U.S. Budget & OBBB | OCT 1 - Gov’t Shutdown Begins

[sunnyheel]

Can someone on the left tell me what your party is trying to accomplish? This is the left's legislation that it wrote that it is protesting.

It really doesn’t take a lot of imagination to understand this (which is another indication to me that you are not a good faith poster - there’s a name for that) but I’ll lay it out as I see it.

First and foremost, the Dems’ effort is intended as a strong rebuke of the Republican approach of funding tax cuts through a combination of slashing health care and debt financing as reflected in the OBBB but also more broadly, ie. economic redistribution favoring the rich at the expense of the working class.

This strategy strikes me as wise because, provided the Dems stay unified, they will force the Repubs to either negotiate terms more favorable to the labor class through subsidies for healthcare coverage or to overcome the filibuster by means of the nuclear option. Let’s be clear: the Repubs own this. They need zero Dem votes to pass the budget.

Their dilemma is that compromise will give the Dems a win but a strictly partisan vote will reinforce who’s to blame for the consequences.

I think they’ll succumb to the demand for compromise.

Besides that, the Dems are clearly making a statement in opposition to the slash and burn efforts of the administration.

It all strikes me as good politics, which is rarely seen from that side, which is why I fear cowardly defections.

 

[Ddseddse]

It really doesn’t take a lot of imagination to understand this (which is another indication to me that you are not a good faith poster - there’s a name for that) but I’ll lay it out as I see it.

First and foremost, the Dems’ effort is intended as a strong rebuke of the Republican approach of funding tax cuts through a combination of slashing health care and debt financing as reflected in the OBBB but also more broadly, ie. economic redistribution favoring the rich at the expense of the working class.

This strategy strikes me as wise because, provided the Dems stay unified, they will force the Repubs to either negotiate terms more favorable to the labor class through subsidies for healthcare coverage or to overcome the filibuster by means of the nuclear option. Let’s be clear: the Repubs own this. They need zero Dem votes to pass the budget.

Their dilemma is that compromise will give the Dems a win but a strictly partisan vote will reinforce who’s to blame for the consequences.

I think they’ll succumb to the demand for compromise.

Besides that, the Dems are clearly making a statement in opposition to the slash and burn efforts of the administration.

It all strikes me as good politics, which is rarely seen from that side, which is why I fear cowardly defections.

Yalp, what he said.

 

[TangledUpInBlue06]

It really doesn’t take a lot of imagination to understand this (which is another indication to me that you are not a good faith poster - there’s a name for that) but I’ll lay it out as I see it.

First and foremost, the Dems’ effort is intended as a strong rebuke of the Republican approach of funding tax cuts through a combination of slashing health care and debt financing as reflected in the OBBB but also more broadly, ie. economic redistribution favoring the rich at the expense of the working class.

This strategy strikes me as wise because, provided the Dems stay unified, they will force the Repubs to either negotiate terms more favorable to the labor class through subsidies for healthcare coverage or to overcome the filibuster by means of the nuclear option. Let’s be clear: the Repubs own this. They need zero Dem votes to pass the budget.

Their dilemma is that compromise will give the Dems a win but a strictly partisan vote will reinforce who’s to blame for the consequences.

I think they’ll succumb to the demand for compromise.

Besides that, the Dems are clearly making a statement in opposition to the slash and burn efforts of the administration.

It all strikes me as good politics, which is rarely seen from that side, which is why I fear cowardly defections.

Ds need to stand strong until November. Open enrollment opens and health insurance premium increase notices will have been sent out. That's the leverage. Don't give it up. Either get the win on ACA subsidies or campaign hard on the attack on health insurance affordability.

 

[Callatoroy]

Pubs have majorities in both houses. They can pass whatever they want, whenever they want, without any help from Dems. They're choosing this.

That's disingenuous and you know it. I'm guessing you support majority rule in the senate but that isn't the case today and isn't a very strong defense to suggest pubs can pass it today if they just circumvent the rules. All pubs have voted yay. Only dems have voted nay. So again, if this CR includes no new pub provisions what is the problem on the dem side given that?
1. There are no new pub provisions
2. Dems wrote the provisions set to expire and determined the timeline
3. Dems have historically voted for continuing resolutions (schumer 13 times)

All i'm looking for is an OBJECTIVE OPINION. What you provided was partisan BS.

 

[Callatoroy]

The bill voted down was H. R. 5371

If you have any question about what the sections actually do you can read the full text for yourself at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5371/text#H55B49366B8514E1EA7527C56987FB59E, but the heading give you a very good idea of "what the Democrats want to accomplish".

For the record, I saw the tiktok you posted one page back. I did a full search of the text of the bill and the following search terms have zero results from the full text of the bill: "Climate", Honduras", Democracy", "Balkans", and "Africa".

You are being lied to. Or in the most charitable interpretation, the "facts" you have been selectively presented with are so grossly distorted as to have zero meaning in our shared reality. You should not be OK with that. That should enrage you.

DIVISION A—CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2026
DIVISION B—MISCELLANEOUS EXTENSIONS
SEC. 101. United States grain standards.
DIVISION C—HEALTH EXTENDERS
TITLE I—Public Health Extenders
SEC. 101. Extension for community health centers, National Health Service Corps, and teaching health centers that operate GME programs.
SEC. 102. Extension of special diabetes programs.
SEC. 103. National health security extensions.
TITLE II—Medicare
SEC. 201. Extension of increased inpatient hospital payment adjustment for certain low-volume hospitals.
SEC. 202. Extension of the Medicare-dependent hospital (MDH) program.
SEC. 203. Extension of add-on payments for ambulance services.
SEC. 204. Extension of funding for quality measure endorsement, input, and selection.
SEC. 205. Extension of funding outreach and assistance for low-income programs.
SEC. 206. Extension of the work geographic index floor.
SEC. 207. Extension of certain telehealth flexibilities.
SEC. 208. Extending acute hospital care at home waiver authorities.
SEC. 210. Extension of funding for Medicare hospice surveys.
SEC. 211. Medicare improvement fund.
TITLE III—Human Services
SEC. 301. Sexual risk avoidance education extension.
SEC. 302. Personal responsibility education extension.
SEC. 303. Extension of funding for family-to-family health information centers.
TITLE IV—Medicaid
SEC. 401. Modifying certain disproportionate share hospital allotments.
TITLE V—Food and Drug Administration
SEC. 501. Short title. (Boring. I'm including so you don't think I'm hiding something)
SEC. 503. Definitions. (Ibid.)
SEC. 504. Authority to assess and use OTC monograph fees.
SEC. 505. Reauthorization; reporting requirements.
SEC. 506. Treatment of active ingredients for topical administration.
SEC. 507. Increasing the clarity and predictability of the process for developing applications for Rx-to-nonprescription switches.
SEC. 508. Regulation of certain nonprescription drugs that are marketed without an approved drug application.
SEC. 509. Sunset dates.
SEC. 510. Effective date.
SEC. 511. Savings clause.
TITLE VI—No Surprises Act Implementation
SEC. 601. Extending availability of funding for No Surprises Act implementation.
DIVISION D—DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS EXTENDERS
TITLE I—Health Care Matters
SEC. 101. Extension of authority for collection of copayments for hospital care and nursing home care.
SEC. 102. Extension of requirement to provide nursing home care to certain veterans with service-connected disabilities.
SEC. 103. Extension of Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox Suicide Prevention Grant Program.
SEC. 104. Extension of funding for expansion of Rural Access Network for Growth Enhancement
TITLE II—Benefits
SEC. 201. Extension of requirement for quarterly briefings on administration of authorities relating to determinations regarding presumptions of service connection based on toxic exposure.
SEC. 202. Extension of requirement relating to restoration of entitlement to educational assistance in cases of closure or disapproval of educational institutions.
SEC. 203. Extension of temporary clarification of licensure requirements for contractor medical professionals to perform medical disability examinations for the Department of Veterans Affairs under pilot program for use of contract physicians for disability examinations.
SEC. 204. Extension of authority to maintain regional office in Republic of Philippines.
TITLE III—Housing
SEC. 301. Extension of authorization of appropriations for homeless women veterans and homeless veterans with children reintegration grant program.
SEC. 302. Extension of authority for treatment and rehabilitation for seriously mentally ill and homeless veterans.
SEC. 303. Extension of funding for financial assistance for supportive services for very low-income veteran families in permanent housing.
SEC. 304. Extension of funding for grant program for homeless veterans with special needs.
SEC. 305. Extension of authority to provide assistance for specially adapted housing for disabled veterans residing temporarily in housing owned by a family member.
SEC. 306. Extension of authority for specially adapted housing assistive technology grant program.
SEC. 307. Improvements to Partial Claim Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
SEC. 308. Government Accountability Office reports on Partial Claim Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs and other matters.
TITLE IV—Other Matters
SEC. 401. Extension of subpoena authority of Inspector General of Department of Veterans Affairs.
SEC. 402. Extension of authority for Secretary of Veterans Affairs to transport individuals to and from facilities of Department of Veterans Affairs.
SEC. 403. Extension of authority relating to vendee loan program.
SEC. 404. Extension of authority for transfer of real property.
DIVISION E—MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 101. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

I'm not asking about what's in the extensions. I posted that as an example of different types of messaging and asked opinions as to who is winning the messaging. Each has their own approach. Both sides are misrepresenting (in various ways) the actual facts in play. I'm looking for non partisan opinions as to why the dems are choosing to vote no on the CR given that the timeline and what is set to expire was written by dems. I'm trying to understand their strategy beyond what the pubs offer up as to why (schumer under pressure from the far left, schumer trying to protect his seat, blah, blah, blah). If that is in fact the case then so be it but looking for other points of view.

 

[rodoheel]

That's disingenuous and you know it. I'm guessing you support majority rule in the senate but that isn't the case today and isn't a very strong defense to suggest pubs can pass it today if they just circumvent the rules. All pubs have voted yay. Only dems have voted nay. So again, if this CR includes no new pub provisions what is the problem on the dem side given that?
1. There are no new pub provisions
2. Dems wrote the provisions set to expire and determined the timeline
3. Dems have historically voted for continuing resolutions (schumer 13 times)

All i'm looking for is an OBJECTIVE OPINION. What you provided was partisan BS.

There is, per the constitution, passing of legislation by majority vote in both houses. That is how it works. The senate "rules" regarding the filibuster, among other things, are wholly a procedural creation of the senate itself, and can be immediately undone at any time by a simple majority. There is no "circumvention" of the rules required. Pubs aren't going to do that because they currently want a less functional congress and a muscular executive. Dems couldn't do it when they were last in power because they didn't have the votes (thanks to Sinema/Manchin). But make no mistake, the desire to have a non-functioning Congress that can't pass legislation by majority vote is a choice of the Pubs, who currently control everything. Dems aren't blameless in the history of what the current Senate rules have become but right now the Pubs are the ones who can change the rules if they want to continue governing without input from Dems. Otherwise, they can negotiate with Dems to get something passed.

As for the substance: I think the Dems have been very clear about what they're trying to accomplish: (1) they don't want millions of people to lose their health insurance, and (2) they rightly think it's laughable that Pubs are claiming they have some obligation to pass a funding bill when the White House has made clear that it arrogates to itself the right to ignore any spending mandates from Congress, anyway. The history of what has happened with continuing resolutions (which usually were resolved with negotiation of some kind) is meaningless because we now have a presidential administration claiming an unprecedented (outside of wartime) amount of power for itself and acting unlike any previous administration. So asking Dems to behave like "business as usual" and just sign whatever Pubs put in front of them out of some sense of obligation just doesn't ring very true to me.

 

[Ddseddse]

So again, if this CR includes no new pub provisions what is the problem on the dem side given that?

Not rocket science.

Fist do no harm.

If passing a clean CR does no harm, it should get passed.

If passing a clean CR does copious amounts of harm, then you don't pass a clean CR.

Simple. Logically consistent. And morally the correct hing to do.

 

[Ddseddse]

I'm not asking about what's in the extensions. I posted that as an example of different types of messaging and asked opinions as to who is winning the messaging. Each has their own approach. Both sides are misrepresenting (in various ways) the actual facts in play. I'm looking for non partisan opinions as to why the dems are choosing to vote no on the CR given that the timeline and what is set to expire was written by dems. I'm trying to understand their strategy beyond what the pubs offer up as to why (schumer under pressure from the far left, schumer trying to protect his seat, blah, blah, blah). If that is in fact the case then so be it but looking for other points of view.

My post did not misrepresent any facts in play.

You seem to care about who wrote what what when (in terms of laws with expiration dates).

I don't care about that in the slightest. I care that people will be harmed. Veterans won't get needed services, people will go into medical debt, or go without needed medical care.

You think you have some big gotcha. You don't. If that tiny shred of technicality that you are clinging to trumps the lives and welfare of you fellow citizens, then I'm saddened for you.

 

[superrific]

A man who cannot understand timeouts cannot understand budget resolutions.

 

[Callatoroy]

It really doesn’t take a lot of imagination to understand this (which is another indication to me that you are not a good faith poster - there’s a name for that) but I’ll lay it out as I see it.

First and foremost, the Dems’ effort is intended as a strong rebuke of the Republican approach of funding tax cuts through a combination of slashing health care and debt financing as reflected in the OBBB but also more broadly, ie. economic redistribution favoring the rich at the expense of the working class.

This strategy strikes me as wise because, provided the Dems stay unified, they will force the Repubs to either negotiate terms more favorable to the labor class through subsidies for healthcare coverage or to overcome the filibuster by means of the nuclear option. Let’s be clear: the Repubs own this. They need zero Dem votes to pass the budget.

Their dilemma is that compromise will give the Dems a win but a strictly partisan vote will reinforce who’s to blame for the consequences.

I think they’ll succumb to the demand for compromise.

Besides that, the Dems are clearly making a statement in opposition to the slash and burn efforts of the administration.

It all strikes me as good politics, which is rarely seen from that side, which is why I fear cowardly defections.

So the dems defense is we don't like what is in the obbb so we are going to vote no to a 7 week CR bill which will shut the g'ment down, and the strategy is to force the pubs to use a seldom used (and only in the case of confirming nominations) tactic that the average voter is likely ignorant of as a way of forcing congress to backtrack on your own legislation, or to say "see, the pubs caused your subsidies to expire" even though the language and timeline was written and set by the dems?

"Let's be clear: The Repubs own this" - That's only clear in the minds of this board. In my opinion the posters here are dismissing that this is their legislation and their timeline. That's why I don't think it is easily as clear to the average voter and that which ever side has the more persuasive messaging will determine who owns this. The fact that you guys immediately jump to assigning blame as the first things out of your mouths means to me you are worried that you will be seen as the cause for shutting the g'ment down. Its hard to convince people the group that wrote the legislation and set the timeline isn't to blame for consequences of their own actions. It's like saying don't blame us for our own stupidity.

I agree with some of what you posted and you did answer my question with giving your opinion. I don't see the pubs giving in on this because their messaging has painted them into a corner with very little room to maneuver. I also think there will be a few on the left who will cave.

 

[wmheel1287]

Here is

That's disingenuous and you know it. I'm guessing you support majority rule in the senate but that isn't the case today and isn't a very strong defense to suggest pubs can pass it today if they just circumvent the rules. All pubs have voted yay. Only dems have voted nay. So again, if this CR includes no new pub provisions what is the problem on the dem side given that?
1. There are no new pub provisions
2. Dems wrote the provisions set to expire and determined the timeline
3. Dems have historically voted for continuing resolutions (schumer 13 times)

All i'm looking for is an OBJECTIVE OPINION. What you provided was partisan BS.

Here is my opinion...Republican legislators are bad faith in every way at this point. Democrats absolutely have a huge hand in the funding levels that would be called for in a CR. However, Democrats also have seen nearly none of what has been prescribed by Congress be carried out by the Executive.

If you were asked to.vote to continue funding that you advocated for even though you knew for certain those administering the funding were not going to follow the prescribed use of the funds, would you vote for it?

 

[Callatoroy]

My post did not misrepresent any facts in play.

You seem to care about who wrote what what when (in terms of laws with expiration dates).

I don't care about that in the slightest. I care that people will be harmed. Veterans won't get needed services, people will go into medical debt, or go without needed medical care.

You think you have some big gotcha. You don't. If that tiny shred of technicality that you are clinging to trumps the lives and welfare of you fellow citizens, then I'm saddened for you.

I haven't offered any personal views so there is no gotcha. I have family members who might be negatively affected. Rather than expiring, I would like to see the legislation reworked in a manner that aligns with my personal beliefs but doesn't cause premiums to sky rocket. I think pubs are in a perfect position to do that and win a huge pr victory but I don't know if that will happen.

I think you undervalue in the eyes of the public the weight (if messaged properly) that this is a dem bill with a dem expiration date attached to a pandemic that people have political fatigue from. The problem with temporary taxes / spending is its sold to the voters as temporary but when its time to sunset it politicians always want to extend it or make it permanent. So further pr harm to your party should concern you for future elections.

 

[Enigma94]

I haven't offered any personal views so there is no gotcha. I have family members who might be negatively affected. Rather than expiring, I would like to see the legislation reworked in a manner that aligns with my personal beliefs but doesn't cause premiums to sky rocket. I think pubs are in a perfect position to do that and win a huge pr victory but I don't know if that will happen.

I think you undervalue in the eyes of the public the weight (if messaged properly) that this is a dem bill with a dem expiration date attached to a pandemic that people have political fatigue from. The problem with temporary taxes / spending is its sold to the voters as temporary but when its time to sunset it politicians always want to extend it or make it permanent. So further pr harm to your party should concern you for future elections.

You didn't seem to care about arbitrary expiration dates when it came to the Trump tax cuts that were set to expire prior to the OBBB.

 

[Ramrouser]

Legacy media must feel like the Dems are losing the shut down messaging because there are hardly any of the usual sob stories featured on TV or in print about how badly the shutdown is impacting "regular folks." Heck, even if the public feels like it's 50/50 fault, Republican win because we usually get almost all of the blame. This time the Rs stand on the side of simply passing a clean CR to open the government - easy peasy for Joe Public to understand.

 

[altmin]

CDC tormented: HR workers summoned from furlough to lay off themselves, others

Traumatized CDC has lost 33% of its workforce this year, union says.

arstechnica.com

 

[Callatoroy]

Here is

Here is my opinion...Republican legislators are bad faith in every way at this point. Democrats absolutely have a huge hand in the funding levels that would be called for in a CR. However, Democrats also have seen nearly none of what has been prescribed by Congress be carried out by the Executive.

If you were asked to.vote to continue funding that you advocated for even though you knew for certain those administering the funding were not going to follow the prescribed use of the funds, would you vote for it?

I think you are allowing partisanship to influence your opinion as to the "strategy" behind the left's move to vote no, knowing it would shut the g'ment down. The cr was for a very short time and the right wanted the left to vote no. I see no downside for the left to keeping it open for the duration that was in the cr.

Pub legislators are playing the same political hands the left would play if it was in power. That isn't bad faith, it politics. Maybe you could argue that all politics at the fed level are conducted in bad faith as it relates to making the other side look bad. That's why I'm interested in the strategy from the left because EVERYTHING i'm going to hear from anyone on the right is just the same talking points that are speculation at best. I realize this board can offer nothing but speculation too, but at least it isn't going to be what is coming from the right.

 

[Ddseddse]

I haven't offered any personal views so there is no gotcha. I have family members who might be negatively affected. Rather than expiring, I would like to see the legislation reworked in a manner that aligns with my personal beliefs but doesn't cause premiums to sky rocket. I think pubs are in a perfect position to do that and win a huge pr victory but I don't know if that will happen.

I think you undervalue in the eyes of the public the weight (if messaged properly) that this is a dem bill with a dem expiration date attached to a pandemic that people have political fatigue from. The problem with temporary taxes / spending is its sold to the voters as temporary but when its time to sunset it politicians always want to extend it or make it permanent. So further pr harm to your party should concern you for future elections.

You are the one who has been beating the binary chose drum.

Pass the Pub CR, or pass the Dem CR

Open the government and screw people over. Or open the government while not screwing people over.

Your wishes aside for some personal to you perfect solution, those are the only two options on the table at this moment in time (which do you chose?).

Join me in helping get the government open without screwing people over, and once that is done, feel free to sell me on all the glorious details in Trump's "perfect" healthcare plan that has been only two week away from being released for going on a decade.

 

[Callatoroy]

You didn't seem to care about arbitrary expiration dates when it came to the Trump tax cuts that were set to expire prior to the OBBB.

You are confusing me caring vs what the gen public feels. I'm not personally concerned about the fact that this is dem legislation with a dem expiration date. I'm curious to see if the public cares and how the left factors that into its messaging.

 

[Enigma94]

You are confusing me caring vs what the gen public feels. I'm not personally concerned about the fact that this is dem legislation with a dem expiration date. I'm curious to see if the public cares and how the left factors that into its messaging.

I think the public cares more about having affordable healthcare than whether the bill that provided the mechanism for that healthcare was set to expire or not.

 

[Ddseddse]

You are confusing me caring vs what the gen public feels. I'm not personally concerned about the fact that this is dem legislation with a dem expiration date. I'm curious to see if the public cares and how the left factors that into its messaging.

You just literally owned up to engaging in dictionary definition "Concern Trolling", you realize that don't you?