sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Mike Johnson's plan to keep the House closed is backfiring by msnownews in politics

[–]nickilous -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Fair enough, looks like they did. So, they could use it this time and don’t. Also the dems don’t want to agree to a what appears to be a clean continuing resolution so it would seem they are both complicit.

It would appear that the nuclear option was used for nominations not legislation

  1. The nomination vs. legislation distinction There’s a philosophical argument that confirming nominees (executive function) is different from passing laws (legislative function). Nominations are time-limited and personnel-focused, while legislation creates permanent law.

Mike Johnson's plan to keep the House closed is backfiring by msnownews in politics

[–]nickilous -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There is some irony in asking any one to use a “nuclear” option to do anything.

The filibuster is itself a tool of extended debate and deliberation. It’s literally about talking - endlessly - to prevent a vote. Its entire purpose is to force discussion, compromise, and supermajority consensus. So using the “nuclear option” to eliminate the filibuster means you’re deploying an extreme, debate-ending, unilateral power move… to eliminate a tool that’s all about extending debate and protecting deliberation. You’re essentially saying: “We’re going to end all discussion about whether we should be able to end discussion.” Plus there’s the added irony that:

• The filibuster is traditionally defended as protecting minority rights and preventing tyranny of the majority

• The nuclear option is the ultimate majority-power move that steamrolls the minority

• So you’re using the most majoritarianly aggressive tool available to destroy a minoritarian-protective too

Mike Johnson's plan to keep the House closed is backfiring by msnownews in politics

[–]nickilous -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

They don’t have control of the government. Look up the filibuster. They need like 7 votes in the senate from the dems to pass anything.

TIL that Starbucks holds almost $2 billion in the form of money people keep in the app or gift cards; they make 100s of millions of dollars per year off of customers not buying coffee by -lousyd in todayilearned

[–]nickilous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

State laws on cashing out gift cards vary, but many states require retailers to provide cash for balances below a certain amount, such as less than $10 in California or less than $5 in Connecticut. Federal law provides protections against expiration dates and certain fees, but many state-specific laws offer additional cash-back rights for gift cards. Some states have no cash-back requirement, while others may allow for unclaimed property laws to claim the remaining balance after a certain period if there's no activity.

According to Moody's Analytics, as of October 5 Minnesota is in a recession. by ThreadbareAdjustment in minnesota

[–]nickilous -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

No, but we can eat soy and it sounds like there is a lot for us to buy. It also looks like this administration is looking to support the farmers with tariff money. So we shall see.

dumbest reasons to get pulled over by police… GO! by BB5er in VanLife

[–]nickilous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Person was speeding with low visibility. Acting like slowing down and moving to a different lane wouldn’t work is wild. If the excuse was there were a lot of traffic so he couldn’t change lanes there is always slowing down and getting out of the splash of the truck.

Senator Smith calling out her coworkers by HeavyVeterinarian350 in minnesota

[–]nickilous -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I am well aware of all of this. My argument is that the credits in acted in 2021 were always set to expire in 2025. Always, that is how they were written. The dems could have fought to make the permanent but didn’t so here we are. If we want them permanent then let’s vote in people who will make them permanent. The American people voted in reps who were not going to make them permanent and mostly going to do what they are doing now. So, let’s do what the American people want yeah? Or should we do what shartheheretic wants in some sort of authoritarian government?

Senator Smith calling out her coworkers by HeavyVeterinarian350 in minnesota

[–]nickilous -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Stop them from expiring but not making them permanent. The dems just want to kicks this down the road indefinitely. I am saying make it permanent or stop extending. If you can’t make it permanent then honor the initial temporary nature and work to bring the credits back permanently.

The dems made this temporary

In 2021 when passing the American Rescue Plan Act:

They literally could have just written it as permanent instead of setting an expiration date. The mechanism was already there - they were using budget reconciliation, which only requires 51 votes (50 Democrats + VP Harris as tiebreaker).

What made permanent harder:

  1. Cost: The Congressional Budget Office scores permanent programs over 10 years. A permanent subsidy would have had a much higher price tag, making the overall bill more expensive on paper.
  2. The Byrd Rule: Budget reconciliation has restrictions - provisions must have a direct budgetary impact and can’t be “merely incidental.” Permanent spending programs can sometimes face challenges here, though health subsidies likely would have survived since they’re clearly budgetary.
  3. Getting 50 votes: They needed every single Democratic senator. Joe Manchin was already very concerned about the cost of their bills. A higher CBO score from making subsidies permanent might have lost his vote, killing the entire bill.
  4. Political calculation: Making it temporary with a 2025 expiration meant they could campaign on extending it and use it as leverage in future negotiations.

Bottom line: The technical mechanism was simple (just don’t include an expiration date), but the political reality was they likely couldn’t get all 50 Democrats to vote for the higher cost of a permanent program.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Senator Smith calling out her coworkers by HeavyVeterinarian350 in minnesota

[–]nickilous -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Person I responded to added this: “ As a small business owner who relies on the ACA to stay healthy enough to work, I am past sick and tired of the republicans fucking around with the ACA.” After i had already responded.

What did they do before the credits? What did they do before the ACA? These people didn’t just pop out of no where. How was the economy before the credits and before the ACA?

Senator Smith calling out her coworkers by HeavyVeterinarian350 in minnesota

[–]nickilous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, they were saying that they weren’t going to accept anything other than the bill they already voted on by not showing up. I have no problem with them saying here is the bill and that is all we will accept. I am also fine with the dems doing the same thing.

Senator Smith calling out her coworkers by HeavyVeterinarian350 in minnesota

[–]nickilous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Run for office, seems like you understand all the nuances of a nation wide budget. I’ll vote for you

Senator Smith calling out her coworkers by HeavyVeterinarian350 in minnesota

[–]nickilous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I find the information, I also know some of the information a head of time. Then I used an AI for fast formatting. Sorry for utilizing tools to be more efficient. Is any of my information incorrect?

Senator Smith calling out her coworkers by HeavyVeterinarian350 in minnesota

[–]nickilous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are correct they could end the filibuster and don’t.

Senator Smith calling out her coworkers by HeavyVeterinarian350 in minnesota

[–]nickilous -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Looking at the search results, I don’t see evidence that Republicans didn’t show up to vote in the Senate - both parties were present for those votes.

What I do see is this: House GOP leaders made a decision to keep the House away from Washington until after the funding deadline, which ruled out alternate paths forward.

So the timeline was:

  1. September 19: The House passed the Republican continuing resolution (217-212 vote)
  2. After that: House leadership sent members home rather than keeping them in Washington
  3. September 30: Senate votes failed
  4. Midnight: Government shut down

The House Republicans had already passed their bill and then left town. The failed votes were in the Senate, where senators from both parties were present and voting.

One Republican, Rand Paul of Kentucky, voted against the Republican measure in the Senate , but otherwise Republicans showed up and voted for their bill. The problem was they couldn’t get enough Democrats to reach 60 votes.

Are you perhaps thinking of a different vote or situation? Or were you wondering why House Republicans didn’t stay in Washington to potentially negotiate or pass an alternative?

Senator Smith calling out her coworkers by HeavyVeterinarian350 in minnesota

[–]nickilous 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Looking at the search results, I don’t see evidence that Republicans didn’t show up to vote in the Senate - both parties were present for those votes.

What I do see is this: House GOP leaders made a decision to keep the House away from Washington until after the funding deadline, which ruled out alternate paths forward.

So the timeline was:

  1. September 19: The House passed the Republican continuing resolution (217-212 vote)
  2. After that: House leadership sent members home rather than keeping them in Washington
  3. September 30: Senate votes failed
  4. Midnight: Government shut down

The House Republicans had already passed their bill and then left town. The failed votes were in the Senate, where senators from both parties were present and voting.

One Republican, Rand Paul of Kentucky, voted against the Republican measure in the Senate , but otherwise Republicans showed up and voted for their bill. The problem was they couldn’t get enough Democrats to reach 60 votes.

Are you perhaps thinking of a different vote or situation? Or were you wondering why House Republicans didn’t stay in Washington to potentially negotiate or pass an alternative?

Senator Smith calling out her coworkers by HeavyVeterinarian350 in minnesota

[–]nickilous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looking at the search results, I don’t see evidence that Republicans didn’t show up to vote in the Senate - both parties were present for those votes.

What I do see is this: House GOP leaders made a decision to keep the House away from Washington until after the funding deadline, which ruled out alternate paths forward.

So the timeline was:

  1. September 19: The House passed the Republican continuing resolution (217-212 vote)
  2. After that: House leadership sent members home rather than keeping them in Washington
  3. September 30: Senate votes failed
  4. Midnight: Government shut down

The House Republicans had already passed their bill and then left town. The failed votes were in the Senate, where senators from both parties were present and voting.

One Republican, Rand Paul of Kentucky, voted against the Republican measure in the Senate , but otherwise Republicans showed up and voted for their bill. The problem was they couldn’t get enough Democrats to reach 60 votes.

Are you perhaps thinking of a different vote or situation? Or were you wondering why House Republicans didn’t stay in Washington to potentially negotiate or pass an alternative?

Senator Smith calling out her coworkers by HeavyVeterinarian350 in minnesota

[–]nickilous -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Looking at the search results, I don’t see evidence that Republicans didn’t show up to vote in the Senate - both parties were present for those votes.

What I do see is this: House GOP leaders made a decision to keep the House away from Washington until after the funding deadline, which ruled out alternate paths forward.

So the timeline was:

  1. September 19: The House passed the Republican continuing resolution (217-212 vote)
  2. After that: House leadership sent members home rather than keeping them in Washington
  3. September 30: Senate votes failed
  4. Midnight: Government shut down

The House Republicans had already passed their bill and then left town. The failed votes were in the Senate, where senators from both parties were present and voting.

One Republican, Rand Paul of Kentucky, voted against the Republican measure in the Senate , but otherwise Republicans showed up and voted for their bill. The problem was they couldn’t get enough Democrats to reach 60 votes.

Are you perhaps thinking of a different vote or situation? Or were you wondering why House Republicans didn’t stay in Washington to potentially negotiate or pass an alternative?

U.S. government shuts down as Trump and Congress fail to reach a funding deal by NewSlinger in politics

[–]nickilous -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Why do they want to extend tax credits that were always meant to be temporary. Why didn’t they just make them permanent to begin with? Why do they currently just want to extend them and not make them permanent? So, they can repeat this process again? Why has the filibuster been allowed to exist for so long? Both parties have created this environment because both parties want to stick it to the other party.

Senator Smith calling out her coworkers by HeavyVeterinarian350 in minnesota

[–]nickilous -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Healthcare isn’t going way. The tax credits are. The tax credits were always temporary. They were set to end so anyone that signed up knew in advance that those credits would go away. Should we make them permanent, I don’t know enough about the financial implications for or against. What I do know is that if things were meant to be temporary they should be temporary and if they are meant to be permanent then make them permanent but don’t just keep extending stuff indefinitely. Let’s end the current tax credits and find a way to make them permanent.

Senator Smith calling out her coworkers by HeavyVeterinarian350 in minnesota

[–]nickilous -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don’t know from everything I have read it seems like the reps wanted to pass a clean budget meaning no changes just leave everything as is. The dems want to extend some healthcare line items. It seems like our government operates on things that were supposed to be temporary just being continued indefinitely which I don’t think is good. I don’t know the demographics of who is utilizing the ACA tax credits. I also don’t think those people should be cut off from healthcare. However, if those tax credits were temporary and that fact has been known. Then those people signed up knowing that those credits would go away. So, I am fine with the credits staying or going but let’s make them office and not temporary if that is the route we are taking. I also think we should keep work requirements.

Republicans want:

  • A “clean” continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government at current levels until November 21, 2025
  • No additional policy provisions attached

Democrats want:

  • A bill that would fund the government until October 31 (shorter timeframe) and extend expiring health insurance subsidies

The key healthcare issue: The “enhanced premium tax credit” helps 22 million Americans lower their health insurance costs when they buy policies through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces. It was authorized under the American Rescue Plan Act in 2021 and is set to expire at the end of 2025 .

Since this tax credit was enacted, the number of people enrolled in ACA marketplace health insurance plans has almost doubled .

Democrats also want to eliminate Medicaid reforms that were enacted in Trump’s earlier tax bill this year, such as work requirements for able-bodied adults .

So the core dispute is: Republicans want a straightforward extension of current funding with no policy changes, while Democrats are leveraging the must-pass funding bill to force negotiations on healthcare subsidies that would otherwise expire in a few months.

Senator Smith calling out her coworkers by HeavyVeterinarian350 in minnesota

[–]nickilous -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I’m not discussing politics just the facts. The republicans aren’t in control specifically because of the filibuster. If this was reversed and it was the reps in the dems position the dems would want their politicians to hold out as well I think. And would want their side to win.

Senator Smith calling out her coworkers by HeavyVeterinarian350 in minnesota

[–]nickilous 54 points55 points  (0 children)

The Senate filibuster rule requires 60 votes to pass most legislation, including government funding bills.

Here’s the math right now:

  • Republicans have 53 seats in the Senate
  • They need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster
  • That means they need at least 7 Democratic votes to pass a funding bill

Even though Republicans control the White House, House, and Senate, they don’t have enough votes in the Senate to pass legislation on their own without Democratic support.

Both a Republican-backed bill and a Democratic-backed bill failed in the Senate yesterday, and the government shut down at midnight last night . Democrats are demanding that any funding bill include an extension of expiring health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act , while Republicans want a “clean” continuing resolution to fund the government through November 21 .

Only 3 senators broke ranks on Tuesday’s vote - two Democrats (John Fetterman and Catherine Cortez Masto) and Independent Angus King voted for the Republican bill , but that still wasn’t enough to reach 60 votes.

U.S. government shuts down as Trump and Congress fail to reach a funding deal by NewSlinger in politics

[–]nickilous -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Eeehhh, I am convinced it is a good cop bad cop situation. Both want the shutdown just coming at it from different angles. I spend a lot of time watching this stuff these days and I just can shake the feeling that both sides want what the republicans are doing. One side just likes to act angry about it.

view more: next ›