I watched the video, and they don’t do any math at all. Just vagueries about how it “changes the numbers” without any exploration of what the numbers actually are.
Donnie is threatening states that will give out full SNAP benefits for November.
The USDA memo from Saturday night ordered states to only send files for “partial” benefits instead of full benefits, warning they could lose access to SNAP-related federal funding if they didn’t comply ― even if states already began doling out full benefits to feed people.
What a dick.
I’d agree. It’s an absolute 218 signatures requirement.
I don’t think the video actually explains. I watched the first 3mins where they discuss it. They hint that Grijalva “would change the numbers” - meaning I guess it would take more signatures to get a majority to discharge the petition but I think it’s a strict 218 (majority of 435 members, regardless of vacancies, etc).
Late: ha, so we watched the video at the same time and we came to the same conclusion and even the same quote!
Wisconsin governor Tony Evers posted this response:
“No.”
There is elaboration later but I like the terse response.
Brian
They dont care about those semi-mythical files. Whatever may have been on there is edited now.
If they cave for merely a promise to hold a vote on ACA subsidies later, hell, even I will call it the Democratic Shutdown.
…and Schumer is caving again.
Multiple sources granted anonymity told Axios that at least 10 Democrats plan to vote on the deal, which includes supporting a procedural motion to approve a series of short-term spending bills that fund the government through the end of the year. The deal also includes voting in December to extend the Affordable Care Act subsidies that Democrats have been fighting to preserve, according to the report.
(Sideshow Bob grumble)
The deal isn’t done until the vote. I called my Senators and left messages I urge everyone opposed to a deal that gets nothing but empty promises to do the same.
I called, but most of the squishy Democrats are retiring at the end of their current terms. They have nothing to lose.
OK - I don’t really understand who wins what with this. Is getting a vote on ACA subsidies all that bad? It sounds like there may be discussion - possible negotiation. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Force the Repubs to go on record one way or another before the midterms. I have no idea how a vote can be guaranteed.
And funding only through end of the year? Calendar or fiscal (which would be September 26)? Will we be in the same position come January 1?
When you call it “caving,” should the Dems just stick with their original position, no matter how long it lasts?
Personally, I really don’t know. The system is so inexcusably fucked up, I have a hard time thinking any approach best. (And, I agree with the Repubs that ACA is fucked up. It really SHOULD be replaced with something better. I just fear both parties are in thrall to the health care and insurance lobbies, that neither will support meaningful reform. And, as fucked up as ACA is, it is incalculably better than whatever the fucking Repubs would replace it with.)
It WOULD be nice to get a paycheck one of these months…
It won’t be. The Republicans can’t be trusted to keep a promise. They won’t hold the vote, and if they do they’ll vote against it, and if they did somehow pass it Mike Johnson will never bring it before the House, and if he did they’d vote it down, and if they passed it Trump would veto it. The Democrats are giving up in exchange for nothing and sending the message that taking the American people hostage by withholding SNAP benefits and cancelling flights is a valid way for Republicans to get what they want, and when we get to the next CR in January they’ll do it again because they know Schumer will cave again.
And what they appear to want is (checks notes) Lasting damage to the country.
Not what I am reading. This WaPo story I see is dated eight minutes ago:
Me either.
It sounds to me like Schumer and Democratic leadership are unwilling to endorse it, but are giving cover to the moderates and independents in the caucus to cross the aisle to sign onto a deal.
He’s the party leader. If he doesn’t support the vote, then it’s his job to whip the rest of the caucus into line. If he refuses to do his job, then he may as well be voting yes.
Blaming Democrats for the shutdown is like blaming Ukraine for the war with Russia.
Actually, no, that’s Dick Durbin’s job; he is, literally, the Democratic Whip.
Like I said, I couldn’t begin to try to make sense of this madness. But I could imagine some maneuvers which might focus positions prior to next year’s midterms.
At this point, I’m not sure WHO is being hurt the most, or who could be helped how. ACA participants, SNAP recipients, victims of ICE terror, air travelers, furloughed federal workers…. The list is long - and getting longer.