Buried in this bill was also a destruction of the hemp industry as we know it. Cannabanoids now measured with all THC analogs, and max 0.4mg THC per package which is essentially impossible without chemical refinement of the flower.
Congress nuked a multi billion dollar industry, and hardly anyone was asking for it other than a few prohibitionists and weed stock owners who felt the hemp market a threat to their non-hemp cannabis fiefdom. A complete curveball that will likely produce a 10k+ impact on employment.
Cannabis is already/still illegal on the federal level and that hasn't stopped states from doing their own thing. Why would this particular bill make a difference?
I had no idea so I asked grok (useful for recent news). It seems to be a combination of factors including what is measured being broadened and limits reduced to outlaw cannabinoid extracts.
Correct me if wrong, but this looks like a severe own-goal for the democrats? A long shutdown to try and force something - as a minority party, using the senate 60 vote threshold quirk, that they didn't get?
Absolutely. Party has no leadership. The progressive wing has been organizing their base, protesting, and calling congressional offices, trying to encourage centrist Dems do something. They finally do this but then get fold immediately when the market starts to dip and flights get canceled. The progressive wing will now proceed to spam call their offices, protest book tours, and call for Chuck Schumer to step down. Rinse and repeat at the next deadline on Jan 30.
If Mamdani’s victory is anything to go by it’s that the centrist Dems are toast. They will get primaried. They know this, it’s why the fall guys that voted to end the shutdown are not up for reelection during the midterms.
> They know this, it’s why the fall guys that voted to end the shutdown are not up for reelection during the midterms.
And, to be clear, is why Chuck Schumer is getting called to step down. It's beyond clear this was a coordinated effort orchestrated by leadership. Not only are they ineffective, but they seem to think their voting base is brain dead that such a strategy would work?
But hey, I just saw some of my fellow countrymen asking why child rape is wrong in a debate over Trump's presence in the latest Epstein files leak. So maybe I just have too much faith in people.
I promise I won't criticize your response, but what would you do if you were Schumer and Republicans refused to budge no matter what? Realistically, doing nothing or voting neys means nuking the filibuster, but getting the same outcome, which might be even worse, and in the interim SNAP and others not getting paid.
I wish I could quote Schumer when he walked down by the river (as he does, since he's a very cool and relatable layperson) as he cursed in front of a camera to say they will not back down. Can't seem to find the video though.
Anyway, I'd make them either own the shutdown or take responsibility for forcing the bill through. I'm not giving them an out, they will answer for the suffering they create by not negotiating. Negotiating, which I remind everyone, for a single clause to make sure healthcare costs don't go up $100/month or more for half of Americans.
This line of rhetoric is fascinating to me. It's as if someone locked my family in a room, lit it on fire, and is now telling me we can't leave unless we give them permission to shoot one of us in the head. And, to be clear, they very obviously have no intent of opening the door and have already shot one of us in the head.
The democrats have quite literally zero power in the federal government. They have lost every single branch in all meaningful ways. This was the only leverage that exists. And they gave it up for quite literally nothing.
I cannot fathom the line of thought that they just had sweeping election victories across the board, voters are at an all-time low WRT the Trump administration, the mask is starting to slip on MAGA - realizing that Trump and Republicans are the source of pain and that they do rely on the net, Democratic fervor is rising, and with the holidays coming it is about to cause serious pain to America that can finally snap them awake to the reality of...
Actually, you know what? Nah, they didn't fold immediately. Clearly trying to do anything doesn't work, so let's do absolutely nothing and give them everything they want! They'll surely listen to us now!
The short term pain was intended to be a cure. To show how destructive Republicans are. How much they're willing to make people suffer to avoid even a shred of assistance toward normal people's lives. That they'd rather fund Blackhawk helicopters in Chicago than food or healthcare.
But now we're back to the long term pain. Republicans have been justified - it was the Democrats fault for stopping government for no reason. And we're still losing the ACA subsidies in the short term - raising rates at least double digit percents. And Republicans are still gunning to kill SNAP and ACA in general. And progressives have just witnessed their leadership cave, killing voter momentum.
I actually think that there were two possible outcomes. One of them involved killing the filibuster. The other was widespread unrest from all corners of the United States - the kind that that comes from all political alignments, the kind that police and untrained thugs roleplaying as peace officers are wholly unequipped to handle.
I can see how that would be unappealing to a career politician who values stability at all costs. After all, a military junta would mean that he would be out of a job with no other marketable skills. Poor guy would probably have to sell one of his properties to get by.
Well fucking said. In order to be leaders, you actually have to start trying to lead. Not just putting on a temporary show where you tried "really hard" to stop those big mean Republicans from hurting healthcare, before going back to business as usual.
As far as the filibuster, let the Republicans kill it and make it very clear they're responsible for this anti-Constitutional corporatist agenda being rammed up our asses. When the other party is doing things for which the only check is for them to eventually hang, you don't sign off on it with your own names!
FWIW I'm not a progressive. I'm a libertarian. Pan-party, people are fed up with this fucking government. In fact that's why they voted (again!) for this New York con artist promising to somehow magically fix everything. It was plainly a stupid choice, but the frustrated desperation driving it is understandably real.
Well, they painted the Republicans as "the people who wouldn't stop your medical insurance from becoming unaffordable". If Congress fails to extend the subsidy, that's going to be very painful for a lot of people, and politically, the blame will fall on the Republicans. That could be a major win for the Democrats when 2026 rolls around.
I support subsidies to help low-income citizens who legitimately can't afford health insurance, but some of the temporary ACA subsidies passed in 2021 were ridiculous. They were handing out cash to early retirees as young as age 55 with incomes over 400% of the poverty line.
I don't want my tax dollars wasted on subsidizing them. Give the money to someone who actually needs it.
(Of course the real problem is healthcare costs accelerating out of control. Insurance subsidies won't fix that problem. In fact they make it worse by encouraging healthcare providers and drug companies to raise prices even faster.)
For further reference, a 55 year old early retiree who wants to spend $400,000 during the year might sell $400,000 of stock with a cost basis of $200,000 and pay a little over $60k capital gains tax.
The question here is should we continue to subsidize health insurance for that person? Should taxpayers who can work and do work pay for the health insurance of wealthy people who can work and don't work?
It does not sound fair to me, even though I might benefit from it in the near future.
Your example is an income of $200k, not $60k. So no, that person is not being subsidized.
But yes, our tax system is horribly biased towards those who get to manage their income level or business deductions. W-2 worker bees can't even deduct the cost of the car they need to get to work.
The Democratic establishment is particularly adept at own-goals, unfortunately. It feels like Congressional Democrats got one whiff of a "blue wave" from the elections, and we're right back to 2024 or 2016 where they think they can just phone it in with milquetoast compromise and people will "have to" show up and vote Democrat.
Choosing to focus on healthcare subsidies instead of Congressional Republicans' lack of oversight of the President while most of the government is shut down by fiat and the President deputizes fundamentalist militias to attack and ransack blue states and cities was its own sort of own-goal as well. Turmp has shown that people want politicians that will stand up for something, even if that something is utterly horrible and self-destructive policy. Democrats must wake up to their pressing need for some spine transplants, ideally sooner rather than later.
FWIW, I think focusing on healthcare was the right strategy. It apparently worked for the election! (Too bad the Democratic "leaders" folded immediately; it's as if they're deathly afraid of actually winning.)
The average American voter has the attention span of a goldfish. (Or at least, those who matter do; everyone else has already made up their mind and won't switch.) You won't get them by talking about constitutional limits of the executive branch, Trump ignoring congressional oversight, and such. Remember that there are people who googled "did biden drop out" on Nov 5, 2024.
Democrats aren't playing to win. They're gunning to lose. Why? Because that's how they make money from corporate donors. Losing means they can point fingers at Republicans and seek money. Winning though means that they have to actually execute their lofty and ambitious campaign plans, which are often at odds with their corporate overlords.
The Democrats are in a new world. They've lost a cultural and information hegemony they had for 40 years, and thus, the playbook of the past doesn't work (for a variety of reasons).
The 48 years from 1932 to 1980, maybe. The US has been decidedly conservative since Reagan. SCOTUS hasn't been liberal since Nixon got Rehnquist as chief justice.
Economically "conservative", socially liberal. The richest among the right get what they want in gaining wealth from the rest, but they lose at preventing acceptance of interracial marriage, homosexuality, etc. because that social progress can't be stopped. But losing those causes is also a win for them in that they wield the fear of it to win votes to stay in power to stay rich.
>> SCOTUS hasn't been liberal since Nixon got Rehnquist as chief justice
The Rehnquist court made rulings that allowed burning the US flag, that made abortion even easier to get than under Roe, that upheld affirmative action, that struck down sodomy laws, and that ruled that political speech was not protected by the First Amendment.
The main conservative rulings it made were minor restrictions on the commerce clause.
Conservatism in the judicial branch began with the confirmation of Ed Meese as US Attorney General during Reagan's second term.
Try watching/reading less trash media? I'm not the one buying or paying attention to such magazines. I don't know why you are, especially if you apparently hate them so much. Or alternatively just get over whatever "wide stance" internal conflict you have, and come to terms with your own desires.
This includes over $1 million in direct payouts to 8 senators who were under LEO review for helping with the insurrection attempt of January 6th. All while nuking the hemp industry and refusing to stop ACA plan premiums from skyrocketing in any way.
This country is a brazen, open, corrupt oligarchy with an active distain for its people. I've genuinely lost any hope for recovery if the progressives need to completely overthrow their own party to even start resisting.
Buried in this bill was also a destruction of the hemp industry as we know it. Cannabanoids now measured with all THC analogs, and max 0.4mg THC per package which is essentially impossible without chemical refinement of the flower.
Congress nuked a multi billion dollar industry, and hardly anyone was asking for it other than a few prohibitionists and weed stock owners who felt the hemp market a threat to their non-hemp cannabis fiefdom. A complete curveball that will likely produce a 10k+ impact on employment.
Cannabis is already/still illegal on the federal level and that hasn't stopped states from doing their own thing. Why would this particular bill make a difference?
I had no idea so I asked grok (useful for recent news). It seems to be a combination of factors including what is measured being broadened and limits reduced to outlaw cannabinoid extracts.
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_ade36dbd-155a-4984-9ea3-662d...
Correct me if wrong, but this looks like a severe own-goal for the democrats? A long shutdown to try and force something - as a minority party, using the senate 60 vote threshold quirk, that they didn't get?
Absolutely. Party has no leadership. The progressive wing has been organizing their base, protesting, and calling congressional offices, trying to encourage centrist Dems do something. They finally do this but then get fold immediately when the market starts to dip and flights get canceled. The progressive wing will now proceed to spam call their offices, protest book tours, and call for Chuck Schumer to step down. Rinse and repeat at the next deadline on Jan 30.
If Mamdani’s victory is anything to go by it’s that the centrist Dems are toast. They will get primaried. They know this, it’s why the fall guys that voted to end the shutdown are not up for reelection during the midterms.
> They know this, it’s why the fall guys that voted to end the shutdown are not up for reelection during the midterms.
And, to be clear, is why Chuck Schumer is getting called to step down. It's beyond clear this was a coordinated effort orchestrated by leadership. Not only are they ineffective, but they seem to think their voting base is brain dead that such a strategy would work?
But hey, I just saw some of my fellow countrymen asking why child rape is wrong in a debate over Trump's presence in the latest Epstein files leak. So maybe I just have too much faith in people.
I promise I won't criticize your response, but what would you do if you were Schumer and Republicans refused to budge no matter what? Realistically, doing nothing or voting neys means nuking the filibuster, but getting the same outcome, which might be even worse, and in the interim SNAP and others not getting paid.
I wish I could quote Schumer when he walked down by the river (as he does, since he's a very cool and relatable layperson) as he cursed in front of a camera to say they will not back down. Can't seem to find the video though.
Anyway, I'd make them either own the shutdown or take responsibility for forcing the bill through. I'm not giving them an out, they will answer for the suffering they create by not negotiating. Negotiating, which I remind everyone, for a single clause to make sure healthcare costs don't go up $100/month or more for half of Americans.
This line of rhetoric is fascinating to me. It's as if someone locked my family in a room, lit it on fire, and is now telling me we can't leave unless we give them permission to shoot one of us in the head. And, to be clear, they very obviously have no intent of opening the door and have already shot one of us in the head.
The democrats have quite literally zero power in the federal government. They have lost every single branch in all meaningful ways. This was the only leverage that exists. And they gave it up for quite literally nothing.
I cannot fathom the line of thought that they just had sweeping election victories across the board, voters are at an all-time low WRT the Trump administration, the mask is starting to slip on MAGA - realizing that Trump and Republicans are the source of pain and that they do rely on the net, Democratic fervor is rising, and with the holidays coming it is about to cause serious pain to America that can finally snap them awake to the reality of...
Actually, you know what? Nah, they didn't fold immediately. Clearly trying to do anything doesn't work, so let's do absolutely nothing and give them everything they want! They'll surely listen to us now!
The short term pain was intended to be a cure. To show how destructive Republicans are. How much they're willing to make people suffer to avoid even a shred of assistance toward normal people's lives. That they'd rather fund Blackhawk helicopters in Chicago than food or healthcare.
But now we're back to the long term pain. Republicans have been justified - it was the Democrats fault for stopping government for no reason. And we're still losing the ACA subsidies in the short term - raising rates at least double digit percents. And Republicans are still gunning to kill SNAP and ACA in general. And progressives have just witnessed their leadership cave, killing voter momentum.
I actually think that there were two possible outcomes. One of them involved killing the filibuster. The other was widespread unrest from all corners of the United States - the kind that that comes from all political alignments, the kind that police and untrained thugs roleplaying as peace officers are wholly unequipped to handle.
I can see how that would be unappealing to a career politician who values stability at all costs. After all, a military junta would mean that he would be out of a job with no other marketable skills. Poor guy would probably have to sell one of his properties to get by.
Well fucking said. In order to be leaders, you actually have to start trying to lead. Not just putting on a temporary show where you tried "really hard" to stop those big mean Republicans from hurting healthcare, before going back to business as usual.
As far as the filibuster, let the Republicans kill it and make it very clear they're responsible for this anti-Constitutional corporatist agenda being rammed up our asses. When the other party is doing things for which the only check is for them to eventually hang, you don't sign off on it with your own names!
FWIW I'm not a progressive. I'm a libertarian. Pan-party, people are fed up with this fucking government. In fact that's why they voted (again!) for this New York con artist promising to somehow magically fix everything. It was plainly a stupid choice, but the frustrated desperation driving it is understandably real.
Well, they painted the Republicans as "the people who wouldn't stop your medical insurance from becoming unaffordable". If Congress fails to extend the subsidy, that's going to be very painful for a lot of people, and politically, the blame will fall on the Republicans. That could be a major win for the Democrats when 2026 rolls around.
I support subsidies to help low-income citizens who legitimately can't afford health insurance, but some of the temporary ACA subsidies passed in 2021 were ridiculous. They were handing out cash to early retirees as young as age 55 with incomes over 400% of the poverty line.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/17/aca-enhanced-subsidy-lapse-g...
I don't want my tax dollars wasted on subsidizing them. Give the money to someone who actually needs it.
(Of course the real problem is healthcare costs accelerating out of control. Insurance subsidies won't fix that problem. In fact they make it worse by encouraging healthcare providers and drug companies to raise prices even faster.)
For reference, 400% of the poverty line is $60k for a single person, or $85k for a couple
For further reference, a 55 year old early retiree who wants to spend $400,000 during the year might sell $400,000 of stock with a cost basis of $200,000 and pay a little over $60k capital gains tax.
The question here is should we continue to subsidize health insurance for that person? Should taxpayers who can work and do work pay for the health insurance of wealthy people who can work and don't work?
It does not sound fair to me, even though I might benefit from it in the near future.
Your example is an income of $200k, not $60k. So no, that person is not being subsidized.
But yes, our tax system is horribly biased towards those who get to manage their income level or business deductions. W-2 worker bees can't even deduct the cost of the car they need to get to work.
The Democratic establishment is particularly adept at own-goals, unfortunately. It feels like Congressional Democrats got one whiff of a "blue wave" from the elections, and we're right back to 2024 or 2016 where they think they can just phone it in with milquetoast compromise and people will "have to" show up and vote Democrat.
Choosing to focus on healthcare subsidies instead of Congressional Republicans' lack of oversight of the President while most of the government is shut down by fiat and the President deputizes fundamentalist militias to attack and ransack blue states and cities was its own sort of own-goal as well. Turmp has shown that people want politicians that will stand up for something, even if that something is utterly horrible and self-destructive policy. Democrats must wake up to their pressing need for some spine transplants, ideally sooner rather than later.
FWIW, I think focusing on healthcare was the right strategy. It apparently worked for the election! (Too bad the Democratic "leaders" folded immediately; it's as if they're deathly afraid of actually winning.)
The average American voter has the attention span of a goldfish. (Or at least, those who matter do; everyone else has already made up their mind and won't switch.) You won't get them by talking about constitutional limits of the executive branch, Trump ignoring congressional oversight, and such. Remember that there are people who googled "did biden drop out" on Nov 5, 2024.
Democrats aren't playing to win. They're gunning to lose. Why? Because that's how they make money from corporate donors. Losing means they can point fingers at Republicans and seek money. Winning though means that they have to actually execute their lofty and ambitious campaign plans, which are often at odds with their corporate overlords.
This is correct.
The Democrats are in a new world. They've lost a cultural and information hegemony they had for 40 years, and thus, the playbook of the past doesn't work (for a variety of reasons).
The 48 years from 1932 to 1980, maybe. The US has been decidedly conservative since Reagan. SCOTUS hasn't been liberal since Nixon got Rehnquist as chief justice.
Economically "conservative", socially liberal. The richest among the right get what they want in gaining wealth from the rest, but they lose at preventing acceptance of interracial marriage, homosexuality, etc. because that social progress can't be stopped. But losing those causes is also a win for them in that they wield the fear of it to win votes to stay in power to stay rich.
>> SCOTUS hasn't been liberal since Nixon got Rehnquist as chief justice
The Rehnquist court made rulings that allowed burning the US flag, that made abortion even easier to get than under Roe, that upheld affirmative action, that struck down sodomy laws, and that ruled that political speech was not protected by the First Amendment.
The main conservative rulings it made were minor restrictions on the commerce clause.
Conservatism in the judicial branch began with the confirmation of Ed Meese as US Attorney General during Reagan's second term.
I'm talking about Congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_Stat...
Congress doesn't give them an information hegemony.
The deals that are cut in Congress prior to votes are an imperfect information game for the public.
The only 40 year stretch on that chart is the House, from 1957-1997.
The US is conservative? Are we talking about the same place that's been the social justice woke ideology fountainhead since forever?
The one where a man can one day declare he's now a woman because he say's so - and that'll get him on the cover of a magazine as a "hero"?
What's your starting point for left - Mao?
Try watching/reading less trash media? I'm not the one buying or paying attention to such magazines. I don't know why you are, especially if you apparently hate them so much. Or alternatively just get over whatever "wide stance" internal conflict you have, and come to terms with your own desires.
Wouldn't self-determination of individuals and magazines be at home both with progressives and libertarians?
I mean it'd be at home with lunatic asylums too depending on what you self-determine but yeah sure
This includes over $1 million in direct payouts to 8 senators who were under LEO review for helping with the insurrection attempt of January 6th. All while nuking the hemp industry and refusing to stop ACA plan premiums from skyrocketing in any way.
This country is a brazen, open, corrupt oligarchy with an active distain for its people. I've genuinely lost any hope for recovery if the progressives need to completely overthrow their own party to even start resisting.