9 ms·

Trying to engage with this comment in good faith is very difficult. The best case I can come up with is you are engaging in significant hyperbole to push forwar

Trying to engage with this comment in good faith is very difficult. The best case I can come up with is you are engaging in significant hyperbole to push forward some point you are passionate about. Congress has passed nearly a hundred bills in the last year alone. We don’t hear about them because Congress agrees and does it job is not interesting or newsworthy. We do hear nonstop about the divisive issues that the parties are split on and can’t find common ground. There is no half abortion or half gun seizure. I quickly glanced at those hundred bills and didn’t see much in the way of expanding police power or military conquest of Europe and Asia.

feet 4y ago
Have you heard of think tanks? There are groups like ALECS that literally write legislation at the behest of corporations, it's been a problem for a long time. The reason you think it isn't in good faith is likely due to corporate owned media pushing specific narratives to keep workers placated
- User23 4y ago
  With minor exceptions like grandstanding bills that are never meant to make it to a vote let alone pass, no federal legislation is written by legislators or even their staffs. I can’t find it, but there was a case not so long ago when the senate accidentally voted for one of those grandstanding bills. Maybe somebody else recalls the particulars. In any event it’s clear to any intelligent observer that the actual dynamics of governance put a lie to the fiction that our system functions as a representative republic.
  - diogenescynic 4y ago
    >I can’t find it, but there was a case not so long ago when the senate accidentally voted for one of those grandstanding bills. Maybe somebody else recalls the particulars. The last example I recall was when republicans passed an over-ride of Obama's veto on the bill to allow victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia then once it passed were worried about the actual consequences.
- boppo1 4y ago
  What media do you get your information from?
  - feet 4y ago
    While it is American-centric, PBS news hour is one decently solid option I also get information from corporate media but I always keep in mind the purpose of the angle of their reporting and always ignore all opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are always trash
glenstein 4y ago
Right. This is boring, and therefore not fun to talk about. But it's extremely clear that there are substantial differences between the parties to the point that I don't know how to have a conversation with someone who wants to deny this, and talking about the No Surprises Act (for instance) won't lead to a flamewar, so you won't hear about it.
- rayiner 4y ago
  I don’t think OP is denying that there are differences between the parties. But the first two years of Biden’s administration was a win for the McConnell wing of the Republican Party. The only significant economic measure that was passed was covid relief, which republicans were for (because Trump did it) before they were against it. There were no tax hikes and no expanded social programs (apart from temporary expansion of the child tax credit). It’s hard to deny that the result of the current democratic strategy is not meaningfully different from what Mitch McConnell wants, whether it’s deliberate or not. And I do think it’s deliberate to a significant extent. The current Democratic coalition has a lot of people, especially in the donor base, that are basically socially liberal Republicans. If forced to choose between issues, they care more about legalized abortion than labor unions. Of course these folks avoid any acknowledgement that these goals are in conflict, but that’s obviously wrong. Politics is about assembling a coalition that can command a voting majority. Political capital is a finite resource. Obviously spending significant political capital on an issue like abortion—where about 1 out of 5 democrats disagrees with the rest of the party—will mean less political capital available for making the child tax credit permanent. It’s math.
  - cycrutchfield 4y ago
    The current composition of the senate, 50-50, and the antiquated filibuster process, mean that the senate cannot do anything without bipartisan consensus. Not sure why you are railing about democrats that are secretly republicans when that is clearly not the issue.
    - rayiner 4y ago
atwood22 4y ago
Responding to this comment in good faith is easy: just examine legislation that was split along party lines and show that there are substantial differences between the parties on non-social issues. That would be a very convincing argument grounded in fact rather than impressions.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mbesto 4y ago
> Congress has passed nearly a hundred bills in the last year alone. A patent troll can create hundreds of patents per year and never release a single product. The quantitative aspect is meaningless without the qualitative. > I quickly glanced at those hundred bills and didn’t see much in the way of expanding police power or military conquest of Europe and Asia. Bills regularly get stuffed with unrelated compromises. I can't totally refute the idea that there are police power expansions on this bills or not, HOWEVER nor can you with your rudimentary analysis.
trasz 4y ago
>We don’t hear about them because Congress agrees and does it job is not interesting or newsworthy. Well, yes, that's the point - given that both parties represent the capital-owning class, no wonder they mostly agree.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Parties literally never do anything: they must be owned by the capital-owning class Parties always agree: they must be owned by the capital-owning class My pizza is late: they must be owned by the capital owning class If your explanation works to explain everything, you've just found a very long synonym for "magic" and you don't actually have an explanation.
  - nemothekid 4y ago
    I don’t see how your 3rd point tracks; it doesn’t work for why the pizza is late. Why would the pizza being late be caused by the pizza being owned by the capital class? What motivation does the capital class have in my pizza being late? You are trying to gish gallop the argument with a completely unfounded quip about “magic”.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      That's not a gish gallop, I only made one argument. A gish gallop is when you throw out a bunch of arguments at once, hope your opponent misses one in their reply and then call out their failure to respond. If you're going to call a fallacy, please do so correctly. It makes exactly as much sense for all three cases. "Capital Owners" have no desire for price transparency (2019), Covid stimulus (2020) or most other things congress does. Certainly not supporting sanctions that torch the oil and fuel needing industries in Europe. If being beholden to the capital owners can be used as an excuse for anything congress does that you don't like, I can also use it as an excuse for my pizza being late.
      - nemothekid 4y ago
        >It makes exactly as much sense for all three cases. "Capital Owners" have no desire for price transparency (2019), Covid stimulus (2020) or most other things congress does You are still assigning unfounded assertions to the capital class? The capital class has no desire for COVID stimulus? Why? Did you not see the stock market completely shit itself in September - and every economist saying the only way out was a stimulus? Likewise price transparency? I assume you are talking about healthcare; but corporations also have an interest in reducing healthcare costs as for most of the Forbes 500, health insurance is a massive HR cost. “Price transparency” is the same neoliberal concession for a country who’s working class desperately needs public healthcare. It doesn’t meaningfully change the situation for working class individuals What you are doing is treating the capital class like some evil boogeyman instead of a motivated class of individuals looking to protect their wealth from institutional redistribution. I’m talking about corporate regulation, protections for unions, and most well funded social programs. Reducing a well researched phenomenon to “blaming capital owners that my pizza is late” is profoundly myopic
turns0ut 4y ago
horsawlarway 4y ago
> Congress has passed nearly a hundred bills in the last year alone. Honest question - Have you read most of the descriptions? Because I have (literally every single one) and with exception for a few aimed at Russia, the vast majority of them are the equivalent of legislative bookkeeping. They are nothing of substance. The most common are simple names changes of federal properties, or grants of federal properties to cities nearby so they can assume management. Then come the "award" bills, that grant a medal to someone, or put a statue somewhere. Then we have a few relatively minor infrastructure funding bills, and a couple changes to how the federal military programs handle training. A couple of these are simple extensions of existing programs (ex: SB4119/SB2102) Then a few "planning" bills - which basically outline that "something bad" is happening and we should probably attempt to figure out why (ex: SB66). Or the "something bad happened, we know why, it's mostly been addressed, but congress will pass a bill anyway to look good" (ex: HB3182) ----- Basically, I take away from your comment that you're actually agreeing with the top poster, and you simply don't know it. > We don’t hear about them because Congress agrees and does it job is not interesting or newsworthy. Yes - they passed a bunch of bills that are not interesting because there is nothing substantial in them - they mostly just don't matter. They are COMPLETELY business as usual. No attempt to address the more critical issues that we face. Conspicuously absent? Climate action, Tech regulation, Energy funding and independence (again - outside of the context of russia). Basically - few of these bills have ANY impact on 99% of us. They definitely did pass SB4160 though - have to make sure the supreme court is protected in case their decisions blow up in their face.
- jtbayly 4y ago
  Yeah, who would want to protect government officials? /s
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    They already have it in copious forms from other laws. So basically - it's another showboat law, which is the point of the whole comment. Seems you missed the point.
    - 4y ago
yucky 4y ago
>Congress has passed nearly a hundred bills in the last year alone. What does that mean though? Where is the anti trust legislation?
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Stuck in the senate where it needs 60 votes
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    The state-venue anti-trust bill passed the Senate and is stuck in the House. There a multiple anti-trust bills.
  - yucky 4y ago
    Can you cite the actual bill?
zzzeek 4y ago
you went from accusing the parent of "you are engaging in significant hyperbole" to making the statement "There is no half gun seizure". There's lots and lots of gun control legislation people would like to enact, can you show the ones that indicate the "seizure" of any existing weapons at all? The nature of gun control legislation, whether one is in favor or not, is extremely incremental, and all of the legislation that aims to restrict certain kinds of weapons always applies to the manufacture and sale, never existing legal ownership. Not sure where you got the term "gun seizure" from but that is beyond "hyperbole" because it's not even true in any sense.
diogenescynic 4y ago
Then why has Pelosi stalled passing a bill to restrict members of Congress from trading stock using insider information? Democrats are barely any better than republicans and comparably corrupt--they just offer better lip service.
bparsons 4y ago
Yeah man, everything is going great in the US. Extremely functional government.
Barrin92 4y ago
>Congress has passed nearly a hundred bills in the last year alone They could pass a thousand bills and it wouldn't mean much. The question is if the bills actually do anything. Take a look at the top post from the discussion here yesterday[1] on the European markets act. When is any of this coming to the US? We don't hear anything about the legislation that is being passed because it's not worth the paper its being printed on. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32163704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32163704
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Yup. I bring this up all the time. Turn on Cspan nearly any time congress is in session and you'll see bills passing just fine.

feet 4y ago

Have you heard of think tanks? There are groups like ALECS that literally write legislation at the behest of corporations, it's been a problem for a long time. The reason you think it isn't in good faith is likely due to corporate owned media pushing specific narratives to keep workers placated

User23 4y ago
With minor exceptions like grandstanding bills that are never meant to make it to a vote let alone pass, no federal legislation is written by legislators or even their staffs. I can’t find it, but there was a case not so long ago when the senate accidentally voted for one of those grandstanding bills. Maybe somebody else recalls the particulars. In any event it’s clear to any intelligent observer that the actual dynamics of governance put a lie to the fiction that our system functions as a representative republic.
- diogenescynic 4y ago
  >I can’t find it, but there was a case not so long ago when the senate accidentally voted for one of those grandstanding bills. Maybe somebody else recalls the particulars. The last example I recall was when republicans passed an over-ride of Obama's veto on the bill to allow victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia then once it passed were worried about the actual consequences.
boppo1 4y ago
What media do you get your information from?
- feet 4y ago
  While it is American-centric, PBS news hour is one decently solid option I also get information from corporate media but I always keep in mind the purpose of the angle of their reporting and always ignore all opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are always trash

glenstein 4y ago

Right. This is boring, and therefore not fun to talk about. But it's extremely clear that there are substantial differences between the parties to the point that I don't know how to have a conversation with someone who wants to deny this, and talking about the No Surprises Act (for instance) won't lead to a flamewar, so you won't hear about it.

rayiner 4y ago
I don’t think OP is denying that there are differences between the parties. But the first two years of Biden’s administration was a win for the McConnell wing of the Republican Party. The only significant economic measure that was passed was covid relief, which republicans were for (because Trump did it) before they were against it. There were no tax hikes and no expanded social programs (apart from temporary expansion of the child tax credit). It’s hard to deny that the result of the current democratic strategy is not meaningfully different from what Mitch McConnell wants, whether it’s deliberate or not. And I do think it’s deliberate to a significant extent. The current Democratic coalition has a lot of people, especially in the donor base, that are basically socially liberal Republicans. If forced to choose between issues, they care more about legalized abortion than labor unions. Of course these folks avoid any acknowledgement that these goals are in conflict, but that’s obviously wrong. Politics is about assembling a coalition that can command a voting majority. Political capital is a finite resource. Obviously spending significant political capital on an issue like abortion—where about 1 out of 5 democrats disagrees with the rest of the party—will mean less political capital available for making the child tax credit permanent. It’s math.
- cycrutchfield 4y ago
  The current composition of the senate, 50-50, and the antiquated filibuster process, mean that the senate cannot do anything without bipartisan consensus. Not sure why you are railing about democrats that are secretly republicans when that is clearly not the issue.
  - rayiner 4y ago

atwood22 4y ago

Responding to this comment in good faith is easy: just examine legislation that was split along party lines and show that there are substantial differences between the parties on non-social issues. That would be a very convincing argument grounded in fact rather than impressions.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mbesto 4y ago

> Congress has passed nearly a hundred bills in the last year alone. A patent troll can create hundreds of patents per year and never release a single product. The quantitative aspect is meaningless without the qualitative. > I quickly glanced at those hundred bills and didn’t see much in the way of expanding police power or military conquest of Europe and Asia. Bills regularly get stuffed with unrelated compromises. I can't totally refute the idea that there are police power expansions on this bills or not, HOWEVER nor can you with your rudimentary analysis.

trasz 4y ago

>We don’t hear about them because Congress agrees and does it job is not interesting or newsworthy. Well, yes, that's the point - given that both parties represent the capital-owning class, no wonder they mostly agree.

vorpalhex 4y ago
Parties literally never do anything: they must be owned by the capital-owning class Parties always agree: they must be owned by the capital-owning class My pizza is late: they must be owned by the capital owning class If your explanation works to explain everything, you've just found a very long synonym for "magic" and you don't actually have an explanation.
- nemothekid 4y ago
  I don’t see how your 3rd point tracks; it doesn’t work for why the pizza is late. Why would the pizza being late be caused by the pizza being owned by the capital class? What motivation does the capital class have in my pizza being late? You are trying to gish gallop the argument with a completely unfounded quip about “magic”.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    That's not a gish gallop, I only made one argument. A gish gallop is when you throw out a bunch of arguments at once, hope your opponent misses one in their reply and then call out their failure to respond. If you're going to call a fallacy, please do so correctly. It makes exactly as much sense for all three cases. "Capital Owners" have no desire for price transparency (2019), Covid stimulus (2020) or most other things congress does. Certainly not supporting sanctions that torch the oil and fuel needing industries in Europe. If being beholden to the capital owners can be used as an excuse for anything congress does that you don't like, I can also use it as an excuse for my pizza being late.
    - nemothekid 4y ago
      >It makes exactly as much sense for all three cases. "Capital Owners" have no desire for price transparency (2019), Covid stimulus (2020) or most other things congress does You are still assigning unfounded assertions to the capital class? The capital class has no desire for COVID stimulus? Why? Did you not see the stock market completely shit itself in September - and every economist saying the only way out was a stimulus? Likewise price transparency? I assume you are talking about healthcare; but corporations also have an interest in reducing healthcare costs as for most of the Forbes 500, health insurance is a massive HR cost. “Price transparency” is the same neoliberal concession for a country who’s working class desperately needs public healthcare. It doesn’t meaningfully change the situation for working class individuals What you are doing is treating the capital class like some evil boogeyman instead of a motivated class of individuals looking to protect their wealth from institutional redistribution. I’m talking about corporate regulation, protections for unions, and most well funded social programs. Reducing a well researched phenomenon to “blaming capital owners that my pizza is late” is profoundly myopic

turns0ut 4y ago

horsawlarway 4y ago

> Congress has passed nearly a hundred bills in the last year alone. Honest question - Have you read most of the descriptions? Because I have (literally every single one) and with exception for a few aimed at Russia, the vast majority of them are the equivalent of legislative bookkeeping. They are nothing of substance. The most common are simple names changes of federal properties, or grants of federal properties to cities nearby so they can assume management. Then come the "award" bills, that grant a medal to someone, or put a statue somewhere. Then we have a few relatively minor infrastructure funding bills, and a couple changes to how the federal military programs handle training. A couple of these are simple extensions of existing programs (ex: SB4119/SB2102) Then a few "planning" bills - which basically outline that "something bad" is happening and we should probably attempt to figure out why (ex: SB66). Or the "something bad happened, we know why, it's mostly been addressed, but congress will pass a bill anyway to look good" (ex: HB3182) ----- Basically, I take away from your comment that you're actually agreeing with the top poster, and you simply don't know it. > We don’t hear about them because Congress agrees and does it job is not interesting or newsworthy. Yes - they passed a bunch of bills that are not interesting because there is nothing substantial in them - they mostly just don't matter. They are COMPLETELY business as usual. No attempt to address the more critical issues that we face. Conspicuously absent? Climate action, Tech regulation, Energy funding and independence (again - outside of the context of russia). Basically - few of these bills have ANY impact on 99% of us. They definitely did pass SB4160 though - have to make sure the supreme court is protected in case their decisions blow up in their face.

jtbayly 4y ago
Yeah, who would want to protect government officials? /s
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  They already have it in copious forms from other laws. So basically - it's another showboat law, which is the point of the whole comment. Seems you missed the point.
  - 4y ago

yucky 4y ago

>Congress has passed nearly a hundred bills in the last year alone. What does that mean though? Where is the anti trust legislation?

colinmhayes 4y ago
Stuck in the senate where it needs 60 votes
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  The state-venue anti-trust bill passed the Senate and is stuck in the House. There a multiple anti-trust bills.
- yucky 4y ago
  Can you cite the actual bill?

zzzeek 4y ago

you went from accusing the parent of "you are engaging in significant hyperbole" to making the statement "There is no half gun seizure". There's lots and lots of gun control legislation people would like to enact, can you show the ones that indicate the "seizure" of any existing weapons at all? The nature of gun control legislation, whether one is in favor or not, is extremely incremental, and all of the legislation that aims to restrict certain kinds of weapons always applies to the manufacture and sale, never existing legal ownership. Not sure where you got the term "gun seizure" from but that is beyond "hyperbole" because it's not even true in any sense.

diogenescynic 4y ago

Then why has Pelosi stalled passing a bill to restrict members of Congress from trading stock using insider information? Democrats are barely any better than republicans and comparably corrupt--they just offer better lip service.

bparsons 4y ago

Yeah man, everything is going great in the US. Extremely functional government.

Barrin92 4y ago

>Congress has passed nearly a hundred bills in the last year alone They could pass a thousand bills and it wouldn't mean much. The question is if the bills actually do anything. Take a look at the top post from the discussion here yesterday[1] on the European markets act. When is any of this coming to the US? We don't hear anything about the legislation that is being passed because it's not worth the paper its being printed on. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32163704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32163704

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

Yup. I bring this up all the time. Turn on Cspan nearly any time congress is in session and you'll see bills passing just fine.