• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Senate Republicans kill veterans jobs bill

bym051d said:
Prevents tyranny of the majority. I like the fillibuster, but I think it needs fixed. I don't like being able to do so without actually speaking.
Click to expand...

So a majority of more than 60 is allowed to be tyrannical?
 
Except Republicans had more money to spend. By keeping the current system, you throw out the will of the majority and those who have less money.
 
What exactly was the line of thinking on killing this bill?
 
Liquid Karma said:
Because I want a bill to require at least some support from the other side. It's a nice little system of checks and balances.
Click to expand...

This bill in question did have some support from the other side. I think it was 6 Republicans that voted for it -- I could be wrong, I didn't double check just now.

bym051d said:
Prevents tyranny of the majority. I like the fillibuster, but I think it needs fixed. I don't like being able to do so without actually speaking.
Click to expand...

Tyranny of the majority? Wouldn't that be sorted by the American people the next election, which is never more than 2 years away?

I do agree with your last sentence, however. This current system if for the birds.

DeaconCav06 said:
What exactly was the line of thinking on killing this bill?
Click to expand...

Stated reason: It will increase the debt.

Underlying reason (I believe): Will look good for Obama to have this passed because some of the bill got started at the WH.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
So a majority of more than 60 is allowed to be tyrannical?
Click to expand...

There has to be a line. I like 2/3 more. But, it's much more likely to not be tyrannical (not impossible) if 60% of the Senators are supportive of it reaching the floor.
 
The filibuster rule, as amended, is a travesty. A total, systemic abuse of procedure. It allows the losing party of an election to never support compromise, never do any real work, and to simply shell up and wait for the next election and hope they get on top (in which case the other party will simply do the same thing right back). This isn't gridlock, this is full-stop governmental break-down.

We had plenty of checks and balances before sign-up filibuster practices made the new majority 60 rather than 50. They were called elections, and both parties knew that if you simply screwed the other one, and never worked across the aisle during your time in the majority, eventually the pendulum would swing, and you'd get screwed right back when you lost control. So the adults that we used to elect to Congress would employ compromise to pass the necessary legislation, such as this bill or a debt ceiling issue, whether they were in the majority or minority.

Now, since there is simply no chance for one party to effectively punish the other for being intransigent and unreasonable -- supermajorities are and will be incredibly rare -- we have the reality that either party can proceed by never giving up anything, ever, with no fear that legislation will pass without their participation. Why work with your opposition when there's no threat that anything can get done without your okay? There is no concern that refusing to work with the opposition could lead to worse results for their party. The country is, of course, getting screwed.

The Senate was designed to pass legislation by a simple majority, not by supermajority. There is another House, subject to the voter's review every two years, that can halt a 51-vote majority is the Senate. That check exists. Additionally, there is another branch of government that can veto a Senate majority decision. That is anther check. There is no need for a procedurally misused 60-vote check in the Senate that was never envisioned by the Constitution. In fact, there is a very great need to discard it.
 
Last edited:
ArlingtonDeac said:
The filibuster rule, as amended, is a travesty. A total, systemic abuse of procedure. It allows the losing party of an election to never support compromise, never do any real work, and to simply shell up and wait for the next election and hope they get on top (in which case the other party will simply do the same thing right back). This isn't gridlock, this is full-stop governmental break-down.

We had plenty of checks and balances before sign-up filibuster practices made the new majority 60 rather than 50. They were called elections, and both parties knew that if you simply screwed the other one, and never worked across the aisle during your time in the majority, eventually the pendulum would swing, and you'd get screwed right back when you lost control. So the adults that we used to elect to Congress would employ compromise to pass the necessary legislation, such as this bill or a debt ceiling issue, whether they were in the majority or minority.

Now, since there is simply no chance for one party can punish the other for being intransigent and unreasonable -- supermajorities are and will be incredibly rare. So we have the reality that either party can proceed by never giving up anything, ever, with no fear that legislation will pass with or without their participation. Why work with your opposition when you there's no threat that anything can get done without your okay? There is no concern that refusing to work with the opposition could lead to worse results for their party. The country is, of course, getting screwed.

The Senate was designed to pass legislation by a simple majority, not by supermajority. There is another House, subject to the voter's review every two years, that can halt a 51-vote majority is the Senate. That check exists. Additionally, there is another branch of government that that can veto a Senate majority decision. That is anther check. There is no need for a procedurally misused 60-vote check in the Senate that was never envisioned by the Constitution. In fact, there is a very great need to discard it.
Click to expand...

I.... I....


I think I love you.
 
It boggles the mind that the Senate has been reduced to the kind of obstructionism that we can't even support our men and women in uniform when they come home from fighting on foreign soil.

The party that blocked this bill is populated by the same people that attacked anyone who questioned the validity of war by calling them "un-American" and "against the troops." They're same people that helped fund both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars BY NOT ACTUALLY PAYING FOR THEM. All of a sudden, they don't think providing a little extra financial support to make sure our veterans can find a job is worth it? No, because its more important to stall a bill that might make the President look good when you're trying to defeat him in an election.

How is the entire country not completely fucking outraged by this? Oh, because the so-called "liberal media" is too busy with nudie pictures of a British princess and meaningless horserace headlines. Its absolutely infuriating. Where the hell is Will McAvoy when you need him?

Seriously, fuck you Senate Republicans. Fuck you in your fucking face.

/rant
 
RJKarl said:
Even after Patty Murray incorporated all of Richard Burr's policies, he wouldn't vote for it. Once again the GOP shows they hate Obama more than they loves Americans and vets. This is truly disgusting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...35a104-0292-11e2-91e7-2962c74e7738_story.html
Click to expand...

If we had an unlimited supply of money I would absolutely agree with you. Unfortunately, we don't. In fact were in the red. Big time. Where do you draw the line? At what point do you decide that balancing the budget might actually be a good idea?

And yes, I absolutely agree with you that increased revenue must be a part of any rational plan to accomplish this. But your argument basically reads, "how dare they not spend money they don't have?"
 
Dems would never use a shifty bill like this to score easy points in an Election year would they?? naw.
 
wfumike02 said:
If we had an unlimited supply of money I would absolutely agree with you. Unfortunately, we don't. In fact were in the red. Big time. Where do you draw the line? At what point do you decide that balancing the budget might actually be a good idea?

And yes, I absolutely agree with you that increased revenue must be a part of any rational plan to accomplish this. But your argument basically reads, "how dare they not spend money they don't have?"
Click to expand...

This is one of those things that everybody should agree SHOULD be funded, even if it's at the expense of other programs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top