|
Should troll Fancy Pelosi be allowed to stay? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
160 | 32.92% |
| No |
|
326 | 67.08% |
| Total: | 486 votes | ||
|
As long as we are getting in the weeds with ID standards, it seems like as good a time as any to talk about everyone's OTHER favorite niche topic, postal banking. How feasible do people think it would be to two-birds-one-stone things so that everyone can get a postal banking account for free and also get their postal banking ID, which we could then force states to accept as part of general voting reform? (I'm not actually very knowledgeable about either topic, but it seems like probably one of the best places for overlap, since the noted problems with the state-level DMV/BMV are completely avoided by the federal-level post office, and they already have all the tools to do this in many cases because of the procedure for getting passports)
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2021 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 12:57 |
|
|
zoux posted:Jim Justice is the richest man in WV and I guess he just doesn't give a gently caress because compared to the other super red states, West Virginia had far and away the best COVID response. He was more like Hogan running MD than the other Trump hugging governors like Noem, DeSantis, and Abbott who made it into a political issue. I'm not super familiar with WV politics, I just recall being often surprised at the reasonableness of that state's response when compared what one would expect out of West Virginia. It makes a lot more sense to think of him as alt-reality Manchin - he's from the same political lineage, but changed the letter next to his name without meaningfully changing his views. There's been somewhat recent scuttlebutt about Justice and Manchin swapping spots, and while I think it's far from reliable information, it at least is believable because both sides of that trade would view it as preserving their legacy
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2021 16:12
|
|
|
It's actually pretty interesting, and if it shows results I think other states will pick it up (or possibly the federal government will). The main criticism I would expect (from either the general public or this forum) is that it is only giving out the money to people in the 16-35 age range, but in practice that's really who we need to convince the most, and also probably the group most likely to have their behavior influenced by $100. Expanding the program out to all individuals would probably cost 3 times more at minimum (I'm not looking up age demographics for WV right now, but I'm confident in asserting they have fewer young people than most urban states as a percentage) and all the additional money would probably result in only a marginal improvement in the number of people getting vaccinated. The fact that it is being awarded retroactively is kind of a big deal, since otherwise you could complain that it unfairly rewarded people who went out of their way to not get it until they got bribed. I'd worry that other red states might deliberately take advantage by removing that caveat, but frankly I think both the governors and the citizens are too against "mandatory" vaccination to go for a plan like that, so it's probably a non-issue in practice. I think it's more likely that states like Ohio or Kentucky would lift something like this mostly unchanged than that Mississippi or Alabama would try to pervert the intent in that way, essentially, and I think the societal good done by getting shots in more arms is def worth a piddly couple million considering how many billions or trillions coronavirus has cost so far in terms of deaths, medical care, lost productivity, etc, and even a totally bloodless empty suit would agree with the calculus here - frankly, it seems like Bill Gates or whoever should have already done something like this on their own, rather than Budweiser and whoever else doing low-effort $1-5 value marketing ploys
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:Wouldn't the natural die off of older Fox News conservatives in the next 2-4 years also vastly favor the democrats? You'd think, but you'd also have thought that every year since, like, 2000 and generally you'd have been wrong. Same for how they completely lose minority voters, how they've recently lost women voters, etc. At some point you'd think it HAS to hit the breaking point, and maybe this is finally that time, but if they are able to keep screwing with voting propensity for their unfavorable demographics they will keep doing what they've been doing. They also got the presidency without the popular vote twice, so using nation-wide polling is kind of a red herring anyway - it matters a lot more which House and Senate seats are competitive, and as far as I can tell 2022 has the potential to be a "decent" Senate year, but not an "amazing" senate year - there's too many D seats up that need to stay put, and anything short of a 3-seat gain is basically no change as far as the filibuster is concerned, so there's a much larger universe of "basically nothing" or "net negative" possibilities since losing 1 Senate seat or a handful of House seats makes passing things basically impossible, while gaining House seats doesn't really help beyond setting up incumbent advantage for the future.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:I am trying to comprehend exactly how hosed I'd have to be before I would choose to hand my unlocked phone and email login info over to the FBI, and I don't even have anything particularly bad in there. To be clear, it sounds like the people in question are in Ukraine, so probably not at any real risk of going to jail or anything. Given how hosed everything is for Ukraine right now, I imagine that whatever threats or promises were made by Guiliani and Trump were very much not appreciated
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2021 03:49
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:There are certain segments of the market that are having extremely bad inflation due to COVID and supply chain disruptions (lumber pricing is up 5-6x from a year ago, silicon fab is hosed for at least 2 years and will have a cascading affect on supply and pricing) so it definitely has legs. I mean, that's not inflation, that's a supply squeeze. Inflation only means anything in the sense of "the value of a dollar", so if lumber is going up to 6x what it was a year ago but food and other daily necessities are staying level, then "the value of a dollar" has basically not changed, only "the value of lumber". Interest rates for loans, saving accounts, CoDs, etc. are usually the most immediately apparent indicator, plus the "basket of goods" model that looks at consumer items, but lumber/silicon pricing is not going to be part of the consumer basket for almost any standard definition, or at least not in a substantial enough way to impact anything. It probably will have knock-on effects, but the fundamental cause is definitely not "government spent too much", more likely "disruption to shipping routes", "excess construction", or "lumber workers sick with COVID" Edit: To put it another way, "inflation" doesn't exist in a barter economy, because the idea only makes sense when applied to things without intrinsic value (ie fiat currency). If it used to cost 2 hogs to get 200 lbs of lumber and now it costs 12, those hogs didn't decrease in intrinsic value. Similarly, if the cost of non-wood products has stayed steady, that just means wood became more scarce, and people who don't get a high return on those wood products will opt to buy literally anything else until the price goes down. The overall amount of comfort/value they can get from $1000 has probably not meaningfully decreased, which is what inflation is meant to measure, unless they have a fetish for building sheds that can't be fulfilled by any other means. BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Apr 29, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2021 17:42
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:That’s a great explanation but my racist stepdad is still yelling about Biden making it unaffordable to build a back deck now. Lol that's just Home Depot milking boomers for their flex budget since they can't use it on eating at restaurants. I thought you were saying it was having an impact on professional construction, not hobbyists. It's not really worth engaging with that kind of bad-faith poo poo IMO, it's on the "what's with all these low-flow toilets and washing machines?" tier of talking point, and it isn't going to convince anyone who was even slightly swingable to vote R over D Edit: Feel free to dunk on him about how that's just "the free market at work" though, he sounds like the kind of guy that would have used that argument in service of racism or sexism before BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Apr 29, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2021 17:57
|
|
|
I was talking probably 2 months ago about how unemployment really needs to be a federally-administered program. It's such a core part of the social safety net that letting states get away with nonsensically low caps on benefits and arbitrarily difficult application processes is clear political malpractice. I kind of think the same thing about Medicaid, but unemployment benefits are a much easier problem to tackle since receiving the benefits is literally just a check in the mail rather than requiring any sort of local connections with medical providers and such. It probably could be rolled pretty easily into the IRS and/or SSA honestly, it's just a question of whether such a program would be passable with reconciliation or not. I think there's probably some legitimate difficulty getting to 50 even if it passes muster there, but it's worth a try at least IMO. Not sure if any of the aggregators has a trendline for support for unemployment, but it's interesting to note that even in households where people didn't benefit from the unemployment expansion, it seems support was net positive last year: June: 75% support keeping or expanding unemployment benefits vs 13% opposed. D/R/I splits were 57/25/36 for increase, 27/42/36 for maintaining. 6/13/11 for decrease and 10/11/17 for unsure https://www.axios.com/poll-unemployment-benefits-expanded-97128c40-84b4-4c76-909d-8b87d790ddcf.html July: 35% believed the unemployment benefits should be extended for the duration of the pandemic regardless of cost, while 25% believed the benefits should have expired. 41% supported a specific extension: for 1 month (15%), 4 months (17%), or 8 months (15%). The split of people supporting indefinite expansion was surprisingly unpartisan for an issue like this- 23% of R, 36% of I and 43% of D https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/508918-poll-plurality-of-voters-say-unemployment-benefits-should-be August: 54% wanted expanded unemployment benefits renewed vs 29% opposed. Republicans were close to an even split on the issue, and voters from each party blamed the other for the failure to reach a deal, indicating that R voters viewed it as something the Republican party "wanted" https://www.huffpost.com/entry/poll-americans-support-600-unemployment-benefits-congress_n_5f29e8a9c5b6a34284c0a85d January: Increasing unemployment benefits should be a "top" or "important but lower" priority according to 69% of survey respondents https://morningconsult.com/2021/01/19/biden-inauguration-economic-priorities-polling/ March: 72% support ARP, 21% oppose. D/R/I splits are 95/44/65 for support Some of the narrower questions are interesting here, 33% view Biden as Very Liberal, while 32% rated Democrats in Congress as Very Liberal, which indicates to me that a lot of people don't really think of policy as a spectrum so much as a binary. I also think the split for "who is responsible for the 1.9 trillion relief package" is interesting: 56%/21% call Biden Very/Somewhat Responsible, 54%/24% call Dems in Congress Very/Somewhat, 9%/19% view Republicans Very/Somewhat. For the unemployment benefits, 41%/29% Strongly/Somewhat Support the extension of the $300 unemployment to Sept. The crosstabs are D/R/I 59%/22%/33% for Strongly Support, 26%/29%/34% for Somewhat Support, 6%/20%/10% for Somewhat Oppose, and 3%/19%/7% for Strongly Oppose. The numbers for the package overall show stronger polarization, with 74%/20/29% strong support, 20%/24%/30% somewhat support, 1%/20%/10% somewhat oppose, and 1%/27%/10% strongly oppose https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/17/poll-covid-relief-law-476496 April: 65% supported the ARP, 68% support the AJP and 64% support the AFP https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/27/americans-support-bidens-spending-want-him-to-spend-more-polls-show.html Overall, it seems to me that the trend is general support for unemployment benefits has increased for the duration, with the numbers for expanding from March 2021 to September 2021 looking pretty similar to the numbers for expanding for anywhere from 1 month to "the end of the pandemic" back in June 2020 polling. This might just reflect people viewing it as a "wait and see" option in both cases, but I think now probably represents the best possible time for reforming the system by making the recurring benefits permanent and the determination of recipients under federal purview, especially if red states are going to start playing games with it.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2021 16:52
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1392090691908640770 Honestly, this kind of feels like the kind of thing where the reason to float this is to get some narrow carve-outs that they'll put in campaign ads. Like, okay, sure, what is the impact on allowing an exemption for real property used as both a primary residence and farming territory up to X acres? Probably basically nothing, the vast majority of people will never even see the obscure form that checkbox is on, and then whatever rural Dem can play up how they introduced the amendment for their district or whatever specific donor is pestering them about it. Point by point: -I think the corpo rate is should be non-negotiable, since it has great public polling, but it sounds like this is a predicted cave. I'd rather they come up with some bullshit "small business" exception to the rules rather than give Bezos and whoever a bunch of free money, but we'll see -Doubling the cap gains tax "for those over $1M" seems really misleading to me, it's framed as though it's a "tax on millionaires", but it's literally just making it taxable in line with regular income, the actual cites are just Menendez and Warner saying "it seems high". That doesn't really indicate that it's dead, just needs to be messaged as "no longer treating capital gains as categorically different from other income" instead of "raising the capital gains tax" -Making an exception on inheritance tax for family farms was literally always the plan, p sure. Even if they made all real property used for farming exempt, it probably would have minimal impact on how much tax is collected, considering that most of that land is probably held by a corp anyway, not to mention the vast difference in value between rural farmland and urban developments. -I'm mostly ambivalent on the SALT situation, I think it makes sense to remove the cap but I also think it doesn't really fit the overall goals of this specific bill and the people making noises about it are in the House, where we can lose a few, rather than in the Senate, where we can't. -I have no clue what the details are on the international tax changes, so I basically don't care. The person they cite in the article is from the some guy from the Chamber of Commerce, and he doesn't get to vote, so it's kind of not part of the same conversation as the rest of these, where they can point to a specific House or Senate member. BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 19:41 on May 11, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2021 19:25
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:lol In all honesty, it's impossible for me to believe this will have a meaningful impact on the race. The US in general is pro-Israel enough that I doubt it will hurt him with most of his voters and it isn't like the mayor of NY has any power to impact the I/P conflict in an official capacity, so it's not gonna get brought up in a debate or anything
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2021 20:33
|
|
|
I think reasonably the "how does he think this will get done?" part is a non-issue, he's gone back and forth about making adjustments to the filibuster, so it's just a matter of making a carve-out for voting rights specifically on whatever basis passes the smell test. That's definitely the most emphatic he's been about it (or really any other issue that would run into the filibuster) so I think it's safe to say that it won't go unaddressed.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2021 22:09
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Correct, and this is why we just need to go all-in. Look at how the modest changes to healthcare with the ACA were fought against. You aren’t going to get two chances to pull off a major overhaul of the healthcare industry. Uh, isn't that last sentence directly contradicted by the previous two? There's a lot of things to hate about the ACA, but the Medicaid expansion and the elimination of pre-existing conditions were both enormous changes in practice, and if we are able to get another bill passed in the very next friendly presidency then it doesn't seem like "you aren't going to get two chances" is really a very solid argument. I certainly agree that there are real, human, costs to delaying major reform but you should frame it as "delaying action prolongs suffering", not "there's literally only one chance to do this" Edit: To expand a bit on this, one of the compromise positions that seems to get more publicity than others is "expand Medicare eligibility down to 55", which would end up covering a huge portion of the people that need coverage. With people being on their parent's coverage through 25, the band of people who need coverage after that would just be 26 through 54, and Medicaid would cover a big chunk of that (obviously there are also circumstances where you wouldn't have parental insurance to opt in to under 25, I was part of that crew and I easily qualified for Medicaid so don't @ me). If the next Dem president takes another whack at insurance reform after that passes, I think "Medicare for All" would be a super easy lift, because the millennial generation will be the group in the donut hole and the older generation will already be getting Medicare and probably broadly support it. It seems like the specific public option that Biden wants to advocate for is a plan for people who would be below the subsidy line (400% FPL), so if that got passed along with an expansion of Medicare to 55-and-up then the window of people not covered would be, like, people making $50k or more between the ages of 26 and 54? I don't have numbers in front of me, but that seems like it would be maybe 16-23% of the total population? At that point, if the people on the government plans have even a 60% approval rating of them then making it full coverage should be a very easy lift. BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 16:16 on May 12, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2021 15:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So far we haven't had another chance and it's been 11 years. Why would you need filibuster reform to pass healthcare changes? Parts of the ACA were passed by reconciliation, and I can't think of any reason why that wouldn't be feasible here unless there are substantial parts of the law that aren't budget-related (like the individual mandate provision of the ACA). Even a theoretical M4A bill ought to be passable through reconciliation so long as it comes with a funding mechanism that prevents it from running a long-term deficit Edit: Fair point on Sinema being useless garbage though, the article is from 2018 but given how she's voted since then I think we can safely treat her as a likely wrecker. That said, if we think we can get even one Senate pickup in 2022 it's not unreasonable to believe we could get meaningful reform, though it seems like Biden is trying to make it happen before then. We probably do need to resign ourselves to whatever gets passed with the AFP being some watered-down bullshit, but there will be some good non-healthcare provisions in there too I expect, at the least I think the expansion of the child tax credit and some sort of childcare/pre-K funding is basically a lock BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 16:25 on May 12, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The public option was ruled out of reconciliation in 2010 so unless this parliamentarian rules different then you have to do something about the filibuster. Hm, can you link me on that? My recollection was that it was killed in a ploy to get Lieberman on board, but if you have more information about that I'd like to see it. Here's some recent articles that seem to indicate that at least some of the Dems think they can get it through in reconciliation: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/539211-senate-democrats-unveil-health-care-plan-with-public-option https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/01/public-option-reconciliation-bill-democrats-congress/ The wikipedia article on the public option says it was never included in the reconciliation follow-up bill. Unfortunately, the source is a Glenn Greenwald article, but I don't have anything else contemporaneous to go by so it'll have to do for now until someone can provide a different one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insurance_option https://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/03/12/public-option-democrats-scam-becomes-more-transparent The same wiki page mentions that the public option was scored as $104 billion added to the debt over 10 years in 2013, so at least on that front it seems germane to reconciliation, you just have to find a funding mechanism that makes it revenue-neutral overall BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 16:39 on May 12, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2021 16:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No! I had just inferred that it couldn't get past the Byrd Rule based on 11 years of hearing "we want the public option honest, but that dastardly Lieberman and Lieberman alone took it from you", but if you're telling me now that it could have gone in the 2010 reconciliation bill with the other PPACA fixes all along, but they just didn't wanna and have been lying about why it failed for 11 years, that's pretty damning for the argument that it's the politically practical strategy. This has come up before, actually - the Senate composition has very few holdovers from 11 years ago. The list of D or I senators who were voting then and still have their seat is: -Pat Leahy (VT) Co-signed public option bill in 2019 -Dianne Feinstein (CA) Supported public option in 2009 https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=3B225DCC-5056-8059-76ED-0B6449489AFD -Patty Murray (WA) Cited as for it in 2009 https://www.thestranger.com/seattle/whats-up-with-maria-cantwell/Content?oid=1740985 -Ron Wyden (OR) Passed the 2009 public option out of the Senate Finance committee https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/8/27/20827210/senate-democrats-health-reform-medicare-obamacare-2020-filibuster -Jack Reed (RI) Co-signed public option bill in 2019 -Dick Durbin (IL) Co-signed public option bill in 2019 -Chuck Schumer (NY) Passed 2009 public option out of the Senate Finance committee https://www.politico.com/story/2009/07/schumer-crafting-public-option-024424 -Maria Cantwell (WA) Flip-flopped on the issue in 2009, but pushed for a bill that would give additional funding to the WA state public option -Debbie Stabenow (MI) Co-sponsored Medicare at 50 Act, says “If everyone chose the Medicare public option, then it would be very clear what the public wanted." in supporting public option as a step toward M4A https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/8/27/20827210/senate-democrats-health-reform-medicare-obamacare-2020-filibuster -Tom Carper (DE) Gettable for some versions but not others: https://www.inquirer.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/Sen_Carper_Why_I_split_my_vote_on_public_option.html - Bob Menedez (NJ) Advocated for it in 2009 https://www.menendez.senate.gov/newsroom/in-the-news/menendez-dems-to-push-for-public-option -Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Lol i don't even need to say anything here, right? -Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) Co-signed public option bill in 2019 -Bob Casey Jr (PA) For public option as alternative to M4A, add Medicaid to exchanges, expand medicare to 50 https://www.mcall.com/news/pennsylvania/mc-nws-pa-bob-casey-town-hall-bethlehem-20190822-o5uf2bqcqbbn3hk2unuurdloua-story.html -John Tester (MT) Open to go as far as single-payer https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/349493-centrist-dem-maybe-we-should-look-at-single-payer-healthcare -Amy Klobuchar (MN) Co-signed public option bill in 2019 -Ben Cardin (MD) Was for public option in 2009 https://www.cardin.senate.gov/newsr...lth-reform-bill -Mark Warner (VA) Introduced a bill for public option this year: https://www.warner.senate.gov/publi...d-health-crisis -Jeff Merkley (OR) Co-signed public option bill in 2019 -Jeanne Shaheen (NH) Co-signed public option bill in 2019 -Michael Bennet (CO) Supports Kaine's "Medicare X" public option https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/375376-democrats-march-toward-single-payer-health-care -Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) Co-signed public option bill in 2019 So as you can see, out of the Dems who stopped public option in 2009, none of them are still in office or at the least they had the good sense to change their public position since then It's fair to say that Manchin and Sinema represent potential hurdles in the modern Senate composition, but it's overly reductive to view this as 50/50 D senators now vs 50/60 D senators in 2009, because the party has moved SUBSTANTIALLY leftward in that time through attrition and new blood
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If they don't have 50 votes they don't have 50 votes, it doesn't matter if a higher percentage of 50 supports a public option today than did a percentage of 60 eleven years ago, you either have 50 votes plus a tiebreaker or you don't. You seem to be missing my point - I think they do have 50 votes and a tiebreaker. Manchin and Sinema will water down a proposal, but in 2009 they didn't have 50 for it and now I think a reasonable person could conclude that support is between 48-50 out of 50. It went from being a "nice to have" to a "must have" for the Democratic party and their voting base in the intervening time as the holes in the ACA became apparent and the Supreme Court shot down mandatory Medicaid expansion I'm not dumb enough to put money on Sinema being reasonable or anything, but I think the Blue Dogs that got ran out on a rail in 2010 represented enough of the 59 votes that if we subtract them from the total we would end up well under 50. To me, this is one place where it's absolutely worth going through the checklist and seeing who was where, which is why I put the effort into showing that everyone who survived from 2009 to now has a positive view of the public option - implicitly, that means the people who had negative views got exiled to the wilderness in the meanwhile, and we are closer to public option now than then even given the reduced majority in the Senate BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 20:45 on May 12, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2021 20:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
Okay I asked you a few pages ago for a source on the initial claim and never received one, so I do actually need you to cite something that supports your recollection that the public option was "killed by Lieberman". It made it into one version of the bill through the Senate finance committee and was cut by an amendment on the floor after that, as far as I can tell, so you are gonna have to show exactly who said it was Lieberman that killed the public option - I've seen people claim that it was Baucus a few times on here as well, but all of that is coming from posters working from memory, not official statements from Senators or whatever Here's a quote from one of the articles I linked earlier: quote:Second is the public option, which was excised from Obamacare. “We passed a public option in the Finance Committee in 2009,” says Wyden, sighing. “We lost it on the floor.” Edit: putting this as a separate bit cuz I want to make sure I have the timeline right - it's honestly pretty hard to put it all together retrospectively. As far as I can tell, the timeline is: Oct 2009: Senate finance committee passes a public option after Wyden pushes for it Dec 2009: Senate amends the public option out of the initial bill (which isn't set up for reconciliation) to get Lieberman on board March 2010: Reconciliation bill introduced and passed over the course of one week with no amendments proposed by Dems due to house whipping for it to get through as fast as possible BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 22:13 on May 12, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2021 21:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Seriously? That's all we ever hear around here when the ACA passage comes up "oh well Democrats wanted to make it better but it was all Lieberman's fault" but okay Right, but that's with regard to the baseline version of the bill, not the supplemental reconciliation portion. They wanted 60 because several parts of the bill required it - the coverage mandate, the exchanges, anything else that didn't have an impact on federal spending. No one had been planning for how to pull a public option off within the bounds of reconciliation back then, and no one had been proposing the use of Medicare as the public option at that time (though I couldn't tell you why that's the case). As far as I can tell, allocating funding to add new people to the Medicare rolls seems like the definition of what would be kosher under reconciliation, since it's direct allocation of funds.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2021 02:13
|
|
|
Abandoned Toaster posted:It's dangling the carrot of "what you could have if you work hard enough" but will still be unobtainable for the majority of workers and giving them less than they deserve. The fight's not over, but I worry people will accept this as "good enough" and trip up momentum, which is probably their strategy. I actually disagree with this, at least in the sense of the end goal being to discourage a min wage increase. If you as a company have already raised you wage to $11, then a national min wage increase to exactly $11 is not very harmful to you. You don't need to do any scrambling to adjust to the new status quo, but your competitors do, and some of the poorly-run ones will go out of business, increasing your market share. Further, fast food like McDonalds gets huge dividends from ending the alternative minimums - it's a double whammy, because a small but significant number of their consumers would have more propensity to spend and it likely runs some number of fast-casual competitors out of business and marginally raises prices on the rest, making one of their big selling points (cheaper than sit-down) more pronounced. This is sort of like the general trend of big tech companies become pro-regulation, because it creates a barrier to entry for potential competitors. As I recall, this was a major divide during the last net neutrality fight
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2021 16:07
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Well it could also be "well you can't say I didn't support this" as he refuses to support an even weaker bill. Well it's dual-pronged here actually, because the thing Manchin is explicitly backing is preclearance, which makes arbitrary changes harder going forward, but he hasn't said much about trying to roll back existing changes, which is what is most contentious
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2021 21:56
|
|
|
The Sean posted:Black homeowner had a white friend stand in for third appraisal. Her home value doubled. This happening in and around Indianapolis is just the least surprising thing to me. I have black relatives and in-laws in the area (who work in finance, natch) and racism is a constant, grinding presence in their lives despite middle-class careers and upbringings
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:"Lets have the filibuster except for things we want to vote for" is the same as ending the filibuster I mean, that's already what the filibuster is and was tho, like the only difference is that right now we want things (that can't be done with reconciliation) and have 50 but not 60
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:I am apparently behind on the news then. Yeah, I don't know to what extent it can really be USnews because our involvement is basically just "various political figures mumble vaguely about rocket attacks on civilians being unacceptable without saying the same about razing every building taller than 3 stories", but you'll probably get more of the story by hopping over to the I/P thread and reading the last 5 or 10 pages. The short version of the sequence of events is basically: -Israeli courts and police work to displace Palestinians living in East Jerusalem, the portion of the city that is broadly recognized as Palestinian territory by everyone in the international community except us. -Protests increase in size and scope, leading to an Israeli crackdown on the last day of Ramadan at one of the holiest sites in the city, causing over 100 injuries to Palestinian civilians. -Militant members of Hamas begin firing rockets in response to Israeli overreach, aiming (poorly) at various targets and managing to hit a power plant and several civilians -The IDF counters by deliberately targeting residential buildings and press offices in Gaza with aerial bombings, basically starting from the tallest and working their way down. So far, as far as I've seen, the number of Israeli deaths is in the single digits while the number of Palestinian deaths is in the triple digits. Also, Jewish right-wingers in Israel formed a lynch mob, killing an Israeli Jew for failing the paper bag test, and throughout the region Jewish and Muslim individuals have been engaging in street fights in cities where meaningful numbers of both exist. BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 01:21 on May 14, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2021 01:18
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:For all this talk of how the IDF is just doing targeted strikes with warning on weapon caches only and hitting combatants only, I've noticed no western networks deploying any reporters in Gaza lately despite everything going on being extremely news worthy by any definition TBH I haven't seen any source say that Israel has hit even a single combatant. I don't remember which article I was looking at recently (probably either NYT or BBC) but it specifically had an interview with someone who lost his ailing mother because she couldn't be readily moved due to her condition. The issue is that they bury that poo poo 30 paragraphs in and add up the total number of Israeli and Palestinian deaths to present the numbers for their headlines because if they gave an accurate account of how many people were being killed on each side it would be extremely clear that it is a massacre continuing the long-running genocide through attrition of the Palestinians living in Gaza
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2021 01:26
|
|
|
TBH the tweet was probably scheduled well in advance, possibly/probably before any of these recent provocations by the Israelis. It's so much more valuable to criticize Biden for the things he and his appointees have said in actual interviews rather than the world's most bland holiday tweet Edit: Here's his Cinco de Mayo tweet - notice how the accompanying image looks to be the same style as the Eid one - they probably just told someone to knock out all of them at once at the start of the year and then put them into the auto-tweet schedule https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1390026013787230215?s=20 BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 01:53 on May 14, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2021 01:49
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:I may be putting too much stock in the institutions that run our government infrastructure today in the age of "i forgot to copy-paste the other 47 columns in this Excel spreadsheet that describe the actual economic data", but Sure, but the part that is most relevant to criticize is the part where they say "Israel has a right to defend itself", the part where they then say "Eid Mubarak!" on a scheduled tweet is just salt in the wound, not the knife
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2021 02:29
|
|
|
Flopsy posted:Well guys now y'all can see why I leave the thread when this poo poo shows up, so I guess I'll just sit down and be quiet again so I don't rock the boat anymore. That's not really what anyone is saying, the point is that the actions being done by the Israelis are being done under their national flag by people that ostensibly represent the people that voted for them or their party, while the actions being done by the Palestinians are being done by a group with some support but no capacity to administer, who have been locked out of the political process by the Israelis deliberately. I don't even have the ability to determine if these attacks are supported by Hamas at large or if it's the actions of the most radical under the umbrella, because there's no reporting, Israel assassinated anyone that could be considered leadership, and they don't exactly have a press office putting out statements! Further, the damage being done by the rockets is extremely minor compared to the damage being done by the airstrikes, whether you look at the number of deaths or the dollars of property damage. The justification for the airstrikes from the Israeli military is extremely flimsy - they have unsourced and unverified claims of "weapon caches" in the buildings they are bombing, but suspiciously their target list is literally just every building in Gaza from tallest to shortest, with multi-family housing and media offices being among the first targets. This is just the latest in Israel's storied history of using individual actions to justify collective punishment against an ethnic group, check out the casualty numbers and targets from 2007-8 and 2014. 2014 is notable because that was the time that Israel targeted hospitals and schools run by the UN as shelters because OTHER shelters which were not in use had been used to stash weapons - the places they actually bombed were never shown to have weapons cached there, either before the strikes were authorized or after
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:If Biden isn't up to running in 2024 I have no idea what happens. Harris very clearly can't campaign by herself, but she's absolutely not going to step aside and let someone else have it. Then even if she's weak, what Dems would run against the incumbent VP? I don't think an incumbent VP is going to stop anyone who cares, it didn't stop like 10 people from running against Biden (though you could argue the 4 year gap did that), and it's not like Gore ran unopposed in 2000 either. Outside of the line of succession, the VP slot is not an especially strong lock for a future presidency, and I don't see any reason that would be different here: it's not like Harris has some enormous level of establishment support, she had to drop out early because no one really cared about her enough to keep funding her vanity run and her voter base outside of Twitter weirdos was getting cannibalized by pretty much everyone else due to the lack of defining positions DarkHorse posted:It's pretty concerning because how well a campaign is run is a pretty good proxy for how well-run an administration will be Is that really true? The Obama campaign was insanely strong, especially in '08, but the Obama admin was a loving mess, even if you look at it from the perspective of someone with the same political opinions as Obama. In contrast, the Biden campaign had a slow start and underperformed expectations in the general due to a lack of door-knocking and other outreach, but so far has been very technically competent in getting goals through Congress (regardless of your personal opinions on his legislative priorities) and the vaccine rollout has been wildly successful compared to expectations in November.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2021 18:01
|
|
|
Flopsy posted:Genuinely curious what it's going to loving take to get it through his thick goddamn head they ain't his loving friends. I think people overplay the "Manchin cycle" thing to some extent, but, like, this is absolutely the last stage of the Manchin cycle where he says "well we tried to compromise and we had 30 R reps vote for this version, but no senators, we'll just have to push this through the hard way", not him saying "oh darn, guess it isn't happening then". We had Pelosi saying something about how they "really would prefer not to do things this way" which was her teeing it up for him to hit
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2021 04:38
|
|
|
Might be a rental? I mean, given who she is probably not, but I'm sure SOMEONE out there has a business renting out poo poo covered in America for photos
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Lol Democrats learned absolutely nothing from Ted Kennedy and RBG I mean, let's place the blame where it belongs: dinosaurs that can't imagine the world going on after they die. The whole reason this is newsworthy is because anyone with sense was assuming he would step down, because if he REALLY runs again then the odds of the governor getting to replace him are just unacceptably high. If there's not anyone that can fill his shoes, then that's entirely on him for not bothering to bring any new blood into the state party over literal decades that he has held power, and it's silly to let that blame get distributed among people in other states who have their own fish to fry. Edit: Since I didn't actually know off the top of my head, the Rep from Vermont is a D, but 74. However, their statehouse has a veto-proof D majority and somehow they have a D lieutenant governor despite having an R governor, so there's easily a half-dozen people with state-level experience that should easily be able to step up to the plate if Leahy would just do us all a favor and step his rear end down BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 15:18 on May 23, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2021 15:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 12:57 |
|
|
Gadfly posted:We have an ACH network that could direct deposit checks into Americans bank accounts. Why can’t that be used? I think the point being made here is that we don't have any way to replace UE benefits at the federal level. We could implement UBI, but if it's at a flat rate then we'd be spending somewhere between 10 and 20 times as much as if it was targeted, which may or may not be a drop in the bucket economically but definitely is untenable politically given how every single pandemic check has been a fight to get passed. We would have to add some new functions to the DoL to track unemployment statistics directly instead of pulling from state-level data collection, and you can be sure that it would have huge rollout issues as everyone and their mother sends in applications on opening day. That's not to say we shouldn't do it, but federal unemployment benefits ARE a bit more complicated than an unstructured UBI, and I'm not REALLY sure that it would be much better than just authorizing a recurring refund check like the child check but for people under an income threshold, which would be a lighter lift in terms of the systems in place right now. There's also some discussion to be had on the relative merits of UBI with an income threshold, a min wage increase, or both together in terms of who is helped and where the money comes from, but min wage PROBABLY isn't happening in the immediate future despite the fact that yesterday I saw like 5 signs up at fast food restaurants 1-upping each other for between 13 and 15 in NH, which still uses the federal minimum of $7.25. At the current level, the federal minimum wage serves virtually no direct regulatory purpose anywhere except the south - even random states like Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and West Virginia have recognized that and raised their state wages, but with blue states on track for $15 within a few years and most red states seeming to aim for closer to 10, we might have to consider ourselves lucky if we can get $12.50 and annual inflation adjustments. BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 15:36 on May 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 24, 2021 15:26
|
|