5 ms·

Saying "Congress" isn't advancing it, lets the people responsible avoid blame. While the bills have bipartisan sponsors, only democrats are willing to vote for

Saying "Congress" isn't advancing it, lets the people responsible avoid blame. While the bills have bipartisan sponsors, only democrats are willing to vote for the bill on the house/senate floor. In the senate, republicans are threatening to filibuster the bill, so it cant pass without a supermajority. And the gop-led house refuses to bring the house bill to the floor. 2023 was the least productive Congress since the Great Depression. Passing a total of 23 bills last year. https://www.axios.com/2023/12/19/118-congress-bills-least-unproductive-chart https://www.axios.com/2023/12/19/118-congress-bills-least-un...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ToucanLoucan 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
BitwiseFool 3y ago
Is there some poison pill in the bill? It's a really common tactic for the party in power to put wishlist items in the "Good things for America Act" that they know the opposition cannot support in order to get fodder for making the other side look so unreasonable.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- supertimor 3y ago
  Nah, it’s just an election year. The republicans have been stonewalling everything so they can claim the democrats aren’t getting anything done. They even killed the bipartisan border deal, which they have been asking for for awhile and which initially had Republican support but when their likely nominee told them to drop it, they did.
legitster 3y ago
To just rephrase your point a bit more clearly - there is not even a particular partisan reaction to the bill itself - one of the two parties our government needs to run is currently collapsing in on itself so nothing is getting done.
- deprecative 3y ago
  To rephrase your point a bit more accurately. One of the parties is the party of no. The other is the party of "idk, what do you guys think?"
  - hayst4ck 3y ago
    > One of the parties is the party of no. Not at all. The republican party realized that if they want to push unpopular policy they cannot do it via democratic means. So they made the very strategic decision (and strategically correct, since there have been no consequences for republicans worth mentioning), to gridlock the government and prove that it doesn't work, which directly gives them credibility. They have packed the courts with ideologues from the heritage foundation and then gridlocked the body that does oversight. So in good years they build their power foundation, and in bad years they work on both weakening their opponents power and harming their credibility and exercising the power they built in their good years. That is very very far from being a "party of no". The part of "no compromises" maybe. They are winning. Choosing to defect in a game of prisoners dilemma is rational if you don't think your opponent will defect too or if the cost of their defection is too low. "Speak softly, but carry a big stick" means in the game of prisoners dilemma, cooperate, but be able to punish defection. Democrats don't punish defection. Democrats don't have a big stick. Democrats are just speaking softly. If you want cooperation, you must have the ability to meaningfully defect.
hayst4ck 3y ago
In a "me vs you" situation in the context of the relationship, whoever cares about the relationship the least has the most power. The republican party sees power as the most important goal and are willing to sacrifice the union to get it (US Generals including Milley and Mattis have nearly directly said this and did directly say this in the context of the republican party's king). Democrats on the other hand are like a desperate ex in denial that the relationship has already ended. Both parties are at fault. Being a victim does not disavow a responsibility to seek a better outcome. Blame is the opposite of responsibility and democrats are not taking responsibility. Instead, they are blaming republicans, voters, or the law. None of those things are stopping republicans from exerting increasingly more power. Republicans (republican leaders anyway) don't complain about lack of voter support. They create Fox News to manufacture support, or directly attempt a coup. Republcian's don't complain about malfunctioning courts, they load them with ideologues. Republicans don't complain about lack of voters, they gerrymander districts and concoct schemes to make it harder for voters they don't like to vote. They don't complain about a gridlocked congress, they push policy with the courts instead. Republicans are taking responsibility to achieve the outcomes they want. Democrats are busy jerking themselves with useless result-less blame. So you can blame republicans if you want, but as a fellow liberal leaning person, you should definitely realize that democrats benefit greatly by not having to step up. They don't want to hold corporations feet to the fire any more than republicans do. They can say they do, but franky I do not believe that democrats want to hold corporations to account any more than republicans do. There are a few progressives like AOC and Bernie who do, but the party as a whole is part of the problem, and I think they are a co-equal part. Nancy Pelosi got in front of a camera and said "I have a right to participate in the free market." That's the closest thing to a leader for the democratic party saying they have a right to conflicts of interest. The most powerful democrat during the previous presidency said they have a right to be corrupt. Democrats can say they want to stop congresspersons from trading stock, but they can only say that for the same reason that a couple of republicans are allowed to vote outside of party lines when there are already enough votes. This is just another example of the same behavior.
- kevincrane 3y ago
  I’ve read through this twice and I can’t figure what you’re trying to both-sides here.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

BitwiseFool 3y ago

Is there some poison pill in the bill? It's a really common tactic for the party in power to put wishlist items in the "Good things for America Act" that they know the opposition cannot support in order to get fodder for making the other side look so unreasonable.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
supertimor 3y ago
Nah, it’s just an election year. The republicans have been stonewalling everything so they can claim the democrats aren’t getting anything done. They even killed the bipartisan border deal, which they have been asking for for awhile and which initially had Republican support but when their likely nominee told them to drop it, they did.

legitster 3y ago

To just rephrase your point a bit more clearly - there is not even a particular partisan reaction to the bill itself - one of the two parties our government needs to run is currently collapsing in on itself so nothing is getting done.

deprecative 3y ago
To rephrase your point a bit more accurately. One of the parties is the party of no. The other is the party of "idk, what do you guys think?"
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  > One of the parties is the party of no. Not at all. The republican party realized that if they want to push unpopular policy they cannot do it via democratic means. So they made the very strategic decision (and strategically correct, since there have been no consequences for republicans worth mentioning), to gridlock the government and prove that it doesn't work, which directly gives them credibility. They have packed the courts with ideologues from the heritage foundation and then gridlocked the body that does oversight. So in good years they build their power foundation, and in bad years they work on both weakening their opponents power and harming their credibility and exercising the power they built in their good years. That is very very far from being a "party of no". The part of "no compromises" maybe. They are winning. Choosing to defect in a game of prisoners dilemma is rational if you don't think your opponent will defect too or if the cost of their defection is too low. "Speak softly, but carry a big stick" means in the game of prisoners dilemma, cooperate, but be able to punish defection. Democrats don't punish defection. Democrats don't have a big stick. Democrats are just speaking softly. If you want cooperation, you must have the ability to meaningfully defect.

hayst4ck 3y ago

In a "me vs you" situation in the context of the relationship, whoever cares about the relationship the least has the most power. The republican party sees power as the most important goal and are willing to sacrifice the union to get it (US Generals including Milley and Mattis have nearly directly said this and did directly say this in the context of the republican party's king). Democrats on the other hand are like a desperate ex in denial that the relationship has already ended. Both parties are at fault. Being a victim does not disavow a responsibility to seek a better outcome. Blame is the opposite of responsibility and democrats are not taking responsibility. Instead, they are blaming republicans, voters, or the law. None of those things are stopping republicans from exerting increasingly more power. Republicans (republican leaders anyway) don't complain about lack of voter support. They create Fox News to manufacture support, or directly attempt a coup. Republcian's don't complain about malfunctioning courts, they load them with ideologues. Republicans don't complain about lack of voters, they gerrymander districts and concoct schemes to make it harder for voters they don't like to vote. They don't complain about a gridlocked congress, they push policy with the courts instead. Republicans are taking responsibility to achieve the outcomes they want. Democrats are busy jerking themselves with useless result-less blame. So you can blame republicans if you want, but as a fellow liberal leaning person, you should definitely realize that democrats benefit greatly by not having to step up. They don't want to hold corporations feet to the fire any more than republicans do. They can say they do, but franky I do not believe that democrats want to hold corporations to account any more than republicans do. There are a few progressives like AOC and Bernie who do, but the party as a whole is part of the problem, and I think they are a co-equal part. Nancy Pelosi got in front of a camera and said "I have a right to participate in the free market." That's the closest thing to a leader for the democratic party saying they have a right to conflicts of interest. The most powerful democrat during the previous presidency said they have a right to be corrupt. Democrats can say they want to stop congresspersons from trading stock, but they can only say that for the same reason that a couple of republicans are allowed to vote outside of party lines when there are already enough votes. This is just another example of the same behavior.

kevincrane 3y ago
I’ve read through this twice and I can’t figure what you’re trying to both-sides here.