Not only are you misconstruing the remarks – cite – but let’s step back a moment.
The Senate passed the ACA on December 24, 2009. Pelosi made her remark on March 9, 2010. The House passed the Senate-passed bill on March 21, 2010.
As I understand it, the 500 page tax bill was passed out something like five hours before it was voted on. The 906 page ACA bill was availabvle to read for approximately 87 days, or 2000 hours, before the House voted on it.
Do these things seem the same to you? Honest question. Sometimes I’m not sure how conservatives see the world.
What are the odds of that happening? I’ll admit that I’m not privy to all the details involved, but my (admittedly superficial) understanding is that’s not gonna happen.
I’m a bit confused about all the predictions of doom coming from liberals on social media about what amounts to a fairly ordinary tax cut. The bill is terrible, but it’s not disastrous. Just bad policy that will have some bad results while improving some other things. The apocalyptic rhetoric is really stupid.
Were you “confused” when social media predicted huge job losses doe to the ACA? Social media is stew of hyperbole-- you’re just finding that out now? But even you admit that the bill is “terrible” and “bad policy”, just not “disastrous”. Is that supposed to be comforting?
Unfortunately, constitutions have to be enforced. Court rulings have to be respected and complied with. There’s nothing that suggests to me that Trump and the Republicans care about the rule of law.
I’m not sure what this has to do with my question of whether D’Anconia sees any difference between 5 hours and 87 days… but I guess I haven’t paid any attention to any “predictions of doom” or “apocalyptic rhetoric.” What I have seen a lot of is predictions that the deficit is going to go up bigly, debunking of the predictions of corporate reinvestment, and complaints that the whole basis of the policy in the bill is unfair. I agree with all of those points. If someone said that we are going to enter a depression because of this bill, or the Constitution is going to fall apart, I disagree with those predictions of doom.
But maybe you’re just using hyperbole to criticize hyperbole? If so, that’s mighty ironic.
With that solid reasoning, why don’t you just come out and say that you think Trump, Ryan, and McConnell are plotting to murder everyone who votes Democratic in the next election? After all, they don’t care about the rule of law.
Is there a Constitutional requirement for X number of hours or days? No, there isn’t.
Also, when the ACA passed with ONLY Democrat votes, that was apparently A-OK. But the Republicans passing a tax bill is partisan and not following “regular order.” (Generic) you can’t have it both ways.
ACA for 87 days? Nope. The *Christmas Eve bill *was not “available for 87 days”. The famous quote that people could read it after it was passed is well-known. ("We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”.) And the Tax Bill has had a number of committee meetings which were boycotted by Democrats entirely. The main points of the new tax bill have, in fact, been widely disseminated and discussion for more than three months, and “in regular order.”
In fact, given the complexity of tax bills in the past, this one has had more discussion than many.
The House races tend to be pretty safe, but Senate races are state-wide, and it might not take that many “undecided” + “disapproving” to swing an election or two. Americans are mostly not liking this bill and even Republicans are lukewarm.
