Bernie is a no on debt ceiling bill

[Marius25]

Link to tweet

Starting to wonder if they even have the votes to pass this.

[ColinC]

1. Bernie wouldn't support something like this unless he is absolutely needed

And I doubt that’s the case.

[W_HAMILTON]

8. But people like him, Warren, etc. making symbolic votes only hurts our (Democratic) cause while...

...uplifting their own personal brands.

We've already seen how we can lose close elections because certain voters -- young people especially -- were falsely led to believe untruths about a certain candidate or what they have/haven't done or what their policies are and I can see these sorts of votes and comments about them only hurting us, Democrats as a whole, in the future, whereas where does it get Sanders or Warren at this point? More campaign contributions? More TV interviews? What?

They could be trying to sell these young voters on the plan and why it was unfortunately necessary and why, if they want to not see things like this happen in the future and even more progressive policies enacted in their place, they need to FUCKING VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS. But I think their stance here does not further that idea and only hurts it, which ultimately hurts the agenda that Sanders/Warren wants to see us pursue.

[ColinC]

11. The deal is bad but probably the best we'll get

We need people to remind us how bad it is or there will be the continued proclivity to accept it as okay, and not the reality that we just negotiated with terrorists.

[W_HAMILTON]

26. No, that's not the case. We need people to remind everyone the importance of...

...VOTING GOOD DEMOCRATS IN AND VOTING SHITTY REPUBLICANS (BASICALLY ALL OF THEM) OUT.

Once again, I think someone famously referred to it as being a pragmatic progressive. As opposed to, say, a "Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately" progressive.

We don't need people to remind us of our principles. We should already know that.

We need people to remind us that sometimes you have to make concessions and agree to deals to prevent your principles from even being further compromised, especially when your principles cause you to vote in a way that allows Republicans -- THE BIGGEST THREAT TO YOUR PRINCIPLES -- to win office because someone was stupid enough to waste their vote or not vote at all as some sort of way of signaling their principles.

The only principle it signals to me is that person is incredibly politically naive and cares more about talking about helping people (and getting likes and retweets and social media clout) than actually seeing people get helped.

[ColinC]

27. Democrats just negotiated with terrorists largely because they had no choice

We need people to realize the importance of voting in Democrats BECAUSE of deals like this, not despite them.

[Demsrule86]

99. No we don't. I do agree about voting Democratic but that is not the way it works.

[ColinC]

107. It's exactly how it works. The gop just threatened to destroy our economy

In order to get something out of it. We were forced to give them something, which is completely asinine.

[lapucelle]

112. And Biden forced the GOP to negotiate a budget that is nothing like the budget the GOP wanted,

in order to get the debt ceiling done. And now the debt ceiling threat is gone for two years. It was a game of chicken, and the Republicans lost.

And now all those Republicans who voted against the deal are going to be saddled with having voted to (in your words) "destroy our economy". Asinine indeed.

[ColinC]

113. Biden played it as best he could

And I applaud him for it.

That being said, millions more are going to be experiencing unnecessary food insecurity due to this -as you call it, “game of chicken.” Because to them, it isn’t a game.

[lapucelle]

119. What "millions" will be experiencing unnecessary food insecurity?

The CBO scored the deal as an EXPANSION of SNAP eligibility, with no changes to TANF.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-05/hr3746_Letter_McCarthy.pdf

Budget analysis finds the debt deal would actually expand SNAP benefits, even though the GOP fought for work requirements

According to a projection by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released Tuesday, the current proposed "Fiscal Responsibility Act" would expand SNAP benefits to groups like homeless individuals and veterans. In total, at least 78,000 people would gain access SNAP benefits per month, which is a .2% increase, the CBO wrote

snip======================================

[T]he CBO's analysis shows an expansion of the pool of potential SNAP beneficiaries.

"Several groups would newly be exempt from work requirements: people experiencing homelessness, veterans, and people ages 18 to 24 who were in foster care when they turned 18," the CBO wrote in the report.

The bill raises the age for work requirements from 49 to 54.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cbo-proposed-bipartisan-debt-ceiling-bill-may-expand-snap-benefits-2023-5

[ColinC]

134. Excuse me, 900,000. so not quite "millions"

Yet still far too many. Although simply having a work requirement would expect far more to lose the benefits, even if there are others who are eligible.

The nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates nearly 900,000 people could lose SNAP benefits nationwide.

https://news.yahoo.com/changes-food-stamp-requirements-could-035900042.html

[lapucelle]

140. The stat is not based Biden's debt ceiling deal. It's based the bill House Republicans were pushing.

This is really terrible reporting on the part of Gillian Graham of the Portland Press Herald, Maine. She is conflating the draconian bill passed by House Republicans in April with the bill that passed last night.

The article references changes proposed by the Republicans on the the House Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration in an Agricultural Appropriations Bill. The proposal would have conformed with the draconian measures passed by House Republicans back in April in their debt ceiling bill.

This is what the Republicans WANTED in the budget.

https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=115996

And because of the debt ceiling bill President Biden negotiated, Republicans are not going to get those cuts.

----------------------------------------------------------

House Republicans’ Agriculture Appropriations Bill Would Cut WIC Benefits for 5 Million Participants, Put SNAP Benefits at Risk for 1 Million Older Adults
May 23, 2023

House Republicans’ fiscal year 2024 agriculture appropriations bill[1] would make harmful policy changes and deep funding cuts to two critical food assistance programs — the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — that would result in benefit cuts or loss of eligibility for millions of people.

To adhere to the austere funding caps on annual appropriations proposed under House Republicans’ own debt-ceiling-and-cuts bill, the proposal would slash science-based WIC benefits that families use to buy fruits and vegetables for 5 million pregnant and postpartum participants and young children under 5.

The bill also puts SNAP benefits at risk for 1 million older adults by including the same policy from their debt ceiling bill that takes food assistance away from people aged 50 to 55 who can’t meet a work-reporting requirement.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/house-republicans-agriculture-appropriations-bill-would-cut-wic-benefits

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factbox: What's in the US House Republicans' debt-ceiling spending-cut bill?

WASHINGTON, April 27 (Reuters) - The Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill that pairs $4.8 trillion of spending cuts with an increase in the federal government's $31.4 trillion debt ceiling. It has no chance of passing the Democratic-led Senate, but is meant to pressure Democratic President Joe Biden into budget talks.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/whats-us-house-republicans-debt-ceiling-spending-cut-bill-2023-04-27/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cuts that you are upset about are the very cuts that were averted under the Biden deal.

[ColinC]

158. They are citing the same deal that expands food stamps to veterans

Are you saying that deal did not go through?

The nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates nearly 900,000 people could lose SNAP benefits nationwide.


"The proposed debt ceiling agreement comes on the backs of people all across America trying to make ends meet. The expansion of cruel, harsh and arbitrary time limits on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for older unemployed and underemployed adults struggling in the labor market will only deepen hunger and poverty," Luis Guardia, president of the Food Research & Action Center in Washington, D.C., which advocates for people struggling against poverty-related hunger, said in a statement.

But the proposed deal also would expand food stamp access for veterans, homeless people and young adults transitioning out of the foster care system by exempting them from work requirements, which Biden administration officials have highlighted as a victory.

[lapucelle]

165. There is neither a citation nor a link in the Portland Herald story reposted on Yahoo.

The Portland Herald reporter appears to have copied and pasted paragraphs from different sources. Neither the CBPP article nor the CBO scoring report references the 900,000 number.

[MadameButterfly]

63. Actually, a lot of people need to be reminded that this deal is bad

They aren't all Du-ers out there. There are voters who need to understand Republicans have done a bad thing, not business as usual. Selling that point is critical to winning the next election as well as changing the laws that make this happen over and over.

You assume the people voting (symbolic) no's on this deal never compromise. They compromise all the time. Look at their complete records.

[Demsrule86]

161. It is not a bad deal. And those that voted no were allowed to do so. We didn't need the votes.

[MadameButterfly]

173. it's better than it might have been

and Biden did a good job. But it's worse than if this whole debt ceiling deal thing didn't exist. Republicans shouldn't be let off the hook just because they didn't go as draconian as they threatened to do.

[lapucelle]

57. Why is it a bad deal? N/T

[Demsrule86]

73. it is a good deal in fact...have any considered who will administer the new work requirements?

We do. We decide who meets the work requirement of being able...in fact, it is brilliant. But I am hopeful if it fools some here the GOP will also be fooled and not realize they have been had...

[lapucelle]

77. And the CBO scored this an an EXPANSION of SNAP.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-05/hr3746_Letter_McCarthy.pdf

[DemocraticPatriot]

82. Many of the people who rely upon SNAP, and are legally entitled to it,

may not have internet access.... but will be required to "re-justify themselves" every month, or every 3 months, or whatever it is---


inevitably, many of them will lose benefits to which they are entitled, just because of this "reporting requirement"....


In fact, in states where this requirement has been more stringent, research shows that the cost of paying those who have to confirm this reporting requirement surpasses any savings.... In short, any such requirements end up costing the government more money, rather than less, and thus is no help whatsoever in "lessening the deficit"...

All reports say almost all of these people are already working at least 20 hours,
but many of them will lose SNAP benefits because they are POOR...

What you suggest, is that they will continue to receive SNAP benefits,
because we control the government-- but we will ignore the laws ??


This is only the tip of the ice-burg... The "Farm Bill" is coming up,
and that where the MAGAts will increase their attack on SNAP benefits...

[lapucelle]

104. Who will be newly required to "re-justify themselves every three months"?

Do you have links for the research data you mentioned?

Support for the assertion that "all reports say"?

Details on exactly who will "lose benefits because they are poor", especially since the deal includes new EXEMPTIONS from ANY work requirements for veterans and the homeless?

[Demsrule86]

163. They likely would have no benefits if we breached the debt ceiling. It could take months if not year

The same is true for social security. And we might lose in the end. Be thankful we got the deal we did. We could have had another 2011 nightmare.

[ColinC]

91. We just cut millions of people off of food stamps

And millions of dollars in other necessary programs. The only good deal would have been a raise of the debt ceiling with no questions asked.

[betsuni]

92. How would that be possible?

Force of will?

[ColinC]

94. 14th amendment

It might be temporary but would be making it even more clear who the terrorists are

[betsuni]

95. How do you know that would work?

[ColinC]

103. It might not, but it would set an even more clear line in the sand that terrorism is not okay

[Demsrule86]

162. And this destroy the economy There is no guarantee SCOTUS would side with us and any judge

Along the way could stop the bills from being paid. It was too risky. It is and was a good deal. We don't have the House. Deal with it.

[Demsrule86]

96. No we didn't. We are in charge of who is considered able to work...think about that. Seriously,

It is a good deal, and if we don't have all three branches of government...that is what happens. So I think we need to get and vote vote and vote. More people are eligible under this agreement in fact.

[Demsrule86]

164. Not true.

[MadameButterfly]

122. Joe Manchin's pipeline and changes to NEPA

a major, 50-year-old environmental law

[lapucelle]

126. We need to hold that WV senate seat, and the changes to NEPA concern streamlining the process.

While the Biden administration has imposed an aggressive climate agenda, the president has also taken steps to boost fossil fuel production and work with Manchin and Republicans, who've argued the president's climate agenda is endangering U.S. energy security.

================================================

"President Biden protected his historic climate legislation, stopped House Republicans from clawing back record funding for environmental justice projects and secured a deal to get hundreds of clean energy projects online faster all while protecting the full scope of environmental reviews," Abdullah Hasan, a White House spokesman, said.

"We believe this is a bipartisan compromise that Congressional Democrats can be proud of and that will accelerate our clean energy goals and climate agenda," Hasan said.

The deal would also streamline the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a landmark environmental regulation, to limit its requirements on some projects.

The agreement would designate "a single lead agency" to develop environmental reviews in order to speed the process, and shorten the time the federal government takes to analyze a proposed plan's environmental impact.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/30/debt-limit-bill-would-speed-completion-of-west-virginia-gas-pipeline-.html

The deal is not perfect., but it is good, and was masterfully negotiated by Biden and his team.

[MadameButterfly]

144. streamlining the bill under threat by extortionists

is not the best way to create the best reform. Environmentalists are unhappy and Republicans happy about this. Who do you think they are taking care of?

I'm not say we shouldn't pass the bill. Just someone ask why the deal is bad. It could be bad and the best we can do at the same time. We shouldn't construe supporting passage of this bill with saying it is good, or these are improvements. These are ransome, undoing of Democratic legislation at the point of a gun.

[lapucelle]

155. Not all environmentalists are against the changes.

The NEPA permitting approval process was streamlined under the deal, but this is a means of jump starting green energy infrastructure projects funded under the Inflation Reduction Act that are currently being held up by permitting-approval red tape.

Despite a Republican House majority, Democratic Rep. Scott Peters has entered the 118th Congress emboldened.

As members of both parties and chambers restart negotiations on legislation to speed up the permitting process for energy projects, the California lawmaker wants to take on the role of bipartisan dealmaker, leveraging the relationships he has formed across the aisle with the credibility he has earned as an environmental advocate.

But Peters’ steadfast belief that solving the climate crisis will require a reexamination of long-standing environmental regulations — specifically those enshrined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 — puts him at odds with his more natural set of allies who consider NEPA sacrosanct.

snip===============================

He is far from the only Democrat in Congress who supports fast-tracked permitting to quickly build out solar and wind energy, insisting it’s key to achieving climate goals.

Many Democrats — including party leaders and President Joe Biden — are also rallying behind the argument that climate in the Inflation Reduction Act won’t be able to get underway without streamlining some regulations to get projects off the ground more quickly. And some worry doing nothing could provoke political attacks ahead of 2024.

snip ===============================

Peters is a moderate member of the centrist New Democrat Coalition who boasts of his interest in finding compromise rather than waging partisan warfare. But he also uses a climate hawk’s vocabulary.

An environmental attorney for 15 years before entering politics, Peters views the challenge of stopping a dangerously warming planet as “akin to winning a world war,” and the legislative undertaking is even more ambitious and consequential than congressional Democrats’ transformation of the American health care system in 2010.

He has scored victories in some of the most significant climate legislative packages in recent years, and he embraces progressive environmental legislative priorities, such as instituting a border carbon adjustment and aggressively reigning in methane emissions.

https://www.eenews.net/articles/the-house-democrat-trying-to-move-his-party-on-nepa-reform/

[betsuni]

70. We need people to remind us how bad it is?

It's not okay? What does that mean? We can't be trusted to think for ourselves?

[Demsrule86]

98. Right...all such reminders would do is discourage voters....I am puzzled why one would do that.

[betsuni]

101. Cynicism and give-up-everything's-rigged and corrupt discouragement is the point.

Doesn't even make sense when people insisting they want progress and worry about the future discourage voting for Democrats.

[MadameButterfly]

123. we are trying to discourage voters from voting Republican

not from voting.

If speaking the truth gets people too dispirited to vote at all, then do we have to start making stuff up?
How can you create change if you can't talk about what the problem is?

[EX500rider]

145. Virtue signaling is all the rage

[Celerity]

29. Symbolic votes that do not block something from passing do far less damage than actual blockers

like Manchin and Sinema do to us.

[W_HAMILTON]

31. I am no fans of theirs either.

But Sanders didn't lambast Manchin and Sinema here, he blamed Biden for not invoking the 14th Amendment.

[tritsofme]

37. These "symbolic" votes are good at bringing in the fundraising dollars, I'm sure.

Not much else other than a profile in cowardice, leaving the real leadership to people like President Biden and Schumer.

[Mysterian]

46. Calling Sanders a coward says more about you than Sanders

Sanders has fought for justice his entire life.

[tritsofme]

48. Yea sure.

He has shown himself time and time again. Thank goodness he will never be president.

[Cha]

85. +Millions!! Amen!

[edisdead]

108. Hear hear!

[Celerity]

62. +1

[Demsrule86]

71. I believe if they were needed that AOC, Warren and Sanders would vote for this bill...this is

posturing to fool the Republicans. O'Donnell said as much and he is correct.

[calguy]

118. There was room for political posturing, so politicians on both sides took it.

[calguy]

115. And Bernie has accomplished very little,

except for contributing to Hillary's defeat by not enthusiastically endorse our candidate and thereby helping trump get into the White House.

[inthewind21]

146. He has

So, what does he have to show for it? All this Bernie this and Bernie that, tweets every 5 minutes about "we should this and we should that". Where are the results?

[Celerity]

61. Sanders is not a coward, that is a ridiculous smear

[tritsofme]

75. Meh, I would disagree.

This is pure grandstanding, per usual.

[Celerity]

79. nope, and like the other poster said, it says more about you than Sanders

Sanders has worked for decades to try and help the poor and downtrodden, and is doing so now likely into his late 80s, if he chooses to run again.

If you think that is cowardice, you need a new dictionary.

[tritsofme]

83. Making show votes against your party's president to score points with his base

and boost his fundraising is definitely not bravery.

[Cha]

87. Not a bit.

[betsuni]

97. +1

[Celerity]

102. You mean like Manchin and Sinema, who actually blocked massive parts of Biden's agenda?

Like them helping to slash the BIF and BBB (technically killed BBB entirely, but the IRA passed, although at an even lower level of new spend than the already gutted BBB that Manchin put to the sword) by around 84 per cent, from 6.1 trillion usd total new spend combined, down to a total of only 984 billion usd in new spend.

Or their blocking of both, incredible vital (to our party and democracy in general) voting rights bills.

Or their blocking of the 15 usd per hour minimum wage.

Or their blocking multiple Biden nominees.

Funny thing that, Sander blocked nothing of Biden's agenda from passing. Neither did AOC, or any of the other favourite lefty targets of some.

Yet you would rather hold up meaningless (to passage) protest votes and claim those are the actually damage done.

I always have to laugh when some here talk about purity tests (a charge used against some of the leftish folk in our party), yet those Dems they try and weaponise that charge against blocked nothing, thus the charge actual does become an actual purity test/demand from THEM (the charge tossers), just from the other direction.

At the same time, many of that group make every excuse in the book to try and remove culpability from the actual obstructionists who happen to be on the rightward edge of our big tent, whose, dare I say, lack of purity (purity defined by that above-mentioned group as supporting Biden) when it actually mattered, caused a tonne of damage to Biden's agenda, our party, and the lower economic deciles of the American people.

[edisdead]

109. If manchin and sinema are the defense that is a weak defense

[Celerity]

110. they are just examples of actual harm done to our party and Biden's agenda nt

[SunImp]

132. REAL Progressives agree with you Celerity

These people are still stuck up in 2016 bullshit

[betsuni]

133. What is a REAL Progressive, exactly?

What does "These people are still stuck up in 2016 bullshit" mean? What 2016 bullshit?

[inthewind21]

147. Exactly

2016 amnesia

[jcgoldie]

136. This is correct

Hard to believe the folks who perpetually insist on complete conformity here... doesn't seem like a very democratic concept to me... and after all these years still have no concept of what it means to vote your conscience when the votes are there.

[betsuni]

141. But it's perfectly fine to vote against gun control if one is a senator from a rural state and

support an over trillion dollar military plan to manufacture F-35 fighter jets because it brings jobs to one's state. Then suddenly "conscience" has nothing to do with it, it's doing one's job.

[MadameButterfly]

125. There are a lot of ways to disagree with Bernie on this vote

without accusing him of qualities that are the opposite of who he is.

You may disagree with his position and his policies but cowardice? Good grief.
He has taken risky positions and championed the powerless all his life.

There are other ways to lead than sticking with mainstream polities that are more likely to get passed.
A majority of people asupport single payer healthcare now. Think Bernie has anything to do with that? Is is not leadership until it gets passed or is this how you lead? Was Frederick Douglass not a leader until after the Civil War based on, abolition didn't succeed for the first 25 years he fought for it?

Courage is sticking up for an idea so radical it might not ever happen. Because you think it should.

[betsuni]

135. The success of the ACA over the years has made more people comfortable with government

Last edited Thu Jun 1, 2023, 04:39 AM - Edit history (1)

involvement in health care and the threat of Republicans taking that away has also increased its popularity among Democrats.

Democrats know Medicare for All is a classic Democratic idea, not the only way to reach universal health care. Those new to politics might have thought it was a new idea.

[MadameButterfly]

64. yes, and these are the people who care only about money and attention

not the sincere Progressives who care about the issues

[Celerity]

68. Joe Manchin says he will vote with Republicans to overturn Biden's student-debt relief

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217960221

[Demsrule86]

72. He can't change the bill...it has to remain intact or there won't be time...

It is all bullshit.

[MadameButterfly]

30. you can disagree with Bernie but

don't say it's about money and self-promotion. He votes what he believes is best for the people. Make the argument if you like that his strategy is flawed, but accusing him of being selfish just means you don't know him very well.

[W_HAMILTON]

33. Then you tell me what it's about?

Could he not have accomplished the exact same thing by instead informing his supporters that he would not personally vote for the bill, but it was a necessary evil and -- rather than blaming Biden for not just invoking the 14th Amendment -- point out how that could be easily challenged in courts and overturned, just like Roe, thus throwing our nation and the world's economy into a recession almost immediately? And that would hurt far more people than this bill? And that we can rescind every single bad thing passed in this bill, including eliminating the debt ceiling altogether, by voting Republicans out of office and more Democrats into office?

Now, having said that, do you think that is going to be more or less likely with him blaming Biden to all his supporters on social media? What does it accomplish? Honestly. You tell me. If you think it's going to make young people more likely to vote for Democrats rather than less, I would point to very pivotal recent history that suggests otherwise.

[MadameButterfly]

44. There are people who disagree

with your point. Listen to Lawrence Tribe on this. Both Bernie and Biden are consulting their experts. I don't know who is right.

Bernie may genuinely want to force the 14th ammendment solution (as he has stated) or he is making a protest vote which he will only cast if it doesn't scuttle the deal. if his threat isn't credible, it doesn't have an impact, so we don't really know, but I expect Chuck Schumer knows. Probably Biden knows.

Bernie could be completely wrong in his strategy but his INTENTION is to not empower Republicans to undo Democratic legislation every time the debt ceiling comes up, at the cost of the poor. MAYBE his secret intention is to get Republicans to vote for the deal while registering his protest for the record.

Praise from Bernie--even his acceptance--might be that last thing we need to get this deal passed. Biden and Bernie get along. They are both experienced and pretty smart. Biden said that touting the deal himself won't help get it sealed, and Olberman's praise of the deal is being used by Republicans to torpedo it. We should be careful what we wish for.

To say this is about Bernie's campaign chest or wanting attention is to lump him in with Trump and the significant number of politicians (especially Republican, plus Manchin and Synema) who are only interested in their wealth and power. Come on. That's not Bernie. He got where he is by taking risky, lonely positions. He's popular because of his unselfishness and his honesty. If he's too radical for you, say so. But if you have to ascribe motives even his worst enemies know not to be true to make your point, then maybe you need to re-examine your point

[betsuni]

36. Exactly! Thank you.

[Demsrule86]

69. O'Donnell says it is a an act...that although some policies are not liked everyone has to

oppose this but the reality is that everyone who needs to make it pass will vote for it...including if it came down to it Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders. They can't make the GOP believe they are OK with it.

[lapucelle]

81. Something like what? An expansion of SNAP eligibility and new exemptions from work requirements

for veterans and the homeless?

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-05/hr3746_Letter_McCarthy.pdf

https://www.businessinsider.com/cbo-proposed-bipartisan-debt-ceiling-bill-may-expand-snap-benefits-2023-5

[calguy]

2. They have the votes easy

Bernie isn't really against defaulting on the debt. He knows his vote won't be the difference between winning or losing, so he's blabbing his usual talking points in order to feel relevant to the process.

Bernie does what Bernie does. I stopped being a fan seven years ago.

[honest.abe]

3. So default is better??

There are no other reasonable options other than this compromise bill. It's this or financial collapse which will be worse for everyone.

I do not understand how some of our most Progressive Senators and House members fail to understand this.

[calguy]

5. He understands it.

He's just vying for attention.

[MadameButterfly]

47. or trying to make a point.

He get's enough attention.

[calguy]

117. I can't disagree with you on that.

[Cha]

86. Thank You!

[Cha]

6. Yeah, it's a big mystery.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

9. They know that Schumer has the votes, so they can stand on principle

This wouldn't be coming to a vote if there weren't the votes. I'm not surprised by this - more surprised by Warren, but still not that surprised.
I expect the Squad are all no's as well - plus probably Khanna and Grijalva at least.

[W_HAMILTON]

10. And that leads to their principles remaining principles...

...and never getting signed into law because they have heavy influence with a particular segment of voters that could potentially have the greatest impact on future elections (and definitely have had a direct impact on past elections, sometimes infamously so).

[MadameButterfly]

50. Yong Progressive voters

have been showing up in record numbers. Can we drop the vague inuendos that blame them for every outcome you haven't liked? if Progressives are silenced, then the middle moves ever rightward. We have to give the left a reason to stay in the Democratic party. We can't take them for granted.

Sometimes that means expressing their position even if they don't win.
For example, everyone knows that Bernie is for single-payer, but he helped write Obamacare. In the end he compromises.

Progressives are not the left equivalent of the Freedom Caucus. They are not telling their voters to stay home when they don't get everything they want.

[inthewind21]

148. WOW

Uh yeah, that's EXACTLY what they did. What reason would the "left" like? A Supreme Court that won't overturn Roe? Oh wait, too late for that, opportunity tossed aside. What about student loan forgiveness, Oh wait, there's that pesky court thing again. Forget what they "want" let's talk about what they NEED, basic civics classes!

[MadameButterfly]

172. i don't even know what you are talking about

They did what, when?

What reason would they like? How about: Stop insisting that Progressive leaders keep quiet, stop telling Progressive voters "Tough, you have nowhere else to go." That doesn't get people to come out to vote.

Now Progressives are to blame for the Supreme Court? Your hostility toward Progressives won't be winning them over.

Basic concept in Logic: You don't win an argument on "I'm right because I know more than you." You have to make your case. Claiming one group has more civics than the other isn't an argument, it's insulting.

I don't ever agree with anyone not voting, but i've noticed that people of all political stripes can be inspired to or deterred from voting.

[honest.abe]

12. What principle?? The principle should be yes or no, for or against a default.

That's the choice here.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

16. I agree, but that's not the reality of politics

The only numbers that matter are ultimately 60 and 51, and whatever combination of votes gets there. Warren and Sanders know that, so they can make their speeches and vote no to keep their stans happy, while not impacting the passage of the vote. It's annoying, but it's politics.

I have less patience with those who are using those dissenting votes to "prove" how bad the deal is, especially since those voices seem to have nothing positive to say about anything the Party and President do.

[honest.abe]

22. They should all vote believing their vote is critical to passage of the bill.

This also makes it appear the President failed and didnt do enough to protect poor people. Not something we need going into a tough election. Its wrong and stupid politically.

[betsuni]

38. Yes, as if there was more he could've done and didn't.

But that follows the "Democrats ignore the working class because beholden to blah blah blah" philosophy.

[honest.abe]

40. Right. I wonder what Bernie would have done in this situation if he were President?

I suspect very similar to what President Biden did.

[tritsofme]

51. Thank goodness we will never have to find out.

[betsuni]

54. Absolutely, then said what he's said in the past about bipartisan votes:

"Well, look, sometimes in a large bill you have to vote for things you don't like."

[MadameButterfly]

53. Nothing positive to say about the party and the president and a ban on criticizing the deal?

You can't mean the voices you've listed above. These people are standing behind Biden and praising much of what he is doing. They are pulling their punches in many areas. I wonder if your attention is selective.

We have Progressives, and Biden is a moderate. There will be disagreements. Unlike the Republican Party, Democrats can disagree with their leader without retribution. Hooray!

The deal is bad. It may be better than it might have been, it might be a necessary evil given what the Republican Party is--but it is not irresponsible to say that the deal itself is stupid and we shouldn't have to do this. We all basically agree that the deal is bad, don't we? So can we accept that some politicians in good conscience are going to say so?

[lapucelle]

60. Joe Biden is a hard-core liberal who actually gets things done.

Joe Biden is a Hard-Core Liberal

https://www.ontheissues.org/joe_biden.htm

[Cha]

88. Mahalo.. I don't know Why that's

so hard for some to Get.

[Nixie]

170. Hi Cha! They seem to be very invested in not getting it.

"Progressive" isn't really the best term for it. The brand builders seem to be more interested in personalities than progress, so maybe a better name for them is out there.

Have a good one, Cha!

[Cha]

175. Aloha, Nixie!

Yes, I have a couple.

Pres Biden!

[betsuni]

176. Movement progressive.

Giving new definitions to words like "progressive" (now means populist anti-establishment) has been very confusing.

Movement progressivism is about the economic class revolution, replacing capitalism with ... something, who knows ("democratic socialism" has been given a new definition too).

The People getting nothing is better than something because it makes the revolution more likely and the brand personalities remain morally pure, righteous, and uncorrupted, above the realities of actually dealing with the messiness of governing a society.

Democrats who manage to get some progressive policies passed in the face of 100% Republican opposition must be constantly scolded and insulted to pull/push them to the Left because it's never enough ("status quo" has been redefined as both sides only think about money and their corporate and wealthy donors, ignore the working/middle classes).

Pretend it's all about policies (slogans used as purity tests to award the coveted "progressive" label) that Democrats supposedly hate (because immoral and corrupt) but constantly go after character to make it emotional. Get supporters riled up about replacing the terrible Democratic Party with TRUE progressives, as the Tea Party was a grassroots movement that transformed the Republican Party (they really believe it was grassroots). In Solidarity, brothers and sisters, send grassroots money.

[betsuni]

100. It's a shame this has to be repeated over and over and over and over and over and over on DU.

[MadameButterfly]

121. Liberal compared to the whole political spectrum but

moderate within the Democratic Party.

I'm not complaining about Joe's politics and don't care exactly what the label is. I just don't know why people have fits when they find out the Progressive wing of the party disagrees with him on some issues. We agree Biden's not the farthest left in the Democratic Party, yes?

[lapucelle]

124. Biden is to the left of both Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman, and on par with Ilhan Omar,

Rashida Tlaib, and Ayana Pressley, according to their voting records, policy platforms, and legislative accomplishments.

https://www.ontheissues.org/House/Cori_Bush.htm

https://www.ontheissues.org/NY/Jamaal_Bowman.htm

https://www.ontheissues.org/House/Ilhan_Omar.htm

https://www.ontheissues.org/MI/Rashida_Tlaib.htm

https://www.ontheissues.org/MA/Ayanna_Pressley.htm

[betsuni]

129. +1 (I wish people wouldn't assume things just because they're told it's true)

[BlueCheeseAgain]

15. To purists, complete catastrophe is better than even minor compromises...

... as long as they can criticize the ones doing the actual work.

In the trolley problem, they'd let the trolley run over 100 people rather than switch tracks to only run over one, and then blame the people who actually switched tracks for the one.

[GPV]

35. And if the minor compromise is just smaller catastrophe?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

168. Do you think all of these votes weren't run through the Whip?

Come on, you can't be that politically naive.

[Cha]

4. Larry O'Donnell on "Biden Won"..

https://www.democraticunderground.com/index.php

[GoodRaisin]

41. This is the correct take IMO.

[Scrivener7]

7. Oh, ffs.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

13. Warren and AOC as well.

Always forcing others to be the adults in the room, and then criticizing them for it.

[yaesu]

17. Doesn't take adults to strip food stamps away from the poor, I understand their concerns

But don't worry, I'm sure it will pass.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

20. Apparently, more people will get SNAP after this deal than before...

Due to the new exemptions.

But even if not, the reality is that Republicans control the House. It takes adults to understand that we can't pass anything without them, and that default has to be avoided.

[lapucelle]

76. Food stamps weren't stripped from the poor. The CBO scored this an an EXPANSION of SNAP.

Biden negotiated new SNAP work requirement EXEMPTIONS for veterans, the homeless, and youth aging out of foster care

While the budget agreement would raise the age for existing work requirements on able-bodied adults without children from 50 to 54,Biden was able to secure waivers for veterans and the homeless.

The deal carves out *new* exemptions for adults who would no longer be subject to ABAWD work requirements: veterans, youth aging out of foster care, individuals who are homeless.

===================================

Budget analysis finds the debt deal would actually expand SNAP benefits, even though the GOP fought for work requirements

According to a projection by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released Tuesday, the current proposed "Fiscal Responsibility Act" would expand SNAP benefits to groups like homeless individuals and veterans. In total, at least 78,000 people would gain access SNAP benefits per month, which is a .2% increase, the CBO wrote

snip======================================

[T]he CBO's analysis shows an expansion of the pool of potential SNAP beneficiaries.

"Several groups would newly be exempt from work requirements: people experiencing homelessness, veterans, and people ages 18 to 24 who were in foster care when they turned 18," the CBO wrote in the report.

The bill raises the age for work requirements from 49 to 54.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cbo-proposed-bipartisan-debt-ceiling-bill-may-expand-snap-benefits-2023-5

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-05/hr3746_Letter_McCarthy.pdf

[betsuni]

78. +1

[Cha]

84. TY For Explaining the FACTS to

that POSTER. I knew it sounded OFF.

Where do they come up with this stuff that is NOT Accurate?!!

Mahalo!

[lapucelle]

90. The CBO score is public record, as are the details of the proposed changes to SNAP.

- Brand new work requirement EXEMPTIONS for veterans, the homeless, and young people aging out of foster care.

- A phased-in rise of the age at which able-bodied SNAP recipients with no dependents will still be subject to EXISTING work requirements.

MAHALO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

137. Where they always get it

The land of delusions and wishful thinking.

[inthewind21]

149. Twitter

Facebook, their sisters neighbors cousins hairdresser? Dumbfounding just how many here will crow and make fun of the MAGAS for the ignorance they buy into and repeat as fact while at the same time repeating just as much mis-information.

[tirebiter]

14. Another reason to like Biden

Everybody has a chance to be individual in the Bidenverse. There’s room for Manchin and Sanders in this Big Tent.

[mvd]

18. I think he and Warren would be there if needed

That kind of thing happens - it’s politics.

I would just vote yes. But it is not because I like the bill. It is because I can not think of anything else that would prevent default. Hopefully we get the votes soon to end this process.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

21. I agree-- they would do the responsible thing if they had to.

But it sure is annoying for them to throw daggers in Biden's back right now.

[Hortensis]

39. Yes. If you check his won't-vote-for-it statement, he

builds in an excuse for voting yes by commenting on the dire situation if the debt ceiling isn't raised. Senator Warren's already stated a rationale for that as well.

It's probable that he, at least, and some Republican senators casting yesses when they thundered no, will introduce an amendment that he has no power to get passed but that will give him camera time. That's the usual anyway.

The other day he had his colleagues bring him in late for a vote on a significant bill that was uncomfortably tight, and he might do that this time also, if needed.

[Tom Rinaldo]

142. Ummm, Biden was COUNTING on some No votes from Progressives

Just not enough to sink the deal. And there won't be. That's the point. The push to pass this legislation would have fallen apart had progressives lined up solidly behind it. Biden makes a point of emphasizing that it is compromise legislation, that some members from both parties find parts of it to be objectionable. Can you imagine how it would have gone over in the House Republican Caucus if Bernie, and AOC, and Warren etc had endorsed this bill? How on earth would McCarthy been able to pull off his big charade about Republicans "winning" the negotiations if the left wing of the Democratic Party was solidly behind it? And McCarthy had to push that type of partisan framing in order to get a majority of the Republican members of the House to vote Yes. Had he failed at that, the bill would have crashed and burned as more nd more Republicans denounced it.

[Hortensis]

143. Absolutely. Like Biden finally pointing out to the press

that his bragging about what Democrats were putting together would not be a good negotiating tactic.

I'm pointing out how predictable and typical of that strategy the actions of these two quite different senators (not to be confused with each other) are so far.

[Tom Rinaldo]

151. Yes indeed,

By the way, I spaced that I wasn't writing a reply to the whole thread when I responded to you instead, but hey, it gave us a chance for a nice exchange

[Hortensis]

152. :) Yes, indeed. In crazy times, your posts are dependable pleasures.

[Silent Type]

19. He knows it's going to pass.

[Mike Nelson]

23. I think...

... they don't need his vote.

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

24. Bernie and Liz, 2015 is calling, when you had a cause to be the outsider

[Hortensis]

34. I believe Warren actually said she would vote yes.

Read or listen to her "no, no, no" statement. What she says after that.

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

42. Why not just keep quiet until the House votes? I don't need more drama, lol

[Hortensis]

58. :) Me neither. That's why I mostly skip it.

[doc03]

25. I sort of figured that it gets him on the TV. nt

[tritsofme]

28. lol, really? That's a nonsense take. His vote isn't needed or expected.

He gets to play his character on tv, and leave the real leadership to people like Schumer and President Biden.

I bet it’s good for his fundraising though!

[Cha]

43. +1!

[betsuni]

66. Exactly.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

120. No one is surprised by this vote

[Nixie]

169. Exactly. Brand building is a full-time job for those characters.

[sarcasmo]

32. Moscow Mitch is for the deal, they have the votes.

[NotVeryImportant]

45. I don't see what's the problem here.

Bernie, and the others, all know Biden has the votes.

It's called "politics" folks.

This is good politics.

He's within his rights and he's doing the right thing.

[honest.abe]

52. His planned NO vote and comments imply Biden failed..

and didnt do enough to protect poor people. Not something we need going into a tough election. Its wrong and stupid politically.

[MadameButterfly]

59. Lincoln said if people on the left and right are both mad, he probably got it about right.

Everyone expects Bernie to be to the left of Biden.

Bernie has told Democrats to align behind Biden and not challenge him in the primaries. He has practically sealed any possible challenge. That's not enough for you? Does he have to agree with Biden on every vote? When has Bernie done that with anybody? Turn him into a sheep and he won't be credible with the people Biden needs him to bring to the polls. He's his own man.

[honest.abe]

65. Good grief.. nobody is worried about the primaries.

Its the general. If many think Biden is not doing enough to help poor and disadvantaged folks they may not turn out to vote. Its looking like we will need every vote to win again. Bernie is not helping.

[NotVeryImportant]

80. I disagree.

That's quite subjective.

I see no failure on Biden's part.

Failure would be financial collapse.

There will be none, so Biden wins.

[Hortensis]

93. :) That's just...normal, lifelong Bernie.

No one could ever accuse him of not being consistent. There are those who believe only his wise criticisms of his colleagues' decisions keep us from final collapse as 2016's devastating sequelae continue.

[betsuni]

116. Heh. Indeed.

[MadameButterfly]

56. Thanks

Bernie being against the bill will get a bunch of Republican votes. They know what they are doing.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

139. That would be a first for him

But okay, second star to the right and straight on 'til morning.

[yardwork]

49. It's fine. I'm sure we have the votes.

Bernie and others can "vote their conscience" and stay good with their base. It's fine.

If we needed their votes, we'd have them. This is normal politics.

[Elessar Zappa]

55. I'll say what I said on the Elizabeth Warren post.

I understand his position and I also understand that Republicans control the House and that elections have consequences.

[BlueLucy]

67. Bernie is talking to his constituents just like Manchin talks to his.

Senators have their own constituents to represent.

[Hortensis]

105. Very on point. And beyond Vermont, those who

look to him for instruction on who they should support in their districts.

[lapucelle]

156. That's the reason why Democrat Maxwell Frost, the first GEN Z representive in Congress, voted YES.

[betsuni]

159. Great!

I like independent thinkers.

[onenote]

127. So who is Peter Welch talking to?

Welch also represents Vermont. He seems to think his constituents prefer a deal to a catastrophe.

Problem is that Bernie doesn't think of Vermont as his constituency. He thinks he's bigger than that.

[betsuni]

130. I was wondering about that, didn't think it was about constituency.

[newdayneeded]

74. Democrats want the US to default.

Look for that in future commercials.

I know it's because they have the votes. but why create this narrative for the repub commercials?

[Cha]

89. NO DEMS DON'T want us to Default.

The GD Putin Caucus Does and they have said So.

[newdayneeded]

106. Again, why say no to the bill

and create the narrative that it's you that wants the US to default.

[krawhitham]

111. So he would rather default and have millions lose jobs, COOL

And those are the only two options at this point, this bill is passed or we default.

14th amendment is not an option with this current SCOTUS, period

[Cha]

114. Thank You!!

[inthewind21]

150. It's obvious

Some are still not clear on exactly what happened when Trump was allowed to stack the Federal as well as the Supreme Court and how that affects EVERYTHING. And no, the POUTS CANNOT "fit it". The lack of basic civics understanding in the country is astounding.

[Joinfortmill]

131. JM&J. Just goddamn vote.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

138. Of course he won't.

I guess he hasn't gotten enough attention lately, so he trotted this out when he saw the opportunity to muck about.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

153. I see the bingo hall emptied out over "teh Bernie" rage. Lol

[betsuni]

154. DUers aren't "shut-ins" anymore? We managed to get out of the house to the bingo hall?

[lapucelle]

157. ...

[betsuni]

166. Angry little cupcake mindlessly running in circles, LOL.

[Nixie]

167. Some angry cupcakes never get over losses.

It’s so sad.

[aocommunalpunch]

174. "Looks" like it.

I can’t tell because my ignore list is THAT on point. LMAO

[Demsrule86]

160. This was orchestrated. Many were allowed not to vote for it. Over the years Senator Sanders has

annoyed me at times but I have no doubt he would have voted for the debt ceiling bill bill if he needed to. We could not breach the debt ceiling.

[Nixie]

171. "good conscience" Give me a break. This is about brand building and pretending

that my mother's retirement money being withheld is the price we all have to pay. No thanks.

[lapucelle]

177. Imagine voting against the ELIMINATION of ALL SNAP work requirements for veterans, the homeless,

and young people aging out of foster care (not to mention jeopardizing of the health and welfare of tens of millions of vulnerable Social Security/Social Security Disability recipients) all in the service of branding through virtual virtue.