What's super frustrating is that they're just using "socialism" as a fear mongering buzzword, and providing the worst possible examples (while failing to mention how rampant corruption played a huge part).
First and foremost, I'm very liberal. I've also pointed out in this thread and other other comments on this post that I am firmly against the pause on SNAP benefits, among other things.
The original proposal was to extend healthcare subsidies for a year as a compromise to agree to the budget. I've pointed out, in this thread and others, why that's a good idea - it reopens the government, which means government employees will finally be paid, it gets SNAP funds moving again, and it extends the healthcare subsidies which can be a talking point to motivate voters in the next election (which would then hopefully mean laws would be passed to ensure affordable healthcare to everyone). Again, all of this was based on that proposal, and before dems caved to the budget as it stands.
Think about this for a moment - by having the government shut down, and not compromising on anything, more people will go hungry and die and more people fall below the poverty line. That is what your position enables - the exact opposite of what you're saying you stand for.
Would it be great if the republicans caved first? Absolutely, without a doubt. But, with the number of congresspeople under trumps thumb, and with the strategies being suggested (like ending the filibuster), that was unlikely.
Instead of considering all of that, you've made all sorts of assumptions about me, and did your best to insult me.
I'm sorry you're frustrated with the state of the world right now. I am too, along with millions of others. We might not agree on a path forward, but at least we can agree that none of what's happening is okay and that things need to change
Did you miss the part where all of this was said before they caved, and the proposal was to extend healthcare subsidies for a year as a compromise to reopen the government? Which would give dems what they asked for while forcing the debate during midterms?
The plan doesn't work all the time - there's always risk
That being said, punting on the prosecutions is the most disappointing and disgusting thing that led trump to power. They relied on the idea that voters wouldn't elect him simply based on j6 and the indictments, but underestimated the stupidity of voters and the way trump manipulates his base. Having bootlickers in places of power to slow it all down certainly did not help.
Regardless, a bunch of dems caved to the budget without the extension of subsidies, so none of it matters anyway
In what way am I entitled? In what way am I gloating?
I understand the stakes, and I hate what the country has become. It is disgusting that republicans are using people who rely on SNAP and healthcare subsidies as pawns to advance this stupid agenda that's making life worse for the majority of the country.
Instead of hurling insults at someone analyzing the situation, maybe you could educate yourself on political game theory. Perhaps then you'll understand where I'm coming from in referring to politics as a game.
The belief in the courts and with politicians was that it was settled law and therefore not up for debate. The dems, at least as far as I know, had nothing to do with the case being overturned. It wasn't codified into law for two main reasons - there wouldn't have been enough votes and/or a president wouldn't veto it, and it wasn't seen as necessary given the fact that it was settled law.
Do you have sources for any of this? Because it sounds a little too ridiculous to be truthful
However, it would seem that enough dems caved to the republican budget that it doesn't matter. So basically everything I've said in this thread regarding the hopeful strategy that was put forth is moot. I'm back to being disappointed.
And in that year, it will be used as a talking point to motivate people to vote. And then (hopefully), enough of congress will agree to a budget that includes the subsidies, among other things
I think it's become very clear how weak the system is. But people shouldn't have to suffer. Keeping things shut down is using government workers and those who rely on SNAP as pawns.
I agree with everything you said, but disagree on the path forward.
I love that communities are coming together to help people who rely on SNAP, but it's not sustainable. Nor is having government workers, furloughed or working, go unpaid. It is disgusting they, and others, are being used as pawns
The point is that this is fighting now, and setting up for the midterms
If the main issue with the shutdown are healthcare subsidies, this will end the shutdown and provide those subsidies for the next year. If midterms go well for the dems, it's a win for the long term. If the midterms don't go well for the dems, we're in the exact same position in one year as we are today, which sucks.
His proposal pushes the healthcare debate into the height of midterm season, all while demonstrating an eagerness to reopen the government. He's eliminating republican talking points regarding the shutdown while forcing the debate on the campaign trail. This is a smart move.
The bill is called "The true shutdown fairness act", and it is a poorly named response to the republican "shutdown fairness act".
The main differences between the bills (which aren't really covered in the news, but you can read the bills) is that the shutdown fairness act was limited to excepted employees (those who have to work without pay), as well as some military personnel and some contractors. But it gave trump discretion about who could get paid, and did nothing for furloughed employees, nor guarantee all service members or contractors get paid (again, because it allowed trump to pick and choose)
The true shutdown fairness act aimed to ensure all federal employees and service members get paid, and prevent mass firings during the shutdown. I don't know/understand why this bill was rejected (I'll edit if I can find anything)
Edit: I can't find a news article with direct quotes, but this is part of the ai overview (so take it with a grain of salt)
Underlying reasons: Democrats opposed the Republican bill because they felt it would grant the President too much power to decide which employees would be paid and which would not. Republicans, in turn, blocked the Democratic bill, with Johnson expressing concern that it would limit the President's ability to manage the government and potentially reduce the workforce.
Existence is pain