Speaker is really just the referee - and supposed to be impartial - although in recent times (i.e. Bercow) it was a referee that wanted to be seen to be the star rather than just be as inconspicuous as possible, and far from impartial.
They usually only vote to break a deadlock, and convention dictates that they should vote to retain the status quo, even if that goes against the government of which they are ideologically supportive.
With regard bills they can only determine which amendments are put forward for consideration.
Otherwise they maintain order, perform some ceremonial duties etc.

So they perform some of the same duties as in the US, but notably without the ability to set legislative agenda etc.

There doesn't seem to be the same ructions with Parliament even though Big John was famously unpopular with the Tories who were in power.

Bercow, to many people, overstepped the bounds of convention while he was speaker.
He was far from impartial, especially around Brexit.
And while many thought he was doing the country a service by frustrating government, he really had no authority to do so, or so many thought.
A speaker should be as inconspicuous as possible while running a tight ship etc.

Could the US follow this example and emasculated the speaker

No, because in the US the Speaker sets the legislative agenda.
They have some of the roles/tasks of our PM in that regard.
Maybe they should separate the two roles: Head of the Majority Party, and Speaker, and then, yes, emasculate the power of the Speaker to be in line with the UK.
That might work, especially if the Speaker role became a non-voting, non-political ceremonial role etc.
But I don't know the workings of the system to know if that would be workable, let alone appealing.

Would not be hard starting with McCarthy as he is famously lacking in the tackle department.

Think of the fight we've just witnessed in the House of Reps as BoJo, May et al having to fight with the ERG within the Conservative party.
The ERG are a euro-sceptic group within the Conservatives who, although small, have sufficient numbers to wield extraordinary power within the party: do what we want or we won't support you, PM.
Hence Cameron called a referendum on remaining within the EU: because a minority of his party wanted it, but a minority that were causing him grief, and this was their price for compliance.
Hence BoJo went for a "no-deal" Brexit, because the ERG pushed it.

So having to kowtow to a very small group, giving them undue power, is nothing new in politics.
I guess it will be seen how much McCarthy has conceded to them, although there's always the possibility it may be easier to get help from the Democrats on some bills.

 

[pjdude1219]

I haven't seen a lot of taxes going up under anyone. One lowers taxes and the other blames the rich and never actually raises taxes on enough people to make a difference.

The end result is the same as is obvious by watching our debt increase to now about 115% of GDP and a $1.7 trillion budget was just pushed though with no debate.

are you capable of the self reflection to understand this is the mind set of the freedom caucus and its going to destroy the country and possible the global economy because you keep wanting things to happen or not happen with zero understanding of why they are happening or not happening, you are active working on preventing better solutions, why they need to happen or not happen and you neither care nor understand the consequences of what your pushing.

 

[billvon]

I haven't seen a lot of taxes going up under anyone.

Taxes are going up by $400 billion a year starting this year. This includes end of the death tax loophole, increase in income taxes for people making over $400K, and new capital gains taxes.

One lowers taxes and the other blames the rich and never actually raises taxes on enough people to make a difference.

One lowers taxes and blames the poor for not working hard enough while spending more. One raises taxes and blames the rich for using loopholes while spending more.

Like I said, one is worse than the other.

The end result is the same

The end result is that while spending goes up under both, deficits tend to drop under democrats (due to the greater income.)

 

[Seattle]

Taxes are going up by $400 billion a year starting this year. This includes end of the death tax loophole, increase in income taxes for people making over $400K, and new capital gains taxes.

What "death tax loophole" are you referring to? As far as I know the step-up basis isn't going away. I'm also not aware of any major change to capital gains taxes. Biden wanted to do away with the step-up basis and to double the capital gains tax but none of that passed.

Do you think doing away with the step-up basis and double the capital gains tax would be a good idea?

 

[Seattle]

are you capable of the self reflection to understand this is the mind set of the freedom caucus and its going to destroy the country and possible the global economy because you keep wanting things to happen or not happen with zero understanding of why they are happening or not happening, you are active working on preventing better solutions, why they need to happen or not happen and you neither care nor understand the consequences of what your pushing.

Trying to reduce debt is going to destroy the global economy?

 

[Tiassa]

Trying to reduce debt is going to destroy the global economy?

What does that even mean?

 

[pjdude1219]

Trying to reduce debt is going to destroy the global economy?

first off they aren't trying to lower the debt. its just a weapon to use against the dems to fuck over the less fortunate. if they cause the US to default on its debt which is what they are risking it will destroy the global economy.

 

[Seattle]

first off they aren't trying to lower the debt. its just a weapon to use against the dems to fuck over the less fortunate. if they cause the US to default on its debt which is what they are risking it will destroy the global economy.

The US can't actually default since the debt is in dollars (they can just create more). None of this is going to "destroy" the global economy. Creating more money isn't helpful of course but that's what we are already doing by not addressing continually adding to the debt.