LogFAQs > #983371311

i'm definitely in the 90%+ cut is way better camp. you can have nuance without being longer than lord of the ring and it's bullshit to run long ass bills nobody can read. the idea of defending it at all is absurd as it should be the other way around: you need to justify why you need 1600 pages in the first place. the weight on that is 100% on the camp saying they'd need a document which requires months to comb through properly over a document that needs days. i don't believe there's any reasonable, good faith position you can have to justify a bill that long. so yes, 116 > 1600. if you want to argue that there's more that could be put in that'd make it better, that's fair, but the starting point is absolutely wrong and backwards.