Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

It doesn't break rules

You'll understand if I believe the parliamentarian over you.

[Themius]

You'll understand if I believe the parliamentarian over you.

Oh sure go ahead but the government itself just calls the bullshit advisory opinions and the rule breaking dealt with things being in reconciliation that didn't affect the budget.

Just use fucking logic for a moment.

Do billions in extra tax income affect the budget of the government or not?

[Shadowferal]

Yes, by all means lets do a Trump and ignore the experts. /s

[Themius]

Yes, by all means lets do a Trump and ignore the experts. /s

ADVISORY OPINON the "experts" on the economy have already weighed in on this issue and no matter what it affects the budget.

[ati87]

Yes, by all means lets do a Trump and ignore the experts. /s

Calling this single person a "expert" is a questionable statement, she is at best a attorney based on her education and hardly a expert in economics. Nobody would go to Elizabeth MacDonough and ask her "what can I do to improve to balance the budget".
Republicans in 2012 complained about how the US tax base needed to be broader (read increase taxes on the poor)......increasing the minimum wage would do that btw.

[Themius]

The Byrd Rule, named for Senator Robert Byrd, was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990.[10] The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous"—and therefore ineligible for reconciliation—in six cases:[2]

If it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
If it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
If it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
If it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
If it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure (usually a period of ten years);[c] or
If it recommends changes in Social Security.
The Byrd Rule does not prevent the inclusion of extraneous provisions, but relies on objecting senators to remove provisions by raising procedural objections.[12] Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the Presiding Officer, customarily on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian: a vote of 60 senators is required to overturn their ruling. While the Vice President (as President of the Senate) can overrule the parliamentarian, this has not been done since 1975.[13]

Even the fucking rule itself doesn't prevent the addition of the fucking shit!

So what the fuck are we even talking about? It relies, as it says there, on senators to then object if they believe it is extraneous.

So fucking taking it out entirely and giving up because of an opinion is stupid. Not to mention the fucking rule DOESN'T BAR INCLUSIUONS so the idea that the Parlimentarian is saying it can't be included because of the byrd rule is retarded as fuck when the byrd rule doesn't actually stop inclusion

So each and every weird fucking argument "but the parliamentarian said the rule blah blah about byrd" can kindly hush.

1. it's an opinion not a ruling on what is to be done
2. it is an advisory opinion THAT LEAVES THE DECISION UP TO THE ACTUAL PEOPLE WE VOTED IN
3. The Byrd rule itself DOESN'T BAR INCLUSION OF THE PROVISIONS so everyone can just shut the fuck about how it shouldn't be included at all.

it was advised not to include and advice can be ignored, it comes down to the lawmakers that control the senate.

[Elegiac]

On a better note, the Biden-Harris administration has managed to organize a deal between Johnson & Johnson and one of it's biggest competitors, Merck & Co., wherein the latter will start producing the former's vaccine to help speed production. Merck is known for having a particularly robust vaccine manufacturing process for its existing inventory so it's expected to have a huge impact on the available vaccine supply.

[Breccia]

Oh sure go ahead but the government itself just calls the bullshit advisory opinions

And we also call SCOTUS rulings "opinions". They're still binding.

Again, based on what little explanation we were given (ugh) it looks like the issue is "something not part of the federal budget was put into a budget bill, and you're not allowed to do that". If we get a later contradiction of that, I'll fully admit I'm wrong.

[Shadowferal]

Getting tired of hearing "lets be like Trump."

An important role of the parliamentarian is to decide what can and cannot be done under the Senate's Reconciliation process under the provisions of the Byrd Rule. These rulings are important because they allow certain bills to be approved by a simple majority, instead of the sixty votes needed to end debate and block a filibuster.

[Ivanstone]

Even the fucking rule itself doesn't prevent the addition of the fucking shit!

So what the fuck are we even talking about? It relies, as it says there, on senators to then object if they believe it is extraneous.

So fucking taking it out entirely and giving up because of an opinion is stupid. Not to mention the fucking rule DOESN'T BAR INCLUSIUONS so the idea that the Parlimentarian is saying it can't be included because of the byrd rule is retarded as fuck when the byrd rule doesn't actually stop inclusion

So each and every weird fucking argument "but the parliamentarian said the rule blah blah about byrd" can kindly hush.

1. it's an opinion not a ruling on what is to be done
2. it is an advisory opinion THAT LEAVES THE DECISION UP TO THE ACTUAL PEOPLE WE VOTED IN
3. The Byrd rule itself DOESN'T BAR INCLUSION OF THE PROVISIONS so everyone can just shut the fuck about how it shouldn't be included at all.

it was advised not to include and advice can be ignored, it comes down to the lawmakers that control the senate.

The Byrd rule also allows objections to any provisions and there are 50 (or more) senators who will object and they will drag out the process for as long as possible.

Also there is this:
" If it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;"
Which is the actual stumbling block.

The minimum wage increase was always going to be conducted in phases. You were never going to get $15/hr immediately. Well those phases can start next reconciliation instead.

[Breccia]

The Byrd rule also allows objections to any provisions and there are 50 (or more) senators who will object and they will drag out the process for as long as possible.

Okay, that's going to hurt.

[Milchshake]

Getting tired of hearing "lets be like Trump."

An important role of the parliamentarian is to decide what can and cannot be done under the Senate's Reconciliation process under the provisions of the Byrd Rule. These rulings are important because they allow certain bills to be approved by a simple majority, instead of the sixty votes needed to end debate and block a filibuster.

What does Maga Left want?

They keep promising a process that doesn’t exist. They are stepping over what this bill means and trying to poison a victory.


They jut want to punish Dems.

[Themius]

And we also call SCOTUS rulings "opinions". They're still binding.

Again, based on what little explanation we were given (ugh) it looks like the issue is "something not part of the federal budget was put into a budget bill, and you're not allowed to do that". If we get a later contradiction of that, I'll fully admit I'm wrong.

Binding?? No they aren’t. That’s kind of the point.

- - - Updated - - -

What does Maga Left want?

They keep promising a process that doesn’t exist. They are stepping over what this bill means and trying to poison a victory.


They jut want to punish Dems.

Punish dems by forcing them to vote in the most popular shit everyone wants???

Get that bullshit about process out of my face.

"look guys we gotta respect the process and therefore do as little as possible, and then we gotta take 10 steps back as the other side just ignores process or breaks ACTUAL LAWS"

Weak bullshit.

[Ivanstone]

"look guys we gotta respect the process and therefore do as little as possible, and then we gotta take 10 steps back as the other side just ignores process or breaks

Its nice to see you don't care about morals or ethics. The GOP loves guys like you.

[Bodakane]

Its nice to see you don't care about morals or ethics. The GOP loves guys like you.

This ruling by the parliamentarian isn't about ethics or morals. It is procedural.

It is more ethical and moral to pass a minimum wage increase than to stall it due to possible procedure issues.

[Ivanstone]

This ruling by the parliamentarian isn't about ethics or morals. It is procedural.

It is more ethical and moral to pass a minimum wage increase than to stall it due to possible procedure issues.

It might be more moral to pass it. Its certainly less ethical to do it by breaking procedures.

[Draco-Onis]

America already has a huge problem with people who ignore expert opinion because it hurts their feelings. We just had 4 years of that. Do you really want 4 more years of that?

Also you would need all 50 senators to agree. Which is probably what's happening here.

Republicans did this years before Trump even took office. This is about power Republicans have always given zero ducks about the rules. This is not an expert like a doctor this is an opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

Getting tired of hearing "lets be like Trump."

An important role of the parliamentarian is to decide what can and cannot be done under the Senate's Reconciliation process under the provisions of the Byrd Rule. These rulings are important because they allow certain bills to be approved by a simple majority, instead of the sixty votes needed to end debate and block a filibuster.

Republicans fired one and ignored another that was before Trump so more let's be more like Moscow Mitch.

- - - Updated - - -

It might be more moral to pass it. Its certainly less ethical to do it by breaking procedures.

You mean like the procedure to have hearings and debates before passing a giant tax cut? Like that?

- - - Updated - - -

He’s not a coward. He’s an ideologue behind the times. The political landscape has changed and he still believes old fashioned awe shucksness will win the day. Biden is a good man, but it is precisely this approach that I feared from him.

Meanwhile the people he wants to hold hands with are having fascism parties signs and statues.

[Bodakane]

It might be more moral to pass it. Its certainly less ethical to do it by breaking procedures.

You're basically using the secondary definition of ethical and discounting the first. Either way, this isn't really as big of an ethical or moral quandary as you and some others are positioning it as.

Once again, we've been on the slippery slope for 4+ years now anyway. We live in a new timeline because of it.

[Kaleredar]

This ruling by the parliamentarian isn't about ethics or morals. It is procedural.

It is more ethical and moral to pass a minimum wage increase than to stall it due to possible procedure issues.

But is it ethical and moral to delay critical pandemic relief funding and stall it due to inevitable procedural and various congressional pet issues with a rider minimum wage increase?

[Ivanstone]

Republicans did this years before Trump even took office. This is about power Republicans have always given zero ducks about the rules. This is not an expert like a doctor this is an opinion.

You mean like the procedure to have hearings and debates before passing a giant tax cut? Like that?

Yes. Exactly. This is what law and order actually looks like. Just because the other side breaks the rules doesn't mean you should do the same.