I’m enjoying reading your perspective fwiw
1 Like
You’ve repeatedly advocating for caving and not a hardline stance and now you’re for a “compromise” that is basically everyone’s hardline stance? On behalf of all of the hardliners, I’d like to thank you for coming over to our side. A great victory for the hardliners standing up for those who need help the most!
Chuck Schumer’s issue with the executive order is that it doesn’t do enough for landlords. Let that sink in.
10 Likes
On the one hand, just from a strategic and political perspective, it’s a great insight into the problems with the eDems. On the other, from a policy perspective, it’s not good for our economy to fuck them over, because it will likely have far reaching implications. Putting reforms in place after the crisis is the move. Problem is, that never seems to happen.
Keep in mind as well, the proper place to put our concern: eviction moratoriums don’t pay back rent. They just keep the roof over your head. At some point you still owe X months rent. At some point, you’re again eligible for eviction.
If there is a deal by the GOP to do anything resembling what I proposed, you cannot ignore it and at least try to negotiate it. That sort of thing is exactly what Meadows claimed the GOP was doing (he was lying about the scope but they did try it). If they can’t get something there, nothing will get done in the short or long term. Doing nothing really seems to be the outcome you want, because I sure as f*** don’t see you as an advocate for doing the right thing for people in the short term.
The only place I’d be willing to compromise on that skinny bill is the hazard pay, because I guarantee you the GOP will pass eviction moratorium and the $600 UE if it’s presented to them. All Democrats would be on that, and there are a number of non-suicidal GOP members who would be okay with that as the bare minimum to keep election prospects up. If they want to chop the hazard pay out of that, they can do it at their own risk.
I’m looking for a detente right now, because any outcome where no money is flowing is a bad one for anyone who doesn’t have money right now, period. Again, I’m not on your side about letting nothing happen no matter how many times you try to say that’s my position. I think that position is extremely gross and heartless.
Knowing chuck and nancy they proposed this and were shot down
If my dream girl throws herself at me tomorrow, I’ll say yes. Don’t see it happening, though.
I don’t know what the fuck this means. Am I supposed to take that deal for two weeks to buy time to negotiate? Okay, sure. Until mid to late October to gauge the situation then? Okay. Until mid November so the GOP can take max hostages and cause max pain with no electoral consequences? No, then I’m just sealing people’s fate.
Dems can take a short deal or one into mid to late January. Anything in between is going to do more harm than good.
You want to give them until mid November? You’re going to do a great service to people for three months, but a far bigger disservice for the following three (or worse, the following four years).
Only if you give it to them until mid November and no longer. There’s a reason they want it until then and it’s not good.
This is true, but it doesn’t make it right to set these people up to get fucked that much harder in November.
People are going to suffer either way. I want the minimum amount of suffering, you want to delay suffering as long as possible.
Your plan has the added bonus of helping the GOP keep power, which makes your position increase suffering in the medium and long term just to buy a few months to hope the GOP sees the error of its ways.
The GOP might take it until Nov 4. That’s about it. They know this hurts their electoral chances a lot, and that’s the only reason they want it for the short term. Once they’re 2 years away from facing the voters it’ll be all about stiff upper lips and getting through it by our bootstraps.
What’s your plan then @nunnehi?
You keep inventing stuff and presenting it as fact. Below is all I have left to say on this. You do not know what will happen in November on the extension of a short term deal at all, so stop presenting it like you do. You do not know whether there is only one shot at this, so stop presenting that like it’s an inalienable fact.
You are correct that I want to delay suffering as long as possible. That’s called being a human being. I do not know that additional suffering will be caused with that delay, but I absolutely guarantee you that doing nothing will cause suffering the likes of which this country hasn’t seen since The Great Depression. If you think I’d be on board a two week extension I have no idea what you’re drinking to give you that idea. I am flat out saying if the offer is extending the $600 through mid-November along with the eviction moratorium I would not turn that down, especially knowing where we currently sit in negotiations which is in a much worse place than last Friday.
You can hate that all you want, but you aren’t going to change my mind that the level of short term suffering your ideas would cause is worth it over a pure unknown. We know there will be massive short term suffering if money is not flowing before September 1. That’s all we know for sure right now and we need to avoid that if at all possible. I also can guarantee I will be quite upset if nothing has been through a major process related to voting by next Friday. That’s all I know right now.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see why the GOP wanted an extension to mid November. You just have to get off Level 1.
I want to reduce total suffering. I’d rather see less suffering sooner than more suffering later.
Pure unknown? Have you been watching the GOP since 2008? Since 2016? This is not a pure unknown.
They give 0.0 fucks about human suffering as long as it is not their own. They don’t care one bit about the poor.
They take hostages in every negotiation.
They won’t save lives without getting something in return.
This is really simple. The Republicans will trade expanded unemployment for:
-
A liability shield (more death, more profits)
-
Alleviating their current electoral problem until mid November.
How they will behave in November is obvious: in their own self interest. They will no longer have an electoral problem. So if you want another extension, you’ll be in a far worst negotiating position than now, you’ll have to give them the shield (and probably only for $200-400), or something even worse. If Biden wins, they may just say fuck it all, no extension. That’s what they did when Obama won - the party of no.
This is not complicated. If you really think November is a pure unknown, you’re clueless. The Republicans have been kicking our ass with the same playing for years, and you want to run the same play we always run.
The future is uncertain, but not completely unpredictable. I think Democrats get the best outcome, on average, by not being risk-averse and instead by being willing to allow the possibility that no bill gets done.
If Meadows absolutely refuses to come off his $1 trillion line, can you fit a skinny bill that you can live with under that constraint? You’ve said yourself that Republicans don’t want to look bad by caving and don’t care if a refusal to do so causes suffering.
And if you could find an acceptable skinny deal, what incentive do Republicans have to address the other key Democratic priorities: aid to state/local government, elections, and USPS (which are more important than hazard pay)?
Yeah aid to the USPS is maybe the most important part, but with this jackass running it, it may be irrelevant.
I’d be willing to come down a bit on the amount for UI in order to get funding for election security and ensuring the USPS can handle increased vote-by-mail volume.
1 Like
Agreed. But you can’t just fund USPS, the guy running it is a saboteur.
Will the deep state go postal on his ass if he gets too out of line?
What’s an eDem? - I feel I should know but just can’t pin it down.
Establishment Democrat
1 Like
gotcha - thanks
WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE LANDOWNERS FOR ONCE!!
Pelosi just released this statement this morning.
“While we appreciate that the President has decided that so many of the provisions in the Heroes act are necessary to the point of emergency action, the fact remains that the President does not have the authority to unilaterally assign funds, as that is a power granted to the congress. We are not a dictatorship, and we urge the President to work closely with his republican colleagues in the senate to pass the now evident much needed Heroes Act.”