The Schumer Shutdown

[Always in His Presence]

There is no "Schumer shutdown."

Sure is manufacture by Schumer
Led by Schumer
Caused by Schumer

It was last March that he voted for the same bipartisan cr he voted against

 

[eclipsenow]

it could have happened in November when it was originally scheduled and agreed upon -

it is scheduled for THIS November to be in committee. Schumer is using it as an excuse.

I thought MAGA had all layers of government? How is this shutdown even possible - and why can't MAGA do something about it?

 

[A2SG]

it could have happened in November when it was originally scheduled and agreed upon -

it is scheduled for THIS November to be in committee.

Oh, so it's scheduled to happen, but hasn't happened yet. So you're saying that democrats should just trust that the GOP will bargain in good faith a month from now, when there's no government shutdown to force their hand?

Yeah, we know how that works.

Schumer is using it as an excuse.

Schumer is using the shutdown as a tactic, to force the GOP to come to the table and negotiate. That they haven't, and don't seem willing to, shows the electorate that the GOP doesn't care about them, or whether or not their health care can be affordable.

But, rather than deal with the issue of health care, the GOP would rather throw blame around and pretend they're more than willing to talk about this....later. When their back isn't against the wall.

-- A2SG, and I'm sure that football will be there when I kick it, right Lucy?

 

[Fantine]

Sure is manufacture by Schumer
Led by Schumer
Caused by Schumer

It was last March that he voted for the same bipartisan cr he voted against

The big abominable bill passed in March because financial bills don't need 60 votes, and 53 Republicans support abombinations.

 

[camille70]

The GOP’s shutdown hits home at IRS—and taxpayers will feel it fast

Another federal agency is getting dragged into the GOP’s shutdown mess . The Internal Revenue Service announced Wednesday that it’s furloughing nearly half its ...

www.dailykos.com

The GOP’s shutdown hits home at IRS—and taxpayers will feel it fast

 

[Always in His Presence]

WATCH: Schumer speaks after Senate Democrats reject latest measure to end shutdown​

Democrats are demanding that Congress extend healthcare benefits, while Republicans are refusing to commit to anything until the government is reopened. They are trying to wear Democrats down to vote for a House-passed bill that would reopen the government temporarily, mostly at current spending levels.

The bipartisan bill passed in the House - Schumer is using the shut down for political gains -

 

[Always in His Presence]

Senate Democrats vote down Republican bill to keep funding the government putting it on path to shutdown​

 

[Always in His Presence]

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has faced criticism and scrutiny over his stance on the current government shutdown, particularly because he previously voted for a similar spending bill that could have averted it.
Earlier in the year, Schumer joined eight other Democrats and one independent in voting to advance a Republican-crafted bill that avoided a shutdown but handed President Donald Trump a legislative win. At the time, Schumer defended his vote by arguing that a shutdown would have been worse for Americans. However, this move sparked backlash from within his own party, with some Democrats calling for new Senate leadership.

 

[Aldebaran]

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has faced criticism and scrutiny over his stance on the current government shutdown, particularly because he previously voted for a similar spending bill that could have averted it.
Earlier in the year, Schumer joined eight other Democrats and one independent in voting to advance a Republican-crafted bill that avoided a shutdown but handed President Donald Trump a legislative win. At the time, Schumer defended his vote by arguing that a shutdown would have been worse for Americans. However, this move sparked backlash from within his own party, with some Democrats calling for new Senate leadership.

After Pelosi did the right thing by stepping aside as party leader in 2022, it clearly time for Schumer to do the same. He's going down in disgrace if he waits much longer, and especially if he's forced out. Maybe Kamala can replace him. She's good at replacing people who are forced out.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I had to AI this as I believe only AI can cut through to the truth these days.

The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025," which was signed by the current administration in July 2025, has been reported to contain deep rollbacks and cuts to federal nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
According to reports, the law reduces funding and is projected to force states to turn away a significant number of eligible mothers and children from WIC starting in the next year.
It is also important to note that the administration's budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2026, which preceded the bill, had already proposed substantial cuts to WIC, including a significant reduction to the Cash Value Benefit (CVB) for fruits and vegetables.

This is a truly evil bill. I hope Republicans wake up and do the right thing for the poor. Especially the kids, disabled people, the senior citizens. And young people. America has already lost the soybeans money, from China. And Trump wants to give billions to Argentina. But , when it comes to the poor in America. America is just losing big, because of Trump. This is not a good bill.

 

[eclipsenow]

WATCH: Schumer speaks after Senate Democrats reject latest measure to end shutdown​

Democrats are demanding that Congress extend healthcare benefits,

It's just so awful how the Democrats have a heart for the poor!
Imagine them protesting 16 million extra Americans being kicked off healthcare - an additional 50,000 extra deaths per year!
It's almost unChristian!

If the Republicans were serious about reducing the deficit, they would look at means by which to borrow even more money to moon-shot the healthcare system into a totally new space! This would then save the American economy $1 to $1.5 TRILLION a year.

But...​

1. it would be such an expensive thing to do up front - it would have to be done in phases and probably involve a few decades of administrations.
2. it would be a revolution in American thinking, and require a massive education program to the American people to sell the benefits.
3. it would involve Americans learning to think outside their very narrow economic box - and be humble enough to learn from other nations around the globe.
4. it would involve some radical changes that sound to many Americans like 'the radical socialist left' - but are just within the bounds of most modern Ordo-Liberal economies - and does not at all represent hard-line communism or socialism. The rest of the OECD takes what I am about to propose for granted!

BIG INSURANCE​

Here it is. Forget everything you think you know about "Single Payer" on its own - as by itself - that would place even Bernie Sanders in Australia's far-right parties!

The GOOD thing about Single Payer - which is what Australia's Medicare is - would be that it gets rid of all the extra for-profit costs of private health insurance. It gets rid of shareholders and CEO payments, shiny show rooms, and marketing schemes with celebrity endorsements, TV ad runs, and brochures. The government does not have shareholders and super-entitled CEO's and marketing drives to raise funds. They put details about their services online - and have a few brochures at their clinics to advertise services. Done.

BIG HOSPITALS​

The BAD thing about Single Payer for the American context is it leaves out what Australia and most of the OECD have. The BAD thing is it would leave the American Federal government liable to pick up the bill for exactly the same for-profit expenses with the entire American population suddenly going to for-profit hospitals.

Australia has 700 hospitals. 51% of those are NOT for-profit businesses. They are government owned and operated. Their mission is not making money for shareholders and entitled CEO's and celebrity endorsements. Their mission is public healthcare. So they are far less likely to recommend extra procedures 'Just to be sure!' (Just to charge another $1000 dollars for an extra scan on a simple broken bone that the simple x-ray already confirmed!) Get rid of the for-profit motive - and healthcare suddenly becomes so much cheaper!

I recently had a medical emergency requiring a few days in hospital and surgery. ​

The cost? FREE! I just showed my Australian Medicare card - something EVERY Australian citizen gets! ​

THE RESULT: Australian citizens go to the doctors more, go earlier, get diagnosed earlier, and treat the condition sooner - which has better outcomes but is also cheaper!
U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2022: Accelerating Spending, Worsening Outcomes

Healthcare in the United States - Wikipedia

Basically, the American healthcare system is such a shambles because of the perverse incentives in the profit motive. Business profit is the wrong model. The self-interest of getting educated and working hard to become a nurse or doctor for a good public salary still works in a government owned department. The enterprise itself does not have to be 'for-profit' for Adam Smith's version of self-interest to still kick in! Public doctors still get a good salary, and plenty of respect and kudos. Public servants managing the hospitals are still adequately compensated. Adam Smith's self-interest is still there.

Even Australia's conservative parties - the National-Liberal coalition - protect our Medicare - and the 51% of government owned and operated hospitals that covers. We still have private hospitals for the rich who want champagne with their dinner - or their choice of specialist, etc.

It's the only way America can REALLY make cuts to the deficit.
If you brought your healthcare in line with the OECD - it would be a third to half as expensive.

The bottom line?
Nationalise over half your hospitals - and you'll save money in the long-run.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/31/health/us-health-care-spending-global-perspective

​

BIG PHARMA​

You'll also need a Federal Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) that is like one gigantic Federal market tender for the cheapest generic drugs to bring down those Big Pharma costs. But of course - Big Pharma HATES Australia for our PBS! Under MAGA & Trumpism - American Big Pharma have pushed to have all foreign pharma whacked with huge tariffs.

Because apparently apparently the decades a new drug has a patent and the enormous profits that patent generates for that company are not enough! Apparently every CEO deserves a second yacht for all time to come, because their ancestor CEO's invented Tylenol - or something.
The profit-motive. Is there any system it cannot corrupt?
US pharmaceutical giants urge Trump to put further tariffs on Australia

 

[eclipsenow]

This is a truly evil bill. I hope Republicans wake up and do the right thing for the poor. Especially the kids, disabled people, the senior citizens. And young people. America has already lost the soybeans money, from China. And Trump wants to give billions to Argentina. But , when it comes to the poor in America. America is just losing big, because of Trump. This is not a good bill.

I hear you!

"Where injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"​

Bertolt Brecht​

 

[Aldebaran]

This is a truly evil bill. I hope Republicans wake up and do the right thing for the poor. Especially the kids, disabled people, the senior citizens. And young people. America has already lost the soybeans money, from China. And Trump wants to give billions to Argentina. But , when it comes to the poor in America. America is just losing big, because of Trump. This is not a good bill.

Why do you worry about soybean money from China? Trump's tariffs are raking in hundreds of billions, not to mention the hundred billion dollar investments overseas companies are making here as a result. U.S. Tariff Tracker | How Much Are U.S. Tariffs Raising in Revenue? | Bipartisan Policy Center

Noteworthy deals in 2025

• European Union (EU): In July 2025, the U.S. and the EU finalized a major trade deal.
  • EU commitments: Pledged over $600 billion in U.S. investments by 2028 and $750 billion in purchases of U.S. energy products, such as liquefied natural gas (LNG).
  • U.S. commitments: Agreed to reduce tariffs on most EU imports to a 15% rate, down from a previously threatened 30%.
• Japan: The U.S.–Japan Strategic Trade and Investment Agreement was finalized in late July 2025.
  • Japanese commitments: Pledged $550 billion in U.S. investments and increased purchases of U.S. automobiles and energy products.
  • U.S. commitments: Agreed to lower tariffs on Japanese auto imports to 15%, with similar caps on tariffs for pharmaceuticals and semiconductors.
• Middle Eastern investments: Foreign investment pledges in the U.S. were also made by several Gulf nations.
  • United Arab Emirates: Committed to investing $1.4 trillion in the U.S. over the next decade.
  • Qatar: Pledged to generate $1.2 trillion in an economic exchange with the U.S..
  • Saudi Arabia: Committed $600 billion in U.S. investments over four years.
• U.S. neighbors: New tariffs were a major factor in trade relations with Canada and Mexico. The U.S. imposed tariffs using powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), citing illegal immigration and illicit drug trafficking, but exempted qualifying goods under the U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA).
  • Canada: Faced increased tariffs on most goods and a 10% tariff on energy products, with higher rates for transshipped goods.
  • Mexico: Initially faced a 25% tariff on most goods, with higher rates proposed but later delayed.
• China: A temporary agreement was reached to reduce tariffs previously imposed by both countries, but other tariffs remained in effect. The U.S. also maintained a baseline tariff on all goods from China.

Potential benefits for America

• Increased foreign investment: Pledges of hundreds of billions of dollars in investments can lead to the creation of new facilities, expansion of U.S. manufacturing, and job growth.
• Export growth: Purchase commitments, such as the EU's pledge to buy U.S. energy products and Japan's purchase of U.S. agricultural goods, can increase U.S. exports and support domestic industries.
• Lower consumer prices: Removing or reducing tariffs can lead to lower prices for imported goods, which benefits U.S. consumers.
• Market access: Trade agreements provide American companies with greater access to foreign markets and help level the playing field by reducing trade barriers imposed by other nations.
• Stronger alliances: Trade deals can strengthen diplomatic ties and alliances with partner countries.

 

[eclipsenow]

Why do you worry about soybean money from China? Trump's tariffs are raking in hundreds of billions

You misunderstand the issue.

Soybean money IS from China into America.

Tariffs are a local domestic tax - a different way of collecting tax from American money from American people on the tax on overseas goods.

American soy growers sell TO China - and make money. But if Trump puts a tariff on anything Chinese - and China responds in kind and puts a tariff on American soy growers, then those farmers are going to lose their market. They're already hurting!

Trump likes tariffs because they tax America's poor even more than the rich. That is - the poor pay a much higher percent of their income as tax on overseas staples. Tariffs are Trump taxing America's poor. It's just like the BBB - doing a reverse Robin Hood to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.

While it might be HERESY for a MAGA to disagree with Trump on anything, it's OK for genuine Republicans to not like tariffs. You have the permission of Ronald Reagan! I'm a lefty - but MAGA have gone so alt-right that here you have me cheering on Reagan! Check the bits in red and beware!

In a 1988 speech, President Ronald Reagan strongly opposed tariffs against Canada and Mexico, calling them anti-American. He emphasized the importance of free trade, stating:​

"Our peaceful trading partners are not our enemies; they are our allies. We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends, weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the American flag.​

The expansion of the international economy is not a foreign invasion; it is an American triumph—one we worked hard to achieve and something central to our vision of a peaceful and prosperous world of freedom. After World War II, America led the way in dismantling trade barriers and creating a global trading system that paved the way for decades of unprecedented economic growth.​

Yes, back in 1776, our Founding Fathers believed that free trade was worth fighting for. And we can celebrate their victory because today, trade is at the core of the alliance that secures peace and guarantees our freedom. It is the source of our prosperity and the path to an even brighter future for America."​

Appealing to a confused and bewildered working class with simplistic promises is a tried and true tactic of demagogues throughout the 20th century.

If you listen to experts on international trade (like I have on The Economist podcast), the so called agreements that Trump thinks he has won from strutting the stage with his big tariff stick are anything BUT done deals! They are more like vague promissory notes - intentions to do things - rather than actually legally binding trade deals. There are so many i's to dot and t's to cross in the actual details in terms of actual trade deals - things that take 6 months to a year to nut out - that I'd have more faith in America's carbon targets being met by City Mayors and State governors than any of these 'trade deals' actually working out as Trumpeted by Trump!

The whole notion of Trump's tariffs have failed legal tests so far - which he appealed, and will ultimately be tested in the Supreme Court on Nov 5 according to the wiki

Under 'normal' Presidents (those not afflicted with NPD) - these tariff powers were not as abused - and the rule of law respected. The executive has tariff powers, but they're in certain emergency test cases. And no - just because Trump gets shampoo in his eyes one morning and is in a bad mood and wants to whack tariffs on someone for the world having the AUDACITY to let shampoo get in his eyes - no - that is not a trade emergency.

 

[A2SG]

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has faced criticism and scrutiny over his stance on the current government shutdown, particularly because he previously voted for a similar spending bill that could have averted it.
Earlier in the year, Schumer joined eight other Democrats and one independent in voting to advance a Republican-crafted bill that avoided a shutdown but handed President Donald Trump a legislative win. At the time, Schumer defended his vote by arguing that a shutdown would have been worse for Americans. However, this move sparked backlash from within his own party, with some Democrats calling for new Senate leadership.

Yeah, because trusting the Republicans in Congress to negotiate in good faith after they get what they wanted is a bad idea. They, like their party's leader, cannot be trusted to act in good faith.

The GOP is still refusing to negotiate because they know that democrats usually cave in on things like this. But I hope Schumer et al hold fast, because nothing will get done if the Republicans always get their way...and those in need of health care will suffer as a result.

-- A2SG, because the GOP doesn't care about anything but tax cuts for billionaires.....

 

[eclipsenow]

Yeah, because trusting the Republicans in Congress to negotiate in good faith after they get what they wanted is a bad idea. They, like their party's leader, cannot be trusted to act in good faith.

The GOP is still refusing to negotiate because they know that democrats usually cave in on things like this. But I hope Schumer et al hold fast, because nothing will get done if the Republicans always get their way...and those in need of health care will suffer as a result.

-- A2SG, because the GOP doesn't care about anything but tax cuts for billionaires.....

What? Someone with NPD cannot be trusted? Never!

 

[A2SG]

What? Someone with NPD cannot be trusted? Never!

34 felony fraud convictions, as well as many, many other guilty verdicts for fraud speak volumes.

-- A2SG, loud and clear, except for those with MAGA earplugs....

 

[rjs330]

Its such a shame that Schumer is putting politics above the American people. He's causing pain instead of keeping the government open. All because he thinks he's going to score political points. It's going to backfire.

 

[A2SG]

Its such a shame that Schumer is putting politics above the American people. He's causing pain instead of keeping the government open. All because he thinks he's going to score political points. It's going to backfire.

"Politics" in this case meaning: health care subsidies for people who need them. Curious how often GOP apologists forget that bit.

-- A2SG, okay, I'm kidding....it isn't curious at all.....

 

[eclipsenow]

Its such a shame that Schumer is putting politics above the American people.

75 million people voted democrat - what outcomes have represented their choices this year?

He's causing pain instead of keeping the government open.

The BBB wants to reward billionaires and kick another 16 million Americans off healthcare.
Who's causing pain again?

All because he thinks he's going to score political points. It's going to backfire.

(Coughs) - careful what you write mate - I was having a brew then and it nearly came out my nose!

What horrendous new low must MAGA's great leader stoop to now to illustrate who the ULTIMATE GRAND MASTER of scoring cheap political points is?

And what are the points Schumer wants? Oh yeah. To make sure the bottom 16 Million Americans are a BIT less bankrupted by American healthcare. Just a bit.

Where if America were a truly developed, they would just NATIONALISE over half the hospitals to bring the costs down to OECD average and give ALL CITIZENS healthcare at HALF THE PRICE!

But no - the democrats are only asking for Obama care a little longer.

How utterly mean and stingy and messed up are MAGA anyway?