Democrat Demands
Segment #633
The demands estimated to cost 1.5 trillion dollars put forward by Democrats to end the October 2025 government shutdown have strong arguments against them. Our new mayor of New York wants free everything for everybody paid for by taxing the rich. The fact that Mamdani in in his 30’s, never had a real job, was recently living with his parents and PEOPLE ARE LISTENING TO HIM IS IN ITSELF STUNNING and all you need to know about the future direction of the democrat party.
Here is an elaboration on the main demands:
1. Extension of Affordable Care Act (ACA) Subsidies1
This is the central issue of the shutdown. These subsidies (premium tax credits) lower health insurance costs for millions of Americans who purchase coverage on the ACA marketplace and are set to expire at the end of 2025.Obama’s Affoirdable Care Act was meant to reduce the cost of health care and give access to healhcare for millions more citizens. ACA has depended on government subsidies to work. ACA has failed to lower costs and to guarantee access.
For (Democrats' Position)Against (Republicans' Position)Protects Millions from Price Hikes: Without the subsidies, an estimated 22 million people with ACA policies could see their insurance premiums more than double, and millions could lose coverage entirely. Democrats argue action is needed now to prevent a massive healthcare crisis, especially since open enrollment starts on November 1st."Poison Pill" Tactic:
Republicans argue that major policy changes, especially those with high price tags, should not be attached to a routine, short-term funding bill (a continuing resolution or CR). They insist on a "clean" CR to reopen the government first.Affordability and Coverage: Democrats see the extension as vital to ensuring healthcare remains affordable and accessible for working families and middle-class Americans.Cost and Permanent Program: Republicans call the proposed extension a "partisan wish list" that would cost hundreds of billions of dollars over a decade and argue the ACA is a fundamentally flawed program that requires constant, expensive fixes.Trust in Negotiation: Democrats argue they cannot trust Republicans to negotiate a deal on the subsidies after the government is reopened, pointing to the end-of-year deadline and previous instances where they feel promised negotiations did not materialize. They want the solution enacted now as a condition for reopening.Separate Negotiation: Republicans maintain that they are willing to discuss the future of the subsidies and potential reforms, but only after the government is fully funded and operating normally. They argue the shutdown should not be used as leverage for partisan policy victories.
Focus on Lawfully Present Immigrants: Recent Democratic proposals, particularly in the context of government funding debates, have focused on restoring or extending health care eligibility for certain groups of lawfully present immigrants (such as refugees, asylees, and certain parolees) whose eligibility was restricted by recent Republican legislation (referred to as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" or similar names).2
Emergency Medicaid: Undocumented immigrants are already eligible for limited Emergency Medicaid, which requires states to reimburse hospitals for treating emergency medical conditions, regardless of immigration status.3 Democratic proposals have sought to reverse cuts made by Republicans to the federal matching funds (FMAP) that states receive for this emergency care, which Republicans argue favors "illegal aliens," while Democrats and policy experts counter that the reversal would only restore prior reimbursement levels and not change coverage.4
State-Level Action: While federal Medicaid does not generally cover undocumented immigrants, a small but growing number of states (including California and Oregon) have used their own state funds to provide state-funded health coverage to certain low-income residents, regardless of their immigration status.5 Republicans have also sought to eliminate what they call "loopholes" that they claim allow some Democratic-led states, like California, to use federal Medicaid dollars for health care for undocumented immigrants.6
2. Reversal of Medicaid Cuts
Democrats are demanding a rollback of cuts to the Medicaid program for low-income and disabled Americans, which were part of a Republican-led spending measure passed earlier in 2025.3
For (Democrats' Position)Against (Republicans' Position)Protecting Vulnerable Populations: Democrats argue the cuts would lead to millions of people losing essential healthcare coverage, harming vulnerable populations like children, the elderly, and the disabled.Fiscal Responsibility/Program Reform: Republicans view the cuts as a necessary step toward controlling federal spending, promoting fiscal responsibility, and reforming an entitlement program they believe is inefficient or over-funded.Mitigating Recent Harm: They see the reversal as a non-negotiable step to undo what they consider damaging, partisan cuts to safety-net programs.Undermining Previous Victory: Republicans are resistant to rolling back a significant policy win from earlier in the year as part of a temporary funding deal. They argue this is an attempt to negate their legislative success.
3. Curbs on Executive Spending Power ("Pocket Rescissions")
Democrats want to include language in the funding bill to limit the executive branch's ability to unilaterally withhold or cancel congressionally appropriated funds, a process often referred to as "pocket rescissions" or impoundment.4
For (Democrats' Position)Against (Republicans' Position)Defending Congressional Authority: Democrats argue the President's use of executive actions and rescissions to cancel or withhold billions in already-approved spending is an unconstitutional encroachment on Congress's "power of the purse" and must be stopped.Executive Authority/Efficiency: The White House and its allies argue that the President must have the power to control spending to eliminate waste, cut programs they view as unnecessary, and manage the federal budget more efficiently.Ending "Lawless" Tactics: They want to prevent the administration from selectively punishing states and agencies—often those led by Democrats—by withholding funds for projects that Congress has already approved.Political Motivation: Republicans often dismiss the demand as an attempt by Democrats to tie the President's hands and protect spending priorities that they view as excessive or politically motivated.
Resume DEI projects in foreign countries.
Restore up to $5 billion of American taxpayer funds for international projects, with some examples given that are related to gender and LGBTQ+ issues which are often associated with DEI discussions, such as:
$3.9 million for LGBTQI+ democracy grants in the Western Balkans.1
$2 million for "organizing for feminist democratic principles" in Africa.2
Funding for desert locust risk reduction in the Horn of Africa with a focus on "gender equality" and "indigenous peoples."3