Red Mosquito

Wait, this bill would allow Medicare to negotiate???? I honestly didn't know that. If so, that's HUGE.

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:The Reconciliation bill is largest and most expensive piece of legislation in our nation's history.

COVID relief bill: $2 trillion in a single year
TARP bailout: $1 trillion in a single year
Jobs and Taxes Act: $2 trillion over a ten year period
This bill: $3.5 trillion over a ten year period

The Social Security Act says hold my beer.

4/5 wrote:Wait, this bill would allow Medicare to negotiate???? I honestly didn't know that. If so, that's HUGE.

Huge enough that it should be separated out and not used as leverage.

McParadigm wrote:
<big stuff here>

If you want to argue that the *totality* of the bill is the issue, that's fine. But that's what negotiations are for. And nobody opposed to the scope of the bill is currently making an attempt to do that. They're just trying to get their own legislation passed in a vacuum, so that no one has any leverage over them when they shut it down. Why anybody would think that the proponents of this bill should play along with that is beyond me.

Because they want the other stuff to pass? It seems like you are saying that folks should just suck up the recon. bill to get what they want... but it that stuff is what they want then yes, break it out and vote separately. Making it all or none is a losing battle for everyone not currently an elected official, and will be for may of them as well.

Edit: We could have the BIF passed now if the proggle squad would let it. We'll lose both if they don't.

Bi_3 wrote:It seems like you are saying that folks should just suck up the recon. bill to get what they want...

No. I'm describing the rationale on each side for the approach they are taking, and the impact of backing down.

but it that stuff is what they want then yes, break it out and vote separately. Making it all or none is a losing battle for everyone not currently an elected official, and will be for may of them as well.

I, too, like to occasionally pretend I don't know that the reason all of these items have to be piled into one reconciliation bill is that it's the only way to avoid each one being individually filibustered. But we both pay far too much attention to this stuff to not know that.

As long as the filibuster is in place, no party can pass legislation that the other is prepared to filibuster...except by reconciliation. Republicans filibustered the Voting Rights Act and, in fact, the entire reason we didn't get a standalone $1.8 trillion Families bill was that they signaled they were prepared to filibuster that, as well.

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:It seems like you are saying that folks should just suck up the recon. bill to get what they want...

No. I'm describing the rationale on each side for the approach they are taking, and the impact of backing down.

but it that stuff is what they want then yes, break it out and vote separately. Making it all or none is a losing battle for everyone not currently an elected official, and will be for may of them as well.

I, too, like to occasionally pretend I don't know that the reason all of these items have to be piled into one reconciliation bill is that it's the only way to avoid each one being individually filibustered. But we both pay far too much attention to this stuff to not know that.

As long as the filibuster is in place, no party can pass legislation that the other is prepared to filibuster...except by reconciliation. Republicans filibustered the Voting Rights Act and, in fact, the entire reason we didn't get a standalone $1.8 trillion Families bill was that they signaled they were prepared to filibuster that, as well.

So separate it from the BIF and pass that now while we can.

So the shutdown risk is kicked down the road to get it out of negotiations, as it almost always is, and we are having a vote tonight.

Typically, at least with Democratic legislation, Nancy can be counted on to never bring a bill to the floor unless she knows it’s going to pass. In this case, I don’t think that’s true. I think she figures that any outcome is an improvement for leadership: if infrastructure passes, then that is that. If it doesn’t pass, then it puts additional pressure on both of the bickering kids.

It pressures Team Manchin, because it proves that their signature pill can’t pass without a compromise of some sort….and it pressures proggies, because it forces them to publicly associate their names with delays in popular party legislation, thus making this a story they want to end as quickly as possible.

That’s my guess anyway. Passing the bill would be the traditional outcome, in that progressive traditionally didn’t have the influence or support to follow through with such a stand. But it’s a different time, and I kind of think leadership just wants to let the kids fight until they each have a bloody nose, so they’ll calm down and consider talking.

Sounds like voting is on hold for tonight.

Presumably, means the bill’s proponents support the decision to wait…which they wouldn’t be doing if they still thought it would pass without a compromise.

*fart noises*

My condolences.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/1 ... dnc-522864

Allegations of bigotry and calls for impeachment rock College Democrats

The situation is so bad that the DNC is considering disaffiliation with the national organization

The College Democrats of America — the Democratic Party’s national organization presiding over 500 chapters on campuses across the country — is in turmoil.

The group’s leaders are publicly firing off accusations of anti-Blackness, Islamaphobia and anti-Semitism at each other. Impeachment proceedings are now in the works against the organization’s new vice president, Nourhan Mesbah, who is Muslim. College Democrats say that screenshots of tweets that their peers sent in adolescence spread rapidly through group texts, which already caused a student running for president of the group to withdraw their candidacy in September. And national advocacy groups for Muslim and Jewish Americans are now weighing in with criticism.

Who did what now?

"What I said as a 15 year old prior to being in politics was..."

And who else?

"My comment was in no way rooted in malice or anti-semitism, especially as a 13-year old, relatively new immigrant..."

No one can make noodles. No one is pure enough. Not even children.

Teenagers are sorta dumb...

This is happening more and more!

It’s always a nice day when Andrew isn’t tweeting about racial penis size differences

Seems only conservative news cares about this.

McParadigm wrote:It’s always a nice day when Andrew isn’t tweeting about racial penis size differences

Isn't he plausibly a subject matter expert on that issue?

Centrists have penises?

Jorge wrote:This is happening more and more!

Absolutely agree. People are waking up from the post Trump hangover and staring down skyrocketing crime, a new Cold War, and an exposed biased media… and slowly but surely coming to the conclusion that maybe they went too far. Silverman was on the vanguard of woke and for her to make even a small recognition of the issue is significant

People are finally waking up!