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.
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.)
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.
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.
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
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.
I'm talking about Congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_Stat...
Congress doesn't give them an information hegemony.
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?
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