[phkahler]

>> Democratic senators represent 40 million more people than Republican senators and their agenda can't be passed. The last time Republican senators represented more than half the population was 1996. Rural, low population states have far too much power in the present system. This is not sustainable.

Spending insane amounts of money like that is not sustainable. We are already looking at greater than 10 percent annual inflation and trillions of federal debt. Guess who owes that debt back? We do. People need to stop seeing the government as some kind of external magical entity that can grant gifts to whomever it wants if only it had cooperation from [my]party.

[thghtihadanacct]

This bill looks like its trying to give some of it back too. One of the few times a big bill like this goes to us rather than war, bank bail outs, or propping up some other country.

[garmaine]

It’s not clear it would be a net positive for most readers of HN, who are in the income ranges or building businesses which would be affected by the new tax rules.

[syki]

In a system that nominally purports to represent the will of the people it is not relevant that you are opposed to the spending. You are not the dictator of the country. The will of the majority is being thwarted consistently by a minority. This is not a sustainable way to run a representative form of government.

[salawat]

Everyone hides behind Majority rules right up until the Majority wants something they don't agree with.

Be careful what you wish for hombre. You just might get it.

[syki]

I’m not a dictator and don’t want to live in a system where my minority view can consistently thwart the will of the majority. A reasonably mature person understands that their opinion, if in the minority, shouldn’t prevail upon the majority. Obviously I’m talking about legislation that doesn’t infringe the Constitutional rights of people.

[salawat]

>A reasonably mature person understands that their opinion, if in the minority, shouldn’t prevail upon the majority.

The reasonably mature, less than well-read, or well-tread person, maybe. Given either of those two traits you've probably seen at least a handful of examples where a critical mass of "well-meaning change agents" gets to the point of near wrecking balling a tenuous equilibrium without even realizing the consequences of doing so in the way they want, and which suddenly starts to fracture or fizzle when exposed to the reality of forklifting to be done to achieve their goal without blowing up the house to put out the fire.

Real, lasting, change is hard, and the tolerance of the masses for it much less than anyone thinks. You don't wake up one morning and snap your fingers and every body is dancing to the new tune without generous runway. Oftentimes, that minority isn't against the change, but disagrees on the means employed to facilitate it. When they do straight up disagree, I'd personally prefer they have a plethora of wrenches to throw in the works. Sometimes, the fact the more than half the people in the room think something is reasonable is not really enough justification in my mind that something is worth doing.

Now those same people, standing up for the same thing, after being put through the procedural ringer and filing off the edges? Now we're talking the real progression of the glacier of the Will of the People.

And in fact, that was exactly the dynamic the Founders had in mind.