this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
6 points (62.5% liked)

Out of the loop

12075 readers
72 users here now

A community that helps people stay up to date with things going on.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
zachimusprime44@lemmy.world
6
Why Democrats criticize Schumer if his vote is to prevent a shutdown? (lemmy.world)
submitted 23 hours ago by 65gmexl3@lemmy.world to c/outoftheloop@lemmy.world
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

He expressed that a shutdown will favor Trump and Musk, so sounds reasonable?

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 29 points 20 hours ago

Schumer said that a shutdown would enable Trump to arbitrarily shutter parts of the government he doesn't like.

Trump is already shuttering the parts of the government he doesn't like, and the "CR" gives those acts the veneer of lawfulness.

If there had been a shutdown there would likely have been more pain in more places. But the Dems could have plausibly negotiated for a better result than what Schumer voted for, and aside from the pain of the shutdown itself it's not at all clear how the end result would be any worse than what we got

And despite what Fetterman and the other Senate Democrat collaborators might claim, a vote for cloture was a vote for the bill to become law. The rules of the Senate are dumb, but "this bill would not have passed save for that vote" is a pretty empirical rebuttal.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 13 points 18 hours ago

If a shutdown would favor trump and musk, than why were they celebrating his vote to keep the government open?

Because he's lying. He just didn't want to lose his staff and clubhouse access for however long it lasted.

[–] artificialfish@programming.dev 17 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (2 children)

I also understand it’s reasonable. But you have to remember this bill will hurt many people. The logic is that Dems should show opposition not complicity for those people to have a positive reason to vote for them in 2y, and maybe to reach a deal that prevents some harm. Otherwise people might not even know the bill happened, and what the consequences were, and why republicans suck. The other strategy though is to let Trump fuck everything up so bad over 4y people basically riot to oust him. In that scenario you don’t want to give him the chance to say any of the things he did wrong were your fault, which interference would cause. The problem is he will anyway, because he’s a pathological liar.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 10 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I believe the expression is "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."

[–] artificialfish@programming.dev 5 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Pretty much. And if you take this view, why not go down fighting? Dems really need the advertising. Schumer is basically rolling over for big donors, and unwittingly opening the door for more progressive politicians to take over the mindshare in the party more permanently.

Unlike in 2016, there definitely won’t be a moderate “Hillary bro” crowd in 2026. There will be the people who literally want to behead Trump in the White House lawn, and the AoC/Bernie party.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org -2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I disagree with that take.

Trump's gutting of federal agencies has only highlighted all the things we take for granted and/or didn't even know were benefiting us. With a shutdown, that all comes to a stop, and the workers who are deemed "essential" still have to work but don't get paid. Remember the last shutdowns?

TSA workers still have to work unpaid. ICE isn't going anywhere. Think they're thugs now? Wait till they're not getting a paycheck and taking their (extra) anger out on their victims.

And Musk/DOGE? With all but essential workers furloughed, I have no doubt the dismantling and fuckery will continue except now they're basically running around with even less supervision than they have now.

Like it or not, Schumer made a hard, but likely correct, call to see the bigger picture.

[–] artificialfish@programming.dev 3 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

The budget is the death nail to those agencies so they are going away shut down or not.

But if we shutdown EVERYTHING we might be able to show how stupid that is and make it temporary or get some concessions.

[–] Cptn_Slow@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I couldn't find the specifics in a quick Google search, and since this is OOTL I guess I'll ask here.

And I know I'm about to be shit on for even asking, genuinely, what are the parts of the bill that will hurt people?

All the articles I could find were just how trump would weaponize the shutdown, nothing I could find stated the specifics of the bill.

[–] artificialfish@programming.dev 5 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

From what I’ve heard it’s just a complete funding cut to all the agencies he’s promised to “destroy”, whose firings have already affected lives like with USAID, the EPA, etc. Idk if there’s medical cuts in there, but there’s definitely cuts to research grants on medicine. And instead of using the savings to pay off the deficit, he’s using it to fund tax cuts to his billionaire friends.

I will never understand how Americans are dumb enough to believe you can cut taxes and pay off the deficit. It’s like if you had credit card debt then quit your job. Oh and in this case you don’t get to quit your job, it’s your neighbor in the mansion next door who probably got us into debt to begin with or owns the debt.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I will never understand how Americans are dumb enough to believe you can cut taxes and pay off the deficit.

If your cuts to programs are greater than the loss from cutting taxes it's absolutely possible. That's simple math. Not that I agree with trump obviously but your argument is flawed.

[–] artificialfish@programming.dev 3 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

Well that’s what they say they are doing but it’s still not flawed. If I wanted to pay off my debt effectively and quickly I’d get a better job AND reduce my spending. So higher taxes (preferably on the rich) and reduce spending (preferably on non essentials like the military overspending)

All I’m saying is as my parents let’s say you would question my decisions if I did what you suggest, cut my hours but cut my spending MORE. That would be kinda sus.

That’s a much more logical approach, and I think the argument makes it pretty clear that fixing the deficit is not in Republican interests, it’s just lip service. Which is a big problem since the deficit could destroy the economy in the near future.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 2 points 19 hours ago

Oh I agree. Also some of these programs are pretty important. And even the less important ones exist for a reason. I'm not necessarily against trimming the fat but it should be given more consideration than "CLOSE ALL THE THINGS!!"

[–] Burninator05@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

My, quite possibly naive, take is that i think people are mad because he flipped. He said that he absolutely wouldn't vote for it and then flipped a day latter and said he would. This riled Dems up to fight and then immediately sent against what he had started. I also don't think that he has explained himself as to why he changed his mind.