TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

We're getting close to a number on appropriations, but Democrats are trying to add something new that's never been part of this before. They want to limit the executive branch's ability to do its job, which would tie the President's hands on expenditures. This is a gross separation of powers violation and a terrible precedent. It's a nonstarter for us, and the Democrats know that. So it looks like they're making individual appropriations bills almost impossible. There's more discussion to be had as we near the March 14 deadline. I'm hopeful they'll back off those outrageous demands because they're unprecedented and unconstitutional. The Democrats are likely trying to address the unitary theory of the executive, limiting the executive branch's ability to impound or rescind funds. This is a constitutional fight, and you likely won't get any Democrat votes on this CR. Get ready for a potential government shutdown.

The best-case scenario, given the current situation, would be a clean continuing resolution (CR), but Democrats oppose that, leading to a standoff. The government is set to shut down on Friday, a choice made by Republican leadership. They could have extended funding longer, as Donald Trump suggested, but opted to push the issue to December to advance their own priorities. Now, they find themselves without a plan. It's crucial for Mike Johnson and his team to resolve this situation, as their current approach is problematic and they need to take responsibility for fixing it.

Speaker 0 argues that in business you don’t get paid if you don’t do your job, and you shouldn’t be paid if you don’t show up and perform. He states, “If you didn't do your job in business, you didn't get paid. You don't show up and do your job, you don't get paid.” He emphasizes the need to figure out how to work together to get budgets done and frames the question of compensation as tied to job performance. He then positions policy proposals around lockdowns and pay, saying, “So you're gonna offer legislation to not get paid during lockdowns? Absolutely.” He notes that he “already have a bill” to ensure we “don't get paid during the shutdown.” He adds that Ron Johnson has “a bill that will never have shutdowns,” which he implies should pass as well. On the political dynamic, Speaker 0 critiques the Democrats, asking, “But on top of that, what are the Democrats doing?” He describes the measure at hand as a “clean resolution” and says, “All we're doing is is keeping the funding.” He contends that the funding currently in place is “too high” and describes it as “the Biden funding.” Despite those concerns, he states he does not want to shut down the government and thus supports the resolution, even though he acknowledges the Democrats’ stated intent to shut down for unspecified reasons. Finally, he questions the broader impact, asking, “How is this good for the country?” and concludes that, in his view, “Nobody wins with a shutdown.” The dialogue centers on linking pay to performance, proposing legislation to withhold pay during lockdowns, contrasting the bills associated with current leadership (including Ron Johnson’s) as potential paths to prevent shutdowns, and weighing the political implications of keeping funding versus risking a government shutdown.

Democrats lack the power to shut down the government; the party controlling the House, Senate, and White House governs. Democrats can stop bad bills that strip programs from Americans, including veterans, air safety, and food safety. They also aim to prevent a slush fund for Elon Musk and Donald Trump, which could lead to cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security by decimating programs and services. The House, under Hakim Jeffries, voted almost unanimously against the legislation. The Senate Democrats have leverage to reject handing over tools and a slush fund to Elon Musk and Donald Trump.

**Speaker 0:** 212 Democrats voted against no tax on tips, Social Security, and overtime. If the government makes money and spends it responsibly, taxes aren't necessary. The new administration is holding the government accountable, and people are mad about it. **Speaker 1:** There's no tax on tips, overtime, or Social Security in the budget resolution. Taxes are normal. This utopia where nobody pays taxes isn't going to work. Read the budget before lecturing people about it.

The speaker aims to clarify the situation regarding the Senate bill and HR 2. Upon the Senate bill's release, House members, including the speaker, deemed it unacceptable due to its failure to secure the southern border. House Republicans had previously passed HR 2, border security measures, over a year prior. Chuck Schumer has not brought it up for debate or a vote in the Senate. The White House has not contacted Speaker Johnson to negotiate or compromise on HR 2. The speaker states that House Republicans opposed the Senate bill before Donald Trump voiced his opinion, considering it a "trash bill."

Republicans' nihilism has brought the country to the brink of a government shutdown at midnight unless Congress acts. Democrats offered to fund the government for another month, but Republicans rejected this because Donald Trump wants full control over government spending. The choice is between proceeding with the bill or risking a shutdown, which would give Trump more power. While the Republican bill is deeply partisan and doesn't address many needs, allowing Trump to take more power via a shutdown is worse. No one wants a shutdown. Members who oppose the CR want Republicans to take their responsibilities more seriously and negotiate spending bills that address the needs of the American people. The Republican party is the party of Trump, and allowing him to take more power via a shutdown is a worse option than passing the CR.

The speaker opposes attaching the SAVE Act to the continuing resolution (CR), calling it a repetitive tactic that results in a clean CR after Senate removal. Passing the SAVE Act would lead to excessive spending: $6.3 billion a day, $3 billion in interest, and $77,000 per second, increasing the $36 trillion debt. Interest payments could exceed the annual national defense spending. The CR also restricts new military programs. The speaker notes that 73% of appropriations have passed, with 27% remaining. The speaker questions the point of passing the SAVE Act if the Senate won't consider it or HR 2 to secure the borders. The speaker claims adding debt will cause inflation, harming the middle and lower classes. The speaker is willing to shut down the government or the border to protect elections.

Speaker 0 criticizes Speaker McCarthy for taking credit for the single subject appropriations bills, stating that it was not his original plan. They argue against lumping together departments like Education and Labor with the military and border patrol, calling it chaotic. Speaker 0 claims that they forced the change and warns that if Speaker McCarthy continues, the appropriations process will become a sideshow controlled by lobbyists and special interests. They express frustration with how the American people have been mistreated for decades and vow to fight against it.

Speaker 0 notes the enormous difficulty of doing that, saying, “In fact, the big majority of have been able to.” Speaker 1 reminds listeners that floor time in the Senate is finite, and outlines a lengthy slate of items that could be teed up for action on the Senate floor: a housing bill awaiting action, a market structure bill, possibly permitting reform, a farm bill, and a highway bill, with Russia sanctions and a whole host of other items also on the potential agenda. He says the conference will have a conversation about that, and he has committed to discussing the idea and determining whether the conference’s views on it indicate how they want to proceed. He adds that they will vote on the SAVE Act, but notes that triggering a talking filibuster has ramifications and implications everyone needs to be aware of. Speaker 1 explains that those discussions are necessary because the decision to pursue a talking filibuster would tie the floor up for an indefinite amount of time, with not only unlimited debate but also unlimited amendments. He emphasizes that the floor time is precious and that the decision will affect how much can be done on a wide range of important legislation. Speaker 0 interjects that the Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House were speaking at the same time, which is why the dialogue is jumping back and forth. He concludes with a brief update that the bill has passed, funding DHA.

The speaker presents a conditional scenario directed at the president: if the president said today that he would be happy to meet with the Democrats if they stop holding the government hostage, then Democrats could walk in tonight, pass the continuing resolution (CR), and provide seven weeks. The speaker believes the president could then bring everyone together, and that the Democrats would likely negotiate on a number of issues and reach an agreement. The speaker emphasizes that the president does not want to negotiate under duress. This point is tied to a claim about Democratic sentiment: anonymously, a Democrat senator told the speaker that none of them want to vote to open the government because, in their words, “we’d face the guillotine.” The speaker notes that these words came “from our base,” suggesting this is the view of the president’s political allies or supporters. In summarizing the exchange, the speaker asserts that this line of reasoning reflects a critical dynamic in the current standoff: the possibility that a straightforward, pressure-free offer from the president to engage with Democrats could break the deadlock and lead to a constructive dialogue on policy issues. The implication is that the threat or perception of political duress is a barrier to reaching a resolution, and that a different approach—one that signals openness to negotiation without coercion—might unlock bipartisan progress. The transcript includes the assertion that if the president were to publicly welcome negotiations under a non-duress framework, there would be movement toward a compromise on multiple issues, facilitated by a temporary timeline (seven weeks) and a renewed, inclusive negotiation process. The speaker underscores the idea that such an approach could shift dynamics away from fear of political punishment within the base toward substantive agreement. Towards the end, the speaker remarks, “Look. Think you just made a very important,” indicating that the argument is intended to highlight a potentially pivotal point about how the administration’s stance could influence willingness to engage and resolve the government funding impasse. The transcript ends with this incomplete thought, leaving the broader implications implied but not fully explicit.

Speaker Johnson is renegotiating a spending deal and may withdraw from a $1.7 trillion plan with Chuck Schumer. Conservatives are frustrated with the lack of wins in the new house and want a speaker who will prioritize border security. They argue that Republicans are not fulfilling their promises and are making the issue more complicated than it needs to be. Some Republicans are pushing to oust Johnson for going against his word. The debate centers around strong border security and the consequences of a government shutdown. Democrats are willing to support anything that annoys conservatives, and bills like this one drive conservatives crazy. The speaker urges a change in course with spending cuts and fiscal policy changes to avoid economic collapse.

Republican rejection leads to a Hobson's choice: proceed with the bill or risk a shutdown orchestrated by Donald Trump. While the CR bill is bad, a shutdown would be much worse for America. The Republican bill is a terrible option. It is not a clean CR and is deeply partisan, failing to address many of the country's needs. However, allowing Donald Trump to take more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option. No one on my side of the aisle wants a government shutdown. Members who support this CR do not want a government shutdown, and members who oppose this CR do not want a government shutdown.

Day two of the "Democrat shutdown." 44 Senate Democrats voted to reject the "completely nonpartisan, completely clean, very simple 24 page continuing resolution" the House passed two weeks ago, instead of keeping the government open for seven weeks. Republicans say they moved in good faith: 12 appropriations bills passed by committees, the Senate and House have acted, and a conference committee finalized. With a September 30 deadline, the clean CR would allow more time for negotiations. Democrats filed a counter proposal described as a "wild list of partisan priorities," including "a half a billion dollars to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting" and removing the "rural hospital fund," while "repealing the health provisions of the one big beautiful bill," "ending Obamacare funding for noncitizens," and "Medicaid funding for those improperly granted asylum and parole." They claim at least "$200,000,000,000" would go to illegal aliens. They urge Americans to call their senators to open the government now, blaming Schumer for the shutdown.

The Republicans are currently voting on amendments for funding bills, and it's crucial that they come to an agreement to avoid a government shutdown. This disagreement is essentially between the hard right and the even harder right within the GOP. Unfortunately, under Kevin McCarthy's leadership, it seems difficult to govern. However, it's important that they find a way to keep the government running because ordinary Americans will suffer if they don't. There's a bipartisan continuing resolution supported by both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, and I hope the House will have the opportunity to vote on it and work together in a bipartisan manner.

The senate was equally divided on a bill, with 50 votes in favor and 50 against. The vice president voted in the affirmative, and the bill as amended was passed. A speaker stated that upon taking office, they would eliminate taxes on tips for people making tips, specifically service and hospitality workers.

Do Democrats wanna prioritize the health care of illegal aliens over a government shutdown? Because if the government does shut down, Americans will be able furlough. We're not prioritizing. What we're doing is saying simply we wanna keep the government open, and we wanna work with the Republicans and have a bipartisan agreement to keep this government open, and health care is at the top of our agenda. But are Democrats demanding health care for illegal aliens? Democrats are demanding health care for everybody. We want to save lives. We wanna make sure that health care is available to those who would die but having the help of their government. So you're good with the government shutdown even if it means giving health care to people who aren't American citizens? We want to save health care for all people.

parliamentarian ruled that sections of it were outside of the process that they're using to get this through. Do you think that senators should respect the decisions of the parliamentarian? And what have you personally done in the last forty eight hours to try and get Republican senators who are against the bill to a yes? 'If it's not approved, your taxes will go up by 68%. Think of that. 68, a record, the highest in the history.' 'The Democrats won't approve it only because, politically, it's so good for the Republicans.' 'They're not approving border security.' 'We've done a great job at the border, but we have to add some wall.' 'We have no money for that.' 'But if the Democrats it'll be interesting to see if we get any Democrat votes. We should.' 'If I were a Democrat, I would vote for this bill all day long because it's tax cuts and so many other things that are common sense.'

A speaker addresses Senator Klobuchar, saying they won't discuss personnel decisions, but highlighting a personnel issue. The speaker states that all of their agents and all of their lawyers are working. They claim that their agents are on the street working without a paycheck, attributing this to the shutdown caused by the other party. The speaker asserts, "My agents are on the street working without a paycheck because your party voted to shut down the federal government." This emphasizes perceived consequences of the government shutdown on federal operations and compensation. The message conveys frustration that personnel are continuing to work without pay due to political actions.