Senate passes $1.9t Covid relief bill

You start eating your fifth pony made out of raspbetty swirl as a family, things come together.

14 Likes

Exactly! Good for them! They got a watered down bill that does some good passed instead of no bill!

The alternative was to … pretend that they had votes that they didn’t have?

No - you ended up with a bill that nobody really ended up being happy with. Yay for compromise.

5 Likes

People are going hungry and many are on the verge of becoming homeless. That’s likely MILLIONS of Americans. MILLIONS! What sort of economy do you think we’ll have if MILLIONS of Americans can’t do the very basics of supporting themselves and their families? Our economy is based on consumerism. It falls apart when consumers can’t spend money. We should have had a more robust stimulus response last spring. We didn’t because a bunch of neo-fascist ideologues would rather watch people suffer and die (over half a million dead right now) than to actual help people suffering by taxing the 1%.
[ETA to correct can to can’t]

41 Likes

Agreed. Yay for compromise. There’s compromise, and there’s inaction. I choose compromise over inaction.

3 Likes

The question isn’t why we ended up with a worse bill than we should have. The answer to that is clear: we only have 50 seats in the Senate, so we’re stuck with pleasing the most conservative Democrats.

The question is: how do we get a majority in the Senate that keeps us from being beholden to the most conservative Democrats.

Sadly, progressives don’t win swing districts. Progressives win safe districts, and replacing somewhat progressive senators with very progressive senators isn’t going to change the fact that any bill Joe Manchin doesn’t approve of won’t pass the senate.

What might change the equation is DC and PR statehood. But for that we have to get rid of the filibuster and guess who opposes that? Joe Manchin.

10 Likes

12 posts were merged into an existing topic: The question of Puerto Rico statehood and its political repercussions

Worse, compromise with a party that’s been negotiating in bad faith since the Clinton administration. Schumer should change his last name to Brown after all the kicks he’s taken at the football.

18 Likes

What would be “wise,” in this scenario, then?

Just actively letting millions of people starve and go homeless?

23 Likes

50oau1

24 Likes

Well, those people just need to go pull harder on their bootstraps! I mean, it’s just a pandemic, after all. It’s no excuse to live high on the hog on the backs of god-fearing job creators! /s

22 Likes

tenor

21 Likes

For once, I’m not even one of the American citizens who has been hit the hardest during this crisis, and that mentality still infuriates me…

21 Likes

It’s the heart of the neo-liberal world view - if people are suffering due to circumstances well outside of their control, trying to alleviate that via state intervention is considered a worse evil. Trumpism is the logical conclusion of this mindset which starts with Reagan/Thatcherism. But the reality is that public programs that benefit all people have a proven track record of allowing people to really thrive, which does far more to grow the economy than endlessly cutting government budgets and taxes. If people can’t see that now, then they are truly buying into an ideology that has no basis in facts.

31 Likes

It doesn’t even have to be killed entirely, as we have seen it’s enough to force Republicans to actually vote. If they have to maintain 40 members in the chamber to keep debate going, then they will quickly fold. Once one of them goes home, then the other side can raise a vote to end debate, and if they don’t reach 40 “nay” votes, then debate is ended.

I can see Dems getting behind this reform, as despite the narrative, Dems are actually more fired up and more willing to suffer for their cause. For all the “Democrats in disarray” that the press pushes, Dems actually are more disciplined. They care about the issue. GOP members only care about getting reelected.

Really, that’s all it needs, is to make the filibuster something that requires actual effort. As it is now, it’s not even a real filibuster, it’s just a requirement for a supermajority.

6 Likes

It reminds of a remark one of my fav drag performers, Bob the Drag Queen, made recently (though on another topic:)

“It’s not even that they want to win; they just want to make sure you lose.”

21 Likes

barack obama yes GIF by Obama

21 Likes

Don’t forget the old “moral hazard” Libertarian talking point, which is basically Manchin’s position in this case. Can’t be handing out too much help to those he sees as “lazy moochers” (i.e. his constituents).

Even if the Dem establishment had the backbone to impose some party discipline on these members, they wouldn’t because the Third Way position isn’t that far removed from Manchin’s.

16 Likes

This may not seem like much at first but over 400 million dollars are going to be poured into NY’s reddest district outside of Staten Island. They did not skimp out on giving money out to even heavily pro-Trump districts. One hell of a ballsy play by the dems.

5 Likes

Isn’t it true though? For instance, once people decide the government should do something to provide help in the face of a pandemic, won’t it be more likely for them to start thinking it should provide help with other diseases like every other developed country?

15 Likes