|
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 20 2021 04:18 Simberto wrote:
US politics is depressing.
Why is a random senator from bumfuck nowhere suddenly the most important person in government who can basically veto anything? Because the Democrats have a majority of 1?
Any democratic system where the majority party/coalition has a majority of 1 is subject to this happening. Which is why you tend to not form coalitions with a majority of 1 if you have that option (which is a US problem because they ineffectively do their coalition forming before elections)
|
On October 20 2021 04:21 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2021 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2021 03:23 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2021 01:54 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
I think you're reading too much into Machin's morals. The far simpler explanation is that his multi million fortune is based entirely on a coal business that stands to lose value if the bill passes. First Machin was against the bill because it was too much. After it was brought down to his 3.5 trillion figure he has new excuses. The simple answer is the correct one. I think Manchin will vote on something. I don’t think he has decided to tank everything regardless. There is a point where he says yes If Sinema really has decided to just parlay her senate seat into a lobbyist job or whatever, she can tank it and everyone (other than the proletariat) wins. She’s just playing hard ball to get the pharma stuff removed. Once pharma stuff is removed, she will vote yes. The pharma stuff is dead in the water because both Manchin and Sinema hate it
What do you think they hate about it?
|
On October 20 2021 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2021 04:21 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2021 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2021 03:23 Mohdoo wrote:On October 20 2021 01:54 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
I think you're reading too much into Machin's morals. The far simpler explanation is that his multi million fortune is based entirely on a coal business that stands to lose value if the bill passes. First Machin was against the bill because it was too much. After it was brought down to his 3.5 trillion figure he has new excuses. The simple answer is the correct one. I think Manchin will vote on something. I don’t think he has decided to tank everything regardless. There is a point where he says yes If Sinema really has decided to just parlay her senate seat into a lobbyist job or whatever, she can tank it and everyone (other than the proletariat) wins. She’s just playing hard ball to get the pharma stuff removed. Once pharma stuff is removed, she will vote yes. The pharma stuff is dead in the water because both Manchin and Sinema hate it What do you think they hate about it?
Manchin’s daughter works in pharma.
Heather Manchin Bresch (née Manchin; born June 27, 1969[3]) is an American business executive. In 2012, she was named as the chief executive officer (CEO) of Netherlands-based pharmaceutical company Mylan, becoming the first woman to run a Fortune 500 pharmaceutical company.[4] Bresch retired in 2020, upon the closing of Mylan’s combination with Upjohn. In 2015, she was listed as #22 in Fortune magazine's “Most Powerful Women” list.[5]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Bresch
Sinema’s aid already took the pharma deal and left politics. Sinema gets lots of pharma money. She clearly will retire on some cushy do nothing job as a consultant for a pharma corp and retire on that. This whole thing is just money for her. She needs to prevent pharma regulation in exchange for lifetime wealth.
This is just theater so democrats go back on pharma stuff. They’ll sign it once it’s all removed
|
How’s voting rights looking, anything come of that? It feels like forever since I last heard anything about HR-1 or anything else about making sure elections aren’t completely shit to take part in
|
On October 20 2021 06:50 Zambrah wrote:
How’s voting rights looking, anything come of that? It feels like forever since I last heard anything about HR-1 or anything else about making sure elections aren’t completely shit to take part in
I think I heard a bunch of stuff got struck down, only one I semi remember is Georgia.
|
|
|
|
|
It's an unusual case where Democrat's incompetence, incapacity, and/or unwillingness to meet basic commitments and their indignation at the slightest hint of being held accountable is so plainly unsustainable.
|
|
|
Its far less plainly unsustainable a lot of the time, though certainly still unsustainable
|
I am so sick of hearing about "the giant $2-3 trillion bill", when that cost is actually spread out over 10 years. Even an unspeakably "giant" $350 billion annually still pales in comparison to our $700+ billion annual spending on "defense". And it is barely more than the $2+ trillion Republican tax cut benefiting the wealthy. We cannot even beg for this chump change investment into the American people while the military and the rich get unlimited blank checks from tax payers.
|
Yeah they just passed that new military spending and it was for fucking TWICE what the infrastructure bill is. They actually gave the military MORE than they requested.
Things that the american people really need like infrastructure and healthcare though? Lol, no chance, we have the Joe Manchins and Kristen Sinemas to make sure we dont get those, thank god too, or those horrible poors might get a little too comfortable.
EDIT: 23.9 billion dollars extra yearly, but alas we are too poor for infrastructure!
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/23/house-768-billion-defense-bill-514085
|
On October 22 2021 17:17 Zambrah wrote:Yeah they just passed that new military spending and it was for fucking TWICE what the infrastructure bill is. They actually gave the military MORE than they requested. Things that the american people really need like infrastructure and healthcare though? Lol, no chance, we have the Joe Manchins and Kristen Sinemas to make sure we dont get those, thank god too, or those horrible poors might get a little too comfortable. EDIT: 23.9 billion dollars extra yearly, but alas we are too poor for infrastructure! https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/23/house-768-billion-defense-bill-514085
Ya thats the sad thing. I hate that they talk about these bills in 10 year terms instead of single year terms.
Tbh I would be shocked if we are getting 25% efficiency on what we spend in that military budget. Its a huge transfer of wealth program to the military industrial complex.
|
I mean, budgets are commonly assessed in terms of 10-year impact and $3.5T is not something that we should add to the bottom line without giving it some serious thought, maybe trying to find the money elsewhere to balance the budget. The opposition by Munchkin might be contrived but the only way that you can ignore the debt like that is if you subscribe to the Monetary Magical Thinking theory.
Maybe it's worth it, maybe not, but there's nothing disingenuous in calling it $3.5T when the passage of this bill increases debt obligations by $3.5T over the standard time that you assess budgetary impact.
|
Its disingenuous in that the military budget isnt talked about in ten year terms, most probably because itd be a hell of a lot more eyebrow raising to say, "7.5 trillion dollar military budget approved!" as opposed to "750 billion dollar military budget approved!" its a great marketing tactic to make sure that the military budget looks a lot less disgustingly hefty than it is.
|
On October 22 2021 23:09 Zambrah wrote:
Its disingenuous in that the military budget isnt talked about in ten year terms, most probably because itd be a hell of a lot more eyebrow raising to say, "7.5 trillion dollar military budget approved!" as opposed to "750 billion dollar military budget approved!" its a great marketing tactic to make sure that the military budget looks a lot less disgustingly hefty than it is.
This point exactly.
|
On October 22 2021 22:48 LegalLord wrote:
I mean, budgets are commonly assessed in terms of 10-year impact and $3.5T is not something that we should add to the bottom line without giving it some serious thought, maybe trying to find the money elsewhere to balance the budget. The opposition by Munchkin might be contrived but the only way that you can ignore the debt like that is if you subscribe to the Monetary Magical Thinking theory.
Maybe it's worth it, maybe not, but there's nothing disingenuous in calling it $3.5T when the passage of this bill increases debt obligations by $3.5T over the standard time that you assess budgetary impact.
It's Magic Money Tree.
|
On October 23 2021 00:03 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2021 22:48 LegalLord wrote:
I mean, budgets are commonly assessed in terms of 10-year impact and $3.5T is not something that we should add to the bottom line without giving it some serious thought, maybe trying to find the money elsewhere to balance the budget. The opposition by Munchkin might be contrived but the only way that you can ignore the debt like that is if you subscribe to the Monetary Magical Thinking theory.
Maybe it's worth it, maybe not, but there's nothing disingenuous in calling it $3.5T when the passage of this bill increases debt obligations by $3.5T over the standard time that you assess budgetary impact. It's Magic Money Tree.
Weird how money is always a problem when talking about stuff that actually helps people, but never when talking about bombing people in the middle east or imprisoning large amounts of the population.
|
|
|
On October 23 2021 00:03 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2021 22:48 LegalLord wrote:
I mean, budgets are commonly assessed in terms of 10-year impact and $3.5T is not something that we should add to the bottom line without giving it some serious thought, maybe trying to find the money elsewhere to balance the budget. The opposition by Munchkin might be contrived but the only way that you can ignore the debt like that is if you subscribe to the Monetary Magical Thinking theory.
Maybe it's worth it, maybe not, but there's nothing disingenuous in calling it $3.5T when the passage of this bill increases debt obligations by $3.5T over the standard time that you assess budgetary impact. It's Magic Money Tree.
Much Money - Trillions!
On October 22 2021 23:09 Zambrah wrote:
Its disingenuous in that the military budget isnt talked about in ten year terms, most probably because itd be a hell of a lot more eyebrow raising to say, "7.5 trillion dollar military budget approved!" as opposed to "750 billion dollar military budget approved!" its a great marketing tactic to make sure that the military budget looks a lot less disgustingly hefty than it is.
I mean, a 10-year budget impact assessment is normal. A lot of individual military programs are assessed that way, even if the NDAA allocation is annual.
Not to say we couldn't or shouldn't cut down on the military budget though. New programs are partially useful (good R&D anyways) partially wasteful; things like healthcare for veterans or many of the active deployments are pure waste. But the answer is to cut down on expenditures on the military front, rather than use it as cover to spend infinite money elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
