I’ve heard this argument that the deal they got wasn’t going to get any better in a few places. What are the counter arguments to that?
Because it was working, trumps numbers are down a bit, the election losses. But those didn’t phase the Republicans at all seemingly. I personally think they still should have held out, but I don’t have any logic for my stance. Is there any?
Yes. All the same logic for dealing with a bully. The next “deal” will be worse. Now they know they can push as hard as they want and the opposition will always cave. This was the one chance the Dems had to show a spine against this admin and now it’s gone.
The next “deal” will be struck in January when federal funding runs out, when we have another Democrat sworn into the house, when snap benefits are not at risk for another 8 months.
I’m also disappointed in this, but its worth pointing out that they may be setting up for a later fight which doesn’t come at the cost of starving our poorest citizens, which the trump administration has shown the nation they’re gleeful to do.
But in a major concession for Democrats, the deal does not include an extension of enhanced subsidies under Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, after Republicans held firm against extending those funds beyond this year. That means more than 20 million Americans could see their premiums spike next year.
Idk, I definitely remember initial articles only saying “Democrats caved!” And I had to dig around to find out who, and had to dig around more to find out what was agreed to.
I hope your right, I really do. It just seems like every time a fight has been lost, the answer is always “but next time” or “but next election”… Meanwhile look where we’re at now. How many more next times do we have?
I wonder if Obamacare folks would’ve paid their first payment for 2025 by then? There may be value in letting folks see sticker shock, as it gives a clear “this is what we’re fighting for” signal
I mean they did get some things in other areas. The argument I am hearing is that the deal won’t get better. And I find it hard to counter that myself.
Some year long funding for the VA, reversal of any federal job cuts from october 1st on. And blocking further job cuts for a little while. Nothing massive, but not small either. And it only ends the shut down for about 2.5 months. I still don’t like it, but I can’t argue that it is nothing either.
Their corporate overlords (amazon mostly I bet) were going to start losing money from the holiday air shipping and travel closures so they called up Schumer and told him to rap it up.
Schumer was in on it and voted no because he wanted the plausible deniability because he knows he’s in hot water for all his previous collaborationist deals. The yes voters are loyal sacrificial patsies who (all but one I think) aren’t up for reelection. It’s backfired on him because one of the patsies chickened out while being grilled on camera and blabbed on him. That’s the consensus.
As to why now, yeah I’m pretty sure the air traffic closures were going to inconvenience their corporate donors.
I’ve heard this argument that the deal they got wasn’t going to get any better in a few places. What are the counter arguments to that?
Because it was working, trumps numbers are down a bit, the election losses. But those didn’t phase the Republicans at all seemingly. I personally think they still should have held out, but I don’t have any logic for my stance. Is there any?
Yes. All the same logic for dealing with a bully. The next “deal” will be worse. Now they know they can push as hard as they want and the opposition will always cave. This was the one chance the Dems had to show a spine against this admin and now it’s gone.
The next “deal” will be struck in January when federal funding runs out, when we have another Democrat sworn into the house, when snap benefits are not at risk for another 8 months.
I’m also disappointed in this, but its worth pointing out that they may be setting up for a later fight which doesn’t come at the cost of starving our poorest citizens, which the trump administration has shown the nation they’re gleeful to do.
You are speculating at possible future fights … But that’s not what they said when they caved, is it. So they’re lying about their motives?
I didn’t see anything about securing snap benefits or anything. Is that a side effect kind of thing?
Hot dang, I read a cbs news article and it didn’t mention that. I even went back to check. Isn’t cbs under new ownership or something?
Idk, I definitely remember initial articles only saying “Democrats caved!” And I had to dig around to find out who, and had to dig around more to find out what was agreed to.
I hope your right, I really do. It just seems like every time a fight has been lost, the answer is always “but next time” or “but next election”… Meanwhile look where we’re at now. How many more next times do we have?
In fairness, it was only 8 democrates. But yeah, I am not sure why the Republicans would give in in January if they wouldn’t now.
I wonder if Obamacare folks would’ve paid their first payment for 2025 by then? There may be value in letting folks see sticker shock, as it gives a clear “this is what we’re fighting for” signal
Didn’t they already get the letters or something? But I would assume they pay for the month up front, so that is a great point.
I mean they did get some things in other areas. The argument I am hearing is that the deal won’t get better. And I find it hard to counter that myself.
What’d they get in other areas? I must have missed that.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/government-shutdown-senate-deal/
Some year long funding for the VA, reversal of any federal job cuts from october 1st on. And blocking further job cuts for a little while. Nothing massive, but not small either. And it only ends the shut down for about 2.5 months. I still don’t like it, but I can’t argue that it is nothing either.
Their corporate overlords (amazon mostly I bet) were going to start losing money from the holiday air shipping and travel closures so they called up Schumer and told him to rap it up.
Schumer voted no. I’m looking for real reasons that won’t get me laughed out of the room for being uninformed.
Schumer was in on it and voted no because he wanted the plausible deniability because he knows he’s in hot water for all his previous collaborationist deals. The yes voters are loyal sacrificial patsies who (all but one I think) aren’t up for reelection. It’s backfired on him because one of the patsies chickened out while being grilled on camera and blabbed on him. That’s the consensus.
As to why now, yeah I’m pretty sure the air traffic closures were going to inconvenience their corporate donors.