7 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - jtbayly 4y ago
    The point seemed clear to me that Supreme Court deserved what it had coming to it if they did stuff that "blew up in their faces."
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - jonhohle 4y ago
    I remember the hearings around MLB steroid use and discussions on whether new federal laws should be written to “prevent” drugs that were already illegal (or in breach of contract) from being used by an entertainment industry. If the executive branch wasn’t investigating existing laws That already applied, what effect would new laws that were more narrowly defined provide? It seemed so stupid until considered from the perspective that MLB superstars were getting a lot of media time and politicians weren’t. Now they had a chance to butt in and spend the majority of the time in front of the camera on a subject they were likely briefed on moments before any “hearings”. After participating (very briefly) in a local precinct political process within a single party a few years later, I’ve effectively lost hope in the political process. There are self-serving, narcissistic sociopaths who will do anything for perceived power and well funded entities who will prevent anything truly populist from gaining traction. I feel like the disillusionment it breeds is intentional.
    - rjbwork 4y ago
      >I feel like the disillusionment it breeds is intentional. Absolutely. Demoralization of the proletariat is priority number one for the bourgeoisie. You don't have to spend huge amounts of resources fighting them if there is no one to fight in the first place.
least 4y ago
> Basically - few of these bills have ANY impact on 99% of us. That does not mean they are a waste of time, however. There are a lot of impactful bills. Just because they don't personally affect or benefit you does not mean that they're not doing anything. It's not even really much of congress' fault. The power in both houses (especially the House of Representatives) has become very top heavy. That is not an indication that representatives aren't trying to do things, just that they are getting stonewalled by leaders like Nancy Pelosi.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  You could have stopped at the first half and had a mostly coherent point that I would agree with. Some of these bills do indeed matter, in the sense that someone has to deal with them at some point, and I expect many bills in most sessions to appear somewhat similiar. But they are hardly real attempts to tackle the problems we're facing, and I'd argue we're not even treading water on serious, serious issues we're facing as a country. It's like watering your house plants while the house burns down. Technically - someone should be watering the plants. Is it really the right priority at the moment?
  - least 4y ago
    > You could have stopped at the first half and had a mostly coherent point that I would agree with. You could have also just stated that the legislature has been ineffective at passing legislation that is important to you, and you'd have had a mostly coherent point. Instead you went out of your way to diminish what did pass as unimportant. Juneteenth maybe isn't important to you but it certainly is important to a lot of people and naming it a national public holiday is seen as a significant gesture by many. Naming a memorial site for the victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting is important. Increasing access to mental health services for veterans in rural areas is important. Banning crib bumpers is important to... anyone that may have a child or already has a baby? There's plenty of examples like this that you deemed unimportant. > But [there] are hardly real attempts to tackle the problems we're facing, and I'd argue we're not even treading water on serious, serious issues we're facing as a country. There are actually a lot of real attempts, but, as I already mentioned, legislators get stonewalled by the leaders in their respective houses. It's very hard to introduce legislation and have it go anywhere because the power resides mostly within the leadership. Individual congresspeople have very little power. If you don't understand how the legislative process actually works of course it'll seem like they're simply not doing anything. > It's like watering your house plants while the house burns down. Technically - someone should be watering the plants. Is it really the right priority at the moment? It's more like eating or taking a shit; they're necessary and important even if they're mundane and there are "more important" matters to attend to. They take up time but they don't prevent you from accomplishing other things in your day. While I can appreciate that you characterize your agenda as super important stuff that absolutely needs to be addressed yesterday, you're not the only one that feels that way and what's super important to you is probably not the same as someone else.
themacguffinman 4y ago
It seems kind of disingenuous to dismiss useful bills like infrastructure ones as "minor" and "few". A single bill can contain many changes and carry huge amounts of funding, like HR3684 or perhaps better known as the "Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act". Seems like a pretty major omission from your bill summary. I'm not sure what you're expecting, The US Congress doesn't and shouldn't be passing a lot of huge sweeping changes every single year. When it's not passing huge sweeping economic changes, legislative bookkeeping is another critical job. It's not "nothing substantial". Planning bills, department/agency confirmations, and grant renewals are all important duties that keep the country running which does impact 99% of us. The OP's comment did not say "Congress doesn't move fast enough", it said Congress doesn't do anything beyond expand police/military and social issues. That's evidently not true.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > The US Congress doesn't and shouldn't be passing a lot of huge sweeping changes every single year. If everything were going great I'd agree with you, but "a lot of huge sweeping changes" is what we need and it's exactly what the American people have been asking for. Where's the federal law America wants to end prohibition on marijuana? Campaign finance reform? Internet privacy? Gerrymandering? Immigration? Consumer protections? Healthcare? Domestic Surveillance? Mass incarceration? Climate change? Education? Congress isn't doing just fine, it isn't "not moving fast enough", it's broken. It's failing to serve the interests of the American people year after year after year. There is so much that needs done and so many people being hurt because none of it is getting addressed.
  - themacguffinman 4y ago
    The American people ask for conflicting things. Marijuana is a partisan issue, campaign finance reform, gerrymandering, immigration, healthcare, education, climate change, mass incarceration etc are intensely partisan issues. Polarization rightfully makes change slow in a representative democracy. No matter how you as an individual feels about the urgency or necessity of your favorite causes, there are people who feel just as strongly about doing something different or not doing things at all.

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.
- jtbayly 4y ago
  The point seemed clear to me that Supreme Court deserved what it had coming to it if they did stuff that "blew up in their faces."
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- jonhohle 4y ago
  I remember the hearings around MLB steroid use and discussions on whether new federal laws should be written to “prevent” drugs that were already illegal (or in breach of contract) from being used by an entertainment industry. If the executive branch wasn’t investigating existing laws That already applied, what effect would new laws that were more narrowly defined provide? It seemed so stupid until considered from the perspective that MLB superstars were getting a lot of media time and politicians weren’t. Now they had a chance to butt in and spend the majority of the time in front of the camera on a subject they were likely briefed on moments before any “hearings”. After participating (very briefly) in a local precinct political process within a single party a few years later, I’ve effectively lost hope in the political process. There are self-serving, narcissistic sociopaths who will do anything for perceived power and well funded entities who will prevent anything truly populist from gaining traction. I feel like the disillusionment it breeds is intentional.
  - rjbwork 4y ago
    >I feel like the disillusionment it breeds is intentional. Absolutely. Demoralization of the proletariat is priority number one for the bourgeoisie. You don't have to spend huge amounts of resources fighting them if there is no one to fight in the first place.

least 4y ago

> Basically - few of these bills have ANY impact on 99% of us. That does not mean they are a waste of time, however. There are a lot of impactful bills. Just because they don't personally affect or benefit you does not mean that they're not doing anything. It's not even really much of congress' fault. The power in both houses (especially the House of Representatives) has become very top heavy. That is not an indication that representatives aren't trying to do things, just that they are getting stonewalled by leaders like Nancy Pelosi.

horsawlarway 4y ago
You could have stopped at the first half and had a mostly coherent point that I would agree with. Some of these bills do indeed matter, in the sense that someone has to deal with them at some point, and I expect many bills in most sessions to appear somewhat similiar. But they are hardly real attempts to tackle the problems we're facing, and I'd argue we're not even treading water on serious, serious issues we're facing as a country. It's like watering your house plants while the house burns down. Technically - someone should be watering the plants. Is it really the right priority at the moment?
- least 4y ago
  > You could have stopped at the first half and had a mostly coherent point that I would agree with. You could have also just stated that the legislature has been ineffective at passing legislation that is important to you, and you'd have had a mostly coherent point. Instead you went out of your way to diminish what did pass as unimportant. Juneteenth maybe isn't important to you but it certainly is important to a lot of people and naming it a national public holiday is seen as a significant gesture by many. Naming a memorial site for the victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting is important. Increasing access to mental health services for veterans in rural areas is important. Banning crib bumpers is important to... anyone that may have a child or already has a baby? There's plenty of examples like this that you deemed unimportant. > But [there] are hardly real attempts to tackle the problems we're facing, and I'd argue we're not even treading water on serious, serious issues we're facing as a country. There are actually a lot of real attempts, but, as I already mentioned, legislators get stonewalled by the leaders in their respective houses. It's very hard to introduce legislation and have it go anywhere because the power resides mostly within the leadership. Individual congresspeople have very little power. If you don't understand how the legislative process actually works of course it'll seem like they're simply not doing anything. > It's like watering your house plants while the house burns down. Technically - someone should be watering the plants. Is it really the right priority at the moment? It's more like eating or taking a shit; they're necessary and important even if they're mundane and there are "more important" matters to attend to. They take up time but they don't prevent you from accomplishing other things in your day. While I can appreciate that you characterize your agenda as super important stuff that absolutely needs to be addressed yesterday, you're not the only one that feels that way and what's super important to you is probably not the same as someone else.

themacguffinman 4y ago

It seems kind of disingenuous to dismiss useful bills like infrastructure ones as "minor" and "few". A single bill can contain many changes and carry huge amounts of funding, like HR3684 or perhaps better known as the "Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act". Seems like a pretty major omission from your bill summary. I'm not sure what you're expecting, The US Congress doesn't and shouldn't be passing a lot of huge sweeping changes every single year. When it's not passing huge sweeping economic changes, legislative bookkeeping is another critical job. It's not "nothing substantial". Planning bills, department/agency confirmations, and grant renewals are all important duties that keep the country running which does impact 99% of us. The OP's comment did not say "Congress doesn't move fast enough", it said Congress doesn't do anything beyond expand police/military and social issues. That's evidently not true.

autoexec 4y ago
> The US Congress doesn't and shouldn't be passing a lot of huge sweeping changes every single year. If everything were going great I'd agree with you, but "a lot of huge sweeping changes" is what we need and it's exactly what the American people have been asking for. Where's the federal law America wants to end prohibition on marijuana? Campaign finance reform? Internet privacy? Gerrymandering? Immigration? Consumer protections? Healthcare? Domestic Surveillance? Mass incarceration? Climate change? Education? Congress isn't doing just fine, it isn't "not moving fast enough", it's broken. It's failing to serve the interests of the American people year after year after year. There is so much that needs done and so many people being hurt because none of it is getting addressed.
- themacguffinman 4y ago
  The American people ask for conflicting things. Marijuana is a partisan issue, campaign finance reform, gerrymandering, immigration, healthcare, education, climate change, mass incarceration etc are intensely partisan issues. Polarization rightfully makes change slow in a representative democracy. No matter how you as an individual feels about the urgency or necessity of your favorite causes, there are people who feel just as strongly about doing something different or not doing things at all.