GOP To Filibuster Filibuster Reform

[dmcowen674]

Whatever option pisses off Republicans the most is the best option.

 

[bfdd]

I happen to disagree with Double Trouble, the filibuster may be a decent tactic to use rarely, but when its used all the time, its not such a good idea because it creates a tyranny of the minority and total grid lock where nothing can be done. The filibuster may have worked fine in the past but its current and total overuse threatens its purpose.

As it is, what the democrats lack is lock step party unity, so a decent balance of power is maintained as it is.

yes get rid of something that has worked for quite a long time perfectly well because RIGHT NOW at this moment it isn't really needed because ONE party which might not be in power in less than 3 years is still torn over issues. you are an idiot.

 

[Bird222]

The filibuster should be available, but they should have to go through with it. Having to actually do it will help cut down on its use.

 

[Craig234]

Each President has his priorities that they want.

Congress then determines what they are willing to provide.

It is then up to the President to accept or reject the package.
With the line Item veto out; it becomes an all or nothing unless they can control funding distribution by fiat.

Not sure what your point is in restating this.

 

[Craig234]

Ummmm Reagan never had a congress controlled by his party. Instead he had to work with the Democrats to pass budgets.

So in reality the budget deficits of the 80s and early 90s were the result of Republicans Presidents working with a Democratic congress.

The President tends to have the votes of his party whether it's the minority or majority. Reagan had the Senate at times.

You're right, he had to work with Democrats - but the president's power still led HIS BUDGETS and HIS POLICES to greatly change things and to the skyrocketing deficits. See the similar congress under Carter?

Of course the Democrats didn't give him everything he wanted - and even outlawed him from sponsoring terrorism - hence his administrations illegalfundraising and spending resulting in underprosecuted scandal.

 

[Craig234]

Whoops - Not having a balanced budget amendment was other mistake. And yes Craig, things would still get done - just not .gov comprising 30% of GDP like today.

And popsicles would fall from the wky when it snowed. You have to love the libertarian fallacies (you don't have to call yourself a libertarian to have them). Name one country where your system works?

 

[Craig234]

I thought it was a horribly stupid short-sighted idea when the idiot repubs wanted to do it, and it's the same horribly stupid short-sighted idea now. Don't these guys ever ever learn: when you monkey around with the rules to benefit you when you're in power, it inevitably comes back to bite you in the ass when the other guy is in power and uses the advantages you created. Prime example: Massachusetts. If the dems had not monkeyed around with the rules when Romney was there, Brown would not be a senator now.

So your positions, when you abuse the rules in the minority - so your smallest in decades IIRC minority of 40 can veto anything - nothing happens? Nothing bites you in the ass?

 

[Craig234]

Funny how you simply define it as "abuse" when it's the other guys doing it.

Funny how you allege a double standard of 'abuse' when there is actually a clear difference justifying the work - only when you get to attack the left.

I don't think it's been abused at all, I think it's working exactly as it should...

Of course you don't. Something designed for something very limited abused by the smalles in decades IIRC minority of 40 vetoisng everything is no problem - if it's Republicans.

Going from 6% in the 60's with 20's percents later to the all-time high of 70% today - 'as designed'.

You have no intellectual integrity or is it you just don't understand the facts?

As I stated before, monkeying with the rules so you have more power when you have the majority seems like a wonderful idea, until a couple of years later things turn around and then people are bitching and whining about what the other party is doing. Leave the damn rule alone, it's been working fine for generations, and there's no compelling argument as to why it needs changed now. The parties just need to learn to work with each other instead of each one hardheadedly trying to ram through an extreme agenda that the "other side" can not vote for.

Oh, the parties just need to work with one another. I hope you had that sent to Washington to save our nation. Appreciate your great service solving the problem!

And of course, ANYTHING the Repubs of 40 block is by definition "extreme agenda". Ya, you sure have it down and couldn't have a more fair, less partisan post.

The republicans were whining about the dems "abusing" the filibuster before, and they threatened to use the nuclear option to stop it. Now the dems whine about the republicans "abusing" it. It's perfectly within the rules, it's worked fine forever, both sides do it, keep it as is.

The Repubs were wining about it when Dems would approve many dozens of largely radicasl judges and block the few worst. That's not the same as using it as a veto at record levels over most policies.

Ever hear of "gaming the ref"? It's when Repubs allege abuse over nothing in the majority, then set records abusing in the minority, and suckers like you say "well they both said it was abuse, so it's the same".

THe Republicans love ignorant ciizens like you.

 

[Lemon law]

Jesus Christ on a crutch, can't we get any perspective?

The filibuster may be a good idea on occasion, but its never a good idea to use the filibuster as a 100% norm.

Read US history, never in US History has the filibuster been used as routinely by this recent GOP minority. Never never in US history.

Maybe point taken, during the LBJ era, dimocrats cranked bad legislation out with more thought on quantity than quality, so did GWB&co recently, but when we can't even crank out any quality legislation at all, the USA becomes sitting duck dinosaurs incapable of rational change. And instead we get cluster fuck counter adaptive compromises that are worse when we need the change we voted for in 2008.

The GOP may think of themselves as hero's, but I think they are a bunch of rascals that stand for nothing.

 

[Thump553]

That said, I don't know why Harkin is introducing a bill. There is no need for it to change this rule.

You prefer government rule by a minority party? Seems pretty unamerican.

 

[Patranus]

Jesus Christ on a crutch, can't we get any perspective?

The filibuster may be a good idea on occasion, but its never a good idea to use the filibuster as a 100% norm.

Read US history, never in US History has the filibuster been used as routinely by this recent GOP minority. Never never in US history.

Maybe point taken, during the LBJ era, dimocrats cranked bad legislation out with more thought on quantity than quality, so did GWB&co recently, but when we can't even crank out any quality legislation at all, the USA becomes sitting duck dinosaurs incapable of rational change. And instead we get cluster fuck counter adaptive compromises that are worse when we need the change we voted for in 2008.

The GOP may think of themselves as hero's, but I think they are a bunch of rascals that stand for nothing.

How about the Democrats stop trying to act like they know what is best for everyone?
That solution sure worked out in MA. They passed what they felt was needed in their state. Didn't require the federal government at all. Look, Oregon did the same thing.

There is no reason why the federal government has to be doing any of this and it is NOT in the constitution.

Edit: There was a recent article that said California was going to try and push single payer on that state, more power to them.

 

[Xellos2099]

Well if the legislation being pass is a streaming pile of shit, of course they have to filebuster it.

 

[Double Trouble]

The frequency of use of the filibuster doesn't mean anything with regard to whether the system is working as designed or not. If 90% of the legislation one party wants to pass is crap, and the other party uses the filibuster to stop that 90% of stuff, that's a good thing. It's working as designed.

If the repubs simply sit there and use the filibuster on everything and the government does nothing, that's probably a good thing for all of us, that's when things go best. Gridlock in DC = good for the country, they can't screw things up further.

Besides, if the repubs just use the filibuster all the time, it's up to the public to punish them for doing so. Changing the rules whenever you don't like how things turn out is a surefire way to screw things up.

Another point to note is that the fact that the minority party can filibuster anything at any time might be just the thing that forces the parties to compromise. If they know that no matter what they do, they can't ram something down the throat of the other side, they'll be forced to work with the other side to come up with something viable.

 

[Craig234]

The frequency of use of the filibuster doesn't mean anything with regard to whether the system is working as designed or not. If 90% of the legislation one party wants to pass is crap, and the other party uses the filibuster to stop that 90% of stuff, that's a good thing. It's working as designed.

And if 90% of the legistlation the majority wants to pass is good, and the minority blocks all of it for the purpose of preventing them from having any progress to run on, you say it'sa working great.

Clueless.

If the repubs simply sit there and use the filibuster on everything and the government does nothing, that's probably a good thing for all of us, that's when things go best. Gridlock in DC = good for the country, they can't screw things up further.

Yes, abusing the rules for the outcome you foolishly think is good isn't just good, you say it's not abusing the rules at all. Again, abusing the rules for a 'good cause' is not abusing the rules.

So if they could hack in and break the voting sstem so votes can't be take, then didn't break the system, because the nation was better off when its government could not vote.

You don't notive how undemocratic you are either.

Besides, if the repubs just use the filibuster all the time, it's up to the public to punish them for doing so.

Ye,s thye did nothing wrong, it's all up to the public. If you break in someone's house and steal their things, you didn't steal - it's up to them to have a good alarm.

Changing the rules whenever you don't like how things turn out is a surefire way to screw things up.

The public tends not to hold them accountable for obstructionism. That doesn't mean it's not obstructionism, abusing the rules. The public elected them to 40 seats, not the majority.

Another point to note is that the fact that the minority party can filibuster anything at any time might be just the thing that forces the parties to compromise. If they know that no matter what they do, they can't ram something down the throat of the other side, they'll be forced to work with the other side to come up with something viable.

THey can't just force the majority to 'compromise' to 'something viable'. THey can force the majorit to not pass anything no matter how much they compromise. THey can force the majority to GUT the bill.

But you don't have a wor to say anout that, becase you prefer the straw man that all the Republicans want are very reasonable improvoements. THey'd NEVER abuse the rules.

 

[Craig234]

Well if the legislation being pass is a streaming pile of shit, of course they have to filebuster it.

Well if the legistlation being passes is execellent, of course they have to filibuster it. I'm not referring to the Senate bill, don't dodge the point being made.

 

[Patranus]

And if 90% of the legistlation the majority wants to pass is good, and the minority blocks all of it for the purpose of preventing them from having any progress to run on, you say it'sa working great.

Clueless.

If 90% of the legislature wanted to pass it, they could just pass a constitutional amendment.

Clueless.

 

[drebo]

I happen to disagree with Double Trouble, the filibuster may be a decent tactic to use rarely, but when its used all the time, its not such a good idea because it creates a tyranny of the minority and total grid lock where nothing can be done. The filibuster may have worked fine in the past but its current and total overuse threatens its purpose.

As it is, what the democrats lack is lock step party unity, so a decent balance of power is maintained as it is.

I'm sorry, but the minority PREVENTING the majority from passing laws which are not widely agreed upon is NOT tyranny.

In my opinion, the real tyranny here is the HUGE minority of Democratic Congressmen and Senators who think they can cram a healthcare bill down our throats that is universally unwanted. November will bear this out.

 

[Craig234]

How about the Democrats stop trying to act like they know what is best for everyone?

Who put THEM in power, anyway?

How arrogant for them to expect that they have more power right now than 40 Republicans.

 

[Patranus]

Who put THEM in power, anyway?

How arrogant for them to expect that they have more power right now than 40 Republicans.

Again, if the legislation is so great, nothing it stopping those particular states form enacting legislation.

The Democrats are trying to act the part of the school yard bully.

 

[Craig234]

I'm sorry, but the minority PREVENTING the majority from passing laws which are not widely agreed upon is NOT tyranny.

In my opinion, the real tyranny here is the HUGE minority of Democratic Congressmen and Senators who think they can cram a healthcare bill down our throats that is universally unwanted. November will bear this out.

You disengenuously add the phrase 'which are not widely agreed upon' to try to make a straw man.

It is a tyranny. They are not limited to 'which are not widely agreed upon. They can and do filibuster akkkinds of things. At all-time record levels.

You don't discuss thereal situation because you can't beat it like you can your straw man.

The republicans are entitled to use the filibuster, not to abuse it. The absence of any hint the Republicans could even fiibuster a good bill for poitical obstructionism from your posts shows your partisanship.

 

[Craig234]

Again, if the legislation is so great, nothing it stopping those particular states form enacting legislation.

The Democrats are trying to act the part of the school yard bully.

No, you are excusing an abuse by trying to for YOUR preference for not letting the Democrats act as the federal governemnt actually works, insteal limited to your fantasy of how you want it to.

The majority passing legislation is not abusing their power. THat's how it works.

News story: Republicans hack into vote system and cause nothing to pass
Patranus response: I prefer the Libertarian system so they di dnot break the rules

 

[Patranus]

No, you are excusing an abuse by trying to fore YOUR preference for not letting the Democrats act as the federal governemnt actually works, insteal limited to your fantasy of how you want it to.

Sounds like you are the one living in fantasy land as to how you want the federal government to work because you are the one bitching about the filibuster of health care "reform".

/Craig234

 

[Lemon law]

Let us examine the Patranus position of, "If the repubs simply sit there and use the filibuster on everything and the government does nothing, that's probably a good thing for all of us, that's when things go best. Gridlock in DC = good for the country, they can't screw things up further."

But I say au contrare, how quickly we forget, it was GWB&co policy that melted down the economy in the first place.

So quite clearly we need better governance, and in championing the defective policies of GWB&co impossible to change without filibuster reform, we are left with only the known defective policies of GWB&co left in place unchanged. Known failures locked in stone.

How crazy is that Petranus?????????????????????????? How is that good??????????????

 

[MotF Bane]

If 90% of the legislature wanted to pass it, they could just pass a constitutional amendment.

Clueless.

If 90% of the legislature wanted to pass it, cloture would be easy to obtain.

 

[Craig234]

Sounds like you are the one living in fantasy land as to how you want the federal government to work because you are the one bitching about the filibuster of health care "reform".

/Craig234

Craig: Reagan's administration ignored the law and funded terrorism
Patranus: It was a good cause, so they did not break the law
Craig: You are trying to say how you want things to work is 'the law'. Wrong.
Patranus: Sounds like you're the one in fantasy land since you're bitching about funding terrorism