usernamesAreTricky @ usernamesAreTricky @lemmy.ml

Posts

710

Comments

1,234

Joined

2 yr. ago

It didn't include the debt ceiling raising that Trump & Musk blew things up for. They were able to get some of the funding changed in the second version back. For instance, Senate dems were able to do some maneuvering to get back most of that pediatric cancer funding that president-elect Musk and house republicans cut of their CR bill

The house had already technically passed an earlier bill that approved similar funding (intended to be merge into the main CR), so the senate dems just went back to that earlier bill and voted on it and got that passed

See https://apnews.com/live/congress-budget-government-shutdown-trump#00000193-e724-d164-abfb-e7e4698f0000

No, senate dems were able to do some maneuvering to resecure most of that pediatric cancer funding that president-elect Musk and house republicans cut of their CR bill

The house had already technically passed an earlier bill that approved similar funding (intended to be merge into the main CR), so the senate dems just went back to that earlier bill and voted on it and got that passed

See https://apnews.com/live/congress-budget-government-shutdown-trump#00000193-e724-d164-abfb-e7e4698f0000

Also worth noting that senate dems were able to do some maneuvering to resecure most of that pediatric cancer funding that president-elect Musk and house republicans cut of their CR bill

The house had already technically passed an earlier bill that approved similar funding (intended to be merge into the main CR), so the senate dems just went back to that earlier bill and voted on it and got that passed

And to clarify, this does not need to go back to the house because the house had already technically passed a bill that approved the funding. As I understand it, it was just later intended to be merge into the main CR bill.

After it was cut from the CR, the Dem senators were then able to save the funding by just approving an earlier standalone bill which had already passed the house

The Democratic party actually seems to be getting that memo

The “President Musk” messaging is by design, at least partially. This week, according to a source with direct knowledge of the matter and another person briefed on it, at senior levels of different Democratic congressional offices, and also within the Democratic National Committee, discussions have been had about having party leaders and elected officials actively portray Musk as effectively Trump’s boss, and to do so during television appearances that the president-elect is likely to see. The idea is that it’s a cost-free opportunity to potentially drive a petty wedge between the notably mercurial and ego-obsessed Trump and his similarly emotive pal Musk, and to sow some chaos in the upper ranks of the Republican Party.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/president-musk-dems-troll-trump-elon-1235211922/

Trump publicly backed this new bill, and 38 of them voted publicly against it. It makes Trump look weak and Trump hates looking weak. He wouldn't have backed the bill if he thought it was going to get shot down like that

I mean Matt Gatez already dropped out because he couldn't get the senate votes. You won't win every fight but that doesn't mean you can't win some important ones

For instance, the ACA survived narrowly, but it survived after people fought its repeal in the first term. It died in the senate narrowly. They had a much larger house majority (+26 more seats) then and it still barely passed the house 217-215

You only need 3 "moderate" republicans to vote against it. Or 3 MAGA republicans to vote against it because of petty reasons (maybe they're mad at the bill's author). Or just a few absences - there's republicans with attendance issues

Good reminder that there are fights to be had for his agenda and they are not forgone conclusions. They will have just a 3 seat majority in the house - and a 1 seat majority for a couple months with their planned vacancies. If they can lose 38 votes on their own funding bill, they can lose 3 on others

Already failed, 174-235, and Mike Johnson voted against it too

By convention, not by law

The Constitution does not explicitly require the speaker to be an incumbent member of the House of Representatives, although every speaker thus far has been, and as a member the speaker also represents their district and retains the right to vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

When debt isn't paid off for long enough / they think it'll be too much work to collect, it's often sold by those organizations to private debt collectors. Here instead of collecting the debt, they just buy the debt then agree to forgive it

I get the sentiment, but medical debt forgiveness this way is nothing new. It's not helpful to lambast every single good story with dooming. Constant despair isn't helping us move the needle and fight back. Point out the fights where they, otherwise we're just making people too despaired to fight at all

The non-profit they partnered with has been doing work forgiving debt since 2014. And there's been high profile cases of people doing this too. In 2016, John Oliver forgave $15 million worth of medical debt for ~9 thousand people

Other local governments have done the same thing with the same non-profit:

In January this year, New York City said they were going to do the same for around 2 billion worth of medical debt for 500 thousand people over 3 years (paying around $18 million to buy that debt)

In 2023, Oakland County Michigan forgave around $200 million (paying around $2 million for the debt)

And so on

Until it stays that way forever. By law it's supposed to adjust every year for inflation, but it hasn't since 2009 as the inflation adjustment gets shot down every year mostly because of the obvious optics of raising pay

Low pay is a real problem and barrier in local and state government, we shouldn't want the US congress to add another barrier for people with lower income. There's already enough barriers already

A pay decrease would only make things worse. It wouldn't affect the worst offenders and would make it harder for someone like AOC to join from a more modest background. Making the pay higher makes it easier for working class people to rely on the pay (especially since you might need a place in DC and your home state). If you keep the pay low, only the richest people with external sources of income can afford to stay in

This is not a bad thing in general. Making the pay higher makes it easier for working class people to rely on the pay (especially since you might need a place in DC and your home state). If you keep the pay low, only the richest people with external sources of income can afford to stay in

Edit: to clarify, it is certainly still frustrating that most of the people who will benifit really don't need that pay,

Keep in mind that we also just talk a lot more anout republican's legislation waaaay more than we do for Democrats. There's way more than Obamacare that's gotten through but we just barely talk about it because it mostly lives in the background and Republicans have dominated the messaging

For instance, the Inflation Reduction Act was one of the single largest climate investments in US history with real predicted effects on our overall future emissions. It isn't enough, sure, but the media barely talked about a $783 billion investment in climate change. It's projected to move the 2030 US emissions to 40% below 2005 emissions levels

There's plenty that dems stopped Trump from doing during his first term. Saving the ACA is the classic example, but things like the Muslim travel ban were blocked in lawsuits, they won out when in shutdown fights about wasting fund on a wall, etc

Not sure I follow what you are saying? Are you saying Democrats are indept at infighting? As in they should infight more?

The infighting does limit some of their abilities. A handful of people that want to stir the pot or take the spotlight can grind things to a halt if they want to. Just ask Kevin McCarthy and how many speaker votes it took to get him in and how many speaker votes it took to get his replacement. Keep in mind they'll have fewer house seat than they did then

Even barring that, they could also have issues with unexpected/unplanned vacancies and missed votes. Health problems, delayed flights, lazy house member, etc. can all pose a giant pain for them

Know there's already been concerns raised in the senate about the new WV senate Jim Justice's attendance problems (they'll have 53 in the senate)

Plus keep in mind that many of their margins are far smaller than they were in 2016. Then, they had 241 house seats. Next year they'll have 220 seats (just a 3 seat majorty)

You only need a handful of defections to defeat bills so it's a reminder to keep fighting them

Plus at the sate level were also much stronger with control of 31 state governors. They had 25 state government trifectas compared to just 6 for dems (rest divided)

Next year they will have 27 state govenors and a trifecta in 23 state governments compared to 15 dem trifectas (rest divided)