They could drastically reduce the price of cars by ditching the tariffs on Chinese EVs. My cousin in Guadalajara says you can buy new Chinese EVs there for the US equivalent of less than $10K. Apparently Mexico doesn’t have any tariff on Chinese cars.
This won’t happen because we will protect Detroit.
Considering that that statement was immediately preceded by:
I’d say it was pretty clear that he was talking about what they can do about affordability and inflation going forward.
Or just maybe use some contextual clues to realize you shouldn’t take it literally.
This.
The other thing is, the CR that ended the shutdown (and will expire at the end of this month) funded things like SNAP through the rest of this fiscal year. That means that if the Dems shut down the government again in four weeks in order to force the GOP to restore Obamacare subsidies, they can keep the government shut down indefinitely without keeping struggling families from getting food.
Which had been the reason the Dems ended the shutdown in November: those SNAP benefits had expired on 10/31. It’s great to fight for people to be able to afford health care, but not at the cost of people not being able to afford food.
As others have noted, the Democrats gaining a slim majority in the Senate this November is realistic. What’s very unlikely is them getting to 60 seats (making their majority filibuster-proof), much less 67 (the number of Senate votes needed to convict on impeachment).
Thanks for the informative and interesting responses. I’m paying attention, I just have nothing informative to add…
So…the solution is to fuck millions of people on healthcare costs so they might blame republicans?
Inflicting pain and suffering is what is needed to make them (hopefully) blame republicans?
I’m a little confused, how is this in any way relevant to the topic being discussed?
Also, as you noted in your OP that you’re a Canadian, a little bit about the “filibuster” rule in the Senate, and why a slim majority can’t get much done.
The Senate is allowed to set its own rules for how it conducts business. And there is a Senate rule, the current version of which has been in force for many decades (sometimes called the “filibuster,” but more properly the “cloture” rule) which effectively means that almost no bill will make it to the Senate floor for a vote unless it’s supported by at least 60 Senators.
It’s “almost no bill” because there is another rule which states that, up to three times per fiscal year, a “reconciliation” bill can be brought to a vote without requiring the support of 60 Senators, and can be passed with a simple majority. But, reconciliation can only be used on bills which are directly related to government budgets and spending.
Because the filibuster/cloture is just a Senate rule, not a law, it could be done away with at any time, if the Senate agreed to it. This is sometimes referred to as “the nuclear option,” and even though it’s been discussed and threatened many times, it’s not ever been employed, by either party.
As the US has become more partisan, and as the D/R balance in the Senate has been very narrow for several decades (the last time one party held 60+ seats was 1979), it’s made it very difficult to get legislation through the Senate that doesn’t have bipartisan support (and that’s become increasingly rare).
So, even in situations in which one party controls both houses of Congress, and the White House, it’s still challenging for that party to get significant legislation passed.
Sadly, I think that is the current state of US politics and the electorate’s intelligence. Congress really is that broken, and so is the way people access news and information. This is not so much a defense as a resignation on my part.
You glossed over what the filibuster used to be. Today someone just needs to say they want to do it which makes it trivial to invoke. Back in the day, a filibuster required the senator to stand (never sit) on the floor and talk non-stop while there (within a little reason…they could pause a few moments but not stop). No pee breaks. No five minutes to rest. Never sit. Non-stop.
They could tag-team with others, giving up the floor so they had a rest if they had reliable allies. Some senators would wear adult diapers so they could make it. They could talk about anything whatsoever. They could read the phone book if they wanted. Literally anything as long as they kept talking.
The senator doing the filibuster could (and did) demand a quorum which meant a certain number of senators HAD to be in attendance (at least 51…and the Sergeant at Arms could and would send officers to collect senators and bring them to the senate…even if they had to physically carry them in against their will).
The longest filibuster to-date is Strom Thrumond talking for just over 24 hours in one go to oppose civil rights legislation.
These days the senators HATE having to sit there and listen to a phone book being read so they have made it waaaaay too eaasy to filibuster.
IMHO…I like the old way. If something is important enough to oppose then stand there for hours and make it known. Not just say then then go for drinks with donors.
You’re right, I did, intentionally.
How it worked decades ago is interesting from a historical standpoint, but not relevant to a discussion of what a Democratic-controlled Senate could or could not do in 2027, which is the topic of the thread.
As you noted the senate sets its own rules. They could make it this way again tomorrow if they wanted to (or whenever they do their rule-making session). I am under the impression that the senate majority leader could impose this if they wanted to but I am not 100% sure about that.
I think the Democrats will be able to conduct investigations.
Defund ICE?
Short answer:
Impossible, because Trump rules by decree.
Longer answer:
Democratic Party centrists might join with Republicans to vote down defunding ICE. And even if it did pass both Houses (after Senate filibuster elimination), Trump would veto.
But suppose Trump signed because of other provisions he likes, or to end a shutdown. And then he wants to spend more money than appropriated on the likes of ICE. He’s violated the Antidefiency Act before, and would see a Democratic Congress as justification for doing it much more aggressively.
China is selling them as a loss leader in order to kill the US manufacturers. Biden realized this.
How was not ending the shut down going to fund ACA? It wasnt- ever, not matter how long the Dems kept the shut down going- that was obvious.
The INS which is now ICE was founded in 1933. It is a necessary agency. Now, cutting it’s budget back is a good idea, and could pass muster.
I interpreted “Defund ICE” as any significant budget cut.
This does bring up one thing that happens if Dems sweep the 2026 midterms. More vetoes.
I still think ICE is so important to Trump that he wouldn’t respect a congressional appropriation limit.
Okay, how much has their budget increased?
Thanks to the Big Budget Act, it’s tripled.
That’s simply not true. That was the whole point. Ever play chicken? That was the game and Dems were winning it till they decided to chicken out looong before they had to (and almost certainly the reps would have had to chicken out first).
Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory…dems did it.
I can’t prove it but I would be willing to bet the dems that caved were paid off in some fashion (not necessarily a cash payment…that’s too obvious but some other quid pro quo deal).
Well, cut it by two thirds then.