WebsterMark wrote on 11/27/19 at 08:20:44:


38.1 million people live in poverty.
27.5 milion don't have health insurance- including 4.3 million children.
The bottom 25% of households earn less than $22,500 per year- not individually, for the entire household.
We just saw a massive financial crisis centered in our market that disrupted economies around the world, and resulted in a huge shift from home ownership to tenancy.
Entire generations suffer crippling student debt.
The workforce has shrank remarkably as folks withdraw from the market, unable to find sustaining work.
The share of profit afforded workers has fallen well beyond a crisis nexus.

Yet, here's Mark, celebrating how great the system is working-

-for him.    Remember, Mark's declared intent in voting for Trump was to foment war, break the Union.   His idea of a "working" US democracy is aligned with Putin's.

raydawg wrote on 11/27/19 at 08:33:14:


I see- you believe Mitch McConnell and his Republican cronies in the Senate have the interest of the weak and vulnerable at heart when they prevent deliberation.    That sure looks the same as preventing the voice of the weak from being heard, investing a few with the privilege of deciding what can even be discussed.   Reminiscent of Jim Crow, actually.   How long did those evil laws reign due to obstruction by a few in the Senate?

It's a simple thing to appropriate a cloak of principle to swaddle unjust, anti-democratic privilege.   We can't take our cues from patriotic-sounding pablum- look at what people do and the impact instead.

Look at it this way; what if the House passed a bill you thought was horrible and before you knew it or could react, it was law. In that case, you would have wanted a additional review.

 I agree there should be a timeline.

 Is there any way one can pose a valid argument for getting results from a proposed outcome if the response can be zero for an infinite amount of time?

 If a group can ignore for an infinite amount of time anything they want, how efficient can we ever expect that group to be?  And why would we pay them?

Is there any way one can pose a valid argument for getting results from a proposed outcome if the response can be zero for an infinite amount of time?

The valid argument is to simply look around at the nation you live; a prosperous nation still abounding with opportunity. That would not be the case if every bill passed on the House was required to be acted on.

The House is the people.  People elected those reps.  For the Senate (and really just one man) to tell the people that this bill that was just passed from the House to the Senate is not worthy of any consideration . . . well . . . they might just as well spit on the people.  Either vote on the bill or modify it and send it back to the House.  Doing nothing is an affront -- and wrong.