The bipartisan legislation was crafted in both chambers and must now pass the House. It seeks to build more homes and prevent large investors from out-bidding families.
The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Monday to pass a sweeping housing affordability bill aimed at lowering costs, putting Congress on the brink of a rare bipartisan victory in Donald Trump’s second term.
The vote was 85-5.
The legislation, which makes it easier to build homes and slaps limits on Wall Street investors from buying up houses, now goes to the House, which hopes to vote on it in the next few days. Then, it would go to Trump’s desk to be signed into law.
That’s because you can go right now to the legislation they hyperlinked if you want to know the text of the bill. The fact that the article is reporting on the politics surrounding a bill and giving a broad overview of what it does doesn’t make it “trash”; it makes it not what you’re specifically interested in, which is fine.
Which part of the 381-page document are you upset they weren’t quoting from or deep-diving into?
What if I told you that the news exists so that not everyone on the planet has to research everything?
Since you’re on a whinge: look up Steve Vladek. Personal friend, great legal analyst. If he hasn’t written about this yet, it’ll be up tomorrow or the next day.
What the fuck kind of response is this? “The news” (at least general audience news outlets like NBC) exists so that people can have a summary-level understanding of current events without having to research everything. This article provides a summary-level understanding of current events. If you want more than that, to actually go in and interrogate the exact text of the bill, what if I told you that legal analyses exist for that?
I don’t bitch and moan every time a newspaper article talks about a scientific discovery and doesn’t get deep into the weeds of the methodology and shit. That’s just how newspapers and news outlets work.
Anything that verifies the claims the senators are making.
If you’re a reporter trying to inform people about a bill that passed, you should have people read it and find out what it actually does, instead of just quoting the people who probably passed without reading it themselves.
My reading of the bill is useless, because I’m not a lawer, or trained in reading these sorts of legal documents. I can’t tell what’s important or not. And I don’t have a week/month to understand it.
If you want to know how to learn Legalese, here's how I did it.
So I’ll be honest, it can be worth the time to learn to read this shit but it takes time and effort. It’s hard. You’re learning a new dialect of English. Most folk I know call it Legalese or Lawriiwook. The Cornell Law Library has a great online, free collection of articles about legal decisions. Go read the important ones: Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott v Sanford, Brown v. Board of Education, hell any decision authored by Learned Hand (what an awesome name, right?), just one a day reading the decision and then their article on it until you feel like you’ve got a grasp on it. The first week, read the article, then the decision, then the article again. Trust me, it’ll help. Keep a legal dictionary nearby. And a latin one.
My favorite teacher in B School told me that’s what law school was like. Then he saw that I was enjoying it and dissuaded me as kindly and firmly as he could. Asked all the judges and lawyers and sinners in the family and they agreed with him.
Perhaps some people want to know what their legislator in particular is saying and that is valuable news to them.
You can verify the text of the bill yourself, but you can’t get that quote yourself.
The claim they cited from Republicans is just that it pushes back regulations, which is, like… Are you seriously asking for proof of that from a 381-page bill voted on 85–5 by a Republican-majority Senate? Is that some kind of specific, deeply controversial claim that needs interrogating in an article for a general audience? And the claims from Warren and Trump (for which their own agreement itself can be used as evidence) are that it pushes back on corporate ownership of houses:
At which point, you, a functioning, literate adult, can go to the bill’s table of contents, find that it’s Sec. 1001 (pp. 360–379), and read through it. If you’re looking for an in-depth legal analysis: congratulations. That’s cool. I hope somebody like LegalEagle makes one for you. Here’s a summary of the bill’s sections from the US House Financial Services Committee if that helps you at all.
That again doesn’t make this article “trash”; it means you’re looking for something deeper than what most people are.