Once Again Republicans Blink and Sellout to Democrats

[Steve R.]

18 GOP Senators Help Democrats Pass Bloated Spending Package

Eighteen Republican United States senators voted with Democrats to pass the 4,155-page, $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill.

www.breitbart.com

McConnell and budget betrayal - The New Neo

The topic of the budget is a perennial cause of frustration, anger, depression, and general angst for any conservative. The current one is most definitely no exception, and McConnell’s capitulation only adds to the depth of the feeling of betrayal. … Continue reading →

www.thenewneo.com

Soon after this atrocity was passed by the Senate, I saw a video clip of McConnell making a congratulatory statement. Whether the quote below came from that video clip or not, I do not know; but the essence was the same and I was immediately outraged by McConnell egotistically asserting "victory", when it appears Republicans did not get their policies incorporated into the budget and simply caved to Democratic demands. McConnell sold-out the Republican agenda.

Of the $1.7 trillion left-wing spending spree McConnell is working so hard to help Democrats pass, he said, unbelievably, that he was “pretty proud of the fact that with a Democratic president, Democratic House, and Democratic Senate, we were able to achieve through this omnibus spending bill essentially all of our priorities.” As an indication of how deeply sick and broken and unserious the Senate is, no one had even begun to read the lengthy bill, which was put forward just hours before votes began.

This budget sell-out by McConnell also makes me wonder whether some of the McConnell rumors may actually have been true. Basically, that McConnell was purposely not supporting certain Republican Senatorial candidates (secretly hoping that the Democratic Senate nominees would win instead) who would not vote for him to become the Senate Majority Leader should they win. It would seem pretty despicable for a Republican "leader" to actually play dirty politics to prevent other Republicans from winning.

Is It True That McConnell Tanked Senate Races By Not Funding Candidates Like Masters?

Supporters of Donald Trump claim that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is responsible for Senate losses because he failed to direct sufficient funding to candidates who ran with the help of backing from the former president. An analysis of campaign finance records by The Daily Wire...

www.dailywire.com

 

[Isaac]

It's hopeless. Split the country alreaddy

 

[AccessBlaster]

Knowing is half the battle!

 

[Steve R.]

Since passage, fallout is begging to emerge from the not-to-be-seen dark smoke-filled backrooms.

Representative Chip Roy Calls Congressional Appropriations Process a Fraud

Texas Republican Representative Chip Roy speaks in opposition to the $1.7 trillion Omnibus Spending Bill, which includes funding for the war in Ukraine. He condemns the process that led to the creation of the large spending package instead of passing individual appropriations bills. "Everything...

www.c-span.org

The clip below was recorded on Sunday, which was December 18, 2022 before passage.

Chip Roy blows up over $1.7T spending bill in fiery floor speech: 'Destroying the United States'

Rep. Chip Roy on Friday criticized the process that is forcing lawmakers to quickly vote on a $1.7 trillion spending bill just a few days before the Christmas holiday.

www.foxnews.com

I was surprised by the intensity of Tulsi Gabbard's comments. She tends to be more polite. Has she seen the "light" of Fox News?

Tulsi Gabbard torches Congress for largely leaving US border security out of omnibus bill | Fox News Video

Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, sounds off on 'Hannity' after spending package designates funds to foreign nations' security.

www.foxnews.com

Below is an article that further highlights the appropriateness of comments made by Chip Roy, that the members of Congress, by being absent and not reading the legislation, ignore their legislative responsibilities.

Pelosi's Swan Song: Majority of Congress Votes by Proxy for $1.7T Bill

More than half of the members of the House of Representatives voted remotely Friday because of the “ongoing public health emergency.”

www.breitbart.com

More than half of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted remotely Friday for the $1.7 trillion government spending bill, claiming in proxy voting letters they could not be present to vote because of the “ongoing public health emergency.”

As an aside, I recall when the federal budget process was more or less real. The President would propose a budget for Congress to consider and the media, such as the Washington Post, would provide extensive analysis to the public. Over the years, this seems to have disappeared. It would be difficult to specify a specific date, but the federal budgetary process seems to have "caught a debilitating cold" with the Bush (#43) administration. The Obama administration euphemistically put the federal budget process "too sleep". It hasn't seen the "light-of-day" since.

 

[Isaac]

Ok this does it. You guys have me convinced. While I still hope that Republicans win next time - because I sincerely believe no matter what anyone says that they are the best hope we have NOW..... Yet, both parties need to be replaced!

 

[Pat Hartman]

McConnell just signed the death warrant for the Republican Party as we know it. Why do the remaining "Republican" Senators not in Mitch's camp not revolt and replace him? What are they afraid of? Does he have that much dirt on all of them? Do they think they are serving their constituents by keeping quiet and just going along hoping Mitch will die soon? Is holding their committee position more important than doing what they were elected to do? Feckless pieces of dog poo, all of them

Isaac, we have what some call a uni-party. Members might claim to have different objectives and beliefs but they all vote the same way - more big government, more control for the government, more money for the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us all about, more IRS agents with guns to control you and me, pass laws specifically forbidding our border agents from actually securing the border!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF????????????????? Pass a law forbidding the money be spent to secure OUR border but included hundreds of millions of dollars to secure borders for other countries!!!!!!!!!!! WTF are they thinking??????????????????

Writing a bill of over 4,000 pages????????????? Who does that?????????? Dishonest people who don't want the people who vote on the bill to ever be able to figure out what pork and bad ideas it demands. The question really comes down to how can 500+ Senators and Representatives be so weak willed that they go along with this total farce? Why do they not refuse to vote on such an abomination? How can they hold up their heads and say they represent the people who voted for them when the can't be bothered to read the bills they are supposed to vote on. Feckless pieces of dog poo, all of them

In addition to a Constitutional amendment to limit terms for elected and appointed officials, we also need one limiting the length of any bill brought to the floor of the House or Senate. And the shorter the time from the introduction to the actual vote, the lower the page count limit. Plus we need to give the President line item veto as a final check on a run-away Congress, with a provision that ANY item removed this way by the President may never be proposed again as part of another bill. If the proposal has merit, it must be proposed as a single item bill so we all know who voted for and against the bill.

 

[Isaac]

Does he have that much dirt on all of them?

YES. There is probably so much more of that going on than anyone realizes.

Think about it on a microcosm level: I for example have 4 siblings. One of them knows a bit more about my life than others. Nothing earthshaking, just .... stuff, like everyone has some of after enough years on Earth. And sometimes I wonder if I treat my relationship with that sibling with just a bit (almost imperceptible, and something I tell myself doesn't exist) of extra CARE. Can you imagine how much more potent that reality is in the lives of billionaires, politicians, etc? I imagine it is pervasive.

The question really comes down to how can 500+ Senators and Representatives be so weak willed that they go along with this total farce?

Because if they voted No, they would be billed as Obstructionists. Democrats have been too successful in persuading too many people that Republicans are the party of "no" (which of course, MAKES SENSE to be, if you're constantly having to say NO to dumb stuff - like telling Schools that the feds will withhold their Lunch Money if the school refuses to teach sexually explicit stuff to 6 yr olds).
Republicans need to better and more widely publicize the pure evil that is being promoted by the Democrat party.

YES Pat I agree. One of the single biggest things we need right now is term limits of all kinds. I used to live under the illusion that there were "some" Republican politicians that were "still mostly great/good", despite their decades upon decades of politician-hood. But I now realize there is next to none of that. At some point, they all just want to keep their job and power.

STRICT TERM LIMITS for everyone. STRICT MINIMUM TIME spent reading and analyzing bills. No more COVID/remote voting. When things are over, let them go people! The other day I saw someone driving in their car - totally alone - wearing a Covid mask. WTF? How does that even make SENSE? Many people have lost their minds in today's world - but small wonder when you see what the schools are doing to young minds.

I thank God for the Arizona governor's insistence on passing the $7k school voucher - now finally available to EVERYONE IN THE STATE, so they can send their child to their preferred school if they want. Public education was a nice idea. So was welfare, back when we thought the only people who were going to be using it were orphans, widows and handicapped people. We perhaps didn't fully appreciate that one day half of America would be on it.

And I will repeat an idea I have said before. You know the old saying, "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!" that the American colonies used to justify their separation from the British empire? Well I have concluded after years of seeing a growing minority continue voting in a way that robs others who are working from their wages in order to give to that segment that refuses to work: No Representation Without Taxation

If you have no "skin in the game", you should not be allowed to vote.

IF you are paying taxes, THEN you should be allowed to vote which gives you influence over Taxes.

Makes sense, doesn't it? From a pure FAIRNESS perspective?

Why should we let millions of people who pay no taxes, continue voting in a way that chooses more laws that further taxes those who are working, to have money taken from the working and give to those voters who are not working? That system is fundamentally unfair.

There are only two ways that ends: Revolt, or Communism. It would be nice to avoid both. No representation without taxation.

 

[Steve R.]

 

[Steve R.]

And I will repeat an idea I have said before. You know the old saying, "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!" that the American colonies used to justify their separation from the British empire? Well I have concluded after years of seeing a growing minority continue voting in a way that robs others who are working from their wages in order to give to that segment that refuses to work: No Representation Without Taxation

If you have no "skin in the game", you should not be allowed to vote.

IF you are paying taxes, THEN you should be allowed to vote which gives you influence over Taxes.

Makes sense, doesn't it? From a pure FAIRNESS perspective?

Why should we let millions of people who pay no taxes, continue voting in a way that chooses more laws that further taxes those who are working, to have money taken from the working and give to those voters who are not working? That system is fundamentally unfair.

The quote below, has often been attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville. Evidently, according to CheckYourFact, that's not true. Nevertheless it perfectly sums up what Congress is doing. Bribing many through the promise of welfare. Needless to say, those craving welfare would vote for those politicians thereby exacerbating limitless deficit spending. As you point out, they should not have the privilege of voting.

The American Republic Will Endure Until The Day Congress Discovers That It Can Bribe The Public With The Public’s Money’.​

Additionally as Churchill remarked:

“Any man under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over thirty who is not a conservative has no brains.”​

With that in mind the minimum voting age should be raised to 25.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I must be precocious. I came to my senses when I was 25 But that didn't make me a Republican The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats do what they say but Republicans don't. The policies proposed by the Democrats always sound "good" and "moral" and "inclusive" because they are designed to appeal to the unthinking masses who are hoping to benefit from government largess (ie other people's money) or they put fear in the hearts of Congress members who are afraid of being called racists and other names to force them to vote for the "solutions", but the "solutions" are so bad that they are bankrupting us and slowly but surely converting the country to Communism as well as allowing us to be overwhelmed by an invasion. You can always tell how bad a bill is going to be for you by how "well meaning" and "moral" its name is

I have always been leery of the concept of allowing every adult "citizen" to vote. We do have some restrictions on felons but not any others that I can think of. Limiting the vote to the "landed" is too restrictive but I agree, if you didn't pay taxes last year, for whatever reason, you don't get to vote this year. This has another interesting effect in that it automatically cleans up the voter roles AND gets taxes paid on time We can make the cutoff date April 15th or more generously, June 30th. If your taxes haven't been filed by the specified date or you owe 0 dollars or get a negative credit, you don't get to vote in November. Computers make all of this possible. The IRS could be the bottleneck but by September, they should be finished processing at least the individual returns and be able to report back to the states, their voter roles and the states can then communicate to us or give us a website where we can confirm our status in sufficient time to get it fixed if necessary. This means dead people automatically get removed. I'm sure there would be complaints that this leaves people out. Well, maybe, but only the very wealthy could live in the US with no income whatsoever but I'm not sure even how they would do it. Keep in mind that SS is NOT an entitlement program. This is OUR money and the government took it from us at gunpoint with the promise of giving it back with interest when we get old. You can also separate the SS retirement payments and disability payments from all other payments which are entitlements since the person earning the income probably didn't work for it so it wasn't stolen from them.

 

[Isaac]

I am glad to hear that my idea does not come across too radical to a couple of you at least. Yes, paying taxes should be a litmus test of being allowed to vote on requiring yet more taxes ... seems logical.

 

[Steve R.]

Based on the expected "red-wave" fizzling and 18 Republican Senators meekly going along with the Democrats, the current Republican leadership (RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel and others) should resign. Harmeet Dhillon has declared that she would run for the RNC Chair.

Rep. Chip Roy: GOP senators' reasons for voting for the omnibus spending bill are 'pretty pathetic' | Fox News Video

Republican Texas Congressman Chip Roy slams the 18 GOP senators who voted for the $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.'

www.foxnews.com

 

[Isaac]

I am glad to hear that my idea does not come across too radical to a couple of you at least. Yes, paying taxes should be a litmus test of whether you're allowed to vote on more taxes.

 

[Steve R.]

The red wave fizzled. It should never have, which implies something is wrong. The quick implication is that the Republican leadership failed and needs to be replaced. Harmeet Dhillon, is planning to run for the RNC chair. Below is an interview between her and Tucker Carlson.

'We can only go up from here': Harmeet Dhillon on Republican divide | Fox News Video

RNC chair candidate Harmeet Dhillon weighs in on division within the House GOP over House speaker on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.'

www.foxnews.com

​

 

[Pat Hartman]

Does anyone think that the vote for party leader whether of the House or the Senate should be a roll call vote? The 20 holdouts against McCarthy stuck together for 15 ballots but never got anyone else to join them. I wonder what would have happened if the vote had been secret. Think about it. Are you brave enough to vote against the "favorite"? What if he still wins? Do you think you'll get any committee assignment worth having? Do you think that any bill you sponsor will ever be brought up for a vote? Do you think your reelection campaign will get any money from the RNC or DNC? What do you think would happen if you were a Democrat and voted for a Republican for Speaker? Do you think you'd make it out of the chamber alive? I almost got on Mark Levin's radio show yesterday. I got preempted by the arrest of Babbitt's mother, conveniently on Jan 6th even though she'd been protesting at the Capitol since August.

 

[Steve R.]

Does anyone think that the vote for party leader whether of the House or the Senate should be a roll call vote? The 20 holdouts against McCarthy stuck together for 15 ballots but never got anyone else to join them. I wonder what would have happened if the vote had been secret. Think about it. Are you brave enough to vote against

Fundamentally, I am on the side of the "Freedom Caucus". Nevertheless their grandstanding was disgraceful. Especially in the face of the fact that McCarthy gave them most of what they wanted, based on Fox News reporting. What still troubles me the most is that the Democrats are like the Borg, they march-in-lockstep like an immovable mountain. That opens-up the possibility that a fractured Republican caucus could inadvertently give the Democrats an unearned win. Recall McCain failing to approve the legislation to abolish the Affordable Care Act because he hated Trump. Then there is McConnell who essentially gave the Democrats everything they wanted just to get some defense spending he wanted. (And to toss this way-back irritant into he narrative; Obama, to win reelection proposed adopting Bush's temporary tax cuts. The idiot Republicans took the bait, voted for it and promptly lost the election.). So far Democrats have successfully outmaneuvered the Republicans. With new leadership, maybe the Republicans can get their act together.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The rebels didn't set out to push McCarthy into concessions. They actually thought others would join the revolt to oust McCarthy. But, when no one else had the cojones to vote against McCarthy, they switched tactics. McCarthy might still have won in the end but the process would have played out differently if the vote were secret as it should be to avoid the spectre of retaliation. As it turned out, I think the rebellion should have given up gracefully after about 8 votes. But the concessions kept coming so maybe it worked out. We'll see if the new rules bill actually passes or if McCarthy isn't going to actually have to live up to what he agreed to. I'm guessing the fight will be for naught. We'll see on Monday. No Democrat is going to vote for the new rules, will enough Republications vote for it in the end to pass it? I am doubtful. Remember, the people who voted for McCarthy from the beginning were OK with the status quo so why should they vote to pass the new rules McCarthy agreed to?

Voting for your "boss" is quite different from voting to pass a spending bill. Do you really think McConnell could have won reelection in the Senate without the threat of retaliation? Or, gotten away with holding the vote with the old Senate rather than the new members? McConnell, Ryan, and McCarthy actively worked against Trump at every opportunity. Trump lives in la la land if he thinks McCarthy would support him in any way should Trump run again in 2024.

 

[Isaac]

Definitely the fact that the Democrats are more unified than we are (at least for now - it's not anywhere near always that way!) - concerns me.

It concerns me for 2024, too. I feel everyone should realize that Trump probably cannot win, for better or worse. That "for better or worse" statement is very crucial. What I mean when I say that is, "even if that's wrong. even if I might agree that he could be a decent president, even if most of the stuff against him is slander, even if the media has lied about most of it" - but we have to realize not what we wish would be, but what IS. "Accept what we cannot change". If Trump is unlikely to win, we need to get behind someone else - all of us, 100%.

Look at how the Democrats treated Biden. He was the worst candidate imaginable - a bumbling, senile old man who could barely string together a couple sentences (if that), sitting in his basement rarely talking to anyone. But their Unity (and who knows what else), got him elected.

We have to mimic that as best as we can. I like it that each person thinks for themself but there is a time to come together to win certain things..

 

[AccessBlaster]

Governor Greg Abbott hands Biden a letter yesterday instead of telling him to his face about the border crisis. What a joke! The repubs are a joke.

 

[Isaac]

maybe he wanted it documented to be pointed to instead of a speech that gets cherry picked for quotes ?