question about how our government works

[quote name='UncleBob']Democrats won't push it through because they care more about staying in power than going through with what they believe is the right course of action.

Face it. In Obama, you elected a man of words. We need men of action.[/QUOTE]

You're not going to find a man of action in any modern form of government on this planet. At this point, it's time to tear it down and start all over again.
 
More from the clowns. Bill Frist:
In 2003, while I was serving as majority leader, Republicans used the reconciliation process to enact tax cuts. I was approached by members of my own caucus to use reconciliation to extend prescription drug coverage to millions of Medicare recipients. I resisted. The Congress considered the legislation under regular order, and the Medicare Modernization Act passed through the normal legislative procedure in 2003.
Click to expand...
He conveniently left out that the Democrats agreed not to filibuster and let it come to a vote, making reconciliation unnecessary.

Your modern lying GOP.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Obama and the Democrats tried in good faith to get them on board, there isn't any who can say otherwise with a straight face[/QUOTE]

this is a very astute point and I think it deserves more consideration in this thread.
 
From Thinkprogress.org:
Last night and today, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) filibustered an extension of unemployment benefits, telling Democrats who were trying to pass the bill “tough sh*t.” Benefits will expire for many workers on Sunday.
Click to expand...

Apparently this bill also contains transportation funding that, if it expires, will lead to furloughs in the Federal Highway Admin. Even Senator Jim 'fuck Al Gore' Inhofe tried to get him to stop.

So on topic, our government doesn't work.
 
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) said, “I believe we’re stooping to a low level. This is not the way the Senate functions. Everybody in the country now knows that the senator from Kentucky has a hold on this bill. … That’s something that we honor in this body.”
Click to expand...

I still remember that asshole's campaign ads. So when someone is puling a stunt like that to hold up the passing of a bill, thats to be respected?

Is this fucking bizzaro world or something? I'm starting to believe in foc's alternate dimensions theory.
 
The Senate is like a club, there is supposed to be a lot of comity etc. although Republicans have taken a massive dump all over that for a while now, I would have thought no one would even pretend any more after the shelby shakedown.

As an aside all this faux outrage and fury is such garbage. Basically the bill already passed, the fixes are what have to go through reconciliation, if the house could actually trust the Senate not to act like a daycare it would be done already.
 
Well I guess in a sense even though are considered equal the House is kind of bush league compared to the Senate. Their terms are shorter and they have less power. Some of them haven't even been alive as long Byrd has been a Senator but in the end they are able to pass bills and don't have access to such insane gimmicks like holds or the filibuster, in the end only a relative few house members (like mine) are egomaniacal preening fucktards.

The Senate is basically an archaic millionaire's club, I say abolish or neuter it.
 
Who's yours Msut? Mine is Sestak, who will probably not beat Specter in the primary in PA. I hope he will because I agree with him more, but in the end, all I care about is beating Santorum....er...Toomey. Always get em confused because they're the same person. Neocons.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I still remember that asshole's campaign ads. So when someone is puling a stunt like that to hold up the passing of a bill, thats to be respected?

Is this fucking bizzaro world or something? I'm starting to believe in foc's alternate dimensions theory.[/QUOTE]

Do you think the Senate is any more coherent in the other universes?
 
[quote name='SpazX']Isn't the house supposed to be the hilariously inept part of congress?[/QUOTE]

You just hear more about the Senate nowadays. But the House is dysfunctional in different ways, and more corrupt than the Senate. It doesn't help that spending bills originate there on that score.
 
If the Senate were rolled back into being a function of state representation - as it was originally intended - rather than a more elite version of the House, there would likely be less instances of two or three Senators blocking legislation. It wouldn't be a cure all, of course, but I'm thinking it'd be better than what we have now.
 
Okay, another ignorant question to go along with all this talk about founder's intent...

There are 100 senators, right? So 50 versus 50 is a tie vote? And isn't the Vice President's main role to be a Senate-voting tie-breaker? I mean, other than becoming acting President if something happens to the President, his main job is tie-breaker, right? So why does it need to be 60-40 to pass anything? At 50 vs 50, shouldn't the VP be able to vote, making it 51 vs 50 and passing the bill? Is it all because of the filibuster that this doesn't happen, and if that's the reason, then isn't it safe to conclude filibusters are against the founder's intent? Because if there's practically no such thing as a tie then it seems like the VP would have some other duty.


edit: google dropped some knowledge on my ass http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/03/10/how-many-votes-does-it-take-to-pass-a-senate-bill/

okay so it definitely sounds like the founder's intent was majority rule, 51 and it's yours... and it seems like majority rule is possible in the face of a filibuster by abusing reconciliation... but abuse (reconciliation) to negate abuse (filibuster) seems pretty legit to me, i dont think dems should fear any sort of backlash, seems like a strict majority rule is the way things are supposed to work
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Koggit']Okay, another ignorant question to go along with all this talk about founder's intent...

There are 100 senators, right? So 50 versus 50 is a tie vote? And isn't the Vice President's main role to be a Senate-voting tie-breaker? I mean, other than becoming acting President if something happens to the President, his main job is tie-breaker, right? So why does it need to be 60-40 to pass anything? At 50 vs 50, shouldn't the VP be able to vote, making it 51 vs 50 and passing the bill? Is it all because of the filibuster that this doesn't happen, and if that's the reason, then isn't it safe to conclude filibusters are against the founder's intent? Because if there's practically no such thing as a tie then it seems like the VP would have some other duty.


edit: google dropped some knowledge on my ass http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/03/10/how-many-votes-does-it-take-to-pass-a-senate-bill/

okay so it definitely sounds like the founder's intent was majority rule, 51 and it's yours... and it seems like majority rule is possible in the face of a filibuster by abusing reconciliation... but abuse (reconciliation) to negate abuse (filibuster) seems pretty legit to me, i dont think dems should fear any sort of backlash, seems like a strict majority rule is the way things are supposed to work[/QUOTE]

The Democrats got murdered back in 1994 because of Bill Clinton pursuing health care reform and "the largest tax increase in history". They're trying to avoid history from repeating itself.

Let's say the Democrats passed a single payer health care system. There won't be enough time for the benefit of it to be shown before the November elections. People would be paying higher taxes for health care, but any improvement in aggregate health will take years if not decades.
 
okay, let's say we're brothers and mom hates to cook. i wanna get mom a shitty apron for christmas. i can easily afford it. i think she really needs this shitty apron, she just needs it, her clothes keep getting covered in food and she has to cook for us, she hates aprons and hates cooking but dammit she just needs this. okay, so i really wanna buy her this apron, but she'd hate it. so i say "hey, foc, let's say it's from both of us, okay? let's go in together on it" but you don't want to. you dont think she needs an apron all that badly and dont wanna risk pissing her off. and i dont wanna give it to her unless you split the blame with me. so no apron for mom. now, considering people keep blaming republicans for lack of health care reform... i guess it follows that it's your fault mom's not getting an apron for christmas. you dick -- i'm so gonna tell her it was all your fault she didnt get the apron.


i'm definitely not liking republicans any more but i'm really starting to hate the dems...
 
[quote name='Koggit']Okay, another ignorant question to go along with all this talk about founder's intent...

There are 100 senators, right? So 50 versus 50 is a tie vote? And isn't the Vice President's main role to be a Senate-voting tie-breaker? I mean, other than becoming acting President if something happens to the President, his main job is tie-breaker, right? So why does it need to be 60-40 to pass anything? At 50 vs 50, shouldn't the VP be able to vote, making it 51 vs 50 and passing the bill? Is it all because of the filibuster that this doesn't happen, and if that's the reason, then isn't it safe to conclude filibusters are against the founder's intent? Because if there's practically no such thing as a tie then it seems like the VP would have some other duty.


edit: google dropped some knowledge on my ass http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/03/10/how-many-votes-does-it-take-to-pass-a-senate-bill/

okay so it definitely sounds like the founder's intent was majority rule, 51 and it's yours... and it seems like majority rule is possible in the face of a filibuster by abusing reconciliation... but abuse (reconciliation) to negate abuse (filibuster) seems pretty legit to me, i dont think dems should fear any sort of backlash, seems like a strict majority rule is the way things are supposed to work[/QUOTE]

I don't think the Founders envisioned a filibuster system like we have today, with supermajorities required for just about anything. However, it certainly is constitutional, despite what some people say. The Constitution says something to the effect of "each house (of Congress) can set its own rules." The Senate has set 60 votes as the needed amount for cutting off debate as its rule for that. I can't see how that violates anything other than possibly needing a prudent process.
 
It's funny how the Republicans cite the filibuster as a way of protecting the rights of the minority so the majority doesn't trample all over them.

Yet ironically whenever a vote of gay marriage comes up (e.g. Prop 8 in CA) they cite the shit out of it 'oh the American people have spoken.' Apparently its ok to protect the rights of a minority as long as they're United States Senators, but fuck it if they're just regular American (gay) people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top