←back to thread

334 points tareqak | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.213s | source
Show context
tomrod ◴[] No.44469345[source]
If correct, this is a good thing on a generally bad, overstuffed bill. Immediate expensing never should have been changed in the first place, and it was always weird seeing people twist themselves in knots defending it.
replies(4): >>44469474 #>>44469476 #>>44469714 #>>44471311 #
xp84 ◴[] No.44469474[source]
It’s an overstuffed bill because nobody will compromise on anything so the only way to pass a bill that has anything even remotely controversial to either party is one reconciliation bill a year.
replies(3): >>44469494 #>>44469916 #>>44469965 #
dragonwriter ◴[] No.44469494[source]
> It’s an overstuffed bill because nobody will compromise on anything so the only way to pass a bill that has anything even remotely controversial to either party is one reconciliation bill a year.

No, and lots of controversial bills have passed other than as reconciliation bills, and especially so during trifectas where they "controversial" within the minority party but broadly supported by the majority; reconciliation is necessary to pass something that strains unity in the majority party and is uniformly opposed by (not "controversial to") the minority party, perhaps.

replies(2): >>44469550 #>>44469712 #
sugarpimpdorsey ◴[] No.44469712[source]
The last time something like that happened was probably the Patriot Act.
replies(2): >>44469785 #>>44469796 #
1. Calavar ◴[] No.44469785[source]
The 2024 Ukraine defense funding bill passed despite having < 50% support in the majority party in the House, and it was not part of a reconciliation.