3 ms·

Buffett's suggestion, while elegant, would require that Congress passes legislation on this, which there's zero percent chance that it would, in its present sta

by ein0p 2y ago

Buffett's suggestion, while elegant, would require that Congress passes legislation on this, which there's zero percent chance that it would, in its present state.

leereeves 2y ago
I fear that Congress will be unable to pass anything that isn't a budget resolution for the foreseeable future. The filibuster rule requires bipartisan agreement to implement any proposed policy, and neither party wants to give an administration from the other party any kind of win. Perversely, the better the idea, the less likely it is to pass Congress. Better idea -> it will be successful -> it will be popular -> the administration will benefit politically -> the other party will oppose it -> it won't get 60 votes in the Senate -> it won't become law
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  I see the current situation as essentially the best ad for “Congress” (however slow or ineffectual) that one could write.
margalabargala 2y ago
The current state of the government is that Congress has tacitly ceded their power to the President. They are allowing him to do things that generally would not be permitted with out Congressional approval, because the majority is aligned with him anyway. An intelligent or competent leader who had the power currently enjoyed by the President would be able to implement the system suggested by Buffet, and it would likely see less opposition than the current tariffs have.
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  An intelligent or competent leader probably wouldn’t be in power in a situation like this. This is a situation that arises when the partisans have chosen blind allegiance to a cult of personality over the kind of messy politics you get when you have to try to win the allegiance of a party by proposing policy that a majority can get behind.
- ein0p 2y ago
  Actually, no. They haven't "ceded" a damn thing. If they did, the GOP would be working on Trump's legislative agenda, which is something it's been sabotaging again and again in spite of having a slim majority in both the House and the Senate. The plan seems to be: sabotage until midterms, then lose one or both majorities to dems, and raise money off "gracefully losing" for the remaining 2 years of Trump's term. That was the plan 8 years ago, too. It worked.

by ein0p 2y ago

Buffett's suggestion, while elegant, would require that Congress passes legislation on this, which there's zero percent chance that it would, in its present state.

leereeves 2y ago

I fear that Congress will be unable to pass anything that isn't a budget resolution for the foreseeable future. The filibuster rule requires bipartisan agreement to implement any proposed policy, and neither party wants to give an administration from the other party any kind of win. Perversely, the better the idea, the less likely it is to pass Congress. Better idea -> it will be successful -> it will be popular -> the administration will benefit politically -> the other party will oppose it -> it won't get 60 votes in the Senate -> it won't become law

matthewdgreen 2y ago
I see the current situation as essentially the best ad for “Congress” (however slow or ineffectual) that one could write.

margalabargala 2y ago

The current state of the government is that Congress has tacitly ceded their power to the President. They are allowing him to do things that generally would not be permitted with out Congressional approval, because the majority is aligned with him anyway. An intelligent or competent leader who had the power currently enjoyed by the President would be able to implement the system suggested by Buffet, and it would likely see less opposition than the current tariffs have.

matthewdgreen 2y ago
An intelligent or competent leader probably wouldn’t be in power in a situation like this. This is a situation that arises when the partisans have chosen blind allegiance to a cult of personality over the kind of messy politics you get when you have to try to win the allegiance of a party by proposing policy that a majority can get behind.
ein0p 2y ago
Actually, no. They haven't "ceded" a damn thing. If they did, the GOP would be working on Trump's legislative agenda, which is something it's been sabotaging again and again in spite of having a slim majority in both the House and the Senate. The plan seems to be: sabotage until midterms, then lose one or both majorities to dems, and raise money off "gracefully losing" for the remaining 2 years of Trump's term. That was the plan 8 years ago, too. It worked.