http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2017-05-01-US--Congress/id-a4515646bb7143e6be88292316755789
>Lawmakers on Monday unveiled a huge $1 trillion-plus spending bill that would fund most government operations through September but would deny President Donald Trump money for a border wall and rejects his proposed cuts to popular domestic programs.
>The 1,665-page bill agreed to on Sunday is the product of weeks of negotiations. It was made public in the predawn hours Monday and is tentatively scheduled for a House vote on Wednesday.
>The catchall spending bill would be the first major piece of bipartisan legislation to advance during Trump's short tenure in the White House. While losing on funding for the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, Trump won a $15 billion down payment on his request to strengthen the military, though that too fell short of what he requested.
>Vice President Mike Pence said the administration "couldn't be more pleased" and noted that it would include a boost in military spending, a "down payment" on border security and provide money for health benefits for coal miners.
>"It will avert a government shutdown but more important than that, it's going to be a significant increase in military spending," Pence said in an interview with "CBS This Morning." He called it a "budget deal that's a bipartisan win for the American people."
>The measure funds the remainder of the 2017 budget year, through Sept. 30, rejecting cuts to popular domestic programs targeted by Trump such as medical research and infrastructure grants.
>Successful votes later this week would also clear away any remaining threat of a government shutdown — at least until the Oct. 1 start of the 2018 budget year. Trump has submitted a partial 2018 budget promising a whopping $54 billion, 10 percent increase for the Pentagon from current levels, financed by cutting to foreign aid and other nondefense programs by an equal amount. Negotiators on the pending measure, however, rejected a smaller $18 billion package of cuts and instead slightly increased funding for domestic programs.
>Democrats were quick to praise the deal.
>"This agreement is a good agreement for the American people, and takes the threat of a government shutdown off the table," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., a key force in the talks. "The bill ensures taxpayer dollars aren't used to fund an ineffective border wall, excludes poison pill riders, and increases investments in programs that the middle class relies on, like medical research, education and infrastructure."
>Some Republican conservatives, however, were wary. "I think you're going to see conservatives have some real concerns with this legislation," Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio said on CNN, citing domestic spending obtained by Democrats and other issues. "We told (voters) we were going to do a short-term spending bill that was going to come due at the end of April so that we could fight on these very issues, and now it looks like we're not going to do that."
>Trump said at nearly every campaign stop last year that Mexico would pay for the 2,000-mile (3218.54-kilometer) border wall, a claim Mexican leaders have repeatedly rejected. The administration sought some $1.4 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars for the wall and related costs in the spending bill, but Trump later relented and said the issue could wait until September.
>Trump, however, obtained $1.5 billion for border security measures such as 5,000 additional detention beds, an upgrade in border infrastructure and technologies such as surveillance.
>The measure is assured of winning bipartisan support in votes this week; the House and Senate have until midnight Friday to pass the measure to avert a government shutdown. It's unclear, however, how much support the measure will receive from GOP conservatives such as Jordan and how warmly it will be received by the White House.
>Democrats played a strong hand in the talks since their votes are needed to pass the bill, even though Republicans control both the White House and Congress. As a result, the measure doesn't look much different than the deal that could have been struck on President Barack Obama's watch last year.
>But Republicans are eager to move on to other issues such as overhauling the tax code and reviving their moribund effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Obama's health care law.
>"The omnibus (spending bill) is in sharp contrast to President Trump's dangerous plans to steal billions from lifesaving research, instead increasing funding for the NIH (National Institutes of Health) by $2 billion," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said in a statement that nonetheless fell short of endorsing the bill outright.
>While the measure would peacefully end a battle over the current budget year, the upcoming cycle is sure to be even more difficult. Republicans have yet to reveal their budget plans, and battles between Trump and Congress over annual agency budgets could grind this summer's round of spending bills to a halt.
>Among the final issues resolved was a Democratic request to help the cash-strapped government of Puerto Rico with its Medicaid burden, a top Pelosi priority.
>The California Democrat and others in her party came up short of the $500 million or so they had sought but won $295 million for the island, more than Republicans had initially offered.
>Democrats were successful in repelling many conservative policy "riders" that sought to overturn dozens of Obama-issued regulations. Such moves carry less urgency for Republicans now that Trump controls the regulatory apparatus.
>House Republicans succeeded in funding a private school vouchers program for students in Washington, D.C.'s troubled school system through 2019.
>GOP leaders decided against trying to use the must-do spending bill to "defund" Planned Parenthood. The White House also backed away from language to take away grants from "sanctuary cities" that do not share information about people's immigration status with federal authorities. Trump's request for additional immigration agents was denied and the IRS budget would be frozen at $11.6 billion.
This feels like both parties just made the deal without Trump at all. Is he politically irrelevant now?
inb4 the retard vetoes it
>>136108
His only still relevant funktion is as commander in chief
boner.jpg
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/05/01/daily-202-eight-ways-trump-got-rolled-in-his-first-budget-negotiation/590687f2e9b69b3a72331f09/?utm_term=.0442d4e7c5ec
OP, I came here to make this same thread.
This is the best news I've heard in a long time.
It's like a great weight has been lifted off my back.
Meanwhile, Pence is calling it a victory because they're getting a small fraction of what they asked for in defense spending.
It generally seems like his party turned on him because he wasn't really serving their interests beyond keeping Hillary out of office.
I guess the moral of the story is, Trump is scary because he's so clueless, but he lacks teeth... because he's so clueless.
>>136112
Are you me?
Honestly surprised the government was able to function so well absent of leadership, for a long time I thought the President was what was keeping congress and the senate in line, and if not unified, at least managed. Shows how much I know I guess. Though I suspect all these concessions signify the Republicans just made a hell of a deal for their healthcare bill.
Trump and Trumptards irrecoverably BTFO yet again.
>>136108
His purpose is to be so audacious that his actions distract you from the real power behind the throne, he was never relevant.
>>136159
>Though I suspect all these concessions signify the Republicans just made a hell of a deal for their healthcare bill.
Not a deal, an attack. The Republican administrators have threatened to go across the aisle and abandon internal power centers if they don't behave. The budget deal is half-Republican, half-Democrat, but pretty much 0-fucking-% Freedom Caucus.
>>136167
>he was never relevant.
I kind of think he *is* relevant.
Because Trump is so heavily despised, the Democrats feel they can shut down the government without any major backlash, as long as they're blocking his absurdly poor plans for America.
Or at least if the Republicans are convinced the Democrats feel this way, it gives the Dems the power they needed to get this budget passed.
"fiscal conservatives" they said.
laughingreagancabinet.jpg
>>136108
pretty much dead weight at this point imho
>"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter" - Dick Cheney
>>136109
I mean...
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/859392449181093888?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F05%2F02%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fgood-shutdown-congress-trump.html
What if he's dumb enough to follow through?
>>136102
* funds planned parenthood
* doesn't defund sanctuary cities
* doesn't fund the wall
* doesn't cut any government programs
* doesn't repeal Obamacare
If this is what we get when Republicans win, I'm never voting Republican again.
>>136109
If he doesn't, he will not win re-election. The people are tired of RINO filth saying one thing then doing whatever Democrat nigger loving kikes want.
Ah Democracy. Where idealism and development is crushed by compromise with a disparate mass of idiots, both at the top and bottom rungs of our society, and the government and financial sectors reap the sole profit.
>>136288
It's not compromise when Republicans get NOTHING and Democrats get EVERYTHING.
RINO filth deserves death. I'm tired of these juden.
>>136277
>* doesn't repeal Obamacare
well it's a spending bill so I'm not certain why that would be in it.
>>136288
Not everyone agrees on what our ideals should be or what development looks like. And at any rate, we live in a republic, not a democracy. In the last presidential election, a candidate with fewer votes than another is the one now in office.
>and the government and financial sectors reap the sole profit.
This is not a unique feature of democracy. In fact, the US has considerably less corruption of this sort than the autocratic governments of the world. There are some benefits to a one vote per citizen system.
>>136299
Forgive my former mistake. It's difficult to remember the republican aspect of our governing system when neither parties seem to represent their constituents, and continually votes in favor of policies that benefit neither the American people or it's governing body. But that's probably just human short sightedness at work as always.
And I certainly agree that there is less corruption in the US than elsewhere (See: Nigeria), and significantly less than perhaps was the case in the past (See: Reconstruction). Perhaps my criticism would be better placed against a Capatalist controlled democratic republic rather than against democracy itself. I need to reflect.
Holy shit Mick Mulvaney is going apeshit at today's press conference about how it's being perceived as bipartisan instead of a straight-up win for Trump's negotiating skills.
You cannot make this shit up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8pCR2LdAY0
>>136296
the only thing democrats got is that republicans didn't get every change the extremists in their party claimed they wanted, and that was considered a victory because democrats are the most weaksauce, limp-wristed opposition in the history of time.
.
>>136322
So true. Thank god someone here can articulate this without using the word 'libtard'. /news/ > /pol/
>>136323
Republican In Name Only
Basically people who run R but have more nuanced, centrist leanings on many difficult issues. Democrats have a similar group called DINOs. We used to call them bipartisan, but now if you aren't suicidally partisan you are considered a traitor by the far left/right.
>>136365
What the fuck is up with America having so many labels on everything
>>136370
we like everything fast, in easily digestible bite-sized packages. Labels tell you everything you need to know about someone in an instant so you don't have to bother doing something gay like reading and thinking hard.
>>136102
why can't we let the government get shut down briefly? from time to time? Seriously.....
>>136524
Because Americans need governance.
>>136524
Because government employees need to eat too and the government provides a lot of essential services?
>>136801
We'll I'm a government employee with US Fish and Wildlife so I wouldn't be able to work and would have had to live off my savings until they reached an agreement. Getting back back pay isn't guaranteed either.
So yes, that would effect me.
>>136801
> it has not effected you in any way whatsoever.
So I guess those social security checks just keep coming when a shutdown occurs, right?
You should really shut the hell up if you don't know what you're talking about.
>>137002
Federal employees are always payed after these faux shutdowns, it's nothing more than a paid vacation for non-essential personnel