United States Congress of Fail (Part 3)

[Audrey2]

3 hours ago, fraurosena said:

McTurtle pours cold water on Trump-Schumer effort to repeal debt ceiling

  Reveal hidden contents

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday positioned himself in opposition to President Trump and Democratic leaders in Congress on the nation’s borrowing authority when he expressed no enthusiasm for repealing Congress’s oversight of the debt ceiling.

It marked the latest sign of division between Trump and Republicans on Capitol Hill, a divide that has been growing in recent weeks.

“Getting Congress to give up the tool like that would probably be quite a challenge,” he said.

McConnell predicted that the debt ceiling “will continue and we’ll have to decide when these intervals come along the best way to handle it.”

Trump and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) agreed last week to pursue an agreement to permanently do away with the requirement that Congress periodically raise the debt ceiling.

Trump and Democrats also reached a deal to extend the debt limit until December, overruling McConnell and other GOP congressional leaders, who wanted a longer-term agreement that extended past the 2018 midterm elections.

McConnell said Tuesday that he does not expect to have to raise the debt ceiling again until “some time next year,” because of extraordinary measures the government can take to buy time, which he has said he pushed to include in last week’s package.

The United States spends more than it takes in and must therefore continually issue new debt, which is why government officials consistently push to rise the national limit.

From the article:

The United States spends more than it takes in and must therefore continually issue new debt, which is why government officials consistently push to rise the national limit.

So, you spend more than you get. Well, then I just don't understand why the GOP is so hellbent on tax reduction. You're spending too much so you're going to ensure you take in even less. Riiiiiiight.

Oh silly folks, you just don't understand government debt. See, if huge debts are raised when the Republicans are in charge, we're at war or the Republicans have given corporations and the wealthy huge tax cuts, then it's good debt that doesn't count. If the Democrats are in control of the House, Senate and/or the White House or the debt improves the quality of life for anyone who isn't wealthy, then it's hideously evil debt. In that case, taxes must be slashed and programs that help real people must be decimated. 

[GreyhoundFan]

AMEN!!

[47of74]

And the porn star in the clip wishes Teddy had paid for his whacking off material...

Quote

The actress who starred in the porn video liked by Ted Cruz’ Twitter account has harsh words for the Texas Senator.

“I didn’t like that he watched it for free,” Cory Chase told HuffPost. “He pirated that video. He should have paid Reality Kings for a subscription.”

 

Chase was unaware that Ted Cruz has argued for the ban of sex toys in Texas, but she isn’t surprised. 

“Most politicians are hypocrites,” she said, adding that politically, she does lean toward the Republican side, but considers herself a moderate. 

 

 

[Cartmann99]

22 hours ago, fraurosena said:

So when he decided to like a tweet by @SexuallPosts (who now proudly boast the tagline "Follow for the porn Ted Cruz watches"), pretty much the entire internet saw.

They may want to rethink this. I'm sure most of their fans do not want images of Ted Cruz in their heads while checking out tweets from @SexuallPosts. 

[fraurosena]

Just now, Cartmann99 said:

They may want to rethink this. I'm sure most of their fans do not want images of Ted Cruz in their heads while checking out tweets from @SexuallPosts. 

I'm beginning to regret posting anything on this subject, as it's making me more than slightly nauseous... 

[47of74]

Jimmy Kimmel had something to say about Whacking Teddy...

 

[AnywhereButHere]

16 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

AMEN!!

Sadly, the first time I saw Ted Cruz I thought he could really pull off one of those baby fetishes. You know, in a diaper, wearing a baby bonnet, sucking on a pacifier/bottle, waiting for "mommy" to change him.

Sorry everyone! I'm handing out free bleach!  Take as needed.

[GrumpyGran]

16 hours ago, 47of74 said:

“Most politicians are hypocrites,” she said, adding that politically, she does lean toward the Republican side, but considers herself a moderate. 

I will never understand this. Sweetie, they want to put you out of a job! Maybe you don't know how to be your own best friend, but don't declare war on yourself.

@fraurosena, I'm vomiting with you.

[onekidanddone]

On 9/12/2017 at 9:10 AM, 47of74 said:

Of course, don't visualize Ted Cruze pounding off.  There ain't enough eye bleach in the world for that. 

Time for Teddy bye bye.. time for Teddy bye bye.

No, really Ted, time go go spend more time with your family.

[GreyhoundFan]

A good one from Dana Milbank: "What it took for Republicans finally to feel betrayed by Trump"

Spoiler

Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, an early and loyal Trump enthusiast, gave an uncommonly candid assessment of the president to a group of young Republicans at home in California recently.

“He’s an a--hole,” Duncan said, “but he’s our a--hole.” So reported his hometown San Diego Union-Tribune.

That’s close to a perfect summary of Republicans’ relationship of convenience with President Trump.

Trump gave succor to neo-Nazis, boasted of groping women, attacked the integrity of the judicial system, fired the FBI director to stymie the Russia probe, boasted about his genital size on national television, attacked racial and religious minorities and labeled women all manner of vulgarities.

And, through it all, Republicans stuck with Trump.

But this time, some Republicans say he went too far. He made a deal with Democrats.

It’s not a big deal, mind you, just a procedural agreement to postpone budget wrangling for three months. But because Trump sided with Chuck and Nancy over Mitch and Paul, combined with his tweeted attacks on the Republican Senate leader and Stephen K. Bannon’s threat to back primary challenges to Republican senators, there is suddenly talk of civil war within the GOP.

Republican lawmakers booed Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney when they tried to sell Trump’s deal with the Democrats. “It’s just a betrayal of everything we’ve been talking about for years as Republicans,” former senator Jim DeMint, an influential conservative, told Politico.

In article headlined “Bound to No Party, Trump Upends 150 Years of Two-Party Rule,” Peter Baker of the New York Times quoted conservative writer Ben Domenech: “This week was the first time he struck out and did something completely at odds with what the Republican leadership and establishment would want him to do in this position.”

The first time!

If this is the first time Trump has been completely at odds with what the Republican leadership and establishment want him to do, let’s review the various things Trump has done as president that must have been consistent with what they wanted. If his deal with Chuck and Nancy is a “betrayal of everything,” let’s recall all those things that were not such betrayals of Republicanism:

Firing James B. Comey in an effort to thwart the FBI’s Russia probe.

Dictating a misleading statement explaining his son’s campaign interaction with Russians.

Moving slowly to fire national security adviser Michael Flynn after being told by the Justice Department that Russia could potentially blackmail Flynn.

Inventing the false charge that he was wiretapped by his predecessor.

Shoving aside a European prime minister to make his way to the front of a photo.

Talking with the Japanese prime minister about how to respond to North Korea while dining alfresco among members of the public at Mar-a-Lago.

Mocking the abilities of U.S. intelligence agencies to an overseas audience.

Sharing sensitive Israeli intelligence with the Russians.

Initially failing to affirm NATO’s collective-security guarantee.

Gratuitously antagonizing European and Asian allies.

Raising the temperature in the North Korea nuclear standoff with a threat of “fire and fury.”

Encouraging a blockade of U.S. ally Qatar.

Issuing a ban on entry by members of certain Muslim countries that was struck down in court and had to be rewritten.

Attacking “so-called” federal judges and saying they should be blamed for terrorist attacks.

Launching a false social-media attack on the Muslim mayor of London.

Declaring the media “enemies of the American people.”

Disparaging MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinksi for supposedly “bleeding badly from a facelift.”

Claiming he lost the popular vote only because millions of people voted illegally and appointing an election fraud commission in an attempt to prove it.

Saying there were “fine people” marching among neo-Nazis in Charlottesville.

Moving to end protection from deportation for hundreds of thousands of immigrant “dreamers.”

And that list, of course, doesn’t include the many things Trump did before assuming office: the “Access Hollywood” video, the “birther” campaign, calling Mexican immigrants rapists, countenancing violence at his rallies and all the rest.

Why do so many Republicans who tolerated so much now howl about civil war over a deal with Democrats? I’m skeptical this will turn out to be a real break (Trump’s dealmaking was clearly impromptu), but to the extent it does, it’s not about principle but partisan tribalism. Republicans can stomach just about anything as long as Trump remains a member in good standing of the tribe. But if he favors enemy tribesmen over his own, that’s taboo.

Heading into the 2018 midterms, Republicans increasingly have an incentive to make people think they’re different from the unpopular Trump and that he’s independent of the two-party system. But if Republicans disown Trump now, they still own all the previous Trump actions over which they failed to break with him in any meaningful way.

He’s their you-know-what.

He's their you-know-what and they are his bitches.

[GrumpyGran]

9 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

A good one from Dana Milbank: "What it took for Republicans finally to feel betrayed by Trump"

  Reveal hidden contents

Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, an early and loyal Trump enthusiast, gave an uncommonly candid assessment of the president to a group of young Republicans at home in California recently.

“He’s an a--hole,” Duncan said, “but he’s our a--hole.” So reported his hometown San Diego Union-Tribune.

That’s close to a perfect summary of Republicans’ relationship of convenience with President Trump.

Trump gave succor to neo-Nazis, boasted of groping women, attacked the integrity of the judicial system, fired the FBI director to stymie the Russia probe, boasted about his genital size on national television, attacked racial and religious minorities and labeled women all manner of vulgarities.

And, through it all, Republicans stuck with Trump.

But this time, some Republicans say he went too far. He made a deal with Democrats.

It’s not a big deal, mind you, just a procedural agreement to postpone budget wrangling for three months. But because Trump sided with Chuck and Nancy over Mitch and Paul, combined with his tweeted attacks on the Republican Senate leader and Stephen K. Bannon’s threat to back primary challenges to Republican senators, there is suddenly talk of civil war within the GOP.

Republican lawmakers booed Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney when they tried to sell Trump’s deal with the Democrats. “It’s just a betrayal of everything we’ve been talking about for years as Republicans,” former senator Jim DeMint, an influential conservative, told Politico.

In article headlined “Bound to No Party, Trump Upends 150 Years of Two-Party Rule,” Peter Baker of the New York Times quoted conservative writer Ben Domenech: “This week was the first time he struck out and did something completely at odds with what the Republican leadership and establishment would want him to do in this position.”

The first time!

If this is the first time Trump has been completely at odds with what the Republican leadership and establishment want him to do, let’s review the various things Trump has done as president that must have been consistent with what they wanted. If his deal with Chuck and Nancy is a “betrayal of everything,” let’s recall all those things that were not such betrayals of Republicanism:

Firing James B. Comey in an effort to thwart the FBI’s Russia probe.

Dictating a misleading statement explaining his son’s campaign interaction with Russians.

Moving slowly to fire national security adviser Michael Flynn after being told by the Justice Department that Russia could potentially blackmail Flynn.

Inventing the false charge that he was wiretapped by his predecessor.

Shoving aside a European prime minister to make his way to the front of a photo.

Talking with the Japanese prime minister about how to respond to North Korea while dining alfresco among members of the public at Mar-a-Lago.

Mocking the abilities of U.S. intelligence agencies to an overseas audience.

Sharing sensitive Israeli intelligence with the Russians.

Initially failing to affirm NATO’s collective-security guarantee.

Gratuitously antagonizing European and Asian allies.

Raising the temperature in the North Korea nuclear standoff with a threat of “fire and fury.”

Encouraging a blockade of U.S. ally Qatar.

Issuing a ban on entry by members of certain Muslim countries that was struck down in court and had to be rewritten.

Attacking “so-called” federal judges and saying they should be blamed for terrorist attacks.

Launching a false social-media attack on the Muslim mayor of London.

Declaring the media “enemies of the American people.”

Disparaging MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinksi for supposedly “bleeding badly from a facelift.”

Claiming he lost the popular vote only because millions of people voted illegally and appointing an election fraud commission in an attempt to prove it.

Saying there were “fine people” marching among neo-Nazis in Charlottesville.

Moving to end protection from deportation for hundreds of thousands of immigrant “dreamers.”

And that list, of course, doesn’t include the many things Trump did before assuming office: the “Access Hollywood” video, the “birther” campaign, calling Mexican immigrants rapists, countenancing violence at his rallies and all the rest.

Why do so many Republicans who tolerated so much now howl about civil war over a deal with Democrats? I’m skeptical this will turn out to be a real break (Trump’s dealmaking was clearly impromptu), but to the extent it does, it’s not about principle but partisan tribalism. Republicans can stomach just about anything as long as Trump remains a member in good standing of the tribe. But if he favors enemy tribesmen over his own, that’s taboo.

Heading into the 2018 midterms, Republicans increasingly have an incentive to make people think they’re different from the unpopular Trump and that he’s independent of the two-party system. But if Republicans disown Trump now, they still own all the previous Trump actions over which they failed to break with him in any meaningful way.

He’s their you-know-what.

He's their you-know-what and they are his bitches.

My unofficial survey with #TrumpRegrets, a little late due to hurricane insanity, says he lost quite a few humpers with the one-two punch of DACA and the budget deal with Dems.

This article is spot-on. This is a crazy loyalty battle, although it appears more like a fifth grade bitch-fight. It doesn't matter what the outcome policy-wise as long as you don't eat lunch at Becca's table!

[Cartmann99]

3 hours ago, GrumpyGran said:

l will never understand this. Sweetie, they want to put you out of a job! Maybe you don't know how to be your own best friend, but don't declare war on yourself

Do you remember adult film actress Jenna Jameson? I don't think she's still making movies, but she's a Trump fan. 

Just to be on the safe side, I'm labeling her Twitter feed NSFW. I'm only seeing profanity right now, but I don't want anyone getting in trouble at work.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jennajameson

 

[onekidanddone]

9 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

Do you remember adult film actress Jenna Jameson? I don't think she's still making movies, but she's a Trump fan. 

Just to be on the safe side, I'm labeling her Twitter feed NSFW. I'm only seeing profanity right now, but I don't want anyone getting in trouble at work.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jennajameson

 

I don't do the twitter so it won't let me see much.  I don't get how the photo of her with a baby is "sensitive".

[GrumpyGran]

24 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

I don't do the twitter so it won't let me see much.  I don't get how the photo of her with a baby is "sensitive".

Yeah, me neither. Seems that now she's a "mom", "sober" and "conservative" she's decided to show us her brain instead of her... Guess that's why I couldn't see anything?

[Cartmann99]

I labeled Jenna Jameson's feed as NSFW, because as a former adult actress, she's going to get some replies to her tweets that could be NSFW. I didn't want anybody to click on one of her tweets to read the replies, and end up viewing something that got them into trouble at work.

[47of74]

5 hours ago, GrumpyGran said:

I will never understand this. Sweetie, they want to put you out of a job! Maybe you don't know how to be your own best friend, but don't declare war on yourself.

@fraurosena, I'm vomiting with you.

Yeah there were quite a few that were in love with Donald J. Putinfluffer and are now being rather quiet about their love of the orange one.

Quote

Keeping quiet about politics is exactly what one of the top adult agents recommends. “Being a Trump supporter would not be beneficial in any way for a girl’s career,” says Mark Spiegler. “This is show business, and if you want to get hired you give them a show.”

Even Brandi Love, an A-list porn star who admitted to me that she’d shed “tears of joy” while watching Trump’s inauguration during this year’s Adult Entertainment Expo, has gone radio silent. While her social media feeds still contain the rare #MAGA post, her pro-Trump rhetoric has died down considerably in recent months, and she’s made it a point to ignore my repeated requests to talk Trump. Numerous other popular porn stars have followed suit.

 

[onekidanddone]

4 hours ago, GrumpyGran said:

My unofficial survey with #TrumpRegrets, a little late due to hurricane insanity, says he lost quite a few humpers with the one-two punch of DACA and the budget deal with Dems.

Too little too late. I don't care if they all vote for impeachment tomorrow, fuck 'em. I'm not forgiving and I'm still filled with rage.

[GreyhoundFan]

Oh please Rufus, do not let the people of Michigan foist this on us: "Kid Rock’s R-rated speech made his politics clear. But he left out the most important part."

Spoiler

Musician Kid Rock, who says he's exploring a run for the Senate, delivered a R-rated political speech in Detroit on Tuesday night, chastising everyone from Nazis and professional athletes to single moms and deadbeat dads but pulling up short of officially declaring his candidacy as some had anticipated.

...

The singer, née Robert Ritchie, debuted his political material last week during a performance in Grand Rapids, Mich., according to the Detroit Free Press. He rebuked the same newspaper earlier Tuesday, revoking its press credentials for the Detroit show and berating editors for publishing an opinion piece that criticized him.

Kid Rock is a vocal, opinionated supporter of President Trump, and has hinted for months that he may challenge Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who is expected to seek a fourth term next year. He launched a website over the summer to gauge his viability.

The event at Detroit's newly opened Little Caesars Arena, the first of six concerts there by Kid Rock, attracted protesters offended by his past use of the Confederate flag as a prop during performances, and his fierce disapproval of NFL players, namely Colin Kaepernick, who have called attention to social injustice by kneeling during the national anthem.

Those protesters were countered by Kid Rock's supporters, some displaying the controversial Confederate symbol many associate with slavery and America's long, deep divisions over race, but there were no immediate indications of violence.

...

Kid Rock opened his performance with a new song, "Greatest Show on Earth," its high-octane tempo punctuated by dynamic stage lighting. Brightly colored stilt walkers added to theatrics.

And then the venue went dark.

"Ladies and gentleman," a public address announcer finally boomed. "Will you please welcome the next senator of the great state of Michigan, Kid 'm---------ing' Rock."

The eruption of applause was quickly dowsed by the piercing brass notes of "Hail to the Chief." He gestured to the audience before striding to a lectern emblazoned with a knockoff of the presidential seal and the words "United States of ’Merica."

And for the next four minutes he cursed and rhymed (and cursed some more), trumpeting his patriotism and lamenting all that ails our nation, in his view.

He opined about government-mandated health care:

It seems the government wants to give everyone health insurance, but wants us all to pay. And to be very frank, I really don't have a problem with that, since God has blessed me and made my pockets fat. But redistribution of wealth seems more like their plan. And I don't believe you should save, sacrifice, do things by the book and then have to take care of some deadbeat, milking the system, lazy a-- m---------ing man.

He called out single mothers who, in his view, over rely on government assistance:

The issue of struggling single parents is an issue close to my heart. But read my lips: We should not reward those who can't even take care of themselves but keep having kid after f---ing kid.  Of course, we should help them out. I don't want to stand here and sound like a jerk. But let's help ’em out with child care, job training and find them a f---ing place to work.

He denounced white supremacists:

Nazis. F---ing bigots. And now again the KKK? I say f--- all you racists. Stay the hell away.

He expressed support for gay marriage but drew a hard line on transgender rights:

Things shouldn't be this complicated and, no, you shouldn't get to choose. Because whatever you have between your legs should determine the bathroom that you use. 

He prayed for God's guidance in America's ongoing struggle with crime and terrorism.

And before closing, he called for unity:

And I do believe it to be self evident, that we're all created equal. I said it once, I'll scream it again: I love black people. And I love white people, too. But neither as much as I love red, white and blue.

Kid Rock's full speech is below.

,,, < I couldn't bring myself to watch the video >

I'm sorry, he needs to STFU. I don't think God blessed him, I think he's a SOB who happened to make a lot of money appealing to narrow-minded people. The only thing I agree with him on is what he said about the KKK/white supremacists.

[47of74]

I see Bitch McFuckstick wants to get rid of the Blue Slip since it's being used by Democrats now

Spoiler

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday told The New York Times that he thinks the "blue slip" practice should be scrapped for circuit court nominations, a move that would eliminate Democrats' only leverage against President Donald Trump's picks to the nation's second-highest courts.

"My personal view is that the blue slip, with regard to circuit court appointments, ought to simply be a notification of how you’re going to vote, not the opportunity to blackball," McConnell told The Times, adding that he still favors keeping the practice in place in its current form for district court judges.

Responding to McConnell, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told The Times that "getting rid fo the blue slip would be a mistake."

"Preserving some of the minority’s power in the Senate has broad support because every one of us knows we’re probably going to be in some of each," he said.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

[sawasdee]

@GreyhoundFanThat actually had me giggling manically all alone in my house! Who knew Hatch had a sense of humour - or was a closet hippy!

[GrumpyGran]

On 9/13/2017 at 9:59 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

Oh please Rufus, do not let the people of Michigan foist this on us: "Kid Rock’s R-rated speech made his politics clear. But he left out the most important part."

  Hide contents

Musician Kid Rock, who says he's exploring a run for the Senate, delivered a R-rated political speech in Detroit on Tuesday night, chastising everyone from Nazis and professional athletes to single moms and deadbeat dads but pulling up short of officially declaring his candidacy as some had anticipated.

...

The singer, née Robert Ritchie, debuted his political material last week during a performance in Grand Rapids, Mich., according to the Detroit Free Press. He rebuked the same newspaper earlier Tuesday, revoking its press credentials for the Detroit show and berating editors for publishing an opinion piece that criticized him.

Kid Rock is a vocal, opinionated supporter of President Trump, and has hinted for months that he may challenge Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who is expected to seek a fourth term next year. He launched a website over the summer to gauge his viability.

The event at Detroit's newly opened Little Caesars Arena, the first of six concerts there by Kid Rock, attracted protesters offended by his past use of the Confederate flag as a prop during performances, and his fierce disapproval of NFL players, namely Colin Kaepernick, who have called attention to social injustice by kneeling during the national anthem.

Those protesters were countered by Kid Rock's supporters, some displaying the controversial Confederate symbol many associate with slavery and America's long, deep divisions over race, but there were no immediate indications of violence.

...

Kid Rock opened his performance with a new song, "Greatest Show on Earth," its high-octane tempo punctuated by dynamic stage lighting. Brightly colored stilt walkers added to theatrics.

And then the venue went dark.

"Ladies and gentleman," a public address announcer finally boomed. "Will you please welcome the next senator of the great state of Michigan, Kid 'm---------ing' Rock."

The eruption of applause was quickly dowsed by the piercing brass notes of "Hail to the Chief." He gestured to the audience before striding to a lectern emblazoned with a knockoff of the presidential seal and the words "United States of ’Merica."

And for the next four minutes he cursed and rhymed (and cursed some more), trumpeting his patriotism and lamenting all that ails our nation, in his view.

He opined about government-mandated health care:

It seems the government wants to give everyone health insurance, but wants us all to pay. And to be very frank, I really don't have a problem with that, since God has blessed me and made my pockets fat. But redistribution of wealth seems more like their plan. And I don't believe you should save, sacrifice, do things by the book and then have to take care of some deadbeat, milking the system, lazy a-- m---------ing man.

He called out single mothers who, in his view, over rely on government assistance:

The issue of struggling single parents is an issue close to my heart. But read my lips: We should not reward those who can't even take care of themselves but keep having kid after f---ing kid.  Of course, we should help them out. I don't want to stand here and sound like a jerk. But let's help ’em out with child care, job training and find them a f---ing place to work.

He denounced white supremacists:

Nazis. F---ing bigots. And now again the KKK? I say f--- all you racists. Stay the hell away.

He expressed support for gay marriage but drew a hard line on transgender rights:

Things shouldn't be this complicated and, no, you shouldn't get to choose. Because whatever you have between your legs should determine the bathroom that you use. 

He prayed for God's guidance in America's ongoing struggle with crime and terrorism.

And before closing, he called for unity:

And I do believe it to be self evident, that we're all created equal. I said it once, I'll scream it again: I love black people. And I love white people, too. But neither as much as I love red, white and blue.

Kid Rock's full speech is below.

,,, < I couldn't bring myself to watch the video >

I'm sorry, he needs to STFU. I don't think God blessed him, I think he's a SOB who happened to make a lot of money appealing to narrow-minded people. The only thing I agree with him on is what he said about the KKK/white supremacists.

I don't think his message is quite right for Trumptards. Way too liberal. It must be confusing for them. And is he confused? Is he running for Senator or President?

He needs to stick with what he's good at-entertaining rednecks. And put his money where is mouth is.

[GreyhoundFan]

"With little to lose, Democrats cautiously share the driver’s seat with Trump"

Spoiler

Democratic lawmakers shut out of governance for much of this year now find themselves at the center of high-stakes negotiations with President Trump that could achieve a prize they have sought for nearly a decade: permanent legal status for hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants.

For a small but vocal contingent of Democrats, these talks are fraught with peril, largely because of their total distrust of a man who began his presidential campaign two years ago describing illegal immigrants from Mexico as rapists.

But for Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), there is little to lose. If the deal falls apart and Trump returns to his pattern of insult-hurling and name-calling, the Democratic leaders will be right where they began — no better and no worse. And a successful negotiation would achieve something they failed to pull off when their party controlled both Congress and the White House. It could also serve as a road map for more achievements to come.

“Nothing ventured, nothing gained,” Schumer said in an interview. “We thought we had an opportunity to get something good done, and let’s see what happens. We’re very hopeful that they will keep their word.”

Schumer and Pelosi are pressing ahead with the president’s top advisers, hoping to reach a deal in a matter of weeks to enshrine in law an Obama-era executive order called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. It protects from deportation undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. Trump has criticized DACA as executive overreach, but he has also expressed empathy for the young immigrants it protects.

There is one critical stumbling block to the whole effort to pass a Dream Act to replace DACA: how much additional border security and enforcement Trump will demand.

The deep fear among Democrats skeptical of the negotiations is that, in exchange for permanent protections for “dreamers,” Trump will win broad new powers and resources to enforce immigration laws that go beyond adding more agents or technology along the border. The cost of a permanent Dream Act, they say, could be a new and emboldened deportation force across the nation that undermines civil liberties and terrorizes law-abiding immigrants.

“We’re going to have to be very leery and very careful of the slippery slope,” said Rep. Luis V. Gutiérrez (D-Ill.).

“There is no fresh start with Trump, and I don’t trust him,” said Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.).

Washington heads are still spinning from a negotiating dynamic that no one expected — not Schumer and Pelosi, and not their Republican counterparts, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Trump spent his first seven months in an entirely partisan bubble, working only with Republicans trying, and failing, to pass conservative legislation — notably a replacement to the Affordable Care Act. And it was less than a month ago when Pelosi said Trump should be formally censured by Congress for how he responded to the violence surrounding the white supremacist gathering in Charlottesville.

But Trump’s frustration with Republican leaders reached a boiling point during the failed effort to repeal former president Barack Obama’s signature health-care law, losing in the Senate by one vote when three Republicans opposed Trump. From the White House’s perspective, that frustration — and Trump’s pivot to working with Democrats — is entirely justified.

“Republicans have shown they can’t keep 50 out of 52 members in line, even after six years of promise to repeal and replace Obamacare when given the opportunity,” said Marc Short, Trump’s director of legislative affairs.

Congressional Republicans, for their part, worry that Pelosi and Schumer could outsmart Trump. The two are seasoned dealmakers with combined service of more than 65 years on Capitol Hill, while Trump is a newcomer who honed his negotiating skills in real estate. Republicans have noted in particular how Trump and Schumer — one raised in Queens, the other in Brooklyn — are bonding over their outer-borough roots, leaving the president, they fear, vulnerable to getting the short end of the deal.

Trump’s closest advisers are enjoying the theater of how quickly allegiances are ebbing and flowing from week to week. “Washington will never keep pace with Trump speed,” Kellyanne Conway, counselor to Trump, said in an interview. “A non-politician’s measure of progress is fundamentally different than that of Washington. It’s grounded in business, it’s grounded in results, it’s grounded in performance.”

One senior White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to comment on internal discussions, said Trump sees Schumer as an exciting and energetic contrast to McConnell, whose default posture is intense silence. Trump sees McConnell’s deep knowledge of pulling levers of powers as a perfectly fine skill but one that is at odds with Trump’s stated goal of disrupting the traditional, establishment-driven ways of Washington.

The vast majority of rank-and-file Democrats, as well as liberal activists around the nation, are willing to give Schumer and Pelosi room to maneuver. Progressive organizers, who had scorched Democrats for voting to confirm Trump’s Cabinet nominees, have generally held their fire so far on the bipartisan DACA talks eight months after some of them had surrounded Schumer’s Brooklyn home chanting, “Chuck’s a chicken.”

“They’re in this position because there’s been a whole national movement, years in the making, on behalf of the dreamers,” said Héctor Figueroa, a New York labor organizer who is co-chairman of the progressive Working Families Party.

For now, Schumer and Pelosi have taken a page from Ronald Reagan’s old “trust but verify” adage toward the Soviets. They say that they have convinced Trump that protecting immigrants currently covered by DACA is the right policy and the right political move for a president with poor approval ratings.

“Look, he said he would do this,” Schumer said. “I take him at his word that he will.”

Pelosi at first deflected a question about whether she trusts Trump.

“Is that a fair question?” she asked reporters last week, before finally saying that, on this issue, she does, indeed, trust him. “I believe that the president, because of conviction, but because of reality, is there for the dreamers.”

Critical challenges still lie ahead that could hobble the emerging deal. One is the uncertainty surrounding an erratic president, whose engagement with Democrats — on immigration, and a week earlier on short-term fiscal policy and hurricane relief — was not expected and not part of a grand plan.

“I’m not sure there is a broader strategy,” said Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), a lieutenant in Pelosi’s leadership team. “I don’t think we should be surprised if he comes back next week and he’s working with Republicans only. It’s a case-by-case basis.”

Regarding the scope of border-security measures, Schumer said he signaled support for four points of toughened security: electronic surveillance at the Mexican border, detection devices focused on drug smugglers, improved infrastructure along the border and more search helicopters.

But Ryan, trying to reassert the power of congressional Republicans, added something to the talks. “We need border security and enforcement as part of any agreement,” he said Thursday, the morning after Trump’s White House huddle with the two Democrats.

The “enforcement” portion of his remarks set off alarm bells in the Hispanic caucus. “Where is it going to lead, once the alt-right starts raising their voices, which they’ve already begun and will only become louder?” asked Gutiérrez, referring to the white nationalist movement that has supported Trump and loudly advocated for tougher immigration enforcement.

These Democrats, for instance, will not support a deal to add thousands of agents nationwide to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, a step they forecast would lead in turn to a surge in deportations.

Another potential dealbreaker is the question of whether dreamers would be given a path to citizenship or merely permanent legal status. Pelosi and Schumer said they were specific with Trump in explaining that he would support the Dream Act introduced by Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), which includes opportunities for full citizenship.

On Thursday, Trump went back and forth on this issue, at times seeming to endorse the Democratic version of events but then backing away from citizenship, which staunch conservatives vehemently oppose.

Ultimately, if the deal comes together, it is most likely to happen fast — in weeks and not months, Schumer said. “I’d like to see it within the next little while. Look, I don’t want to set a date. Soon. Soon is the right word.”

I still hope Chuck and Nancy are watching their backs.

[onekidanddone]

10 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I still hope Chuck and Nancy are watching their backs.

I don't think they are  sycophantic and  pandering as the Repugs.  They aren't stupid, and know not to trust Trump. They probably enjoy watching the Republican in fighting going on.

[GreyhoundFan]

"To make their tax plan work, Republicans eye a favorite blue-state break"

Spoiler

As long as there has been a federal income tax, taxpayers have been able to deduct most of the state and local taxes they pay from earnings subject to Uncle Sam’s grasp. But that deduction — especially popular in states rich in Democratic voters — could disappear as soon as next year if President Trump and congressional Republicans succeed in their promised rewrite of the tax code.

The state and local tax deduction, or SALT, has long been a target for tax-policy wonks who see it as an unwise federal subsidy that is mainly claimed by the wealthy. But politics have always intervened: Thanks to the opposition of lawmakers in high-tax states, the deduction has survived every effort to clear out loopholes, including the last federal tax overhaul of similar ambition in 1986.

Now, Republican leaders have made clear the SALT deduction is on the table, and it has shaken up a number of blue-state GOP legislators who are warning that it could derail the ambitious tax plan Trump is now pushing.

“I intend to fight it with everything I know how,” said Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.), who represents a district where 43 percent of tax filers claim SALT deductions and signed a bipartisan letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin urging him to preserve the break. “It’s a big deal for states like ours.”

The incentives to eliminate, or at least chip away, at the deduction could be impossible for congressional tax writers to ignore. Republicans are hoping to drive down both individual and corporate tax rates using special congressional procedures that will require their plan to not increase the deficit in the long term. Doing so means offsetting the costs of rate cuts by closing loopholes, and few of them yield more revenue than the SALT deduction.

Last year, the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the deduction’s cost to the Treasury at more than $368 billion through 2020, and the Congressional Budget Office reported that simply capping the deduction would cut deficits by $955 billion over a decade.

The other individual tax provisions whose elimination could generate close to that revenue are even more politically sacred — including the favored treatment for retirement savings, employer-paid health-care premiums, investment income and mortgage interest.

“It’s really hard to envision tax reform that’s worth writing home about, that’s done revenue-neutrally, without including this,” said Ryan Ellis, a conservative tax lobbyist. “It’s very, very difficult to envision how you would piece it together. We’ve taken so many hits on everything else.”

That is a reference to the demise of other potential “pay-fors” to offset the GOP’s rate cuts, including a “border adjustment” tax on corporate expenses. That proposal, favored by House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), might have raised a trillion dollars over 10 years but generated fierce opposition from some businesses.

Now Ryan, who is eyeing the SALT deduction, has made the conservative policy case for eliminating the deduction at a Sept. 7 event hosted by the New York Times.

“People in states that have balanced budgets, whose state governments have done their job and kept their books balanced and don’t have big massive pension liabilities, they’re effectively paying for states that don’t,” he said. “What it is is a fairness issue. . . . Let’s let people see their true cost of government.”

The deduction clearly favors states where taxes are relatively high, and where incomes are high enough that it is worthwhile for taxpayers to itemize their deductions and claim it. According to the conservative Tax Foundation, filers in six states — California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Texas and Pennsylvania — claim more than half of the dollar value of the deduction.

With the exception of Texas, those states are overwhelmingly represented by Democrats, but a handful of Republicans, mainly in the House, are threatening a revolt if the GOP tax plan is balanced on their constituents.

Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), who represents a middle-class Long Island district, said he could never vote for a tax bill that eliminated the deduction, especially for property taxes.

“These people have 60-by-100 [foot] plots, they’re paying about $15,000 a year in property taxes, high state income taxes, not into Wall Street, not into stocks and bonds,” he said. “It would be devastating. These are Trump voters. They didn’t vote for him to take away the deduction on their main asset.”

Both King and MacArthur doubted the GOP bill would be able to reduce rates enough to offset the cost of losing the deduction. And even if it did, they said, that would hardly suffice: “They may leave my residents at a break-even while the rest of the country enjoys tax breaks,” MacArthur said. “That’s not fair.”

Interviews with a broader group of House Republicans representing districts in California, Pennsylvania, Illinois and New York found broad unease with the prospect of the deduction’s elimination. But all of them said they would see what would emerge from the “Big Six” negotiators from the White House and Capitol Hill, who are expected to release an outline later this month and examine how it would affect their constituents.

Ryan suggested “there are ways of ameliorating the effects” of eliminating the SALT deduction, pointing specifically to plans for doubling the standard deduction available to taxpayers who do not itemize. Do that, he said, and “you take care of middle-income people for that tax break, and it’s really a high-end, wealthy person’s tax break.”

Ellis said there are other ways tax writers could choose to scale back the deduction without inflicting too much political pain: by simply capping it, for instance, or by implementing a broader limitation on itemized deductions for high-income earners. Republicans are also proposing to eliminate the alternative minimum tax, he noted, which tends to affect a similar population as those who claim SALT deductions.

Not all legislators from high-tax states are opposed to rolling back the SALT deduction; a few believe it could send a needed message to free-spending legislators in statehouses and city halls.

“The question is: Should taxpayers in low-tax states be subsidizing the taxpayers in high-tax states?” said Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), a member of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee. “It’s not clear to me why that’s good policy.”

Steven M. Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Tax Policy Center who opposes eliminating the SALT deduction, said it would essentially raise the cost of state taxes and thus increase pressure on officials to cut them — at a time when Washington is transferring more costs, especially health care, to the states.

“They’re shifting the expense and kicking them when they’re down, making it harder for them to raise the revenue for these new federal mandates,” he said.

But Rosenthal said Republicans, having ruled out higher taxes on assets and investment, have few easier choices available to them.

“I think it will have better legs this time,” he said. “Republicans need to close a few loopholes and need to hit the rich in some way in order for the package to extend the narrative that it’s not just a windfall for the rich. And the noisier the blue-state politicians are at objecting to these loopholes, the better it plays into the narrative.”

Speaking as someone in a high tax state, I don't want this deduction to go away.