Beware the Ides of March -- U.S. Politics March 2021

IMO, based on how people I know from college have been reacting so entirely anecdotal and by no means scientific or conclusive, his happened largely because well-meaning people who make a lot of money said "I don't need this, I want my senator to put in controls to make sure I don't see it" and senators said "I can do that" and then proceeded to shit directly into their own mouths

It's so fucking dumb, if you don't need the money then GIVE IT AWAY TO SOMEONE OR SOME ORGANIZATION THAT DOES, it's not fucking rocket science and also who cares if some number of rich people get extra money if more non-rich people are also getting money?

It's absolutely fair to be mad that the Dems are lowering the threshold on this.

Yes. You can be mad about this outcome. But you should also remember that the Dems had no trouble passing that higher threshold when it came to a vote. The Dems also passed a $15/hr minimum wage with votes to spare. I speak of the Dems in the House. They, too, are "the Dems" and they didn't lower a fucking thing. They passed good bills.

We all know the problem is a 50-50 senate and a Republican caucus that will vote as a solid bloc against any and every good piece of legislation, throwing it into the laps of senate Democrats to pull all 50 votes they need out of their 50. If they aren't unanimous, it gets shot down.

So, this isn't an overarching problem with "the Dems", but a rare confluence of events that gives any single senator complete veto power over every piece of legislation Congress could pass. I wish posters would stop flinging their ire at "the Dems", as if this were the plan the party had all along.

they need to not get bogged down

― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, March 3, 2021 12:23 PM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

too late for this one afaict

We all know the problem is a 50-50 senate

fixed for you

The money, at this particular moment, is incidental (except to those who really really need the money right now). It's a drop in the bucket in terms of the economic devastation of the past year and that's a whole larger issue that needs to be dealt with ASAP. What matters at this particular moment is the massive unforced error the dems are making with this dumbass goalpost shifting. No, the shit they're pulling isn't going to hit everyone all at once, but it's slowly but surely going to feed the narrative that if they can't live up to this one little promise, they probably can't be relied on for much more. And that's going to sting come 2022 and 2024.

Aimless, I get all that, but as pointed out above, the problem is the centrist Democrats who played a big part in giving up on this.

I wish posters would stop flinging their ire at "the Dems"

They’re a voluntary collective, that’s how blame works. When they fail to deliver on something - for the next two years - it is entirely on the party as a whole, because it will be a Democrat standing in the way.

I wish posters would stop flinging their ire at "the Dems", as if this were the plan the party had all along.

― Judge Roi Behan (Aimless), Wednesday, March 3, 2021 1:27 PM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

This is fair in terms of what I and others are literally saying when we simply evoke 'the dems' but I just assume that everyone here knows that it's more complex than that. It's more 'the dems who, instead of publicly trumpeting what garbage Manchin and Sinema are, just seem to be folding like rickety lawn chairs in the face of interparty intransigence'.

'intraparty' rather

When they fail to deliver on something - for the next two years - it is entirely on the party as a whole

You are correct that this is how the blame works. I see it happening here on this thread every few minutes. It drives me up a wall that the party that just drew 80,000,000 votes is now forced to act as stupidly as the single stupidest Democratic senator. Chains being as strong as their weakest link, indeed.

Old Lunch otm. I already have plenty of ire for the Republicans, that goes without saying. I'm extra pissed at the Dems who are caving.

I agree with the ideas that the Dems stand or fall collectively on what gets done. Where I disagree is that sending out $1,400 checks is delivering — it's delivering $1,400 checks. But whatever. Ire away.

I mean I'm just repeating a point others have made but it's delivering to a lot fewer people than promised. And that most definitely matters.

I'm uncharacteristically torn. tipsy's where I was this morning, but I'm in an anti-Biden mood based on the basic point that fewer people will get dough regardless of anticipatory anxiety about attack ads in '22.

idk why ms. shaheen couldn't have waited for the big infrastructure bill that is apparently coming next to sneak in her little kickback for telecoms.

Man, is infrastructure week coming up already?!

american infrastructure makes maeby feel "c-minus"

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/03/973054080/potholes-grid-failures-aging-tunnels-and-bridges-nations-infrastructure-gets-a-c

NEW: President Biden calls Texas and Mississippi decisions to end mask mandates “a big mistake" and criticizes what he views as “Neanderthal thinking” after CDC warned against complacency in the face of emerging coronavirus variants on Monday. https://t.co/rdOcWokNDa

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) March 3, 2021

fuck u Joe!

lol

RIP Neanderthal

bodied by the President, it's realy sad

Incredible to think they won’t run ads on failure to deliver on promises. They have hours of footage of Biden (and Warnock) promising $2000 checks if only you’d vote for the Democrats.

Now fewer voters are getting smaller checks. That’s bad politics (and bad policy).

― Joe Bombin (milo z), Wednesday, March 3, 2021 2:15 PM bookmarkflaglink

so the Rs strategy will be "the Democrats promised you 2k and didn't deliver! vote for us, the party that....also won't give you 2k!"?

lol

This is the kind of stuff Rs have threatened if Dems nuke the filibuster — withdrawing consent for routine stuff. https://t.co/LYZhIFtsMf

— Steven Dennis (@StevenTDennis) March 3, 2021

Hmmmm seems like they’re doing it anyway

xpost i know the bigger harm = if you piss off your voter base enough, they stay home on election day, but how are Rs going to successfully enact attack ads that expose that Democrats actually provided a larger one-time stimulus check than they ever did (1400 vs 1200) and when they weren't willing to give them anything, much less 1400.

xpost - No, but "broken promises" sets up some slam dunk ads that, uh, could easily have been avoided.

By "slam dunk" I mean easy content.

so the Rs strategy will be "the Democrats promised you 2k and didn't deliver! vote for us, the party that....also won't give you 2k!"?

Warmock’s opponent won’t have voted against checks... but yes in general. Republicans acting with rank hypocrisy? Inconceivable!

While obstructing Obama for six years they did not continually run on a slow economic recovery and rising healthcare costs.

so the Rs strategy will be "the Democrats promised you 2k and didn't deliver! vote for us, the party that....also won't give you 2k!"?

― Red Nerussi (Neanderthal), Wednesday, March 3, 2021 2:57 PM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

i think the messaging would be more like "remember when you got a check when donald trump was president and not when joe biden was prez?"

of course, that would make me remember the reasons why people needed a stimulus check in the first place...

so the Rs strategy will be "the Democrats promised you 2k and didn't deliver! vote for us, the party that....also won't give you 2k!"?

― Red Nerussi (Neanderthal), Wednesday, March 3, 2021 1:57 PM (two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Since when did the gop have to give their base anything but dem tears to make them happy?

Democrats actually provided a larger one-time stimulus check than they ever did (1400 vs 1200)

people might ignore the "one-time" and focus on the fact that the gop gave away $1800, which is more than the dems gave away. there also might be political value in giving more money in a one-time payment than the previous admin. gave in 4 years, but i'm not a big-brained dc insider.

I don't really care about ads (do they actually influence people? idk), but the fear is depressing D turnout in a midterm -- "Dems can't do anything right, why bother?" -- not whether Rs have a cohesive philosophy of governance. Framing this around people switching parties is kind of misleading

hope some enterprising Hill staffer at McCarthy's office is ghosting on ILE now taking notes

geave mi mani

I'm mad about the means testing changes, don't get me wrong, but....think some of you are overestimating how much of an effect it'll have long-term. of course it'll lead to attack ads! but even when Obama's economic recovery was very slow, and attack ads appeared of Obama saying if he couldn't repair the economy, he should be a one-term President, and he still managed to win re-election.

granted, bloodbath at the midterms, but the party in power always loses seats and I tend to feel racism played a role (a Black President! let me vote for people of the opposite party so he can't enact pro-Black legislation!).

i'm with Alfred, I'm just mad about it in principle, not because of optics/lost votes later. plus you can bet, if society re-opens en masse due to the Biden admins aggressive federal efforts in strengthening vaccine production and distribution, even though vaccine development began long before he was in office, he will definitely get a positive bump from that. stuff's open again, nationally! much less people are dying! businesses can be at full capacity! whether he was fully responsible or not, he'll be associated with it.

whether that benefits D Senators and House reps...is another thing.

people might ignore the "one-time" and focus on the fact that the gop gave away $1800, which is more than the dems gave away. there also might be political value in giving more money in a one-time payment than the previous admin. gave in 4 years, but i'm not a big-brained dc insider.

― little johnny juul (voodoo chili), Wednesday, March 3, 2021 3:03 PM bookmarkflaglink

screw that, Dems get all of the credit for the $600 in January. wouldn't have even been in the bill if not for D politicians, and they need to mention that in their own ads. not that it matters, it took then a whopping 10 months to do it, Biden's been in office five weeks.

some Senators are already pushing for another round of payments, which I'm sure won't be as easy as I can see that asshole Manchin already pushing back on it, but it should definitely be attempted. i want monthly payments, but i see less of a road for that since there are only a handful on record supporting it. but maybe try for that first, compromise with another one time payment of like...idk, $1,200?

Fwiw, the only reason I'm angry about this is the 12 million people who won't get money many of them really need. I was only mentioning the point about ads because I think it's very very unlikely that this doesn't come back to bite the Dems in the ass, pretending this will be completely forgotten by 2022 seems silly. A lot of people suffered economically in this pandemic and I think that's going to extend the memories of a lot of people.

xpost though to your point I actually see dumb Democrats pushing the "Rs got us $1800 vs $1400, they're better than us" nonsense narrative so the truth doesn't really matter with voters, which I know was your point

logistical question - what i read told me that they only go by 2019 tax return if that's what's on file, but if you've filed in 2020, they'll use that (similar to last year). is that true? if so, at least those who had a salary drop in 2019-2020 due to layoffs/furloughs etc may qualify if they have filed for 2020 already....if not, i think they can claim the difference in a credit next year.

that still doesn't come close to paying everybody that was paid before but thinking of add'tl options

*filed for 2020

God knows complicated explanations are a political winner. The fact is people would have $1800 from a Republican President and a Republican Senate and less than that from a Democratic House, Senate and President.

I don’t think those numbers matter. I think saying “$2000” over and over and over matters and I think no check at all is going to matter a lot to 12 million upper-middle class voters (who are prone to voting).

. I wouldn’t be so sure that Dems get credit for the $600 in December. Trump was president. That’s how it will be remembered by lots of folks.

And tbf, the $1400 still hasn’t actually happened. Never doubt their ability to even fuck this up. I’d cop to being a “dumb democrat”, but I might be registered independent now iirc

Also, Neanderthal, in the other thread you were calling deeper means testing a dead issue that non-Manchinites had won.

at least the enhanced unemployment is expected to stay at $400 (which is still too low, but $100 higher than before, which i'll take, since my mother is utilizing it).

I just don’t know what doing dumb shit gets them. Like actually who benefits by being stingy after a full year of the economy being more or less shut down for tens of millions of people?

If you’re putting your chips on a gangbusters economy (by no means a forgone conclusion) after vaccinations reopenings then the stimulus will pAy fOr iTsELf.

You compromise for the thrill of compromise - deal-making is an art...

xpost you are right, I did. and now i'm eating crow on that.

but if you recall they were talking about phasing out payments at 50,000 for single participants, 100,000 for married participants, and people were reacting angrily as if that had already happened. the current phase-out changes, though I obviously oppose them, was nowhere near that much of a chop (though still fairly ridiculous)

assuming the child credits stay untouched, I have more than a few friends who will benefit greatly from it

isn't the idea to give also give money to people that don't need it so they will buy stuff?

I just don’t know what doing dumb shit gets them.

All 50 democratic senators' votes, instead of fewer than 50.

well yeah the point of a stimulus is to stimulate the economy, though basically this round of checks is more "the previous administration abandoned you, this is to give you something so you can pay some bills" by this point.

it's dumb to reduce the pay thresholds and i am hoping Manchin gets eaten by wolves.