It doesn’t get more pathetic than this.

Oh I disagree that the Democrats won't be more pathetic than this.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 1 year ago* (17 children)

I've heard this argument that the deal they got wasn't going to get any better in a few places. What are the counter arguments to that?
Because it was working, trumps numbers are down a bit, the election losses. But those didn't phase the Republicans at all seemingly. I personally think they still should have held out, but I don't have any logic for my stance. Is there any?

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago* (13 children)

    Yes. All the same logic for dealing with a bully. The next "deal" will be worse. Now they know they can push as hard as they want and the opposition will always cave. This was the one chance the Dems had to show a spine against this admin and now it's gone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    The next "deal" will be struck in January when federal funding runs out, when we have another Democrat sworn into the house, when snap benefits are not at risk for another 8 months.

    I'm also disappointed in this, but its worth pointing out that they may be setting up for a later fight which doesn't come at the cost of starving our poorest citizens, which the trump administration has shown the nation they're gleeful to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I hope your right, I really do. It just seems like every time a fight has been lost, the answer is always "but next time" or "but next election".... Meanwhile look where we're at now. How many more next times do we have?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    In fairness, it was only 8 democrates. But yeah, I am not sure why the Republicans would give in in January if they wouldn't now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I wonder if Obamacare folks would've paid their first payment for 2025 by then? There may be value in letting folks see sticker shock, as it gives a clear "this is what we're fighting for" signal

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I didn't see anything about securing snap benefits or anything. Is that a side effect kind of thing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The legislation includes a "minibus" of three full-year appropriations bills, including a full funding of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits through the end of next September, and keeps much of the government open on a short-term basis through Jan. 30.

    But in a major concession for Democrats, the deal does not include an extension of enhanced subsidies under Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, after Republicans held firm against extending those funds beyond this year. That means more than 20 million Americans could see their premiums spike next year.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Hot dang, I read a cbs news article and it didn't mention that. I even went back to check. Isn't cbs under new ownership or something?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I mean they did get some things in other areas. The argument I am hearing is that the deal won't get better. And I find it hard to counter that myself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    What'd they get in other areas? I must have missed that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Their corporate overlords (amazon mostly I bet) were going to start losing money from the holiday air shipping and travel closures so they called up Schumer and told him to rap it up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Schumer voted no. I'm looking for real reasons that won't get me laughed out of the room for being uninformed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Schumer was in on it and voted no because he wanted the plausible deniability because he knows he's in hot water for all his previous collaborationist deals. The yes voters are loyal sacrificial patsies who (all but one I think) aren't up for reelection. It's backfired on him because one of the patsies chickened out while being grilled on camera and blabbed on him. That's the consensus.

    As to why now, yeah I'm pretty sure the air traffic closures were going to inconvenience their corporate donors.

  • source
  • parent