Jump to content

Mike Johnson - Speaker of the House


mspart

Recommended Posts

On 10/31/2023 at 6:44 PM, jross said:

 

Let's reframe.  Do you agree with this?

Of course not. You don't have a right to own a specific type of arm. And really you shouldn't be able to bear an arm unless you're in a well regulated militia. But textualists might say that in the time when that document was written, assault-style rifles didn't exist. So you have no right to own those anyway. But those are not the same issues. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Of course not. You don't have a right to own a specific type of arm. And really you shouldn't be able to bear an arm unless you're in a well regulated militia. But textualists might say that in the time when that document was written, assault-style rifles didn't exist. So you have no right to own those anyway. But those are not the same issues. 

The rebuttal to Uncle B. says, "Hey, you can't just say 'freedom all the way' without considering the consequences."

The point is that advocating for personal freedom in one area might seem clear-cut, but it can have real-world consequences that we need to think about. Just like with guns, if we're too free, it can lead to problems. So, it's a reminder that these issues are often more complex than they seem, and we have to weigh personal freedom against potential downsides.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Of course not. You don't have a right to own a specific type of arm. And really you shouldn't be able to bear an arm unless you're in a well regulated militia. But textualists might say that in the time when that document was written, assault-style rifles didn't exist. So you have no right to own those anyway. But those are not the same issues. 

The judicial side has the right to bear arms as a means of self-preservation, and the stance behind this is well-explained (see Maine shooting comment).

I agree that too much freedom with bearing arms has negative real-world consequences.  

I own several rifles and shotguns, and for now, I'm thinking of carrying one hidden when my youngest finishes high school. But... I'm all for sensible gun rules that make it so I don't feel like I need to carry a hidden gun for self-defense.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

They have a majority in the house. That's all it takes. If its not signed by the Pres then its just a stunt. I have a feeling the IRS part will be cut out. 

per the Constitution the House makes and passes federal laws.  Vote was 226 to 196 with 12 dem for.   You think it is a "stunt" that they just did their job?  

  • Fire 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

They have a majority in the house. That's all it takes. If its not signed by the Pres then its just a stunt. I have a feeling the IRS part will be cut out. 

A stunt?  Why?  What don't you like about it?  Wait I know...it is an "R" bill so instantly bad!!

  • Fire 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

President?  This isn't making it out of the Senate and everyone, particularly Johnson, knows it.   The Senate will probably remove the IRS part, add in Ukraine and send it back.

Removing IRS funding would probably cost the country money, so it is damn sure not about budgets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ionel said:

per the Constitution the House makes and passes federal laws.  Vote was 226 to 196 with 12 dem for.   You think it is a "stunt" that they just did their job?  

Yes. 

It was done in bad faith. Undercutting a bill that was already passed to identify tax cheats. It will wind up costing tax payers more money if it passes. How is that a good idea? 

When it passes in its current form(doubtful), you can gloat about it. But you're spiking the ball a little early in the process. That's all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Yes. 

It was done in bad faith. Undercutting a bill that was already passed to identify tax cheats. It will wind up costing tax payers more money if it passes. How is that a good idea? 

When it passes in its current form(doubtful), you can gloat about it. But you're spiking the ball a little early in the process. That's all. 

I wouldn't say it was done in bad faith, more of a first offer in a negotiation.    When you go to make an offer on the house, you don't start off with the highest number you'll go to...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

It makes me feel she has had 36 years to make her ideas happen and she ran out of fresh ones decades ago. It makes me feel she is the poster child for term limits.  It makes me feel sick to my stomach that the incumbent re-election rate is so high, which makes me think we need campaign finance reform.

Re-election inertia is a real thing. I get that. Its frustrating in some cases. In some, I hope they live to be a thousand. 

I think she's done a great job leading the party in congress. Raising money and the profile of issues. First female Speaker of the House. That's not nothing. That she's stepping back and letting someone else lead is a big step. Much more then anyone else has done in her position. Last three from the other side resigned or were fired. Fourth and fifth were  POSs. Considering what she is compared to. I'd take Nancy every single time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

A stunt?  Why?  What don't you like about it?  Wait I know...it is an "R" bill so instantly bad!!

Interesting guess. 

However, what I don't like about it is that more funding for the IRS is good. If someone is serious about transparency and accountability they should be all for bringing the funding of the IRS up from where they have been compared to where they were. 

Are you in a position where it would be worth the time and effort to look into your situation? 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/taxes/2023/03/02/triggers-irs-tax-audit-red-flags/11106113002/

The money spent to increase the IRS footprint will only help to recover money that the US is already owed and can use to help diminish deficits and help bolster programs and people in need. Why/how is that a bad thing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Re-election inertia is a real thing. I get that. Its frustrating in some cases. In some, I hope they live to be a thousand. 

I think she's done a great job leading the party in congress. Raising money and the profile of issues. First female Speaker of the House. That's not nothing. That she's stepping back and letting someone else lead is a big step. Much more then anyone else has done in her position. Last three from the other side resigned or were fired. Fourth and fifth were  POSs. Considering what she is compared to. I'd take Nancy every single time. 

Id rather be an oltimist and trust better leadership would cycle through than accept the continuing presence of the ones who brought us to this point.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WrestlingRasta said:

The bill has no chance. It will be returned and will need considerations for Ukraine and IRS.  The bill as written is a gift to Russia, and billionaires.  The negotiation process should be interesting.

There’s a new sheriff in town.  And he has the support of a majority of the public. 

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

President?  This isn't making it out of the Senate and everyone, particularly Johnson, knows it.   The Senate will probably remove the IRS part, add in Ukraine and send it back.

Removing IRS funding would probably cost the country money, so it is damn sure not about budgets.

The IRS is already fully funded.  The 80 billion came from the Reconciliation Bill .WE have added a little over 2 TRILLION DOLLARS to the National Debt in 2023. We still have 2 months to go. We are at 33 TRILLION Dollars in debt right now. Would it be fair to say we could easily cut back 500 billion dollars in spending. Then you have  100's of Billions of dollars in waste and fraud that never gets resolved. Then you have old Joe wanting to forgive 500 billion dollars of student loan debt. I have no problem if Joe and all of his buddies want to dig into their own pockets and payoff student loans but don't take my money to pay off the loans of others. Myself and my 5 children have all paid off their student loans. Its called personal responsibility. You signed for the loan ,you got the degree.  You owe the money

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Offthemat said:

There’s a new sheriff in town.  And he has the support of a majority of the public. 

How can the majority of the public support someone they didn't vote for and for whom they did not know existed until a few weeks ago? 

If you're referring to the Speaker as the new sheriff, interesting take.  Let's see if he can live up to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

The IRS is already fully funded.  The 80 billion came from the Reconciliation Bill .WE have added a little over 2 TRILLION DOLLARS to the National Debt in 2023. We still have 2 months to go. We are at 33 TRILLION Dollars in debt right now. Would it be fair to say we could easily cut back 500 billion dollars in spending. Then you have  100's of Billions of dollars in waste and fraud that never gets resolved. Then you have old Joe wanting to forgive 500 billion dollars of student loan debt. I have no problem if Joe and all of his buddies want to dig into their own pockets and payoff student loans but don't take my money to pay off the loans of others. Myself and my 5 children have all paid off their student loans. Its called personal responsibility. You signed for the loan ,you got the degree.  You owe the money

There's 'personal responsibility' argument that holds no weight whatsoever. 

Firstly, there are already programs to relieve some borrowers of debt, long before Joe or Tiny-Hands McGee took office. 

Secondly, why is it, because you were lucky enough and sometimes it is just that, luck, that you were able to make it to your current situation that others weren't so lucky and could use a boost? You were able to help your kids achieve as much or more than yourself. Some are not afforded the privilege of that experience. How does it help anyone to keep them from getting a bit of help? Its not a zero-sum game. 

Third, can you tell me what the IRS is for, over how long, and what might it do to offset the entirety of the extra funding? I imagine you're going to ignore these questions because the answers might run counter to your narrative but I'll fill in the blanks on my next post if you don't know. If anyone wants to give away the answer, be my guest. 

Fourth, an initial round of loan forgiveness was offered to those that were victims of predatory lending and deceptive practices by institutions of higher learning. All things that the previous Orange guy and the Dep of Ed ignored and dragged out. Should we allow grifters to take advantage of people? The answer to this question will say a lot about you. 

Also, if you are hip with economics, many have said that some of the repayment options for holders of some of the loans are not as economically beneficial for the the debt holder or the payee. Could be a little confusing so my apologies. The US is the holder of the debt. We have an incentive for people to spend money to grow and diversify the economy. If borrowers cannot spend any money on good and/or services because they are repaying a loan to the US. It might not help as much to hold the debt as it would be to wipe it and allow people to spend that money on living their lives.  Either way its not a great look for a government to be making a profit(a small one but, nonetheless) on crippling debt that it holds over its citizens. 

That you want to punish people because you were fortunate enough to make it, makes you seem like a crappy person. Some people need help. Looking down your nose helps no one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...