A divided Republican Senate sure is a thing to see. So much to unpack there.
Would it be a good tactic for Senate Dems to try to negotiate with individual factions of Senate Republicans? I think
it is, but I'm not sure.
It won't matter. Either McConnell is with them or he's not. Without him nothing will come to the floor for a vote.
He's not.
Senate rules are simple majority. It's *extremely* unlikely but they are able to kick McConnell to the curb.
But only by actually kicking McConnell to the curb by removing his position as majority leader and instituting a new majority leader.
It would end any Republican's career forever (it also might be personally dangerous for them). It would also need like 13 to sign on because R's would filibuster it
A divided Republican Senate sure is a thing to see. So much to unpack there.
Would it be a good tactic for Senate Dems to try to negotiate with individual factions of Senate Republicans? I think
it is, but I'm not sure.
It won't matter. Either McConnell is with them or he's not. Without him nothing will come to the floor for a vote.
He's not.
Senate rules are simple majority. It's *extremely* unlikely but they are able to kick McConnell to the curb.
I mean...you only need 3 for Senate Majority Leader **shudders** Mitt Romney.
Better than McConnell.
Majority/Minority leaders are elected by their party. Dems don't factor into it, and nowhere near enough Republicans are going to cross McConnell to replace him.
A divided Republican Senate sure is a thing to see. So much to unpack there.
Would it be a good tactic for Senate Dems to try to negotiate with individual factions of Senate Republicans? I think
it is, but I'm not sure.
It won't matter. Either McConnell is with them or he's not. Without him nothing will come to the floor for a vote.
He's not.
Senate rules are simple majority. It's *extremely* unlikely but they are able to kick McConnell to the curb.
I mean...you only need 3 for Senate Majority Leader **shudders** Mitt Romney.
Better than McConnell.
Majority/Minority leaders are elected by their party. Dems don't factor into it, and nowhere near enough Republicans are going to cross McConnell to replace him.
That's right, I'm thinking Speaker of the House. Fuck.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Headline: Trump Offers, Democrats Reject Fix For $600 Jobless Benefit
That's the AP, that story gets farmed out to hundreds of papers and TV stations across the country. And the headline that is all most people will see is a complete inversion of the truth.
ie - why Democratic leadership is very hestitent to take these kind of fights
Yeah, this was offered because it would generate exactly these headlines
A divided Republican Senate sure is a thing to see. So much to unpack there.
Would it be a good tactic for Senate Dems to try to negotiate with individual factions of Senate Republicans? I think
it is, but I'm not sure.
It won't matter. Either McConnell is with them or he's not. Without him nothing will come to the floor for a vote.
He's not.
Senate rules are simple majority. It's *extremely* unlikely but they are able to kick McConnell to the curb.
I mean...you only need 3 for Senate Majority Leader **shudders** Mitt Romney.
Better than McConnell.
Majority/Minority leaders are elected by their party. Dems don't factor into it, and nowhere near enough Republicans are going to cross McConnell to replace him.
Leader of the Senate is whichever party has the votes to say it is. So you could always "form a new party". Its actually easier to replace McConnell in the Senate construction because you can both form the new party route where all the Dems and 13 R's say X is the new majority leader(you need 13 because whatever you will do will be filibustered). Or half the R's can just vote him out for someone else.
Other than potentially being able to leverage continued suffering for a better deal later, similar to a government shutdown standoff, what would Democrats had lost if they agreed? Reading the article it doesn’t appear that the extension was reliant on a bill being passed, however they would have managed that without involving the Senate
Other than potentially being able to leverage continued suffering for a better deal later, similar to a government shutdown standoff, what would Democrats had lost if they agreed? Reading the article it doesn’t appear that the extension was reliant on a bill being passed, however they would have managed that without involving the Senate
Leverage and pressure right now is very high for Democrats. You can keep the temporary extension ball rolling a long time once it starts and Republicans might eventually be in a better spot, better to force the issue while Republicans are getting caught in numerous other scandals and look like monsters. I am specifically thinking of the report about Kushner abandoning national action.
It also helps that the Senate really wants to go into recess and the members will be tired and may want to go home rather than fight for their principles.
This is probably the best moment to forcibly negotiate a deal that Democrats will ever get.
Other than potentially being able to leverage continued suffering for a better deal later, similar to a government shutdown standoff, what would Democrats had lost if they agreed? Reading the article it doesn’t appear that the extension was reliant on a bill being passed, however they would have managed that without involving the Senate
Leverage and pressure right now is very high for Democrats. You can keep the temporary extension ball rolling a long time once it starts and Republicans might eventually be in a better spot, better to force the issue while Republicans are getting caught in numerous other scandals and look like monsters. I am specifically thinking of the report about Kushner abandoning national action.
It also helps that the Senate really wants to go into recess and the members will be tired and may want to go home rather than fight for their principles.
This is probably the best moment to forcibly negotiate a deal that Democrats will ever get.
That and it was a week long extension that would have just been a clusterfuck of uselessness. Or the other proposal which would have them renegotiate...a month before the election? Yeah no.
Headline: Trump Offers, Democrats Reject Fix For $600 Jobless Benefit
That's the AP, that story gets farmed out to hundreds of papers and TV stations across the country. And the headline that is all most people will see is a complete inversion of the truth.
ie - why Democratic leadership is very hestitent to take these kind of fights
Yeah, this was offered because it would generate exactly these headlines
I was kind of bothered by the headline as it's well known that the AP allows one to buy space on their service.
By AP rules, the first name accordingly has done the most work of the article. The first name, Andrew Taylor is a UK native and resident. Doesn't appear to have any connection stateside and by the looks for his AP profile page looks to be heavily involved in sports coverage, not the economic or political beat. Which is interesting as Muck Rack (a journalist employment & recruitment site a-la Gig Economy) seems to have a far greater count just for this one article.
The other author, Lisa Mascaro, is a Pulitzer winning Economics writer formerly of DC, now living in LA. From her twitter feed, it looks like Taylor took an article she wrote yesterday and changed it and likely the headline. I say this as the links on her feed to her article all get shunted to a corrections page and not the previous version. Which you can guess at with the URL provided, mainly "stakes-rise-virus-talks-jobless-aid-lapses-gdp-drops" which hasn't a thing to do with the headline proffered today.
This is less about the media having a bias as the AP wire service being complicit with ginning up juice for the weekend DC talk shows.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Other than potentially being able to leverage continued suffering for a better deal later, similar to a government shutdown standoff, what would Democrats had lost if they agreed? Reading the article it doesn’t appear that the extension was reliant on a bill being passed, however they would have managed that without involving the Senate
The shit show of implementation going wrong and then going wrong again a week later when nothing happens and they have to turn them off again. Administration is a thing.
Other than potentially being able to leverage continued suffering for a better deal later, similar to a government shutdown standoff, what would Democrats had lost if they agreed? Reading the article it doesn’t appear that the extension was reliant on a bill being passed, however they would have managed that without involving the Senate
Leverage and pressure right now is very high for Democrats. You can keep the temporary extension ball rolling a long time once it starts and Republicans might eventually be in a better spot, better to force the issue while Republicans are getting caught in numerous other scandals and look like monsters. I am specifically thinking of the report about Kushner abandoning national action.
It also helps that the Senate really wants to go into recess and the members will be tired and may want to go home rather than fight for their principles.
This is probably the best moment to forcibly negotiate a deal that Democrats will ever get.
Nobody cares about Kushner being a monster except us political nerds. I bet 80% of Americans might remember him as Ivankas husband.
Shit, I'm as dialed in as anyone, and barely can keep half of today's breaking atrocities straight.
No one thing matters. No one thing will break them. The 'postpone the election' is the closest I've seen in a while and it's still background noise.
Even if RBG dies and they ram through a justice between now and November, I still think however much it moves the needle will get lost in the noise.
One of the thoughts I had is Trump could do what Obama did and do an executive order to just push his plan thus by passing congress and the silly game there
{that basically knocks McConnell's argument out}
One of the thoughts I had is Trump could do what Obama did and do an executive order to just push his plan thus by passing congress and the silly game there
{that basically knocks McConnell's argument out}
One of the thoughts I had is Trump could do what Obama did and do an executive order to just push his plan thus by passing congress and the silly game there
{that basically knocks McConnell's argument out}
What are you referring to?
I was at work and it was not fun what happened
What I meant is the Troll is planning on using his executive power to ban Tic toc
He could do the same and bypass McConnell's road block and pass whatever help he felt the people of the US needed
One of the thoughts I had is Trump could do what Obama did and do an executive order to just push his plan thus by passing congress and the silly game there
{that basically knocks McConnell's argument out}
What are you referring to?
I was at work and it was not fun what happened
What I meant is the Troll is planning on using his executive power to ban Tic toc
He could do the same and bypass McConnell's road block and pass whatever help he felt the people of the US needed
Unfortunately I think it's a different power.
As the Executive, Trump can make arbitrary and capricious exclusions to who can and can't conduct business with US citizens by using the magical words "National Security" and hoping the participants come to the negotiating table instead of spending years going through the courts.
What he CAN'T do, and what is a power only explicitly given to congress, is authorize additional spending not already approved in existing budget and funding bills (although he's tried to divert it, such as trying to use funds marked for the military to construct his wall).
Basically:
Can and Can't Do Business - Executive
Spending Money - Congress
You might be referring to the various Debt Ceiling standoffs between Obama and the Republican controlled congress, where there was some discussion that Obama could just issue an executive order to tell the treasury to keep paying - but (a) that never happened, and (b) the payments had already been authorized by the budget passed by congress, it's just that doing so would exceed the debt ceiling limit specified in a different bill.
Yep, Congress passed 2 bills back then:
1. Limiting the amount of Debt the USA could take on (Debt Ceiling)
2. Authorizing specific amounts of funding for specific departments and projects (Budget)
So as Executive Obama Admin had some leeway in how to interpret which had precedence and how to proceed when the two came in conflict.
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
I've been thinking for most of the summer about moving some of my IRA into cash, in case reopening goes south and I need to use it as a longer-term emergency fund. I've got a couple months worth already in the bank, but that would go fast if my employer goes belly up near the end of the year -- which is a possibility I can't entirely discount.
Somebody talk me out of it. I know timing the market doesn't work, I know retirement funds aren't rainy day accounts. But I still keep logging into Vanguard about once a week and staring at the Sell button.
0
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
I've been thinking for most of the summer about moving some of my IRA into cash, in case reopening goes south and I need to use it as a longer-term emergency fund. I've got a couple months worth already in the bank, but that would go fast if my employer goes belly up near the end of the year -- which is a possibility I can't entirely discount.
Somebody talk me out of it. I know timing the market doesn't work, I know retirement funds aren't rainy day accounts. But I still keep logging into Vanguard about once a week and staring at the Sell button.
Well now is a better time to sell than 3 months ago. How much money could you sock away before your employer would go out of business, theoretically? Could you cut your spending to the bone and get another 4 months banked?
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
The other thing to consider are the tax implications. How much of that money will you actually hold onto? I'm no financial adviser, but liquidating an IRA has always been a "last resort" type thing from what I understand.
I think that you can convert it to cash within the IRA, but don't quote me on that.
I've had last year's contribution to my IRA sitting in cash for a while now because I didn't think *gestures at the world* would happen so it'd be silly to put it into stocks or bonds, but apparently what the fuck do I know.
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
Yeah, when I say convert to cash, I mean leaving the money in the IRA for now, just selling out of the mutual fund and buying money markets or CDs in the IRA.
Ordinary income tax would be owed on any distribution from the fund. There's ordinarily also a 10% penalty, but that is waived for hardship withdrawals.
This week's data releases include not only the employment situation from the BLS (aka the unemployment rate), but also US international trade in goods/services for June from the BEA.
Gonna be a banner week for economic indicators people actually pay attention to
+1
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
My 401k had been entirely in money market since, like, the end of February, and half of it was there beforehand, because I realized a year ago that the growth we'd been seeing wasn't sustainable.
On the one hand, it feels really shitty to think I'd have been better off just leaving it alone. On the other there's just no way a 10% contraction in GDP actually leaves everything at their current rates. I get that markets aren't rational but it makes exactly zero sense.
My 401k had been entirely in money market since, like, the end of February, and half of it was there beforehand, because I realized a year ago that the growth we'd been seeing wasn't sustainable.
On the one hand, it feels really shitty to think I'd have been better off just leaving it alone. On the other there's just no way a 10% contraction in GDP actually leaves everything at their current rates. I get that markets aren't rational but it makes exactly zero sense.
I'm staying the hell away from the stock market for now. The world makes precisely zero sense so put me down for "2020 has some more 2020'ing to do".
+4
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
Covering economic policy for The Wall Street Journal.
How about stop trying to come up with clever technocratic systems and just give people money that they need to live.
+18
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
The idea that unemployment should be punitively low unless the economy is in dire straits is an improvement over the current situation where it's just punitively low all the time, but still not quite there yet.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
That is basically what the proposals are? Giving people money is necessary. A cutoff is bad, especially when the GOP is guaranteed to try to block any extension even if needed. The easiest way to get around that is to make it so it doesn't need to come up with extension and instead just keeps on going until things improve. Like the basic idea seems really simple to me and not something that is hard for the average person to get. Any other proposal to avoid a cliff would basically require universal basic income in a way that has yet to gain that much traction and would be much more difficult to pass. And proposals for universal basic income are themselves often pretty technocratic in how it is calculated.
OFten the technocratic solution is to actually overcome the political roadblocks a non-technocratic solution faces
Yeah. In theory the Congress should be United in a bipartisan fashion to advance legislation to save the country from a pestilence that has fallen upon our forsaken land through no fault of those who have been stricken by the disease. ...but instead they aren't, and so what help was afforded to people withers away by their failure to act.
OFten the technocratic solution is to actually overcome the political roadblocks a non-technocratic solution faces
This is even explicitly the point of non-emergency bills on this subject. One of the two main points of automatic stabilizers is that they go into effect without any of this bullshit from Congress. (and the second point is actually still related to that in that they occur quickly and expectedly)
There's always a balance to whether a program should require Congressional reauthorization or not. Effectively the UI extension is a new additional program to the original UI, and there are valid reasons to want Congressional action -- transparency and accountability specifically. The program I get most headaches around is Transportation's grants program -- some of them require reauthorization every 6 years. While it's good to bring it before Congress, like that it makes it difficult to do long-term planning around the grants (such as issuing bonds with those grants as revenue).
In "I don't know what the fuck is going on anymore" news, my 401k is in the black for the year.
If it's being actively managed, then that makes sense too. I have an account where a lot of money was moved to other markets and into various things that are still able to make money.
League of Legends: Sorakanmyworld
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
Posts
But only by actually kicking McConnell to the curb by removing his position as majority leader and instituting a new majority leader.
It would end any Republican's career forever (it also might be personally dangerous for them). It would also need like 13 to sign on because R's would filibuster it
Majority/Minority leaders are elected by their party. Dems don't factor into it, and nowhere near enough Republicans are going to cross McConnell to replace him.
That's right, I'm thinking Speaker of the House. Fuck.
Yeah, this was offered because it would generate exactly these headlines
Leader of the Senate is whichever party has the votes to say it is. So you could always "form a new party". Its actually easier to replace McConnell in the Senate construction because you can both form the new party route where all the Dems and 13 R's say X is the new majority leader(you need 13 because whatever you will do will be filibustered). Or half the R's can just vote him out for someone else.
Neither is going to happen.
Leverage and pressure right now is very high for Democrats. You can keep the temporary extension ball rolling a long time once it starts and Republicans might eventually be in a better spot, better to force the issue while Republicans are getting caught in numerous other scandals and look like monsters. I am specifically thinking of the report about Kushner abandoning national action.
It also helps that the Senate really wants to go into recess and the members will be tired and may want to go home rather than fight for their principles.
This is probably the best moment to forcibly negotiate a deal that Democrats will ever get.
That and it was a week long extension that would have just been a clusterfuck of uselessness. Or the other proposal which would have them renegotiate...a month before the election? Yeah no.
I was kind of bothered by the headline as it's well known that the AP allows one to buy space on their service.
By AP rules, the first name accordingly has done the most work of the article. The first name, Andrew Taylor is a UK native and resident. Doesn't appear to have any connection stateside and by the looks for his AP profile page looks to be heavily involved in sports coverage, not the economic or political beat. Which is interesting as Muck Rack (a journalist employment & recruitment site a-la Gig Economy) seems to have a far greater count just for this one article.
The other author, Lisa Mascaro, is a Pulitzer winning Economics writer formerly of DC, now living in LA. From her twitter feed, it looks like Taylor took an article she wrote yesterday and changed it and likely the headline. I say this as the links on her feed to her article all get shunted to a corrections page and not the previous version. Which you can guess at with the URL provided, mainly "stakes-rise-virus-talks-jobless-aid-lapses-gdp-drops" which hasn't a thing to do with the headline proffered today.
This is less about the media having a bias as the AP wire service being complicit with ginning up juice for the weekend DC talk shows.
The shit show of implementation going wrong and then going wrong again a week later when nothing happens and they have to turn them off again. Administration is a thing.
Nobody cares about Kushner being a monster except us political nerds. I bet 80% of Americans might remember him as Ivankas husband.
Shit, I'm as dialed in as anyone, and barely can keep half of today's breaking atrocities straight.
No one thing matters. No one thing will break them. The 'postpone the election' is the closest I've seen in a while and it's still background noise.
Even if RBG dies and they ram through a justice between now and November, I still think however much it moves the needle will get lost in the noise.
{that basically knocks McConnell's argument out}
What are you referring to?
I was at work and it was not fun what happened
What I meant is the Troll is planning on using his executive power to ban Tic toc
He could do the same and bypass McConnell's road block and pass whatever help he felt the people of the US needed
As the Executive, Trump can make arbitrary and capricious exclusions to who can and can't conduct business with US citizens by using the magical words "National Security" and hoping the participants come to the negotiating table instead of spending years going through the courts.
What he CAN'T do, and what is a power only explicitly given to congress, is authorize additional spending not already approved in existing budget and funding bills (although he's tried to divert it, such as trying to use funds marked for the military to construct his wall).
Basically:
Can and Can't Do Business - Executive
Spending Money - Congress
You might be referring to the various Debt Ceiling standoffs between Obama and the Republican controlled congress, where there was some discussion that Obama could just issue an executive order to tell the treasury to keep paying - but (a) that never happened, and (b) the payments had already been authorized by the budget passed by congress, it's just that doing so would exceed the debt ceiling limit specified in a different bill.
1. Limiting the amount of Debt the USA could take on (Debt Ceiling)
2. Authorizing specific amounts of funding for specific departments and projects (Budget)
So as Executive Obama Admin had some leeway in how to interpret which had precedence and how to proceed when the two came in conflict.
MWO: Adamski
Somebody talk me out of it. I know timing the market doesn't work, I know retirement funds aren't rainy day accounts. But I still keep logging into Vanguard about once a week and staring at the Sell button.
Well now is a better time to sell than 3 months ago. How much money could you sock away before your employer would go out of business, theoretically? Could you cut your spending to the bone and get another 4 months banked?
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
I've had last year's contribution to my IRA sitting in cash for a while now because I didn't think *gestures at the world* would happen so it'd be silly to put it into stocks or bonds, but apparently what the fuck do I know.
Ordinary income tax would be owed on any distribution from the fund. There's ordinarily also a 10% penalty, but that is waived for hardship withdrawals.
Gonna be a banner week for economic indicators people actually pay attention to
On the one hand, it feels really shitty to think I'd have been better off just leaving it alone. On the other there's just no way a 10% contraction in GDP actually leaves everything at their current rates. I get that markets aren't rational but it makes exactly zero sense.
I'm staying the hell away from the stock market for now. The world makes precisely zero sense so put me down for "2020 has some more 2020'ing to do".
Covering economic policy for The Wall Street Journal.
How about stop trying to come up with clever technocratic systems and just give people money that they need to live.
This clever technocratic system is the way to achieve that.
Because it will only go away when it's appropriate, instead of when whatever temporary extension ends and Republicans try to renegotiate AGAIN.
Yeah. In theory the Congress should be United in a bipartisan fashion to advance legislation to save the country from a pestilence that has fallen upon our forsaken land through no fault of those who have been stricken by the disease. ...but instead they aren't, and so what help was afforded to people withers away by their failure to act.
This is even explicitly the point of non-emergency bills on this subject. One of the two main points of automatic stabilizers is that they go into effect without any of this bullshit from Congress. (and the second point is actually still related to that in that they occur quickly and expectedly)
Or the market can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
If it's being actively managed, then that makes sense too. I have an account where a lot of money was moved to other markets and into various things that are still able to make money.
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius