this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2025
378 points (98.0% liked)

politics

26327 readers
2786 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It sounds like a bunch of Democrats want to cave in exchange for no concessions whatsoever. Edit: Bloomberg has more details

Current likely Democratic votes for this:

  • Shaheen - NH
  • Hassan - NH
  • King - ME
  • Fetterman - PA
  • Peters - MI
  • Durbin - IL
  • Warner - VA
  • Kaine - VA
  • Ossoff- GA
  • Warnock - GA

If you want to change things, you need to call their DC office NOW, and leave an email if you can't.

Edit 2: enough Democrats joined the Republicans to reopen the government with no real concessions.

The list:

  • Durbin
  • Hassan
  • King
  • Cortez Masto
  • Kaine
  • Shaheen
  • Rosen
  • Fetterman
  • Schumer
  • Gillibrand

There was a caucus meeting right before this, so the bulk of the Senate Democrats were likely OK with giving in, even if not willing to vote for it in public

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chipacabras@lemmy.world 63 points 2 days ago (9 children)

I don’t understand what the calculation was here. People were hurting, but a whole lot more people are going to hurt without health insurance come next year. They got:

  • a vote on healthcare extension in December: almost certain to fail and even if succeeding, open enrollment ends 12/15. So you’d potentially be making people gamble thousands of dollars per month that this unlikely vote succeeds and effects them immediately
  • written into the law that federal employees get back pay - which is already federal law
  • reverses lay offs that occurred during the shut down - which were illegal
  • it only funds the government through January. So we’re going to be right back in this situation. And then what - we tell these poor SNAP recipients, “oh sorry, we’re going to need you to go though this whole thing again because we wanted to make sure people could fly home for thanksgiving.”

Hard to imagine a moderate winning a national primary after this. And what the hell is the republican answer for why it was so important that people not get slightly more affordable healthcare that it was worth starving people.

I hope that at the least, the re-establishment of SNAP will be quick.

[–] Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago (4 children)

And what the hell is the republican answer for why it was so important that people not get slightly more affordable healthcare that it was worth starving people.

Immigrants. It was always immigrants. They repeatedly blamed it on immigrants "stealing" tax payer money thru ACA even tho that's not really possible except for extreme circumstances that typically account for less than 1% of the funding for the program.

[–] chipacabras@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Surely they know that’s not true though (even if they won’t admit it publicly). I just don’t see what the real human rational is. Cut money so you can give more tax breaks to the wealthy? Like how can someone be so callous. How do you justify that to yourself?

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

They believe the "proper" stewards of society are the wealthy. In order for the wealthy to make the best of things, they need that money, so low taxes.

But the wealthy need something else, a desperate working class that will do anything the wealthy says just so they can eat and have some chance at things like decent healthcare. One of their favorite refrains is "nobody wants to work anymore", and in part they blame government assistance for this perceived lack of workers or workers that are so uppity as to demand a living wage.

Of course desperate people can do something other than nicely do the things the wealthy tell them to. So that's where "law and order" principles come in. Make a big authoritarian police force to discourage the more dangerous path that mass desperation can cause.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)