Post New

I’ve said this before, but here’s a little inside baseball from a former Republican: Back in my GOP days, we Republicans would privately laugh at how Democrats would never go to the mat to win. We always knew Democrats wouldn’t fight to the death politically.

Last night proved Republicans right again.

Joe Walsh

I’ve said this before, but here’s a little inside baseball from a former Republican: Back in my GOP days, we Republicans would privately laugh at how Democrats would never go to the mat to win. We always knew Democrats wouldn’t fight to the death politically.

Last night proved Republicans right again.

I mean, he's wrong factually. I mean, from a rhetorical sense, this has a certain appeal. Because it's not the politician's death that they would be fighting to. SNAP benefits and other shutdown consequences cause real world deaths of (mostly) marginalized and poor people.

So if you're the "Let 'em die!" party, you're more than happy to fight to the death - because your party isn't really committed to using the power of government to keep people from dying prematurely.

But if you're the party for whom it is important to use the power of government to prevent premature death, you're not going to keep fighting "to the death." Because you aren't willing to see that happen.

Of course, in the last several shutdowns, the Democrats did go to the mat to win. They held their ground and the GOP were the ones who wouldn't fight to the death, politically. That's why Obamacare stayed in place, and why Trump didn't get his first term border wall funding.

Democrats are just smart enough not to fight to the death if it's a losing fight. If you're in a losing fight, you choose "live to fight another day" rather than "fight to the death." Which, again, the GOP also did in 2013 and 2018-2019 as well....

albaby1: Democrats are just smart enough not to fight to the death if it's a losing fight.

Yeah, it wouldn't have been a "fight to the death," it would have been a fight for ten more days.

Let me remind you of what someone here said with respect to the republicans being caught between a rock and a hard place in just another ten days or so:

If the November 21 date passes and the current CR disappears, I don't think Johnson is able to pass a new CR out of the House without an ACA subsidy fix. With the Grijalva appointment and the GOP vacancy, they have (I believe) only two votes to give - and I can't see Greene voting for a CR without the ACA stuff in it, at this point.

Let me remind you of what someone here said with respect to the republicans being caught between a rock and a hard place in just another ten days or so:

If the November 21 date passes and the current CR disappears, I don't think Johnson is able to pass a new CR out of the House without an ACA subsidy fix. With the Grijalva appointment and the GOP vacancy, they have (I believe) only two votes to give - and I can't see Greene voting for a CR without the ACA stuff in it, at this point.

Yep - but it was pointed out to me in an IRL discussion that the Senate had already amended the bill in a number of ways, and that they would certainly include an amendment to move 11/21 to some other date. The prior House-passed bill doesn't disappear, it just needs House action again.

So Thune et. al. will now test my statement above - whether Greene (and Massie) will vote for a CR without the ACA stuff in it. They amended the bill in a way that necessitates a new House vote. We'll see if Johnson and Trump can deliver it, or if Greene (or others) dig in and fights for the ACA subsidies.

Joe Walsh is wrong (as usual).

The Senate voted to re-open the government 60%-40%.

That's a LANDSLIDE.

There's nothing to "fight about."

There was a vote, and King Schumer and his allies lost, big time.

That's democracy.

There's nothing to "fight about."

There was a vote, and King Schumer and his allies lost, big time.

Ayup. Dems picked the wrong hill, and died, for nothing, while causing a lot of collateral damage.

Pakman, stating the obvious.

They’re ADMITTING DEFEAT on Trump’s shutdown

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Muvjy17NM-k

Lord Trump is so wound up about SNAP, I need to start wondering if that is the next program he intends to defund, to fatten the pockets of the "JCs". Maybe he'll go half-way, no SNAP for anyone "able bodied", then cut off everyone else, after the mid-term vote.

Steve

“But if you're the party for whom it is important to use the power of government to prevent premature death, you're not going to keep fighting "to the death." Because you aren't willing to see that happen.”

See what you did there as a “centrist democrat”? You took responsibility for the murderous policies of the republicans.

See what you did there as a “centrist democrat”? You took responsibility for the murderous policies of the republicans.

Not at all. I'm not taking responsibility for them. They are the ones who are responsible for their choices. But Democrats are responsible for their own choices as well.

If your party has the chance to stop the opposing party from doing a terrible thing, you're not absolving them of their own responsibility. But you do have the ability to act and stop the terrible thing from happening. In this case, the Democrats had their own choice to make: continue to press on in the shutdown knowing that it will result in the GOP causing people to go hungry, or to abandon pushing for the ACA subsidy expansion. The choices that the GOP has made are entirely their own fault and their own responsibility - but the Democrats are not without choice and agency, and they have to make the best choice for themselves as well.

Since there was very little chance that they would ever get the subsidy extension, it certainly seems to me like the least bad choice was to stop the shutdown. I totally get that reasonable minds can disagree about that, but I don't see that there was any plausible path to getting an extension into the current bill. The "theory of the case" was that the public would blame the Republicans and/or Trump - and while that was true to some extent, it wasn't true enough that the GOP had any real motivation to yield. Among people who didn't just blame both parties, the difference between those who blamed the GOP and those who blamed the Democrats just wasn't large enough to create any significant pressure on the GOP.

So let me ask you - what do you think would have happened if the Democrats continued to hold out? How do you see that ending that's different than this outcome?

So let me ask you - what do you think would have happened if the Democrats continued to hold out? How do you see that ending that's different than this outcome?

I think commonone gave a good answer to that earlier in this thread:


"Let me remind you of what someone here said with respect to the republicans being caught between a rock and a hard place in just another ten days or so:

If the November 21 date passes and the current CR disappears, I don't think Johnson is able to pass a new CR out of the House without an ACA subsidy fix. With the Grijalva appointment and the GOP vacancy, they have (I believe) only two votes to give - and I can't see Greene voting for a CR without the ACA stuff in it, at this point."

However, Johnson will be forced now to call the House into session to take a vote on the Senate bill. So the outcome commonone predicted may still come to pass.

So let me ask you - what do you think would have happened if the Democrats continued to hold out? How do you see that ending that's different than this outcome?

You weren't addressing me, but I have a hypothesis. It doesn't directly involve Dems or Reps. It's the constituents. Discontent would have risen, possibly to the level of anti-Nam protests in the late 60s. That -perhaps- would have motivated more on the right to follow MTG into changing sides on this one issue. Johnson would then be the bad guy if he didn't allow his people to have their vote.

And Dems still could use Lucille to pummel them. (https://s1.r29static.com/bin/entry/a6c/430x516,85/...)

You weren't addressing me, but I have a hypothesis. It doesn't directly involve Dems or Reps. It's the constituents. Discontent would have risen, possibly to the level of anti-Nam protests in the late 60s. That -perhaps- would have motivated more on the right to follow MTG into changing sides on this one issue.

Isn't that exactly what happened, though? Just on the other side? Constituents getting upset about the loss of important government services, leading a group of electeds to back away from the strategy of leadership and cross the aisle to reach a deal? It was simply Democrats, not Republicans, that were more motivated by the dismay of their constituents.

The problem with your suggested path to subsidy extension is that constituents weren't blaming Republicans significantly more than Democrats. Sure, a little bit - which was a better-than-typical outcome for Democrats, because historically voters have blamed the party that was trying to use the shutdown to obtain a policy goal. But for the most part, constituents weren't especially more likely to pressure "more on the right" to change sides than to pressure "more on the left" of change sides.

Then add to that the GOP has someone that can enforce party discipline to a degree the Democrats can't match. That's an advantage to holding the Presidency generally - there's someone who is both the undisputed leader of the party and has the ability to dole out a lot of rewards and punishment. But more specifically, Trump has a hold on the party's voters almost unmatched in recent history.

So, no - growing pressure wasn't particularly likely to bring about compromise from the GOP side moreso than the Democratic side. They just weren't being blamed enough for the shutdown. More than one would have expected from past precedent, but nowhere near enough for this strategy to lead to a GOP fold.

“If your party has the chance to stop the opposing party from doing a terrible thing, you're not absolving them of their own responsibility. But you do have the ability to act and stop the terrible thing from happening. In this case, the Democrats had their own choice to make: continue to press on in the shutdown knowing that it will result in the GOP causing people to go hungry, or to abandon pushing for the ACA subsidy expansion.”

So the reason Americans were going to suffer is because democrats had the gumption to oppose a clean CR. The answer was to admit their mistake like the good surrender monkeys they are.

The Clintonite surrender was weak and will just disgust Americans more at the democrats spinelessness. The politics of SNAP, which is entirely the responsibility of the Republican Party, was awful for republicans. While people were having their food cut and their health care gutted, the nightly news had Epsteinesque images of girls in martini glasses flashing their legs at a Trump soiree. Trump and his MAGA party were bungling their way into a complete disaster, but Thune could count on dinocrats folding has his saving grace. He knew the dinocrats feared the class politics they had to pursue to save what remains of social benefits from the ravages of Trump and his glutinous base of billionaires.

The courts and the Nov 21 deadline were going to force the republicans to act or to own their politics of starvation completely, there was no reason for the dinocrats to take ownership of that politics.

The dismantling of the social safety net can continue apace now that democrats have surrendered.

So the reason Americans were going to suffer is because democrats had the gumption to oppose a clean CR. The answer was to admit their mistake like the good surrender monkeys they are.

No need to be disparaging about it. Americans were going to suffer because the Democrats have no leverage other than to refuse to vote to fund the government, and any effort to utilize that leverage would - inescapably - cause Americans to suffer. It's not a "mistake" to exercise that leverage even though Americans will suffer, but it does require some assessment of whether the likelihood of achieving the Democrats' objectives warrants the suffering that is being experienced.

The Democrats were trying to get the GOP to change their position on the ACA subsidies. It didn't work. The Democrats also wanted to raise awareness of the impending ACA premium catastrophe....and that did work. After more than a month, the latter goal was mostly accomplished, but the former goal was revealed to be impossible - public opinion didn't put enough of the blame on the GOP, so they were never going to face enough pressure to actually relent.

The courts and the Nov 21 deadline were going to force the republicans to act or to own their politics of starvation completely, there was no reason for the dinocrats to take ownership of that politics.

Except there's no reason to think that the Republicans were going to have to own their politics of starvation. Again, the public was generally split on whether to blame Democrats or Republicans. The GOP was not facing any particular political incentive to change their position. Democrats were hoping that the GOP would be blamed more than the Democrats for the resulting consequences of the showdown, but that was not showing up in the polling.

The Democrats could not have continued to vote against the CR indefinitely. Their constituents were also putting pressure on them to have the shutdown end. Access to food was starting to get cut off, flights were getting cancelled - this was going to end soon, and it was not going to end with the GOP agreeing to anything more than what the Democrats got.

Would it have been worth it to have people actually start dying from lack of food and then have to vote for the same CR....just to have kept "fighting" for another week or two?

“The Democrats were trying to get the GOP to change their position on the ACA subsidies. It didn't work.“

It didn’t work because they gave up.

They could have held out at least until the USSC order played out, or until the CR expired, as you pointed out. They didn’t. Why? I don’t buy “to end the suffering” because the expiration of ACA subsidies is going to hit a hell of a lot harder than the suspension of SNAP benefits. People will die. A lot of people.

No, the Democrats weren't trying to get the Republicans to change anything. The Dems deliberately adopted an absurd unprincipled negotiating position that explicitly focused on blackmailing or leveraging the suffering of their own constituents. The Democrats never had any expectation that it would be anything other than political theater.

The Republicans were absolutely correct in taking the ethical position of refusing to be blackmailed. They clearly communicated that highly ethical position and didn't budge.

King Schumer's position collapsed and he lost his caucus because he was negotiating in a fundamentally unethical manner. The public recognized it, much if the media recognized it, and ultimately 8 Democrat senators got fed up with being forced into an untenable position of being unethical, blackmailing negotiators.

The level of delusion bu some here is remarkable.

They could have held out at least until the USSC order played out, or until the CR expired, as you pointed out. They didn’t. Why? I don’t buy “to end the suffering” because the expiration of ACA subsidies is going to hit a hell of a lot harder than the suspension of SNAP benefits. People will die. A lot of people.

They didn't wait because it will take several weeks for the USSC order to play out, and because air travel was on the verge of being a very immediate, very visible problem.

It wasn't a choice between opening the government now with no subsidies, or holding out and getting the ACA subsidies restored. It was a choice between opening the government now with no subsidies or opening the government later with no subsidies. Again, the problem with the Democrats' position was that the public just didn't blame the GOP enough for the shutdown. That fact is invisible to progressives, who mostly live in communities (IRL and virtual) where no one blamed the Democrats for the shutdown. But across the electorate, barely a third of voters blamed just the GOP for the shutdown. The overwhelming majority either blamed both parties or blamed the Democrats alone.

That's a better outcome than has historically been the case in shutdowns, but it's nowhere near enough for the GOP to face any real pressure to change course. Nor was it enough to affect Trump in the slightest. The GOP was going to be able to last as least as long in the shutdown as the Democrats. The GOP wasn't going to own the shutdown any more than the Democrats were.

The Democrats weren't trading off between the people who were suffering in the shutdown versus the people who will suffer with the ACA subsidy expiration. They had no path to stopping the latter from suffering. They could, however, stop the suffering of the people being hurt by the shutdown.

The GOP wasn't going to own the shutdown any more than the Democrats were.

So I'd read that as the GOP controlling the vote on ACA. I don't see enough votes to retain that, so those enhanced benneis are likely history. When I looked at the ACA there were same bare bones policies that really looked odd and by companies you couldn't get a grip on because no one was on them that you knew. So I think this will ultimately not yield anything because the collapse and infighting works in the GOP's favor, while SNAP didn't. What's your read on how SNAP will be viewed? Mine is that MAGAs will figure out how to blame the Dems, something totally illogical, and we'll hear marco blaring it out. I think he's a fairly good tap distilling what's being said to the MAGA ranks. There was an article that disappeared on me that said we might be very happy in a year as the catch line title. I'll see if I can find it.

albaby1,

The Democrat shutdown strategy wasn't to "stop the suffering."

It was to cause the suffering, expressly for political "leverage"--with the calculation that they could lay the blame for that suffering on the Republicans/Trump/MAGA.

So, King Schumer and his coterie were unwilling to re-open the government because in their viewpoint, more suffering = more "leverage."

SNAP not being paid as well as not paying the military are squarely laid at the feet of King Schumer and his mini-Kings.

The entire fiasco of Schumer's Shutdown was a deliberate political strategy to inflict great pain on the American people and then turn around and try to blame Trump/Republicans/MAGA for political "leverage."

The Republicans took a highly principled stance, the Democrats took a bad faith stance.

SNAP not being paid as well as not paying the military are squarely laid at the feet of King Schumer and his mini-Kings.

Not so. Trump pretended he couldn't get into reserves that had previously been used for shutdowns, and authorized by Congress. It was a deliberate play by Trump to inflict pain and blame it on the Democrats. You are a good source for what's floating around in MAGA though.

The law (you do believe in the Rule of Law, don't you?) gives the President both directly and through his designees in the Executive Branch, a great deal of authority to set expenditure priorities during a government shut down.

The Democrat Party owns that. Every bit of it.

Not so. Trump pretended he couldn't get into reserves that had previously been used for shutdowns, and authorized by Congress. It was a deliberate play by Trump to inflict pain and blame it on the Democrats. You are a good source for what's floating around in MAGA though.

I’m wondering where he got that 40 billion to give to Argentina.

He may not have been lying about the money being unavailable because funds had already been wired from the Treasury to an Argentinian bank.

Does Trump do things like that?
Hell yes he does things like that, or at least allows things to be done like that. Anyone remember DOGE?

He may not have been lying about the money being unavailable because funds had already been wired from the Treasury to an Argentinian bank.

We loaned 20 billion and the INF loaned 20 billion. Our usual method is to guarantee loans, but I'm not sure about this case. INF gets paid back too, but usually has rigid economic requirements.

Oops. IMF not INF.

What's your read on how SNAP will be viewed? Mine is that MAGAs will figure out how to blame the Dems, something totally illogical, and we'll hear marco blaring it out.

The interruption in SNAP benefits will be resolved once the funding bill is approved by the House, which should happen early next week. So that interruption will probably be a relative non-issue by the time we get to the midterms. The GOP will message that it's all the Democrats' fault for holding the government "hostage" in the first place, as they have from the start.

The GOP will message that it's all the Democrats' fault for holding the government "hostage" in the first place, as they have from the start.


And so belief will fall along the lines of current belief, as I can't see them changing. Yep.

I read Shumer as floating the ACA extension for one year because he saw (sensed) what was happening with the eight, and hoped that would underscore it was about the ACA extension and not the rest of the "bargaining chips". He likely saw the defection coming as the "less than eight" were out trying to find their 7th and 8th to make the defection complete. Am I missing something?

The interruption in SNAP benefits will be resolved once the funding bill is approved by the House, which should happen early next week.

*IF* the House approves the bill as written by the Senate. The Senate version apparently funds SNAP through next September, while other funding ends January 30. What if the House votes to end SNAP on January 30? Trump has made it clear he regards SNAP as expendable.

Steve

The Democrats weren't trading off between the people who were suffering in the shutdown versus the people who will suffer with the ACA subsidy expiration.

And, so now, they are going to receive the ire of the ACA subscribers because they blinked first. If is was truly 1/3 1/3 1/3, as you asserted, then the Dems would still have the edge from the ACA folks. Having caved, the ACA folks are as likely to be angry with the Dems as the Reps. Also, I think the Reps would have had to cave because so many of their members represent people who rely on SNAP. Red states take the lion's share of social benefits. MTG was feeling it, as were some others.

I think the Dems could have, and probably should have, held out a bit longer to force the Reps to make some hard votes to prevent food riots in their districts.

If you fight a war with one hand tied behind your back, you lose. You have to use the enemy's tactics (where they are successful) or you'll get your head handed to you. As the Dems just did.

*IF* the House approves the bill as written by the Senate. The Senate version apparently funds SNAP through next September, while other funding ends January 30. What if the House votes to end SNAP on January 30? Trump has made it clear he regards SNAP as expendable.

I mean, it's rather implausible that the House would simply end the SNAP program in January altogether - any more than the fact that the current CR only runs through January 30 for everything else means that the Senate thinks that the entirety of the government (other than SNAP) would end in January as well. Instead, it just means that in January, we're coming back to the question (again) of funding the government going forward...and the Senate has tried to just take SNAP (of all programs) off the table from the January debate. IOW, even if there's another shutdown debacle in January (which I wouldn't bet against), at least SNAP won't be part of it.

I imagine that the House will be annoyed at that, since the SNAP funding appears to have been highly motivating in making sure this shutdown only went many weeks instead of many months. They might want to just move SNAP back to track everything else. But we'll see - they may be reluctant to make too many changes.

The law (you do believe in the Rule of Law, don't you?) gives the President both directly and through his designees in the Executive Branch, a great deal of authority to set expenditure priorities during a government shut down.

But that's now what Trump claimed.

"Benefits dependent on shutdown resolution: In a post on Truth Social, Trump explicitly stated that "SNAP benefits will not be distributed until Congress ends the federal government shutdown"."

So, Trump and his admin deliberately decided not to use funds authorized by Congress and held in reserve for such purposes as the shutdown to inflict pain for political purposes - so Trump and co. are responsible.

I imagine that the House will be annoyed at that, since the SNAP funding appears to have been highly motivating in making sure this shutdown only went many weeks instead of many months. They might want to just move SNAP back to track everything else. But we'll see - they may be reluctant to make too many changes.

The House isn't going to cut SNAP. What's the upside there? Funding it through next September takes it off the table in case the democrats want to shut the government down in January again. If I'm the GOP I fund air traffic control until then also.

Instead, it just means that in January, we're coming back to the question (again) of funding the government going forward...and the Senate has tried to just take SNAP (of all programs) off the table from the January debate.

Yes, that is what the Senate version reportedly does. Doesn't mean a thing unless the House agrees.

Recall the screws the BBB puts to SNAP:

Increases the upper age exception to 65 and older.

Limits the exception based on responsibility to care for a dependent child to those with a child under 14 years of age.

Removes exceptions for homeless individuals, veterans, and those 24 and younger who aged out of foster care.

Establishes new exceptions for “an Indian”, “Urban Indian” and “California Indian” as defined in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/obbb-implementation

Under the BBB, an able bodied person is required to work 80 hours/month.

Trump's recent statement:

“When I was president, the number that you’re talking about was a tiny fraction of what it is now. Biden went totally crazy. Gave it to anybody that would ask,” the president claimed. He continued, “Gave it to people that were able-bodied, had no problem. Anybody that would ask….This wasn’t meant for that. It was meant for people that had real problems. In many cases, people that were down and out, people that could be saved. “

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/t-everything-a...

Lord Trump could decide that "able bodied" people should not get SNAP at all. He could demand they go out and work more hours instead. He could require anyone claiming to not be able bodied prove it, the same way people need to prove disability to be on SS Disability.

Steve

Steve203: “When I was president, the number that you’re talking about was a tiny fraction of what it is now. Biden went totally crazy. Gave it to anybody that would ask,” the president claimed.

Umm, a tiny fraction? A lie, of course.

               Fiscal Year	Average Monthly Participants (millions)

                  2017	                   42.317 million 

                  2018	                   40.776 million 

                  2019	                   35.702 million 

                  2020	                   39.853 million 

                  2021	                   41.604 million 

                  2022	                   41.208 million 

                  2023	                   42.177 million 

                  2024	                   41.703 million 

Between March 2022 and March 2023, some of the largest increases in the number of recipients took place in Louisiana (+17.1 %), California (+12.1 %), and Florida (+9.8 %).

The larger picture--the 7 Dems & 1 Angus Senators who voted for cloture to unshut the government sent a very loud and clear message to King Schumer and his mini-Kings and Queens in the Senate, as well as Whackie Hakeem and all the other Dem clowns, fools, and jesters in the House of Reps.

That message is:

"Sure, try to negotiate the best long-term deal you can get for the Dems. But don't you DARE pull this blackmail shutdown nonsense again in January. It ain't gonna fly. You wasted 40+ days with performative drama and burned up whatever political capital you had."

Umm, a tiny fraction? A lie, of course.

From time to time, I mention one of my favorite books "How To Lie With Statistics". The "supply side economic miracle" is buttressed by cherry picked economic and stock market numbers taken from the bottom of the recession in 82.

Same thing with the SNAP numbers, take the lowest reading from the last Trump regime, 35.702 million in 2019, and the highest read during the Biden administration, 42.177 million in 2023. That's an 18% increase. Flavor with typical media hype, and it's a "HUGE" increase.

Then add in the GOP talking points about 'personal responsibility" and "the dignity of work", and you have a case for starving people into working more hours.

Steve

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.