American Politics Thread VI: Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Kilobugya]

Senate parliamentarian to hear arguments Friday on whether Democrats can include a pathway to citizenship in the reconciliation package

What do we need them for? Why should someone who is unelected by anyone get to decide legislation?

Well, that's the whole problem of the filibuster. If you say "you need 60 votes to pass a law, except in case X", and it's the majority of the Senate (so, 50 Senators) that can decide if something fits X or not, it's as if you had no filibuster at all. Now I agree filibuster should go or at least be reformed (ie, back to some strict form of talking filibuster), but until it's done, it makes sense the one deciding what fits in the filibuster exemption or not is a "neutral", supposedly objective, third-party and not the majority of the Senate (or the VP).

[Myrensis]

i mean that is the thing-it is not mere association-it is active support for their legislative policies and cultural influence

you say active support, I say Faustian bargain. at the end of the day we're looking at this from two different perspectives and I just happen to find your conclusion abhorrent. but neither is gonna convince the other and I'm not interested in pursuing this any longer.

"It's totally unfair to lump me in with the delusional assholes actively working to undermine and subvert American democracy, I'm not one of them, I just empower and enable them because it's politically convenient for me!"

Let me see if I have a gold star around here somewhere for you.

[Tarsonis]

you say active support, I say Faustian bargain. at the end of the day we're looking at this from two different perspectives and I just happen to find your conclusion abhorrent. but neither is gonna convince the other and I'm not interested in pursuing this any longer.

"It's totally unfair to lump me in with the delusional assholes actively working to undermine and subvert American democracy, I'm not one of them, I just empower and enable them because it's politically convenient for me!"

Let me see if I have a gold star around here somewhere for you.

Yeah, I'm not actually a republican though. Nice try.

[Senkaku]

"It's totally unfair to lump me in with the delusional assholes actively working to undermine and subvert American democracy, I'm not one of them, I just empower and enable them because it's politically convenient for me!"

Let me see if I have a gold star around here somewhere for you.

Yeah, I'm not actually a republican though. Nice try.

but don't you know we're in a two-party system? that's like, giving up your voice, man

[Thermodolia]

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/571237-yellen-us-on-track-to-default-on-national-debt-in-october

Yellen: US on track to default on national debt in October

Same as every year.

If only we had some way of repealing the silly law that requires this. Oh well

[Thermodolia]

Welfare programs didn't spring to life for no reason - it was because the charitable donations weren't covering the needs of the poor (including children). You want to go back when it wasn't caring for the needs of the poor, and claim this time it will be different.

No, it won't.

Welfare programs were created to keep the poor dependent on the government, and it has worked. If public welfare is so awesome, why do we still have it generations later? Shouldn't the goal be to lift people up, not enable them in their situation?

I literally wouldn’t be alive today if it wasn’t because of welfare. That’s gotta count for something

[Izandai]

Welfare programs didn't spring to life for no reason - it was because the charitable donations weren't covering the needs of the poor (including children). You want to go back when it wasn't caring for the needs of the poor, and claim this time it will be different.

No, it won't.

Welfare programs were created to keep the poor dependent on the government, and it has worked. If public welfare is so awesome, why do we still have it generations later? Shouldn't the goal be to lift people up, not enable them in their situation?

If school is so awesome, why do we still have it generations later? Shouldn't the goal be to educate people, not enable them in their ignorance?

[San Lumen]

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5714 ... nt-to-hear

Chris Wallace on lawmakers who contested Biden's election: I don't want to hear 'their cra

[Tinhampton]

The New York Times has failed to update its Biden approval tracker in four months...

[Ifreann]

The New York Times has failed to update its Biden approval tracker in four months...

Have they run out of interns or something?

[The Reformed American Republic]

The New York Times has failed to update its Biden approval tracker in four months...

Maybe so, but that source is garbage.

[Tinhampton]

The New York Times has failed to update its Biden approval tracker in four months...

Maybe so, but that source is garbage.

Definitely so

Even FiveThirtyEight, which split from the NYT about eight years ago, still has a fully-functional tracker

[Thermodolia]

Because Merill actually hates the poor.

No, I hate the lie that the programs are helping people when they aren’t. Compare the pass through rates of money to the actual person being helped of public vs private. Don’t pee on me and tell me it’s rain.

Ok so increase the funding for social programs then. If your house has a broken roof you fix the roof, not destroy the roof because it’s not working as a roof.

I’m compelled to pay taxes. The State promises to use some of the funds to care for the poor. They don’t.

I agree it should be more. This really isn’t the gotcha you think it is.

So, my moral philosophy is violated twice. Welfare is non voluntary, and ineffective. I want to choose to give, and get results from it.

Im pretty sure that Jesus was very clear that you shouldn’t be giving because you get things from it. Also you still aren’t forbidden from donating however much you want now.

It seems like you are making excuses for things

[Kowani]

Manchin continues to be terrible

In the Senate, all roads lead to Joe Manchin.

The West Virginia Democrat and his staff have been engaged for weeks in intensive negotiations with the chairs of key Senate committees ahead of his party's release of a sprawling bill to expand the social safety net, laying down his demands on a wide-range of issues: health care, education, child care and taxes, according to multiple sources familiar with the talks.
And Manchin is making clear he won't cave on aggressive climate provisions sought by many Democrats, throwing a wrench in his party's efforts to make the bill key to combating global warming.
With Democrats needing every vote in their caucus to get the bill through the Senate along straight party lines, Manchin has received more attention than any other Democrat, even as others -- like Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema -- have also balked at the $3.5 trillion price tag. Indeed, as committee chairs have held regular meetings with their members over the summer recess to shape key provisions of legislation under their jurisdiction, they often will later have individual meetings with Manchin, even if he doesn't serve on their respective committees.

As she met with her members on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Washington Sen. Patty Murray, who chairs the panel, also talked privately with Manchin to hear his concerns about provisions on free community college and universal pre-K -- issues that are also central to President Joe Biden's agenda. Her staff has since been in contact with Manchin's aides, while Murray has been in constant communication with other members as well.

Manchin and his staff have been in consistent talks with Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden of Oregon, a committee where the two powerful Democrats have clashed over several key provisions central to financing the proposal, including on corporate tax hikes, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. Wyden has had weekly Zoom meetings with his committee members on individual areas of their proposal, but has made sure to have regular talks with Manchin -- either with him directly or through his staff.

And Manchin has engaged in long discussions with rank-and-file Democrats as well, including Sen. Michael Bennet over the Colorado Democrat's push to broaden and bolster the child tax credit, which the West Virginian wants to bring down to a level far lower than what many in his party want, multiple Democrats said.

On education, Manchin is trying to limit the Democrats' efforts to provide universal pre-K and tuition-free community college. He's talked to Democrats about limiting the number of Americans eligible for pre-K by setting income thresholds, while also discussing ways to measure students' performance for community college assuming their tuition is paid for over two years. And on health care, Manchin has suggested substantially reducing funding for home-care services, a key priority of many Democrats.

The private discussions come amid Manchin's public call last week in a Wall Street Journal op-ed for a "strategic pause" in consideration of the expensive bill, which Democrats are trying to advance through a process known as budget reconciliation since it can be approved along straight party lines in the 50-50 Senate. Democratic leaders want to resolve their disagreements and have a proposal ready by September 15.
"Sen. Manchin's op-ed made clear that both the present and unknown challenges facing our country far outweigh the politics of passing something of this magnitude at this time," a Manchin aide told CNN, referring to the moderate Democrat's concerns over inflation and the ballooning national debt. "This was true last week, and it is today."

The talks underscore the challenges ahead for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who needs to win over Manchin but also avoid provoking a revolt among progressives -- particularly in the House -- who are already balking at the West Virginia's private suggestion to bring the price tag of the overall bill down to around $1.5 trillion. And without Senate passage of the reconciliation bill, House progressives are warning they'll derail the Senate's $1.2 trillion infrastructure plan that Manchin was central in negotiating.
"The idea of a $1.5 trillion price tag being sufficient to accomplish those goals for the people is fanciful," Rep. Mondaire Jones, a progressive Democrat from New York, said on CNN.

What remains to be seen is whether the Senate chairs ultimately cater to Manchin's demands or try to railroad him into making a choice: Approve the most sweeping piece of domestic legislation in decades -- or be responsible for sinking it singlehandedly.
"We're moving full steam ahead," Schumer said Wednesday, rejecting Manchin's much-publicized call last week for a "strategic pause" in consideration of the bill.

Schumer and Manchin -- who have long had a frank and collegial relationship -- have been in constant talks throughout the month of August and was not caught off-guard by Manchin's op-ed last week, multiple sources say. Schumer knows full well that he needs to keep his most important swing vote at bay, in addition to Sinema, who has already said she'd oppose a bill that costs $3.5 trillion.
"There are some in my caucus who believe $3.5 trillion is too much. There are some in my caucus who believe it's too little," Schumer said Wednesday. "And we're going to work very hard to have unity because without unity, we're not going to get anything."
To get unity, the committee chairs have been working to ensure that Manchin is not caught off guard by provisions in their plan that they hope to unveil next week.

Helen Hare, a spokeswoman for Murray, said the Washington state Democrat spoke with Manchin and has had "regular conversations" with her committee members since last month. "She's talking to lots of senators with the goal of getting the strongest possible agreement on free community college, child care and all the other policies she's working to get across the finish line," the spokeswoman said.

Some issues may be unresolvable -- such as climate change. Manchin, who represents a major coal-producing state, has balked at Democratic proposals to impose a clean energy standard to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Democrats have also discussed including a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, something that could lead to industry's use of cleaner-burning fuels.
But Manchin has not been amenable to the aggressive climate targets, leaving it unclear where the talks will land.
"If they're eliminating fossils, and I'm finding out there's a lot of language in places they're eliminating fossils, which is very, very disturbing, because if you're sticking your head in the sand, and saying that fossil (fuel) has to be eliminated in America, and they want to get rid of it, and thinking that's going to clean up the global climate, it won't clean it up all," Manchin told CNN in July of his party's plans. "If anything, it would be worse."

[Genivaria]

Because Merill actually hates the poor.

No, I hate the lie that the programs are helping people when they aren’t. Compare the pass through rates of money to the actual person being helped of public vs private. Don’t pee on me and tell me it’s rain.

I’m compelled to pay taxes. The State promises to use some of the funds to care for the poor. They don’t.

So, my moral philosophy is violated twice. Welfare is non voluntary, and ineffective. I want to choose to give, and get results from it.

Wait till you hear about how your employer steals the vast majority of your labor.

[Cannot think of a name]

Because Merill actually hates the poor.

No, I hate the lie that the programs are helping people when they aren’t. Compare the pass through rates of money to the actual person being helped of public vs private. Don’t pee on me and tell me it’s rain.

This, generally speaking, is where you show your work. And also not use a cliche that has become associated with a goofy tv judge, but that's really more of a personal choice.

I’m compelled to pay taxes. The State promises to use some of the funds to care for the poor. They don’t.

So, my moral philosophy is violated twice. Welfare is non voluntary, and ineffective. I want to choose to give, and get results from it.

What's stopping you from giving now? Are you somehow suggesting that the marginal tax rate is juuuuuuuust enough that it's tying the hands of good Christians everywhere? Because I see a lot of elaborate churches, how much of that gap could be made up by like 20% less stained glass or something? Are you counting 'prosperity preachers'? Are they blowing the scale or are the part of it? I imagine clipping that would make up a huge difference.

Though, again, I still don't understand how if your premise is true the Christians were unable to eliminate poverty in the centuries before welfare existed. I mean, Jesus seemed to be on board with taxes not getting in the way of charity. When someone tried to get him to speak out against taxes he told them to render unto Caesar what is Caesars. So what's the hold up? You've had around 2000 years. You gonna tell me that the last 90 or so is what really fucked that up? Seems to me if you had done the task you say you'd do the welfare system would never have been needed in the first place.

(Also, I seem to remember Jesus jumping on those who started trying to parse out who among the poor deserved help and who didn't...like, several times. So, are you sure this is about your Christian charity and not just your hatred of the poor and your desire to not pay taxes?)

[Myrensis]

Manchin continues to be terrible

In the Senate, all roads lead to Joe Manchin.

The West Virginia Democrat and his staff have been engaged for weeks in intensive negotiations with the chairs of key Senate committees ahead of his party's release of a sprawling bill to expand the social safety net, laying down his demands on a wide-range of issues: health care, education, child care and taxes, according to multiple sources familiar with the talks.
And Manchin is making clear he won't cave on aggressive climate provisions sought by many Democrats, throwing a wrench in his party's efforts to make the bill key to combating global warming.
With Democrats needing every vote in their caucus to get the bill through the Senate along straight party lines, Manchin has received more attention than any other Democrat, even as others -- like Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema -- have also balked at the $3.5 trillion price tag. Indeed, as committee chairs have held regular meetings with their members over the summer recess to shape key provisions of legislation under their jurisdiction, they often will later have individual meetings with Manchin, even if he doesn't serve on their respective committees.

As she met with her members on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Washington Sen. Patty Murray, who chairs the panel, also talked privately with Manchin to hear his concerns about provisions on free community college and universal pre-K -- issues that are also central to President Joe Biden's agenda. Her staff has since been in contact with Manchin's aides, while Murray has been in constant communication with other members as well.

Manchin and his staff have been in consistent talks with Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden of Oregon, a committee where the two powerful Democrats have clashed over several key provisions central to financing the proposal, including on corporate tax hikes, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. Wyden has had weekly Zoom meetings with his committee members on individual areas of their proposal, but has made sure to have regular talks with Manchin -- either with him directly or through his staff.

And Manchin has engaged in long discussions with rank-and-file Democrats as well, including Sen. Michael Bennet over the Colorado Democrat's push to broaden and bolster the child tax credit, which the West Virginian wants to bring down to a level far lower than what many in his party want, multiple Democrats said.

On education, Manchin is trying to limit the Democrats' efforts to provide universal pre-K and tuition-free community college. He's talked to Democrats about limiting the number of Americans eligible for pre-K by setting income thresholds, while also discussing ways to measure students' performance for community college assuming their tuition is paid for over two years. And on health care, Manchin has suggested substantially reducing funding for home-care services, a key priority of many Democrats.

The private discussions come amid Manchin's public call last week in a Wall Street Journal op-ed for a "strategic pause" in consideration of the expensive bill, which Democrats are trying to advance through a process known as budget reconciliation since it can be approved along straight party lines in the 50-50 Senate. Democratic leaders want to resolve their disagreements and have a proposal ready by September 15.
"Sen. Manchin's op-ed made clear that both the present and unknown challenges facing our country far outweigh the politics of passing something of this magnitude at this time," a Manchin aide told CNN, referring to the moderate Democrat's concerns over inflation and the ballooning national debt. "This was true last week, and it is today."

The talks underscore the challenges ahead for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who needs to win over Manchin but also avoid provoking a revolt among progressives -- particularly in the House -- who are already balking at the West Virginia's private suggestion to bring the price tag of the overall bill down to around $1.5 trillion. And without Senate passage of the reconciliation bill, House progressives are warning they'll derail the Senate's $1.2 trillion infrastructure plan that Manchin was central in negotiating.
"The idea of a $1.5 trillion price tag being sufficient to accomplish those goals for the people is fanciful," Rep. Mondaire Jones, a progressive Democrat from New York, said on CNN.

What remains to be seen is whether the Senate chairs ultimately cater to Manchin's demands or try to railroad him into making a choice: Approve the most sweeping piece of domestic legislation in decades -- or be responsible for sinking it singlehandedly.
"We're moving full steam ahead," Schumer said Wednesday, rejecting Manchin's much-publicized call last week for a "strategic pause" in consideration of the bill.

Schumer and Manchin -- who have long had a frank and collegial relationship -- have been in constant talks throughout the month of August and was not caught off-guard by Manchin's op-ed last week, multiple sources say. Schumer knows full well that he needs to keep his most important swing vote at bay, in addition to Sinema, who has already said she'd oppose a bill that costs $3.5 trillion.
"There are some in my caucus who believe $3.5 trillion is too much. There are some in my caucus who believe it's too little," Schumer said Wednesday. "And we're going to work very hard to have unity because without unity, we're not going to get anything."
To get unity, the committee chairs have been working to ensure that Manchin is not caught off guard by provisions in their plan that they hope to unveil next week.

Helen Hare, a spokeswoman for Murray, said the Washington state Democrat spoke with Manchin and has had "regular conversations" with her committee members since last month. "She's talking to lots of senators with the goal of getting the strongest possible agreement on free community college, child care and all the other policies she's working to get across the finish line," the spokeswoman said.

Some issues may be unresolvable -- such as climate change. Manchin, who represents a major coal-producing state, has balked at Democratic proposals to impose a clean energy standard to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Democrats have also discussed including a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, something that could lead to industry's use of cleaner-burning fuels.
But Manchin has not been amenable to the aggressive climate targets, leaving it unclear where the talks will land.
"If they're eliminating fossils, and I'm finding out there's a lot of language in places they're eliminating fossils, which is very, very disturbing, because if you're sticking your head in the sand, and saying that fossil (fuel) has to be eliminated in America, and they want to get rid of it, and thinking that's going to clean up the global climate, it won't clean it up all," Manchin told CNN in July of his party's plans. "If anything, it would be worse."

It's a shame that California didn't end up having the biggest coal supplies in the country, because then nobody would give two shits about coal miners demanding someone promise them a magic spell to turn back decades of technological advancement and change to save their dying industry.

Arby's employs more people than the entire US Coal industry, but you'll never see a politician putting on a hair net and promising to save the sandwich makers at any cost.

[The Reformed American Republic]

No, I hate the lie that the programs are helping people when they aren’t. Compare the pass through rates of money to the actual person being helped of public vs private. Don’t pee on me and tell me it’s rain.

I’m compelled to pay taxes. The State promises to use some of the funds to care for the poor. They don’t.

So, my moral philosophy is violated twice. Welfare is non voluntary, and ineffective. I want to choose to give, and get results from it.

Wait till you hear about how your employer steals the vast majority of your labor.

The type of theft that libertarianism is meant to protect.

[Myrensis]

Wait till you hear about how your employer steals the vast majority of your labor.

The type of theft that libertarianism is meant to protect.

Relevant:

[Genivaria]

Wait till you hear about how your employer steals the vast majority of your labor.

The type of theft that libertarianism is meant to protect.

Oh yes, they love some corporate authoritarianism.

[Genivaria]

Wait till you hear about how your employer steals the vast majority of your labor.

The type of theft that libertarianism is meant to protect.

Also why is welfare their go to target instead of say the massive police state?
For example:

Revealed: LAPD officers told to collect social media data on every civilian they stop


The Los Angeles police department (LAPD) has directed its officers to collect the social media information of every civilian they interview, including individuals who are not arrested or accused of a crime, according to records shared with the Guardian.


Copies of the “field interview cards” that police complete when they question civilians reveal that LAPD officers are instructed to record a civilian’s Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and other social media accounts, alongside basic biographical information. An internal memo further shows that the police chief, Michel Moore, told employees that it was critical to collect the data for use in “investigations, arrests, and prosecutions”, and warned that supervisors would review cards to ensure they were complete.

The documents, which were obtained by the not-for-profit organization the Brennan Center for Justice, have raised concerns about civil liberties and the potential for mass surveillance of civilians without justification.

“There are real dangers about police having all of this social media identifying information at their fingertips,” said Rachel Levinson-Waldman, a deputy director at the Brennan Center, noting that the information was probably stored in a database that could be used for a wide range of purposes.

The Brennan Center conducted a review of 40 other police agencies in the US and was unable to find another department that required social media collection on interview cards (though many have not publicly disclosed copies of the cards). The organization also obtained records about the LAPD’s social media surveillance technologies, which have raised questions about the monitoring of activist groups including Black Lives Matter.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... WCXdPG23aI

[The Black Forrest]

It's a shame that California didn't end up having the biggest coal supplies in the country, because then nobody would give two shits about coal miners demanding someone promise them a magic spell to turn back decades of technological advancement and change to save their dying industry.

Arby's employs more people than the entire US Coal industry, but you'll never see a politician putting on a hair net and promising to save the sandwich makers at any cost.

What does California have to do with the article?

[Myrensis]

The type of theft that libertarianism is meant to protect.

Also why is welfare their go to target instead of say the massive police state?

Because the police state favors them, and they can support it as 'defending law and order'. Meanwhile welfare is for those people, and acknowledging the need for help would be a blow to their delusions about being the rugged individualist bootstrap puller-uppers.

Not that they don't need help, and not that tons of conservatives don't depend on government programs and funding every day, but for the sake of their pride they've developed a whole laundry list of excuses and justifications and doublespeak explaining why it's TOTALLY DIFFERENT and doesn't count when THEY get it.

[Kowani]

Larry Elder is already claiming the recall election is going to be stolen, claims to have prepared lawyers

[Myrensis]

It's a shame that California didn't end up having the biggest coal supplies in the country, because then nobody would give two shits about coal miners demanding someone promise them a magic spell to turn back decades of technological advancement and change to save their dying industry.

Arby's employs more people than the entire US Coal industry, but you'll never see a politician putting on a hair net and promising to save the sandwich makers at any cost.

What does California have to do with the article?

I mean that if coal miners had been primarily concentrated in California they'd be politically irrelevant, and mindless opposition to action on climate change wouldn't be necessary for Republicans or Democrats hanging on by a thread in red states.