> what this might do is add some barrier or consideration when a bailout is considered
It’s a resolution. Pure puffery. A serious effort would have involved floating a bill.
It’s a resolution. Pure puffery. A serious effort would have involved floating a bill.
Even during GFC, equity investors were wiped out. Same with Silicon Valley Bank.
This trope that investors are bailed out is doing more harm than good. Because intervention and backstops actually helps the economy from not going into a death spiral that destroys the poor and middle class
Or even proposing new laws by floating bills when they don't already have the guaranteed votes - or even know they'll never pass. I'm sure many here would also want to dismiss that as "pure puffery".
Really why do we let anyone but the current majority party say anything at all? It's just puffery.
No, a manifesto or a platform guides drafting and candidate recruitment. Resolutions don’t.
> Or even proposing new laws by floating bills
Again, no. This leads to actual laws. Resolutions don’t.
Sure, this is a joint statement. Published days before the election. Meanwhile, for actual legislative priorities, draft bills are proposed.
And I generally hope that actually bills have a much higher required level of analysis of details and interactions than more general direction statements. Requiring that for every statement would just put a massive burden on the minority party, as they would have to always do that level of due diligence just to be "allowed" to propose a direction.
It’s the burden of work required to get lawmaking done!
Here are the bills the CPC has actually written or endorsed [1]. They’re the ones that could turn into a law in 2027. This crap won’t because it’s not designed to—non-binding resolutions basically never turn into law, and most laws introduced after the Congress flips aren’t preceded by resolutions.
> I generally hope that actually bills have a much higher required level of analysis of details and interactions
They don’t. They’re introduced all the time and then edited and revised.
I do somewhat wonder if people's opinions about this would survive the current incumbent changing. From previous experience, I have my doubts.
> They don’t. They’re introduced all the time and then edited and revised.
Trying to claim that revising a bill based on feedback is the same as "no need to consider those specifics yet" is crazy to me.
After midterms, they would still need significant public support to pressure against a veto regardless. So what you call puffery, is probably a very necessary first step.
Nope. Bills that become laws don’t tend to be preceded by non-binding resolutions. They are preceded by draft bills.
Juneteenth national holiday, Emmett Till Anti-lynching act, Inflation reduction act to name a few. Plenty of budget resolutions are also made that eventually become law.
This is a legitimate strategy that is wholly undone by announcing a public resolution.