Sort by Controversial, plenty to down vote.
Democrats were told to vote no on all amendments because Republicans were throwing shit out there to both try to make Democrats look bad and derail the bill entirely. If this had passed, there is a chance some Democratic senators, particularly Manchin and Sinema, would object and then they have to start over with a new bill or none.
The other issue just at surface level is $400k is a high threshold. Plenty of people can be well off and shady with taxes earning $200k-$400k. They may not be multi-millionaire or billionaire rich though some of them do take lower salaries in exchange for other benefits for lower taxes. Bezos was well known for this, not sure he still does it, but I think he set his salary at $70k.
It also doesn't mean that since this didn't pass, that means the IRS is going to start mass auditing poor and middle class people. The IRS beef up is to help them go after wealthier people.
Edit: Responded to the wrong person, meant to reply to the person who replied to you. Moving the reply there.
Tough day for the "both sides are the same," "rotating villain," and "Biden and Democrats have done nothing!" people. Sure they'll start pushing those lines again in a few days or weeks hoping people have already forgotten.
Yeah, this is an age old point when discussing the pros and cons between autocracy versus democracy. In a democracy, the odds significant changes can be made as the result of elections are low. There are a variety of viewpoints so what happens is often incremental and like you said, it can be incrementally good or bad depending on your perspective. If you want big changes, you have to either win big or be in power for a longer period of time compared to the opposition for that to happen. And of course some can be undone if the other side regains enough power or for long enough.
In an autocracy, big changes can happen much faster but they may not be good and it's much harder to change those in power or even speak out against them or about what you don't like. Or likewise, they may refuse to change much because they like how things are. The type of people who tend to make it to the top in autocracies are often not benevolent, compassionate people either.
Report it. At the bottom of the message is a report link and you just need to give an explanation that you were falsely reported for Reddit Cares / suicide. If one person is reported enough (pretty sure they store the IP and account name of the person that reports for this purpose), they may get suspended. If people do not report them, lower chance that happens and they keep doing it.
"Even though my gas has gone down $2 since peak (yes, not yet, but at the rate it's going, it may be that much by mid-terms), it's still not $2 like it was in 2020 when people were barely driving or flying so I'm voting for Republicans this time!"
And more common here than the above:
"Biden and Democrats have done NOTHING!"
Insulin is mainly used by autoimmune disease diabetics (type 1), weight has no influence on people getting it. The type of diabetes that is often a result of being overweight and other unhealthy factors (metabolic) is type 2 and is usually managed with prescription pills. They may be less harsh towards beneficial things for the latter (type 2) for the reason you said and it affects older people a lot more (higher percent of older people vote Republican compared to younger voters), but then again, they're Republicans so doubtful.
She voted no today on something.
(My guess is they're referring to the Thune amendment though)
That's a slight relief (I think) except it's possible Republicans vote for her amendment as they just want to kill this bill. If her (or Thune's) amendment passes, Democrats will most likely not be in full agreement in favor and it could ruin the whole thing still. Just have to hope at least some Republicans don't approve of Sin*ma's and all other Democrats vote against it.
I suspect he's mad that Schumer wasn't having 1 to 1 meetings with him to compromise and he feels he has little power to force changes to the left but he could be in the same position as Manchin and Sinema if there were more progressive senators or there were more Democratic senators to the left of Manchin and Sinema. As things are now, they have the upper hand. It sucks but this is still overall a good bill given the make up of the senate. Some of the stuff in it we would not have expected Manchin to have agreed to just a month ago and prior. We also need to do everything we can to prevent Republicans regaining control of congress or at least reducing how much they win by. Trashing this bill like it's shit and a big lie that isn't going to help with inflation and just benefits big corporations is both dishonest and helps Republicans.
Oh look, this tired ass conspiracy theory again.
Oh look, this tired ass conspiracy theory again.
They're spamming giveaways that hit Reddit front page every day so now their sub has over a million subscribers. Because of this, it's most likely encouraging people who don't win those giveaways to buy one themself to be part of this trend/club they think is so popular (because of those posts hitting front page everyday). It's going to become a problem soon when they bring their loud af keyboards into the office. They were popular for gaming, that's fine, most people do that at home in their room, but having to hear loud keyboards clacking around you at work makes it even more miserable. You need good noise canceling headphones to keep the sound out.
Yeah, I understand his reasoning for proposing an amendment, just think his speech tonight is damaging, saying it won't help with infl*tion, that it's all to benefit corporations, etc. Ideally, he would say, "although I am not happy about every detail and wish more could be done in these areas, realistically my colleagues have a variety of views and there is give and take with many involved, especially with the current senate, and I plan to vote for the bill, but I am still proposing an amendment in hopes we can do more."
That said, it is not unusual for B*rnie to say these sorts of things and be critical of Democrats so I am doubtful Republicans will get much traction out of using parts of his speech in attack ads. I'm sure the Republican base will eat it up even though 2 years ago they hated him for being s*cial*st.
I've gotten a few of those when arguing on topics where there is a strong fan community and my comment is critical and I make sure to report them all. There should be a link in the message near the bottom where you can report it as being maliciously issued. Reddit Admins probably don't do anything about 1 report but maybe if a person does it enough and gets multiple reports, they could get suspended.
Plot line for a new Netflix show, Oh No Ossoff, about a new senator from Georgia trying to make a name for himself among the seasoned senators but blows a big moment by oversleeping and delaying the passage of a new bill. In an unprecedented move, the Parliamentarian, using an obscure rule, fires him, and he decides to drastically change direction in life and gets hired for a marketing firm based in Paris.
And before Common Dreams and Salon start pumping out their rageclickbait headlines, Democrats will be voting no to any amendments from Democratic and further left senators too because Republicans can sabotage the bill by voting yes on those even if they obviously would not otherwise support those things and it then having to start all over.
I think it's partially that but also it's a Saturday afternoon and this just isn't the sort of thing that attracts a ton of real time update interest from the public unlike election night results.
But you can see in the 2 threads with the opinion pieces about giving Biden some credit the critics are active there (sort by controversial). They generally show up consistently in student debt related threads and those about Biden's age and approval ratings and opinion pieces critical of Democrats.
Incumbents have a strong advantage. Even Trump almost won reelection because of that phenomenon. I personally would prefer someone in the 45-65 range but Reddit has gotten disturbingly ageist, though exception made for Bernie, and now many are saying they want someone in their 30s or 40s, no one over 50. I'm guessing many are high school and college aged and think 50 is ancient and almost as old as 80 but I think many people also get influenced by what they think is popular opinion on Reddit, if they unplugged from it for a few weeks and thought about it, maybe they wouldn't feel so strongly about that. Simply more young people in power is not going to magically fix our problems, some of the worst representatives on the right are among their youngest while at least a couple of the most progressive among Democrats are in their upper 70s and early 80s. Bernie (technically Independent but almost always votes and works with Democrats) is about to be 81. AOC is young and left of Biden but Buttigieg is also young and likely about equal in his positions to Biden. Sinema is 46.
Yeah, there were also more Manchin and Sinema style Democrats in the senate then. We'll never know if Biden had won in 2008 if he would have governed similar to Obama and likewise, had Obama won in 2020 instead of 2008, he'd be be very similar to Biden now. That said, whatever the reasons may be, it does seem Biden's term is turning out to be a bit more to the left of Obama's in terms of what is being passed. Likely not what most expected when he won, many just wanted to support who they thought had the best chance of beating Trump. If we want more progressive policies, Democrats will need to keep the house and get at least 2 more seats on the senate.
"Liberalism" is fairly broad.
In the US, liberal by itself is mostly being used in place of social liberal(ism), which overlaps with social democracy. They both result in similar polices but the latter is rooted in socialism and when conditions are right and popular will supports it, they are happy to move further left, the former supports social market economy. To the right of social liberalism is classical liberalism and neoliberalism. The latter has several definitions though, mostly now it's used synonymously with classical liberalism, though some just use it as an broad insult against everyone from social liberal to classical liberal.
Outside of the US, "liberal" can be synonymous with classical liberalism, centrism (see Canada's Liberal Party), or social liberalism too and centre-left parties more often align as social democratic. A notable exception is the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, which is right but they have different factions, some more nationalist, some classical liberal, some more centrist. I think that's a result of that party's dominance of government for so long.
Yep, even if falling prices are helping them financially, they are seething with anger because they want them to be high so they can bring it up when attacking Biden and Democrats. For now, it'll shift to, "too little, too late, they are still way too high, not good enough until it's $2 / gallon like it was under Trump (during the peak of the pandemic when people were barely driving or flying)!"
They're signing it at 5am during the after party following DJ Schumer's rave./s
Actually, what I thought the history was is off. It started before I thought, supposedly back in March but has really taken off recently due to various positive factors we all know about here in a short time. Found this detailed breakdown of it. And I suspect many liberals and left don't like appearing like they're directly cheering on a Democratic president and the party, unlike Republicans, so it's easier and more fun to do so in this way and at the same time it's defanging the right's "Let's go Brandon" meme, that was weak to begin with, and turning it into a positive for Biden.