Communion Posted May 31, 2023 Author Posted May 31, 2023 Just now, Bears01 said: My biggest worry about the amendment process is republicans will find a way to get rid of the only truly good thing for democrats in the bill (other than a lot of their provisions not being touched) like this: https://twitter.com/fritschner/status/1663686942918057986?s=46&t=F2Kqdy7aScoPGAKFHNr8dQ or they’ll find a way to sneak in work requirements for Medicaid The framing by the CBO that there will be "an expansion" of SNAP benefits ignores administrative burdens. To reach a place where +72k would be enrolled monthly, it would require the Biden admin using funds that they've essentially not allotted themselves to basically sign up every homeless person in America and hope that red states don't reject the expanded definition they've done to what a "residence" is, which you need to get SNAP. Even the people hoping the new CBO figures can be used to sell the deal better recognize it's a theoretical:
Bears01 Posted May 31, 2023 Posted May 31, 2023 9 minutes ago, Communion said: The framing by the CBO that there will be "an expansion" of SNAP benefits ignores administrative burdens. To reach a place where +72k would be enrolled monthly, it would require the Biden admin using funds that they've essentially not allotted themselves to basically sign up every homeless person in America and hope that red states don't reject the expanded definition they've done to what a "residence" is, which you need to get SNAP. Even the people hoping the new CBO figures can be used to sell the deal better recognize it's a theoretical: I don’t think adding work requirements and raising the age for them was worth it, but I still do think it’ll help some homeless people in the end. Any lives helped is a good thing. A pretty bad bill overall, but still better than the crap Obama negotiated in 2011
Sannie Posted May 31, 2023 Posted May 31, 2023 9 hours ago, Communion said: The false binary being that these are our only choices when Biden is entitled as president to instruct the Treasury to keep paying on debts the federal government currently owes. Most governments don't have a debt ceiling. This is not a finite resource running out - there's no moment of realizing the vault is empty. It's like a siren going off whose switch anyone can easily just switch back to off. This is fair, but I think we all know if Biden tries something on his own, it will be taken to court and then struck down. Jeffries' latest statement implies he has the votes on the Dem side as long as Republicans have the votes on their end. I think Dems like Warren and Presley are virtue signaling and will fall in line.
Communion Posted May 31, 2023 Author Posted May 31, 2023 2 minutes ago, Sannie said: This is fair, but I think we all know if Biden tries something on his own, it will be taken to court and then struck down. The suggestion that the SCOTUS would force the nation into a default isn't convincing.
FightForTanas Posted May 31, 2023 Posted May 31, 2023 Anything Biden agreed to would be seen as a loss for him. Its really sad how Biden constantly has to make deals with these Republican Devils who only want to hurt poor people while laughing at the thought of raising taxes on the rich.
Sannie Posted May 31, 2023 Posted May 31, 2023 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Communion said: The suggestion that the SCOTUS would force the nation into a default isn't convincing. I am with you, but I also have a hard time trusting it. The idea that SCOTUS would approve a devastating default is terrifying, but I think they would if they were convinced it will hurt Biden in 2024. Just now, FightForTanas said: Anything Biden agreed to would be seen as a loss for him. Its really sad how Biden constantly has to make deals with these Republican Devils who only want to hurt poor people while laughing at the thought of raising taxes on the rich. I think Biden is actually in a good position here. He will be seen as someone who was able to bring together both sides to prevent a default. That is kind of the only reason I am semi-okay with this deal; the MAGA base is angry, the Dem base overall will be fine with it. Edited May 31, 2023 by Sannie
FightForTanas Posted May 31, 2023 Posted May 31, 2023 2 minutes ago, Sannie said: I am with you, but I also have a hard time trusting it. The idea that SCOTUS would approve a devastating default is terrifying, but I think they would if they were convinced it will hurt Biden in 2024. I think Biden is actually in a good position here. He will be seen as someone who was able to bring together both sides to prevent a default. That is kind of the only reason I am semi-okay with this deal; the MAGA base is angry, the Dem base overall will be fine with it. I agree but I think increasing work requirements on people over 50 when its really hard to find work or even get full time work is really cruel. I was reading one Republican congressman's website last night and he wanted to raise the age to 64 basing it on how many years of "work" he expected to have. Like sir you sit on your ass all day and do nothing how can it even compare? Anyway I think it could have been a LOT worse. At least they arent putting work requirements on medicaid....yet.
Sannie Posted May 31, 2023 Posted May 31, 2023 (edited) 5 minutes ago, FightForTanas said: I agree but I think increasing work requirements on people over 50 when its really hard to find work or even get full time work is really cruel. I was reading one Republican congressman's website last night and he wanted to raise the age to 64 basing it on how many years of "work" he expected to have. Like sir you sit on your ass all day and do nothing how can it even compare? Anyway I think it could have been a LOT worse. At least they arent putting work requirements on medicaid....yet. When put into context, I am not seeing this as a horrible, horrible thing. I initially thought Medicaid was going to have the requirements, but those were dropped. Quote Currently, the SNAP program has work requirements for individuals ages 18-49. The agreement, which must pass the House and the Senate to become law, would expand that age range to 18-54, with exceptions for veterans, people who are homeless and young people leaving foster care. The most vulnerable people are not affected, and work requirements already exist. Edited May 31, 2023 by Sannie
Communion Posted May 31, 2023 Author Posted May 31, 2023 4 minutes ago, Sannie said: I am with you, but I also have a hard time trusting it. The idea that SCOTUS would approve a devastating default is terrifying, but I think they would if they were convinced it will hurt Biden in 2024. I don't think so. The issue with the SCOTUS is that they're ideologues, not partisans. Most have a specific ideology of how the law works, which for many are just a conservative view of law. But there's been surprises with things like student debt and others (I believe the abortion pill regulations) where Barrett found herself not on the side of what Republicans wanted due to that difference in ideologue versus partisan. @Espresso may remember more specific examples of having followed the courts more closely than I But to let the fear of not knowing get in the way is highlighted as absurd when Trump is announcing he plans to *checks notes* use an executive action to dismantle the 14th Amendment and ban birthright citizenship.
Sannie Posted May 31, 2023 Posted May 31, 2023 17 hours ago, Communion said: I don't think so. The issue with the SCOTUS is that they're ideologues, not partisans. Most have a specific ideology of how the law works, which for many are just a conservative view of law. But there's been surprises with things like student debt and others (I believe the abortion pill regulations) where Barrett found herself not on the side of what Republicans wanted due to that difference in ideologue versus partisan. @Espresso may remember more specific examples of having followed the courts more closely than I But to let the fear of not knowing get in the way is highlighted as absurd when Trump is announcing he plans to *checks notes* use an executive action to dismantle the 14th Amendment and ban birthright citizenship. Thomas and Alito are not partisan? Sis, come on now. Funnily enough, the Kavanaugh and the lady, I can't even remember her name, have both seemingly proven themselves to be less partisan than we all thought. It would not have hurt to try the 14th amendment angle, but I think it is better to be safe than sorry. --- https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1663935439873404929 McCarthy doing damage control. This feels very "Biden stood between me and cutting SS and Medicare" to me. Good on Biden.
Sannie Posted June 1, 2023 Posted June 1, 2023 (edited) It passed the House. The progressives got to vote no to save their reputations so that is good for them. The MAGAs are going to meltdown which is good for Dems. Trump is going to be pissed which is good for everyone. Edited June 1, 2023 by Sannie
Vermillion Posted June 1, 2023 Posted June 1, 2023 @Communion I could get into the nitty-gritty of some cases here but I don't have the patience at the moment. Maybe later this week.
ClashAndBurn Posted June 1, 2023 Posted June 1, 2023 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Sannie said: It passed the House. The progressives got to vote no to save their reputations so that is good for them. The MAGAs are going to meltdown which is good for Dems. Trump is going to be pissed which is good for everyone. Nah, Hakeem will weaponize their votes against them in attack ads to primary them. At least against any of the members who are anywhere to the left of Jayapal (ie The Squad). It'll be like "the Squad voted to throw the country into chaos and hurt Joe Biden's presidency" or something like that. Edited June 1, 2023 by ClashAndBurn
Communion Posted June 1, 2023 Author Posted June 1, 2023 Millennials and Poor Americans: 0 Norms and Bipartisanship: 1
Armani? Posted June 1, 2023 Posted June 1, 2023 9 hours ago, ClashAndBurn said: Nah, Hakeem will weaponize their votes against them in attack ads to primary them. At least against any of the members who are anywhere to the left of Jayapal (ie The Squad). It'll be like "the Squad voted to throw the country into chaos and hurt Joe Biden's presidency" or something like that. If it were me I'd just expose that the Democrats& Republicans who voted on it agreed to cut food assistance with a video image of a stressed mother & hungry child And run the ad back to back over & over again saying I would never vote for those drawbacks at the end
If U Seek Amy Posted June 1, 2023 Posted June 1, 2023 On 5/30/2023 at 10:14 PM, Sannie said: I am with you, but I also have a hard time trusting it. The idea that SCOTUS would approve a devastating default is terrifying, but I think they would if they were convinced it will hurt Biden in 2024. I think Biden is actually in a good position here. He will be seen as someone who was able to bring together both sides to prevent a default. That is kind of the only reason I am semi-okay with this deal; the MAGA base is angry, the Dem base overall will be fine with it. That is how I feel. I mean I have various problems with the debt ceiling from both sides. But I also realize sadly we just need to approve this thing and it seems to work better for dems. And dems will not be able to pass whatever they want alone so if making the GOP look bad is a part of whatever concessions are made fine. If they want to try things like the 14th amendment let's do it AFTER it passes, and everyone avoids problems from default. Then we can test if the courts let it go or not. Moderates in the US LOVE seeing collaboration between both aisles so this will make Biden look like someone who can do that. And by now we all know those moderates are who are going to decide the next white house election as always as of late. Also random. But moderates/many classic dems tend to forget about a lot of stuff come election time and focus on what is going on at that time so this probably won't hold a lot of weight. The far right/MAGA movement like does not relent on anything and come elections will call back all the things that made anyone a "RINO" or whatever to them and cause more damage to the right
ClashAndBurn Posted June 1, 2023 Posted June 1, 2023 6 hours ago, Armani? said: If it were me I'd just expose that the Democrats& Republicans who voted on it agreed to cut food assistance with a video image of a stressed mother & hungry child And run the ad back to back over & over again saying I would never vote for those drawbacks at the end Libs don’t care about that at the end of the day. They only care about beating Trump. Default makes that more difficult, so Hakeem’s calculation will be that he can paint the Squad as traitors to the party who were trying to help Trump. Given how close Ilhan Omar came to losing her primary last time, it could work on one or two of them. Cable News probably wouldn’t run their ads as much as those run by Hakeem’s anti-left PAC either.
Bears01 Posted June 1, 2023 Posted June 1, 2023 7 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said: Libs don’t care about that at the end of the day. They only care about beating Trump. Default makes that more difficult, so Hakeem’s calculation will be that he can paint the Squad as traitors to the party who were trying to help Trump. Given how close Ilhan Omar came to losing her primary last time, it could work on one or two of them. Cable News probably wouldn’t run their ads as much as those run by Hakeem’s anti-left PAC either. Based on how they vote, Ilhan has been voting for “establishy” than the rest of the squad since her primary. She voted for the bill last night actually while AOC, Bowman, Tlaib, Presley, Lee all voted no
ClashAndBurn Posted June 1, 2023 Posted June 1, 2023 Just now, Bears01 said: Based on how they vote, Ilhan has been voting for “establishy” than the rest of the squad since her primary. She voted for the bill last night actually while AOC, Bowman, Tlaib, Presley, Lee all voted no She knows how deeply endangered her seat is then. Surprised at Pressley though, ngl. Usually she’s the one who has the establishment-friendly voting record.
Bears01 Posted June 1, 2023 Posted June 1, 2023 (edited) 4 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said: She knows how deeply endangered her seat is then. Surprised at Pressley though, ngl. Usually she’s the one who has the establishment-friendly voting record. Yeah, progressives actually kind of disappointed last night when it came to the bill and the vote. Don’t get me wrong, the fact that cuts to Medicaid and strict work requirements weren’t added to Medicaid, and that they were able to (possibly) expand SNAP a little bit we’re all massive W’s, the bill was still pretty bad, and had enough support to pass already. They didn’t HAVE to vote for it. But to be honest, out of all the members of the squad, Ilhan seems to have gotten the closest to Biden. She might be spared from a legit primary challenge because so. She’s a good rep, I wouldn’t want to see her replaced, just wish she’d still stick to her principles more Edited June 1, 2023 by Bears01
Communion Posted June 1, 2023 Author Posted June 1, 2023 7 hours ago, If U Seek Amy said: If they want to try things like the 14th amendment let's do it AFTER it passes, and everyone avoids problems from default. Then we can test if the courts let it go or no ...what are you talking about? This makes no sense and I don't think you understand what's being discussed. You can't "try the 14th amendment" after raising the debt ceiling through a bad deal that let's the Republicans hold the government hostage... evoking the 14th amendment is to forego the debt ceiling and argue that the president has the authority to instruct the Treasury to pay upon its debts regardless of the debt ceiling.
Recommended Posts