Infrastructure

Cryptocurrency Fight Holds Up Infrastructure Bill

For now, the side that wants less cryptocurrency regulation and taxation lost.

|

Cryptocurrency fight holds up infrastructure bill. Passage of President Joe Biden's $550 billion infrastructure bill was held up Sunday by a battle over new cryptocurrency rules. Ultimately, the side that wants less cryptocurrency regulation and taxation lost.

"Crypto got screwed tonight," tweeted Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas), in a thread proving he can occasionally still get something right. "There's a partisan disagreement on spending, so Dems objected to ALL further amendments. That means NO vote on Wyden-Lummis to lessen the damage this bill will do to crypto, & NO vote on the Cruz amd. to repeal the new crypto rules altogether."

"The result? The Senate's going to inflict billions of dollars of damage on the growing & exciting crypto industry & drive much of it overseas," added Cruz, accusing the vast majority of his Senate colleagues of knowing nothing about cryptocurrency.

The bipartisan amendment from Sens. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.), Cynthia Lummis (R–Wyo.), and Pat Toomey (R–Penn.) aimed to make sure new regulations in the infrastructure bill wouldn't affect cryptocurrency miners and software developers. "The amendment also includes a provision that the section on crypto brokers will not modify the Securities Act of 1933 or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, two major laws overseeing the federal securities markets," notes CoinDesk.

The Cruz amendment reportedly sought to strike from the bill the new cryptocurrency requirements, which are designed to make it easier for the IRS to catch people who don't pay taxes on cryptocurrency.

But neither amendment received a vote.

"What the Senate said tonight: Let's tax the hell out of something we know nothing about, so we can pass a giant bill we haven't read, and spend the American people's money on stuff we can't afford. It's reckless & harmful," Cruz concluded his Twitter thread. 

Members of the Senate eventually voted last night to shut down debate on the bill, with the new rules regarding cryptocurrency reporting left intact.

Eighteen Republicans joined all Senate Democrats in the 68–29 vote to close debate and move on.

"Final passage of the legislation is expected late Monday night, or the wee hours of Tuesday at the latest, unless a deal is reached among all 100 senators to speed it up," notes Politico. But "while Senate passage of the bipartisan infrastructure bill is imminent, the legislation still faces an uncertain future in the House."

"Regardless of the measure's ultimate fate, the fact that crypto regulation has become one of the biggest stumbling blocks to passage of the bill underscored how the industry has become a political force in Washington—and previewed a series of looming battles over a financial technology attracting billions of dollars of interest from Wall Street, Silicon Valley and financial players around the world, but that few still understand," suggests The Washington Post.

Kristin Smith of the Blockchain Association told Politico: "I think Washington is starting to see that crypto is more of a force than anybody ever anticipated."


QUICK HITS

• While some people won't get the COVID-19 vaccine once, others are doubling up.

• Telework forever? The new wave of COVID-19 infections is thwarting business plans to reopen offices in the fall.

• "The coronavirus pandemic in America has become a delta pandemic. By the end of July, it accounted for 93.4 percent of new infections," reports The Washington Post.

• Medical experts push back on the San Diego County Sheriff's Department's latest fentanyl scare tactic.

• What late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg really thought about Roe v. Wade.

• David French reviews Andrew Sullivan's essay collection Out on a Limb.

• Meet the woman who could replace New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Reason's Scott Shackford with more on Apple's new surveillance system: "The new systems announced this week may seem innocuous, but only to those who have not paid any attention to how tech surveillance systems can be abused."

NEXT: Cuomo and Trump: Who Can Tell the Difference?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ultimately, the side that wants less cryptocurrency regulation and taxation lost.

    They always do.

    1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid inSd the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

      See……………VISIT HERE

    2. Since I started with my online business, I earn $25 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable YJm but you won’t forgive yourself if you don’t check it out. Learn more about it here…

      This is what I do……………. VISIT HERE

  2. The Senate’s going to inflict billions of dollars of damage on the growing & exciting crypto industry & drive much of it overseas…

    We have to pass it to find out what’s going all the way in your butt.

  3. “What late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg really thought about Roe v. Wade.”

    Like any serious legal scholar, she thought it was the most brilliant decision in Supreme Court history — and that it has attained SUPER-PRECEDENT status.

    #SaveRoe

    1. If Ruth bater ginsber were alive today what would she say?
      Help help let me out!

      I kidd. In reality the best thing she did for the US is die

      1. And with gracious timing.

  4. I think Washington is starting to see that crypto is more of a force than anybody ever anticipated.

    They gonna put y’all back in blockchains.

    1. Old bastards don’t know how the internet works, let alone cryptocurrency.

      1. They know cryptocurrency isn’t under the total control of the government, what else do they need to know?

        1. Yup.

          Luckily I don’t give a shit what they tell me the rules are. They don’t even have a clue how much BTC I have, much less where it is.

        2. We need to tell them the cryptocurrency is all down this great big tube and to go jump down and get it!

  5. While some people won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine once, others are doubling up.

    Greedy Americans to the 3rd World: “Fuck you.”

    1. *AHEM* Some greedy Americans. Some of us aren’t getting vaccinated until everyone living in poverty and those stuck under absurd socialized medicine regimes have all gotten the vaccines that they should already have access to. Thank you very much.

      I know all we unvaccinated people probably look the same to you but we are not a monolith.

      1. Apparently Australia was one of the least vaccinated 1st World countries because all they had was the AstraZeneca vaccine, and their government initially told them it was shit and not to take it after the blood clot reports came out. They’ve been going back in to lockdown, with massive protests in reaction, so the government caved and released physicians from liability for giving people the jab.

        What a fucking shitshow.

      2. Refusing the jab as act of self sacrifice in the effort to help needy children.

        Damn that’s brilliant. Wish ida thought of it.

  6. So can we follow the no masks example set by our betters at the Obama birthday bash?

    1. Are you a rich politically connected Democrat? If no, fuck you, where your mask.

  7. The new wave of COVID-19 infections is thwarting business plans to reopen offices in the fall.

    Looks like Trump got out of commercial real estate and into politics just at the right time. Almost as though he planned it. Hmmm.

    1. Oooh! Fauci and Trump colluded to crash the real estate market! I’m off to 4chan and then my Qanon meeting.

      1. So that explains the CDC’s eviction moratorium

        1. ^This guy gets it.

          Why bother with eminent domaining anything when you can just effect emergency bureaucratic taking by decree?

          You can practically imagine Fauci ‘thinking out loud’ in the Oval Office.

  8. The coronavirus pandemic in America has become a delta pandemic.

    “And this reporter puts the blame squarely on you, the reader.”

  9. Medical experts push back on the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department’s latest fentanyl scare tactic.

    I seized just watching that video.

    1. If you drive through Baltimore you’ll notice people on street corners wearing HAZMAT suits, they got the good shit.

  10. https://twitter.com/ZubyMusic/status/1424712256458199041?s=19

    Why is it that liberals and progressives generally believe ‘the pandemic’ is SO much more scary and deadly than conservatives and libertarians do?
    Different threat sensitivity?
    Personality types?
    Media sources?
    Groupthink?
    People are living in different realities.

    FYI this is a global phenomenon from what I have observed. Not limited to the USA or UK.

    I’ve also noticed that people who freaked out over Trump, Brexit and climate change also tend to freak out about ‘the pandemic’.

    It certainly appears that some people need an ‘existential threat’ even if it’s imaginary, or grossly exaggerated.

    1. But 600,000 dead should make everyone lose their shit. Or so I keep hearing

      1. I’m still surprised they haven’t tried to claim the pandemic worse than the civil war since it took 4 years for that many to die in battle while it only took one year of Trumps incompetence for that many to die from covid.

        1. No Trump vaccine for you!

    2. Conservatives tend to be afraid of certain groups of people: illegal immigrants, terrorists, criminals, etc., and are willing to surrender some of their liberty for protection from these bogeymen. They want a strong central government, but only want to use it against certain threats.

      Liberals tend to be afraid of all groups of people. They saw Thanos as the true tragic hero of the MCU, and humanity and progress as a plague upon Mother Earth. Since they are afraid of everyone, they want a strong central government to control everyone. Brexit was frightening to them because it rolled back the march toward one world government. Liberals also tend to reject religion, so fighting against imagined or exaggerated existential threats like slightly warmer weather or systemic racism gives their lives purpose, and assures them they are not one of the people who deserves to be snapped into dust by the one wearing the Infinity Gauntlet of unlimited power.

      1. Conservatives favor social conformity, and fear those who would disrupt the conformity with heterodox ideas.

        Liberals favor diversity, and fear those who would try to narrow or stifle that diversity.

        1. Who knew chemtard’s lefty university professor allies were so conservative?

        2. Read fatjeffs comment for an example of the incredibly simplistic world views of a low intelligence, partisan hack.

        3. Which is why today’s left is so pro free–speech and freedom of religion, and respects minority political opinions

          1. demjeff radical shill also doesnt get that regulating cryptocurrency like the bill does is another attack on individual freedom, but ALL democrats and only 18 republicans voted to end the debate. And disrupting individuality is the bane of real diversity. Hes really not that bright.

      2. Uh, the Marvel Comic Universe is just for entertainment. Neither Thanos nor God exist, M’Lady (hough Thanos and the Abrahamic and Vedic Gods are all assholes according to their legends.) The Universe is eternal and infinite. You don’t have to get rid of half of life in order to save the Universe. Duh?

        Liberals and Conservatives can fight over what reason to expand government power. I’ll continue to support refuting Supernatural Woo and limiting govenment.

      3. Uh, conservatives more likely want to reduce the liberties of illegal immigrants, terrorists, and criminals. Themselves, not so much.

        Liberals, especially the self-righteous (and self-hating) variety, are very eager to reduce liberties for everyone.

    3. The libertarians went directly to the actual data sources and looked at real numbers in the real world? They know that every single antibody test result shows the virus is far more widespread than we thought and we had been living with it for months without noticing?

    4. Modern liberals and progressives are the political choices (and outcomes) of nannies, Karens, and pussies. To them, EVERYTHING is a danger, and the only righteous strategy is to demand a risk-free existence.

      Remember your semi-senile grandma who worried about everything you did, and made you promise all kinds of asinine stuff?

    5. A rational viewpoint is that COVID-19 is neither cancer and heart disease, but neither is it “like a cold, but the sniffles.”

      And the rational libertarian response would have been to legalize and deregulate testing kits, PPE, sanitizer, abolish “certificates of need” for medical necessities. Quarantines only for the ill and at-risk, not for everyone. Then, as fast as a safe vaccine is developed, it’s “over the counter with an Epi-Pen, pretty soon, everybody’s well again.” To use a technical term: Booyah!”

  11. “‘The coronavirus pandemic in America has become a delta pandemic. By the end of July, it accounted for 93.4 percent of new infections,’ reports The Washington Post.”

    As a Koch / Reason libertarian, I’ll support almost anything Biden does to fight this virus — mask mandates, lockdowns, etc. But he must not even consider closing our southern border.

    #OpenBorders
    #(EspeciallyDuringAPandemic)

  12. https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/ppdwnmd

    It is noteworthy that prejudice-denoting words are markedly increasing in prevalence alongside long-term decreases in overt expression of prejudice [6]-[9] yet recent increases in the perceived prevalence of such prejudice among the general public. 

  13. Gold fell to below $1700/oz yesterday. Oil and silver are falling fast. The US Dollar is strengthening again.

    And all the wingnuts are talking runaway inflation.

    THIS HAPERINFLATION IS FER REAL!

    1. SleepyJoe says we have a booming economy. Why are prices dropping?

    2. And that’s not all!

      Warren Buffett is up over $16 billion this year.

      When Obama was President, and you gave daily updates about how we were in the best economy ever, you used Buffett’s net worth (instead of GDP growth) as your preferred metric. Well, Buffett is doing even better under Biden than he did under Obama.

      This means Biden has created the strongest economy in US history — surpassing even 2009 – 2016.

      #LibertariansForBiden

      1. Has Buffett made enough money that he’s going to voluntarily pay taxes at the same rate as his secretary, or is he still just whining and crying over how unfair it is that the government doesn’t force him to pay more taxes?

        1. No, he’s giving it all away before the death tax sends it all down the swamp drain. But Buffet can be trusted to do what he wants with the fruits of his labor unlike the rest of us.

        2. How much more did Buffett cost the federal government than his secretary (cradle to grave)?

    3. Did the same thing in March and April. But hey, you’ve got one data point, so go with it.

    4. turd lies, always. If turd posts it, it’s a lie or distorted enough to make if worthless.
      turd is a psychopathic liar.

  14. https://twitter.com/EricMMatheny/status/1424709819957710848?s=19

    The Liberal Elites are media savvy. They’re not lacking in self-awareness. They knew the optics of Obama’s massive unmasked/not socially-distanced event when people are being told to do precisely the opposite. They had the party on purpose; to remind you that you are not them.

  15. “Meet the woman who could replace New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.”

    Cuomo will survive this. New York will eventually realize his accusers are all mentally unstable liars.

    #MaleDemocratsAlwaysRespectWomen

  16. https://twitter.com/LeonydusJohnson/status/1424707479712276480?s=19

    Apparently, we’re just going to endlessly jump back and forth between race panic, COVID panic, and climate panic to keep people perpetually crippled by fear.

    “@AP
    A United Nations report released Monday warns that the Earth is getting so hot that temperatures will blow past a level of warming that global leaders sought to prevent in about a decade. [Link]”

    1. Next to the article was a picture of an old woman in front of a forest fire.

      1. Was she wearing a mask?

    2. OK. If it’s too late, can we stop fucking talking about it?

    3. 9 years to go.
      When it’s 1.5 degrees warmer, we’re all doomed.
      Even though people have been moving to warmer climates for decades (since AC was invented).

      1. I’m pretty dumb but even I know that life likes heat more than cold.

      2. So seriously, I wonder how much of this migration phenomenon has affected the perception of people about how “life has gotten warmer”. Since people do not have factual memories, what they know about the past is more based on folklore and stories, including about how grandpa had to shovel snow off the roof (in Wisconsin) but now it hardly snows at all (in South Carolina).

  17. Meet the woman who could replace New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

    But never in our hearts.

    1. How many innocents people will she be able to kill?

      1. As many if not more then any man could, you sexist pig!

  18. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/university-spends-50000-removing-racist-boulder-campus

    Apparently a ‘racist’ boulder was making students at the University of Wisconsin’s Madison campus feel uncomfortable to the point that the school actually spent some $50,000 removing it.

    The story is so utterly absurd that we wish we could claim satire, but as Fox News writes, “Chamberlin Rock, which rests atop Observatory Hill, is named after a 19th Century geologist and former university president, Thomas Crowder Chamberlin, whose work centered on glacial deposits, according to a bio on the university’s website.”

    1. I’m literally shaking.

    2. worlds biggest weather rock for sale cheap, must pay shipping

    3. And the funny thing is they didn’t actually “remove” it – They moved it to another spot on campus.

      1. So now it can trigger a different set of students? How racist!

    4. Duh, glaciology has been proven to be anti-feminist, so it probably is racist.

      https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132515623368

  19. “For now, the side that wants less cryptocurrency regulation and taxation lost.”

    Congrats, Reason. This is what you wanted.

    1. This can’t be repeated often enough. Elections really do have consequences!

      And “for now” will become “forever” when this shit-ass bill passes within the next couple of days. Which it will.

  20. It appears that the infrastructure bill will get about 17 Republican votes in the Senate, which is disappointing. That being said, if 33 of 50 Republican senators vote against it, that will still mean the Republicans were 2-1 against the infrastructure bill.

    The infrastructure bill is supported by 50 of 50 Democrats, and those whose support was questionable was only questionable because they refuse to support this bill unless it’s in addition to the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill.

    Regardless, every Republican senator who voted in favor of the infrastructure bill needs to be targeted for defeat in the Republican primaries–much like the Tea Party targeted Republicans who voted for TARP after 2008.

    1. Well, one (Graham) just got re-elected by lying about his conservative bona fides.

      “We have to show the Senate can get the ‘big’ things done”…something Democrats do not seem terribly concerned over when the GOP is is charge and why the Democrats always win.

      1. To the extent that the Tea Party concentrated on eliminating Republicans in the primaries–who specifically voted for TARP–that was ingenious.

        Same thing is needed here.

        It isn’t what they say or lie about. It’s how they voted. Did you vote for the infrastructure bill or didn’t you? If you did, the Republican tent shouldn’t be big enough to include you.

        That how you get libertarians and others into the tent. We need to control it at the primary level, like the government employee unions do in the Democratic party.

        1. Did you vote for the infrastructure bill or didn’t you? If you did, the Republican tent shouldn’t be big enough to include you.

          Vote out Republicans for doing what? For voting in favor of roads and bridges? (This is not the so-called ‘human infrastructure’ bill after all.) Trump talked endlessly about ‘infrastructure week’ after all. It’s not like government-funded physical infrastructure is some crazy left-wing idea. It’s hard to find a more mainstream idea than that.

          When did Republicans supposedly turn into Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists?

          1. “Roads and bridges.”
            As if.

            1. LOL, no kidding. A bill for “roads and bridges” that runs 2,500 pages isn’t limiting itself to just those items.

              chemsimp radical deathfat knows this, he’s just doing his usual reflexive lefty apologia/anti-rightist bellyaching. The hilarious part is that Overt actually called out his methodology directly a few days ago, and here he is doing it again.

            2. So they’re voting against it because of all the wasteful spending? Uh-huh.

              1. Jeff here is the epitome of retarded
                “the bill is titled flags for orphans! How could it be bad?”

                Umm it establishes concentration camps for political dissidents, creates a wealth tax, establishes a new unelected burocracy that has totalitarian control.

                Jeff: but it’s called flags for orphans!

                1. Can you show in the bill where it establishes concentration camps or has bureaucracies exerting totalitarian control? Or, maybe it is a bill that is about infrastructure? Gee I don’t know, which could it possibly be?

                  1. Here, chemsimp radical lefty dickmuncher treats Kuckland’s mocking response literally because he knows his own argument was so intellectually stunted.

                    1. Maybe the bill *actually is an infrastructure bill*, and is not a stalking horse for some other terrible idea.

                      It’s not a good idea just because of whatever the title says, and it’s also not a bad idea just because of whichever team is supporting it.

                    2. Maybe the bill *actually is an infrastructure bill*, and is not a stalking horse for some other terrible idea.

                      Maybe there’s a lot of other bullshit in there, using “roads and bridges” as the lever to get it through.

          2. You know, there are breakdowns of what is in the bill.

            1. Okay? Yes I agree that there is some nonsense spending in there, just like in every other spending bill. But it’s basically “roads and bridges”. Moreover, it’s basically things that Trump would have supported with his supposed perpetual “infrastructure week”. Even if anarcho-capitalists want to privatize the roads, it doesn’t mean Republicans want to, and opposing this bill is just a statement of tribalism for them. This doesn’t seem like a particularly smart hill for Republicans to die on. But who knows, more and more people are viewing politics as tribal warfare, so maybe Republicans will be rewarded for voting against roads.

              1. LOL.
                Keep flailing.

              2. “Moreover, it’s basically things that Trump would have supported”

                Using ASSUMPTIONS to criticize him is fun, ain’t it?

                Good to see that a radical individualist does not mind the government spying on you and is, in fact, LOOKING to pay for it.

                1. the government spying on you

                  What are you even talking about here?

                  1. The money to start work on the government spying on you to determine how many miles you drive, for starters.

                    1. Could you provide a citation for this claim?

                2. “Moreover, it’s basically things that Trump would have supported”

                  Trump isn’t dead, and he still has opinions. Here’s his opinion of the infrastructure bill:

                  “Former President Trump on Saturday slammed the Senate’s $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package just hours before the upper chamber is scheduled to vote on winding down debate, calling the bill a “disgrace” and pushing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to negotiate a better deal.

                  The ex-commander in chief issued the message from his Save America PAC, accusing Republican leaders of satisfying the policy agenda of Democrats and telling GOP senators to think “twice before you approve this terrible deal.”

                  —-The Hill, August 8, 2021

                  https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/566838-trump-slams-mcconnell-infrastructure-package-a-disgrace

                  If that’s what ChemJeff said, then he’s uninformed. If he made a claim that could be easily disproven with a simple search, he’s worse than uninformed.

                  1. Sure. Trump opposes THIS infrastructure bill because he’s studied all 2700 pages and has a detailed nuanced opinion on why it is inferior. It’s not at all because he opposes it only because BLUE TEAM BAD

                    1. Did you read it?

                    2. I read the summary, which is probably far more than Trump read about it.

                      Trump’s opposing it because BLUE TEAM BAD and also because of his ego – he wasn’t able to get an infrastructure bill through Congress and so he is going to attack the next guy who is currently succeeding in doing so.

              3. chemsimp radical deathfat always stands up for his Democratic buddies.

                1. And he can’t support his positions with facts and logic because they’re uninformed and irrational.

                  1. Yes, that is true: Trump cannot support his views with facts and logic, because they are uninformed and irrational.

                    1. Demsimp #2 weighs in.

          3. Your personal finances must be hilarious.

    2. BiPaRtiSaN!

    3. “It appears that the infrastructure bill will get about 17 Republican votes in the Senate…”

      Are people allowed to call the bill bipartisan? Or are you still trying to control the definition of “bipartisan”?

  21. “David French reviews Andrew Sullivan’s essay collection Out on a Limb.”

    Not reading it, but “Man, that was well thought out” is not something you will see in any reviews of his work.

    French is now a meme.

    1. Huh. In some minds ‘quarantine’ is or became synonymous with ‘prison camps’. Who could’ve foreseen this unintended consequence?

  22. ENB wrote:
    ‘”Crypto got screwed tonight,” tweeted Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas), in a thread proving he can occasionally still get something right.’

    In fact, left wing ENB is proving she can occasionally still get something right, while Cruz is correct most of the time.

  23. REPENT NOW!

    “U.N.-backed climate panel issues a dire report that contains a sliver of positive news”
    […]
    “…United Nations Secretary General António Guterres called the report’s findings “a code red for humanity” and said we owe it to “the entire human family” to cut emissions fast and sharply to avoid irreversible catastrophe….”
    https://theweek.com/climate-change/1003496/un-backed-climate-panel-issues-a-dire-report-that-contains-a-sliver-of

    Are you right with God?

    1. I wasn’t in favor of nuking China, but now that stopping them from producing more CO2 is a Code Red, I guess we’ll just have to suck it up and launch the missiles.

      1. Didn’t read much of the report (pretty sure it could be cut and pasted from the ones published over the last 30 years), but unless there’s a paragraph in there pointing out that nuclear power is a viable option, I can state that these are not serious people.

        1. Oh, they’re serious about taking away your rights and freedoms

  24. 76th anniversary of the Nagasaki nuke, where the US used high-tech weapons to end WWII and save millions of lives, including those of the Japanese.
    Normally we get some whining from those who have not answered this question:
    What alternative would have ended the war with fewer deaths?

    1. No alternative, which is why we had to drop the bomb and end the war faster.

    2. Can we instead have a discussion about how, a decade after we vaporized a city with an uncontrolled chain reaction, people were still living there and how they weren’t dying, covered in tumors, hair and teeth falling out, skin sloughing off from radiation poisoning for the next 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 yrs.?

      1. And the survivors are yet gathering annually for pity parties!

      2. I say we apologize by nuking Portland

        1. In a double-irony, we build a wall and only let people with Japanese passports and their direct descendents out.

    3. None. And are you aware that the England bombing of dresden had more civilian casualties that both nukes?

      1. I’ve read some revised numbers which lower that count by quite a bit. The more recent books all have lower counts; R. B. Frank seems to have done good research for “Downfall” and he puts the Dresden deaths at some 60,000 (pg45).

      2. Oops.
        Just now reading Atkinson’s “Guns at Last Light”; the most recent German estimate is 25,000 dead.

  25. Please stop calling something ‘bi-partisan’ every time a couple of republicans appear to support it. That’s the gaslighting I expect from the crooked legacy media, not from Reason.

    My favorite legacy media headline from earlier this year:

    “Republicans Block Bi-Partisan Bill” . . .

    1. But that is what bipartisan means – it is supported by members of both sides.

      The problem is not that particular bills or votes are labeled as ‘bipartisan’ when they actually are supported by members of both sides, the problem is the inclination to think that ‘bipartisan’ means ‘good’. As if a bad idea somehow becomes better if it is supported by people of different tribes.

      1. The problem is not that particular bills or votes are labeled as ‘bipartisan’ when they actually are supported by members of both sides, the problem is the inclination to think that ‘bipartisan’ means ‘good’. As if a bad idea somehow becomes better if it is supported by people of different tribes.

        ‘The real problem with chickens is that the eggs come first.’

        1. I don’t follow? There is nothing inherent about the word ‘bipartisan’ that implies that such a thing is necessarily good or positive. That is simply the meaning too many imbue into it.

          1. is less “implied” than “expressed by corporate media for at least the last 30 years”

          2. In a duopoly it’s sloppy shorthand for ‘unanimous’ and while I agree that 67-33 is not the most egregious case of abuse of the notion ‘bipartisan = unanimous’, it’s still an abuse when more than 50% of the opposition disagrees.

            More directly to my chicken-and-egg: Is it considered good because people just (fooled to) think ‘bipartisanship’ means something is inherently good [chicken] or is it considered good because people (are fooled to) think ‘Hey, even the people who think most of my ideas are stupid think it’s good!’ [egg]?

            1. Then it’s the “sloppy shorthand” that is wrong, not the word itself.

              I would imagine that the implication that “bipartisan = good” comes from the notion that if an idea is believed by a wider diversity of people, then it is less likely to be bad, because it has survived the rigor of criticism from different points of view. And in an ideal world, I suppose that would make sense. But that is not the case here – in this case, both sides are totally in favor of more spending, and so the fact that this bill increases spending is why they support it DESPITE the flaws.

      2. No it is not. There is one party that is responsible for crafting the bill, deciding what is in and what is out, and with the unilateral ability to pass it. Their members support the bill 100%.

        There’s also a small minority of members from the other party, which isn’t allowed to have any part of crafting the bill, and couldn’t pass it on their own if they wanted to, who also appear to support it for some reason or another.

        The word ‘bipartisan’ is being used to misdirect from the fact that this is a democrat bill. It is a democrat bill. It was built by democrats. If it passes, it will be with 100% democrat support. Most republicans oppose it.

        1. So by your reasoning, the PATRIOT Act wasn’t bipartisan either, even though it was supported by 99% of Congress, because one party was in charge of writing the bill. Is that really your argument?

          You are conflating power with support. Yes one party has the power. That is not what bipartisan means though. It means if the bill has the support of members of both parties. And the answer here is yes.

          In your view, was the impeachment of Bill Clinton “bipartisan”? Yes or no?

          And are we going to be pretending now that Democrats did not actually compromise here in order to get Republican votes?

          1. Susan Collins makes it bipartisan. lol.

            1. Yeah it does.
              What it doesn’t mean, is that just because Susan Collins might support something, doesn’t necessarily make that thing better.
              Get it now?

              1. shallow and pedantic. but watching you be wrong is half the fun of this place.

                1. Also correct. Thanks for admitting that I’m right, in your own way.

                  1. *Also I’m correct.

                    1. Lol

                    2. You’re full of shit.

    2. >>I expect from the crooked legacy media, not from Reason

      the line where you should expect it from Reason was crossed a long time ago?

    1. Fat tax next?

  26. For now all time, the side that wants less cryptocurrency regulation and taxation lost.

    FTFY. Seriously, when was the last time the side that wants less regulation and taxation of anything actually won?

    1. You mean universal de-regulation or just some faction’s pet priorities?

    2. We had this President a while back, Worse than Hitler. but somehow taxes And regations both went way down during his reign of terror

      1. And he took advantage of a global pandemic to crack down on the states to ensure his reelection, no wait….

        1. And somehow killed millions of Americans by infecting them all!

      2. B-b-b-but mean tweets!

  27. “While some people won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine once, others are doubling up.”

    I have heard from people who are convinced that the vaccine is a Trilateral Commission conspiracy, loaded with fluoride. And I have listened to my panicked (and already vaccinated) neighbors talk about how to scam the system so they can get another 2 or 3 (or 10) doses.

    Why are we surrounded with such fucking idiots?

    1. Why are we surrounded with such fucking idiots?

      Lockdowns ended.

  28. Team Less Regulation and Fewer taxes = Washington Generals

    1. Libertarian moment was about 30 trillion dollars ago.

    2. That’s a terrible analogy….the Generals won once.

      1. I was counting the ’95 “Budget Balance” … but Clinton will probably also tell you he’s Chelsea’s pop, so grain of salt and all …

  29. Ted Cruz getz stuff right on “occasion” about 20x more frequently than ENB does, or Welch or Fonzie these days. Maybe he should be in charge here.

    (But think of the sexworkers!)

    No one is perfect

  30. “Eighteen Republicans joined all Senate Democrats in the 68–29 vote to close debate and move on.”

    Finally, some real bipartisanship. I guess both sides can agree on spending money we don’t have and taxing any industry that still has a pulse.

    1. Eighteen Senate Republicans and sixty-eight Democrats didn’t do their job and failed their electorate.

  31. A win for property rights in Florida.

    https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/566946-judge-rules-florida-cant-ban-norwegian-cruise-line-vaccine-passport

    A judge ruled on Sunday that Norwegian Cruise Line is permitted to ask customers to show proof of vaccination before boarding a ship, dealing a blow to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s (R) law that prevented “vaccine passports” from being utilized in the state.

    The nearly 60-page preliminary ruling from U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in the Southern District of Florida said that the state law barring the use of vaccine passports is likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment and jeopardizes public health.

    The weird thing though is that the ruling claimed that the ‘vaccine passports’ violated the First Amendment’s speech provision, because it “blocked communication between business and customers”. I mean, sure, but I would have imagined that private property and association rights should have led the way here.

    A win is a win, though, I suppose.

    1. I guess that’s good news.

      However Florida won’t be truly libertarian until all K through 12 public schoolchildren are required to take critical race theory classes.

      #RadicalIndividualistsForRacialCollectivism

    2. “Vaccine passports are freedom”

      1. Discrimination is good now.

      2. Freedom is compliance!

        1. Clearly, freedom is subverting the property rights of all businesses.

          1. Who’s property rights? The shareholders? The Directors? The CEOs?

            1. Please tell me you think that a multinational corporation is a person.

              1. Testing more stuff

          2. Also, explain to us how mandatory vaccination actually benefits these companies bottom lines (I’m looking forward to this. Please infer that somehow a consumer would know or care that every single employee was vaxxed).

  32. “in a thread proving he can occasionally still get something right.”
    Can a writer at Reason get through an article without making a smartassed snide remark?

    1. No. Snarkiness directed toward politicians has always been part of Reason’s M.O.

  33. https://twitter.com/ZubyMusic/status/1424747431774892033?s=19

    The way they have been flagrantly breaking all of their own rules throughout, whilst performing such obvious charades, and yet millions of people STILL trust them is quite impressive.
    I actually respect the psyop.
    [Video]
    People laugh at this video, but this is the exact same thing that millions of people do when they enter restaurants… All over the world.
    It’s ALL performative. Nothing scientific nor logical about this.

    1. but this is the exact same thing that millions of people do when they enter restaurants…
      Not me.

    2. I actually respect the psyop.

      It’s not that they think we’re idiots. They know we recognize their middle school-level sophistry. They enjoy parading their lack of accountability. It’s a show of power.

  34. https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1424737737882624000?s=19

    Don’t get sucked into the fake (in the present media circumstances) climate change “debate.” That’s getting led around by the nose and playing on their turf. The arguing is the reflexive move. It’s how the dialectic progresses. Call it what it is: a narrative pivot for control.
    There are definitely real issues to discuss and debate about the climate and related phenomena. Now, during an attempted reflexive media push, is not the time. Discipline yourself. Do not take the bait. Deflate their political warfare balloon. Then you can talk about it.
    They will try to say it’s conservatives’ fault for not wanting to have the conversation so they can maintain the status quo (dialectical manipulation). Of course they will. They will not acknowledge that they’re forcing the conversation on illegitimate terms.
    All delay in any necessary conversations about climate change and related issues are being caused by the side using them as yet another narrative-driven political weapon.
    If Leftists really care about the climate, they must stop this BS immediately. They’re causing the delay.
    People who take the issue seriously don’t need reflexive political warfare to discuss it and refuse to discuss it in those manipulated circumstances. When the reflexive push stops, we can start to talk. Understand the moment in history you are living in.
    The people pushing a reflexive narrative don’t care about reality. You know this. They only care about making the debate itself a thing so they can polarize and scoop up sympathizers while identifying “dangerous” dissidents and naming them as enemies. Name the game. Don’t play.

  35. https://twitter.com/davereaboi/status/1424730656861478922?s=19

    We learned all the wrong lessons after WW2, thanks to people who tried very hard to find language they thought could explain the Nazis but didn’t condemn the Soviet Union.

    “@walterkim
    One problem with our historical sense of totalitarian horrors is that we learn of them in summary, as outcomes, & can’t imagine ourselves ever condoning such outcomes again, forgetting that these disasters appeared beforehand very differently, as attractive but deceptive choices”

  36. David French reviews Andrew Sullivan’s essay collection

    Cripes! Does it get much more establishment than that?

  37. It appears that the infrastructure bill will get about 17 Republican votes in the Senate, which is disappointing. That being said, if 33 of 50 Republican senators vote against it, that will still mean the Republicans were 2-1 against the infrastructure bill.

    The infrastructure bill is supported by 50 of 50 Democrats, and those whose support was questionable was only questionable because they refuse to support this bill unless it’s in addition to the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill.

    Regardless, every Republican senator who voted in favor of the infrastructure bill needs to be targeted for defeat in the Republican primaries–much like the Tea Party targeted Republicans who voted for TARP after 2008.

    1. So, you are either Ken’s sock puppet, or you and Ken are copying and pasting the same conservative talking points from the same source. Interesting.

  38. LIFE CHANGING OPPORTUNITY BE an Internet HOME-BASED real Earner.I am just working on facebook haq only 3 to 4 hours a Day and earning $47786 a month easily, that is handsome earning to meet my extra expenses and that is really life changing opportunity. Let me give you a little insight into what I do….. http://Www.SmartPay1.com

  39. Thank you for sharing such a useful information.

  40. Currently, users must bid for how much they’re willing to pay to have their ether transaction picked up by a miner, which can be extremely costly. Under EIP-1559, this process will be handled by an automated bidding system with a set fee amount that fluctuates based on how congested the network is.

    It’s just another point of view ^_^

    Loker Bandung

  41. Testing stuff and things.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.