|
Google Jeb Bush posted:people much more obsessed with the texas legislature than i am seem to think it's essentially a factional struggle that paxton, uh, wildly misjudged I think it was more that Paxton was going to foist his personal multimillion dollar lawsuit punishments on the state that cause them to finally realize that he was a wholly corrupt dude. Like, corrupt but letting us win elections? That's okay. Corrupt but making us pay for his fuckups? Off with his head.
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1658485077293285377 https://twitter.com/AP/status/1662625130390986752?s=20 I'm beginning to think Joe Biden may not be very progressive. 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 02:16
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:Like how bad a person do you gotta be to be impeached in Texas as a Republican. They don't care about mycrimes.txt but once you hand them the mycrimes.xml invoice and say "pay this for me thx"
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 02:17
|
|
|
...I'd argue that "not letting the goverment default" is a progressive position.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 02:23
|
|
|
If the deal closely resembles the one being bandied about earlier in the week, it's Fine - some cuts to the government keeping up with inflation (so, yes, cuts in real terms when we want increases in real terms), some adjustments to Spending Math that could conceivably be a problem when we do this again in two years, and a meaningful but not crippling cut to the IRS expansion because Republicans don't actually care about reducing the deficit. It's sufficiently Fine that I'm not entirely convinced McCarthy can pass it and/or remain Speaker after ramming it through, so I'm a bit worried the deal might be worse than the above. The one McCarthy was tentatively vaguely okay with earlier in the week is one the rest of us can live with. unless you're a freshly hired IRS agent, in which case tough cookies e: quote:Both sides have suggested one of the main holdups is a GOP effort to expand existing work requirements for recipients of food stamps and other federal aid programs, a longtime Republican goal that Democrats have strenuously opposed. The White House said the Republican proposals were “cruel and senseless.” kinda getting the impression that any scary headlines are a step or two up from reading tea leaves quote:The Republican proposal on work requirements would save $11 billion over 10 years by raising the maximum age for existing standards that require able-bodied adults who do not live with dependents to work or attend training programs. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 02:31 on May 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 02:28
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:If the deal closely resembles the one being bandied about earlier in the week, it's Fine - some cuts to the government keeping up with inflation (so, yes, cuts in real terms when we want increases in real terms), some adjustments to Spending Math that could conceivably be a problem when we do this again in two years, and a meaningful but not crippling cut to the IRS expansion because Republicans don't actually care about reducing the deficit. https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1662631413441523717?s=20
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 02:29
|
|
|
This is a better summary https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1662628128034791425?s=20
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 02:31
|
|
|
if the snap limits thing sticks it's very bad, if temporary, for a specific vulnerable subset of people, but in ways it's a little difficult to explain (partly because an awful lot of non-recipients don't seem to know or care about how food stamps are applied in practice in the first place) the energy permitting seems complicated and interesting and I don't actually know if it's Bad
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 02:33
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:if the snap limits thing sticks it's very bad, if temporary, for a specific vulnerable subset of people, but in ways it's a little difficult to explain (partly because an awful lot of non-recipients don't seem to know or care about how food stamps are applied in practice in the first place)
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 02:34
|
|
|
Is this going to pass in time? Or at all? I haven’t kept up on if House Rs are on board with this or not.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 02:43
|
|
|
Anno posted:Is this going to pass in time? Or at all? I haven’t kept up on if House Rs are on board with this or not.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 02:45
|
|
|
Twincityhacker posted:...I'd argue that "not letting the goverment default" is a progressive position. It really isn't. That should be the most center of baseline bare minimums.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 03:00
|
|
|
from what people are saying in the GBS Trump thread, it seems the most likely true reason why they're finally impeaching Paxton is because he joined in when people were calling out Texas' state speaker of the house for being clearly drunk on the job.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 03:09
|
|
|
the_steve posted:It really isn't. That should be the most center of baseline bare minimums. The choice wasn't between "default" and "not default" the choice was between "hurt a lot of people" and "hurt everyone" and all the Republicans had to do was just sit around and wait to see which one Biden picked because they would win either way.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 03:12
|
|
|
Important to note that just because Biden and McCarthy reached a deal doesn't mean all the republicans are going to be down for it, and it just takes one of them to throw everything off.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 03:15
|
|
|
Ralepozozaxe posted:Important to note that just because Biden and McCarthy reached a deal doesn't mean all the republicans are going to be down for it, and it just takes one of them to throw everything off. Also true, McCarthy is abysmal at whipping votes and Matt Gaetz and Majorie Taylor Greene are spiteful tweakers who will sting the frog and drown anyway because lol lmao even
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 03:19
|
|
|
Ralepozozaxe posted:Important to note that just because Biden and McCarthy reached a deal doesn't mean all the republicans are going to be down for it, and it just takes one of them to throw everything off. It'd take more than that, just doing the no confidence vote in the Speaker doesn't take immediate precedence over everything and its likely this would get through before it got processed through committee. Though if the reporting is anywhere near accurate I can't see the HFC not immediately blowing McCarthy's speakership up. Also still doesn't seem like they have the votes to do this deal anyways.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 03:20
|
|
|
the_steve posted:It really isn't. That should be the most center of baseline bare minimums. Yeah, I find it hard to find what's progressive about agreeing to budget deals because of shadow theater. Manufactured crisis and every time it comes up we get another cut closer to death by a thousand.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 03:20
|
|
|
 "In principle" doing a lot of work here. I still really wish he would have said screw it you get nothing because Republicans give zero fucks about actually governing.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 03:25
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:I think it was more that Paxton was going to foist his personal multimillion dollar lawsuit punishments on the state that cause them to finally realize that he was a wholly corrupt dude. Whatever it is itnisnt a "realization" . Everyone has known about Paxton for a long time. I wonder which is replacing him.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 03:29
|
|
|
An underrated part of the deal is preventing the Republicans from loving with the budget and causing a shutdown until after the next election, which I am very much for.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 03:32
|
|
|
cr0y posted:
The problem is that Democrats think that the general populace cares about hypocrisy. That when the Republicans inevitably launch their "Dems have no interest in bipartisanship" attack ads, that the Dems will be able to point at something like this and say "Nuh uh, here's us trying to do bipartisan." as though Dumbledore is going to pop out of a bald eagle and declare that the Dems are technically correct and therefore win all the points, when what's going to happen is that the Dems will keep going on the defensive about it and act confused when Republicans keep tripling down on it anyways.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 03:33
|
|
|
Twincityhacker posted:...I'd argue that "not letting the goverment default" is a progressive position. Why do you think the last several debt ceiling debates evaporated? A default would hurt everyone, including the rich. It’d certainly affect the quality of life of rich people less than poor people, but wealthy Americans taking an L on their finances is one thing American politics just doesn’t abide by, it’s simply not gonna happen if there’s a way to mitigate it by the gov cause they’ll start making phone calls and the house and senate will listen to the purse strings. Setting this up as a false dichotomy between hurting everyone or just the poor is an entirely manufactured narrative, the third and only realistic good path here was simply democrats doing nothing and waiting until the oligarchy called shots and extended the debt ceiling to protect themselves, which would have happened as it has every previous time it’s come up in our lives. An important take away people need to accept and look in the eyes is any austerity cut that hurts the impoverished and vulnerable in America is stuff the Biden admin wanted too. Which shouldn’t come as a surprise because Biden has wanted entitlement cuts for basically his entire career and hasn’t even been quiet about it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 03:50
|
|
|
Twincityhacker posted:...I'd argue that "not letting the goverment default" is a progressive position. PoundSand puts it a lot more eloquently than I will. Continuing to sacrifice the impoverished and destitute is not a progressive position
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 04:17
|
|
|
PoundSand posted:Setting this up as a false dichotomy between hurting everyone or just the poor is an entirely manufactured narrative, the third and only realistic good path here was simply democrats doing nothing and waiting until the oligarchy called shots and extended the debt ceiling to protect themselves, which would have happened as it has every previous time it’s come up in our lives. There's a lot of room to argue over what the most progressive thing Democrats could have done in this situation. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say "stand back and trust Capital not to let the fascists and loonies do anything really bad" ain't it though.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 04:29
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:PoundSand puts it a lot more eloquently than I will. Continuing to sacrifice the impoverished and destitute is not a progressive position And it's amazing how quickly the need to have great victories means presenting failure as success and calling anyone who points it out a whiny unrealistic extremist.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 04:44
|
|
|
PoundSand posted:the third and only realistic good path here was simply democrats doing nothing and waiting until the oligarchy called shots and extended the debt ceiling to protect themselves, which would have happened as it has every previous time it’s come up in our lives. Unless you think "the oligarchy" passes laws by literal supernatural powers (as opposed to by influencing legislators) this is what they did.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 04:47
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Unless you think "the oligarchy" passes laws by literal supernatural powers (as opposed to by influencing legislators) this is what they did. Yeah it’s an entirely fair point that influencing legislators into entitlement cuts is precisely what happened but that would be an agreement that needed both parties to be working towards said cuts, if democrats had wanted to avoid this they could have by simply not playing ball. At the end of the day given the option between between hurting themselves (along with everyone else) or kicking the can we would have had the same result as the last several debt struggles. This time there was the option for cuts because democrats were amicable to the idea. Imo that’s a big part of why we’ve seen such a deluge of articles about why people should be panicking over the debt ceiling this time and frustrated op eds over why people aren’t, there’s a transparent goal of making the general public believe this time was unique and we really needed to sacrifice the poors to avoid a catastrophe. This is also to say nothing of the several debatable back door options available, from minting the coin to the 14th amendment. Regardless of the feasibility or legality of these defenses they were smothered in the crib by none other than the POTUS himself, unwilling to be used as even a threat. Ultimately I guess we can see how far in line the legislators will fall because there’s still the ironic chance of this deal being blown up by the freedom caucus so if they do implode things and cause a default I’m more than willing to admit I’m wrong about influence here.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 05:09
|
|
|
They don’t need lots of R to vote for it though do they? Just enough so if all democrats voted for it’d pass? They don’t need some super majority like the senate and McCarthy is the one who controls is it’s brought up for a vote? Also fucks the republicans over real well if they say “ we have a deal” and then they torpedo it because it puts the blame squarely on them Not much consolation if the global economy is crashing but still
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 05:16
|
|
|
At what point does the global economy put pressure on the US to not play games with them?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 05:18
|
|
|
Levitate posted:They don’t need lots of R to vote for it though do they? Just enough so if all democrats voted for it’d pass? They don’t need some super majority like the senate and McCarthy is the one who controls is it’s brought up for a vote? Yeah, one possible option is McCarthy forcing a vote despite sufficient far right opposition (more than... six? reps?) that will overwhelmingly pass. He will then become public enemy number two for the frothing lunatic contingent of his base, and if he clings to speakership it will be on the sufferance of Democrats, but he'll be in the good graces of the non-insane billionaires and corps. So it's not to be written off. The only person who might know what McCarthy is going to decide is McCarthy, and I'm not at all sure he'll know before Tuesday.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 05:28
|
|
|
Gatts posted:At what point does the global economy put pressure on the US to not play games with them? approximately right now
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 05:29
|
|
|
Gatts posted:At what point does the global economy put pressure on the US to not play games with them? Putting pressure on the US right now, I've heard eloquently described, is like trying to negotiate with a drunk spoiled 16 year old with his dad's loaded gun.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 05:39
|
|
|
I'm glad to see once again that the Democrats are simply just Reagan Republicans who still, usually, support abortion (but only as long as it won't cost them their seat).
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 05:48
|
|
|
Depending on the details that come out (And whether it actually passes), I think this might actually be a win for Biden? Obviously, spending cuts suck and work requirements are stupid as all hell, and if we lived in a country with sane politicians that wouldn't have been the debate. But since the Republicans won the House in November, spending cuts were going to happen — they were never going to pass a budget without them, and they don't care about shutting down the government to make that happen. (Also the "The Dems are showing their colors as actually being Republicans!" chat is just nonsense, like yeah guys they passed trillions of dollars in spending bills and expanded the child tax credit because they just love making spending cuts, come the gently caress on guys) But anyway, I think if the deal holds (And the details don't turn out to be particularly heinous, which reportedly they don't seem to be so far), I think it'll turn out as a win for the Dems given the situation — because they're getting two years of a functional government in exchange for only marginal spending cuts and extremely tepid "reform," which in turn defeats the primary advantage Republicans have in holding the House, since they'll no longer be able to threaten to take the government hostage for the rest of Biden's first term. That in and of itself is a big win for Biden, and it's extremely funny to think that McCarthy may have negotiated himself into irrelevancy. e: Also the Freedom Caucus hates it, which is always a positive indication. https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1662678451550076928?s=20
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 06:12
|
|
|
What exactly are the ramifications of the work requirements? That part is a real bummer and I want to know exactly what that's going to mean for federal assistance
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 06:19
|
|
|
Youremother posted:What exactly are the ramifications of the work requirements? That part is a real bummer and I want to know exactly what that's going to mean for federal assistance
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 06:24
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I don't think any specifics have come out yet Best I've found while looking is
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 06:28
|
|
|
Youremother posted:What exactly are the ramifications of the work requirements? That part is a real bummer and I want to know exactly what that's going to mean for federal assistance This is what I've seen so far: https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1662666709239463936?t=B13poRA8AC6LJkDrz8MAcQ&s=19 e: beaten
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 06:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Depending on the details that come out (And whether it actually passes), I think this might actually be a win for Biden? The Dems also let the child tax credits expire. Are they even trying to get rid of the debt limit? As recently as October 2022, Biden didn't want to get rid of it. And while the Dems were in power, they didn't get rid of it. I doubt that when Dems take the House again that they will remove the debt limit. Also, although he's not an active politician anymore, Obama still has great standing and influence with the party and he has described himself as a 80s and 90s Republican
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 06:34
|
|