SHRILL Krugman

[kpete]

Last edited Tue Feb 2, 2021, 12:27 PM - Edit history (1)

@paulkrugman
·
Jan 31
So Rs want Biden to drastically scale back economic relief in the name of bipartisanship. Their offer is insultingly inadequate, and their claims that using reconciliation would "poison the well" are rich given how they rammed through the 2017 tax cut. But there's more 1/

Why, exactly, is bipartisanship something to be valued right now? When a political party by and large still won't accept Biden's legitimacy and embraces Jewish space laser people, why is it a virtue to cooperate with it? 2/

Link to tweet

?s=20

************

btw: for those who wondered about my use of the word "shrill"
This is the definition I thought I was conveying:

the definition of shrill is someone or something that is loud and high-pitched, or that is loud and forceful.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/shrill

apologies to those who thought I was in anyway being offensive

[Mike 03]

1. Poisoning the well?

That is the party that didn't even wait until Ruth Bader Ginsburg's body was cold to announce the confirmation hearings for her replacement.

[Hotler]

2. Too selfish to meet us half way. nt

[sandensea]

3. The party that won't condemn - much less expel - coup-plotters has no place at the table.

Until they grow up - if that's still possible.

[c-rational]

4. The well was already poisoned before we got control.

[dreamland]

5. Sure, if the Repugs want to cut back, then we can make the cuts to their state only.

The rest of the states shouldn't need to suffer simply because they want to limit their budget. We can comply and let's see how they can explain to them r constituents that they successfully cut the money going to their state. This is the same argument the antivaxers or antiabortion people use. None for you because I don't want it.

[mollie8]

6. ways to cut back..

or we could redo the tax code to eliminate all those tax cuts for the richest that the republicans passed. That should take care of the deficit...Is this possible?

[Ferrets are Cool]

25. Now you are hurting me. I live in a red state. For 64 years.

So, I deserve to be punished?

[dreamland]

36. I'm sorry that you have such crappy representatives. But I applaud you for being there.

Without people like you there, it's hard to bring change. I couldn't move to a red state, it takes willpower and courage, so no, I don't mean to punish you but your awful Reps.

[Ferrets are Cool]

37. ...

[catrose]

7. I don't see that the Rs have anything to offer us--and we've suffered from them long enough.

[OldBaldy1701E]

13. DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER! (n/t)

[dchill]

8. Time to poison the well.

[Jay25]

9. And, that's that.

[JHB]

10. No one could have foreseen...

...that the Republicans would engage in insincere wingnut performance art.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

23. What bugs me is how long they're allowed to "engage in insincere wingnut performance art".

Offer them a seat on the bus. When they refuse and cry about the upholstery, close the door and move on without them.

Those Sunday morning shows will have to interview their typical GOPer stars about things already done.

[orleans]

11. rachel recently said (while she was interviewing schumer)

dems/obama tried bipartisanship for
health care
immigration
& the recovery act
and in all cases the bills got watered down
and the fuckers still didn't vote for them!

[lark]

12. Yep, it's a ploy so they can take credit for the checks and still screw the working class.

They don't want to vote no on checks - know it will bite them in the future.

[SunSeeker]

16. Exactly. It's a trap. Let's not get Grassleyed again! nt

[uponit7771]

18. +1,

[calclar]

14. It's FDR time...

...."I'm sure that I will receive hate from all of the the economic royalists....I welcome their hate!"

[SunSeeker]

15. K & R & Retweeted!

[electric_blue68]

17. OK Krugman 👍

I would have tittled this maybe "Strong Krugman".

Shrill kind of implies something's annoying. Unless
the OP was seeing how the Rethuglicans would perceive
him.

[BobTheSubgenius]

24. In my opinion, I think "shrill" almost implies the subject is a woman.

Men, aren't "shrill", don't ya know? Men are "assertive" or "strident"....rarely, if ever, shrill.

All that aside, what PK wrote wasn't shrill.

[Poiuyt]

29. Yeah, that wasn't the right word for the original post's subject line

Shrill is a negative term. Krugman's remarks were right on target.

[calimary]

19. You ask some mighty good questions, Mr. Krugman.

The cowards won’t answer, though.

So screw ‘em!

[dalton99a]

20. Kick

[theneworiginal]

21. With so many kind gestures of good faith from the R's like

their handling of MTG, putting her on committee
advertising their liaison with an EX-president
failing to admit that Biden even won
coordinating the defense of an Insurrection

That's some strong bipartisanship there. They really know how to lay on the charm.

Yeah, we should totally meet them halfway--maybe agree that sharks have laser beams and that Margie should go to bed without dessert. And maybe even give more money to billionaires with the COVID cash.

That seems fair.

[Nitram]

22. SHRILL?

[Goodheart]

28. My thought exactly. How is that shrill?

[Nitram]

31. It's not. I'm not sure what word was actually intended.

[Stuart G]

26. Kick, Thank You for the post..K and R

[Beartracks]

27. If you don't value the Democratic processs, you don't get a seat at the Democratic table.

[jimlup]

30. Thank you for that Paul!

Exactly...

[Blue Owl]

32. K&R

[Bernardo de La Paz]

33. Bipartisanship starts with "Biden is President. He won an accurate count. The Steal was a lie."

Let them say that if they are serious about working with Democrats.

And they also have to start respecting Democrats by calling the party it's proper name, the Democratic Party.

This is really basic stuff.

[czarjak]

34. Rushbo learned 'em good!

[amb123]

35. You can't compromise with people who want to destroy you

and everything you stand for. It's as simple as that.