Deacfreak07
Ain't played nobody, PAWL!
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.
So a majority of more than 60 is allowed to be tyrannical?
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.
I don't entirely disagree with you, but aren't elections the check and balance on this process?
They were until it became a contest of who has the most money to spend.
What exactly was the line of thinking on killing this bill?
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.
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.
What exactly was the line of thinking on killing this bill?
I better not hear that these morons support the troops!!!
I would imagine the conversation will be about the spending agreement with the super committee.
So a majority of more than 60 is allowed to be tyrannical?
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.
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
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.