usernamesAreTricky

Until it stays that way forever. By law it's supposed to adjust every year for inflation, but it hasn't since 2009 as the inflation adjustment gets shot down every year mostly because of the obvious optics of raising pay

Low pay is a real problem and barrier in local and state government, we shouldn't want the US congress to add another barrier for people with lower income. There's already enough barriers already

A pay decrease would only make things worse. It wouldn't affect the worst offenders and would make it harder for someone like AOC to join from a more modest background. Making the pay higher makes it easier for working class people to rely on the pay (especially since you might need a place in DC and your home state). If you keep the pay low, only the richest people with external sources of income can afford to stay in

This is not a bad thing in general. Making the pay higher makes it easier for working class people to rely on the pay (especially since you might need a place in DC and your home state). If you keep the pay low, only the richest people with external sources of income can afford to stay in

Edit: to clarify, it is certainly still frustrating that most of the people who will benifit really don't need that pay,

Keep in mind that we also just talk a lot more anout republican's legislation waaaay more than we do for Democrats. There's way more than Obamacare that's gotten through but we just barely talk about it because it mostly lives in the background and Republicans have dominated the messaging

For instance, the Inflation Reduction Act was one of the single largest climate investments in US history with real predicted effects on our overall future emissions. It isn't enough, sure, but the media barely talked about a $783 billion investment in climate change. It's projected to move the 2030 US emissions to 40% below 2005 emissions levels

There's plenty that dems stopped Trump from doing during his first term. Saving the ACA is the classic example, but things like the Muslim travel ban were blocked in lawsuits, they won out when in shutdown fights about wasting fund on a wall, etc

Not sure I follow what you are saying? Are you saying Democrats are indept at infighting? As in they should infight more?

The infighting does limit some of their abilities. A handful of people that want to stir the pot or take the spotlight can grind things to a halt if they want to. Just ask Kevin McCarthy and how many speaker votes it took to get him in and how many speaker votes it took to get his replacement. Keep in mind they'll have fewer house seat than they did then

Even barring that, they could also have issues with unexpected/unplanned vacancies and missed votes. Health problems, delayed flights, lazy house member, etc. can all pose a giant pain for them

Know there's already been concerns raised in the senate about the new WV senate Jim Justice's attendance problems (they'll have 53 in the senate)

Plus keep in mind that many of their margins are far smaller than they were in 2016. Then, they had 241 house seats. Next year they'll have 220 seats (just a 3 seat majorty)

You only need a handful of defections to defeat bills so it's a reminder to keep fighting them

Plus at the sate level were also much stronger with control of 31 state governors. They had 25 state government trifectas compared to just 6 for dems (rest divided)

Next year they will have 27 state govenors and a trifecta in 23 state governments compared to 15 dem trifectas (rest divided)

Also keep in mind their house majority is super tight so this kind of thing matters even more than usual. They lost a house seat this last election and will only have a 3 seat majority. If they follow their currently stated plans, they'll also only have a single seat majority for at least couple of months based on who they're planning on pulling from the house into the admin. (House vacancies are not filled by governor, unlike the senate. They are just left vacant until a special election)

I get the sentiment, but medical debt forgiveness this way is nothing new. It's not helpful to lambast every single good story with dooming. Constant despair isn't helping us move the needle and fight back. Point out the fights where they, otherwise we're just making people too despaired to fight at all

The non-profit they partnered with has been doing work forgiving debt since 2014. And there's been high profile cases of people doing this too. In 2016, John Oliver forgave $15 million worth of medical debt for ~9 thousand people

Other local governments have done the same thing with the same non-profit:

In January this year, New York City said they were going to do the same for around 2 billion worth of medical debt for 500 thousand people over 3 years (paying around $18 million to buy that debt)

In 2023, Oakland County Michigan forgave around $200 million (paying around $2 million for the debt)

And so on

They are buying the debt and then just forgiving it rather than collecting any of it. The hospitals/medical facilities are selling off the debt and get money like they would if they had sold it to a debt collector. Not much for reason for anyone involved here to sue about. They'd have to be extraordinarily spiteful even by republican standards

There are other app views in the works from other people, but yes in the current state it is rather centralized. That's why I started off saying it was semi-decentralized. I wasn't claiming it was super decentralized