Presently...
Yea: 328
Nay: 31 (all 'R's)

There has been so many changes what is in this bill

Farm ?
Disaster ?
Debt Ceiling relief ?
About the same amount as the original 1500 page bill ?
When does it expire ?

It appears MJ can't pass Anything without help from Jeffries

Pretty much the same as the original bill…

Looks like farm/disaster relief remains untouched.

Ag CPA said:

---

Pretty much the same as the original bill…

---

The 1,500 plus page version or the 157 page version?

Not the same. Pretty much the second bill minus the debt ceiling.

Did it take out funding government censorship? More illegal immigration support?

So the entire United States is building the Commanders a $3B football stadium!?

Tea Party said:

---

If the Democrats are in favor of it and the GOP is split then Johnson needs to be removed from the SOTH position. He clearly is not working for the conservatives agenda.

---

Johnson doesn't take a piss without Trump's approval /s

Logos Stick said:

---

Not the same. Pretty much the second bill minus the debt ceiling.

---

If they didn't need to raise the debt ceiling then why did they make a big fuss over it? Congress is an absolute cluster-joke.

Tea Party said:

---

If the Democrats are in favor of it and the GOP is split then Johnson needs to be removed from the SOTH position. He clearly is not working for the conservatives agenda.

---

MJ is MAGA and when it comes to spending MAGA is not conservative
HTH

BTKAG97 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Not the same. Pretty much the second bill minus the debt ceiling.

---

If they didn't need to raise the debt ceiling then why did they make a big fuss over it? Congress is an absolute cluster-joke.

---

Trump wants the debt ceiling eliminated or a continuation of the suspension before inauguration
ZERO % chance the debt ceiling is eliminated with only R votes.
And ZERO % chance the Ds just give Trump a blank check

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Did it take out funding government censorship? More illegal immigration support?

---

I think it did.

Which brings to a factor about this many seem not to realize.

It is impossible, futile, to seek to restrain or cut spending much with a Democrat Senate and narrow House lead.

What needs to happen right now is getting out of this admin with no more destructive legislation, laws, regulations, further enabled or enshrined into law or policy. If you have a bill that has purged those, and
just involves $ outlay that adds to the total --- that has to be endured till Jan 3rd.

For the first time in a while you have an incoming administration and Congress actively interested to at least make a start on rolling things back. (This was not true in 2017 before it is mentioned--Trump was of that bent, but the GOP Congress and especially the McCain dominated Senate was of contrary bent out the gate, and Ryan in the House not particularly on board either.) But now they face a mandate of sorts that even crosses the right-left fence barrier. If there is any hope it is now -- but not while Bidenites like Schumer and Obiden WH still have the main say.

BTKAG97 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Not the same. Pretty much the second bill minus the debt ceiling.

---

If they didn't need to raise the debt ceiling then why did they make a big fuss over it? Congress is an absolute cluster-joke.

---

THERE CURRENTLY IS NO DEBT CEILING!!!!!

The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 is an act of the 118th United States Congress that SUSPENDED the debt limit until January 2025


Look it up


https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-118publ5/pdf/PLAW-118publ5.pdf

The debt ceiling will be back January 1st.

It comes back in 10 days
So I would say you're not entirely correct

Philip J Fry said:

---

The debt ceiling will be back January 1st.

---

Exactly. That POS McCarthy set this time bomb for Trump to have to deal with on top of all the spending him and Biden jammed underneath it while there was no limit.


I use the term limit loosely because the debt ceiling is nothing but a cudgel to push pork through legislation.

Sq 17 said:

---

It comes back in 10 days
So I would say you're not entirely correct

---

Is it ten days from now? NO


I'm ENTIRELY correct

So if it passes the Senate, Biden has to sign it between now and midnight? Can Jill stay up and sign for him?

fc2112 said:

---

So if it passes the Senate, Biden has to sign it between now and midnight? Can Jill stay up and sign for him?

---

I mean to be fair that question doesn't need to be qualified by the time being midnight... probably also could apply at 2 pm

MarkTwain said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

The debt ceiling will be back January 1st.

---

Exactly. That POS McCarthy set this time bomb for Trump to have to deal with on top of all the spending him and Biden jammed underneath it while there was no limit.


I use the term limit loosely because the debt ceiling is nothing but a cudgel to push pork through legislation.

---

Since the "debt ceiling" is always used to justify mega-destructive omnibus bills rushed through without even being read that usually just increases federal unaccountability ----- what is the downside of getting rid of it as a concept even? Why is it even on a different date from the actual starts and ends of the fiscal year, where such a thing should be if going to exist at all, rather than holiday season?

Impromptu F16 poll

There is no debt ceiling
If agree with Twain
Please star this post

Until a Debt Celing / Balanced Budget amendment is added to the Constitution, a debt ceiling is pointless except for political gamemenship to rile up the masses.

There is a debt ceiling that is part of this negotiation

Thomas Massie reveals: “Speaker Johnson flipped his decision after the meeting when he spoke to Hakeem Jeffries and realized he could get Democrat votes to pass all the legislation as one bill”pic.twitter.com/c8CmGLDGQW

— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) December 20, 2024

Sq 17 said:

---

Impromptu F16 poll

There is no debt ceiling
If agree with Twain
Please star this post

---

Are you asking if for getting rid of it? (probably yes). Not sure what asking.

MarkTwain said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Not the same. Pretty much the second bill minus the debt ceiling.

---

If they didn't need to raise the debt ceiling then why did they make a big fuss over it? Congress is an absolute cluster-joke.

---

THERE CURRENTLY IS NO DEBT CEILING!!!!!

The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 is an act of the 118th United States Congress that SUSPENDED the debt limit until January 2025


Look it up


https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-118publ5/pdf/PLAW-118publ5.pdf

---

I asked about that earlier. Does that sunset itself or something?

titan said:

---

MarkTwain said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

The debt ceiling will be back January 1st.

---

Exactly. That POS McCarthy set this time bomb for Trump to have to deal with on top of all the spending him and Biden jammed underneath it while there was no limit.


I use the term limit loosely because the debt ceiling is nothing but a cudgel to push pork through legislation.

---

Since the "debt ceiling" is always used to justify mega-destructive omnibus bills rushed through without even being read that usually just increases federal unaccountability ----- what is the downside of getting rid of it as a concept even? Why is it even on a different date from the actual starts and ends of the fiscal year, where such a thing should be if going to exist at all, rather than holiday season?

---

My sentiments exactly. Do away with it all together. It's an empty term that means nothing. It's simply a political cudgel

Twain and I have been going back and forth about the debt ceiling his position is it does not exist

I have called that position not entirely correct
Signing off for now need to focus on other tasks spent enough time on F16 today

Quote:

---

My sentiments exactly. Do away with it all together. It's an empty term that means nothing. It's simply a political cudgel

---

Back in the 80s, there was some talk about a balanced budget Constitutional amendment. But the objection to that was once the budget was voted on and set, any new appropriations thereafter would be deemed "unconstitutional." That meant for foreign aid, new defense needs or reacting to natural disasters, just as examples.

But was that actually correct? I don't think so in hindsight.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

My sentiments exactly. Do away with it all together. It's an empty term that means nothing. It's simply a political cudgel

---

Back in the 80s, there was some talk about a balanced budget Constitutional amendment. But the objection to that was once the budget was voted on and set, any new appropriations thereafter would be deemed "unconstitutional." That meant for foreign aid, new defense needs or reacting to natural disasters, just as examples.

But was that actually correct? I don't think so in hindsight.

---

There is an answer. You provide a fixed large existing budget to those items. Then leave Congress with "vote on demand" fiscal option that can be passed by sufficient majorities--- even a public referendum if you want.

So you front-fund the military to a certain level just de-facto. For natural disasters you would set aside something like the Texas rainy day fund. OR, further empower states to help themselves and control it locally.

Foreign aid you would treat like a disaster --- an on request items that is either a referendum or a floor vote, but not a standing fixed expense. (unless built into the budget with each year, but it would sunset each time?)

Tea Party said:

---

If the Democrats are in favor of it and the GOP is split then Johnson needs to be removed from the SOTH position. He clearly is not working for the conservatives agenda.

---

And replaced with WHO?
There are some Rs that simply refuse to vote for ANY CR because it's aCR. He HAS to get to 218. So what's he going to do? If Rs are guaranteed No boys for no other rain than it's a CR, without some Democrats nothing will pass.

You can dislike Johnson all you want, you won't elect anyone better.

But feel free to cut off your nose to spite your face.