House Republicans will meet in closed session Monday night, as congressional negotiators and the White House near a two-year budget deal that would boost defense and domestic spending by tens of billions of dollars, and lift the debt ceiling until March 2017.
The ambitious accord, which is being negotiated by top House, Senate and White House officials, would boost defense and nondefense spending by $50 billion next year, and $30 billion the year after, split evenly between defense and nondefense programs. Negotiations are fluid, however, and specifics might change before legislation is filed.
A cap on premium hikes for Medicare Part B beneficiaries sought by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) but initially rejected by the White House would also be included. Medicare Part B covers doctors services, outpatient hospital services, and some home health care. The deal under discussion is also expected to address Social Security disability insurance, according to multiple sources.
The new spending would be offset by extending existing measures to contain Medicare and hospital costs, the sources said.
A bill could be filed by Monday night, which could set up a midweek vote.
PublicPolicyPolling ‏@ppppolls
Trump's at 31% in our new NC poll, the highest we've found him yet. His 'slump' seems to be confined to Iowa at this point
PublicPolicyPolling
Hillary right around 70% on the first night of our North Carolina poll. Was at 55% on our last Biden-less poll
A lot of republicans I think are still convinced that trump and Carson will flame out and not get the nomination, and that one lucky establishment candidate will be pushed towards the top in the aftermath.. I think many believe it's worth the chance waiting it out to see if they are that candidateWhen are we gonna see more drop outs? Webb and Chafee already bailed out of the Dem side.
Is this some kind of macho bullshit between everyone and Trump? Not wanting to look like a loser to him?
Even though Hillary is killing it in every state. The media will just focus on Iowa and her possible downfall.
All the more evidence that Republicans -- and their willingness to vote for a Democrat -- will decide who will become Louisiana's next governor.
A lot of republicans I think are still convinced that trump and Carson will flame out and not get the nomination, and that one lucky establishment candidate will be pushed towards the top in the aftermath.. I think many believe it's worth the chance waiting it out to see if they are that candidate
We literally moved as fast as we could as a country on gay rights, which is unbelievable given how long it took this country to move on civil rights. The speed at which gay rights took hold in America is unprecedented.
Doesn't sound terrible, but the devil will be in the details.
The Bush folks are definitely trying to put a happy face onto their gathering this weekend; maybe I'm off in how I've read this, but the tone of this article seems oddly positive?
Jeb Bush Donors Gather to Hit Reset Button On Campaign
The room erupting into cheers? From how dour things have been portrayed, I just don't see it..
Well, they applauded when !Jeb walked in. Showing up is just about the last guaranteed applause moment for a candidate.
They're spinning hard because this is their last chance. If they can get the donors to keep giving they'll stay in it. If they stop donating then Jeb is gone. So they have to make it sound good. But the fact that they have to hold a full-court press to get money indicates how fucked they are right now.
The "your son/daughter/other relative/best friend just came out as gay, are you really going to stop loving them?" conundrum probably helped speed things up. Your white child/relative/best friend isn't suddenly going to turn out to be Black, Hispanic, etc. Essentially, it's about how easy it is to identify the "other". That's my hypothesis anyway.
More like 6/7 if you go by popular vote.
The brand seems to have completely recovered thanks to the Pope. Virtually every thread about him is full of people saying stuff like, "love this guy." Give it a shot!As a Catholic I am sympathetic to the feeling that there are a bunch of threads about stuff you conceivably care about that you really just can't post in because there are a lot of people not interested in productive conversation. It's frustrating! But at the same time, like, I understand that the brand is tarnished and I try to engage in conversations about the values rather than the stuff that's just going to end up in conflict.
I have to wonder if party families are real. Does David Cameron have more in common with Obama or Romney? On a policy level he's more similar to Obama, but his views are anchored by the political realities of his country. I bet if the Australian libertarian got naturalized in America, he'd sooner vote for Ron Paul than Obama.I was going to post in that thread, before it got locked, that it's important to talk about policies rather than labels, since "conservative" and "liberal" are pretty different outside of the US. I remember a conversation a while back where somebody claimed to be a libertarian and wanted to shrink government to the minimum necessary agencies. I said "well, what about people needing food to eat tho." It became clear that he was from Australia and when he said minimum necessary agencies he was including a welfare state significantly stronger than the one America currently has. You might put this on me for assuming that a libertarian would be against welfare but frankly it sounds like a vocabulary problem to me.
Conway still up, 45/40:
http://wkussrc.blogspot.com/2015/10/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
Man, it's going to be weird when the Democrats have the governor's mansions in Louisiana and Kentucky why the Republicans have Maryland, Illinois, Maine and Massachusetts.
Well, they applauded when !Jeb walked in. Showing up is just about the last guaranteed applause moment for a candidate.
They're spinning hard because this is their last chance. If they can get the donors to keep giving they'll stay in it. If they stop donating then Jeb is gone. So they have to make it sound good. But the fact that they have to hold a full-court press to get money indicates how fucked they are right now.
Simple. Split the vote and bad candidates/wave.
Conway still up, 45/40:
http://wkussrc.blogspot.com/2015/10/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
Man, it's going to be weird when the Democrats have the governor's mansions in Louisiana and Kentucky why the Republicans have Maine and Massachusetts.
I don't think it's a problem at all. What did you think about our collective rebuke of brainchild? I thought it was wholly justified. I'm glad he brought it up and stuck with it despite failing to persuade anyone. Lots of people explained the nitty gritty details beyond "that's Jim Crow." Even though it appeared to be a one-sided discussion, there were a variety of viewpoints leading to the same conclusion. I'm more certain than ever that I'm on the right side of that issue because of it.The other problem is that dogpiles are just the inherent nature of an unbalanced forum, there doesn't even need to be bad intentions for it to happen. Someone posts a minority opinion. The majority of posters disagree with said opinion and that means the majority of people want to make their feelings known even if it's not constructive. You don't need fifty people responding to every single post from the alternative side, it just muddles the thread and makes it impossible for the other person to feel like they can have a real dialogue. But it's hard to argue and even harder to internalize (guilty as charged here) that, "hey I know everyone wants a say in this, but if we limit ourselves to just 2-3 people responding, we'll probably get a more mature and structured dialogue out of this." Nobody wants to think their contribution is irrelevant or unhelpful.
Conway still up, 45/40:
http://wkussrc.blogspot.com/2015/10/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
Man, it's going to be weird when the Democrats have the governor's mansions in Louisiana and Kentucky while the Republicans have Maine and Massachusetts.
Dont get your hopes up...Brownback was losing to his democrat rival at this point too. There will be lot of fear mongering and Obama hating to bring out the faithful GOP voters to elect a god fearing, straight, christian man in charge.Conway still up, 45/40:
http://wkussrc.blogspot.com/2015/10/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
Man, it's going to be weird when the Democrats have the governor's mansions in Louisiana and Kentucky while the Republicans have Maine and Massachusetts.
I'm starting to sympathize with Poppy's tears at Jeb's 1994 gubernatorial defeat. There's no way the Bush family's Plan A could have beaten McCain and Gore.How much of that has to do with Jeb sucking as a candidate, the current field and the totality of the Republican Party as it stands today compared to when his brother and father ran? Could this Jeb be the nominee in 2000? 2012?
Hmmmm. I doubt Bernie's new pollster will be happy to hear this.If Bernie's going to beat Clinton it's bc people don't want a 3rd Obama term.' -- Sanders strategist Tad Devine
Reading through some of the responses here, I have 1 question: Knowing what we do now from the whole southern strategy and how that helped propelled the GOP to power, would it have been a better idea to ignore the civil rights era and not try to enact legislation? Maybe wouldn't have helped McGovern against Nixon in '72 as Nixon was riding that China/"peace with honor" Vietnam leave, but it probably would have stemmed the complete abandonment of the party by its racist members.
Cause, imo, all the bullshit springs from that period. Americans sure loved their medicare, medicaid, social security, <insert socialist agenda here>etc. when it was exclusive to the white majority. So, was the civil rights era worth it? Did progressives aiming for equality damn us for decades?
Dont get your hopes up...Brownback was losing to his democrat rival at this point too. There will be lot of fear mongering and Obama hating to bring out the faithful GOP voters to elect a god fearing, straight, christian man in charge.
Reading through some of the responses here, I have 1 question: Knowing what we do now from the whole southern strategy and how that helped propelled the GOP to power, would it have been a better idea to ignore the civil rights era and not try to enact legislation? Maybe wouldn't have helped McGovern against Nixon in '72 as Nixon was riding that China/"peace with honor" Vietnam leave, but it probably would have stemmed the complete abandonment of the party by its racist members.
Cause, imo, all the bullshit springs from that period. Americans sure loved their medicare, medicaid, social security, <insert socialist agenda here>etc. when it was exclusive to the white majority. So, was the civil rights era worth it? Did progressives aiming for equality damn us for decades?
Also, the irony of the Southern Strategy is that it put the Republicans in a potential demographic death spiral that could eventually lead to a Democratic take over of key Southern states.
I don't think it's a problem at all. What did you think about our collective rebuke of brainchild? I thought it was wholly justified. I'm glad he brought it up and stuck with it despite failing to persuade anyone. Lots of people explained the nitty gritty details beyond "that's Jim Crow." Even though it appeared to be a one-sided discussion, there were a variety of viewpoints leading to the same conclusion. I'm more certain than ever that I'm on the right side of that issue because of it.
It's a pretty good metaphor for the boomers in general, traded the future away due to short sighted greed.
We're seeing it now in North Carolina! And soon in Georgia! And maybe one day in Texas and Mississippi!
I think the situation's a little different in Kentucky. They already have a Dem governor and the state party still does very well in local elections.Dont get your hopes up...Brownback was losing to his democrat rival at this point too. There will be lot of fear mongering and Obama hating to bring out the faithful GOP voters to elect a god fearing, straight, christian man in charge.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/white-house-congress-budget-debt-ceiling
"Maybe they'll like me now"
I think the situation's a little different in Kentucky. They already have a Dem governor and the state party still does very well in local elections.
It's funny how similar the timeline is as well. Can't make this shit up.
Look how well Kim Davis did in 2014.
Mississippi slowly becoming a swing state would truly be one of my favorite things.
gotta stop the white vote from voting R 88%+ and for the black vote to steadily increase in share of the electorate. That goes for AL, SC and LA
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/solid-south-reversed-but-still-divided-by-race/?mtrref=fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com
https://twitter.com/tripgabriel/status/658687255599521795'
Hmmmm. I doubt Bernie's new pollster will be happy to hear this.
I almost would want Biden in the race now, just to see him have try and defend this bullshit to the Democratic primary electorate. I swear, Obama is freaking worthless
[EDIT] Actually, am I reading it wrong or does the article posted by Konka not day anything about entitlement cuts? I'm confused now, the deal in Konkas post doesn't really sound bad, but I'm not reading the details too closely yet.
Reading through some of the responses here, I have 1 question: Knowing what we do now from the whole southern strategy and how that helped propelled the GOP to power, would it have been a better idea to ignore the civil rights era and not try to enact legislation? Maybe wouldn't have helped McGovern against Nixon in '72 as Nixon was riding that China/"peace with honor" Vietnam leave, but it probably would have stemmed the complete abandonment of the party by its racist members.
Cause, imo, all the bullshit springs from that period. Americans sure loved their medicare, medicaid, social security, <insert socialist agenda here>etc. when it was exclusive to the white majority. So, was the civil rights era worth it? Did progressives aiming for equality damn us for decades?
Wed be very happy to have a straight-out debate on issues that matter to people and confine it to that, Devine said. But if theyre going to have a campaign that attacks Bernie on gun safety and implies he engages in sexism, thats unacceptable. Were not going to stand for that. Were not going to sit here and let her attack him. Were going to have to talk about other things if they do that. If theyre going to engage in this kind of attack, they need to understand were not going to stand there and take it.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...ary-clinton-attacks-2016-215167#ixzz3piTdmwqo
Uh-oh, his fee-fees got hurt.
Sanders walked into that whole "shouting" line with his mouth and foot wide open. That was a really bad exchange from him in the debate. The idea that people won't exploit his foibles is something that his campaign needs to get over.
Also, isn't it interesting that the only thing we're not allowed to shout about is guns? We can shout about the banks. We can shout about Citizens United? We can shout about the billionaires and the millionaires.....but not guns. Never guns.
Sanders' campaign is horrible. Go back and watch Obama's Jefferson Jackson speech in 2007. Obama lit Clinton up on multiple fronts, without mentioning her name. Yet in debates he had no problem confronting her. Sanders reminds me of Tim Pawlenty, too timid to take on the big boss. Maybe his people are concerned about Hillary's nonstop gender card playing (see: shouting accusations). Even still, if Sanders wants to win he's going to have to take her on.
Does anyone honestly think Obama would have defended Clinton the way Sanders did at the debate, with respect to the emails? Obama would have used it to attack the "same old politics of the past," note that people are tired of nonstop scandals that harken back to the 90s, etc etc.
I read that more as, "don't dish out what you can't take". In other words, "if you wanna go that route, we will, too".
Either way, he should've done that when he had the chance to make a strong first impression. Not after the fact.
Sanders' campaign is horrible. Go back and watch Obama's Jefferson Jackson speech in 2007. Obama lit Clinton up on multiple fronts, without mentioning her name. Yet in debates he had no problem confronting her. Sanders reminds me of Tim Pawlenty, too timid to take on the big boss. Maybe his people are concerned about Hillary's nonstop gender card playing (see: shouting accusations). Even still, if Sanders wants to win he's going to have to take her on.
Does anyone honestly think Obama would have defended Clinton the way Sanders did at the debate, with respect to the emails? Obama would have used it to attack the "same old politics of the past," note that people are tired of nonstop scandals that harken back to the 90s, etc etc.
Has that happened before? Even Trump has kept his cool.Sanders is definitely going to explode in anger in one of these debates I bet.
I think it's very debatable whether Obama would have used the same tactics if he was running following 8 years of a Democratic President vs running after Bush.