this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2025

108 points (99.1% liked)

News

33090 readers

3564 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

108

Senate Democrats propose 1-year Obamacare subsidies punt in new shutdown offer (www.politico.com)

submitted 3 days ago by gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer laid out a new Democratic counterproposal for ending the government shutdown: attaching a one-year extension of soon-to-expire Affordable Care Act subsidies to a spending stopgap that would reopen agencies.

...

“This is a reasonable offer that reopens the government, deals with health care affordability and begins a process of negotiating reforms to the ACA tax credits for the future,” Schumer said. “Now the ball is in the Republicans’ court. We need Republicans to just say, ‘Yes.”

The offer generated some quick GOP backlash, however. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) posted on X that it would unduly benefit health insurance companies to blindly extend the subsidies: “Another year of insane profits at the expense of consumers and American taxpayers,” he wrote.

Schumer’s counteroffer came after Democrats met privately for hours Thursday to try to find a path forward that would unify the caucus. It’s a shift from the start of the shutdown, when Democrats included a permanent extension of the Obamacare subsidies in an alternative to the GOP-led continuing resolution that passed the House.

Shortly before Schumer’s speech, a group of roughly a dozen members of the Senate Democratic Caucus — including the No. 2 leader, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois — met in a Capitol basement office. The group included senators who have been negotiating with Republicans about a path out of the shutdown, as well as other Democratic senators viewed as potential swing votes.

A person familiar with the conversation, granted anonymity to describe the private discussion, said that “tone and approach” of the senators in the meeting “doesn’t reflect what you see on the floor.”

Archived at https://archive.is/mSNKC

all 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Know_not_Scotty_does@lemmy.world 100 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Not

Back

Down

You

Cowards

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 63 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Schumer hears “Do not. Back down, you cowards!”

[–] GTKashi@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago

No, Money down!

[+] Credibly_Human@lemmy.world -6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Is a 1 year stay not reasonable?

This puts off many starving while not letting the republicans do what they want no? Is bouncing off the rev limiter perhaps but at least there would be a limiter?

I mean, if they stay for longer, what would they be getting out of that?

[–] Know_not_Scotty_does@lemmy.world 39 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No, it isn't unfortunately. It means that any pain they potentially stave off now will be back on the table in another year. It just kicks the can down the road and if anything, it shows that they will be willing to cave into the same demands or arguements again next time.

We got here because the dems didn't push back in any meaningful way over the last 16 years. Look at how McConnel fucked us over with the supreme court justices, judicial nominations, committee appointments etc.

We are here because the left tried to be reasonable with unreasonable people. Now that the stakes are high enough they finally figured out that strategy doesn't work. I hope they make the repubs own the mess they made and show the public exactly why the govt is shut down, and whose fault it really is.

[–] Credibly_Human@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

No, it isn’t unfortunately. It means that any pain they potentially stave off now will be back on the table in another year. It just kicks the can down the road and if anything

Kicks the can down the road till right before the mid terms, where they will have it fresh in peoples active memories?

it shows that they will be willing to cave into the same demands or arguements again next time.

The same demands as the republicans not doing the thing they has maintained is the line?

We got here because the dems didn’t push back in any meaningful way over the last 16 years. Look at how McConnel fucked us over with the supreme court justices, judicial nominations, committee appointments etc.

We also got here because people expect magic one term fixes, didn't want to be lead by women, and thought that picking fascism was better than acknowledging the least bad party wasn't all that great but they should still vote for them.

One thing I don't get is that people expect the world from democrats while not giving them the power to do that.

Then they expect the DNC to be listening to them, when they barely show up to primaries and so they continue to get the same old blood making the problem that they complain about the DNC having.

We are here because the left tried to be reasonable with unreasonable people.

No. I think the left didn't try to be reasonable with reasonable people, and as a result left people who didn't care about them to reason with unreasonable people.

What I am saying is that I think online leftists really badly want to pretend this isn't partially on them too, like they weren't doing GOP campaigning for them and like they did their best to try to make the DNC more progressive by force, when really all they did was bitch that they didn't change, bitch when they were in office without 3 branches and a super majority and didn't accomplish what it would take just doing illegal things to accomplish, and who are now bitching that the democrats they didn't support enough to give significant power arent doing super hero feats to solve this.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think voter apathy and shitty people who thought feeling superior meant more than the actual consequences all lead to this point. I think blaming the DNC is not useful, because they aren't the people, and therefore the conversation should be about "How can we force an atagonistic DNC to do what they want, when its obvious they have every incentive to just stick with neoliberalism and just be the 'at least we arent that' party". People didn't ask that, and instead got burned out when they didnt get magic in a short time period.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 17 points 3 days ago (2 children)

A one year extension is after the midterms.

[–] Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It wouldn't be from the time the shutdown started?

In that case, thats... pretty stupid.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 9 points 3 days ago

Expiration of the credits is at the end of the calendar year. It hasn't happened yet.

[–] Botzo@lemmy.world -3 points 3 days ago

While that is true, Democrats get to campaign against Republicans using it. They can say things like "we fought for you last year and Republicans finally gave in; now they're taking it away for good."

Granted, without actually feeling the pain, and knowing it was Democrats that proposed the new end date, it rings a bit hollow, but I'm no political marketing person.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What I am saying is that I think online leftists really badly want to pretend this isn’t partially on them too, like they weren’t doing GOP campaigning for them and like they did their best to try to make the DNC more progressive by force, when really all they did was bitch that they didn’t change, bitch when they were in office without 3 branches and a super majority and didn’t accomplish what it would take just doing illegal things to accomplish, and who are now bitching that the democrats they didn’t support enough to give significant power arent doing super hero feats to solve this.

Your post could be summarized as:

"Never hold Democrats accountable for anything, as they will always be able to cite the 60 vote rule in the Senate. Completely ignore the things they can don't do that they could do with the power they do have. Just keep voting Democrat forever. Voting for the good team is more important than actually making policy changes."

[–] Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

Never hold Democrats accountable for anything

You're already so off base you completely missed the point of my comment.

Its not "Never hold Democrats accountable for anything". Its that you shouldn't shoot off your own leg to own the DNC. Thats the mentality of a lot of online leftists. They are willing to actually shotgun the chances of the changes they want to see being successful in order to punish an organization that largely and clearly, even in their own opinions, runs contrary to their goals and is incentivised differently than their feelings of anger and rage would have them act.

"Holding democrats accountable" by making them lose, is cutting your own legs off to splash some blood on their Louis Vuitton; Its stupid childish shit that hurts real people. They care way more about not doing what you want than they do about losing.

You can accept that reality and accept that the best and by far most pragmatic way to react is to primary people, vote in state and local politics and continue to campaign for a party you know is somewhat antagonistic to your goals, or you can chop your legs off and basically do free marketing for the people who actively want to hurt you as opposed to passively wanting to take from you, keep taxes on the rich low, etc etc.

There are no magic third options (that actually work or are possible).

as they will always be able to cite the 60 vote rule in the Senate.

They won't if people stopped the foolish infighting and instead just tried to take over the party from within while supporting them when it comes the time to fall in line. Thats the reality of that situation. The reality is that the filibusterer exists, and will continue to, and that it will continue to be an excuse they use.

Completely ignore the things they can don’t do that they could do with the power they do have.

No it does not. Firstly, they actually do a ton when in power, and secondly the things they don't do but should, we don't ignore. We just weigh the options without thinking like angsty teenagers ready to cause self harm just to get our parents to notice us.

Just keep voting Democrat forever. Voting for the good team is more important than actually making policy changes

What this ignores is that voting for the good team is exactly how you make positive changes. You can't make positive changes by turning your country into a hellscape. You can't change them with a third party. So how are you going to change them? You pick the party of 2 that is closest to you, and you change them from within.

[–] EndOfLine@lemmy.world 51 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Ahhh yes. The old "can we do this again, but closer to the midterm elections" play.

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 18 points 3 days ago

Ah yes, this is how it could play out.

MId term elections - Democracts take the house.
Republicans "We had to shut down the government because the Democrats won't give us what we want."
January 2027 rolls around.
Democracts "So when are going to get the new congress sworn in?"
Republicans "We never formally closed the previous session and since the government is shut down. We can't do that. So, we're just going to stay in power."
Democracts "You can't do that."
Republicans "We are and we already showed you that will do it with Adelita Grijalva."

[–] Prox@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I mean, at this point, why wouldn't they do that? They just saw how much the party cleaned up during the election, so naturally they want to reap similar benefits ar a larger scale next year.

Oh, I mean, yeah... It'll force actual people to go through similar stress and pain again, but think of the personal political gains!

[–] Glytch@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Because they could have principles and keep the government shut down until Republicans capitulate and actually fund government services. Unfortunately, they're Democrats and it will take many generations before they develop spines.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 3 points 3 days ago

If they actually stick it out they can campaign on getting some real results instead of compromising on basic social safety nets.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 5 points 3 days ago

Closer in an absolute sense, but not in a Price is Right sense. One year brings the subsidies to after the next election, when there's no active pressure to apply. I don't know why the Republicans didn't jump on it immediately, this is a giant gift to them.

[–] eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Absolute worthless cowards.

"Massive election sweep? Time to make concessions!"

Schumer RETIRE

[–] Twinklebreeze@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The next major round of elections is in... A year. When this would expire.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I swear, Democrats are the biggest pussies and the worst strategists.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

They’re paid to pretend

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

A lot of people here are interpreting this incorrectly. Guys, this is actually a good strategic move as much as I want Jeffries and Schumer gone.

Follow me:

The GOP are forking Democrats to choose a loss of SNAP benefits, or a loss of healthcare tax subsidies that will see premiums skyrocket to unaffordable levels for millions.
Democrats DO have the negotiating leverage right now considering Trump's approval is plummeting and more Americans blame Republicans than Democrats.
However, this move has a slightly veiled one: It punts the issue to become a talking-point on healthcare right around midterms next year, which will be hugely beneficial to Democratic talking points.
As a result, Democrats seize a win for the American people in both restoring SNAP benefits and ACA tax subsidies for a year more, while at the same time loading up political leverage for midterms next year.
NOT TO MENTION: It solidifies the side who is trying to viably come to the table and to HELP the American people. Makes them look like the adults in the room.

Dare I say, great move.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I hope so because my entire lifetime of evidence says it’s just more ratchet effect

[–] aarch0x40@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago

Yes, yes. Let's do this every f*cking year.

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ok, so the rational political play here is that Schumer uses the recent blue wave to put pressure on the GOP: give up on the ACA attacks for a year and we will re-open the government. The GOP are now put into a position where they cave to the Dems or they are directly responsible for prolonging the shutdown, undercutting the GOP narrative for who to blame for the shutdown.

The gamble, the risk, is that the GOP accepts the offer and the Dems look like they cave. It sucks but that was the risk for this bold fucking gamble by Schumer. I hate him and wish he would lose his job but this was a smart play. There is no history of the GOP working with the Dems in recent history so they wouldn't be inclined to start now.

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

It's worth the risk. A functional federal government, no matter how terrible it is, is still better than one that isn't. Peoples lives are at stake here.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) posted on X that it would unduly benefit health insurance companies to blindly extend the subsidies: “Another year of insane profits at the expense of consumers and American taxpayers,” he wrote.

So...offloading that burden directly onto consumers is somehow better? This entire line of reasoning does absolutely nothing to solve the problem, it just shifts it from being a "we" problem, to a "you" problem.

If they really had an issue with private insurers making obscene profits, they'd implement universal healthcare and cut the insurance industry out of the equation completely.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago

What I’m hearing Lindsay say is that we should switch to socialized medicine, instead of paying insurance companies. 😉

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago

ITT: excuses as to why capitulation will somehow be a win.