HomeOpen Thread3/9 PM News Roundup & OT
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

“No one should be looking for work around here if they want to go after one of our members at the same time….”

pretty darn close to a blanket ban.


speaking of no corpse money. at least nina puts the link in her pinned tweet. i can’t tell you how many candidates i suggested this to. some did, a lot didn’t. we are a prickly group and don’t like suggestions.




“Are you interested in spending time outdoors, supporting organic farms, and getting your hands dirty? Then working and staying on an organic farm while living in your van through WWOOF is for you! Read on to learn what WWOOF is, why I decided to try farming, and how you can combine farming and vanlife.”


cool! better than amazon. :o)


Biden has no core ideology thus in some cases has kept good promises to groups, such as cancelling Keystone XL. Lacking that ideology However means that he negates the good decision with multiple bad ones to please the next interest group.


I Dont know this user in particular but a good reminder that twitter is mostly people calling for healthcare and higher wages vs a bunch of paid ops.


Bummer to see John legend touring in there




” The covid relief bill that we just passed – but not one Republican voted for it.”
But come election time they still vote the R –go figure??




President Biden’s orders to rein in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement led to a sharp drop in arrests by the agency last month, even though a federal judge in Texas has blocked the new administration’s 100-day “pause” on deportations.

The number of immigrants taken into custody by ICE officers fell more than 60 percent in February compared with the last three months of the Trump administration, according to data reviewed by The Washington Post. Deportations fell by nearly the same amount, ICE statistics show.

The change indicates the extent to which the Biden administration has been able to move forward with its plans to reshape U.S. immigration enforcement despite a U.S. District Court preliminary injunction halting its deportation freeze.


Good news, but I can’t “like” or applaud incrementalism with regard to an institution that should not exist, and embodies America’s turn to fascism.



President Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill will fulfill one of his central campaign promises, to fill the holes in the Affordable Care Act and make health insurance affordable for more than a million middle-class Americans who could not afford insurance under the original law.

The bill, which will most likely go to the House for a final vote on Wednesday, includes a significant, albeit temporary, expansion of subsidies for health insurance purchased under the act. Under the changes, the signature domestic achievement of the Obama administration will reach middle-income families who have been discouraged from buying health plans on the federal marketplace because they come with high premiums and little or no help from the government.

The changes will last only for two years. But for some, they will be considerable: The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a 64-year-old earning $58,000 would see monthly payments decline from $1,075 under current law to $412 because the federal government would take up much of the cost. The rescue plan also includes rich new incentives to entice the few holdout states — including Texas, Georgia and Florida — to finally expand Medicaid to those with too much money to qualify for the federal health program for the poor, but too little to afford private coverage.

“For people that are eligible but not buying insurance it’s a financial issue, and so upping the subsidies is going to make the price point come down,” said Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy expert and professor at the University of Pennsylvania who advised Mr. Biden during his transition. The bill, he said, would “make a big dent in the number of the uninsured.”

But because those provisions last only two years, the relief bill almost guarantees that health care will be front and center in the 2022 midterm elections, when Republicans will attack the measure as a wasteful expansion of a health law they have long hated. Meantime, some liberal Democrats may complain that the changes only prove that a patchwork approach to health care coverage will never work.

“Obviously it’s an improvement, but I think that it is inadequate given the health care crisis that we’re in,” said Representative Ro Khanna, a progressive Democrat from California who favors the single-payer, government-run system called Medicare for All that has been embraced by Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, and the Democratic left.

“We’re in a national health care crisis,” Mr. Khanna said. “Fifteen million people just lost private health insurance. This would be the time for the government to say, at the very least, for those 15 million that we ought to put them on Medicare.”

But as a candidate, Mr. Biden promised more, a “public option” — a government-run plan that Americans could choose on the health law’s online marketplaces, which now include only private insurance.

“Biden promised voters a public option, and it is a promise he has to keep,” said Waleed Shahid, a spokesman for Justice Democrats, the liberal group that helped elect Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other progressive Democrats. Of the stimulus bill, he said, “I don’t think anyone thinks this is Biden’s health care plan.”

Just when Mr. Biden or Democrats would put forth such a plan remains unclear, and passage in an evenly divided Senate would be an uphill struggle. White House officials have said Mr. Biden wants to get past the coronavirus relief bill before laying out a more comprehensive domestic policy agenda.

The debate over Medicare for All was a stark dividing line between progressives and more mainstream Democrats during the 2020 elections. Mr. Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts staked their candidacies on it, only to lose the nomination to Mr. Biden.

But in contested House primaries, support for Medicare for All helped give a boost to candidates like Jamaal Bowman of New York, Marie Newman of Illinois and Cori Bush of Missouri. All ousted Democratic incumbents last year in primary races that featured health care as a central issue.

“I would argue there is more momentum for Medicare expansion given the pandemic and the experience people are having,” said Mr. Khanna, the California congressman. “They bought time, but I think at some point there will be a debate on a permanent fix.”



Then there’s the raw amount of money the bill is about to throw at ordinary Americans, especially parents. Between the direct payments and child tax credit expansion, a poor or middle-class couple with two young children could receive up to $8,800; the Tax Policy Center forecasts that the average family with kids will end up with $6,000 in tax benefits (that figure includes the relief checks, which are structured as IRS rebates). As a result, the poorest 20 percent of Americans could see their after-tax incomes rise by about 20 percent, and the whole package could reduce the rate of child poverty in the United States by around half for the year, according to a widely cited analysis by researchers at Columbia University.

If Democrats were actually raising taxes to do this, it would be a historic act of one-time income redistribution. Given that it will be deficit-financed, you could say they are essentially taking out a giant, low-interest loan on the government’s account and using it to share the wealth.

The amount of cold hard currency this money will pour into poor and middle-class bank accounts is both politically and economically important. On the political front: Americans like checks, and unsurprisingly, polling suggests they overwhelmingly like this bill. Democrats have learned from Donald Trump’s example and put together a piece of legislation that people will remember, if for nothing else, for handing them some money. This is a stark contrast from the 2009 stimulus, which included a major tax cut that was literally designed to be invisible so that households would be more likely to spend it. It was arguably an American high-water mark for clever policy and terrible advertising, and allowed the bill to be portrayed as pork-barrel spending run amok.

Economically, the money this time should ensure that most families stay relatively secure until the late summer or autumn, by which time most Americans will hopefully be vaccinated. It’s entirely possible that these payments will largely be saved or used to pay down debt—which is how Americans appear to have used most of the $1,200 checks included in the CARES Act last spring. In that sense, the cash may not be great short-term “stimulus,” since it won’t be spent immediately back into the economy. But it will help Americans fix up their finances so that they are ready to spend later on. We shouldn’t have to worry about a prolonged, 2009-style balance sheet recession where consumer spending stalls because families find themselves stuck paying down obligations they can’t afford, which is appropriate given we’re all plodding through a national disaster at the moment.

Finally, the legislation sets up Biden to achieve a legacy-defining accomplishment. The expansion of the child tax credit is only set to last for one year. But if Democrats eventually make it permanent—which, as of now, seems to be the goal—it will mark a major turning point in the history of the American welfare state, by guaranteeing support for every single lower-income child whether or not their parents work, and massively reducing youth poverty for the long term. It would bring an end to the era that followed Bill Clinton’s welfare reforms, during which much of our approach to defeating need has been focused on nudging parents into jobs.

Suffice to say, Democrats are elated over all this. Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown said on Saturday when the bill passed that it was the best day of his Senate career. Despite losing his battle to include a $15 minimum wage in the bill, Vermont’s Bernie Sanders went even further, tweeting that it was “the most significant piece of legislation to benefit working families in the modern history of this country.”

Sanders is probably going a bit overboard—after all, everything in this bill is still temporary. He and his colleagues didn’t just create Medicare or Medicaid. But politically, it could foreshadow something momentous, and shows how far we’ve come from the Obama era. As New York’s Eric Levitz notes, Democrats have shown that with just 50 votes in the Senate, they are able to do what Democrats could not in 2009 with almost 60.