12 ms·

By controversial issues we apparently mean "providing food and a safety net for people who lose their jobs" (most of whom will lose their jobs due to the crisis

By controversial issues we apparently mean "providing food and a safety net for people who lose their jobs" (most of whom will lose their jobs due to the crisis brought about by the pandemic). I feel there is something very wrong with us that this is immediately seen as "OMG Super partisan crazy talk!!!"

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
It's not that your parent poster necessarily believes a basic social safety net is super partisan, but seems to be speaking from a point of reality. McConnell has been called the grim reaper and is proud of how many House bills he has stopped.
- majos 7y ago
  Other coverage of this bill suggests McConnell is OK with passing something he sees as imperfect, given cover from Trump. > Should the White House and House Democrats come to terms, Mr. McConnell has indicated privately that he would quickly bring up the measure and pass it to allow Mr. Trump to sign it into law. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/us/politics/trump-house-coronavirus-relief-bill.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/us/politics/trump-house-c... It’s hard to imagine he would incentivize Pelosi to pass an aid bill just so he can block it, what is the political upside for him if he does that? Similarly, the fact that Pelosi is even trying to work with Trump, Mnuchin, etc suggests she believes passage is possible. If she’s just doing this to make the senate republicans look bad when they reject it, then it’d be much easier to pass something with little to no input from Republicans.
  - dole 7y ago
    > It's hard to imagine he would incentivize Pelosi to pass an aid bill just so he can block it, what is the political upside for him if he does that? If it looks like it doesn't have a chance of passing anyway, it provides an opportunity to publicly rebuke the other party. He pushed through AoC's Green New Deal with a smirk [1]. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/26/aocs-green-new-deal-dies-in-mcconnell-led-senate-vote.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/26/aocs-green-new-deal-dies-in-...
- smacktoward 7y ago
  The Grim Reaper act only works when there's no risk of voters paying attention. Senators have to win reelection. Their positions can be shifted if enough of their constituents demand it. Call your Senators and ask them if they will be supporting passage of a Senate version of this legislation. If they won't, ask why. And let them know that their answer will affect your vote.
- xnyan 7y ago
  Politics is complicated and every situation is not the same. This is the biggest issue in the world right now and voters are watching C19 coverage. There’s a famous saying in politics that every crisis is an opportunity. The United States has already fallen well behind everyone else and what we’re doing, there could be political problems to resisting this too much too publicly. Also, and saying this in a completely neutral fashion, the US president is a wildcard. If he supports this, R senators fearing reelection will support it as well
all2 7y ago
The Federal government's duty to the people (according to the Constitution) is seeing to their safety from foreign threats. Testing for all is in line with that duty. Being a social safety net is the duty of your family, your church, and your friends. Maybe even your state government. I know there are Socialist policies that are in place at the Federal level, but the intent of the framers was to guarantee freedoms for citizens. A social welfare state was not anywhere in the picture. Bottom line, personal responsibility goes a long, long way in terms of dealing with job loss and economic downturns.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  Yes, clearly what we need to deal with a crisis is a little personal responsibility, not a government that even pretends to be effective at addressing it.
  - mardifoufs 7y ago
    What more couldve been done? Not a rhetorical question. It's just that I dont see how the governement could stop the initial spread since little to nothing was known in the really early phases of the epidemic. Even the early mortality rates were probably... not honestly reported by China. If you compare it to a country like Italy that oddly enough seems to be getting praised for it's handling of the pandemic, what more should the US have done? Especially considering how much more lethal it is in Italy and just how crazily fast it spread there. Still, as a non american, it seems to me like everyone talks about how incompetent the US is when they are doing the same or better than their peers?
    - throwaway2048 7y ago
      The idea that "nothing more could have been done" by the government is a laughable farce, the US federal government continues to incompetently bumble and lots of people are going to die as a result. They are sticking to their guns on cutting CDC funding for crying out loud.
      - 7y ago
simonsarris 7y ago
Commits should be atomic.
- dv_dt 7y ago
  Politics doesn't work that way. Bills are batched political transactions
- Mountain_Skies 7y ago
  Think that only works in Nebraska.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  I agree.
magduf 7y ago
A safety net absolutely is "super partisan crazy talk" in the US, because a large fraction of the population simply doesn't support it, including another responder to this post. This just goes to show how different cultures can be. Your point-of-view is obviously not very American at all, and probably much more European, so the very idea of not providing food and a safety net in a time of crisis, to you, is almost unthinkable. However, for most Americans, this idea is seen as "socialist" and repugnant, whereas for example the idea of not having the freedom to own lots of guns is almost unthinkable to them. In short, don't assume that most people share your basic values or worldview. You might be living in a place where they simply don't.
- MereInterest 7y ago
  > In short, don't assume that most people share your basic values or worldview. You might be living in a place where they simply don't I think that's covered under his "something very wrong with us".
  - magduf 7y ago
    That's his opinion. Tens of millions of other Americans don't think so at all, and they're making their voices heard in national elections and successfully choosing our leaders.
    - lutorm 7y ago
      That would be fine, but it seems that fairly often, once they need those safety nets and not "those other people", those principles no longer apply.
      - magduf 7y ago
        You would think, but these people do consistently vote against their own best interests. You can lead a horse to water...
        7y ago
creaghpatr 7y ago
I think OP meant Pelosi trying to stick funding for abortions into the bill, thereby putting the access to testing funding at risk.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
anthm1988 7y ago
Once people start dying en masse we can really see the mask off ghouls on this shithole of a site.

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago

It's not that your parent poster necessarily believes a basic social safety net is super partisan, but seems to be speaking from a point of reality. McConnell has been called the grim reaper and is proud of how many House bills he has stopped.

majos 7y ago
Other coverage of this bill suggests McConnell is OK with passing something he sees as imperfect, given cover from Trump. > Should the White House and House Democrats come to terms, Mr. McConnell has indicated privately that he would quickly bring up the measure and pass it to allow Mr. Trump to sign it into law. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/us/politics/trump-house-coronavirus-relief-bill.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/us/politics/trump-house-c... It’s hard to imagine he would incentivize Pelosi to pass an aid bill just so he can block it, what is the political upside for him if he does that? Similarly, the fact that Pelosi is even trying to work with Trump, Mnuchin, etc suggests she believes passage is possible. If she’s just doing this to make the senate republicans look bad when they reject it, then it’d be much easier to pass something with little to no input from Republicans.
- dole 7y ago
  > It's hard to imagine he would incentivize Pelosi to pass an aid bill just so he can block it, what is the political upside for him if he does that? If it looks like it doesn't have a chance of passing anyway, it provides an opportunity to publicly rebuke the other party. He pushed through AoC's Green New Deal with a smirk [1]. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/26/aocs-green-new-deal-dies-in-mcconnell-led-senate-vote.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/26/aocs-green-new-deal-dies-in-...
smacktoward 7y ago
The Grim Reaper act only works when there's no risk of voters paying attention. Senators have to win reelection. Their positions can be shifted if enough of their constituents demand it. Call your Senators and ask them if they will be supporting passage of a Senate version of this legislation. If they won't, ask why. And let them know that their answer will affect your vote.
xnyan 7y ago
Politics is complicated and every situation is not the same. This is the biggest issue in the world right now and voters are watching C19 coverage. There’s a famous saying in politics that every crisis is an opportunity. The United States has already fallen well behind everyone else and what we’re doing, there could be political problems to resisting this too much too publicly. Also, and saying this in a completely neutral fashion, the US president is a wildcard. If he supports this, R senators fearing reelection will support it as well

all2 7y ago

The Federal government's duty to the people (according to the Constitution) is seeing to their safety from foreign threats. Testing for all is in line with that duty. Being a social safety net is the duty of your family, your church, and your friends. Maybe even your state government. I know there are Socialist policies that are in place at the Federal level, but the intent of the framers was to guarantee freedoms for citizens. A social welfare state was not anywhere in the picture. Bottom line, personal responsibility goes a long, long way in terms of dealing with job loss and economic downturns.

throwaway2048 7y ago
Yes, clearly what we need to deal with a crisis is a little personal responsibility, not a government that even pretends to be effective at addressing it.
- mardifoufs 7y ago
  What more couldve been done? Not a rhetorical question. It's just that I dont see how the governement could stop the initial spread since little to nothing was known in the really early phases of the epidemic. Even the early mortality rates were probably... not honestly reported by China. If you compare it to a country like Italy that oddly enough seems to be getting praised for it's handling of the pandemic, what more should the US have done? Especially considering how much more lethal it is in Italy and just how crazily fast it spread there. Still, as a non american, it seems to me like everyone talks about how incompetent the US is when they are doing the same or better than their peers?
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    The idea that "nothing more could have been done" by the government is a laughable farce, the US federal government continues to incompetently bumble and lots of people are going to die as a result. They are sticking to their guns on cutting CDC funding for crying out loud.
    - 7y ago

simonsarris 7y ago

Commits should be atomic.

dv_dt 7y ago
Politics doesn't work that way. Bills are batched political transactions
Mountain_Skies 7y ago
Think that only works in Nebraska.
creaghpatr 7y ago
I agree.

magduf 7y ago

A safety net absolutely is "super partisan crazy talk" in the US, because a large fraction of the population simply doesn't support it, including another responder to this post. This just goes to show how different cultures can be. Your point-of-view is obviously not very American at all, and probably much more European, so the very idea of not providing food and a safety net in a time of crisis, to you, is almost unthinkable. However, for most Americans, this idea is seen as "socialist" and repugnant, whereas for example the idea of not having the freedom to own lots of guns is almost unthinkable to them. In short, don't assume that most people share your basic values or worldview. You might be living in a place where they simply don't.

MereInterest 7y ago
> In short, don't assume that most people share your basic values or worldview. You might be living in a place where they simply don't I think that's covered under his "something very wrong with us".
- magduf 7y ago
  That's his opinion. Tens of millions of other Americans don't think so at all, and they're making their voices heard in national elections and successfully choosing our leaders.
  - lutorm 7y ago
    That would be fine, but it seems that fairly often, once they need those safety nets and not "those other people", those principles no longer apply.
    - magduf 7y ago
      You would think, but these people do consistently vote against their own best interests. You can lead a horse to water...
      - 7y ago

creaghpatr 7y ago

I think OP meant Pelosi trying to stick funding for abortions into the bill, thereby putting the access to testing funding at risk.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

anthm1988 7y ago

Once people start dying en masse we can really see the mask off ghouls on this shithole of a site.