|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 01 2021 11:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2021 11:12 Husyelt wrote:
Garbage bill. Pushing through a shit proposal and then turning on one guy calling you out because "it needs to be passed" is rank foolishness. Republicans don't have jack shit to stand on with their delays sure, but let the place shutdown for a few weeks until you trim this behemoth down. We've ballooned government spending and our debt for decades now. Probably because the cost to run a country continues to grow? There's a lot of pork and waste of shit in bills all the time. But if the bill is mostly to be used for good, then blow that spending and debt as far as you can. People need what's in these "at face value" pretty decent bills. Of course it isn't popular now, but if they implement it correctly, history will show this was a good bill to pass.
Do you want 40 trillion in debt by the end of the decade? How many times have we kicked this shit down the road? Of all times, during the first crawl through this pandemic, I can't think of a better one than to strip government spending down to the bare essentials. edit:lol. I posted the wrong fucking shit bill's numbers
|
On October 01 2021 12:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2021 11:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 01 2021 10:35 Mohdoo wrote:On October 01 2021 10:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 01 2021 04:03 Starlightsun wrote:On October 01 2021 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Pelosi said she was having a vote on the Republican approved infrastructure deal from the senate. Manchin is sticking to his $1.5 trillion top line number for what he'd support through reconciliation. Progressives have committed to not passing the Senate's infrastructure package without the $3.5 trillion "Build Back Better" reconciliation package. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) announced Thursday that his top-line spending number for the budget reconciliation package is $1.5 trillion, far below the $3.5 trillion spending goal set by the budget resolution that he and every other Senate Democrat voted for last month.
“My top-line has been $1.5 [trillion],” he said, explaining that he doesn’t want “to change our whole society to an entitlement mentality.”
The House is scheduled to vote Thursday on a $1.1 trillion infrastructure bill backed by Manchin that passed the Senate, but progressives have threatened to vote against it unless a separate social spending measure is moved in tandem.
thehill.comPelosi pulling the vote off the schedule is probably the least embarrassing for everyone and the most likely imo, but that's just kicking the can. “My top-line has been $1.5 [trillion],” he said, explaining that he doesn’t want “to change our whole society to an entitlement mentality.” What an absolute piece of shit. Sorry about doublepost was meant to be edit. It seems lost on many Democrats how counterproductive it is to have someone like Manchin (even moreso Sinema) fundamentally undermining the very rationale for their agenda (as well as the agenda itself) from inside their party. Biden won the general election by catering to moderates. The senate is not built to favor popular vote, it is intended to destroy democracy by letting corn fields have a vote equal to 10 million people. Which seats are you seeing Democrats can SPECIFICALLY win if only they were more left leaning? Which seat is suddenly in play when we lose Manchin? Losing Manchin and Sinema is only worth it democrats gain at least 2 other seats. I think that perspective is missing the forest for the trees. The US needs more "left-leaning" policy (massive understatement imo). Not as a matter of personal preference (though they happen to align in that way), but because the overwhelming scientific consensus is unambiguously clear on this. I don't think the US will find anything even approaching those necessary policies within the existing bourgeois democracy Within the confines of that bourgeois democracy, I agree with you on twisting his arm up to and beyond pressuring him and his progeny with increased scrutiny for "questionable" financial relationships though. I agree. How does losing the senate majority get us there? When we lose Manchin and Sinema, what mechanism allows the left to retake the senate and do what needs to be done? When I look at the senate map, I do not see a path to senate majority by going further left. I am assuming you are more in the know than I am. Which seats are you saying can be taken from republicans by advocating for the policies you are saying are necessary? From my perspective, no such seats exist. I understand the basic idea of "advocate for the common man and you will suddenly have a wave of new support", but I am seeing no evidence of that being real.
I want to stress that people should engage with the overwhelming scientific consensus that says dramatically different policy (typically identified as "to the left") is necessary rather than what *I* want/think is necessary policy.
Beyond that, those are questions for someone who thinks bourgeois democracy is a viable path and insists on obeying the accompanying confines. I'm of the opinion those same people don't have those answers (or care much to pursue them).
|
On October 01 2021 10:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2021 10:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 01 2021 04:03 Starlightsun wrote:On October 01 2021 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Pelosi said she was having a vote on the Republican approved infrastructure deal from the senate. Manchin is sticking to his $1.5 trillion top line number for what he'd support through reconciliation. Progressives have committed to not passing the Senate's infrastructure package without the $3.5 trillion "Build Back Better" reconciliation package. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) announced Thursday that his top-line spending number for the budget reconciliation package is $1.5 trillion, far below the $3.5 trillion spending goal set by the budget resolution that he and every other Senate Democrat voted for last month.
“My top-line has been $1.5 [trillion],” he said, explaining that he doesn’t want “to change our whole society to an entitlement mentality.”
The House is scheduled to vote Thursday on a $1.1 trillion infrastructure bill backed by Manchin that passed the Senate, but progressives have threatened to vote against it unless a separate social spending measure is moved in tandem.
thehill.comPelosi pulling the vote off the schedule is probably the least embarrassing for everyone and the most likely imo, but that's just kicking the can. “My top-line has been $1.5 [trillion],” he said, explaining that he doesn’t want “to change our whole society to an entitlement mentality.” What an absolute piece of shit. Sorry about doublepost was meant to be edit. It seems lost on many Democrats how counterproductive it is to have someone like Manchin (even moreso Sinema) fundamentally undermining the very rationale for their agenda (as well as the agenda itself) from inside their party. Biden won the general election by catering to moderates. The senate is not built to favor popular vote, it is intended to destroy democracy by letting corn fields have a vote equal to 10 million people. Which seats are you seeing Democrats can SPECIFICALLY win if only they were more left leaning? Which seat is suddenly in play when we lose Manchin? Losing Manchin and Sinema is only worth it democrats gain at least 2 other seats.
Dont need to necessarily choose a progressive, just someone who responds to whipping and isn't going to sink key party legislation and make you look stupid.
Sinema should be replaced, doable enough, Arizona is a little blue at the moment, could be solidly blue if Democrats can prove they're effective.
Focus more on Maine, it technically has no Democrat senators, but Angus King is functionally one, but Susan Collins is within a margin of replaceability. Maine isn't a hyper red state, so its doable with work imo.
I think Rob Portman of Ohio is retiring, Ohio isn't ultra red (though its trending in a Florida-like direction, I think its a different beast that Democrats could do better in), another seat that could be picked up if Manchin stops making Democrats look bad at their jobs.
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin also have a Republican senator each, Wisconsin's Ron Johnson is likely very vulnerable since hes a raving jackass.
This is a general outline, but I picked the states that have Senators from mixed parties (minus West Virginia, because theyre not a place you can build on in the foreseeable future. Montana too, they have a Democrat senator but fuck if I know whats going on in Montana)
That gives us Collins, Portman, Johnson, Toomey, (maybe Steve Daines in Montana I suppose?) as Republican senators in state that are willing to elect Democrats. I'd argue Democrats could get these seats with a strong, aggressive agenda that they actually enact without having Manchinema tripping them up at every opportunity. That could be a solid four for one trade in Senators, and thats totally precluding any of the generally red states that may flip a Senator here or there.
If we want to look back a bit further and examine Obama's strong congress, Democrats had a Senator in
Alaska, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, South Dakota, Louisiana, and Missouri,
I don't think these starts are unanimously competitive by any stretch of the imagination, but the fact that these are a collection of pretty damn red states that managed to flip a Senator, I think its pretty doable that a strong vision paired with strong action for a positive future has the ability to win in states that are commonly considered unwinnable.
We should stop trying so hard to keep these public obstructionists, their seats are not uniquely special or valuable, they do a lot of damage to Democrats ability to get anything done as well as their ability to project themselves as competent leaders, get them out and focus on building that strong positive image through actual action.
|
United States42419 Posts
On October 01 2021 12:20 Husyelt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2021 11:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 01 2021 11:12 Husyelt wrote:
Garbage bill. Pushing through a shit proposal and then turning on one guy calling you out because "it needs to be passed" is rank foolishness. Republicans don't have jack shit to stand on with their delays sure, but let the place shutdown for a few weeks until you trim this behemoth down. We've ballooned government spending and our debt for decades now. Probably because the cost to run a country continues to grow? There's a lot of pork and waste of shit in bills all the time. But if the bill is mostly to be used for good, then blow that spending and debt as far as you can. People need what's in these "at face value" pretty decent bills. Of course it isn't popular now, but if they implement it correctly, history will show this was a good bill to pass. Do you want 40 trillion in debt by the end of the decade? How many times have we kicked this shit down the road? Of all times, during the first crawl through this pandemic, I can't think of a better one than to strip government spending down to the bare essentials. edit:lol. I posted the wrong fucking shit bill's numbers
Not sure you know how national debt works. It’s not like credit card debt.
|
On October 01 2021 12:20 Husyelt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2021 11:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 01 2021 11:12 Husyelt wrote:
Garbage bill. Pushing through a shit proposal and then turning on one guy calling you out because "it needs to be passed" is rank foolishness. Republicans don't have jack shit to stand on with their delays sure, but let the place shutdown for a few weeks until you trim this behemoth down. We've ballooned government spending and our debt for decades now. Probably because the cost to run a country continues to grow? There's a lot of pork and waste of shit in bills all the time. But if the bill is mostly to be used for good, then blow that spending and debt as far as you can. People need what's in these "at face value" pretty decent bills. Of course it isn't popular now, but if they implement it correctly, history will show this was a good bill to pass. Do you want 40 trillion in debt by the end of the decade? How many times have we kicked this shit down the road? Of all times, during the first crawl through this pandemic, I can't think of a better one than to strip government spending down to the bare essentials. edit:lol. I posted the wrong fucking shit bill's numbers
If that 40T is going to good services for the majority of the people and there are legitimate options to pay for it, then why not? I don't think just putting a number out there without what that number corresponds to, helps your argument. 40T in debt, doing what? What did that 40T go to?
|
On October 01 2021 12:20 Husyelt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2021 11:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 01 2021 11:12 Husyelt wrote:
Garbage bill. Pushing through a shit proposal and then turning on one guy calling you out because "it needs to be passed" is rank foolishness. Republicans don't have jack shit to stand on with their delays sure, but let the place shutdown for a few weeks until you trim this behemoth down. We've ballooned government spending and our debt for decades now. Probably because the cost to run a country continues to grow? There's a lot of pork and waste of shit in bills all the time. But if the bill is mostly to be used for good, then blow that spending and debt as far as you can. People need what's in these "at face value" pretty decent bills. Of course it isn't popular now, but if they implement it correctly, history will show this was a good bill to pass. Do you want 40 trillion in debt by the end of the decade? How many times have we kicked this shit down the road? Of all times, during the first crawl through this pandemic, I can't think of a better one than to strip government spending down to the bare essentials. edit:lol. I posted the wrong fucking shit bill's numbers
Weird thing how this problem always comes up when we are talking about doing good things for people with the money, but never when talking about lowering taxes on the ultrarich like trump did, or spending money to blow up people in the middle east. For those things, money is always available in infinite quantities.
|
On October 01 2021 13:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2021 12:20 Husyelt wrote:On October 01 2021 11:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 01 2021 11:12 Husyelt wrote:
Garbage bill. Pushing through a shit proposal and then turning on one guy calling you out because "it needs to be passed" is rank foolishness. Republicans don't have jack shit to stand on with their delays sure, but let the place shutdown for a few weeks until you trim this behemoth down. We've ballooned government spending and our debt for decades now. Probably because the cost to run a country continues to grow? There's a lot of pork and waste of shit in bills all the time. But if the bill is mostly to be used for good, then blow that spending and debt as far as you can. People need what's in these "at face value" pretty decent bills. Of course it isn't popular now, but if they implement it correctly, history will show this was a good bill to pass. Do you want 40 trillion in debt by the end of the decade? How many times have we kicked this shit down the road? Of all times, during the first crawl through this pandemic, I can't think of a better one than to strip government spending down to the bare essentials. edit:lol. I posted the wrong fucking shit bill's numbers Not sure you know how national debt works. It’s not like credit card debt.
print money, what can go wrong?
Weird thing how this problem always comes up when we are talking about doing good things for people with the money, but never when talking about lowering taxes on the ultrarich like trump did, or spending money to blow up people in the middle east. For those things, money is always available in infinite quantities.
We pay far too much on military, especially considering our recent pullout. lowering taxes wasn't the best thing, but the economy was kicking into gear before Trump decided ignoring the pandemic was a good idea.
|
Define the economy, it has two separate meanings in the US
|
On October 01 2021 14:27 Zambrah wrote:
Define the economy, it has two separate meanings in the US
U.S. families’ income and wealth rose in the years heading into the coronavirus pandemic, the Federal Reserve said in a report. As property and stock prices increased, households’ median net worth, or wealth, rose 18% to $121,700 from 2016 to 2019.
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1310780119942942720?s=20
|
So the economy as in people who own property and stocks?
|
Norway28621 Posts
It does say households' median net worth, so it does at least encompass half the population. There's no conflict between this and the bottom quarter becoming poorer (tbh, I haven't looked into the numbers so I don't know to what degree if at all that happened between 2016 and 2019) - but we also shouldn't claim that only the super wealthy became wealthier. Anyway, while I think growing inequality is a problem either way, it's way more problematic if it happens through the poor getting poorer than through the wealthy getting wealthier.
|
Im not sure theres much of a difference, the wealthy getting wealthier happens at the expense of the poor being effectively poorer. Its why wage stagnation is such a wretched problem in the US, wages technically may not go down but they dont go up to match inflation so effectively they go down, technically theyre not getting poorer, but theyre definitely effectively poorer. In the meantime the wealthy made tons of money during the pandemic, and companies are buying massive amounts of housing making it even harder for an already cash strapped underclass to own a home.
The minor improvements to wage stagnation in the last few years just isnt particularly meaningful for a colossal swath of the US. I mean we can't even get a 15 dollar minimum wage, which is still a lot lower than if we tied the US minimum wage to productivity.
|
|
|
United States42419 Posts
As a rule I’d disagree with regulating bombastic political opinions but I’m glad that there is a line drawn when it is used to target harassment of individuals.
|
This isn't too much of a breaking news headline, but it is definitely in conflict with what the faces of these companies have been saying to the media. I get they don't want to be taxed harder because they're filthy rich, but damn. Guess we really need this 3.5T to go through just to fuck them harder.
Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Disney are among the major companies backing corporate lobby groups and organizations that are battling a US climate bill, according to a report. That's despite those companies all making pledges to reduce their impact on the environment.
The United States Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the Rate Coalition are three of the lobbyist and business groups that oppose the Democrats' $3.5 trillion budget bill, which includes measures to fight climate change. The Guardian reports that watchdog Accountable.US analyzed the groups to learn which companies have connections to them.
The Chamber of Commerce, the biggest lobbying group in the US, has said it would "do everything we can to prevent this tax-raising, job-killing reconciliation bill from becoming law.” The group's board includes executives from the likes of United Airlines and Microsoft.
Source
Probably better news sources out there this can be found on, but I saw it first here.
|
On October 02 2021 01:00 KwarK wrote:
As a rule I’d disagree with regulating bombastic political opinions but I’m glad that there is a line drawn when it is used to target harassment of individuals.
Of all the political media talk and nonsense spread out over the past ten years or so, that one in particular is the most horrifying to me. I am not sure how I would respond had I known someone who passed in those shootings with that whole ordeal afterwards.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I mean if there were a bill to hand me $100 billion and also spend $100 on building solar panels, that would be a bill that "includes measures to fight climate change." That summary alone sounds disingenuous as hell. I don't doubt there are legitimate reasons to oppose a mega-bill like this, though I will admit to not knowing enough of the details to know where $3.5T of free money is actually meant to be going.
Sounds like the bill is running into some hilarious troubles getting through Congress though. Been a wonderful mess since the Republicans agreed to the $1T and then Democrats had to walk back their own support for the same.
|
So early looks a redistricting are not looking as bad as it could of been for dems. Still a lot of states to go but it seems like republicans are taking the safe bet and shoring up seats rather then trying to reach for more. We might have a map that is samish to 2010 just with a lot less competitive seats. Not the best news for dems since republicans have such a heavily garrymanderd advantage from the 2010 maps but not the worst.
Like i expected to texas map to look so much worse for dems. 1 competitive seat out of 38 though lol, who needs a representative democracy anyway
|
On October 01 2021 12:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2021 11:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 01 2021 10:35 Mohdoo wrote:On October 01 2021 10:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 01 2021 04:03 Starlightsun wrote:On October 01 2021 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Pelosi said she was having a vote on the Republican approved infrastructure deal from the senate. Manchin is sticking to his $1.5 trillion top line number for what he'd support through reconciliation. Progressives have committed to not passing the Senate's infrastructure package without the $3.5 trillion "Build Back Better" reconciliation package. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) announced Thursday that his top-line spending number for the budget reconciliation package is $1.5 trillion, far below the $3.5 trillion spending goal set by the budget resolution that he and every other Senate Democrat voted for last month.
“My top-line has been $1.5 [trillion],” he said, explaining that he doesn’t want “to change our whole society to an entitlement mentality.”
The House is scheduled to vote Thursday on a $1.1 trillion infrastructure bill backed by Manchin that passed the Senate, but progressives have threatened to vote against it unless a separate social spending measure is moved in tandem.
thehill.comPelosi pulling the vote off the schedule is probably the least embarrassing for everyone and the most likely imo, but that's just kicking the can. “My top-line has been $1.5 [trillion],” he said, explaining that he doesn’t want “to change our whole society to an entitlement mentality.” What an absolute piece of shit. Sorry about doublepost was meant to be edit. It seems lost on many Democrats how counterproductive it is to have someone like Manchin (even moreso Sinema) fundamentally undermining the very rationale for their agenda (as well as the agenda itself) from inside their party. Biden won the general election by catering to moderates. The senate is not built to favor popular vote, it is intended to destroy democracy by letting corn fields have a vote equal to 10 million people. Which seats are you seeing Democrats can SPECIFICALLY win if only they were more left leaning? Which seat is suddenly in play when we lose Manchin? Losing Manchin and Sinema is only worth it democrats gain at least 2 other seats. I think that perspective is missing the forest for the trees. The US needs more "left-leaning" policy (massive understatement imo). Not as a matter of personal preference (though they happen to align in that way), but because the overwhelming scientific consensus is unambiguously clear on this. I don't think the US will find anything even approaching those necessary policies within the existing bourgeois democracy Within the confines of that bourgeois democracy, I agree with you on twisting his arm up to and beyond pressuring him and his progeny with increased scrutiny for "questionable" financial relationships though. I agree. How does losing the senate majority get us there? When we lose Manchin and Sinema, what mechanism allows the left to retake the senate and do what needs to be done? When I look at the senate map, I do not see a path to senate majority by going further left. I am assuming you are more in the know than I am. Which seats are you saying can be taken from republicans by advocating for the policies you are saying are necessary? From my perspective, no such seats exist. I understand the basic idea of "advocate for the common man and you will suddenly have a wave of new support", but I am seeing no evidence of that being real.
Running on a promise of popular economic policies is an okay electoral strategy, but only an okay one, because voters sensibly doubt you'll deliver. (Politicians often lie about the good things they want to do, and when they're not lying they often lack the power to carry through.)
Running on popular economic policies you've actually passed is probably a big winner, though, which is why it's so important for capital to block popular economic policies before they can take root.
|
Well Sinema has left DC for the weekend, lol. She is truly repugnant
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
