News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Recent posts

#11
Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...
Last post by Syt - Today at 09:17:31 AM
https://apnews.com/article/house-republicans-budget-blueprint-trump-tax-cuts-ff2bddf31f4e7cb0928139072392a091

QuoteHouse Republicans unveil blueprint to extend $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and lift the debt ceiling

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans released a budget plan Wednesday that sets the stage for advancing many of President Donald Trump's top domestic priorities, providing for up to $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and a $4 trillion increase in the debt limit so the U.S. can continue financing its bills.

The budget plan also directs a variety of House committees to cut spending by at least $1.5 trillion while stating that the goal is to reduce spending by $2 trillion over 10 years.

The blueprint represents a first step in a lengthy legislative process that would allow Republicans to pass some of their top priorities in a simple majority vote. The House Budget Committee is expected to hold votes on the plan on Thursday. House Speaker Mike Johnson predicted it would easily advance out of committee.

"Then, we'll work with everybody over the week to make sure they are on board," Johnson said.

Johnson has set an ambitious schedule for moving the resolution and subsequent legislation, but tensions remain within the Republican conference about the scope of the proposed tax and spending cuts. Some want more in tax cuts than what is in the blueprint while others want steeper spending cuts.

"There'll be a lot of negotiations back and forth," Johnson said. "There's a lot of moving parts to this, but our objective is to fulfill all the president's campaign promises and the full agenda, so we have time to do that."


Budget resolutions are often considered statements of priorities. But the 45-page plan is more than just a policy blueprint as it provides specific directions to House committees to rearrange the federal money flow. GOP leaders are eyeing cuts to social services, and particularly Medicaid, as they seek massive savings.

The Energy and Commerce Committee, which handles health care spending, is asked to cut $880 billion over the decade, while the Education and Workforce Committee is asked to reduce spending by $330 billion. The Agriculture Committee is asked to save $230 billion, while the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is asked to find at least $10 billion in cuts through 2034.

Even as some programs would be cut, money would be shifted to other Trump priorities, including a $100 billion boost in defense spending over the next decade through the Armed Services Committee and an additional $90 billion for the Homeland Security Department, which is carrying out Trump's massive immigration deportation.

House Democrats were harshly critical of the budget plan.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries held a joint press conference and accused Republicans of not taking action to lower costs for everyday Americans since securing the White House and both chambers of Congress.

"Why? Their primary objective is to enact massive tax cuts for their billionaire donors and wealthy corporations," Jeffries said. "That's what the Republican budget is all about."

There is also concern from Democrats that the plan could lead to cuts in the safety net. Rep. Brendan Boyle, the top Democratic on the House Budget Committee, said the tax cuts won't pay for themselves through increased economic growth so cuts to various government programs such as Medicaid will be sought.

"Their plan blows up the deficit and sticks the middle class with the bill, whether through higher prices, deep cuts to essential programs, or both," said the Philadelphia lawmaker.

Republicans say they don't want to take benefits away from those who rely on Medicaid, but they are considering requiring more able-bodied Americans to work as a condition of their participation.

"If you add work requirements to Medicaid, it makes sense to people. It's common sense," Johnson said. "Little things like that make a big difference not only in the budgeting process but in the morale of the people. You know, work is good for you. You find dignity in work. And the people who are not doing that, we're going to try to get their attention."

To offset some of the cost of extending the tax cuts Republicans passed in Trump's first term, they are also eying the possibility of ending some of the clean-energy tax credits that Democrats championed and passed under former President Joe Biden.

As House Republicans press ahead, Senate Republicans are pursuing a narrower effort focused on boosting border security and defense spending.

Republicans have been debating since last year whether to enact the bulk of Trump's agenda in one or two pieces of legislation. The Senate is moving on a two-bill track, while the House is moving on a one-bill track. It's unclear which side will win out in the end.

The Senate Budget Committee advanced the narrower budget plan on Wednesday in a party-line vote. It would allow $175 billion to be spent on border security, $150 billion for defense and $20 billion for the Coast Guard. Their budget would not include an extension of tax cuts, leaving that to be dealt with in a second bill later this year.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, the committee's chair, said in selling the blueprint that a majority of Americans support deporting immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally, but that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was running out of funding. He said more agents and detention space will be needed to allow for the deportation effort.

"We don't have time to waste," said the South Carolina Republican. "Our country is very much at risk in multiple fashions abroad and at home."

Republicans defeated a spate of amendments from Democrats that included taking Medicaid and the nutrition assistance program known as SNAP off the table from cuts. Sen. Jeff Merkley, the top Democrat on the committee, said the amendments were focused on ensuring the process underway in Congress would not raise the cost of health care and other vital services for Americans.

"Families of America, get worried," he said as debate drew to a close.
#12
Off the Record / Re: The 1619 Project
Last post by garbon - Today at 08:59:38 AM
Quote from: HVC on Today at 08:13:16 AMVery interesting speech by Frederick Douglass.

I definitely would have found repeated years of American history more interesting in school if they could have provided us a more complex picture.

Quote from: HVC on Today at 08:13:16 AMAlso, does that chart include single parent households in the bread winner category?

*edit* that's not to say that the prevalence of single parent homes isn't an important matter to consider, just that I think it's a different topic.

So it is from here:
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/breadwinning-mothers-are-increasingly-the-u-s-norm/

Bit of text near it says:
QuoteBlack mothers are by far the most likely to be the primary economic support for their families, both because they are more likely to be single mothers and because they are more likely—when part of a married couple—to earn as much as or more than their husbands. The vast majority of black mothers contribute significantly to their families' bottom lines, with only 14.6 percent of black mothers bringing home less than one-quarter of their family's earnings.
...

At least some of the differences in respect to breadwinning rates between different racial and ethnic groups are likely due to the fact that black women and Latinas are more likely than white women to be single mothers.18 Slightly more than half, or 55.8 percent, of white breadwinning mothers are married and earn as much as or more than their husbands.19 However, only 40.4 percent of Latina breadwinning mothers are married, as are only 25.3 percent of black breadwinning mothers. (see Table 1) The majority of black and Latina breadwinning mothers are single parents providing for their families.

Which suggests it is counting single mother households.

This other table suggests that too.

#13
Quote from: Siege on March 02, 2016, 07:24:44 AMWho's more authoritarian than Zerobama who rules by decree without congressional approval.

 :lol:

Hmm, yeah, that's a tough one to answer . . .
#14
Quote from: Tamas on February 12, 2025, 11:13:50 AMNow, such a flood of bullshit could very well be part of a larger Putinist/Orbanist playbook, but that's not the vibe I am getting so far.

Trumpworld is far from being a single, unified movement; there are a lot of different political sub-factions and personalities; like many successful authoritarian rulers, Trump likes to keep his options open and play divide and conquer within his own camp.

Trump himself has no master plan; his is the ultimate opportunist standard go to strategy is the "wait and see".  But there are definitely a number of people in his revised inner circle that have very carefully studied Orban and Putin and are attempting to push that blueprint.  This goes back to 2017 when Bannon talked about "flooding the zone" to overwhelm resistance but it is far more organized and directed now.  If the vibe seems less coherent it is because the Orbanists are not the only voices in Trumpworld and don't control Trump himself. 

This makes it all the more important for the opposition to respond as if the Orbanists are in control and pursuing the master plan.  There are some signs already that Trump is pulling back from brink of open contempt of the judiciary, but that is only because he is concerned it might backfire.  If he were sure it would work, he'd back the Orbanist bid to enhance his power.
#15
Quote from: Admiral Yi on Today at 05:45:16 AMIf this is the case, why did European leaders across the board  on several different  occasions promise (and fail) to meet the 2% target? 

They promised because they wanted to do it and meant to do it.  They failed because they are democracies with real legislatures.
#16
Off the Record / Re: Grand unified books thread
Last post by Savonarola - Today at 08:30:31 AM
I read David Michaelis's biography of Charles Schulz (Schulz and Peanuts.)  It's a richly detailed account of Schulz's life and quite readable.  I was surprised how much of Peanut's was self referential; he lived in Needles, California as a teenager, he had a cousin Patty who was the model for Peppermint Patty (and the namesake of Patty,) he had a dog named Spike (which was the model for Snoopy,) loved a red headed woman when he was a young man (and seems to have carried a torch for her a very long time.)

I was surprised to learn that he didn't really like children; maybe that shouldn't be such a surprise since those kids are really mean to each other.  I did know that his first wife (Joyce) was the model for Lucy (except in the very earliest strips when she's based on his step daughter Meredith).  It's not a big surprise they eventually divorced, but the strip was never as good afterwards.  I was also surprised that he carried his grudges with him to the grave, even for minor bullying incidents that happened when he was a child.  I would have thought having thirty million dollars and global recognition would have compensated for that.
#17
Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...
Last post by Savonarola - Today at 08:20:51 AM
Paging Dr. Sigmund Freud:

'We Have To F*ck Trump': Congresswoman Delivers Profane Rallying Cry

QuoteThe American Federation of Government Employees gathered Monday on Capitol Hill and rallied "to save the civil service" and oppose Trump's push to reduce the size of the federal government's workforce. Trump has been working with the Department of Government Efficiency's Elon Musk, whose task is to clean up government waste. While speaking to protesters, Dexter was seen at the podium, calling out Trump and teasing her supporters to not "tell her children" she had made a certain statement.

"I've been told I have 30 seconds, so I am going to tell you that we do have to — I don't swear in public very well — but we have to fuck Trump! Please don't tell my children that I just did that!" Dexter said.

Uhm... :unsure: are you sure that's absolutely necessary?  Could we just kiss him on the lips instead, maybe?
#18
Off the Record / Re: The 1619 Project
Last post by HVC - Today at 08:13:16 AM
Very interesting speech by Frederick Douglass.

Also, does that chart include single parent households in the bread winner category?

*edit* that's not to say that the prevalence of single parent homes isn't an important matter to consider, just that I think it's a different topic.
#19
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by Sheilbh - Today at 08:03:17 AM
Again I'm slightly confounded that after 14 years in opposition, and having repeatedly stated (in opposition and then government) that growth is their one priority that Labour are going to take basically a year to actually come up with their industry strategy:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/12/labour-postpones-long-awaited-industrial-strategy
QuoteLabour will not release long-awaited industrial strategy until June
Exclusive: Strategies for life sciences to be published earlier but broader report expected in June

This isn't the only area - there are many other (eg from a security perspective the China audit, for spending departments Treasury reviews) - where government departments are basically just spinning the wheels until x report comes in. They can't announce or do anything significant on huge swathes of policy in advance of these reports, audits, reviews and strategies - but they are also being repeatedly delayed. I think this is a big problem both in terms of government actually doing anything but also the politics (I think part o the reason there's been so much space for the opposition, especially Reform) is that there is a news void where the government should be announcing/doing things.

Also I think it seems very arrogant/complacent to me - at most they've got 5 years to the next election. The last parliament saw a swing from the biggest Tory majority in 30 years to the biggest Labour majority in 25-30 years. People are dissatisfied and volatile. I don't think you can spend your first year (when you've got most political capital to do difficult things) pondering what you're going to do.

It feels like another area where they're failing (and I think this is a European theme to be honest) to meet the urgency of the situation we're in.
#20
Off the Record / Re: The 1619 Project
Last post by Sheilbh - Today at 07:46:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on Today at 06:01:08 AMPosting this here as probably makes more sense there than in the Britain thread (:blush:).

I found this graph interesting as it appears to highlight the importance of intersectionality:
Yeah and to add the compulsory British angle I suspect there'd be similar differences if you looked at it from a class perspective (especially over a longer period).

Working class women were very often workers too - even after marriage and once they'd become mothers. It may have been different types of work - more fragmented, casual, less secure - which I think, to the 70s conversation, is one of the reasons unions failed to organise.