7 ms·
"The text of the proposed legislation has not been released."
by subdane 8y ago
"The text of the proposed legislation has not been released."
- Colt45RPM 8y agoWho knows what could be hiding in there?!?!
- jedmeyers 8y agoYou need to pass the bill before you know what's in it.
- vengefulduck 8y agoWhat? How would they know what their voting for?
- justinlink 8y agoIt's a reference to something Nancy Pelosi said when passing Obamacare. "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”.
- paulddraper 8y agoOften, that's literally true due to the length and complexity of the legislation. Which is why there is the proposed Read the Bills Act. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_the_Bills_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_the_Bills_Act
- agensaequivocum 8y agoWell, it's not like it's uncommon for Congress to drop a 1000+ page omnibus crap sandwich the night before the vote.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- amreact 8y agoThat's a quote from a Nancy Pelosi speech about Affordable Care Act. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the-bill-to-see-what-is-in-it/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the... For the record, Snopes does a good job explaining how Pelosi's statement was taken out of context by the right, especially when compared to Republican actions that were much more questionable regarding a somewhat (?) comparable Republican-sponsored bill called the American Health Care Act.
- paulddraper 8y agoThat article (and it's rating of "Mixed") has puzzled me. The context "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." doesn't really change the way I think about her remarks. Controversy or not, it's a ridiculous assertion.
- dfee 8y agoSnopes is actually quite partisan. This is a good example.
- threeseed 8y agoIrrelevant. Most of the fact check checkers rate it as pretty accurate: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/fact_check_review/ https://www.realclearpolitics.com/fact_check_review/
- simula67 8y agoIt is relevant since they could be cherry picking facts to rate
- read_if_gay_ 8y agoWho says so-called "fact checkers" aren't partisan?
- 8y ago
- masonic 8y agoThat's how Pelosi runs things. That's a faithful paraphrase of what she said before the ACA (Obamacare) votes. Neither the rank-and-file of either party not the Republican leadership got to see the ACA final bill contents before the vote.
- djur 8y agoIt is a deeply misleading excerpt of something Pelosi said, not "faithful" in any way. And the claim that nobody got to read the ACA before the vote is simply not true. You can see the main bill being repeatedly debated and amended on the floor of the Senate from early October 2010 until late December here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/3590/all-actions https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/3590... The House passed the Senate bill several months later. It was then amended by the 2010 reconciliation act, which resolved some issues the House had with the Senate bill. That passed much more quickly (because it was a smaller and less controversial bill), but it still was presented on the floor of the House a week before it eventually passed: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/4872/actions https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/4872...
- DrScump 8y agoYou can see the main bill But not the final bill, which is the only one that matters. Compare the early October version with the Chaptered (final) version.