The real SotU: AOC owns Trump -- and made her own sweater!
March 9, 2025 11:59 PM Subscribe
AOC responds to Trump's Congressional Address - "It's all about Medicaid. It's all about what they're not saying. Don't you find it interesting that Donald Trump, if you listen to that speech, Donald Trump said a lot of things, he said a lot of random things about studies and waste and all this other stuff. He did not talk about Medicaid. Not once. And as a certain right-wing operative likes to say: MAGA's on Medicaid. And MAGA Trump is coming for your Medicaid. MAGA Republicans are coming for your Medicaid. And the reason they are rattling off all of these things because -- listen, where there is waste, we should address it, where there is corruption, we should address it, where there's fraud and abuse, we should address it -- but don't you think that if you found a bunch of money in the couch cushions that you would put that to expanding Medicaid, improving schools, fixing our roads, right, but that's not what they're planning on doing."
What's in the House GOP's Budget Resolution? Here's What to Know About the Plan. - "Their plan calls for at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over a 10-year period and instructs a number of committees to find ways to reduce their budget impact, while increasing spending for several other issue areas. The House Ways and Means Committee is tasked with implementing the $4.5 trillion in tax cuts over a decade. The resolution would also raise the debt ceiling by $4 trillion."
Why investors should be worrying about impoundment - "Trump said last year that he did not accept the 1974 law. So, when his Doge cost-cutting team began their spending review-cum-rampage in January, the White House tested 'impoundment' by freezing some funding flows."
What If the Federal Government Begins Defying Court Orders? - "Would a determined executive ever fall back in the end on the core power asymmetry between the two branches—it has guns, and the judges don’t? Morrison and Pildes point out that the consequences could quickly undermine some of the national strength that a president might be counting on for other purposes. 'The US economy enjoys a 'safe harbor premium,' they write. 'The longstanding stability and certainty of our independent judicial system guarantee reliable protection of contract and property rights, which in turn enables long-term investments by the US business community and attracts immense foreign investment in the economy.' If the wheels come off constitutionally, the United States might stop being the world's preferred investment destination, with economic consequences that are unknowable but probably very bad. It's hard to imagine even a Napoleon wanting to embark on that winter campaign." (On the Expansion of Executive Power: An Overview)
also btw...
-Trump Advisers Want to Strip Public Spending From the GDP Tally. Why It Makes No Sense. (538: Why it matters that Trump is deleting government data)
-Inside DOGE's Clash With the Federal Workforce (What Is the Treasury Payment System DOGE Wants to Control?, What even is DOGE?)
-Democracy Is Collapsing: This 1971 Playbook Started It All (The Memo That Hijacked American Democracy)
-You Are Witnessing the Death of American Capitalism (Perplexity, how does fealty relate to feudalism?*)
-Trump Team Tests Job Candidates by Asking Who Won the 2020 Election
-Can White Men Finally Stop Complaining?
-Elon Just Woke Up Prime Bill Burr
No, they can't control us
No, they can't control you
No, they can't control us
But we can control each other
We build our own world
--Ab-Soul's Outro, Section.80 - Kendrick Lamar
The reason they're shaking all these couch cushions, and the reason that they are rattling off all these numbers, is because all those numbers they are trying to add up into the one of the most massive tax cuts for billionaires and the 1% probably in modern American history, and do not forget that. Don't forget that.Who benefits from Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act extension - "The largest tax cuts would accrue to the highest-income families, the Treasury said. Household in the top 5% — who earn more than $450,000 a year, roughly — are the 'biggest winners,' according to a July 2024 analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. They'd get over 45% of the benefits of extending the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it said. A Penn Wharton Budget Model analysis on the impacts of the broad Republican tax plan had a similar finding. The bottom 80% of income earners would get 29% of the total value of proposed tax cuts in 2026, according to the Wharton analysis, issued Thursday. The top 10% would get 56% of the value, it said."
It's not just about what Trump is saying. It's about the big obvious things that he is ignoring y'all, okay, Medicaid. Don't you find it interesting that he did not mention Medicaid once, once... One of the largest insurers in the United States, that impacts most Americans and, by the way 30% of Medicaid money goes to Medicare recipients, too.
So he's doing that for a reason because he's scared. If he was confident about his attacks on Medicaid he would have said something, wouldn't he? He's confident about his attacks on immigrants. He's confident about his attacks on federal workers. He's confident about all those things. Why won't he own up, and Republicans own up to their attacks on Medicaid.
And if you are a Donald Trump supporter and you believe him when he says we're not going to touch Medicaid, why wouldn't he say that in his speech. I mean it's one of the most vulnerable points that Republicans have right now is this attack on Medicaid. They know it's sinking them. In fact, the NRCC -- this is an organization that's like kind of in charge of electing Republicans across the country -- they came in this week and they told every Republican in the House of Representatives to stop doing town halls, to stop doing town halls, why? Why? Because they're getting too much heat over Medicaid, and personally, I think they are trying to bully Republicans to get in line, to try to line up to vote to gut Medicaid and so they want to extract Republicans out of their communities, out of their districts, so they don't feel as connected, so they isolate them so they can be more easily manipulated and bullied into cutting Medicaid, and if Donald Trump were so proud about it, he would own it, and if it wasn't true this is a massive political vulnerability, he could have ended tonight a lot of the speculation and a lot of the vulnerability that Republicans were experiencing right now. If he went up on that podium and said we're not going to touch Medicaid. But he didn't say that did he. He didn't say that. Mark my words: They're coming after it.
And all of that rattling off on Social Security and trying to frame Social Security as largely wasteful, this idea that there's like checks going out, tons of Social Security checks going out to dead people. No, no, no. Social security monitors who passes away and processes who passes away, that doesn't mean they're cutting a check to people who pass away. They are setting all of this up. They are trying to trick you. They're trying to trick your grandparents. They're trying to trick young people into thinking that it's all wasteful so that they can get away with cutting it to pieces. It's the same thing with Medicaid.
Mike Johnson is going on television talking about how people who are on Medicaid are just all able-bodied 29-year-old young men who are playing video games. Medicaid, let me tell you all, Republicans have attacked Medicaid so often for decades that any little sliver of fat that you can possibly gut from it has largely all been trimmed away.
This is not the first time that Republicans have gone up, and frankly anybody has gone up, to talk about efficiency and so understand: I'm talking directly to Republicans right now because I know some of y'all love to be on my feeds, so welcome and I'm happy, that you're here. To all the Republicans who are on Medicare, who are on Medicaid, who maybe you're on children's health insurance and, by the way, a lot of states name these insurance programs different things -- like New York has a different children's health insurance program and so on and so forth -- so if you have like a little state healthcare program, it's probably public funded or it might have some sort of public connection to it, and I want you to ask your representative if they're going to touch any Medicaid dollars, at all, and if they try to tell you, "oh yeah, there's a ton of waste," ask them, how much? How much waste? Like ask for the receipt. Ask for the receipt. If they want to say there's waste, ask for the receipt.
Because what they are trying to cut from Medicaid, I'm going to tell you, is somewhere to the tune of 880 billion dollars from Medicaid. Okay, $880 billion, and I sit on the committee that Medicaid goes through -- aaaand the math ain't mathin'. Even when you talk to Republicans, their wildest dream fantasy of the amount of so-called waste that they have identified, if you believe absolutely everything, which like they include long-term care as waste, like they include actual certain kinds of healthcare as wasteful, in their wildest fantasies their number is still $50 billion.
So where where's the other $830 billion coming from. It's coming from Grandma. It's coming from your prescriptions. It's coming from your care. It's coming from your your insulin. It's coming from your kids copay.
They. Are. Setting. Up. To. Rob. You. To rob you. And that is the moral of the story of this state of the union tonight. He was yammering, and he was blabbering, and he was reading off listicles like this was the longest BuzzFeed right-wing compilation of all time. It was boring. It was, yes, it was unsettling, very dangerous in terms of how he is tearing apart US alliances, tearing tearing apart our allies, attacking our allies. It's not to undermine the seriousness of what he is doing, but it is to really communicate that he was trying to dance around their number one priority, which is to rob and gut Medicaid, Medicare and all of our public systems, Social Security, etc., in order to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. Billionaires.
And let me tell you something. As far as taxes go. He only actually talked about about, what was it, no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security benefits and no tax on overtime. I can talk about those specific things, but let me tell you something, those tax cuts are a little, little, little tiny line in terms of the entire tax bill. It is like 90%, well maybe not 90, but it is overwhelmingly tax cuts for billionaires, corporations. It's the writeoffs on the yachts. It's the write offs on the private jets. It's the rich getting richer. This bill is the rich getting richer and then they put as little lipstick on a pig, these little crumbs of no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security benefits and no tax on over time.
What's in the House GOP's Budget Resolution? Here's What to Know About the Plan. - "Their plan calls for at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over a 10-year period and instructs a number of committees to find ways to reduce their budget impact, while increasing spending for several other issue areas. The House Ways and Means Committee is tasked with implementing the $4.5 trillion in tax cuts over a decade. The resolution would also raise the debt ceiling by $4 trillion."
Here are the committees that are tasked with finding the cuts:so most of that $880 billion in cuts from energy and commerce (AOC's committee ;) is gunning for Medicaid:The final product must be deficit-neutral to comply with reconciliation rules, and Republicans are relying on economic projections that show the tax cuts would spur economic growth that would increase tax revenues. Those projections have been questioned by outside experts and Democrats who describe them as overly optimistic. One analysis found that the budget proposal would allow for a deficit increase of $2.8 trillion through 2034.
- At least $880 billion by the Energy and Commerce Committee
- At least $330 billion by the Education and Workforce Committee
- At least $230 billion by the Agriculture Committee
- At least $50 billion by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee
- At least $10 billion by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
- At least $1 billion by the Financial Services Committee
- At least $1 billion by the Natural Resources Committee
- Republicans Downplay Medicaid Cuts Amid Town Hall Voter Backlash - "Several Republicans warned about the budget's political risks, including moderate members who have warned against cutting social programs such as Medicaid and food assistance, and far-right lawmakers who complain the resolution wouldn't cut deep enough. Johnson can lose only one or two Republicans, depending on attendance, and still win a vote without Democratic support. To sway the moderates, Johnson and his lieutenants in the House GOP have fashioned a new talking point that insists the budget would not actually cut Medicaid because the word 'Medicaid' isn't in the resolution. 'It doesn't even mention Medicaid in the bill,' Johnson said. Johnson is relying on a quirk of the budget process to obscure the intent of the budget. It's true the document doesn't mention Medicaid; instead, it directs the House Energy and Commerce Committee to come up with $880 billion worth of cuts over a decade to the programs under its jurisdiction, the largest of which happens to be... Medicaid."
- Medicaid insures 1 in 5 Americans. This is how the GOP budget could impact coverage. - "The budget resolution calls for the Energy and Commerce Committee to find $880 billion in savings and spending reductions from programs under its jurisdiction... Total Medicaid spending surpassed $871 billion in 2023, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services."
- US budget botches subtraction and multiplication - "Medicaid spending, for example, punches above its weight economically. Every $1 spent leads to $1.50 of output, largely by keeping Americans healthier, according to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas."
- Medicaid covers kids, moms and grandmoms. Now it could be on the chopping block. - "If agreed upon by the Senate, the budget resolution passed this week by the Republican-led House would extend the 2017 tax cuts that mostly benefited wealthier Americans, and require the federal government to slash $2 trillion in spending. Budget experts warn the plan could require dramatic changes and cuts to Medicaid, the federal health insurance program that covers more than 70 million Americans, or roughly one in five people across the country. It still remains unclear if, and how, Congress could curtail Medicaid spending. But any cuts could impact large swaths of the American public. About 60% of American adults have either used Medicaid for health care coverage or know a family member or close friend who has used the program, according to a recent survey conducted by The Kaiser Family Foundation."
- House Passes Budget Targeting Medicaid, Food Aid to Pave Way for Tax Cuts - "Republican leaders have supported Medicaid work requirements and cracking down on improper payments, but those moves would not generate the required savings, making swing-district Republicans nervous about cuts to benefits and payments to providers."
- Republicans consider major budget change to obscure deficit impact of extending Trump's tax cuts - "Senate Republicans want to use a different scoring method called the 'current policy' baseline, which would assume that extending tax cuts costs $0 because they're already law."
- Here Comes the Hard Part for GOP's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' for Trump's Agenda - "A band of New York Republicans has made clear to Johnson (R-Louisiana) that any GOP tax bill must raise the cap on state and local tax deductions, or SALT. A handful of conservative hard-liners have competing demands that the legislation must reduce the national debt. More moderate members have voiced concerns about proposed cuts to social safety net programs, including Medicaid. Rep. Thomas Massie (Kentucky), a leading budget hawk, has already signaled he opposes the whole thing — and U.S. DOGE Service overseer Elon Musk appears to agree. After a brief honeymoon, Republicans are coming to grips with the fact that despite chalking up an early legislative win, internal divisions could still sink Trump's agenda and imperil their majority in the 2026 midterm elections."
The path to achieve that accounting change is uncertain. GOP aides believe it would begin with Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., making an executive decision to pursue the alternative scoring method.
But even if Senate Republicans back him up, establishing it in practice is murkier and could run into roadblocks under the budget law that governs the process. Democrats could try to block it by appealing to the Senate parliamentarian, who referees disputes during the budget reconciliation process...
Republicans may also face some internal resistance from deficit hawks who consider that idea a gimmick, especially in the House... Democrats could extend temporary programs indefinitely without finding any mechanisms to pay for it. They could create a costly program on a one-year basis and make it permanent the following year by scoring it at a cost of $0, given that it’s already in law. Still, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., endorsed the idea.
Why investors should be worrying about impoundment - "Trump said last year that he did not accept the 1974 law. So, when his Doge cost-cutting team began their spending review-cum-rampage in January, the White House tested 'impoundment' by freezing some funding flows."
That was partly overturned by courts. But this March the issue could return on a much bigger scale, potentially sparking a constitutional battle or market jolt. “It’s a crisis in the making,” one legal scholar tells me. The reason is the 2025 and 2026 fiscal budget process... if a stalemate happens, Trump’s team is considering “impoundment”, not just around this bill but future budget plans.The Rational Basis Test Is an Unconstitutional Kludge - "The endlessly permissive rational basis test doesn't just enable judges to have their constitutional cake and eat it too by proclaiming the existence of rights they have no real intention of protecting—it even violates the very Constitution of which it makes such a mockery."
That will spark legal and constitutional challenges. But Eric Teetsel, a Maga adviser, insists Trump will win. “We are living in a fairly unprecedented moment,” he told Bannon’s radio show this week. “The central holding of impoundment has never been before the Supreme Court and we think it will prevail.”
If so, there are three implications. One is that Trump will become even more autocratic, controlling America’s purse strings. The second is that there will be even more warfare between Maga populists, techno-libertarians and old-style constitution-loving Republicans. The third is that bond investors will need to rethink fiscal policy. For while they are used to parsing fiscal risks around congressional processes, they do not know how to price fiscal autocracy.
What If the Federal Government Begins Defying Court Orders? - "Would a determined executive ever fall back in the end on the core power asymmetry between the two branches—it has guns, and the judges don’t? Morrison and Pildes point out that the consequences could quickly undermine some of the national strength that a president might be counting on for other purposes. 'The US economy enjoys a 'safe harbor premium,' they write. 'The longstanding stability and certainty of our independent judicial system guarantee reliable protection of contract and property rights, which in turn enables long-term investments by the US business community and attracts immense foreign investment in the economy.' If the wheels come off constitutionally, the United States might stop being the world's preferred investment destination, with economic consequences that are unknowable but probably very bad. It's hard to imagine even a Napoleon wanting to embark on that winter campaign." (On the Expansion of Executive Power: An Overview)
- 'We're in a dark space,' US judge says on rising threats
- Judges face rise in threats as Musk blasts them over rulings
- 'Slap in the face:' Bongino appointment sends shockwaves through FBI
- Government ethics watchdog fired by Trump drops lawsuit challenging dismissal
also btw...
-Trump Advisers Want to Strip Public Spending From the GDP Tally. Why It Makes No Sense. (538: Why it matters that Trump is deleting government data)
-Inside DOGE's Clash With the Federal Workforce (What Is the Treasury Payment System DOGE Wants to Control?, What even is DOGE?)
-Democracy Is Collapsing: This 1971 Playbook Started It All (The Memo That Hijacked American Democracy)
-You Are Witnessing the Death of American Capitalism (Perplexity, how does fealty relate to feudalism?*)
-Trump Team Tests Job Candidates by Asking Who Won the 2020 Election
-Can White Men Finally Stop Complaining?
-Elon Just Woke Up Prime Bill Burr
No, they can't control you
No, they can't control us
But we can control each other
We build our own world
--Ab-Soul's Outro, Section.80 - Kendrick Lamar
In his Sunday podcast, Keith Olbermann called for the immediate removal of Jeffries/Neguse/Clark from House leadership and called out by name each of the 10 Dems voting to censure Al Green, using the epithet "asshole" after each name.
I think he may be onto something.
posted by zaixfeep at 12:58 AM on March 10 [37 favorites]
I think he may be onto something.
posted by zaixfeep at 12:58 AM on March 10 [37 favorites]
Kitchen table politics. Late night pillow talk with Mom and Dad about how to pay the rent with all the other bills getting higher. People who were promised a real change are now visiting the local food bank on the regular, and meeting their neighbors there. This is reporting from the street, where men are scraping Trump stickers off their truck, and bitching at the bar about prices for everything from diapers to donuts to diesel fuel. No one in this neck of the woods is the least bit shy about saying they feel like a rube. They’ve seen the bearded lady at the MAGA circus, and feel cheated for ever buying a ticket. They are punching up at Trump, and that’s the news.
posted by robbyrobs at 3:38 AM on March 10 [29 favorites]
posted by robbyrobs at 3:38 AM on March 10 [29 favorites]
Why may Trump’s $880 billion in spending cuts come from Medicaid? Because otherwise the math doesn’t add up.
posted by robbyrobs at 3:38 AM on March 10 [7 favorites]
posted by robbyrobs at 3:38 AM on March 10 [7 favorites]
RE: Prime Bill Burr
The video first stated that "(joe) rogan-sphere comedians" weren't pushing back on musk's "salute", but then Burr and the narrator also stated that "comedians" in general didn't say anything. I guess they either still mean "rogan-sphere comedians" or white male comedians, because the women and non-white comedians I follow online all said "wow that's a nazi right there".
posted by numaner at 3:53 AM on March 10 [13 favorites]
The video first stated that "(joe) rogan-sphere comedians" weren't pushing back on musk's "salute", but then Burr and the narrator also stated that "comedians" in general didn't say anything. I guess they either still mean "rogan-sphere comedians" or white male comedians, because the women and non-white comedians I follow online all said "wow that's a nazi right there".
posted by numaner at 3:53 AM on March 10 [13 favorites]
In his Sunday podcast, Keith Olbermann called for the immediate removal of Jeffries/Neguse/Clark from House leadership
Good. And I'm even in the dude's district.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:48 AM on March 10 [5 favorites]
Good. And I'm even in the dude's district.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:48 AM on March 10 [5 favorites]
George Carlin was right.
posted by DJZouke at 4:50 AM on March 10 [12 favorites]
posted by DJZouke at 4:50 AM on March 10 [12 favorites]
She SLAMMED Trump! She OWNS him! She's slowly DIGESTING HIM IN AN ACID VAT in her basement!
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 5:04 AM on March 10 [33 favorites]
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 5:04 AM on March 10 [33 favorites]
Interesting investors article on impoundment, thanks kliuless. It'd rock if some market disaster in the US, like a rating downgrade, plus minor legal changes elsewhere like China, or China controlled Africa, triggered real capital flight away from the US.
I'd missed that Steve Bannon supports increasing taxes on the wealthy (Dec 2024) or the US-Ukraine minerals deal (30 min ago).
posted by jeffburdges at 5:16 AM on March 10 [2 favorites]
I'd missed that Steve Bannon supports increasing taxes on the wealthy (Dec 2024) or the US-Ukraine minerals deal (30 min ago).
posted by jeffburdges at 5:16 AM on March 10 [2 favorites]
I speak in jest above but more power to AOC. They are trying to kill people.
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 5:30 AM on March 10 [23 favorites]
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 5:30 AM on March 10 [23 favorites]
There is literally no margin of Dem victory in the midterms that POTUS47 will not declare as 'rigged' and demand his DOJ/FEC/FBI reverse by any means necessary. You know the drill — even on a split ticket the GOP wins are legit and Dem votes are suspect, because of course they are. Any Dem rep/senator who wants to play dead, declare them dead and hold a recall/special election to replace them. Make America Democratic Again.
posted by zaixfeep at 5:30 AM on March 10 [12 favorites]
posted by zaixfeep at 5:30 AM on March 10 [12 favorites]
RE: Prime Bill BurrYou know that he’s super transphobic, right?
posted by pxe2000 at 6:31 AM on March 10 [2 favorites]
hold a recall/
There is no recall provision for Congress.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 6:32 AM on March 10 [1 favorite]
There is no recall provision for Congress.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 6:32 AM on March 10 [1 favorite]
Good. And I'm even in the dude's district.
CALL HIS OFFICE.
posted by rhymedirective at 6:49 AM on March 10 [1 favorite]
CALL HIS OFFICE.
posted by rhymedirective at 6:49 AM on March 10 [1 favorite]
> Good. And I'm even in the dude's district.
CALL HIS OFFICE.
I have been doing so daily. I even attended a call-in town hall Jeffries held and submitted the question that I wanted him to explain EXACTLY WHAT he was doing to stop Trump, but didn't get selected to actually ask said question.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:22 AM on March 10 [11 favorites]
CALL HIS OFFICE.
I have been doing so daily. I even attended a call-in town hall Jeffries held and submitted the question that I wanted him to explain EXACTLY WHAT he was doing to stop Trump, but didn't get selected to actually ask said question.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:22 AM on March 10 [11 favorites]
The Dems in Congress should only vote Present on bills until DOGE is shut down and all its activities reversed. This week Congress has to re-up funding for the government that was frozen last year, the plan is to kick the can down the road to the summer to pass new bills for the next fiscal year starting in October, Trumpo's first FY)
as for:
>They are setting all of this up. They are trying to trick you.
FICA payers were made to overpay their SSA by around $100/mo for most of the 1990s and 00s, by design, because they/we were pre-funding our demographic bulge.
I've seen this play from the GOP coming for 10+ years now, that they want to stiff FICA payers by not legitimately re-monetizing the $2.7T in the trust fund via higher taxation.
(SSA is required by law to retain 1 year of checks in the SSTF, which is currently $1.5T so there's not really $2.7T in the trust fund to be liquidated)
(Yes via MMT the Fed could just take another $1T on its balance sheet but if they are going to do that why overtax us 1983 - 2009 in the first place??)
Medicaid here in California is already a D-Tier system unless you are admitted for hospitalization and they cover your bills.
posted by torokunai2 at 7:28 AM on March 10 [5 favorites]
as for:
>They are setting all of this up. They are trying to trick you.
FICA payers were made to overpay their SSA by around $100/mo for most of the 1990s and 00s, by design, because they/we were pre-funding our demographic bulge.
I've seen this play from the GOP coming for 10+ years now, that they want to stiff FICA payers by not legitimately re-monetizing the $2.7T in the trust fund via higher taxation.
(SSA is required by law to retain 1 year of checks in the SSTF, which is currently $1.5T so there's not really $2.7T in the trust fund to be liquidated)
(Yes via MMT the Fed could just take another $1T on its balance sheet but if they are going to do that why overtax us 1983 - 2009 in the first place??)
Medicaid here in California is already a D-Tier system unless you are admitted for hospitalization and they cover your bills.
posted by torokunai2 at 7:28 AM on March 10 [5 favorites]
the plan is to kick the can down the road
The plan will be what it always is from the Dems. They'll strike a deal with the GOP, pass a bill, when it comes time for the deal, the GOP will forget and the Dems will say 'ahh well, what can ya do?'
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 7:53 AM on March 10 [8 favorites]
The plan will be what it always is from the Dems. They'll strike a deal with the GOP, pass a bill, when it comes time for the deal, the GOP will forget and the Dems will say 'ahh well, what can ya do?'
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 7:53 AM on March 10 [8 favorites]
Thank you for this excellent, excellent post, kliuless. I love AOC but I had not seen this piece.
And thank you for all these excellent related links. There's so much here I want to read and think about. I appreciate the time and care you put into this post. Thank you!
posted by kristi at 8:32 AM on March 10 [13 favorites]
And thank you for all these excellent related links. There's so much here I want to read and think about. I appreciate the time and care you put into this post. Thank you!
posted by kristi at 8:32 AM on March 10 [13 favorites]
There is literally no margin of Dem victory in the midterms that POTUS47 will not declare as 'rigged' and demand his DOJ/FEC/FBI reverse by any means necessary. You know the drill — even on a split ticket the GOP wins are legit and Dem votes are suspect, because of course they are. Any Dem rep/senator who wants to play dead, declare them dead and hold a recall/special election to replace them. Make America Democratic Again.
My thought is that they're going to use it as a cudgel but not because they need the House, but because it's an easy distraction to keep in the public consciousness. It's a shiny bauble for people to yell at each other about while the country gets looted and plundered. They don't need a recall/special election because then the narrative ends. They don't need the lower house because they're not trying to govern, they're trying to destroy to rule by fiat. Everything they're accomplishing they're doing by executive order.
In 2026 there will be elections. The Democrats probably win the house by a landslide big enough that it obliterates a lot of gerrymandered safe seats. But it won't matter. The Democratic House will launch investigation after investigation into the graft and corruption. They'll try to pull in the executive members to hold them accountable. They won't show up. The executive can effectively ignore the House and the Senate is locked up. What is the House going to do? It has no enforcement mechanism. The executive holds all the cards wrt enforcement of the laws. The process only functions with the nominal consent of the executive and that consent has been withdrawn.
The House has what leverage? They'll pass legislation? For them to ignore? They'll not fund the government? That's exactly what they want! They want the Democratic Party to shoot the hostage so they can get their cake and blame said Democratic Party members for baking it. Refusing to govern will piss off moderate Democrats and trying to govern in spite of Trump instead of trying to fight him with his own fire will just piss off progressives. There's one winning move in 14,000,605 the moves a Democratic House can make but what that winning move is doesn't seem very apparent right now.
The consolidation of power bases outside of electorally accountable processes is what happens now. That way if we do have elections they'll just be irrelevant. Red states might go back to appointing their EVs for the Presidential contest because that's entirely legal. There will be protests. They will be suppressed. Trump will fight for a third term. Blue trifecta states might have a backbone and refuse his candidacy. SCOTUS might come down with a new Calvinball rule that the states forgot about so the enforcement of the amendment is null and void until Congress gives a procedure for determining if someone has had two terms. They might just put the ruling on ice and stay any action of removing Trump from the ballot until after the election then declare the issue moot.
Either way, the point at where Trump declares his candidacy for a third term is where the shit truly hits the fan and all bets are off. It's the last guard rail before American autocracy. 2028's election is going to be really messy. Vance might declare the blue state votes invalid due to fraud and refuse to count them. They might have Congress arrested. Who knows? But if Trump is allowed to run and the red states go along with it it's going to be a hell of an uphill battle.
Whatever happens? Just keep fighting fascists however you can. Whether that be directly, or running and keeping the flame of Democracy alive wherever we can for as long as we can.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:52 AM on March 10 [14 favorites]
My thought is that they're going to use it as a cudgel but not because they need the House, but because it's an easy distraction to keep in the public consciousness. It's a shiny bauble for people to yell at each other about while the country gets looted and plundered. They don't need a recall/special election because then the narrative ends. They don't need the lower house because they're not trying to govern, they're trying to destroy to rule by fiat. Everything they're accomplishing they're doing by executive order.
In 2026 there will be elections. The Democrats probably win the house by a landslide big enough that it obliterates a lot of gerrymandered safe seats. But it won't matter. The Democratic House will launch investigation after investigation into the graft and corruption. They'll try to pull in the executive members to hold them accountable. They won't show up. The executive can effectively ignore the House and the Senate is locked up. What is the House going to do? It has no enforcement mechanism. The executive holds all the cards wrt enforcement of the laws. The process only functions with the nominal consent of the executive and that consent has been withdrawn.
The House has what leverage? They'll pass legislation? For them to ignore? They'll not fund the government? That's exactly what they want! They want the Democratic Party to shoot the hostage so they can get their cake and blame said Democratic Party members for baking it. Refusing to govern will piss off moderate Democrats and trying to govern in spite of Trump instead of trying to fight him with his own fire will just piss off progressives. There's one winning move in 14,000,605 the moves a Democratic House can make but what that winning move is doesn't seem very apparent right now.
The consolidation of power bases outside of electorally accountable processes is what happens now. That way if we do have elections they'll just be irrelevant. Red states might go back to appointing their EVs for the Presidential contest because that's entirely legal. There will be protests. They will be suppressed. Trump will fight for a third term. Blue trifecta states might have a backbone and refuse his candidacy. SCOTUS might come down with a new Calvinball rule that the states forgot about so the enforcement of the amendment is null and void until Congress gives a procedure for determining if someone has had two terms. They might just put the ruling on ice and stay any action of removing Trump from the ballot until after the election then declare the issue moot.
Either way, the point at where Trump declares his candidacy for a third term is where the shit truly hits the fan and all bets are off. It's the last guard rail before American autocracy. 2028's election is going to be really messy. Vance might declare the blue state votes invalid due to fraud and refuse to count them. They might have Congress arrested. Who knows? But if Trump is allowed to run and the red states go along with it it's going to be a hell of an uphill battle.
Whatever happens? Just keep fighting fascists however you can. Whether that be directly, or running and keeping the flame of Democracy alive wherever we can for as long as we can.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:52 AM on March 10 [14 favorites]
I'm commenting mainly to say thanks to kliuless for the awesome post.
Bu I do have a question: is it time for the Democrats to refuse to pass the budget/CR whatever? Would forcing the US into a budget crisis be of any use in restraining or fighting back against the MAGA blitzkrieg? Thx.
posted by Artful Codger at 9:03 AM on March 10 [4 favorites]
Bu I do have a question: is it time for the Democrats to refuse to pass the budget/CR whatever? Would forcing the US into a budget crisis be of any use in restraining or fighting back against the MAGA blitzkrieg? Thx.
posted by Artful Codger at 9:03 AM on March 10 [4 favorites]
Proposal: every democratic governor needs to change voting procedures now so presidential, house, and senate seats are voted on simple separate paper ballots and hand counted. I mean every governor should do it, but the Republicans won't. No more voting machines.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:13 AM on March 10 [6 favorites]
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:13 AM on March 10 [6 favorites]
I think he may be onto something.
Yes, calling democrats names while their counterparts dismantle the civil service and government benefits for the poors is totally the best use of ours and journalist's time.
posted by aspersioncast at 9:26 AM on March 10 [2 favorites]
Yes, calling democrats names while their counterparts dismantle the civil service and government benefits for the poors is totally the best use of ours and journalist's time.
posted by aspersioncast at 9:26 AM on March 10 [2 favorites]
No more voting machines.
What? Why?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 9:33 AM on March 10 [1 favorite]
What? Why?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 9:33 AM on March 10 [1 favorite]
>But if Trump is allowed to run
Instant secession. If the Constitution is null and void, it's null and void.
posted by torokunai2 at 9:33 AM on March 10 [6 favorites]
Instant secession. If the Constitution is null and void, it's null and void.
posted by torokunai2 at 9:33 AM on March 10 [6 favorites]
re voting machines, the bad Diebold machines kept vote counts on memory cards and not an actual individual record of votes. They were cheating machines.
I believe this form of vote tabulation has been banned at the Federal level and via supremacy all local elections too. We still have optical vote scanners but we can perform manual recounts. I still can't believe how crappy the Florida machines were in 2000. FFS.
posted by torokunai2 at 9:36 AM on March 10 [1 favorite]
I believe this form of vote tabulation has been banned at the Federal level and via supremacy all local elections too. We still have optical vote scanners but we can perform manual recounts. I still can't believe how crappy the Florida machines were in 2000. FFS.
posted by torokunai2 at 9:36 AM on March 10 [1 favorite]
Would forcing the US into a budget crisis be of any use in restraining or fighting back against the MAGA blitzkrieg?
It's a trick that the GOP has used in the past, has it not?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:48 AM on March 10 [3 favorites]
It's a trick that the GOP has used in the past, has it not?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:48 AM on March 10 [3 favorites]
Trumpo is already positioning the coming failure of the CR on Democrats, but we've got to stop being afraid of our own shadows. (It feels icky using the first-person pronoun here, but fuck it, no use pretending anymore, there is no foreseeable future where I ever vote GOP again)
posted by torokunai2 at 9:54 AM on March 10
posted by torokunai2 at 9:54 AM on March 10
Coming failure? there might be some theatrics, but it'll pass.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 9:58 AM on March 10
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 9:58 AM on March 10
> We still have optical vote scanners but we can perform manual recounts.
"Can" is an important word here. Unless manual recounts are done (or a sufficiently random sampling is done), the ability to do manual recounts is moot.
Of course, "cannot" is worse. But "actually counted manually by multiple local partisan observers" is the standard you need to make voting fraud next to impossible to sneak through.
posted by NotAYakk at 9:59 AM on March 10 [4 favorites]
"Can" is an important word here. Unless manual recounts are done (or a sufficiently random sampling is done), the ability to do manual recounts is moot.
Of course, "cannot" is worse. But "actually counted manually by multiple local partisan observers" is the standard you need to make voting fraud next to impossible to sneak through.
posted by NotAYakk at 9:59 AM on March 10 [4 favorites]
"it'll pass" . . . but f they get Democratic votes to do so, they'll have fucked up.
posted by torokunai2 at 10:00 AM on March 10 [2 favorites]
posted by torokunai2 at 10:00 AM on March 10 [2 favorites]
Either way, the point at where Trump declares his candidacy for a third term is where the shit truly hits the fan and all bets are off.
I don't think he'll "run" for a third term. He'll just declare himself God-Emperor and/or refuse to leave and/or somehow get everything changed, whether legally or not, or just ignore the laws and stay in office... and everyone will just politely LET HIM DO IT.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:05 AM on March 10 [4 favorites]
I don't think he'll "run" for a third term. He'll just declare himself God-Emperor and/or refuse to leave and/or somehow get everything changed, whether legally or not, or just ignore the laws and stay in office... and everyone will just politely LET HIM DO IT.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:05 AM on March 10 [4 favorites]
Honestly, TFG seeking a third term is the least of the US's problems right now, no?
posted by Artful Codger at 10:13 AM on March 10 [4 favorites]
posted by Artful Codger at 10:13 AM on March 10 [4 favorites]
I don't think he'll "run" for a third term. He'll just declare himself God-Emperor and/or refuse to leave and/or somehow get everything changed, whether legally or not, or just ignore the laws and stay in office... and everyone will just politely LET HIM DO IT.
No way JD Vance gives up being President that easily.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 10:13 AM on March 10
No way JD Vance gives up being President that easily.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 10:13 AM on March 10
So somebody pointed out a couple of things in the House's Continuing Appropriations bill, located here:
https://rules.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/rules.house.gov/files/documents/crfull_xml.pdf
Also if you search for $0 you can find a whole bunch of things that they want to completely gut, including:
posted by rambling wanderlust at 10:33 AM on March 10 [12 favorites]
https://rules.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/rules.house.gov/files/documents/crfull_xml.pdf
Page 14 gives the President the ability to sequester funds and goes on to list the Smithsonian by name. This will probably allow the executive to RIF the Smithsonian, possibly affecting museum access and definitely affecting museum and research functions. Normally only Congress and the Smithsonian Board of Regents has control over the purse of the Smithsonian. This also affects other non-executive branch agencies.So I'd assume that a number of Smithsonian museums will be on the chopping block, obviously the Native American focused museums and facilities at a minimum and probably a wide ranging removal of any exhibits that feature women or any other non-white Christian male minorities...
Also if you search for $0 you can find a whole bunch of things that they want to completely gut, including:
- $0 for ‘‘Department of Agriculture—Agricultural Programs—Agricultural Research Service—Buildings and Facilities’’.
- $0 for ‘‘Department of Energy—Energy Programs—Energy Projects’’.
- $0 for ‘‘Department of Agriculture—Agricultural Programs—Agricultural Research Service—Buildings and Facilities’’.
posted by rambling wanderlust at 10:33 AM on March 10 [12 favorites]
Trump is especially heinous, but it's time to start thinking about life after Trump. Trump is nearly 79 years old. Even if he managed to Putin his way into extra innings there is a limit to the number of extra innings the Lord will allow.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:42 AM on March 10 [10 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:42 AM on March 10 [10 favorites]
They're really gunning for a repeat of 4Q08-1Q09 here.
Kinda makes sense, drop the bomb and then reorder the pieces in time for 2028.
Worked for Volcker - Reagan, 1980 - 1984, though Volcker started hiking in Carter's reelection year.
Fed Funds Rate - CPI shows why 1982 sucked for so many people – the Fed was intentionally trying to kill the boomer credit demand wave.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1ElRf shows how the boomers were turning 20 and 30 in the late 70s and borrowing at 15% YOY . . . this was a large driver of the inflation we experienced, especially in housing.
posted by torokunai2 at 10:54 AM on March 10 [2 favorites]
Kinda makes sense, drop the bomb and then reorder the pieces in time for 2028.
Worked for Volcker - Reagan, 1980 - 1984, though Volcker started hiking in Carter's reelection year.
Fed Funds Rate - CPI shows why 1982 sucked for so many people – the Fed was intentionally trying to kill the boomer credit demand wave.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1ElRf shows how the boomers were turning 20 and 30 in the late 70s and borrowing at 15% YOY . . . this was a large driver of the inflation we experienced, especially in housing.
posted by torokunai2 at 10:54 AM on March 10 [2 favorites]
Any editor who uses "downplay" in a headline ("Republicans Downplay Medicaid Cuts Amid Town Hall Voter Backlash") should have their laptop and their thumbs confiscated.
It isn't news to say that "political party tries to "downplay" unfavorable information." Of course they do!
Either the stories about Medicaid cuts are false, or they're true. (Ron Howard narrator voice: They're true.) If the former, say so ("Republicans Push Back on False Narrative About Medicaid Cuts"). If the latter, "downplay" helps the Republicans obfuscate their unpopular plans. Tell the truth: "Republicans Lie About Planned Medicaid Cuts Amid Town Hall Voter Backlash."
posted by Gelatin at 10:57 AM on March 10 [21 favorites]
It isn't news to say that "political party tries to "downplay" unfavorable information." Of course they do!
Either the stories about Medicaid cuts are false, or they're true. (Ron Howard narrator voice: They're true.) If the former, say so ("Republicans Push Back on False Narrative About Medicaid Cuts"). If the latter, "downplay" helps the Republicans obfuscate their unpopular plans. Tell the truth: "Republicans Lie About Planned Medicaid Cuts Amid Town Hall Voter Backlash."
posted by Gelatin at 10:57 AM on March 10 [21 favorites]
It kills me the endless whitewashing of this stuff, like all of the DOGE "We found this amazing $8 billion fraud!" - which turns out to be both wrong and off by $8 billion... Then the NYT and other press outlets are all like "They made a mistake!" followed a couple of days later by "DOGE made more mistakes on the new things they posted after 'fixing' their earlier mistakes!" later "Even more mistakes made by DOGE, and they mistakenly restored their earlier mistakes!"
FFS, the Republicans are just making shit up and lying about everything that they can get away with.
posted by rambling wanderlust at 11:11 AM on March 10 [10 favorites]
FFS, the Republicans are just making shit up and lying about everything that they can get away with.
posted by rambling wanderlust at 11:11 AM on March 10 [10 favorites]
There is no recall provision for Congress.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a
And there is no provision for POTUS47 to run for or serve a third term, but here we are.
posted by zaixfeep at 12:12 PM on March 10
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a
And there is no provision for POTUS47 to run for or serve a third term, but here we are.
posted by zaixfeep at 12:12 PM on March 10
Worth noting that we shouldn't even be talking about a tax cut, but a tax increase.
The data here is a little old (2021) but U.S. tax revenues are about 27% of GDP. The average among the other 37 "wealthy" countries that make up the OECD is 34%.
So a little napkin math... the US GDP was a little over $29 trillion last year. Bump us up to that 34% average and we'd have another ... $2 trillion at our disposal.
Some quick searching shows that would let us *double* Medicaid, Medicare and federal education spending, and have money left over.
posted by martin q blank at 12:24 PM on March 10 [11 favorites]
The data here is a little old (2021) but U.S. tax revenues are about 27% of GDP. The average among the other 37 "wealthy" countries that make up the OECD is 34%.
So a little napkin math... the US GDP was a little over $29 trillion last year. Bump us up to that 34% average and we'd have another ... $2 trillion at our disposal.
Some quick searching shows that would let us *double* Medicaid, Medicare and federal education spending, and have money left over.
posted by martin q blank at 12:24 PM on March 10 [11 favorites]
And there is no provision for POTUS47 to run for or serve a third term, but here we are.
can we get thru one crisis at a time.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 12:35 PM on March 10 [3 favorites]
can we get thru one crisis at a time.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 12:35 PM on March 10 [3 favorites]
Even if he managed to Putin his way into extra innings there is a limit to the number of extra innings the Lord will allow.
I dunno, friend, I think the Devil got some juice there
posted by Kitteh at 12:35 PM on March 10 [7 favorites]
I dunno, friend, I think the Devil got some juice there
posted by Kitteh at 12:35 PM on March 10 [7 favorites]
It kills me the endless whitewashing of this stuff
The media all but admits that honestly reporting what the Republicans do will "sound biased," so they don't do it. Which of course rewards the Republicans for bad behavior.
posted by Gelatin at 1:08 PM on March 10 [10 favorites]
The media all but admits that honestly reporting what the Republicans do will "sound biased," so they don't do it. Which of course rewards the Republicans for bad behavior.
posted by Gelatin at 1:08 PM on March 10 [10 favorites]
Worth noting that we shouldn't even be talking about a tax cut, but a tax increase.
This is never on the Republican negotiating table. To them, taxes are always too high, should always be cut.
posted by Rash at 1:40 PM on March 10 [4 favorites]
This is never on the Republican negotiating table. To them, taxes are always too high, should always be cut.
posted by Rash at 1:40 PM on March 10 [4 favorites]
Bu I do have a question: is it time for the Democrats to refuse to pass the budget/CR whatever? Would forcing the US into a budget crisis be of any use in restraining or fighting back against the MAGA blitzkrieg? Thx.
That's basically shooting the hostage the GOP has taken. If neither party cares about governance what's the point of even having a society? It would probably guarantee autocracy in this country.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 2:20 PM on March 10
That's basically shooting the hostage the GOP has taken. If neither party cares about governance what's the point of even having a society? It would probably guarantee autocracy in this country.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 2:20 PM on March 10
Though we should note that getting from 27% to 34% of GDP would require raising taxes on a very broad swath of Americans, not just like the top 0.1% or top 1% or even top 10%. Which, hey, I'm all for but we should go into it with eyes open. It would be deeply, deeply unpopular (as many good policies would be).
posted by Justinian at 2:21 PM on March 10 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 2:21 PM on March 10 [1 favorite]
So … maybe I’m missing something but the choice is between shooting the hostage and helping the Republicans shoot the hostage?
posted by zenzenobia at 2:29 PM on March 10 [1 favorite]
posted by zenzenobia at 2:29 PM on March 10 [1 favorite]
Democrats are the cops at Uvalde, yes
posted by torokunai2 at 2:43 PM on March 10 [4 favorites]
posted by torokunai2 at 2:43 PM on March 10 [4 favorites]
>It would be deeply, deeply unpopular (as many good policies would be).
The last tax rise was 1993. The Dems were voted out of power the next year. We are a nation of children.
posted by torokunai2 at 2:44 PM on March 10 [2 favorites]
The last tax rise was 1993. The Dems were voted out of power the next year. We are a nation of children.
posted by torokunai2 at 2:44 PM on March 10 [2 favorites]
Though we should note that getting from 27% to 34% of GDP would require raising taxes on a very broad swath of Americans, not just like the top 0.1% or top 1% or even top 10%. Which, hey, I'm all for but we should go into it with eyes open. It would be deeply, deeply unpopular (as many good policies would be).
Well, we could bump the marginal rate for the top tax bracket up to where it was under Eisenhower (90%). How close would that get us?
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:48 PM on March 10 [3 favorites]
Well, we could bump the marginal rate for the top tax bracket up to where it was under Eisenhower (90%). How close would that get us?
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:48 PM on March 10 [3 favorites]
>If neither party cares about governance what's the point of even having a society
I have a proposal: 2 GOP members cross the aisle and put Jeffries as Speaker. Then we get a proper budget out of the House.
(This isn't the Democrats' problem anymore)
posted by torokunai2 at 2:48 PM on March 10
I have a proposal: 2 GOP members cross the aisle and put Jeffries as Speaker. Then we get a proper budget out of the House.
(This isn't the Democrats' problem anymore)
posted by torokunai2 at 2:48 PM on March 10
> top tax bracket up to where it was under Eisenhower (90%). How close would that get us
The weird thing about the pre-Reagan brackets was that there was a million of them.
we've seen 10X inflation since 1961 so take these numbers and 10X them:
https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1960, eg. $60K single gets hit with a 30% marginal rate.
This does murder the upper middle class receiving big wage income, LOL
posted by torokunai2 at 2:52 PM on March 10
The weird thing about the pre-Reagan brackets was that there was a million of them.
we've seen 10X inflation since 1961 so take these numbers and 10X them:
https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1960, eg. $60K single gets hit with a 30% marginal rate.
This does murder the upper middle class receiving big wage income, LOL
posted by torokunai2 at 2:52 PM on March 10
torokunai: I didn't say we should bring back all the brackets. Leave them where they are. Bump up only the top one (for single taxpayers in 2025 that starts at $626,351). Leave all the rest alone.
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:54 PM on March 10 [1 favorite]
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:54 PM on March 10 [1 favorite]
technically I think we just need to go after corporate income more.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Eme2
posted by torokunai2 at 3:01 PM on March 10
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Eme2
posted by torokunai2 at 3:01 PM on March 10
That'd also be good! And the capital gains tax rates could all be, like, quadrupled.
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:03 PM on March 10 [1 favorite]
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:03 PM on March 10 [1 favorite]
Bump us up to that 34% average and we'd have another ... $2 trillion at our disposal.
Sounds like a tax increase could pay for their planned tax decrease!
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 3:09 PM on March 10 [3 favorites]
Sounds like a tax increase could pay for their planned tax decrease!
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 3:09 PM on March 10 [3 favorites]
So … maybe I’m missing something but the choice is between shooting the hostage and helping the Republicans shoot the hostage?
A shutdown is so unpopular, neither side wins. The difference is the Dems still care about getting elected.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 4:13 PM on March 10 [1 favorite]
A shutdown is so unpopular, neither side wins. The difference is the Dems still care about getting elected.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 4:13 PM on March 10 [1 favorite]
Well, we could bump the marginal rate for the top tax bracket up to where it was under Eisenhower (90%). How close would that get us?
That rate was theoretical, the effective tax rate was much lower. Maybe even less than half that 90%. But still higher than now, so we could get the same effect by raising the top tax rate even to something like 45-50% as long as we don't put back all the exemptions and shit they had back in the 50s.
You'd think someone would have made a handy tool that let you play around with tax rate sliders to see how the government revenue changes with changes in marginal tax rates at various incomes but damned if I can find one.
I have seen data that corporate tax revenues as a fraction of GDP are a lot lower than they were back in the mid 20th century, even ignoring the WW2 years. Maybe even as low as a quarter (1% now of GDP vs 4% of GDP then)
posted by Justinian at 4:14 PM on March 10 [1 favorite]
That rate was theoretical, the effective tax rate was much lower. Maybe even less than half that 90%. But still higher than now, so we could get the same effect by raising the top tax rate even to something like 45-50% as long as we don't put back all the exemptions and shit they had back in the 50s.
You'd think someone would have made a handy tool that let you play around with tax rate sliders to see how the government revenue changes with changes in marginal tax rates at various incomes but damned if I can find one.
I have seen data that corporate tax revenues as a fraction of GDP are a lot lower than they were back in the mid 20th century, even ignoring the WW2 years. Maybe even as low as a quarter (1% now of GDP vs 4% of GDP then)
posted by Justinian at 4:14 PM on March 10 [1 favorite]
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1DRvN (Federal tax receipts on corporate income / corporate income)
posted by torokunai2 at 4:18 PM on March 10
posted by torokunai2 at 4:18 PM on March 10
You'd think someone would have made a handy tool that let you play around with tax rate sliders to see how the government revenue changes with changes in marginal tax rates at various incomes but damned if I can find one.
Oooh, that might actually be a fun little project to build sometime, thanks for the idea!
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:18 PM on March 10
Oooh, that might actually be a fun little project to build sometime, thanks for the idea!
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:18 PM on March 10
It would be very interesting and I'd love to see it but we should also be aware that, like with the 90% theoretical rate in the 50s, people always find ways to avoid taxes. I'm not saying that means we shouldn't raise taxes, particularly on the wealthy and corporations, just that it never generates as much revenue as you might want or expect from the rates alone.
posted by Justinian at 4:25 PM on March 10 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:25 PM on March 10 [2 favorites]
It would be very interesting and I'd love to see it but we should also be aware that, like with the 90% theoretical rate in the 50s, people always find ways to avoid taxes. I'm not saying that means we shouldn't raise taxes, particularly on the wealthy and corporations, just that it never generates as much revenue as you might want or expect from the rates alone.
This. Front page of The NYT from May 24th, 1933
Lock it all down. Disallow payments to foreign subsidies as tax deductible expenses by abolishing disregarded entities. Don't let the money get out without it being taxed.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 4:37 PM on March 10 [6 favorites]
This. Front page of The NYT from May 24th, 1933
SENATORS QUESTION HIM; Banking Firm Revalued Securities and Showed $21,000,000 Loss. $48,000 TAX PAID IN 1930 Pecora Challenges Statement That Write Off Dated With Gilbert's Partnership. HUGE DECREASE IN ASSETS Counsel and Senators Clash Over Listing Loans Made to Other Bankers. MORGAN FIRM PAID NO INCOME TAXESNo more separate rates for capital gains. Everything needs to be treated as income. Every time an asset is used for collateral for cash or in kind it's a taxable event and the asset's cost basis updated. If someone lends against it you pay taxes on it. No more cost basis reset on death and I call for that as someone who it would personally lose somewhere in the region of 200 grand to taxes in a future inheritance if that change went through.
Lock it all down. Disallow payments to foreign subsidies as tax deductible expenses by abolishing disregarded entities. Don't let the money get out without it being taxed.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 4:37 PM on March 10 [6 favorites]
No more cost basis reset on death and I call for that as someone who it would personally lose somewhere in the region of 200 grand to taxes in a future inheritance if that change went through.
I'd go farther than that on inheritance: i think there should be a 100% inheritance tax on everything above some largish but not ridiculous amount. (Somewhere above a million dollars but well short of a hundred million dollars.) Inherited wealth is fundamentally corrosive to society.
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:50 PM on March 10 [7 favorites]
I'd go farther than that on inheritance: i think there should be a 100% inheritance tax on everything above some largish but not ridiculous amount. (Somewhere above a million dollars but well short of a hundred million dollars.) Inherited wealth is fundamentally corrosive to society.
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:50 PM on March 10 [7 favorites]
You'd think someone would have made a handy tool that let you play around with tax rate sliders to see how the government revenue changes with changes in marginal tax rates at various incomes but damned if I can find one.
I feel like Trump may have seen one like that - oh we import $400 bil from Canada, slap on a 25% tariff and we'll get $100 bil for free! And totally ignoring second order effects which make that $100 bil of "free" money vanish pretty quick.
Increasing taxes can have unpredictable effects. Some people might try to earn more money to offset the drop in income by upskilling or starting side hustles. Some people might try to earn less money (work 3 days a week instead of 5 days) because the reward from working those extra hours has deteriorated, so they would prefer to enjoy leisure time instead. People are going to be more incentivized to engage in tax optimization. For example, I'm being taxed at a 47% marginal rate and I don't engage in any tax reduction strategies even though I know I could, but if taxes were raised it would be a powerful incentive to start.
posted by xdvesper at 8:14 PM on March 10
I feel like Trump may have seen one like that - oh we import $400 bil from Canada, slap on a 25% tariff and we'll get $100 bil for free! And totally ignoring second order effects which make that $100 bil of "free" money vanish pretty quick.
Increasing taxes can have unpredictable effects. Some people might try to earn more money to offset the drop in income by upskilling or starting side hustles. Some people might try to earn less money (work 3 days a week instead of 5 days) because the reward from working those extra hours has deteriorated, so they would prefer to enjoy leisure time instead. People are going to be more incentivized to engage in tax optimization. For example, I'm being taxed at a 47% marginal rate and I don't engage in any tax reduction strategies even though I know I could, but if taxes were raised it would be a powerful incentive to start.
posted by xdvesper at 8:14 PM on March 10
The top marginal tax rate in the USA is 37%, and it kicks in (for single filers) at USD $626,351. Even if you don't want to actually do the Eisenhower 90% thing, there is a lot of room to maneuver there.
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:05 PM on March 10 [7 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:05 PM on March 10 [7 favorites]
You can't squeeze as much tax revenue out of people who don't have jobs, or out of people who don't have the same retirement account they had a few days ago, or out of businesses that went under because the supply chain is interconnected and everything now costs 5-10x to move across borders. So minutia over this or that marginal tax rate probably won't matter as much over the next few years, anyway. Republicans are dead set on yet again running the US economy in the ground in order to make their point (whatever it is today or tomorrow, or later this week), and that's what will ultimately determine if the US can pay interest on debt, or whether the Trump cult declares bankruptcy and takes the rest of us with them.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:10 AM on March 11 [2 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:10 AM on March 11 [2 favorites]
I feel like Trump may have seen one like that - oh we import $400 bil from Canada, slap on a 25% tariff and we'll get $100 bil for free! And totally ignoring second order effects which make that $100 bil of "free" money vanish pretty quick.
Oh man, I bet that is what they're thinking. I'm bewildered by the economic logic which suggests that tariffs will both raise revenue and address trade imbalance. Like, those are opposite effects. If they apply incentive to not buy foreign, the revenue dries up. If they succeed in raising revenue, that means the trade imbalance is so extreme that foreign exporters can afford to just leave money on the table.
It's my understanding that historically, tariffs have always been used and foremost as a protectionist tool for domestic industry, and if they raise appreciable revenue, that means they failed at their primary purpose.
posted by jackbishop at 1:28 AM on March 11 [2 favorites]
Oh man, I bet that is what they're thinking. I'm bewildered by the economic logic which suggests that tariffs will both raise revenue and address trade imbalance. Like, those are opposite effects. If they apply incentive to not buy foreign, the revenue dries up. If they succeed in raising revenue, that means the trade imbalance is so extreme that foreign exporters can afford to just leave money on the table.
It's my understanding that historically, tariffs have always been used and foremost as a protectionist tool for domestic industry, and if they raise appreciable revenue, that means they failed at their primary purpose.
posted by jackbishop at 1:28 AM on March 11 [2 favorites]
It's because the ultra rich want to do everything they can to break the progressive tax structure. If they can get the US entirely on consumption taxes their wealth starts to become untouchable. The ultimate destination of capitalism is a rentier economy. You won't own anything. Everything will be so expensive to acquire you'll just rent it all.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:05 AM on March 11 [9 favorites]
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:05 AM on March 11 [9 favorites]
> I feel like Trump may have seen one like that - oh we import $400 bil from Canada, slap on a 25% tariff and we'll get $100 bil for free! And totally ignoring second order effects which make that $100 bil of "free" money vanish pretty quick.
Oh man, I bet that is what they're thinking. I'm bewildered by the economic logic which suggests that tariffs will both raise revenue and address trade imbalance.
I've shared this in other threads but it's illuminating here: a Youtuber who specializes in on-the-street interviews was doing a video where he was debating about tariffs with a MAGAt, and then aa guy who owned an import/export business stopped to interject.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:10 AM on March 11 [1 favorite]
Oh man, I bet that is what they're thinking. I'm bewildered by the economic logic which suggests that tariffs will both raise revenue and address trade imbalance.
I've shared this in other threads but it's illuminating here: a Youtuber who specializes in on-the-street interviews was doing a video where he was debating about tariffs with a MAGAt, and then aa guy who owned an import/export business stopped to interject.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:10 AM on March 11 [1 favorite]
A wealth tax is so much more important than increased income tax.
(Increased corporate tax rates also extremely important.)
posted by Gadarene at 10:07 AM on March 11 [3 favorites]
(Increased corporate tax rates also extremely important.)
posted by Gadarene at 10:07 AM on March 11 [3 favorites]
A wealth tax is so much more important than increased income tax.
100% estate tax after the first 10 million dollars. If your children aren't losers, they can earn their own fortunes. Problem solved.
posted by mikelieman at 12:33 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
100% estate tax after the first 10 million dollars. If your children aren't losers, they can earn their own fortunes. Problem solved.
posted by mikelieman at 12:33 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
I'd prefer a one percent tax on all wealth over $1 billion (or whatever the proper threshold is) so we don't have to wait for the bastards to die.
posted by Gadarene at 1:38 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
posted by Gadarene at 1:38 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
The biggest argument against wealth taxes, and why I don't personally like them, is that paper wealth is mostly illusory, which it is. What date or amount do you use? What if someone loses the wealth between now and tax time? Is it a rolling daily average bill? There's nowhere near enough liquidity in a market to convert the wealth to cash without losing a significant amount of it.
The main thing is we have to get taxes out when people use gains for cash or in-kind stuff. The cost basis reset is the biggest fucking scam ever right next to the social security contribution cap. We should tax everything as income when a person dies and we should damn well tax all the gains over $730K at the top rate of income tax. That's 37% and including FICA and Medicare it'll be 54%. Only then can you cost reset the asset.
Trusts? Sure. When you put whatever into the trust it should have capital gains realized at the fair market value. After that? As long as whoever receives income from the trust pays the income tax I think it's perfectly fair. When the trust winds up? Tax the disbursement as income.
They can have wealth but they should be paying 54% to use it.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 2:45 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
The main thing is we have to get taxes out when people use gains for cash or in-kind stuff. The cost basis reset is the biggest fucking scam ever right next to the social security contribution cap. We should tax everything as income when a person dies and we should damn well tax all the gains over $730K at the top rate of income tax. That's 37% and including FICA and Medicare it'll be 54%. Only then can you cost reset the asset.
Trusts? Sure. When you put whatever into the trust it should have capital gains realized at the fair market value. After that? As long as whoever receives income from the trust pays the income tax I think it's perfectly fair. When the trust winds up? Tax the disbursement as income.
They can have wealth but they should be paying 54% to use it.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 2:45 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
I guess we'll just throw up our hands, then.
posted by Gadarene at 3:04 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
posted by Gadarene at 3:04 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
Call your Congressperson and Senator and let them know this is a bright red line that will end of this country, if crossed.
I can't retire at 65, because they changed the law to make it 67. That's a cut in benefits. That red line has been crossed and will be again.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 3:35 PM on March 11 [3 favorites]
I can't retire at 65, because they changed the law to make it 67. That's a cut in benefits. That red line has been crossed and will be again.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 3:35 PM on March 11 [3 favorites]
Throw up our hands?
1% of wealth is far too little and kind of passes the buck. It's an annoying sap on returns like the fees you'd pay a fund manager.
I want these fuckers to pay at least half their equity to use it and half their equity to pass it on. All the wealth in the world isn't worth shit unless you can use it to buy things or pay for services. That's where we have to nail them. Nail them pulling money out and soak them there.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:37 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
1% of wealth is far too little and kind of passes the buck. It's an annoying sap on returns like the fees you'd pay a fund manager.
I want these fuckers to pay at least half their equity to use it and half their equity to pass it on. All the wealth in the world isn't worth shit unless you can use it to buy things or pay for services. That's where we have to nail them. Nail them pulling money out and soak them there.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:37 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
I don't think preferring an estate tax to a wealth tax for practical reasons is throwing up our hands. You're still taxing the wealth!
posted by Justinian at 4:29 PM on March 11 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:29 PM on March 11 [2 favorites]
Serious question and forgive for not understanding how U.S. political money works, but why aren't democrats and progressive non-profits posting ads on tv, on youtube, on wherever, just literally explaining the most basic facts to trump supporters?
Like follow an importer through the paperwork that they do to bring things in and show where the tarrif is and show a U.S. importer paying the tarrif and setting their prices.
Show the basic math behind tariffs cannot BOTH replace income tax AND encourage U.S. manufacturing. The more manufacturing moves to the U.S. the less tariff money is collected.
Explain, in each state, how many people and WHO are on medicaid and how the end of medicaid would affect the people who are NOT on medicaid (i.e. long-term care homes closing).
Ask,if there are all these social security cheques being sent out to 150 year olds and presumably SOMEBODY is cashing them and taking that money, why aren't the people cashing those cheques being charged with fraud? Can you point us to all the people being charged with fraud thanks to all the fraud DOGE has exposed? Surely they should be charged and the money recovered.
This one feels a little more fight-y, but make a list of things Russia would like the U.S. to do. Show Trump announcing that he is doing each. End with a quote from Trudeau (no need to attribute, since that would just shut them down): "Make that make sense."
Like as little opinion as possible. Don't even say it's bad if everybody's grandmother has no healthcare or place to live. Just point out that the grandmas are on medicaid and that a long-term care home that gets 40% of it's money via medicaid cannot stay open if medicaid disappears. Now nobody is saying that bad, just literally show the addition and subtraction.
Why isn't somebody doing something to get this information into the info-bubbles of the Maga-ites?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:06 PM on March 11 [2 favorites]
Like follow an importer through the paperwork that they do to bring things in and show where the tarrif is and show a U.S. importer paying the tarrif and setting their prices.
Show the basic math behind tariffs cannot BOTH replace income tax AND encourage U.S. manufacturing. The more manufacturing moves to the U.S. the less tariff money is collected.
Explain, in each state, how many people and WHO are on medicaid and how the end of medicaid would affect the people who are NOT on medicaid (i.e. long-term care homes closing).
Ask,if there are all these social security cheques being sent out to 150 year olds and presumably SOMEBODY is cashing them and taking that money, why aren't the people cashing those cheques being charged with fraud? Can you point us to all the people being charged with fraud thanks to all the fraud DOGE has exposed? Surely they should be charged and the money recovered.
This one feels a little more fight-y, but make a list of things Russia would like the U.S. to do. Show Trump announcing that he is doing each. End with a quote from Trudeau (no need to attribute, since that would just shut them down): "Make that make sense."
Like as little opinion as possible. Don't even say it's bad if everybody's grandmother has no healthcare or place to live. Just point out that the grandmas are on medicaid and that a long-term care home that gets 40% of it's money via medicaid cannot stay open if medicaid disappears. Now nobody is saying that bad, just literally show the addition and subtraction.
Why isn't somebody doing something to get this information into the info-bubbles of the Maga-ites?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:06 PM on March 11 [2 favorites]
Why isn't somebody doing something to get this information into the info-bubbles of the Maga-ites?
Because there's literally no point.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. These people only want one thing: The rebuilding, reinforcement and maintenance of the straight, white, Christian Nationalist, patriarchal socioeconomic quasi-hierarchy that has permeated this country from its founding.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:18 PM on March 11 [5 favorites]
Because there's literally no point.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. These people only want one thing: The rebuilding, reinforcement and maintenance of the straight, white, Christian Nationalist, patriarchal socioeconomic quasi-hierarchy that has permeated this country from its founding.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:18 PM on March 11 [5 favorites]
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
I guess I was thinking less of reasoning them out of it and more about giving them an alternative narrative they can grab onto when their selfishness makes them start to dislike what's happening. When they can't afford groceries, or they lose their jobs, or their grandma is kicked out of the nursing home and they get disillusioned because of that, not because of reason, we want them to have the alternative narrative they can switch to.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:03 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
I guess I was thinking less of reasoning them out of it and more about giving them an alternative narrative they can grab onto when their selfishness makes them start to dislike what's happening. When they can't afford groceries, or they lose their jobs, or their grandma is kicked out of the nursing home and they get disillusioned because of that, not because of reason, we want them to have the alternative narrative they can switch to.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:03 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
We’re already past that point though. Mississippi, Louisiana, and West Virginia votes straight Republican despite being the poorest states in the union. New Mexico is the only state that doesn’t. What’s the difference? 2.7% Black in NM.
The white people live in squalor but roll up to vote for Trump and Republicans en masse because they are promised they can feel better than any Black person, no matter how shit their lives or how big a failure they are. West Virginia literally sent the coal baron that kept them in poverty and saw to the deaths of more than a few of their compatriots for his extra profit to the fucking Senate. It’s just all fuckin vibes at this point.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:34 PM on March 11 [5 favorites]
The white people live in squalor but roll up to vote for Trump and Republicans en masse because they are promised they can feel better than any Black person, no matter how shit their lives or how big a failure they are. West Virginia literally sent the coal baron that kept them in poverty and saw to the deaths of more than a few of their compatriots for his extra profit to the fucking Senate. It’s just all fuckin vibes at this point.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:34 PM on March 11 [5 favorites]
Democrats continually try to give them lifelines to make their lives better but if a Black person gets to benefit they immediately don’t want it. White people poured acid in pools when Black people tried to use them. When forced, white people filled them with concrete. We’re committing societal seppuku because a third of the electorate are white racists can’t fucking share.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:39 PM on March 11 [5 favorites]
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:39 PM on March 11 [5 favorites]
This needs to be about NURSING HOMES. Of the people in nursing homes, 65% of them are there on Medicaid. And the ones who aren't, aren't YET, because that's how it works. You go in private pay and when you run out of money then Medicaid takes over. Who is in long term care? It's people with Alzheimers, people who have had strokes, people with Parkinson's, people with broken hips. The average cost of nursing home care is $10,000 per month. Where the fuck do they think a person with Alzheimers is going to go? I think this is the number one thing we should be hammering, because they don't care about poor people, including poor kids, but they sure as hell care about themselves and if we can make it clear to them that they are going to be stuck providing round-the-clock care for their combative, wandering, incontinent parent, or else paying $10,000 a month for somebody else to do it, then maybe they will pay attention.
posted by HotToddy at 10:28 PM on March 11 [4 favorites]
posted by HotToddy at 10:28 PM on March 11 [4 favorites]
why aren't democrats and progressive non-profits posting ads on tv, on youtube, on wherever, just literally explaining the most basic facts to trump supporters?
One group tried to by way of the Washington Post, which pulled the group's ad.
Democracy dies in the dark, and also for lack of sufficient influence with billionaire owners.
It's not a good situation when you can't even buy free speech.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:42 PM on March 11 [8 favorites]
One group tried to by way of the Washington Post, which pulled the group's ad.
Democracy dies in the dark, and also for lack of sufficient influence with billionaire owners.
It's not a good situation when you can't even buy free speech.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:42 PM on March 11 [8 favorites]
I think this is the number one thing we should be hammering, because they don't care about poor people, including poor kids, but they sure as hell care about themselves and if we can make it clear to them that they are going to be stuck providing round-the-clock care for their combative, wandering, incontinent parent, or else paying $10,000 a month for somebody else to do it, then maybe they will pay attention.
Did you see what happened during COVID? We sacrificed over a million people, mostly old, to keep life "normal" for selfish, almost entirely white, people. They don't care. They vote over and over for cruelty. Some will cry when the leopards eat their face but they will never change in advance of that moment or they would have done it already.
Some people just need to find out the stove is hot by touching it but holy fuck is that stove super hot. White America is showing they love racism more than global hegemony. They think things are bad now because multicultural democracy is destroying their racial quasi-hegemony? Wait until the world doesn't care about greenbacks.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:39 AM on March 12 [4 favorites]
Did you see what happened during COVID? We sacrificed over a million people, mostly old, to keep life "normal" for selfish, almost entirely white, people. They don't care. They vote over and over for cruelty. Some will cry when the leopards eat their face but they will never change in advance of that moment or they would have done it already.
Some people just need to find out the stove is hot by touching it but holy fuck is that stove super hot. White America is showing they love racism more than global hegemony. They think things are bad now because multicultural democracy is destroying their racial quasi-hegemony? Wait until the world doesn't care about greenbacks.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 3:39 AM on March 12 [4 favorites]
They vote over and over for cruelty
To wit: the Social Security Administration is reversing a late Biden-era policy and returning to a 100% withholding rate in cases of overpayment, which the Biden-era SSA administrator had dubbed "clawback cruelty." In other words, if the SSA makes a mistake and sends an overpayment, 100% of subsequent checks will be withheld until the overpayment is balanced out. The Biden SSA had changed it to 10%, so that "repayment" would happen slowly over time rather than leaving seniors without an income stream.
posted by jedicus at 6:54 AM on March 12 [3 favorites]
To wit: the Social Security Administration is reversing a late Biden-era policy and returning to a 100% withholding rate in cases of overpayment, which the Biden-era SSA administrator had dubbed "clawback cruelty." In other words, if the SSA makes a mistake and sends an overpayment, 100% of subsequent checks will be withheld until the overpayment is balanced out. The Biden SSA had changed it to 10%, so that "repayment" would happen slowly over time rather than leaving seniors without an income stream.
posted by jedicus at 6:54 AM on March 12 [3 favorites]
One group tried to by way of the Washington Post, which pulled the group's ad.
I was aware of that ad. That's not at all what I'm suggesting. Hell, I don't even think the ads should mention Trump or Musk or anything. Just literally show a manifest and invoice from an American importer. Show the number of people in nursing homes who are on medicaid. Show a nursing home budget and what happens to it if you remove the money paid by medicaid.
You remember how everybody hated Obamacare but loved not being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions and keeping their parents health insurance til they're 26 and the Affordable Care Act? People can be persuaded about a policy if they don't realize their political identity is at stake.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:06 AM on March 12 [2 favorites]
I was aware of that ad. That's not at all what I'm suggesting. Hell, I don't even think the ads should mention Trump or Musk or anything. Just literally show a manifest and invoice from an American importer. Show the number of people in nursing homes who are on medicaid. Show a nursing home budget and what happens to it if you remove the money paid by medicaid.
You remember how everybody hated Obamacare but loved not being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions and keeping their parents health insurance til they're 26 and the Affordable Care Act? People can be persuaded about a policy if they don't realize their political identity is at stake.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:06 AM on March 12 [2 favorites]
You remember how everybody hated Obamacare but loved not being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions and keeping their parents health insurance til they're 26 and the Affordable Care Act? People can be persuaded about a policy if they don't realize their political identity is at stake.
Again. The problem isn't that they don't approve of the policies. Progress in those policy areas was a huge thing with the New Deal. Whenever we poll progressive policies they are almost universally met with massive enthusiasm.
The essential problem is that they don't approve of these programs when the benefits go to those people. How did capital break up the New Deal coalition? When the Civil Rights Act was (rightly) passed giving equal benefit of those social programs to all peoples in the United States they dived right in with race as a wedge issue and broke the coalition. Prior to 1964 people generally voted with their class. Post '64 people have generally voted along an axis of what has eventually become multicultural democracy vs white hegemony.
It's not just a political identity. It's a foundational belief in these white people that they are better based on immutable characteristics that can't be taken away from them. Because of that they can convince themselves they aren't failures in their lives despite their lives being a string of underachievement made all the more miserable by capitalists forces they know they have no hope of fighting. So instead it's all about the copium and the vibes they get from it. That's why it's so damn difficult to persuade them even as the ultrarich utterly fuck what's left in their lives for profit.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 11:34 AM on March 12 [6 favorites]
Again. The problem isn't that they don't approve of the policies. Progress in those policy areas was a huge thing with the New Deal. Whenever we poll progressive policies they are almost universally met with massive enthusiasm.
The essential problem is that they don't approve of these programs when the benefits go to those people. How did capital break up the New Deal coalition? When the Civil Rights Act was (rightly) passed giving equal benefit of those social programs to all peoples in the United States they dived right in with race as a wedge issue and broke the coalition. Prior to 1964 people generally voted with their class. Post '64 people have generally voted along an axis of what has eventually become multicultural democracy vs white hegemony.
It's not just a political identity. It's a foundational belief in these white people that they are better based on immutable characteristics that can't be taken away from them. Because of that they can convince themselves they aren't failures in their lives despite their lives being a string of underachievement made all the more miserable by capitalists forces they know they have no hope of fighting. So instead it's all about the copium and the vibes they get from it. That's why it's so damn difficult to persuade them even as the ultrarich utterly fuck what's left in their lives for profit.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 11:34 AM on March 12 [6 favorites]
So. Um.
This "Continuing Resolution" which had at one point even been described as a "Clean Continuing Resolution" both zeroes out funds for important things AND explicitly grants the President the right to rearrange spending at his discression?
Did I get that right?
And the only options available are
1) The Democrats let it happen
or
2) The Democrats shut down the government?
Cuz if I'm not mistaken it looks like shutting own the government is better than giving Trump monarchal powers. What would be the point of even having a Congress if the President gets to set the entire budget according to his own whim?
posted by sotonohito at 3:02 PM on March 12 [4 favorites]
This "Continuing Resolution" which had at one point even been described as a "Clean Continuing Resolution" both zeroes out funds for important things AND explicitly grants the President the right to rearrange spending at his discression?
Did I get that right?
And the only options available are
1) The Democrats let it happen
or
2) The Democrats shut down the government?
Cuz if I'm not mistaken it looks like shutting own the government is better than giving Trump monarchal powers. What would be the point of even having a Congress if the President gets to set the entire budget according to his own whim?
posted by sotonohito at 3:02 PM on March 12 [4 favorites]
I called both my Senators and told them to go ahead and shut the government down, pointing out that "hell, the GOP did the same a couple times."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:12 PM on March 12 [5 favorites]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:12 PM on March 12 [5 favorites]
which had at one point even been described as a "Clean Continuing Resolution"
The "clean" part is an outright lie pushed by R Congresspeople, the right wing media machine, and the sycophants in the MSM. The center-leftwards politics knowers and journalists and some of our sharper D Congresspeople are more accurately calling it the "Dirty" CR.
both zeroes out funds for important things AND explicitly grants the President the right to rearrange spending at his discression? Did I get that right?
Yup.
2) The Democrats shut down the government?
Well, no, the Republicans shut down the government. They've got agency, they've got very slim majorities in both houses, they know how the process works, there's no reason at all they couldn't create funding bills that would pass with D votes. But they wanna be assholes about it, and are gambling that the Dems will get blamed. Historically they've tried this before, it hasn't worked out well for them, the American electorate may be wandering around in a fog in general but the voters know whose fault it is when the Republicans shut down the government (or get close to a shutdown) no matter how much the R's try to claim it's the Dem's fault.
Maybe it'll work this time, though. I mean, that's how insidious this cultural narrative is, that Dems are the only ones with power and agency and responsible for stuff that happens, whereas everything the Republicans do falls under "shit happens", like hurricanes or tornadoes - you yourself, one of the most consistently left-of-center Mefites, are almost automatically buying the "Dems shut down government" framing.
What would be the point of even having a Congress if the President gets to set the entire budget according to his own whim?
Yup. We're all fucked either way, might as well force the R's to publicly admit they want to fuck us by passing this CR or shutting things down.
It would help if we had louder, more coherent, and more consistent messaging from the Dems, but OTOH the R representatives have been told to quit having public town halls because even in deep red districts people are showing up to yell at them about Trump and Musk shredding the government.
posted by soundguy99 at 4:39 AM on March 13 [3 favorites]
The "clean" part is an outright lie pushed by R Congresspeople, the right wing media machine, and the sycophants in the MSM. The center-leftwards politics knowers and journalists and some of our sharper D Congresspeople are more accurately calling it the "Dirty" CR.
both zeroes out funds for important things AND explicitly grants the President the right to rearrange spending at his discression? Did I get that right?
Yup.
2) The Democrats shut down the government?
Well, no, the Republicans shut down the government. They've got agency, they've got very slim majorities in both houses, they know how the process works, there's no reason at all they couldn't create funding bills that would pass with D votes. But they wanna be assholes about it, and are gambling that the Dems will get blamed. Historically they've tried this before, it hasn't worked out well for them, the American electorate may be wandering around in a fog in general but the voters know whose fault it is when the Republicans shut down the government (or get close to a shutdown) no matter how much the R's try to claim it's the Dem's fault.
Maybe it'll work this time, though. I mean, that's how insidious this cultural narrative is, that Dems are the only ones with power and agency and responsible for stuff that happens, whereas everything the Republicans do falls under "shit happens", like hurricanes or tornadoes - you yourself, one of the most consistently left-of-center Mefites, are almost automatically buying the "Dems shut down government" framing.
What would be the point of even having a Congress if the President gets to set the entire budget according to his own whim?
Yup. We're all fucked either way, might as well force the R's to publicly admit they want to fuck us by passing this CR or shutting things down.
It would help if we had louder, more coherent, and more consistent messaging from the Dems, but OTOH the R representatives have been told to quit having public town halls because even in deep red districts people are showing up to yell at them about Trump and Musk shredding the government.
posted by soundguy99 at 4:39 AM on March 13 [3 favorites]
It would help if we had louder, more coherent, and more consistent messaging from the Dems, but OTOH the R representatives have been told to quit having public town halls because even in deep red districts people are showing up to yell at them about Trump and Musk shredding the government.
Some Dems are stepping into those districts to have town halls instead. Bernie Sanders has been doing several town halls in Wisconsin, and Tim Walz has a couple of town halls for idaho districts. They both did a really smart outreach; "Hey, is your GOP Congresscritter cancelled their town halls? Wanna talk to SOMEONE in Congress, even a Dem like me?....'Cos i'll come hear you out."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:42 AM on March 13 [4 favorites]
Some Dems are stepping into those districts to have town halls instead. Bernie Sanders has been doing several town halls in Wisconsin, and Tim Walz has a couple of town halls for idaho districts. They both did a really smart outreach; "Hey, is your GOP Congresscritter cancelled their town halls? Wanna talk to SOMEONE in Congress, even a Dem like me?....'Cos i'll come hear you out."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:42 AM on March 13 [4 favorites]
soundguy99 while I'll concede I often take a view that one should expect nothing but evil and awfulness from the Republicans, in this particular instance I was speaking precisely when I said the Democrats seemed to have only the options of acquiesce or shutting down the government.
The Republicans have produced a dirty CR, the only leverage the Democrats have is refusing cloture in the Senate, no?
"Eithe you produce a better CR that doesn't destroy things and grant the President monarchal powers or we will stop your dirty CR from passing." That's basically their only play.
And I don't think they're going to, becuase doing so would mandate preparing public opinion by getting out there and decrying the dirty CR along wtih statements that they won't let America become a monarchy and if the Republicans won't produce a clean CR they will have no choice but, reluctantly, to refuse to allow it to pass in order to save America.
Since they haven't been out pushing that, or some other similar line about why the dirty CR is bad, it looks to me like they're going to let it happen.
As far as blaming Democrats, I think you're kind of misstating it. We can't control what the enemy does, all we can do is decide what we will do in response (which, of course, includes any efforts to influence the enemy).
The Republicans have produced a CR that basically eliminates Congress and turns the President into a king, as well as explicitly destroying many govenrment agencies. That's done.
To me it seems that means the Democrats are pretty limited in what they can do in response, and writing alternate universe fanfic abiout what the Republicans could have done differently seems kind of pointless.
posted by sotonohito at 7:33 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
The Republicans have produced a dirty CR, the only leverage the Democrats have is refusing cloture in the Senate, no?
"Eithe you produce a better CR that doesn't destroy things and grant the President monarchal powers or we will stop your dirty CR from passing." That's basically their only play.
And I don't think they're going to, becuase doing so would mandate preparing public opinion by getting out there and decrying the dirty CR along wtih statements that they won't let America become a monarchy and if the Republicans won't produce a clean CR they will have no choice but, reluctantly, to refuse to allow it to pass in order to save America.
Since they haven't been out pushing that, or some other similar line about why the dirty CR is bad, it looks to me like they're going to let it happen.
As far as blaming Democrats, I think you're kind of misstating it. We can't control what the enemy does, all we can do is decide what we will do in response (which, of course, includes any efforts to influence the enemy).
The Republicans have produced a CR that basically eliminates Congress and turns the President into a king, as well as explicitly destroying many govenrment agencies. That's done.
To me it seems that means the Democrats are pretty limited in what they can do in response, and writing alternate universe fanfic abiout what the Republicans could have done differently seems kind of pointless.
posted by sotonohito at 7:33 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
The other thing that for some reason hadn't occurred to me (and I wish I could remember where I read it) is this:
The government is ALREADY BEING SHUT DOWN. ILLEGALLY. Illegally firing thousands and thousands of vetted workers, hired with Congressional approval, trained with taxpayer dollars, and illegally closing multiple government agencies created by Congress is in fact shutting down the government.
Regardless of what happens with the votes this week, the Republican administration is in the process of shutting down the government. A refusal to pass the CR is an act of trying to stop the Republicans who are in the process of shutting down the government.
posted by kristi at 3:25 PM on March 13 [4 favorites]
The government is ALREADY BEING SHUT DOWN. ILLEGALLY. Illegally firing thousands and thousands of vetted workers, hired with Congressional approval, trained with taxpayer dollars, and illegally closing multiple government agencies created by Congress is in fact shutting down the government.
Regardless of what happens with the votes this week, the Republican administration is in the process of shutting down the government. A refusal to pass the CR is an act of trying to stop the Republicans who are in the process of shutting down the government.
posted by kristi at 3:25 PM on March 13 [4 favorites]
« Older Put on these podcasts and escape into the... | Lessons learnt from the northern hairy-nosed... Newer »
First, they said they wouldn't touch it.
Now, Republicans are telling you and they are telling your parents unequivocally that the conditions for reduced Social Security will be announced at a later time:
Republicans Face Angry Voters at Town Halls, Hinting at Broader Backlash Take Republican criminals at their word.
If you have parents who get Social Security entitlements that they paid into for decades.
If you think you deserve Social Security entitlements you have paid into for years.
Call your Congressperson and Senator and let them know this is a bright red line that will end of this country, if crossed.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:10 AM on March 10 [19 favorites]