4 ms·

I have never heard this particular angle on this bill, and would hope that it's wrong. Can someone confirm/deny with some references?

lelandfe 5y ago
To be fair, the only example of the “many radically left-leaning policies” that they provided was one that had already been removed. I’m not quite sure what we’re confirming or denying here. My understanding of how bill making works, anyway, is that there are usually riders or provisions like this that are known to be, shall we say, sacrificial. They make useful bargaining chips when seeking concessions.
zimpenfish 5y ago
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/571724-democrats-make-case-to-senate-parliamentarian-for-8-million-green-cards https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/571724-democrats-make-ca... It doesn't "grant citizenship", just provides a pathway for "Dreamers, temporary protected status holders, agricultural and other essential workers" to "getting permanent legal status or a green card". Which may then lead to citizenship if they meet the requirements.
- bbarnett 5y ago
  Ah. So it does have more than climate change issues in it. As a Canuck, I see this as a huge US weakness. These megabills, riders and such. The parent's point is valid. If people cared, really, really cared, it would be a single purpose bill. It would be more effective too, in that, people could legitimately say... this is only about climate change. Nothing else. What part of this do you object to? Right now, it clearly is not, and lo and behold, people can easily reject it, and even have very valid reasons for doing so.
  - bettysdiagnose 5y ago
    I suspect if the US political system weren't so dysfunctional, there wouldn't be any need to roll it into a single mega bill. I don't think it's about caring or not caring. Indeed to suggest that it's evidence that people don't care about it, those are your own projections. I don't think they make sense at all.
  - lelandfe 5y ago
    > What part of this do you object to? Given the lack of success of, well, any major climate change action in the US, this quality would probably not provide much.
  - dillondoyle 5y ago
    If you take it a step further, ask why do we need to use reconciliation and a single megabill, the problem becomes the Senate. The Senate already gives heavy weight to less populated conservative states. add the filibuster rule - which a simple majority can get rid of - and it just amplifies the power of white, conservative men who vote to get re-elected or build for a presidential run. They're voting for what appeals to something like less than 40% of the population. We're talking about giving DREAMers a path to citizenship which is supported by over 75% of voters... I think people really care. It isn't their top issue but it has very broad support. it does look like there is some movement on a standalone bill with at least a couple Republicans supporting it. But I wouldn't hold my breath though. [1] As the original comment shows, one side views it as a 'power grab' to 'dilute' voting power... That's a pretty narrow view and to me reads a small shade of likely racial bias. And back to state elections of Senators, that rhetoric is what wins votes for many of these Rs and that's what drives their decision making. Money too. But that's used to win votes. One hears the same argument against universal vote-by-mail and other anti-suppression measures. A 'vote grab'.. yeah that's the point we should encourage more people to vote! 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/15/us/politics/congress-documented-dreamers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/15/us/politics/congress-docu...
  - stormbrew 5y ago
    Mega bills happen in Canada too. Lots of random stuff is snuck into budget bills, often for similar reasons -- especially in minority parliaments. It allows a kind of brinksmanship; approve the budget or we have an election you'll lose seats in. Harper was particularly fond of them, since most of his term was in a very confrontational minority government.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  I feel like the distinction you’re making is not particularly interesting. It grants a pathway to citizenship to likely-Democrat voters who currently don’t have a pathway to citizenship. So sure there is a process, but it doesn’t change the impact of such a policy.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    I wish more people found being truthful and acurate interesting. Instead hyperbole and outright falsehood abounds and nobody is held accountable for what they say.
Mirioron 5y ago
This is the funny part, isn't it? The article talks about opposition to a bill but doesn't clearly name the bill or even explain its actual contents. The closest it gets is a link to another article that talks about two bills - a social policy bill and an infrastructure bill. One would think that an article in 2021 of a bill or a proposed bill could have a direct reference (preferably a link) to the document in question. From the article that's linked to in the article: >The social policy bill could be transformative for millions of American families. Though the details are fluid and the overall package almost certain to shrink, the proposed legislation would extend the child tax credit, establish universal pre-K education, create a federally paid family and medical leave system, in addition to an array of programs to combat the climate crisis and transition the country toward renewable energy. The plan would be paid for by trillions of dollars in tax increases on the wealthiest Americans and corporations. Maybe Apple and Disney are against the apparently myriad other things in the bill rather than the programs to fight climate change?
- simion314 5y ago
  >Maybe Apple and Disney are against the apparently myriad other things in the bill rather than the programs to fight climate change? They have enough billions so if this bad PR had an effect they would have released a cool designed webpage and a cool video explaining why their move is correct and how they are very green, maybe next week on their strategist thinks is the most effective time this will happen. Anyway I would not waste a keyboard press to try to defend this giants, there are people very well paid to do this job.
- cm2187 5y ago
  And the reason why they are bulked into a single bill is to utilise the budget reconciliation procedure which bypasses the filibuster. I think the filibuster has some merit. If you want to do something controversial (to the point that the opponents are willing to do the physical effort of making speeches 24h a day to stop it), there must be a strong majority of 60%, not just 50%. But there must be some sort of cost to filibusting.
  - shkkmo 5y ago

lelandfe 5y ago

To be fair, the only example of the “many radically left-leaning policies” that they provided was one that had already been removed. I’m not quite sure what we’re confirming or denying here. My understanding of how bill making works, anyway, is that there are usually riders or provisions like this that are known to be, shall we say, sacrificial. They make useful bargaining chips when seeking concessions.

zimpenfish 5y ago

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/571724-democrats-make-case-to-senate-parliamentarian-for-8-million-green-cards https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/571724-democrats-make-ca... It doesn't "grant citizenship", just provides a pathway for "Dreamers, temporary protected status holders, agricultural and other essential workers" to "getting permanent legal status or a green card". Which may then lead to citizenship if they meet the requirements.

bbarnett 5y ago
Ah. So it does have more than climate change issues in it. As a Canuck, I see this as a huge US weakness. These megabills, riders and such. The parent's point is valid. If people cared, really, really cared, it would be a single purpose bill. It would be more effective too, in that, people could legitimately say... this is only about climate change. Nothing else. What part of this do you object to? Right now, it clearly is not, and lo and behold, people can easily reject it, and even have very valid reasons for doing so.
- bettysdiagnose 5y ago
  I suspect if the US political system weren't so dysfunctional, there wouldn't be any need to roll it into a single mega bill. I don't think it's about caring or not caring. Indeed to suggest that it's evidence that people don't care about it, those are your own projections. I don't think they make sense at all.
- lelandfe 5y ago
  > What part of this do you object to? Given the lack of success of, well, any major climate change action in the US, this quality would probably not provide much.
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  If you take it a step further, ask why do we need to use reconciliation and a single megabill, the problem becomes the Senate. The Senate already gives heavy weight to less populated conservative states. add the filibuster rule - which a simple majority can get rid of - and it just amplifies the power of white, conservative men who vote to get re-elected or build for a presidential run. They're voting for what appeals to something like less than 40% of the population. We're talking about giving DREAMers a path to citizenship which is supported by over 75% of voters... I think people really care. It isn't their top issue but it has very broad support. it does look like there is some movement on a standalone bill with at least a couple Republicans supporting it. But I wouldn't hold my breath though. [1] As the original comment shows, one side views it as a 'power grab' to 'dilute' voting power... That's a pretty narrow view and to me reads a small shade of likely racial bias. And back to state elections of Senators, that rhetoric is what wins votes for many of these Rs and that's what drives their decision making. Money too. But that's used to win votes. One hears the same argument against universal vote-by-mail and other anti-suppression measures. A 'vote grab'.. yeah that's the point we should encourage more people to vote! 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/15/us/politics/congress-documented-dreamers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/15/us/politics/congress-docu...
- stormbrew 5y ago
  Mega bills happen in Canada too. Lots of random stuff is snuck into budget bills, often for similar reasons -- especially in minority parliaments. It allows a kind of brinksmanship; approve the budget or we have an election you'll lose seats in. Harper was particularly fond of them, since most of his term was in a very confrontational minority government.
throwawaysea 5y ago
I feel like the distinction you’re making is not particularly interesting. It grants a pathway to citizenship to likely-Democrat voters who currently don’t have a pathway to citizenship. So sure there is a process, but it doesn’t change the impact of such a policy.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  I wish more people found being truthful and acurate interesting. Instead hyperbole and outright falsehood abounds and nobody is held accountable for what they say.

Mirioron 5y ago

This is the funny part, isn't it? The article talks about opposition to a bill but doesn't clearly name the bill or even explain its actual contents. The closest it gets is a link to another article that talks about two bills - a social policy bill and an infrastructure bill. One would think that an article in 2021 of a bill or a proposed bill could have a direct reference (preferably a link) to the document in question. From the article that's linked to in the article: >The social policy bill could be transformative for millions of American families. Though the details are fluid and the overall package almost certain to shrink, the proposed legislation would extend the child tax credit, establish universal pre-K education, create a federally paid family and medical leave system, in addition to an array of programs to combat the climate crisis and transition the country toward renewable energy. The plan would be paid for by trillions of dollars in tax increases on the wealthiest Americans and corporations. Maybe Apple and Disney are against the apparently myriad other things in the bill rather than the programs to fight climate change?

simion314 5y ago
>Maybe Apple and Disney are against the apparently myriad other things in the bill rather than the programs to fight climate change? They have enough billions so if this bad PR had an effect they would have released a cool designed webpage and a cool video explaining why their move is correct and how they are very green, maybe next week on their strategist thinks is the most effective time this will happen. Anyway I would not waste a keyboard press to try to defend this giants, there are people very well paid to do this job.
cm2187 5y ago
And the reason why they are bulked into a single bill is to utilise the budget reconciliation procedure which bypasses the filibuster. I think the filibuster has some merit. If you want to do something controversial (to the point that the opponents are willing to do the physical effort of making speeches 24h a day to stop it), there must be a strong majority of 60%, not just 50%. But there must be some sort of cost to filibusting.
- shkkmo 5y ago