4 ms·

These bailout bills have been passed with broad bipartisan support, of which you will never see who voted for or against the bill because it was only a voice vo

These bailout bills have been passed with broad bipartisan support, of which you will never see who voted for or against the bill because it was only a voice vote. So how is voting for either party going to help a problem that both parties equally passed?

ardy42 6y ago
> These bailout bills have been passed with broad bipartisan support... > So how is voting for either party going to help a problem that both parties equally passed? I think that's misunderstanding politics. Broad bipartisan support doesn't mean both parties were happy with each and every provision, it means that they found the overall compromise acceptable enough to vote for (given the circumstances). For instance: IIRC, the Democrats actually wanted to add a permanent, general paid sick-leave benefit to one of these relief bills, but after Republican objections they compromised and settled for a temporary COVID-specific benefit to achieve "broad bipartisan support" for the overall bill. That doesn't mean they changed their position, and if more people had voted for Democrats in the last election, the outcome would have been different.
- will4274 6y ago
  I think that's misunderstanding politics. The Democrats actually wanted to talk about adding a permanent, general laid sick leave benefit, but blame Republicans for it being unfeasible. This result gives the Democrats the best of both worlds - they earn more votes in November but don't actually have to figure out how to pay for such policies.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    I disagree. While what you say is technically true, but I'm not so cynical to think the Democrats would have backed off on a permanent paid sick leave benefit in this situation if they'd been in a more powerful position. I think it's a policy they actually want, and the pandemic makes the need clear enough to neutralize most conservative-inspired unease with it in the minds of centrists and swing voters.
    - will4274 6y ago
      The proof is that they only advocate these things when they can't pass them. When the Democrats control Congress, it suddenly isn't a priority again.
      - hcknwscommenter 6y ago
        The Dems haven't had a veto proof majority in House and Senate since the the 111th (2009 to 2011) and before that the 95th ( 1977 to 1979). I'm not going to go into the 95th too much because it was a very long time ago. Our country is very different. Obama spent basically all his political capital getting ObamaCare Dodd-Frank and CFPB passed. All of which were MASSIVE steps to dramatically increase access to health care and for the first time in decades bend the cost curve, dramatically reign in the banks, and give consumers actual protection from predatory big business. So, I don't really understand what you are talking about.
- 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 6y ago
  > it means that they found the overall compromise acceptable enough to vote for (given the circumstances). For every $1 going to a good cause, our politicians add $2 of pork in order to find a “compromise”
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > For every $1 going to a good cause, our politicians add $2 of pork in order to find a “compromise” That's pretty obviously false unless you consider only 0.17% to 0.6% of federal government spending to be "going to a good cause." [1] [2] [1] https://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/pork-barrel-spending/ https://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/pork-barrel-spending/: "In 2005, CAGW identified 13,997 projects costing $27.3 billion that met its definition of pork spending; as in 2006, that was about 1.1 percent of total spending." [2] https://www.cagw.org/reporting/pig-book https://www.cagw.org/reporting/pig-book: "The cost of earmarks in FY 2019 is $15.3 billion..." https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2019-federal-budget-summary-of-revenue-and-spending-4589082 https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2019-federal-budget-summary-of...: "The budget office estimates the federal government will spend $4.536 trillion in FY 2019." That works out to 0.337% of the federal budget.

ardy42 6y ago

> These bailout bills have been passed with broad bipartisan support... > So how is voting for either party going to help a problem that both parties equally passed? I think that's misunderstanding politics. Broad bipartisan support doesn't mean both parties were happy with each and every provision, it means that they found the overall compromise acceptable enough to vote for (given the circumstances). For instance: IIRC, the Democrats actually wanted to add a permanent, general paid sick-leave benefit to one of these relief bills, but after Republican objections they compromised and settled for a temporary COVID-specific benefit to achieve "broad bipartisan support" for the overall bill. That doesn't mean they changed their position, and if more people had voted for Democrats in the last election, the outcome would have been different.

will4274 6y ago
I think that's misunderstanding politics. The Democrats actually wanted to talk about adding a permanent, general laid sick leave benefit, but blame Republicans for it being unfeasible. This result gives the Democrats the best of both worlds - they earn more votes in November but don't actually have to figure out how to pay for such policies.
- ardy42 6y ago
  I disagree. While what you say is technically true, but I'm not so cynical to think the Democrats would have backed off on a permanent paid sick leave benefit in this situation if they'd been in a more powerful position. I think it's a policy they actually want, and the pandemic makes the need clear enough to neutralize most conservative-inspired unease with it in the minds of centrists and swing voters.
  - will4274 6y ago
    The proof is that they only advocate these things when they can't pass them. When the Democrats control Congress, it suddenly isn't a priority again.
    - hcknwscommenter 6y ago
      The Dems haven't had a veto proof majority in House and Senate since the the 111th (2009 to 2011) and before that the 95th ( 1977 to 1979). I'm not going to go into the 95th too much because it was a very long time ago. Our country is very different. Obama spent basically all his political capital getting ObamaCare Dodd-Frank and CFPB passed. All of which were MASSIVE steps to dramatically increase access to health care and for the first time in decades bend the cost curve, dramatically reign in the banks, and give consumers actual protection from predatory big business. So, I don't really understand what you are talking about.
3fe9a03ccd14ca5 6y ago
> it means that they found the overall compromise acceptable enough to vote for (given the circumstances). For every $1 going to a good cause, our politicians add $2 of pork in order to find a “compromise”
- ardy42 6y ago
  > For every $1 going to a good cause, our politicians add $2 of pork in order to find a “compromise” That's pretty obviously false unless you consider only 0.17% to 0.6% of federal government spending to be "going to a good cause." [1] [2] [1] https://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/pork-barrel-spending/ https://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/pork-barrel-spending/: "In 2005, CAGW identified 13,997 projects costing $27.3 billion that met its definition of pork spending; as in 2006, that was about 1.1 percent of total spending." [2] https://www.cagw.org/reporting/pig-book https://www.cagw.org/reporting/pig-book: "The cost of earmarks in FY 2019 is $15.3 billion..." https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2019-federal-budget-summary-of-revenue-and-spending-4589082 https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2019-federal-budget-summary-of...: "The budget office estimates the federal government will spend $4.536 trillion in FY 2019." That works out to 0.337% of the federal budget.