|
It's maybe a bit annoying that pencilhands has implicit permission to troll the thread, but "work requirements should be waived for people who work" isn't really subtle, as far as nonsense arguments go. The sentiment being parodied is too common among the public to really find very funny, though.
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
pencilhands posted:Whether or not we can afford SNAP is beyond the point. Giving people free money with no work requirement incentivizes feelings of entitlement and makes them worse people. And before you say “but many SNAP recipients work!” Well, the work requirement should be waived for those people. What the gently caress is this garbage? I bet you love corporate subsidies too.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:Whether or not we can afford SNAP is beyond the point. Giving people free money with no work requirement incentivizes feelings of entitlement and makes them worse people. And before you say “but many SNAP recipients work!” Well, the work requirement should be waived for those people. Shootin’ fish in a barrel  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
What the hell happened in this thread overnight. Also, those who think that any deal had to be done, because the alternative was worse, don't seem to recognize that the only way anything will ever truly change in the United States, is by making things worse, unfortunately, at least in the short-ish term. The existing power base needs to be completely eradicated, but that doesn't happen without active revolution. So "making things worse" is going to happen, someday, regardless, but I guess if your goal is to just continue to try and kick the can down the road to another generation so you can maintain some level of low economic servitude, congratulations?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 17:26
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:It's maybe a bit annoying that pencilhands has implicit permission to troll the thread, but "work requirements should be waived for people who work" isn't really subtle, as far as nonsense arguments go. The sentiment being parodied is too common among the public to really find very funny, though. Yeah, I’m unfamiliar with this poster, but the post seems like a pretty standard argument through irony, like textbook satire.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 17:29
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:I think the "in October" has a lot to do with this. It was two weeks before an election and I think you know what most Americans, who don't follow politics or policy closely, think when they hear the words "no debt limit." You can't say, two weeks before an election, "there should be no debt limit." It's really stupid, but you just can't. Is that why he said removing the debt limit would be irresponsible? Intentionally kneecapping his agenda is responsible? I don't believe that the Democrats have some secret progressive goals and are only hampered by optics and politicking. At some point, you just realize that this is what they want. They are fine with sacrificing the poor. And it happens so often with the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Goons: "I would just dare them to shoot the hostage." The deal that we got was to allow the hostage takers to shoot some of the hostages, and then let the hostage takers go with a smile and a handshake and a promise that they'll be given new hostages in 2 years. As plenty of others have pointed out, in a vacuum this is an OK deal given the circumstances, but absolutely dogshit when you consider the Dems' complicity in allowing this charade to keep going.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 17:42
|
|
|
I think he thinks the debt limit is responsible but the Republicans are irresponsible about it which is why he argued for a long term increase. If Biden thought it was irresponsible and was pro-repealing it he would have used this to take actions that challenge the legitimacy of the debt limit. Same way he's pre-work requirements but thinks the current ones are too much. He still hasn't become an economic progressive who wants to repeal the debt ceiling as long as it's not October 2022.Fister Roboto posted:The deal that we got was to allow the hostage takers to shoot some of the hostages, and then let the hostage takers go with a smile and a handshake and a promise that they'll be given new hostages in 2 years. It's all as simple as this. Every time we reach a deal it hurts something, we all declare the slow bleed a victory, and then do it again in a couple years with no movement to stop the process that is bleeding us. The Democrats need a way to get off the wheel. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 17:48 on May 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 17:45
|
|
|
If Democrats wanted to expand work requirements, why didn't they expand work requirements when they controlled both houses of congress?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 17:45
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Several years of the moderators not enforcing the rules. Ever read Moral Man and Immoral Society? “If we analyse the attitudes of the politically self-conscious worker in ethical terms, their most striking characteristic is probably the combination of moral cynicism and unqualified equalitarian social idealism which they betray. The industrial worker has little confidence in the morality of men; but this does not deter him from projecting a rigorous ethical ideal for society.” I’m not sure moderation is the entirety of the story.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 17:45
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:If Democrats wanted to expand work requirements, why didn't they expand work requirements when they controlled both houses of congress? Because they're supposed to be the "Good Cop" in this charade. That's why they need the Republicans to "force" them into doing things like that, so that they can gently caress over the poor while saying "Oooh, those darn republicans made us do this. Can you donate $20 and Vote Blue No Matter Who so we can make sure this doesn't happen again?"
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
I would not call a 10.5 percent increase to our already bloated military budget a "total victory."
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:If Democrats wanted to expand work requirements, why didn't they expand work requirements when they controlled both houses of congress? Because as a majority they don't want to. Some of them do because we know they do, like Manchin. But most of them don't want to but see work requirements themselves as a-ok and see this as a necessary loss to avoid further damage. Which is true but you also need to be able to provide people an answer as to when you actually stop the piecemeal damage and if you don't then it's not surprising if some people interpret that disconnect between words and actions and walk away with the conclusion that you secretly want the thing that keeps happening to happen.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 17:58
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:What the hell happened in this thread overnight. It's easy to be a vanguardist on Twitter.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 18:06
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:If Democrats wanted to expand work requirements, why didn't they expand work requirements when they controlled both houses of congress? Because that would piss a huge portion of their base as well as their caucus. But with this, they have the excuse to say that they were backed into a corner and they just had no choice. That's responsible governance, sweaty, not everyone gets what they want.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 18:09
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I think a number of people vastly overestimate how much even the fanatics on the current SCOTUS would be willing to take responsibility for an action that would actually financially hurt their backers. The fact that it would have to go in front of a court at all means that the 14th amendment option would deal a significant blow to the economy. "The US public debt is in limbo as the Supreme Court decides whether or not to declare some of the payments unconstitutional" isn't quite as bad as default, but it's actually still pretty bad. That's why the 14th Amendment option and the trillion-dollar coin are emergency plans of absolute last resort, not easy magic tricks that instantly make this borderline constitutional crisis go away forever with zero consequences.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 18:44
|
|
|
So how much longer are we supposed to keep pretending this administration hasn't largely amounted to the same effect as a second Trump term? Roe v Wade rolled back, social services slashed to the bone, child poverty doubled, kids still in cages, rail unions smashed, defense budget skyrocketing. drat, Joe Biden is the most effective republican president in my lifetime paranoid randroid fucked around with this message at 18:52 on May 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 18:50
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:borderline constitutional crisis go away forever with zero consequences. We have had a “constitutional crisis” regularly for at least since W was selected president by the same magical court. Honestly most people would forget it and move on after a few squabbles on the ever decreasing viewership of the news and YouTube videos that no one cares about. paranoid randroid posted:So how much longer are we supposed to keep pretending this administration hasn't largely amounted to the same effect as a second Trump term? Roe v Wade rolled back, social services slashed to the bone, child poverty doubled, kids still in cages, rail unions smashed, defense budget skyrocketing. Don’t forget allowing more drilling and worsening of climate change. To borrow a phrase from the right: It’s (D)ifferent! The only thing Biden effectively accomplished in full stride was killing tons of grassroots movements. Please keep in mind the key word “effectively” when forming your responses  virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 18:58 on May 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 18:54
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:So how much longer are we supposed to keep pretending this administration hasn't largely amounted to the same effect as a second Trump term? Roe v Wade rolled back, social services slashed to the bone, child poverty doubled, kids still in cages, rail unions smashed, defense budget skyrocketing. You can't say stuff like that. It upsets people. What you should say is Joe Biden did his best, and anyone who disagrees is a traitor to the cause. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 18:55
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The fact that it would have to go in front of a court at all means that the 14th amendment option would deal a significant blow to the economy. "The US public debt is in limbo as the Supreme Court decides whether or not to declare some of the payments unconstitutional" isn't quite as bad as default, but it's actually still pretty bad. Sounds like something they should have started doing a lot sooner then, because literally everyone knew that this "borderline constitutional crisis" was going to happen.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 18:56
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Because that would piss a huge portion of their base as well as their caucus. But with this, they have the excuse to say that they were backed into a corner and they just had no choice. That's responsible governance, sweaty, not everyone gets what they want. Can you give me a few quotes of Democratic politicians saying that?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Because as a majority they don't want to. Some of them do because we know they do, like Manchin. But most of them don't want to but see work requirements themselves as a-ok and see this as a necessary loss to avoid further damage. Which is true but you also need to be able to provide people an answer as to when you actually stop the piecemeal damage and if you don't then it's not surprising if some people interpret that disconnect between words and actions and walk away with the conclusion that you secretly want the thing that keeps happening to happen. They do need to explain why these cuts were not their will - like I said, although it’s rare for a president to apologize for signing a hard-fought bill, I really do think Biden should apologize for this deal, to emphasize that Republicans actively want to hurt people and giving them power makes that pain inevitable. And I want to see a real substantial effort within the party to making sure this doesn’t happen again, which they’ve feinted towards but I’ll believe it when I see it. Willa Rogers posted:I would not call a 10.5 percent increase to our already bloated military budget a "total victory." It’s inconsequential, IMO. It’s bad if we use our military to do bad things, but spending money on defense doesn’t require us to do that stuff. Most defense funding amounts to a high-tech version of paying people to dig holes and fill them in again. It’s economic stimulus - spent in the dumbest way possible, but the end result is high-paying jobs, often in areas with few other economic opportunities. “Should we start wars” is a separate question from the funding, and currently we have a president with more of a track record of ending wars than starting them. Unless you think government spending is self-evidently undesirable - I lean more in an MMT direction myself - it doesn’t really hurt. And it’s part of the deal that I think most Dem members actually do support. Personally speaking, if you had the same deal on the table, without the increase in military funding, I would prefer this one. The main drawback of military spending is that it crowds out other spending by making deficits look worse, but it’s a small contributor to the deficit compared to the underfunding of SS and uncontrolled costs of Medicare. It’s also worth noting that defense spending isn’t on some infinite upward trajectory - it’s currently at ~3% of GDP, when in the Bush years it was almost six. People focus on the baseline number going up all the time, but proportionally to the economy, the DoD has shrunk. (Naturally, defense spending went up quite a bit during the Trump administration after falling through the Obama administration.) Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 19:27 on May 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:How is your statement any different from the republicans nonsense about guns: My as well decriminalize drugs, erase all armed robbery legislation and get rid of pretty much every law so long as people are going to break those rules anyhow.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
Turns out 2016 was the one to vote blue no matter who in. Losing the supreme court was the big thing.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:02
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Sounds like something they should have started doing a lot sooner then, because literally everyone knew that this "borderline constitutional crisis" was going to happen. That doesn't really make any sense. The executive taking it upon itself to ignore the debt limit law after Congress' refusal to raise it is going to be a constitutional crisis, no matter when it happens. There's absolutely no merit in triggering it earlier on purpose. A situation in which the three branches of government do not agree on whether debt payments were valid is necessarily going to be alarming to people who hold US debt or might want to hold it, regardless of when it's triggered.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:02
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:It’s inconsequential, IMO. It’s bad if we use our military to do bad things, but spending money on defense doesn’t [i]require[i] us to do that stuff. Most defense funding amounts to a high-tech version of paying people to dig holes and fill them in again. It’s economic stimulus - spent in the dumbest way possible, but the end result is high-paying jobs, often in areas with few other economic opportunities. “Should we start wars” is a separate question from the funding, and currently we have a president with more a track record of ending wars than starting them. I don't think the details are out yet but it would certainly fit with the McCarthy pattern if the defense spending in the deal was just Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:04
|
|
|
It's weird that when republicans hold the presidency they're the most unchecked tyrants in the world, but when democrats hold it they're smol beans that get bullied by unelected law wizards and magistrates nobody has ever heard of
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:05
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:
People focus on the baseline number because it’s a good solid number to show and demonstrate how much it’s gone up compared to how much benefits are cut. It’s easier to grasp than the percentage of GDP is.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:06
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Can you give me a few quotes of Democratic politicians saying that? Why? Do you think it's only possible if the Dems explicitly state that that's what they're doing? Do you believe that politicians never lie about their intentions or make promises they never intend to keep? Are we only allowed to judge them based on what they've said, and not on their actions (or lack of action)? The Dems could have resolved this in a way that didn't throw poor people under the bus. They chose not to.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:06
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:So how much longer are we supposed to keep pretending this administration hasn't largely amounted to the same effect as a second Trump term? Roe v Wade rolled back, social services slashed to the bone, child poverty doubled, kids still in cages, rail unions smashed, defense budget skyrocketing. Have you not looked at what the Republicans have been working towards? Criticize this admin all you want, it's hardly been anything I consider good, but the idea that a second term of Trump would have been equivalent is laughable (especially since it would have come with control of both houses of Congress).
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:07
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Have you not looked at what the Republicans have been working towards? Criticize this admin all you want, it's hardly been anything I consider good, but the idea that a second term of Trump would have been equivalent is laughable (especially since it would have come with control of both houses of Congress). drat sounds like the most powerful man in the country should do something about that!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:08
|
|
|
Oh wait I'm being informed a lawyer said he can't do that. Alas! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:09
|
|
|
Sounds like that lawyer is the most powerful person in the country, then.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Turns out 2016 was the one to vote blue no matter who in. Losing the supreme court was the big thing. Doesn’t have to be. Dems have the power to fix the Supreme Court right now. It would be pretty easy too, if that was what the Dems actually wanted. There’s precedent for it too. See my previous examples.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Have you not looked at what the Republicans have been working towards? Criticize this admin all you want, it's hardly been anything I consider good, but the idea that a second term of Trump would have been equivalent is laughable (especially since it would have come with control of both houses of Congress). Yeah, and people really loath that the admin's response to that has been the same as its response to covid. Just gotta live with it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
Wayne Knight posted:Sounds like that lawyer is the most powerful person in the country, then. Oddly the lawyer doesn't exist when freak genital inspectors are in power. They're kind of in a liminal state.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:12
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:It's weird that when republicans hold the presidency they're the most unchecked tyrants in the world, but when democrats hold it they're smol beans that get bullied by unelected law wizards and magistrates nobody has ever heard of Mostly because when faced with an obstacle, and someone floats the idea of "There may be One Weird Trick", the Dems shrink back and go "We can't do that, the Supreme Court MIGHT strike it down uwu. We don't know that they would or not, but the possibility scares us." and the Republicans go "Lol, bet." Obviously it doesn't always pay off, but they're still willing to take shots that the Dems won't to see what works.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:13
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Doesn’t have to be. Dems have the power to fix the Supreme Court right now. It would be pretty easy too, if that was what the Dems actually wanted. What power is this? I don't see them having any such power. Especially not a variant of it that would make it "easy" to do so, but really at all.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:13
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Yeah, good post. I think “a-ok” is maybe a bit strong but obviously erecting some barriers to aid something many Dems are willing to trade for ending this politically fraught and potentially economically disastrous situation. And if the alternative was really unemployment going to 10% and people losing half their retirement savings, then it was probably the right call. My point being with "a-ok" is that they have no ideological objection to work requirements as a party. They think it's good policy in the right situations, despite evidence otherwise, and have passed their own legislature for work requirement. Also I have to ask, what happens when you never get that apology? Because you and I both know it isn't happening.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That doesn't really make any sense. The executive taking it upon itself to ignore the debt limit law after Congress' refusal to raise it is going to be a constitutional crisis, no matter when it happens. There's absolutely no merit in triggering it earlier on purpose. I thought the problem was that there was a deadline where the world economy was going to explode, which is why there was no time to invoke the 14th amendment and deal with the legal challenges. Is that not the case? Is there anything that the Dems can do to stop this from being a regular, predictable crisis where the only viable option is to concede to the fascists?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:14
|
|