Hacker News Reader

Comment by kasey_junk | Hacker News Reader

To be fair, the US system does have a special class of vote for budgetary issues that defangs the filibuster:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_State...

Yep, and the majority party decided to waste their chance on unpopular tax cuts rather than use it to keep the lights on.

The tax cuts are actually very popular. And I don't think anyone expected the Democrats to actually shut down the government over illegal immigrants.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gop-tax-cuts-are-ev...

I personally, was totally against the tax cut after reading about it in the media.

Then it actually passed and the media (yup, that same media) put out some calculators. I played with those, and realized I was seriously mislead.

Wait another month, when people will get higher paychecks, and see if it's still unpopular.

I really wish the media would stop telling me how to think. Just tell me what happened. Leave out the reactions, and quotes from "other people" telling me what I should think about a topic.

Best I can do right now is read opposing media outlets and contrast them, but it's hard to do.

You seem to be arguing about whether or not the tax cut should be popular, which is completely different.

No, that's not what I said.

I said a survey done that early is not indicative of people's true opinion.

Do another survey in a month, and that data should be correct.

You used the present tense in your initial reply.

So? The survey is older than the present. The comments I've seen online and in person show that people actually do support it, which will only increase once higher paychecks arrive.

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

Are you? I don’t think the popularity of the tax cut is terribly relevant, although its unpopularity makes this cock-up worse. You felt it was worth correcting, but you can’t back it up with anything more than anecdotes or guesswork. So what’s the point of arguing?

It is impossible for this not to be a political topic and I probably shouldn’t be even discussing it here, but whatever.

What would be the reasonable thing for the democrats to do right now? They weren’t allowed to see the tax bill. That’s what happens when something has the 51 republicans and it can’t be filibustered in the current environment.

Further, the republicans haven’t even brought a bill forward to be filibustered likely because they don’t have the votes in their own party.

I’m fairly centrist for this site but the republicans controlling every part of the government as well as already using their reconciliation power and blaming the democrats is so shockingly perverse in its cinycism. That’s before you even take into account the duplicity on DACA that has broad bipartisan support up to a meeting with the president last week.

Neither morally or strategically should the democrats budge on this.

Except they are hurting tons of people in the US in exchange for strategy. That's simply not right.

And of all issues DACA? It's important to some people, but as a national topic it's pretty minor.

> What would be the reasonable thing for the democrats to do right now?

Realize they are weak and accept it. Then take the offer they were given and do the best they can. But don't hurt unrelated people in the US to try to increase their own strength.

That's a pretty selfish thing to do after all.

As a national issue, deporting people who should by rights be citizens and have known no other country than ours, many of whom are parents of actual American citizens, children, citizens, who might not even know Spanish, that's a minor issue?

> that's a minor issue?

Compared to a government shutdown? Yes, very much a minor issue.

Like I said, important in it's own right, but not in comparison to this.

In comparative terms it's minor: 35 million enrolled in CHIP [0] (shutdown) vs. 3.5 million DACA. Hopefully all would agree that neither is minor from a moral standpoint.

[0] https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medica...

CHIP funding ran out some time ago. The party in power was free to renew it at any time since then. They chose not to.

... Until they did? Your comment is true of all bills and all proposals. "Party X was free to vote on it, they chose not to. Until they chose to." Furthermore, the minority had promised to veto all funding unless DACA was included, at all times. Regardless, the above comment was simply pointing out the difference in terms of magnitude.

Maybe the simple reading of the statement is true of everything, but what’s unique here is that it was deliberately held up so it could be used as a bludgeon during the shutdown negotiations.

Especially egregious was the fact that it had broad bipartisan support, and had been scored by the CBO to save money. The health and welfare of children was used as a political bludgeon.

Oh, just cave in, and be walked all over?

Not that you're being biased, at all.

You know, like I'm sure you wanted the Republicans to do under Cruz in 2013?

Shame on the Democrats for opposing the Republican party, as the Republican party did the last eight years. They should just "realize they're weak and accept it [and do what they're told]".

The sad thing about this is that you most likely you think your perspective is eminently objective and unbiased.

The 51 seat party should simply out forward a bill that can be accepted by 60 seats. If they fail, they should take 100% responsibility. Republicans have to concede that those last 9 seats are democrat seats and the power of those seats is (perhaps unfairly) almost as big as the 51 first seats, but the responsibility still lies with the majority to govern.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com