That is why the bills are so many pages and so obtuse. They do not intend for congress critters or the public to be able to comprehend what is in the legislation prepared by special interests, staffers, etc.
Therefore, never again, should any congress critter vote for anything he/she does not fully understand! We have been fooled too often.
Bills probably shouldn’t be over 5-10 pages. Maybe 25-50 tops if something is more complex. No bill should take over 2-3 hours to read, as that’s about the max that most citizens could commit to reading a bill to see if they approve of it. It should also be required to have a 2-4 week minimum lead time for congressional/citizen review between introduction/scheduling and voting, unless for a clear emergency, which should largely be related to appropriations.
Maybe a professional expert would have better ideas, but that seems like a decent take.
Edit: looking back at what old 1700’s and early 1800’s bills looked like May give us a better idea of original intentions as well.
I am so sick of this. If I had a day where I was in charge, my mandate would be that going forward all legislation going forward would be written with quill and ink. Sorry if you'll have to practice penmanship. Deal with the hand cramps.
Could have had that, but Trump is the one pushing for this 1200 page monstrosity. The question is why. And then the next question I would have is if this 1200 page bill is what the Q team intends for, or is it the opposition to it.
No we couldn't. This bill is a "reconciliation" bill. It deals with money, but it allows the house to create the bill and not have to worry about the Senate killing it because their rules require 60 vote majorities. Reconciliation only needs a simple majority - just like the House. We would never get the stuff we (and Trump) wanted if we did single-issues instead of reconciliation for this. They only get 3 of those each year - 6 in a full term.
In the United States, the number of reconciliation bills that the House of Representatives can send to the Senate each term is governed by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Reconciliation is a legislative process used to expedite the passage of certain budgetary legislation, allowing it to pass the Senate with a simple majority vote, bypassing the usual 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster.
Key Points on Reconciliation Bills:
Limit on Reconciliation Bills: The Congressional Budget Act typically allows for up to three reconciliation bills per fiscal year, corresponding to three main budgetary categories:
Spending
Revenue
Debt limit
However, in practice, Congress often combines these into a single reconciliation bill, though it’s possible to have separate bills for each category.
Congressional Term: A congressional term lasts two years (e.g., the 119th Congress covers 2025–2026). Since reconciliation is tied to the annual budget resolution, which is typically adopted each fiscal year, the House could theoretically send up to three reconciliation bills per fiscal year, meaning a maximum of six reconciliation bills over a two-year congressional term (three per fiscal year × two years).
Practical Constraints:
Budget Resolution Requirement: Reconciliation bills must be tied to a budget resolution agreed upon by both the House and Senate. If no budget resolution is passed in a given year, no reconciliation bills can be sent.
Senate Rules (Byrd Rule): The Senate’s Byrd Rule limits what can be included in reconciliation bills, restricting provisions to those that directly affect spending, revenue, or the debt limit. This can limit the scope and number of bills.
Political and Practical Limits: While the law allows for up to three bills per year, Congress often passes fewer (or none) due to political disagreements, time constraints, or lack of a budget resolution.
Recent Examples:
In 2021 (117th Congress), the Senate parliamentarian allowed two reconciliation bills in a single year under certain conditions, such as when a budget resolution is revised mid-year.
Historically, Congress rarely uses the full allowance of three bills per year, often consolidating measures into one comprehensive bill.
Answer:
The House can send up to three reconciliation bills per fiscal year to the Senate, as outlined in the Congressional Budget Act, potentially resulting in up to six reconciliation bills over a two-year congressional term (three per year for two years). However, the actual number depends on the passage of a budget resolution and political dynamics, and fewer bills are often sent in practice.
The Congressional Budget Act typically allows for up to three reconciliation bills per fiscal year, corresponding to three main budgetary categories: Spending, Revenue, and the Debt limit. However, in practice, Congress often combines these into a single reconciliation bill, though it’s possible to have separate bills for each category.
Mmhmm. Did you chatgpt/grok this? And this AI regulation falls under money, how? Exactly?
Yes I grokked the part that looks intelligent. I knew most of it already - what a reconciliation is, why, and roughly how many (I thought 2 per year - turns out it's 3). I just didn't want to try to explain it myself. I normally put something like "this is what grok said" but was in a hurry and missed it this time.
What bothers me is the rule was written by Senator Robert Byrd - as in KKK Byrd, Hillary's mentor. I went to look it up to make sure it was the same Byrd, and Grok actually gave me more info that helps answer your AI question.
Note - It is just my guess, but I think the repubs tried to add in the AI thing hoping the demons wouldn't read all of the bill and they would fly right through. Now they will simply raise a point-of-order and defeat that. They can't do the same to the Hearing Act part of the BBB where firearm suppressors (silencers) will be reclassified as simple firearms, won't require a $200 tax stamp, and are no longer NFA. Anyone authorized to own a firearm will be able to get a suppressor the same way they purchase a gun - fill out the form for the NICS check and be done. Since the BBB removes the $200 tax stamp it is within the requirements for a reconciliation bill.
Grok:
Senator Robert C. Byrd wrote and was the principal sponsor of the Byrd Rule in the U.S. Senate, which governs the budget reconciliation process. The rule was first adopted in 1985 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act and later made permanent in 1990 as Section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. It was named after Byrd, a Democratic senator from West Virginia, who introduced it to limit the inclusion of "extraneous" provisions in reconciliation bills—those that do not directly affect federal spending, revenue, or the debt limit. The rule ensures reconciliation bills, which can pass with a simple majority and avoid a filibuster, stay focused on budgetary matters. It allows senators to raise a point of order against non-budgetary provisions, which can be struck unless 60 senators vote to waive the rule. The Byrd Rule was a response to reconciliation bills in the early 1980s that included unrelated policies, such as reducing the number of Federal Communications Commission members.
Congressional staff reads the bill and gives a brief. But you're right the people who should be reading a ONE PAGE bill leave it up to staff. Can't have as much corruption if you can't hide it in plain sight.
This is failure to do her job and malpractice. Doesn't she have staff to help read the bills? She screwed up, but has she stated a plan to prevent such screw-ups in the future?
If you were a business owner and one of your employees screwed up, they would be expected to take measures to prevent it in the future in order to keep their job.
Without a future plan, she is just a loud blonde lady. We deserve better.
If someone could just go back in time and add the line 'no law or regulation proposal shall be put forth that can not be formulated on a single sheet of paper' to the constitution...............
Pretty sure that's what the 2nd amendment was all about. Though back then they didn't ask permission for that kind of stuff. We have it in our heads now that we need some kind of bill or law to do just that. Probably because we built such a police state and our community is so divided.
Which part is retarded? The concern about states not being allowed to regulate AI for 10 years costing society an invaluable window in which to impose ethical restraints on its capacity before it metastasizes? Or the fact that MTG says she would have oppose such a prohibition?
Or is the retarded part the reader who simply wants to look intelligent by calling someone else an idiot and posting an irrelevant fact as "reasoning"?
The tweet says she did vote for it but would vote against it in the future if it still contained that measure. Of course, who knows what will really happen.
thats their ONLY job....not helping themselves to insider trading deals...not hanging out with the kool kids...read the DAM% bill-confer with your constituents about the content-and vote accordingly!!!!
Why can't we have one item per bill? It is not like Congress doesn't have the time! All they have to do is come to work like the rest of us and quit putting in so many hours a day begging for money!
There's no possible way they can in the first fucking place. They're too busy with their press junkets, 4 Star lunches, dinner parties, and 3 day work weeks.
The entirety of this bill should have been shot down if only for the AI protection portion.
AI is not being built for you and I. AI is not being built for information sharing or fun pictures. AI has a purpose. The sooner people wake up to that the better
That is why the bills are so many pages and so obtuse. They do not intend for congress critters or the public to be able to comprehend what is in the legislation prepared by special interests, staffers, etc.
Therefore, never again, should any congress critter vote for anything he/she does not fully understand! We have been fooled too often.
Bills probably shouldn’t be over 5-10 pages. Maybe 25-50 tops if something is more complex. No bill should take over 2-3 hours to read, as that’s about the max that most citizens could commit to reading a bill to see if they approve of it. It should also be required to have a 2-4 week minimum lead time for congressional/citizen review between introduction/scheduling and voting, unless for a clear emergency, which should largely be related to appropriations.
Maybe a professional expert would have better ideas, but that seems like a decent take.
Edit: looking back at what old 1700’s and early 1800’s bills looked like May give us a better idea of original intentions as well.
I am so sick of this. If I had a day where I was in charge, my mandate would be that going forward all legislation going forward would be written with quill and ink. Sorry if you'll have to practice penmanship. Deal with the hand cramps.
Spot on
u/#catdance
Exactly big bloated turds chock full of pork barrel spending and some other bs that further restricts our liberty.
They rule by deception, underhanded lies and thievery.
Now where have I heard that before? A certain intel agency motto?
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (The latest) Do I like the price tag of the One Big Beautiful Bill? No.
But we’re still stuck with Biden’s CR that funds tons of foreign aid and woke garbage at home and abroad.
Passing the OBBB is a critical step toward delivering the America First MAGA mandate voters gave us in November.
I’m focused on passing the @DOGE cuts that Elon and his team helped craft and I’m grateful he launched this effort.
Single issue bills only!
Could have had that, but Trump is the one pushing for this 1200 page monstrosity. The question is why. And then the next question I would have is if this 1200 page bill is what the Q team intends for, or is it the opposition to it.
No we couldn't. This bill is a "reconciliation" bill. It deals with money, but it allows the house to create the bill and not have to worry about the Senate killing it because their rules require 60 vote majorities. Reconciliation only needs a simple majority - just like the House. We would never get the stuff we (and Trump) wanted if we did single-issues instead of reconciliation for this. They only get 3 of those each year - 6 in a full term.
In the United States, the number of reconciliation bills that the House of Representatives can send to the Senate each term is governed by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Reconciliation is a legislative process used to expedite the passage of certain budgetary legislation, allowing it to pass the Senate with a simple majority vote, bypassing the usual 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster. Key Points on Reconciliation Bills: Limit on Reconciliation Bills: The Congressional Budget Act typically allows for up to three reconciliation bills per fiscal year, corresponding to three main budgetary categories: Spending
Revenue
Debt limit However, in practice, Congress often combines these into a single reconciliation bill, though it’s possible to have separate bills for each category.
Congressional Term: A congressional term lasts two years (e.g., the 119th Congress covers 2025–2026). Since reconciliation is tied to the annual budget resolution, which is typically adopted each fiscal year, the House could theoretically send up to three reconciliation bills per fiscal year, meaning a maximum of six reconciliation bills over a two-year congressional term (three per fiscal year × two years).
Practical Constraints: Budget Resolution Requirement: Reconciliation bills must be tied to a budget resolution agreed upon by both the House and Senate. If no budget resolution is passed in a given year, no reconciliation bills can be sent.
Senate Rules (Byrd Rule): The Senate’s Byrd Rule limits what can be included in reconciliation bills, restricting provisions to those that directly affect spending, revenue, or the debt limit. This can limit the scope and number of bills.
Political and Practical Limits: While the law allows for up to three bills per year, Congress often passes fewer (or none) due to political disagreements, time constraints, or lack of a budget resolution.
Recent Examples: In 2021 (117th Congress), the Senate parliamentarian allowed two reconciliation bills in a single year under certain conditions, such as when a budget resolution is revised mid-year.
Historically, Congress rarely uses the full allowance of three bills per year, often consolidating measures into one comprehensive bill.
Answer: The House can send up to three reconciliation bills per fiscal year to the Senate, as outlined in the Congressional Budget Act, potentially resulting in up to six reconciliation bills over a two-year congressional term (three per year for two years). However, the actual number depends on the passage of a budget resolution and political dynamics, and fewer bills are often sent in practice.
Mmhmm. Did you chatgpt/grok this? And this AI regulation falls under money, how? Exactly?
They need to circumvent the filibuster.
That isn't what I asked you.
Yes I grokked the part that looks intelligent. I knew most of it already - what a reconciliation is, why, and roughly how many (I thought 2 per year - turns out it's 3). I just didn't want to try to explain it myself. I normally put something like "this is what grok said" but was in a hurry and missed it this time.
What bothers me is the rule was written by Senator Robert Byrd - as in KKK Byrd, Hillary's mentor. I went to look it up to make sure it was the same Byrd, and Grok actually gave me more info that helps answer your AI question.
Note - It is just my guess, but I think the repubs tried to add in the AI thing hoping the demons wouldn't read all of the bill and they would fly right through. Now they will simply raise a point-of-order and defeat that. They can't do the same to the Hearing Act part of the BBB where firearm suppressors (silencers) will be reclassified as simple firearms, won't require a $200 tax stamp, and are no longer NFA. Anyone authorized to own a firearm will be able to get a suppressor the same way they purchase a gun - fill out the form for the NICS check and be done. Since the BBB removes the $200 tax stamp it is within the requirements for a reconciliation bill.
Grok: Senator Robert C. Byrd wrote and was the principal sponsor of the Byrd Rule in the U.S. Senate, which governs the budget reconciliation process. The rule was first adopted in 1985 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act and later made permanent in 1990 as Section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. It was named after Byrd, a Democratic senator from West Virginia, who introduced it to limit the inclusion of "extraneous" provisions in reconciliation bills—those that do not directly affect federal spending, revenue, or the debt limit. The rule ensures reconciliation bills, which can pass with a simple majority and avoid a filibuster, stay focused on budgetary matters. It allows senators to raise a point of order against non-budgetary provisions, which can be struck unless 60 senators vote to waive the rule. The Byrd Rule was a response to reconciliation bills in the early 1980s that included unrelated policies, such as reducing the number of Federal Communications Commission members.
What about married people tho?
They definitely have issues...😁
u/#popcornmonster
😂
Congressional staff reads the bill and gives a brief. But you're right the people who should be reading a ONE PAGE bill leave it up to staff. Can't have as much corruption if you can't hide it in plain sight.
This is failure to do her job and malpractice. Doesn't she have staff to help read the bills? She screwed up, but has she stated a plan to prevent such screw-ups in the future?
If you were a business owner and one of your employees screwed up, they would be expected to take measures to prevent it in the future in order to keep their job.
Without a future plan, she is just a loud blonde lady. We deserve better.
If someone could just go back in time and add the line 'no law or regulation proposal shall be put forth that can not be formulated on a single sheet of paper' to the constitution...............
I'd like an amendment that allows citizens to freely detain and sentence politicians who violate constitutional rights.
Pretty sure that's what the 2nd amendment was all about. Though back then they didn't ask permission for that kind of stuff. We have it in our heads now that we need some kind of bill or law to do just that. Probably because we built such a police state and our community is so divided.
This a completely retarded statement.
She didnt vote for it last time,when it was in the house.
Which part is retarded? The concern about states not being allowed to regulate AI for 10 years costing society an invaluable window in which to impose ethical restraints on its capacity before it metastasizes? Or the fact that MTG says she would have oppose such a prohibition?
Or is the retarded part the reader who simply wants to look intelligent by calling someone else an idiot and posting an irrelevant fact as "reasoning"?
The part were she voted against the bill and now says she is going to vote against it.
It might be news if she changed her mind FFS.
The tweet says she did vote for it but would vote against it in the future if it still contained that measure. Of course, who knows what will really happen.
Those worthless mother fuckers haven’t read a bill since the 90s, when they voted to have outsiders write them.
Face, palm. We don't hate Congress enough. Smh.
thats their ONLY job....not helping themselves to insider trading deals...not hanging out with the kool kids...read the DAM% bill-confer with your constituents about the content-and vote accordingly!!!!
Some sauce for my frens...
https://x.com/RepMTG/status/1929946902566494653
Why can't we have one item per bill? It is not like Congress doesn't have the time! All they have to do is come to work like the rest of us and quit putting in so many hours a day begging for money!
Even if you were tasked to read it all you could still miss key points and hidden info.
There's no possible way they can in the first fucking place. They're too busy with their press junkets, 4 Star lunches, dinner parties, and 3 day work weeks.
It's one big party, and we're not invited
The entirety of this bill should have been shot down if only for the AI protection portion.
AI is not being built for you and I. AI is not being built for information sharing or fun pictures. AI has a purpose. The sooner people wake up to that the better
Good for him.
Why did I know it was in there and she didn't? She should try lurking around here or 4chan or something.