3 ms·

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 closes

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
  > to the point that the opponents are willing to do the physical effort of making speeches 24h a day to stop it That is a common misconception. The modern filibuster doesn't actually require legislators to work that hard and is now generally purely procedural.
  - cm2187 5y ago
    I agree, it used to, and it should. There must be some sort of penalty to use it only when it really matters, and a physical penalty is one way to do it.
- sofixa 5y ago
  > 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. In theory, yes. But in practice the US is a two party state, and parliamentarians usually vote along party lines ( because, at the very least, that party controls if they can run for re-election or not). The US needs proportional representation like.. a few decades ago.
- stormbrew 5y ago
  Since the Senate is not even theoretically a proportional house (like the House of Reps is supposed to be but can't be due to the cap on members), demanding a 60% member threshold to pass every single bill means the number of voters it takes to pass a bill gets into ridiculous 70-80% territory. It does not make any sense in any universe to take a legislative body that is already counter-majoritarian and then add on even more counter-majoritarian rules and procedures on top. The thing about 'real' filibusters vs. the pretend one in the US Senate isn't just that they cost something, it's that they are generally doomed to fail if that's all you have. Even endless talking has historically been rarely enough on its own to prevent a bill from passing in most legislatures. It can be an opportunity to bring attention to the issue and make legislators have to listen to their voters, or to convince other legislators to reconsider. But something else has to happen or eventually the bill will have to be tabled anyways. But I think people fail to recognize this, because the concept of filibuster in the US has been so thoroughly distorted by this broken rule. Even if the filibuster required actually doing an endless talk, it would still not be sufficiently democratic if they could simply run out a clock and the bill was defeated -- in fact, that would perhaps be even worse since it would allow any given member to exercise an unreasonable amount of control over the body as a whole that currently at least requires some degree of unity among the minority party.

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
> to the point that the opponents are willing to do the physical effort of making speeches 24h a day to stop it That is a common misconception. The modern filibuster doesn't actually require legislators to work that hard and is now generally purely procedural.
- cm2187 5y ago
  I agree, it used to, and it should. There must be some sort of penalty to use it only when it really matters, and a physical penalty is one way to do it.
sofixa 5y ago
> 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. In theory, yes. But in practice the US is a two party state, and parliamentarians usually vote along party lines ( because, at the very least, that party controls if they can run for re-election or not). The US needs proportional representation like.. a few decades ago.
stormbrew 5y ago
Since the Senate is not even theoretically a proportional house (like the House of Reps is supposed to be but can't be due to the cap on members), demanding a 60% member threshold to pass every single bill means the number of voters it takes to pass a bill gets into ridiculous 70-80% territory. It does not make any sense in any universe to take a legislative body that is already counter-majoritarian and then add on even more counter-majoritarian rules and procedures on top. The thing about 'real' filibusters vs. the pretend one in the US Senate isn't just that they cost something, it's that they are generally doomed to fail if that's all you have. Even endless talking has historically been rarely enough on its own to prevent a bill from passing in most legislatures. It can be an opportunity to bring attention to the issue and make legislators have to listen to their voters, or to convince other legislators to reconsider. But something else has to happen or eventually the bill will have to be tabled anyways. But I think people fail to recognize this, because the concept of filibuster in the US has been so thoroughly distorted by this broken rule. Even if the filibuster required actually doing an endless talk, it would still not be sufficiently democratic if they could simply run out a clock and the bill was defeated -- in fact, that would perhaps be even worse since it would allow any given member to exercise an unreasonable amount of control over the body as a whole that currently at least requires some degree of unity among the minority party.