US MAGA Turns on Speaker Mike Johnson - Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, along with Democrats Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries announced a 2024 budget deal of nearly $1.66 trillion on Sunday.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson is facing a backlash from Make America Great Again (MAGA) figures after negotiating a spending deal to fund the government.

Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, along with Democrats Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries announced a 2024 budget deal of nearly $1.66 trillion on Sunday.

The speaker said the agreement slashed $16 billion in spending, according to his letter to colleagues, which, he said, "represents the most favorable budget agreement Republicans have achieved in over a decade."

But since then, Johnson, who replaced Kevin McCarthy as speaker in October 2023, has faced criticism, with some arguing it brings the spending in line with the deal struck last year between Democratic President Joe Biden and McCarthy that led to the former speaker's removal. The deal is around $16 billion less in cuts in the deal reached between McCarthy and Biden.

johnson.png
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) departs a House Republican Conference meeting on November 14, 2023 at the U.S. Capitol in Washington. The Speaker of the House of Representatives is facing criticism for negotiating a spending deal to fund the government. Photo by Anna Rose Layden/Getty Images

Newsweek contacted representatives for Johnson by email to comment on this story.

Writing on X, formerly Twitter, one user said Johnson was "bending a knee to Schumer."

Political commentator Gunther Eagleman suggested a motion be filed to vacate the chair because of the spending deal.

"F*** it, if @SpeakerJohnson pushes the $1.6T spending bill through Congress, I say someone should file a motion to vacate the chair... Again," Eagleman wrote.

The anonymous social media MAGA account @catturd2, which has more than 2 million followers, criticized funding for Ukraine included in the deal.

"Blah Blah Blah Blah—you just gave 62 Billion to Ukraine. You don't give AF about our border," they wrote.

Another account called him a "coward."

"Conservatives blast Mike Johnson's total failure in spending deal. They might also blast his total failure as Speaker. Don't put on the big boy pants Mike if you can't play the game. What a freaking coward," they wrote.

Meanwhile, Johnson has also suffered ire from some within his own party who had called for steeper budget cuts.

Representative Victoria Spartz, an Indiana Republican, told Newsweek on Tuesday night that "people here and there" have been seriously considering ousting the speaker.

"Ultimately, it's up to us members to be able to pull the gun," Spartz said. "It's not even just the Speaker. We'll have to figure it out and be strong. Ultimately, Mike [Johnson] needs to show that he can win. He definitely inherited a difficult situation, so we'll judge the result."

"To call this 'unsustainable' is an understatement," the House Freedom Caucus said in the statement. "It is a fiscal calamity. Unfortunately, members of the House and Senate have done little to force a course correction from this calamity. Indeed, many have been party to it. Worse yet, we are extremely troubled that House Republican leadership is considering an agreement with Democrats to spend even higher than the modest $1.59 trillion statutory cap set six months ago by the Fiscal Responsibility Act and to obscure the actual spending numbers with more shady side deals and accounting tricks. This is totally unacceptable."

"I am a NO to the Johnson Schumer budget deal," MAGA Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene, from Georgia, wrote on X, formerly Twitter. "This $1.6-trillion dollar budget agreement does nothing to secure the border, stop the invasion, or stop the weaponized government targeting Biden's political enemies and innocent Americans. So much for the power of the purse!"

However, some of his colleagues have come out in support of Johnson.

"I don't know what he would have done differently," Idaho Republican Mike Simpson told POLITICO. "He handled the cards he was dealt."

Representative Ralph Norman added that Johnson's job is not at risk.

"We've just got to have a backbone," he told the publication. "Mike hasn't had time. He's a good man, he's honest. We're just going to have to work through this."

In an interview on Fox Business on Tuesday night, Johnson said the funding framework "isn't everything we want. But remember, we have a one- to two-vote margin, and we're just one chamber of the legislative branch. This is the best we could do right now."

Article Link

Archive
 
Journoscum shocked people would turn their backs on a politician who failed to fulfill a promise and not just accept it.
 
I wonder if the US conservatives will ever be hijacked by non-retards to be in charge, probably not.
 
This is the way politics often goes...in public you savage each other, in private you work a deal.

We need the border closed. Have no problem with the money for Ukraine. Better we send our money and our stuff than our troops. The Ukrainians have chewed up the Russians, showed the world they are shit as a conventional military power. Wouldn't be surprised to see China-style graft in the Strategic Rocket Forces, as well as the other parts of the Russian nuclear triad.
 
The part you seem to not be getting is that this oddly never seems to happen for some reason.

It's almost like actually important items always get shoved under the rug in these "deals."
It’s going to take a lot more than throwing money at a wall to resolve immigration issues.

Reform to the asylum process, handling the migrants already living here, supporting efforts to deter future migration in the form of long term strategies targeted at migrant origin countries, etc.

Hotly contested problems that can’t be solved with a flashy one time deal. It also requires compromise, so some of those migrants might have to stay in the US.
 
No, they don't. Execute them all.

Edit to add: There is absolutely no essential illegal migrant.
 
Last edited:
No, they don't. Execute them all.

Edit to add: There is absolutely no essential illegal migrant.
Also, put a big fucking sign in Taco stating that anybody that goes beyond the line can consider thier life forfiet. Keeping a frontier secure has been trivial for centuries till it suddenly became a bleeding heart talking point.
 
It’s going to take a lot more than throwing money at a wall to resolve immigration issues.

Reform to the asylum process, handling the migrants already living here, supporting efforts to deter future migration in the form of long term strategies targeted at migrant origin countries, etc.

Hotly contested problems that can’t be solved with a flashy one time deal. It also requires compromise, so some of those migrants might have to stay in the US.
My compromise is that we throw them all into the sea and not execute them all.
 
Hotly contested problems that can’t be solved with a flashy one time deal. It also requires compromise, so some of those migrants might have to stay in the US.
We don't need a complete solution to somewhat limit the negative impact of a major problem. The biden administration not fucking over State attempts to control the border would be a start, for example.
 
We don't need a complete solution to somewhat limit the negative impact of a major problem. The biden administration not fucking over State attempts to control the border would be a start, for example.
The problem is that it can only be done at the federal level. States do not have the power to enforce immigration law. Now once the migrants are in a State, that State does have some authority over them.

The Feds handle who gets in and who gets out. Of course, legal challenges can test the bounds of their authority and their obligations.
 
Back
Top Bottom