- cross-posted to:
- theguardian_us@ibbit.at
- cross-posted to:
- theguardian_us@ibbit.at
The amended package will still have to be passed by the House and sent to Trump for his signature, a process that could take days
The compromise legislation authorizes government funding through 30 January 2026 and undoes the firings of federal workers that the White House carried out after the shutdown began. It also guarantees retroactive pay for furloughed federal workers and those who stayed on the job during the shutdown, and prevents further layoffs through January. Included in the compromise are three appropriations bill that will authorize spending through the 2026 fiscal year for the departments of agriculture and veterans affairs, among others.
The compromise does not resolved the issue of the Affordable Care Act premiums, which one study forecast would jump by an average of 26% if the tax credits were allowed to expire.
As part of the deal, Thune said he would allow a vote on a bill to deal with the credits by the second week of December. But even if it succeeds, Republican House speaker Mike Johnson has said he will not put such a measure on the floor.
You must log in or # to comment.
Why would Trump sign? That is one step closer to releasing the Epstein files and proving that the President of the United States of America is a pedophile.
Democratic senators voting in favor:
- Dick Durbin (Illinois)
- Angus King (Maine, independent caucusing with Democrats)
- Maggie Hassan (New Hampshire)
- Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire)
- Catherine Cortez Masto (Nevada)
- Jacky Rosen (Nevada)
- John Fetterman (Pennsylvania)
- Tim Kaine (Virginia)
ugh. durbins a lame duck and I guess this is what he wants his legacy to be.
Removed by mod
“But people need to fly for the holidays! Don’t you understand?! There’s billions of dolla-I mean, family gatherings to think of. Think of the gatherings!”
This is a bot^^
Since this is not the first time in the past couple days I’ve seen you post this, genuine question, what are you basing your criteria on?
They were making multi paragraph AI slop comments within the same minute. Impossible for an organic account.
The Senate, however, is expected to leave for a previously scheduled weeklong recess as soon as it can clear the funding package for the House, which could incentivize lawmakers not to hold up the process.
Why work when you already get paid for doing absolutely nothing?
This is not the first time voting became a priority before vacation gets cancelled.
They have vacation plans that can’t be just ruined because some poors will lose access to healthcare, 85% of their campaign is funded by 5 people and they all have amazing healthcare.
Removed by mod
OK, this is starting to make sense.
The deal says “You have to put the ACA subsidies to a vote by December. In return, we’ll fund the government until January.”
So they’re not giving up their leverage, because if the Republicans fuck around the Dems can just slam the brakes on again right away. Meanwhile it puts the ball squarely in the Republicans court to actually do something about this issue that is raising healthcare prices for people all across America. It puts the focus on the Republican controlled House, and on Trump, letting the public really see who is fighting for them and who isn’t.
I know it’s easy to assume that this is another example of Shumer caving (God only knows, he does it so much I’m starting to think his spine is a paper straw), but looking at the details I’m starting to think this is actually a solid play.
This sounds naive, nothing personal. Mike Johnson already openly said he doesn’t promise anything. There will either be no vote on the ACA or Republicans will just all vote against it.
Democrats got played and they deserve all the hatred thrown at them for it.
Democrats got played and they deserve all the hatred thrown at them for it.
Democrats did exactly what their donors wanted. If you think they were actually trying to help you you’re the one that got played.
Their donors wanted a shutdown for 40 or so days ? And which specific donors ? Explain that to me, because it sounds idiotic and just a lazy argument. ‘Oh the donors behind it all wanted this’ doesn’t mean anything.
Ok, let me explain. You see, when government gives some benefits to people (like SNAP) or when it hires federal workers private companies don’t profit and people donating to both parties don’t like that. They would like to every penny spend in the US to go through their hands so they can get a cut.
So for example, you have federal workers responsible for checking if people pay taxes, administering public roads, schools, collecting garbage and so on. When you shutdown the government and fire those people (as Trump did) they will not be hired back when the government re-opens. Government will not have enough people to do some of the things it used to do so it will hire private companies to do it. Those companies will pay their workers less, charge the government more and the donors will pocket the difference. That’s taxpayers money going straight to their pockets. Money they couldn’t get without a shutdown.
Same with benefits. When government gives people money for food it’s just lost to the rich people. They don’t get anything out of it. Cut SNAP and people will be even more desperate to work so it will be easier to exploit them. With all the benefits cut the government will have some money left in the budget so they will be able to lower the taxes for the rich: win-win.
Their goal is to privatize everything. Shutdown is a small step in that direction.
Fast forward to January:
Republicans: “This is the exact same budget that was passed two months ago. Democrats voted for it then so they have vote it again. We also had the ACA vote as we promised. Democrats can’t be trusted so we’re not negotiating”.
Democrats: “Yes, we got the vote on ACA we got promised but it didn’t pass so we’re shutting down the government again.”
How is that a win?
My thoughts on this aligh with you. But I’ll add one more layer to what you’ve said… This forces the government to open even temporarily which now leaves no excuse for Speaker Mike Johnson for not swearing in Adaleta Grejalva (my apologies for the misspelling). And with her sworn in that is the final vote needed to move on releasing the Epstein files, which if the recent rumors floating around are to be believed then they are sooo much worse for trump than originally thought. But supposedly there’s enough Republicans willing to sign on with the release that the it looks like the Dems are trying to pull this bait and switch… or atleast that’s how I’ve taken all this movement in the last few days.
No, it really doesn’t make sense. You’ve described a complicated setup when the simple setup would be to simply have the vote in question first. That way you don’t have any risk of anyone lying to you.
But the other problem is that these Democrats caved once which means they’re going to cave again because the Republicans can recreate the exact same setup. All Republicans need to do is promise to have a vote on something in the future in order to make the Democrats cave on any given issue now. That’s the precedent that these eight senators have set.
What the American people want to see, and this is clear if you look at the numbers from across the country, is for Democrats to stand up and fight against the Republicans. Even if the promised vote takes place, which it won’t, that won’t actually help the average working American. We all know it, and we find it unforgivable that these senators would pretend otherwise.
Why would they release actual unredacted documents? It will just be a fairy tale about evil dems.
Disagree.
Democrats have the leverage now, and there isn’t any reason why Republicans can’t put a temporary extension in the ACA credits now anyway.
Buying time does nothing for democrats but gives Republicans slack to change the focus before committing to anything. This is a cowardly backpeddle, not a calculated maneuver
The deal says “You have to put the ACA subsidies to a vote by December. In return, we’ll fund the government until January.”
So they’re not giving up their leverage, because if the Republicans fuck around the Dems can just slam the brakes on again right away
Except that in the public’s eyes, Democrats probably now own the current shutdown, thanks to the Democrats’ capitulation which makes the whole things look both pointless and in Democrats’ control.
So in January, there’s going to be even greater pressure and blame on Democrats if they don’t agree to the same Republican demand. Knowing our Democratic leaders have spines made of gently chilled consomme, the same things will play out faster.
And this only emboldens Republicans. They have always believed Democrats would fold. There are decades of history behind this belief and now they have reliable evidence this specific Senate and this specific issue is no different.
So Democrats just gave up all practical leverage, even if they have technical leverage.
Removed by mod
They fucking lost. Got nothing after a month of doing nothing.
“Capitulating” usually infers a loss of sorts. The democrats folding indicates that they are the opposite of “in control” of anything.
The entire PR battle was about who was responsible for the shutdown, when either side could have had defectors and ended it in the other side’s favor. But the outcome contextualizes the battle retroactively. Here, the outcome was that democrats “won” at best status quo from before the shutdown, which is just objectively a loss since we had 40 days of pain until then. Further, the public impression will likely be that the shutdown was pointless if nothing of value was actually gained, all while democrats shine a spotlight on their part in this. Democrats defected, so that is a “capitulation” which is a loss plus volition. Really confused what is controversial about those statements, let me know.
But also, “technical” leverage? That sounds like some bs. Like “potential” leverage.
“Technical” in the sense that yes, you can say they have leverage, while in substance, no, they do not have leverage. “Superficial” leverage work better? “Illusory” leverage?
There is absolutely no reason to think a December vote will be any different, while they also gave up the actual leverage (the republican-damaging PR effect of this shutdown) and will start in December in a materially worse negotiating position because of that. I think the meaning is clear, but let me know if not.
Removed by mod
Yeah, no, I meant “democrats.” The reason why I think democrats will “own” the shutdown is that they gained nothing of value, and contradicted themselves by defecting without getting what they said they were fighting for.
If they had just held the line and trusted opinion polling that said people were blaming republicans for this, republicans would have had to own it. Now, democrats look like the ones who wouldn’t compromise for 40 days but eventually were forced to.
As secondary effects, there are also two negative narratives democrats created: (a) what they were fighting for wasn’t that important (so democrats are at fault for shutting down the government for something unimportant), or (b) what they were fighting for was important and they folded without getting it (so democrats are at fault for being feckless or incompetent). There’s a strong likelihood one or both of these will take hold and undermine democrats’ positions further leading to December.
Removed by mod
I’m using “own” to mean “take ownership of,” “take responsibility for,” or here most expressly, “take blame for.”
The deal is government opens. That’s it.
Democrats just voted for that. That’s it.
There is no assumption. The vote already happened.
I know it’s easy to assume that this is another example of Shumer caving
People are going to, but Schumer is at least saying he’s against it, and wasn’t one of the votes.
He’s not a leader, he was there to relay orders from the DNC to politicians, and any “power” he had with that was the DNC bankrupting someone’s state party if they refused to obey.
Without a corrupt DNC backing him, no one cares what Schumer says/thinks.
It’s a big reason why Schumer needs replaced in leadership asap.
He’s completely useless, so we might as well give it to a young/popular senator. Someone that Dem voters like at least. Everytime Schumer steps in front of a mic, it depresses Dem turnout.
Quick edit:
To be clear, this is how every neoliberal “led”.
And why I hate people saying “Well, Pelosi was good at whipping votes”…
She was just willing to bankrupt entire state parties handing seats to republicans if anyone with a D by their name didn’t do what the neoliberala running the DNC wanted.
That was never a good thing.
But now we’re returning to a bottom-up structure. Where elected reps answer to voters, and all the DNC does is run unbiased primaries every four years and ensures the state parties are funded enough to compete.
We don’t want a powerful DNC, that’s been the problem for 30-50 years now…
There’s no more leverage.
When it comes down to it they don’t want to shoulder the bad guy thing for the holidays. Problem is that folks have to decide on getting healthcare by end of november.
deleted by creator
How would the Democrats “slam the brakes” exactly?
They’re giving up a big part of it. They’re funding several different departments through 2026.
