Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Harry Reid moves to limit GOP filibusters

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by hangedman13
Very short sighted. What will the dems do when they are on that side of the fence? Not like they never filibustered.
Reid should actually do his job and submit a budget proposal. Seems to me that is the reason for the whole budget problem, a lack of one.


It's a surreal thing that Obama has just won his second term and never had a budget passed.


There are many sides to that story and lasted I checked, the power of the purse is not in the executive.




posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Both parties have mis-used the filibuster to thwart getting anything accomplished. If I am not mistaken (and I might be) it was a Republican controlled senate that changed the rules in the first place. They changed the number of votes to overrule a filibuster years ago. I forget when it happened.

The Republicans have used the filibuster more times in the last four years than it was ever used before. It was part of the plan to stop anything from getting accomplished...all part of the "First priority is to make Obama a one term President"...that was Mitch McConnel's words. Well they failed and though I did not vote for Obama and would have preferred another choice...I am tired of the gridlock. I am tired of one party refusing to get things moving. It is, in my angry opinion, beginning to teeter on treason. If you are intentionally stopping or delaying growth and recovery...you are an enemy of the state.
edit on 11/7/2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)
edit on 11/7/2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by romney
On the other side of the coin, I doubt the founding fathers created a lawmaking body just to
have it neutered by obstructionism each day everyday. The Constitution did not mandate
60 votes to get anything done.

The GOP is gonna have to grow a pair and finally start cooperating, they lost exactly because
of their piss poor, baby attitude.


The Democrats too need a "new pair".

Their "old pair" is worn out and shrunken.

They seem to shout and scream louder than new born babies every time somebody says they are wrong about something.

They can bend a little too.

The American citizens need the economy back.

The same voter base has a Republican majority in the House.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by romney
On the other side of the coin, I doubt the founding fathers created a lawmaking body just to
have it neutered by obstructionism each day everyday. The Constitution did not mandate
60 votes to get anything done.

The GOP is gonna have to grow a pair and finally start cooperating, they lost exactly because
of their piss poor, baby attitude.


The Democrats too need a "new pair".

Their "old pair" is worn out and shrunken.

They seem to shout and scream louder than new born babies every time somebody says they are wrong about something.

They can bend a little too.

The American citizens need the economy back.

The same voter base has a Republican majority in the House.



They did bend, from UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE to ROMNEY CARE, the guy you voted for just
yesterday.

The Democrats are also willing to cut spending if they can raise taxes on rich - that is a compromise.

Both have to sacrifice a little - why can't they get on board and suck it up???



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jeremiah65
 


We know all that.

But what exactly Would Have benefited the majority of Americans ?

And what filibustered legislation hurt the most ?

I wonder too how much the national debt would be right now if some legislation was "allowed" to pass ?

The over spending beyond revenues has been out of control for several years as it is.

Who's gonna pay all that off ??



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I agree, the spending has been ridiculous. A bill that comes to mind that got shot down was the aid for returning vets. Instead of shaving a few dollars off the defense budgets to help the soldiers that actually fought, they blocked it. That, to me, was hypocrisy at one of it's finest hours. The Republicans tout how they are sooo behind the soldiers and they did this. The only thing they are behind the soldiers are the Military Industrial complex corporations that they are secret stockholders in.

Not that this has anything in particular to do with returning the overule power on a filibuster back to just a plain majority...

The problem with addressing the deficit and the debt is too damn many of these criminals are involved in the companies and special interest groups on the receiving ends of these subsidies and hand outs. They don't address the real spending because they are getting it under the table in a dark and quiet room across town.

Back on topic...a simple majority should be enough...



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Jeremiah65
 


What bill was that ? S. _ _ _ _

Was there a House version ?

Set's look at the entire thing and see what else may have been a problem.


edit on Nov-07-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Senate Bill S-3457 The veterans Job Corps Act. It allocated a billion dollars to train and hire returning vets for a mixture of things from firefighting to conservation work and national park service. The price tag was spread out over 5 years.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Senate Bill S-3457 The veterans Job Corps Act. It allocated a billion dollars to train and hire returning vets for a mixture of things from firefighting to conservation work and national park service. The price tag was spread out over 5 years.


Ahh Thanks.

I will look and see if anything else was hidden in there.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Senate Bill S-3457 The veterans Job Corps Act. It allocated a billion dollars to train and hire returning vets for a mixture of things from firefighting to conservation work and national park service. The price tag was spread out over 5 years.


It seems a bill motion violated budget rules by not paying for itself.

The "rejected" motion was: On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Amdt. No. 2789)

I wonder if some Lobbying was "around" because of possible threats to unionized jobs ?

Otherwise why would Democrats attempt such a motion ?

Other than that, the bill was good.

WHY Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline ?

Hmmm.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
This is just the beginning, the tip of the proverbial iceberg if you will.
It's gonna get bumpy folks, hold on tight.
Quad



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Yes, can't figure out why Reid wants to address filibuster...

its not like one side of the aisle completely destroyed its intent


My solution though is to simply require people to literally sit in and do a proper filibuster verses just motions for it..aka, if your going to say your going to hold your breath until you turn blue, you have to actually do it.

That right there will push filibustering down to only the important thing verses just a tool to cripple any and everything the majority wants to do.

You shouldn't need a super majority to pass even the most basic stuff.


You should relook at your graph, democrats did it more often than republicans as a percentage, which is all that matters. So if you want to blame a party, blame Democrats. I don't blame a party, they both do it way too much.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
Now we have Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid trying to somehow change the filibuster rules.

He wants to limit the U.S. Senate minority party (currently Republican) power to stop legislation that sometimes goes too far and many times goes against the principals that voters intended to uphold.

Filibusters many times have avoided hidden corruption in legislation.

It sounds like Reid is against all people who voted for Republicans regardless of whether or not ideas and proposed legislation would have positive impacts on the majority of Americans.

I guess his type prefer a single party system by majority default ?

What would that produce ?


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that he will try to push through a change to Senate rules that would limit the GOP’s ability to filibuster bills.

Speaking in the wake of Tuesday’s election, which boosted Senate Democrats’ numbers slightly, Mr. Reid said he won’t end filibusters altogether but that the rules need to change so that the minority party cannot use the legislative blocking tool as often.

“I think that the rules have been abused and that we’re going to work to change them,” he told reporters. “Were not going to do away with the filibuster but we’re going to make the Senate a more meaningful place.”

Reid moves to limit GOP filibusters
 



Green groups said Wednesday that they plan to make Senate rules reform to limit filibusters one of their top priorities heading into the next Congress.

The organizations said they succeeded in their campaign strategy of electing Senate allies as a buffer against legislation from the GOP-dominated House.

But the groups said current Senate rules requiring 60 votes to move beyond a filibuster are untenable and will stunt progress on clean energy and environmental bills.

Senate filibuster reform atop green group priorities
 


If controversial legislation is so great, why does the opposing party always seem to be against it ?

The U.S. House is majority Republican by voter mandate.

In fact, the House I think gained a few Republican seats this election !!

What does that tell us ?


I feel this while filibuster ordeal is disgusting!

What's the point of having a majority if the minority can deny a bill to be passed!
For example the jerk off republicans filibustered the "Bring Jobs Home Act" which would have given tax incentives to companies who create jobs at home and also incentives to companies who brought jobs back home from over seas, and that on top of reversing the tax incentives the lovely bush ass holes gave to companies who offshore jobs!!!!! Why should any company be given tax break to cheapen the cost of outsourcing?
Isn't the cost benefit of cheaper labor benefit enough? But no republicans feel the US gummint should pay those companies to destroy American jobs and hire foreigners!!!!

Then republicans blame a few brown skinned Mexicans for taking all the supposed good jobs!!!!!!

Shame shame shame!!!!



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
I just realized I need to study this more before saying anything,.
Apologies, It's been a sleepy morning.
edit on 8-11-2012 by AudioOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   
This really only matters if one party has control of all 3 branches, President,Senate and the House. The Republicans easily control the House which can block anything that the Senate passes. It is a non subject for at least another two years.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by CAMale
 



What's the point of having a majority if the minority can deny a bill to be passed!
Checks & balances are part of the system !





For example the jerk off republicans filibustered the "Bring Jobs Home Act" which would have given tax incentives to companies who create jobs at home and also incentives to companies who brought jobs back home from over seas, and that on top of reversing the tax incentives the lovely bush ass holes gave to companies who offshore jobs!!!!! Why should any company be given tax break to cheapen the cost of outsourcing?
Do you happen to know the bill number for that? We need to check and see if there was any hidden BeeEss.

Many filibusters were done so because of other "amendments" that may have had zero to do with the main points.


You could be right on this one, but we need to check why it was killed.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by CAMale
 


Here's one opinion on the “Bring Jobs Home Act”....

It looks like there were flaws. I wonder why?


As the Obama campaign targets Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital, political ads and the commentators who follow them have zeroed in once again on the issue of outsourcing. Senate Democrats rallied to the cause proposing the “Bring Jobs Home Act” on July 9, only to see it die by filibuster last week. This bill had many flaws, but its biggest mistake was opposing the global growth of American companies. Both economic sense and basic decency suggest that our policies should encourage more employment in the United States.



The credit would have created bizarre corporate incentives. Imagine a company that’s deciding between establishing a factory costing $1 million in Honduras and establishing a $10 million factory in Massachusetts. The greater productivity here might well offset the higher costs.

But under the Bring Jobs Home Act, a smart company would open first in Honduras, then shut down and then relocate to the Bay State. The firm would get $2 million in tax credits, which would more than offset the cost of the Honduran operation. The tax code would encourage businesses to start a foreign operation first — by subsidizing the cost of later switching to the United States.

The act would provide a credit even for fully automated factories. But why should we provide tax credits for units that employ nobody?


Is this accurate?

Bad laws are no cure for outsourcing
 



Edit Add:

the bill was killed on a cloture motion.

This was a vote on “cloture”, which means to end debate so that an up-or-down vote can be taken. A vote in favor is a vote to end debate, while a vote against is a vote to prolong debate or to filibuster.


It looks like Republicans wanted to still debate, Dems didn't......why?

On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed S. 3364

Hmmm.



edit on Nov-08-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by hangedman13
Very short sighted. What will the dems do when they are on that side of the fence? Not like they never filibustered.
Reid should actually do his job and submit a budget proposal. Seems to me that is the reason for the whole budget problem, a lack of one.


It's a surreal thing that Obama has just won his second term and never had a budget passed.


If the MSM doesn't generate outrage over it, there is none. The media tells them to jump and they ask, "how high?".



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
If the Republicans win back the Senate, won't you be happy if the rules were changed?

I'm just saying that this might be good for the Democrats right now, it has long-lasting impacts that will be beneficial to the GOP down the road.

Come on now, don't be so short-sided!


This is exactly why it is only being addressed now. Changing the Senate rules requires a simple majority. He could have changed the rules concerning the filibuster anytime he wanted. He was reluctant to do it because in the future it could very well burn him. But he is also aware that the current rule is not working and that the filibuster has lost any credibility, and the People are not happy with how it is now. In the last decade the filibuster has been abused by both parties and does need to be reworked.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join