1 hour ago, mikemack8 said:

Congrats on being a dirtbag who can't pay his own loans I guess?

I mean, he still has to be poor. So who really is the winner here? If I'd have known it was a 40k loan I would have paid it myself.

Some of you fatties could stand to eat more veggies and less Lunchables anyway. 

Quote

The Plum Line

Opinion: Joe Manchin’s arguments for the filibuster keep getting more ludicrous

Everyone had a grand old time mocking Sen. Joe Manchin III for claiming on Tuesday that we’ve had the filibuster for 232 years. This is historically false. What’s more, the West Virginia Democrat’s deeper argument here — that in some sense the filibuster preserves a vision of the Senate in keeping with that of the framers — is also profoundly off-base.

But now Manchin has expanded even further on that deeper argument. And the case he made in this regard captures the essential fallacy of the pro-filibuster position as clearly as one could possibly expect.

The stakes are high. Democrats are making one final push for a package of protections for voting rights and democracy. Given uniform GOP opposition, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) will hold a vote soon on whether to suspend the filibuster to pass them.

To his credit, Manchin is open to more modest filibuster reforms, and he has seriously engaged the debate over democracy for months. But by all indications, he and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) will oppose that filibuster carve-out, which all but dooms passage.

Manchin has now offered a new justification for this position.

"I mean, voting is very important. It is a bedrock of democracy,” Manchin told reporters Tuesday. "But to break the opportunity for the minority to participate completely — that’s just not who we are.”

This idea, that even a temporary filibuster carve-out betrays "who we are,” essentially posits that the Senate supermajority requirement is in some sense more faithful to American liberal constitutionalism than protecting voting rights is.

This is absurd. First, the idea that nixing the filibuster would "break the opportunity for the minority to participate completely” is unintentionally revealing about Manchin’s true stance. It’s false on its face: Needing a simple majority to pass legislation doesn’t stop senators from the minority party from entering into negotiations with the majority party to try to influence said legislation.

In fact, ending the filibuster might increase the incentive for a bloc of GOP senators to seek such negotiations. Without it, bills could pass with a majority of fewer than 60 votes, meaning, say, five moderate Republicans would have more opportunities to get on legislation with a real chance of passage, burnishing their bipartisan cred while delivering for constituents. Moderate Democrats who want to be seen working with Republicans would help that happen.

What ending the filibuster actually would stop is the opportunity for the minority party to participate entirely on its own terms. With the filibuster, virtually nothing can pass. This facilitates and encourages a deliberate opposition strategy of denying the president’s party legislative victories to make the government under that party more dysfunctional.

This is the reality of the "opportunity for the minority to participate” that Manchin is personally enabling. And it actually reduces the opportunity for more bipartisan legislation to pass — the opposite of what he suggests.

E.J. Dionne: The hypocrisy argument on the filibuster is itself phony

Second, you know who is actually working hard to "break the opportunity of the minority to participate”? GOP-controlled state legislatures are. They are passing restrictions on voting access in many states, and they’re doing so by simple majority — on a largely partisan basis.

Manchin himself agrees this is a serious problem. That’s why he supports the Freedom to Vote Act, which would curb such GOP efforts by creating baseline standards for early voting, same-day registration and voting by mail, while also limiting partisan capture of election machinery.

What Manchin opposes is achieving those monumentally important things on a partisan basis. But here’s the rub: Either Republicans will keep restricting voting on a partisan basis, or Democrats will protect and expand voting access on a partisan basis. Partisanship will prevail either way. The only question is which partisanship prevails.

By the way, protecting democracy on a partisan basis actually is "who we are,” or at least who we have been. As Jamelle Bouie has detailed, the Civil War amendments that created the foundations for voting rights, and some of the big congressional efforts at civil rights protections that followed, were not bipartisan affairs.

"The fight to protect and advance the civil and voting rights of all Americans has always been more partisan than not,” says Bouie.

Manchin hankers for a time when "who we are” was defined by broad bipartisan participation in the great civil and voting rights legislation in the 1960s. But as Bouie notes, that has little application today:

We are living in an age of high partisanship and deep polarization, where one party has an interest in a broad electorate and an open conception of voting rights, and the other does not. If Congress is going to pass a voting rights bill of any kind, it is going to be on a partisan basis, much the way it was from the end of the Civil War until well into the 20th century.

There is no bipartisan resolution available here. Manchin himself knows this: He spent months searching in vain for GOP support for democracy protections. So Manchin cannot achieve the bipartisanship that he hopes will once again define "who we are.”

Here’s the unpleasant truth Manchin must confront: "Who we are” in this context will be defined by partisanship either way. By refusing to allow Democrats to act, Manchin is inescapably facilitating a more destructive form of partisanship — one that he himself says threatens the "bedrock of democracy” — than the one he is almost single-handedly blocking, and ensuring that the former will define "who we are,” rather than the latter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/12/joe-manchin-filibuster-arguments-ludicrous/

 

55 minutes ago, downundermike said:

So if you actually cook nutritious food and not pre packaged garbage, there is no shortage.

For the most part,  there is no real shortage. You just can't get exactly what you want at all times. It's just entitled people who are used to getting what they want when they want and are throwing a hissy fit cause they can't now. 

 

1 hour ago, Outlaw said:

Acme?

Small family owned chain of  19 stores. Our supplier also supplies Amazon online and whole foods. So if we can get sheet with Amazon being first priority so can everyone else. 

All the focus on the Filibuster is just ridiculous at this point. Manchin and Sinema won't bend, and the Dems are just setting themselves up to disappoint their voters again. It's horrible politics, but these are the Democrats...

The real debate should be about the Constitutionality of this bill and what is happening at the state level. The Constitution gives responsibility over elections to the states. I'm not supportive of nationalizing election rules the way this bill would (mandating how much early voting, mail-in balloting, etc.) in the absence of a Constitutional Amendment. But to be clear -- I find many of these laws being passed in GOP states to be abhorrent; not because of things like mail-in voting limitations, but because many of them give power over elections to the legislature as opposed to the Secretary of State. That is the issue Democrats should be talking about on a LOCAL level. Win this fight in statewide elections, not by trying to strongarm 2 Senators who aren't going to budge.

Democrats keep losing the war because they are fighting on the wrong battlefield. The federal government is impotent on many issues -- decisions are made at the state level.

3 minutes ago, Bwestbrook36 said:

For the most part,  there is no real shortage. You just can't get exactly what you want at all times. It's just entitled people who are used to getting what they want when they want and are throwing a hissy fit cause they can't now. 

 

Just like all those whiny diners who have a conniption because their Applebee's 2 for $20 now costs $25 and takes 15 minutes to arrive. I'm like, "So, the service is bad and the food is overpriced. Have you tried, perhaps...eating at home?" *Blank stares* 

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Just like all those whiny diners who have a conniption because their Applebee's 2 for $20 now costs $25 and takes 15 minutes to arrive. It's like, "So, the service is bad and the food is overpriced. Have you tried, perhaps...eating at home?" *Blank stares* 

Or not being poor and going somewhere nicer than Applebee's??

Never been to one in my life, for the record.

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Just like all those whiny diners who have a conniption because their Applebee's 2 for $20 now costs $25 and takes 15 minutes to arrive. It's like, "well, the service is bad and the food is overpriced. Have you tried, perhaps, eating at home?" *Blank stares* 

100%.  I feel bad for restaurant workers getting killed over service on reviews when they are so under staffed. I rarely go out anymore but when I do I give like half of what the bill was. 

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

Or not being poor and going somewhere nicer than Applebee's??

Never been to one in my life, for the record.

I'm poor and I hate Applebee's lol. 

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Or not being poor and going somewhere nicer than Applebee's??

Never been to one in my life, for the record.

so you dont be fancy like applebees on date night  ? 

6 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

All the focus on the Filibuster is just ridiculous at this point. Manchin and Sinema won't bend, and the Dems are just setting themselves up to disappoint their voters again. It's horrible politics, but these are the Democrats...

The real debate should be about the Constitutionality of this bill and what is happening at the state level. The Constitution gives responsibility over elections to the states. I'm not supportive of nationalizing election rules the way this bill would (mandating how much early voting, mail-in balloting, etc.) in the absence of a Constitutional Amendment. But to be clear -- I find many of these laws being passed in GOP states to be abhorrent; not because of things like mail-in voting limitations, but because many of them give power over elections to the legislature as opposed to the Secretary of State. That is the issue Democrats should be talking about on a LOCAL level. Win this fight in statewide elections, not by trying to strongarm 2 Senators who aren't going to budge.

Democrats keep losing the war because they are fighting on the wrong battlefield. The federal government is impotent on many issues -- decisions are made at the state level.

 

I agree with most of this, I just find it amusing that all the arguments against killing the filibuster center on false notions of republican originalism and constitutionality, yet the mechanism didn't exist in the Early Republic, and some of the Founders that the right so readily lionizes actually spoke in direct opposition to the notion of a filibuster.

Also, when it comes to legislatures picking presidents, I personally find it abhorrent as well, but I also have to admit that it's actually completely Constitutional and precisely how the system was designed by the Framers. To stop it, I believe you'd need an amendment.

2 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

so you dont be fancy like applebees on date night  ? 

I almost murdered my brother when he said he liked that commercial.

2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I agree with most of this, I just find it amusing that all the arguments against killing the filibuster center on false notions of republican originalism and constitutionality, yet the mechanism didn't exist in the Early Republic, and some of the founders that the right so readily lionizes actually spoke in direct opposition to the notion of a filibuster.

Personally, I like the idea of going back to a talking filibuster. If you can keep the floor, you win. I do wonder if doing that would encourage some moderates on both sides to work together -- since you know something like BBB is going to happen, maybe some GOP voices try and water it down to get on board. We're probably too polarized at this point.

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Also, when it comes to legislatures picking presidents, I personally find it abhorrent as well, but I also have to admit that it's actually completely Constitutional and precisely how the system was designed by the Framers. To stop it, I believe you'd need an amendment.

Agree. It's abhorrent, wrong...and perfectly legal. I just think effectuating change at the state level is more reasonable than a Constitutional Amendment. 

Just now, vikas83 said:

Personally, I like the idea of going back to a talking filibuster. If you can keep the floor, you win. I do wonder if doing that would encourage some moderates on both sides to work together -- since you know something like BBB is going to happen, maybe some GOP voices try and water it down to get on board. We're probably too polarized at this point.

 

This. I've been thinking lately that this is really the only real opportunity for any sort of compromise on the filibuster. It'd at least be a step in the right direction.

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

This. I've been thinking lately that this is really the only real opportunity for any sort of compromise on the filibuster. It'd at least be a step in the right direction.

Another idea, to steal a little from Amash, would be that without 60 votes you have to allow a set amount of time before a vote could happen for negotiations and amendments. It's absurd that these bills get written by leadership and jammed through. No 60 votes, and you have to debate for 2 weeks and allow amendments from the minority party to receive up or down votes. 

15 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I almost murdered my brother when he said he liked that commercial.

It is a catchy tune. 

1 hour ago, Paul852 said:

I mean, he still has to be poor. So who really is the winner here? If I'd have known it was a 40k loan I would have paid it myself.

I don't have to be poor anymore!

1 hour ago, Gannan said:

I'm paying 7% (compounded by the minute it seems) with no forgiveness (even though I've spent most of my career working for non profits and thusly am supposed to be eligible).. Nothing like the government arbitrarily picking winners and losers. 

Why aren't you eligible? You should be able to get them forgiven if you've been at a non-profit for 10 years. 

5 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Why aren't you eligible? You should be able to get them forgiven if you've been at a non-profit for 10 years. 

Some people take pride in paying off their own debt, rather than letting others do it for them.

1 minute ago, mikemack8 said:

Some people take pride in paying off their own debt, rather than letting others do it for them.

His pride is not in question.  His eligibility is. 

He didn't say he chose to pay them anyway.  He said,  he should be eligible. Which,  he probably is. 

I'm proud of paying what I did.  Which was way more than I had to.  I'm also proud that my service to the community has been rewarded in this way. 

23 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Why aren't you eligible? You should be able to get them forgiven if you've been at a non-profit for 10 years. 

It's certainly not automatic. I have to fill out some form, and I'll need to get all of my former employers to sign off on it, to find out how many of my payments were eligible to count. I know under Trump the answer was none. I had to pay at least 2k a month for any of them to count. If I pay 2k a month for 10 years, I would have paid off my loans many many times over. 

21 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

Some people take pride in paying off their own debt, rather than letting others do it for them.

I've said many times that I think interest forgiveness is the answer. Let people pay back what the owe. I've been paying my loans back for 7 years and made no progress toward paying them off. It's all been interest. 

19 minutes ago, Gannan said:

It's certainly not automatic. I have to fill out some form, and I'll need to get all of my former employers to sign off on it, to find out how many of my payments were eligible to count. I know under Trump the answer was none. I had to pay at least 2k a month for any of them to count. If I pay 2k a month for 10 years, I would have paid off my loans many many times over. 

I am very familiar with the process.

In the beginning, I didnt even go for it. Because under the original program, you had to be on income based repayment plan. Which, on my own salary would have been only like 90 dollars a month. And, I said, if something happens where this isnt happening 10 years from now I wont have even covered interest and I will be set so far behind. On income based with mine and my wife's salary combined, it would have been some astronomical payment that we wouldnt afford, and hypothetically if we had done that, the loans would have been paid off before any forgiveness would happen.

BUT, at this point, if you have been paying (any ammount, any payment plan) for 10 years while at non-profits you will qualify. Since October of 2021 there is a temporary waiver period where they relaxed all of the rules and any payment youve made counts (even if youve been paying on the "wrong" plan, which is the Standard repayment plan). That is how I got it. 

In this temporary waiver period, for anyone who has applied and been denied in the past, it will be automatic as they are reviewing all cases. But, to be safe, I re-appplied to make sure they had reason to go back and check my account. Its probably very worth it for you to apply again.

2 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

I am very familiar with the process.

In the beginning, I didnt even go for it. Because under the original program, you had to be on income based repayment plan. Which, on my own salary would have been only like 90 dollars a month. And, I said, if something happens where this isnt happening 10 years from now I wont have even covered interest and I will be set so far behind. On income based with mine and my wife's salary combined, it would have been some astronomical payment that we wouldnt afford, and hypothetically if we had done that, the loans would have been paid off before any forgiveness would happen.

BUT, at this point, if you have been paying (any ammount, any payment plan) for 10 years while at non-profits you will qualify. Since October of 2021 there is a temporary waiver period where they relaxed all of the rules and any payment youve made counts. That is how I got it. 

In this temporary waiver period, for anyone who has applied and been denied in the past, it will be automatic as they are reviewing all cases. But, to be safe, I re-appplied to make sure they had reason to go back and check my account. Its probably very worth it for you to apply again.

Should I just contact HR at all my past employers for signatures on the application?