Right. He just enjoys being mean and screwing people.
No, that’s exactly the opposite of the current situation, which you can see in the very budget efforts that preceded it. The American Rescue Plan put in place enhanced subsidies on a temporary basis. Those were renewed and extended in the Inflation Reduction Act. At no point were they meant to be an “ongoing service.” We already demonstrated this upthread with Stranger On A Train. By your logic, we should still be funding the Iraq War, since we’ve gotta keep those war services going, right?
Yes, it’s absolutely improper, since what “opportunity” means in this context is “laying off 1.4 million workers.” And in some cases, forcing indentured servitude, and If Republicans did that, you’d throw a fit. In fact, this board did throw a fit in 2018 over that very same thing.
Second, it’s unrelated to the subsidies. If you want to bankrupt some people to fight for subsidies, then let the subsidies expire and bankrupt the people receiving them. There’s no reason to bankrupt me and people like me to get money for other people. If the steel workers want to strike for better wages, then the steel workers walk the picket line. They don’t shut down the longshoremen’s operations and then go work in the steel mill, do they? That’s what’s happening here.
Third, it’s a clean CR. That’s the standard “agree to disagree” bill. The appropriate default funding bill. You can’t get a supermajority? Clean CR. That’s what Democrats wanted in 2018. That’s the political norm. And it’s been violated.
Again, an implicit confession that I am just a hostage here. By “advocate now,” what you really mean is “advocate while hurting over a million people.” Oh, and gee, look…Republicans aren’t receptive to such advocacy “now” (read: “unemploying a million people”), with the government closed. Who would’ve thought? So let me ask you directly: Why not open the government, and then Democrats can “advocate now,” except “now” will be with 1.4 million people back to work?
What I find amusing is depending on what I comment, I’ll either get a response of “Republicans want a shutdown” or “Democrats need leverage.” Those statements are contradictions. Democrats gain leverage by giving Republicans what they want? How does that logic work?
Jared Golden (D-Me.) voted for the clean CR in the House. By the rules of American politics, one cross-party vote makes it bipartisan, except for a procedural “nay” from the introducing Congressman on a failing bill. (Parliamentary minutiae: This is why Thune voted Nay on the CR in the Senate. It preserves his ability to reintroduce the bill at a later date).
exactly
Thanks for your explanations - although I find them unpersuasive.
Hope you figure out something that satisfies your financial and philosophical needs.
Bottom line is this.
Majority party in the House can pass a budget. This has happened.
Majority party in the Senate can pass a budget unless a minority of 41 chooses to block it. It has been blocked.
If passed by both Houses, the President can veto it. According to the President this will not happen.
It doesn’t matter how we got here, bi-partisan or not, concessions given or not offered, programs included or eliminated. The fact remains that 45 Senators are preventing the government from reopening and they are all but 2 Democrats. The question is if you agree with them that fighting to extend the subsidies is so important that the government needs to be shut down until they are in there.
Cloture is what requires 60 votes
Yeah, we know that. And if 45 vote against cloture then the filibuster continues.
Then what was the significance of “At least let it have an up-down vote”? Cloture is part of the process.
My county is ostensibly trying to get an interest free loan to pay all of us but not sure how that is going to work out.
What a mess.
I am in PA where we also have a budget impasse.
Some kind soul left a little dumpster fire note on my desk this morning.
I say let Republicans slash ACA subsidies and let the people blame Republicans.
Republicans radically remade the United States with their bill. I’m sure they’ll find a way to blame Democrats but people are in for a world of pain, and that’s when Democrats need to say, “Republicans did this to you.”
I don’t see how anything changes unless voters suffer for what the Republicans did.
And for the record, my healthcare expenses are outrageously high. Somewhere in the neighborhood of $30,000 per year. So I’m not speaking from ignorance of what it’s really like out there.
The 45 are preventing the budget from being voted on. If they stop the obstruction then there can be an up-down vote on the budget.
So you’re arguing there shouldn’t be cloture? Or there shouldn’t be debate? Or there shouldn’t be filibuster?
There are two ways to answer that.
The first is no because the filibuster should be eliminated and thus cloture would become the motion Previous Question.
The second is it depends if you think that the ACA subsidy extension is worth the government shutdown. The argument I am making is the Democratic Senators (and 2 Pubs) are the ones causing the shutdown now despite people saying “Nuh-uh they’re not.”
Who, in this thread, is saying that? The closest I can find is
but, hardly surprising for Stranger, that was in the midst of a much more nuanced post.
Really, it seems much more that it’s you and Chessic who seem hellbent on laying this entirely on the Democrats, even though they’re not in charge of anything.
Not gonna play “compare healthcare expenses” with anyone; I know I am very comfortable.fortunate. But I just saw that my premiums are expected to go up over 12% next year.
It is an interesting question - would the Dems be better off by pressing the matter now vs letting the ACA subsidy fail, and hoping to reap a political victory. Not painting the Dems as saints or anything, but I suspect that at least a tiny part of their reason for taking their stance right now is that at least some of them think continuing the subsidies is the right thing to do, and they are trying to prevent what they suspect will be significant harm to a number of people. I really have a hard time figuring out a mindset in which the Reubs are similarly motivated.
In Michigan we’re being told to brace for about 20%. It’s crazy. It’s crazy because the premiums are already so high. One of the problems with messaging on this is that there is massive inequality in health care expenses just depending on whether you get it through work or not (and whether you happen to have a chronic condition in your family.) My husband is self-employed so we pay it all. But my neighbor may pay comparatively little.
I don’t think anyone notices the good things Democrats do. They entirely take everything the Democrats have provided them for granted. I think the only thing they are going to notice, if they notice anything at all, are the bad things Republicans do.
So I think the Democrats have more to gain by letting Republicans’ actions speak for themselves, rather than blocking this piece of legislation, because nobody is going to give them credit for it anyway. Most people don’t even know what ACA is. All they are hearing is the Republican party line about giving health care to illegal immigrants blah blah blah it’s sheer nonsense. I can’t conceive of any way this is a win for Democrats.
I just feel like Democrats are terminally incapable of understanding the mind of the American voter.
Which can be done by exactly the Senators that want to pass the continuing resolution. Sounds like everyone in the Senate is causing the shutdown.
Except Democrats will get blasted for the lack of subsidies next year with “why didn’t you do anything about it when you could???!!!?!!?!?” They’re gonna take the heat for it either way, so might as well take it trying to help the morons people who believe Democrats are trying to screw over real Americans.
There’s one.
No, there isn’t. That is an objection to the narrative that “Democrats shut down the government”.
Are “Democrats shut down the government” and “Republicans shut down the government” the only available options?