Did Democrats Blow It on the Government Shutdown?
Plus: Obamacare subsidies take center stage, the abundance agenda meets socialism after Mamdani’s win, and the differences between liberals and libertarians
This week, Reason editors Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Matt Welch are joined by the editor in chief of The Argument, Jerusalem Demsas, to discuss the end of the government shutdown and what Democrats actually gained from it. They examine the renewed focus on Obamacare subsidies and how both parties are struggling to articulate a coherent health care vision that moves beyond stale talking points.
The group then turns to Zohran Mamdani's win in New York and what it reveals about the uneasy overlap between the abundance movement and the rising progressive wing of the Democratic Party. The panel digs into President Donald Trump's talk of $2,000 tariff "dividends," and whether it undermines his claim that affordability is "a con." They also examine the differences and similarities between modern-day liberals and libertarians. A listener then asks whether fixing America's broken health care system should start with reforming insurance or dramatically expanding the supply of doctors.
0:00—What did Democrats gain from the government shutdown?
19:34—Obamacare subsidies and healthcare in the spotlight
26:30—The abundance agenda vs. socialism
41:34—Tariff dividend checks and the affordability "con"
46:14—Listener question on health insurance
57:07—Difference between liberalism and libertarianism
1:13:11—Weekly cultural recommendations
Mentioned in This Podcast
"Reopening?" by Liz Wolfe
"America's Longest Government Shutdown Shows Why We Must Free Air Traffic Control from Politics," by Robert Poole
"Mamdani's Win Suggests a Socialist Future for Democrats and a Rocky One for American Politics," by J.D. Tuccille
"No Excuses for Zohran Mamdani and Radical Socialism," by Robby Soave
"Mamdani Teaming Up With Lina Khan Paints a Grim Picture of What's To Come," by Elizabeth Nolan Brown
"New York Voters Say Yes to Faster Housing Approvals," by Christian Britschgi
"Mamdani Claims 'Mandate' for Bigger Government: 'There Is No Problem Too Large for Government To Solve,'" by Joe Lancaster
"6 Zohran Mamdani Campaign Promises That New York City Can't Afford," by Jack Nicastro
"The People Who Wrecked N.Y. Schools Love Zohran Mamdani," by Matt Welch
"Trump Seems Very Confused About 'Affordability,'" by Eric Boehm
"Abundance Makes the Case for 'Supply-Side Progressivism,'" by Virginia Postrel
"The Death of Contrarianism," by Matt Welch
- Producer: Paul Alexander
- Video Editor: Ian Keyser
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
End all govt participation in health insurance.
What Chumby said
That can be done, but it would also mean a major chunk of the US population losing access to health care.
Major chunk? How many is that?
No it wouldn't. That's not how markets respond to opportunities.
Government subsidizes demand and restricts supply. Get government out of the way and the market will match supply and demand.
The government got involved in health care because the free market failed to deliver. There is no reason to think it would be any different if tried again.
Like lasik?
Cite?
Because that's not why government got involved in healthcare you stupid commie scum.
What is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?
But it would mean a major chunk of thieving greedy deadbeat losers would have to figure things out that the successful people the loathe and take from have successfully accomplished?
Notice Chumby said insurance and you conflated it with health care?
Because you're a stupid commie.
It is the retard not understanding. Saw an ad trying to ban guns under the auspice of suicide gun deaths that ended with, “Let’s agree to agree on ending gun deaths.” Some gun deaths dovetail well with the NAP. Like a woman riding public transportation being attacked by a rapefugee wielding a weapon.
They can pay for it if they want it. Choice is like that. So are consequences of choice.
What did Democrats gain from the government shutdown?
The ire of Hollywood.
Did Democrats Blow It on the Government Shutdown?
Yes. Does this even need to be discussed.
No winners in this continuing resolution. Need an actual balanced budget and preferably a little extra revenue to start paying down the debt for a winner to be declared.
Supposedly it helped them in the elections last tuesday but I'm not convinced.
This might be the first time I've ever watched this podcast, mostly because I was curious about the guest lady. KMW's initial analysis is that this shutdown was messy and gross. That's the managing editor. Messy and gross. But I'm bored watching the end of this football game so I'll keep listening.
.
Checked her X. Yep, she's an idiot.
"People memory-holed this but Biden's approval rating took a massive hit during the botched Afghanistan withdrawals which were in large part about the failure to evacuate refugees!
64 percent of *REPUBLICANS* wanted to bring in refugees who feared repression from the Taliban"
https://x.com/JerusalemDemsas/status/1987903710710927737
I stopped listening a long time ago. KMW contributes nothing to any conversation and has no ability to articulate a libertarian argument. Suderman is a child who tries to argue dumb points like a freshman nerd who learned some new words. Welch is a slimy shitbag whose tone expresses that he loves the smell of his own farts. Gillespie used to be better and would counterbalance them a but by offering some bit of measured reasoning. He has since gone full tds and argues for progressivism while not understanding he makes the same arguments.
I won't bother listening to this one either, but it is telling that they are still trying to pump up the "abundance agenda" slogan progressives are using to dupe normies into thinking that they're policies aren't the same socialist bullshit. It might as well be another NPR show without the veneer of serious professionalism.
They also examine the differences and similarities between modern-day liberals and libertarians.
If they talk about Reason libertarians then they have similar policies, liberals are just too loudly calling it socialism.
Unhappy about the lockdowns, EBT bitches not getting recharged, and govt employees being off ain’t libertarian.