FrostBlazer

It’s backwards regressivism and self-centered governance. It’s really not even about him to an extent, he’s just the most exaggerated parts of it front and center.

They won’t openly say anything that costs them their cushy desk job in the Senate or House, but even Pelosi expresses this sentiment of “wait till we’re done and then you progressives will get your chance”. It’s a totally self-serving mindset and ignores the real problems people are facing that could be addressed by them taking action.

I think some politicians are learning and are trying to change, but the ones twiddling their thumbs or are enabling issues should definitely be primaried though.

Their answer would be “change nothing really until we’re retired” and “you can make the rules when it’s your turn”. That’s mostly what it boils down to for many of them. The “I’m the one currently benefiting from the status quo so why would I rock the boat” types specifically.

I really don’t expect big changes for another decade because then the demographics will change more for who is in office for the House and Senate. Even then though I’m not optimistic that things will really change for the better until another 10 years after that from looking at how Gen X voted most recently, which was more conservative than the boomers.

How is it redundant?

Great, the government is committed to funding the bill, then they should increase taxes to fund the bill.

We should only be incurring debt in specific situations where there is a long run value add. I’m not saying we should be cutting spending at all, but we should be funding our spending by increasing taxes on corporations.

I don’t see the issue with having a separate vote in these situations which should be uncommon, where you are not able to fund the spending because it’s for one of the specific costs that add values to our society.

I agree that private sector budgeting doesn’t operate in the same way as public budgeting, but at a certain point in future it will start chipping at the value of the dollar if our nation is not able to pay off its interest on the debt. My point is that we should be taxing corporations more to fund the spending.

Edit: I don’t see what’s controversial about this take, what’s wrong with just funding the bill?

I would say it would only be irrational in the long run if we are not making a plan to increase taxes to go along with the increased costs, at least for costs which don’t have a value add later down the line. If X amount is what it will cost to pay everything then we should increase taxes on corporations to be able to collect at minimum X amount, if not more.

I still don’t think increasing the country’s debt should be the first choice, increasing taxes should be the first choice when the spending bill shows we would be spending more than we would be taking in. I’m not sure if they can show they want to increase taxes at the same time on that bill in not, but increasing taxes to cover the additional spending is important.

I do agree that the country even being able to be shut down is a major problem. I would say a shut down does hurt Republican voters more, but Democrat politicians care about their constituents.

It really doesn’t make a ton of sense for either party to get rid of the filibuster at this current point in time. If Democrats won big in 2024 then I believe they should have gotten rid of the filibuster, but they didn’t win big. They needed to win the swing states and at least gain an extra seat or two in the Senate but that didn’t happen. They could have expanded the House under such a situation so it is really unfortunate that did not occur. The main hope now is for Democrats to pick up seats in the midterms and in 2028 to try to make up some of the losses.

Really, anyone that wants to see positive change stick should consider moving to purple states and purple districts from their deep red state/deep blue states. If the swing states became solid blue states then we would have a much easier time passing legislation that is beneficial.

The debt ceiling is used that way by Republicans for the most part. They don’t want to increase taxes even for corporations, but they try to force a budget resolution by cutting spending when there really is only so much you can cut without hurting people.

The debt ceiling is a reminder that there is a cost to the money we spend, I personally believe we are still far from it being an issue but we should be increasing taxes to properly allocate money for spending. Ideally you want to collect more than you spend, but some instances it makes sense to go into a steeper debt to get those tangible benefits I mentioned.

Really a shutdown should trigger elections because it just shows that the governing body can’t do their jobs.

Having a debt ceiling isn’t really the worst idea to an extent. You can reach a hypothetical point where you’re not able to realistically pay off your debt to other nations for instance. That’s why instead of raising the debt limit and weakening the dollar in the process, it makes more sense to tax corporations more to cover your country’s added expenses. There are specific things it makes sense to increase the debt limit to do though such as funding education, science and research, renewable and nuclear energy, and public transit systems as these are all value adds for a society in the long run.

The smaller caucus in their party is more closer aligned to the presidency though. A populist president would have a better chance to making progress for a smaller caucus. A small caucus in the Senate is what prevented most helpful or progressive legislation from passing as well, as seen in Manchin and Senima who are both Independents.

I would say it’s a post-jaded reformation era.

Where you’re trying to will positive change for the sake of it. Potential fruitlessness of the effort be damned, I am willing my hope into this world

You gotta flip the stats, 100 gorillas vs Gojo

I believe it’s still possible through a program; you can send iMessage through an Apple laptop or copy and paste from a notes app on your phone or computer into iMessage and fill in the appointment specifics into the template.

They likely have a prompt they copy and paste into a text messaging portal. Although it could very well be an automated service that sends those texts, but it is a manual service receiving and verifying the replies.

Jesus basically came in to say: just follow the commandments, love one another, love your enemy as yourself, don’t be greedy and selfish, and you guys don’t have to keep doing those self-imposed rules the Israelites made themselves do like don’t eat pork or shell fish, etc.

Israelites believed that they were supposed to be purists about everything they do to some degree and saw being a purist as being holy; such as never mixing two different kinds of fabric together or don’t raise your goats with your sheep. Jesus said you don’t need to be a purist about all this unimportant stuff, but be good people.