I don’t disagree with the premise but it’s terrible messaging. In a recession people want a laser focus on addressing their suffering. Both can be done, but it needs to be clear that the primary objective is addressing the suffering, not shoehorning in a longstanding agenda

As for Schumer. You seem to be making the case that he was complicit just that it was ok that he was

(c) the harm of Trump not be seen as a failure is far greater than the harm of a shutdown. In the end … he would own that harm. And the single most important thing is for Trumpism to be widely seen as a failure.

b) They probably would have carved out some exception not eliminate it so they’d still have an excuse not to pass every crazy thing the House sends over.

(a) If they really want to do something they won’t let the filibuster stop them.

There were 3 possibilities if Ds didn’t cave: (1) Rs cave, (2) end of filibuster, (3) shutdown lasts until an election. All better than Ds caving imo. Maybe we’ll get there in February

Leaving LBJ aside. Durbin is his #2. Most of them have served with Schumer for many years. He was either complicit or does not command their respect

Trump also said it didn’t cost the government anything

I will also say that back when I had convos with CFOs they were always saying they couldn’t do things D administrations wanted them to do b/c they’d face shareholder suits. Giving away 10% of the company is a much bigger deal than anything we discussed

Thanks. I was wondering if something such as that might preclude. It sounds like it wouldn’t be immediately dismissed and forcing Intel to articulate what of tangible value it received would have some entertainment value

The report I saw said it was “common shares.”

Is there a shareholder lawsuit in this? It diluted the value of shareholders stock 10% in exchange for nothing tangible. Also, it's, in effect, a 10% tax on Intel's dividends. Only Congress can levy tax. Is it voluntary & not a tax? All taxes are paid b/c of threats from gov't, one way or another

And Obama tried for far too long to bring Rs along

I'm skeptical that U.S. Senate would have done it and it would have disrupted other priorities. We'll never know of course, and the broader point of Ds not being aggressive enough when they have power is legit.

When do you think there were the votes in Congress for DC to be made a state?