Sorry for the threadjack, Elok. Shutdown talk here.

[Geronimo]

?? I don't know what that means, but by a simple majority vote Senate Republicans can end the requirement for a 60-vote cloture and pass the House resolution that would reopen the government. They continually choose not to. Democrats cannot do this... because they do not have a majority in the Senate.

So you're saying the so-called "nuclear" option is more reasonable than waiting for Dems to realize that, like the republicans in their shutdowns lacking control of either chamber and the presidency, it's on them to get out of the way of the debt ceiling being raised?

[N35t0r]

There's always the possibility that Republicans negotiate something with the Dems in exchange for some of those votes, like the Dems are asking them to (and like it was done in the past and in pretty much every other democracy), but I guess that asking the Republicans to try and act like they care about democracy is too much.

[Broken_Erika]

There's always the possibility that Republicans negotiate something with the Dems in exchange for some of those votes, like the Dems are asking them to (and like it was done in the past and in pretty much every other democracy), but I guess that asking the Republicans to try and act like they care about democracy is too much.

They can't even do that since Mike Johnson has basically shut down the house to get out of voting on the Epstein files.

[Lorizael]

So you're saying the so-called "nuclear" option is more reasonable than waiting for Dems to realize that, like the republicans in their shutdowns lacking control of either chamber and the presidency, it's on them to get out of the way of the debt ceiling being raised?

?? The shutdown is not about raising the debt ceiling. It's about Congress not passing a budget or continuing resolution. Republicans have two options for ending the shutdown: (1) end the filibuster or (2) negotiate with the minority party. Democrats have one option for ending the shutdown: (1) give Republicans what they want (specifically, massive increases on health insurance premiums). If Republicans don't want to negotiate (because they want to massively increase health insurance premiums) and Democrats don't want to give Republicans what they want (because massively increasing health insurance premiums would be bad), then it's up to Republicans to do the thing they can do at any time.

[Dauphin]

So you're saying the so-called "nuclear" option is more reasonable than waiting for Dems to realize that, like the republicans in their shutdowns lacking control of either chamber and the presidency, it's on them to get out of the way of the debt ceiling being raised?

I'm having difficulty parsing this, but when was the last time there was a shutdown when the Republicans didn't hold one of the House or Senate?

[SlowwHand]

🚨 BREAKING: Senate Democrats block bill to reopen government for 13th time

🔗 Read more about the vote: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sch...s-go-unpaid

[Lorizael]

Even that Fox News article correctly describes the problem:

On the 28th day of the shutdown, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., tried to advance the House-passed continuing resolution (CR) and was again foiled by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and the Democratic caucus.

...

[Schumer] also went after Thune for again bringing the same bill to the floor and reiterated that Democrats’ position, which is to get an ironclad deal to extend expiring Obamacare subsidies, hadn’t changed.

The Senate is a deliberative body. Deliberation requires negotiation, compromise, and most importantly not just doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Why won't Republicans do that? And if they won't do that, why won't they just do the thing that enables them not to have to deliberate, negotiate, or compromise?

[Lorizael]

For posterity: Slowwhand did not start this thread or choose the thread name. I abused my leftover moderator powers and branched it off from here: https://apolyton.net/forum/miscellan...-south-america, where Sloww was responding to this post:

Just because the government is shut down doesn't mean we can't piss away money on this.

[Broken_Erika]

Half of US states sue Trump administration over halting food stamps

Half of US states have sued the Trump administration over its plans to halt funding for food aid used by more than 40 million low-income Americans.
The states hope to force the administration to use a roughly $6bn (£4.5bn) emergency contingency fund for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), also known as food stamps.
The US Department of Agriculture (Usda), which oversees Snap, has said it would not use it and allow funds to run dry in November, arguing the money may be needed for emergencies, such as natural disasters.
Republicans and Democrats have traded blame for the ongoing federal shutdown and there has not been any meaningful progress toward a deal.

"Bottom line, the well has run dry," the Usda said in an announcement about Snap benefits on its website.
The suit, led by Democratic attorneys generals in 25 states and the District of Columbia, argues the administration not using the contingency funds would be unlawful and deprive millions of Americans from being able to afford groceries.
They note it would mark the first time in the programme's history the funds would not be dolled out.
"Shutting off SNAP benefits will cause deterioration of public health and well-being," the lawsuit reads.
"The loss of SNAP benefits leads to food insecurity, hunger, and malnutrition, which are associated with numerous negative health outcomes in children, such as poor concentration, decreased cognitive function, fatigue, depression, and behavioral problems."
States involved in the lawsuit include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.
"While Donald Trump parades around the world trying to repair the economic damage he's done with his incompetence, he's denying food to millions of Americans who will go hungry next month," California Gov Gavin Newsom said.
"It's cruel and speaks to his basic lack of humanity. He doesn't care about the people of this country, only himself."
Responding to the lawsuit, the Usda blamed Democrats for the fund running dry and said they need to decide whether they want to "hold out for the Far-Left wing of the party or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive timely WIC and SNAP allotments".

• US government says it will stop paying for food aid next week
• SNAP benefits: When will the US government shutdown halt food stamps?

Even if the contingency fund is used to help Snap beneficiaries, it would only cover about 60% of one month of benefits, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a think-tank focused on policies that help low-income families.
Snap works by giving people reloadable debit cards that they can use to buy essential grocery items.
A family of four on average receives $715 (£540) per month, according to CBPP, which breaks down to a little less than $6 (£4.50) per day per person.
The states administer the programmes, with much of the funding coming from the federal government.
Several states have pledged to use their own funds to cover any shortfall, however the federal government has warned that they will not be reimbursed.
Some, including Massachusetts - where one million people are expected to lose benefits - have said they do not have enough money to make up for the lack of funds.
Many states are working with people in Snap to try locate charity food pantries and find alternative sources for meals, and California is deploying its National Guard to help distribute food.
The US government shutdown entered its 28th day on Tuesday, making it the second-longest shutdown in history.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2px0zmz8mo

[Aeson]

They both have shut it down.

The Ds shut it down to try to ensure poor people have healthcare and food. The Rs shut it down because they want to save money for billionaires and let poor people suffer.

[Aeson]

Note: party leadership on both sides have shut it down and given their reasons/accusations to try to win votes.

[N35t0r]

They both have shut it down.

The Ds shut it down to try to ensure poor people have healthcare and food. The Rs shut it down because they want to save money for billionaires and let poor people suffer.

I think that there's a small difference, in that the Democrat's only option to passing anything is to negotiate with enough Republicans (which seems to be impossible since Republicans are refusing to negotiate). Republicans, otoh, have the choice of negotiating with the Democrats, or changing the filibuster rules to pass the legislation. Given that they had no qualms about doing it for supreme Court votes (after sitting on Garland's nomination for almost a year).

[Aeson]

They both have options to open the government, and reasons why they haven't done so yet. The reasons are the difference.

Quibbling over who shut it down just distracts from the important policy difference. Protect poor people or billionaires?

[Lorizael]

See the thing is... Democrats don't even have the option to negotiate. Their only choice is to... do what Republicans want them to do. But why would they do that? Republican senators are not their constituents. They are in Congress to represent the interests of their districts/states. Some percentage of America wants to keep the ACA healthcare subsidies, and if we live in a representative democracy then some representatives have a duty to advocate for that (or try to convince their constituents why keeping the subsidies is not in their interest).

[Geronimo]

I definitely think assigning blame misses the point. It's far more productive to accurately and impartially highlight their respective demands. I also do *not* want to see the Republicans use the so-called nuclear option or suggest that they are somehow more blameworthy for not having done so.