The OP makes a point of targeting Republicans, with the inference that this is a practice limited to the GOP.
So just to be clear, is the debate that the practice of misleading bill titles is bad, no matter who does it?
Or is the debate that the GOP alone is guilty of misleading bill titles?
In anticipation of a question like that, I’ve been trying to find if there have previously been any federal legislative short titles (on either side) quite as stupid as “The Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act”, and coming up blank.
There are plenty of bad short titles- misleading, uninformative, or glurgy- but nothing quite like that. If you know of anything, by all means enlighten us.
Sure. I bet you’ll be along shortly to give us examples of the other side doing that.
I’m not making that claim. But I will claim that this particular title is especially egregious.
No, because if the debate is “Misleading titles are bad, no matter who does it,” then providing examples of Democrats doing it would be tu quoque fallacious.
If your claim had focused on the GOP, of course, then such examples would have been relevant.
So as to your actual debate topic: I agree.
The Republicans are preaching to the converted and following the playbook of repeat bullshit long enough it becomes the “truth.”
As an independent voter, this rally irks my drawers but the target audience is not me but the Republican base.
If the Congressional Research Service said that it will lower employment, then ‘job killing’ is not factually incorrect. “Killing jobs” doesn’t have to mean eliminating jobs that already exist, it can mean “We were going to create a new job in our company, but now we won’t. That job has been killed.”
It’s a silly, pedantic point to get all bent out of shape over. Of course, the title is silly as well. But then, Congress has a history of doing this - attaching bills to emotionally laden names.
For example, the ‘First Responders’ bill was actually called “The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act”. James Zadroga was a first responder who became ill after 9/11, and subsequently took his own life. His name was put on the bill so opponents would be forced to oppose a dead hero.
Bills have had these kinds of titles for decades. It’s just political gamesmanship. I wish both sides would knock it off, but that’s the way they play in Washington.
But, according to the OP, it won’t kil jobs it all–it will induce some older workers to retire early, which will create (all things being equal) a labor shortage, and companies will have to hire more young whippersnappers to replace all the geezers living in Miami and going to the doctor on their “Obamacare” benefits instead of hanging on to their jobs to the bitter end because they can’t afford health insurance even though they’d really like to retire.
Clearly, the GOP bill should be called the “Repealing the Job-Creating Health Care Law” Act.
This is an article, and “job killing” is grammatically incorrect. You call it marketing…
It will allow some older workers to retire earlier.
Sam Stone,
I realize that “silliness” is a very subjective thing but do you really feel that “The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act” is silly, and if so, that it’s as silly as “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care law act”?
Admittedly it could be worse. They could have called it “Stop the Government From Killing Granny”. But it’s still pretty high on the silly scale, at least IMHO.
Right now the difference between the parties is similar to your friend that exaggerates the truth and the guy that just totally makes shit up. For example,
“I banged a 10 last night”
vs
“I was hanging out with Natalie Portman and then she said ‘Are you busy? Mila’s coming over so we can rehearse some lines and I’d like someone to critique my reaction to her going down on me’”.
Seriously.
“The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act” sounds like a reasonable bill name.
“Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care law act” sounds like a 5-year-old wrote it. It’s a level above “nanny nanny boo boo” but only barely. As for getting bent out of shape: who, me? If certain Republicans want to make themselves look like whiny kindergartners, then by all means, they should feel free to do so.
How about the “Healthcare Gulag Liberation Act”?
It’s funny that Dems will agree that yes, of course, the Pubs are free market anarchists. Both factions being statist reactionaries is too boring I guess.
True. However, as an independent I keep saying that I’d be open to voting for a principled Republican. But then I see nonsense like this, and my doing so is likely to remain purely hypothetical.
So I hope it’s worth it to them to lick the boots of their base in this manner, because I have to believe they are also further alienating those who just might listen if they had anything remotely intelligent and honest to say.
I’m a simple guy and live by 2 political principles: ratfuck the moral majority (or whatever guise they are under today) and vote for the most fiscally responsible/least fiscally irresponsible. As an independent, I’d vote for any candidate that meets these two criteria.
The comical part is that according to Wendell Potter the GOP is divided between 2 groups, their base and the health insurance industry. The aspects of the bill that the base tend to favor (consumer protections) and hate (the mandate) are the exact opposite of what the health insurance industry wants. The insurance industry wants the government to force 30-40 million people to buy for-profit health insurance, but they don’t want any new consumer protections (banning rescissions, medical loss ratios, pre-existing condition coverage, no caps, etc). Generally even tea party members are opposed to rescissions or not letting those with pre-existing conditions get coverage, but hate the mandate.
So it will be interesting to see what happens. I assume it’ll be like the divide on illegal immigration. The base wants to deport latinos, corporations love having a desperate, low wage workforce that isn’t protected by labor law. At the end of the day ‘nothing’ gets done and it is to the benefit of corporations. I assume there will be a token attempt to repeal health care, followed by more serious attempts (ie not for show like this bill is) to gut the consumer regulations.
The dems are only somewhat less plutocratic. But they aren’t as naked about it.
So what you’re saying is they’re playing on ignorance, and peddling bullshit lies to try to advance their own goals? If so the pieces of shit shouldn’t be kicked in balls until they passout because?
A factual question about this bill: Since the GOP does not control the Senate and also does not control the White House, this bill will never pass. Is this correct? If so, why are they wasting their time (and thus taxpayer dollars on this?).
Am I missing something? Could they repeal any part of Obamacare given the numbers they have?
To address the OP: The title of GOP bill is juvenile and is clearly targeting the ignoramus/think-like-a-5-year-old faction of the party. If I were affiliated with a party and that party proposed such a puerile bill I’d be embarrassed. The fact that so many conservatives in this thread are fine with it (“everyone does this”) speaks volumes about them.
Can’t we, just once, have a member of a party come in and say something like, “this is stupid and I’m embarrassed my party did this”? And I’m not limiting this to Republicans. Members of any party who defend their party even when it does the stupidest things are doing a huge disservice to society.
The line I keep hearing is that they promised they’d have a vote, and they’re fulfilling their promise.