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

if that's what you need to fuel your sanctimony, sure

the larger system can be utterly broken and horrible and murderous and life inside of it can be varying degrees of moral and just is how i break it down to an extent. we just came through the most explicitly corrupt, anti-intellectual and amoral administration in a century on the back of a pandemic that shut down both coasts and most of the country for a year. Biden is making some characteristic missteps within the utterly broken and horrible and murderous system but he is also distributing lots of lifelines and overseeing covid work that should and could have been executed months earlier but the trump didn't wanna. i don't have to want to get a beer with the guy to be somewhat grateful. we may all be going straight to hell but at least there's plans for a trip to dave and busters first.

Any time anyone expresses doubt from the left, they're shouted down and attacked.

Any time anyone says, hey maybe this is statist propaganda, this kind of sucks? they're shouted down and attacked.

If anyone expressing hard left opinions is constantly shouted down and attacked, then who is acting morally superior?

For the record, I don't think I'm morally superior to any of you. It's just that that particular WaPo article is a prime example of manufactured consent. That's all.

the headline and tweet could be construed as propaganda i guess

the bill is pathetic, this country is pathetic and utterly morally and spiritually bankrupt.

while this may be correct, and perhaps a goal of dismantling or destroying the US and replacing it with something else may be worthy albeit unlikely, for me this all stands outside the topic of US Politics. A constant frustration with this thread is that we default to arguing about things that are far removed from the actual functioning of government here.

New -- Manchin rejects calls for lowering 60-vote threshold. Also rejects calls for requiring 41 sens to sustain filibuster. Also rejects calls for specific carveouts on legislation, like on voting

I asked him if he's drawing a line at 60

"I'm still at 60 .. I haven't changed."

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) March 17, 2021

Any time anyone expresses doubt from the left, they're shouted down and attacked.

Any time anyone says, hey maybe this is statist propaganda, this kind of sucks? they're shouted down and attacked.

Is anyone denying that essentially all US news organizations are biased?

Like, that should be a baseline assumption and not a "wake up, sheeple" moment

Haven’t seen a lot of shouting down here tbh. If anything, it seems like it’s coming from the other direction, but maybe that’s just me misreading tones. “How dare you see this as anything but utter shit” seems to be a running theme.

the u.s. news media is fucked up as hell but i take more issue with the "this bill has so much money in it that phantom economists are worried" shit than "this is an unprecedented showering of money on the american public" which... i don't know, it kind of is, even if it's just because this country sucks so much ass that something that sucks slightly less ass is a major improvement

like the fealty to conservative talking points remains to me more the real enemy than any shine biden gets, idk

u.s. media is way too much access-based kowtowing to existing power structures and that's part of it too

The WaPo is always going to shill for liberals, but on the plus side, now we have the likes of Marco Rubio showing support for Amazon unionization.

My city has begun a reparations program which afaict is unprecedented and amazing while still, on its own, being a wholly inadequate response to the underlying issue. That sort of thing

and in that sense all reporting on the presidency is propaganda :D xxp

Joe Manchin should retire to his coal farm

Actually, I'm confused about the "propaganda." The headline and tweet make it seem strongly in favor of the legislation and Biden administration, but as unperson points out, the article also goes out of its way to include criticism of the bill from economists and business interests. The overall tone is cautious optimism, but it's very much a mainstream newspaper article that is structured by setting opposing views against each other.

So who is it propaganda for? The White House, or its conservative critics? Or is it propaganda for a centrist/neoliberal worldview that only considers criticism from Biden's right and not from his left?

The headlines that get repeated are worse than the actual coverage but those headlines are the part that gets repeated thousands of times an hour on social media. Same as it ever was*.

*since Facebook and Twitter ruined everything

probably worse than that first Manchin tweet:

On specific carveouts. “That's a little bit like being pregnant -- maybe.” On change to 41 senators: “No, I'm still at 60. Ok?" Manchin said, noting these "are all interesting" ideas. Said GOP blocking S.1 won’t change his mind

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) March 17, 2021

he doesn't even give a fuck about protecting the VRAA

What a fuck face

He’s posturing.

y'all really don't take the idea of manufactured consent seriously.

the bill is pathetic, this country is pathetic and utterly morally and spiritually bankrupt.

― it's like edging for your mind (the table is the table), Wednesday, March 17, 2021 9:03 AM (one hour ago)

yeah, I question how "sharply" this bill has/will cut poverty ... I see it as akin to the blankets and coffee and temporary shelter the Red Cross provides to people whose houses have burned down. It is very necessary in the short term. However, I don't see it sharply cutting poverty in the long term, until we have better worker protections (including increased minimum wage) and better provisions for affordable housing, as well as changes to things like minimum sentencing and the prison system which play a major role in keeping (mostly black) people in poverty.

Yes, but he's "our" fuck face xp

¡Federales Pigdogs!

My 2019 taxes apparently still have not been processed (they cashed my check right quick, though). This means 1) I cannot electronically submit my 2020 taxes, and 2) I haven't gotten my $600 or $1400 stimmies. To be fair, I don't need the money, but...scheisse.

you can e-file 2020 without having filed 2019 taxes ... it's just the software you are using that says you can't? ...

maybe instead of massaging his ego it’s time to start beating Manchin w a stick

I mean literally

misread as with his dick

I don't need the money either but filing 2020 a week early literally cost us over $3000 so that fucking sucks

not enough canings in the Senate lately xxp

xp - you can amend you return when the new rules get incorporated into software -- it is now even possible to amend electronically.

I usually file early but I'm holding until the stimulus comes through, got both payments before so figured why mess with it

I filed in mid-Feb and got my stimulus today so it's probably not an issue. Got the Dec stimmy pretty fast too iirc

my understanding is you can get it back in 2021 taxes if you qualify in 2020 but not 2019

I've heard it both ways, that amending 2020 won't cause the stimulus to re-run & that it will

as I understand it this stimulus is actually based on theoretical 2021 income so we are probably gonna focus on chucking money in pretax areas. apparently this bill raises the Dependent Care FSA to $10,500 and allows you to roll it over in 2022, which is amazing, but I think your employer has to opt in. but if they do I think that would solve it

Any time anyone expresses doubt from the left, they're shouted down and attacked.

No one here has shouted at you and disagreement with your characterization of facts is not an attack on you. Yes, Alfred called you sanctimonious, but your immediately making this response to his comment retroactively showed its justice.

I question how "sharply" this bill has/will cut poverty

Sarahell otm. I think it's fair to report on the bill's projected effects, but the tone is way too fait accompli at times.

Unless there’s filibuster reform, hard to imagine the child tax credit increase going beyond the year.

it's good timing for us (ours are 6 and 4 so they'll be full time in school soon) but still, make that shit permanent. the US makes it so fucking expensive to have a kid and that's why people aren't having them as much. not that we need more people but still I know a lot of parents who can use the help.

I suspect if any filibuster reform happens, it will be limited to reinstating the talking filibuster

Maybe Manchin can work out a grand bargain where families get the tax credit bump but the children are pledged to indentured servitude to the US military from 18-24.

they do not tell you upfront that daycare is the same as buying a second home

xpost Return of the talking filibuster would be a good start, if nothing else is possible.

sarahell def otm

The talking filibuster would probably let some of the agenda through and has the added benefit of possibly killing a couple of the GOP senior citizens.

Imagine Chuck Grassley stroking out on the Senate floor, it's easy if you try...

I hope Grassley gets to die at Dairy Queen

talking filibuster also forces somebody to be the asshole dying on a hill to oppose X --- they'll be no shortage of those people from the GOP obviously, but it raises the stakes from "hit the filibuster button and the bill is dead behind the scenes, average american has no idea" to "actual headlines: GOP Senator Jerkwad is determined to oppose X." which might mean that certain kinds of bills that poll well in red states could get through, and meanwhile gives the opposition something more memorable and distinct to campaign on. idk.

Q about the stimulus: in a world where the child payout WERE permanent, would that not sharply cut poverty? serious question, i don't know what the math looks like, maybe that is vanishingly small for all but a handful of families? but it feels like something that would be very transformative and worth championing, so i'm trying to suss out whether i'm wrong about that, or whether the objection is solely that since it's only a one-year intervention, it's a little lofty to speak about it as a breakthrough in addressing poverty.

Child benefit combined with big investment in early years education would be genuinely transformative

Child benefit on its own would still be freakin amazing

I, too, like the idea of requiring a 'talking filibuster'. Originally the filibuster was meant to allow the minority to thoroughly make its case and persuade the persuadable before closing debate and taking a vote. Now it is a simple push button that kills legislation.