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 |
Finland941 Posts
Way back in the summer of 2022, Germany had a 9€ monthly ticket that covered (almost) all local and regional trains, busses, metros, trams and ferries, in every part of the country. It was also a way to try and boost local tourism as the covid restrictions were winding down.
The 9€ version was there just for the summer months, but later they brought the ticket back as a regular thing, first at 49€, currently at 58€, and soon at 63€ per month. The price keeps climbing slowly, but it's still a really good deal. The faster IC and ICE trains that aren't covered by the monthly ticket still see a lot of use, and apparently a whole bunch of people still buy regional monthly tickets anyway.
The ticket's heavily subsidized by state and federal governments, but it's a great deal for the end user. You can hop on a train, visit a different city, and don't need to worry about how their ticket system works.
I don't think this would really work in the US the same way, but maybe there's regional options they could explore.
|
On November 05 2025 17:40 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2025 12:01 ChristianS wrote:On November 05 2025 00:15 oBlade wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 04 2025 13:49 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2025 13:22 oBlade wrote:On November 04 2025 07:16 ChristianS wrote:On November 04 2025 04:32 oBlade wrote:On November 03 2025 23:57 ChristianS wrote:On November 03 2025 23:40 Gorsameth wrote:
For many Americans missing 1 paycheck is a big problem, how about missing 2? Can Trump conjure another check for the military out of a hat?
Its only a matter of time before the people literally revolt.
That is where this ends, when the Republican caucus betrays Trump to save their own hides, potentially literally. Obviously the juxtaposition of “we’re not funding SNAP because we don’t want to” with the ballroom, bathroom remodeling, Great Gatsby-themed party, etc. has a lot of “let them eat cake” vibes to it. Nothing foments revolt quite like mass starvation. I’m almost tempted to suspect it’s intentional? I definitely think a lot of the invasions of blue cities were done partly in hopes of sparking some kind of rebellion they could crush. That would have been a smaller scale thing, though, something you could be confident in suppressing with force. 40 million Americans without SNAP and a military months without a paycheck seems like an insane danger to intentionally court. Honestly, though, I’d still probably give the chances of something like that before end of year less than 50%. That’s just not really a mode Americans have. They could learn it but I think that’s not something that can happen in a few weeks. I mean the Senate could at any time vote to allow a vote on the clean CR which would then pass, and includes SNAP. But also, whether legal or not, the administration has announced they will tap the USDA contingency fund to disburse SNAP benefits, which will cover not even a month's worth. There are limits to what the government can fund when Congress doesn't give them the money to fund it. Getting into what “clean CR” means in this context is the argument I was skipping with Intro, and I’ll skip it here if it’s all the same to you. It’s interesting, though, how ICE and Trump’s ballroom keep funding, even though embassy workers or soldiers or SNAP do not. What’s going on there, do you think? The ballroom is still privately funded. Congress passed a law to fund ICE months ago. They have not passed a law to fund SNAP and the military past the funding lapse at the end of the fiscal year, meaning the beginning of October. That is the extent of what is "going on." Congress has to pass laws to fund the government every year. The executive branch, meaning the government, can't just wizard itself money. Sure, all of which to say when they wanted that stuff they were happy to find the votes, or maybe just schmooze up to their rich buddies and get it done that way. But food stamps? Fuck em. Health care premiums more than doubling? Oh we think that’s good actually. They require different numbers of votes. You can only do budget reconciliation without a cloture vote once a year. There are parliamentary limits to what this can apply to. You can't for example use that to set fiscal policy and budgets for the next 20 years. On November 04 2025 13:49 ChristianS wrote:
By their own admission they’re so determined to *ensuring* that people’s healthcare premiums go up that they’re willing to accept all the other consequences of the shutdown. I have no doubt Democrats would happily help them pass something that funded SNAP in the interim, but clearly Republicans have no interest in that either. The CR the Senate blocked 12+ times funded SNAP in the interim. If Republicans didn't want it to pass, Democrats should have called their bluff by allowing a vote on it, which would then force Republicans in the Senate to vote no on their own bill. Since it already passed the House. Or make them double bluff forcing Trump to veto it. I said Democrats would be happy to pass something funding SNAP in the interim (i.e., until a budget deal can be reached on everything else) and your response is to say, no, that’s not true, because they didn’t just capitulate to the Republicans on the budget deal? I guess I could chalk that up to me being unclear, but that would mean you came away from our discussion thinking I said Democrats would be happy to fund the government with a “clean CR” (that extends most funding but doesn’t extend the healthcare subsidies), and I just don’t see how that can be true. "Something" means something that ONLY funds SNAP? Because SNAP is a good thing that should be funded? If Democrats would be happy to pass something that funds just specifically SNAP because it's good, what about something that also only funds ATC - because it's good? What about something that also only funds education because it's good? What about something that also only funds FEMA because it's good and winter storms are coming? What about you put all of those things together? Then you have a CR. Why only SNAP? I don't see anything special about SNAP that means it alone should be exempt from the strategy of not funding anything everybody agrees on until they get the exact health insurance subsidy policy they want.
"Qu'ils mangent de la brioche"
food for an incredible amount of people is overrated and _hangry_ people the easiest to reason with. maybe read a history book, any era.
especially in light of better treatment - which would be to have people make enough for full time work to decently afford the bare necessities - this is stemming the bleeding. but even then, food security should not be out of the question for any person in a country that can easily afford it.
with social justice comes peace and more productive and happy people - and a country where you don't need to send the god damn military or militarize the police force because you have a - yearly - ridiculous surplus of military equipment.
and fabricate crisis after crisis while Rome is burning.
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://img.particlenews.com/img/id/1f6MIH_16BaxEB700)
