Should the Senate Filibuster rules be changed?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Oh, but the English were definitely not doing nothing in 1776.

Yep and they learned an important less, America will never pay for its own wars.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy

"Fifty-nine percent (59%) say given the country’s current economic situation, the Obama administration should wait on health care reform until the economy improves." My bolding, again.

No one reforms a system when the ecconomy is doing well.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by parky76

most sophisticated analysiseeeees of Brown's victory show that it was less a referendum against Obama and for Republicans, and more a vote against the poor choices and stupid statements of the Democratic candidate.

don't expect Kerry to be losing any time soon.

Wait, an election being about the actual canidates? Never happen in this country, all elections are about the president.

[Sporanox]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

No one reforms a system when the ecconomy is doing well.

Well, looks like you're out of luck then.

Originally Posted by parky76

most sophisticated analysiseeeees of Brown's victory show that it was less a referendum against Obama and for Republicans, and more a vote against the poor choices and stupid statements of the Democratic candidate.

I knew you'd repeat that line. Good thinking, especially when the guy who won frequently signed his name "Scott Brown 41."

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

No one is going to start over. We are just going to have to deal with double digit health care cost increases until the ecconomy collapses in a more serious fashion than the minor issues of the past 2 years.

Nothing in this bill does anything about health care costs, nor would the public option.

The insurance side of the equation simply reflects health care costs, it doesn't create them any more than the cost of car repairs is related to auto insurance.

[theprestige]

most sophisticated analysiseeeees of Brown's victory show that it was less a referendum against Obama and for Republicans, and more a vote against the poor choices and stupid statements of the Democratic candidate.

parky, what do you make of Obama telling the nation that the special election in Massachussetts was indeed a referendum on his whole agenda?

Was he lying? Stupidly wrong? Did he mean, "... but only if Coakley wins, otherwise this election is only about how stupid she is"?

And having made this public claim, that a vote for Coakley was a vote for his agenda, how can it now not be so? The President of the United States, on national television, told people around the world that this election had meaning beyond Massachussetts, beyond those two candidates. Simply by the fact of his involvement, saying what he said, he gives it that meaning. That's not something you can just take back when it turns out the meaning is "lots of people apparently don't like Obama's agenda".

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Nothing in this bill does anything about health care costs, nor would the public option.

The insurance side of the equation simply reflects health care costs, it doesn't create them any more than the cost of car repairs is related to auto insurance.

Hey don't forget bureaucratic costs, those are wonderful sources of revenue and jobs.

[Skeptic Guy]

Originally Posted by Sporanox

Where did I say this?

Fair enough, that was Faithkills post, to which I was originally responding, and to which you posted the "it's tragic" statement. That was what I was responding to and I assume you agree with given your earlier response.

Quote:

There are other priorities, so 61% of Americans want Congress to drop the bill. In legislative speak that is killing the bill.

We have a lot of priorities. We always will. Most executives can multi-task, why can't Congress and the President? The CBO projects that the health-care bill will reduce the deficit and provide health care coverage to most of the 30-odd million that don't have it, yet the Republicans (and the post to which I was responding) say it will increase insurance premiums, etc.

Quote:

Here's another poll for you:




http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1413

More than half of America doesn't like this bill.

So we agree that the original poll didn't support your contention?

Also from the Quinnipiac poll you posted:

Quote:

While 44 percent think the proposed health care changes "go too far," 29 percent say they do not go "far enough" and 17 percent think the health care changes are "about right." The "not far enough" and "about right" total 46 percent.

If you look behind those numbers, it's not as clear as you make it out to be. "Mostly disagree" doesn't mean outright disapproval. Hell, I don't even mostly agree with the proposal as I don't think it goes far enough.

Again, I don't think this poll says what you think it says, at least not in the absolutes in which you put it.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Hey don't forget bureaucratic costs, those are wonderful sources of revenue and jobs.

The entire private health insurance bureaucracy plus profits accounts for less than $100 billion. Out of well over $2 trillion in health care expenses.

There is little to gain from a public option. The costs are at the other end.

[Faithkills]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

In fairness, that wasn't the CBO which said that, it was Obama's own economic team.

But the CBO's predictions for the budget consequences of legislation are indeed suspect. Not so much because the CBO are liars or incompetent, but because they have to use assumptions about legislation (such as it working as intended) that often aren't correct.

Mea Culpa, you're correct it was the administration's accounting.

Originally Posted by Peephole

Again, I don't really care that you think you know better than the CBO and probably every health care economist out there.

Read carefully, I'm talking about you. Not what other people are saying about different plans.

You don't care? Why so h8 about it then?

Of course you know I'm right. Of course you know there's no way in hell if this passes it will bring down individual or overall costs. Of course not every health care economist 'out there' thinks it will bring them down. Unless by out there you mean : "Like wow man, that's really out there!" or 'out there' means 'in there' in the negotiation teams that made sure the bill made everyone money except the American tax payers and health care consumers.

But since forums are forever and you can't delete posts after a while you may want to start figuring out in advance your excuse for why costs went up in case the legislation passes.

Your excuse will be of course what I said, it was evil big businesses and special interests made sure the legislation was a boondoggle for Americans and how could you know that politicians would put their own campaign funds ahead of the interests of the people!?

Yet of course, knowing this in advance, you still want it. Desperately.

One has to wonder why..

Democrats and Republicans still deluding themselves that their guy is good and the other guy is bad.

Same story, different decade. Nothing new to see here.

[Sporanox]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy

That was what I was responding to and I assume you agree with given your earlier response.

I do tend to believe that, but that wasn't what I was after.

Quote:

We have a lot of priorities. We always will. Most executives can multi-task, why can't Congress and the President?

Gee, I don't know. Personally I don't think POTUS and Congress can multi-task very well, but that's a subject for a different day.

Quote:

So we agree that the original poll didn't support your contention?

My contention, which was unclear, was that about 61% of Americans don't want the bill, public option or not. I stand by this contention as 61% of Americans want to kill the bill.

Quote:

If you look behind those numbers, it's not as clear as you make it out to be. "Mostly disagree" doesn't mean outright disapproval. Hell, I don't even mostly agree with the proposal as I don't think it goes far enough.

What would you rather the poll ask, "do you want this bill to die?" Let's face it, if 54% of Americans mostly disapproved of health care reform (the numbers may be up as of today), I doubt they'd want that reform to pass. That's about as close as you're going to get to public scorn of the bill, and if you want to continue spinning that you're just going to spin in circles.

[Sporanox]

Originally Posted by Faithkills

Democrats and Republicans still deluding themselves that their guy is good and the other guy is bad.

Same story, different decade. Nothing new to see here.

Actually, Peephole is merely a very obsessed Belgian.

[Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Sporanox

Actually, Peephole is merely a very obsessed Belgian.

Yea, which I cant figure out. Why is he so obsessed with US politics?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Drysdale

Yea, which I cant figure out. Why is he so obsessed with US politics?

Because he's a Belgian.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Peephole]

I always figure I'm doing something right when all the Republicans here start hyperventilating everytime they see a post of me.

Not exactly sure what I'm doing right, but it sure is something!

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by WildCat

The entire private health insurance bureaucracy plus profits accounts for less than $100 billion. Out of well over $2 trillion in health care expenses.

There is little to gain from a public option. The costs are at the other end.

Where are the costs then? It is not the public system and not the private system so where are they? There seem to be serious precentages of health care spending that are neither public or private.

[MikeMangum]

Originally Posted by parky76

um...i voted for Obama. i voted for former Senator Clinton. I voted for Chuck Shumer. I voted for Congressman Weiner. I knew pretty much what their agenda was and what sorta of legislation they would pursue.

you must be talking about the OTHER Democrats. the stupid ones living in caves.

there are very few things that the politicians I have voted for, have pursued....that are a surprise or shock to me.

and finally, as far as I am concerned, the only TRUE barometer of the pulse of the average American and the will of the people, is the vote on Election Day.

How about the Democrats and Independents (remember, he wouldn't be president today without them) who believed Obama when he said (repeatedly) that he would ensure that there was a "net spending cut", that he was completely opposed to mandates requiring the purchase health insurance ("if a mandate was the solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating that everybody buy a house"), etc.

Obama ran (post primaries at least) as a centrist.

http://www.progressive.org/mag/rc070108

Quote:

If the Democrats wouldn't nominate the exciting, progressive candidate for President in the past, this time the exciting, progressive candidate simply became a centrist as soon as the primaries were over.

Newsweek - Nov 5, 2008

Quote:

But if Obama governs as he ran—from the center—then there will be disappointed liberals and conservatives. The left may feel somehow cheated, and the right, eager to launch perpetual assaults on the new administration, could well find Obama as elusive and frustrating as the opposition found Reagan.

USA Today 7-3-08 and ABC News 7-2-08:

Quote:

Obama faces online backlash for centrist views.

Barack Obama is facing a rebellion from the liberal blogosphere that helped him lock up the Democratic presidential nomination.
In recent days, Obama has criticized the Supreme Court for saying that child rapists cannot be executed and refused to oppose a decision knocking down a handgun ban. He announced a plan to support "faith-based" social work and said he would vote for a bill giving immunity to telephone companies that allowed warrantless wiretapping of their customers.

Those centrist positions may help woo swing voters, but they infuriated some of Obama's core supporters. Nearly 12,000 of them have formed an online group on Obama's presidential campaign website, urging him to vote against the domestic wiretapping bill.

"When a candidate decides to move to the center, he shouldn't move away from us," said Mike Stark, a University of Virginia law student who started the online mutiny.

Democratic blogs are flaying Obama's plan to vote for the wiretapping bill, said Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of a leading liberal blog, Daily Kos. He's withholding a planned donation to Obama as a result.

"It's sort of a defining issue right now. It's huge," he said.

Moving to the political center is a common strategy in a general election campaign: candidates try to appeal to swing voters by moderating their more partisan primary stances.

Politico 7-19-08

Quote:

Throughout the left-wing blogosphere, the cry has come: Barack Obama is moving away from them, and to the center. “Moving to the middle is for losers,” cried the politically ambidextrous Arianna Huffington. He’s “betraying his claims of being a new kind of politician,” declared Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos.


But all this outrage ignores the obvious: Throughout his career, Obama has consistently framed himself as a post-partisan centrist. He’s been a bridge-builder all his life, first between black and white, and now between left and right.


It’s a formula for victory in a country that’s essentially center-right. Even after all the alienation from the Bush administration, a new Washington Post/ABC poll affirms that only 19 percent of Americans describe themselves as liberal, while 43 percent say moderate and 35 percent, conservative.


In his primetime introduction to the American people, giving the nominating speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, Obama drew the loudest applause when he proclaimed, “there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America.”

From Time Magazine on 6-26-08Obama's Supreme Move to the Center:

Quote:

When the Supreme Court issues rulings on hot-button issues like gun control and the death penalty in the middle of a presidential campaign, Republicans could be excused for thinking they'll have the perfect opportunity to paint their Democratic opponent as an out-of-touch social liberal. But while Barack Obama may be ranked as one of the Senate's most liberal members, his reactions to this week's controversial court decisions showed yet again how he is carefully moving to the center ahead of the fall campaign.

...


But Obama's sudden social centrism would sound more convincing in a different context. Since he wrapped up the primary earlier this month and began to concentrate on the independent and moderate swing voters so key in a general election, Obama has consistently moved to the middle.

And from after the election:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/05/buc...a-liberal.html

Quote:

Congratulations this week to three journalists who have finally taken up that constant struggle: Christopher Buckley, David Gergen and David Brooks. All three used to insist that Obama was some species of centrist or moderate. Now that Obama has proposed the most massive expansion of government in the history of the republic, each has recognized that just conceivably he might have been mistaken.

Somehow, Chris Buckley, David Brooks, and David Gergen all thought that Obama was a centrist when they voted for him. I can't imagine how people who made their living as political commentators could make that mistake.

From Real Clear Politics:
Real Clear Politics

Quote:

If voters had wanted a sharp ideological shift, they could have voted for Democratic candidates more identified with Great Society-style government -- Hillary Clinton, John Edwards or even Dennis Kucinich. Obama got the early endorsement of Ted Kennedy, but like Bill Clinton before him, he won because he distanced himself from Kennedy-style liberalism. His promise of change was eloquent enough to motivate the left wing of his party but vague enough to make him acceptable to people in the middle.

Among independents, Obama beat John McCain by an 8-point margin. The reason John Kerry lost and Obama won, as Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen has noted, was not liberal voters: They voted for both in the same proportion. The difference was that while Kerry had a 9-point edge over his Republican opponent among moderates, Obama carried them by 21 points. Obama also did significantly better among conservatives than Kerry.

Obama campaigned in the general election (when most people start paying attention) as a moderate. He is governing as a progressive dirigiste. That is the source of all the anger.

[Peephole]

"He is governing as a progressive dirigiste."

You are completely out of touch with reality.

[Cain]

Sixty out of a hundred seems right; it's a magic ratio. After all, who disputes the wisdom of the Founding Fathers to count blacks as three-fifths of a person? The political compromises from 200 years ago are still all too relevant today, even if the population of the United States -- erg, I mean, these United States -- is 75 times what it once was, even though we four times as many state governments; even though political culture enshrines the idea of "one person, one vote." No, no, no, we MUST keep the filibuster rule because the Senate-as-affirmative-action-for-small-states is not enough on its own.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by parky76

My father suggests that we pass a new rule, that a filibuster cannot take place until there has been a week of breathing room and time out.

And then, if they still wanna filibuster, it can be broken by 55 Senators..and not 60.

This way, the Senate cannot be held hostage by 41 Senators, which is a clear minority. 45 votes is more representative of the Senate, and of the will of the American people.

what u guys think?

No filibusters period - OR if there are, they must be one person only, no follow up by anyone else and no further one on that bill and the person must speak solidly through the event, no member of the Republickers can leave during it for any reason (except death of a family member) but food and plenty of drink can be bought in for them.

[Sporanox]

Originally Posted by Peephole

I always figure I'm doing something right when all the Republicans here start hyperventilating everytime they see a post of me.

Not exactly sure what I'm doing right, but it sure is something!

By that standard, Palin is doing something awesomely right.

[Sporanox]

Originally Posted by Peephole

"He is governing as a progressive dirigiste."

You are completely out of touch with reality.

Then enlighten us. *cough* make a substantive post *cough*

[MikeMangum]

Originally Posted by Peephole

"He is governing as a progressive dirigiste."

You are completely out of touch with reality.

Hrm, let'e see...

Implement partial government ownership and increase government control over the nation's largest banks? Check.

Implement partial government ownership and increase government control over much of the nation's automobile manufacturing sector? Check.

Implement government takeover of health care, which is currently ~16% of GDP (~40% of which is already controlled by government) basically increasing the total size of government between 20% and 30%.

Massively expanding the size of government, having government become more tightly entwined with businesses by partial state ownership and greater direct control over operational decisions of businesses...I believe there is a word for that: dirigisme.

[theprestige]

and finally, as far as I am concerned, the only TRUE barometer of the pulse of the average American and the will of the people, is the vote on Election Day.

"Barometer of the pulse", is it? So, parky, what would you say the temperature of the heartbeat of the average American and the will of the people was the Election Day they elected Scott Brown?

Also, I have no joke here, I just like saying "progressive dirigiste".

I imagine some kind of dirigible, drifting ponderously through the sky, blaring avant-garde slogans in French, like a sort of post-modern cloud formation.

[Peephole]

Originally Posted by Sporanox

By that standard, Palin is doing something awesomely right.

Oh, Palin is just harmless fun.

[Sporanox]

Originally Posted by Peephole

Oh, Palin is just harmless fun.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by parky76

My father suggests that we pass a new rule, that a filibuster cannot take place until there has been a week of breathing room and time out.

And then, if they still wanna filibuster, it can be broken by 55 Senators..and not 60.

The filibuster seems to be used far too often. What is the benefit of the filibuster? I can only think that it would be beneficial hold off legislation to give time to garner support against it.

So why not tie the number of votes to the filibuster period? One week per vote. If a bill is filibustered it needs 60 votes to pass, otherwise it can come up again after a week. Then it needs 59 votes to pass, and so on. So a bill could be filibustered for up to 2½ months depending on how strong the filibuster is, but would eventually come down a majority vote.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Beerina

I submit the entire legislative process should be overhauled, with no law being passed in the first place without a 3/4 majority.

Absolute guarantee that nothing will get doen unless there are people dying in the streets.

Quote:

What good will come of a 51% majority jamming something down the throats of half the population that doesn't want it. Where's the evidence that the barest abstraction of might makes right will somehow yield good lawmaking?

Under the current system 41 sociopaths who would be hapy to see disaster strike the working class can just totally castrate government.

Maybe you would be happy to see most of government go away, but I would rather have the State running the country than the corporations.

I would say that the best solution isto make the idiot who decides to filibuster remain on the floor, except for a latrine break every two hours, as long as he yields some of his time to another member of the Senate for the fifteen minutes it should take, and don't fall asleep on your way to or from the restroom.

[Sporanox]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Maybe you would be happy to see most of government go away, but I would rather have the State running the country than the corporations.

LOL

Well, the state does run the country, as it turns out. I get the feeling that's not what you meant, though.

By the way, what happens when the filibuster is needed to save the country from fifty plus sociopaths ready and willing to destroy Liberty herself? Or do you think that will never, ever happen?

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Sporanox

LOL

Well, the state does run the country, as it turns out. I get the feeling that's not what you meant, though.

By the way, what happens when the filibuster is needed to save the country from fifty plus sociopaths ready and willing to destroy Liberty herself? Or do you think that will never, ever happen?

Haven't seen it happen recently.

If the little prima donnas are not willing to give up their vacation time to do their duty, they should not be allowed to stop action just by shrieking NO like little babies. I would also like to do away with this stupidity of a Senator's ability to put a hold on the nomination of a federal appointee.

Thanks to David "Diapers" Vitter, we seem to have two unfit federal prosecutors keeping any real work from getting done in one state.

[Bob Blaylock]

Originally Posted by parky76

what u guys think?

I think that someone who isn't smart enough to spell the word “you” isn't anywhere near smart enough to participate usefully in a discussion of complex political issues.

[Bob Blaylock]

Originally Posted by parky76

you must be talking about the OTHER Democrats. the stupid ones living in caves.

You mean the illiterate ones, who cannot spell the word “you”, and who don't know the difference between “fare” and “fair”? Or are there Democrats that are even more stupid than that?

[theprestige]

Tuning in to an NPR piece yesterday, on "bipartisanship", I heard an interview with Alan Grayson (Democrat, Florida). The Representative pointed out that for all but 14 of its 222 years of existence, the U.S. Senate has managed to get things done without a supermajority. He then concluded that it should therefore be possible for the Democrats to advance their agenda without working with Republicans (who weren't interested in bipartisanship anyway).

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=123164812

[ZenFountain]

Originally Posted by theprestige

....it should therefore be possible for the Democrats to advance their agenda without working with Republicans (who weren't interested in bipartisanship anyway).

It's simply not possible when the Republicans are willing to filibuster every bill they don't want. It is historically unprecedented, although both parties took part in the march up to this point as the minority.

First to blame should be the American people and our massive civic incompetence. What fraction of the population even understands the legislative process and how procedural tactics are used to block legislation that has a majority vote? It's far to easy to block legislation and let it spin out into the netherworld of the media as more congressional inaction and "Washington stuff", naturally far too complicated for Joe Six Pack to understand or even care about.

These obstruction tactics don't end with changes to the Senate debate rules either; a truly determined obstructionist has an entire arsenal of procedural hurdles to throw up against legislation in the Senate. Quorum calls, reading of amendments in entirety, points of order, budget points of order, motions to recommit to committee, offering frivolous amendments, requesting substitute amendments, demanding division of ammendments. You get the idea, and this is all before a bill goes conference to harmonize with the house bill, which presents another grab bag of delaying tactics.

In the end all the legislative hurdles in the Senate give Senators an easy political out for inaction and that's how they like it.

[Malerin]

Originally Posted by WildCat

It's already happening. Medicare payments to doctors were supposed to go down by 21% Jan. 1, but was pushed back to March now.

Would you like to make a bet that it wll be pushed back again before it takes effect? Winner gets to pick the loser's avatar for 2 weeks?

That's an awesome wager.

Oh, and the medicare cuts will never happen.

[ZirconBlue]

Originally Posted by Sporanox

By the way, what happens when the filibuster is needed to save the country from fifty plus sociopaths ready and willing to destroy Liberty herself? Or do you think that will never, ever happen?

Sounds like some serious paranoia, to me. 51+ sociopaths all elected to the Senate at the same time, (well, not at the same time, since only 1/3 of Senators are up for election at once), and, despite being sociopaths, are able to work together to pass the Liberty Destruction Act?

Of course, there would have to be at least 218 similarly like-minded sociopaths in the House of Representatives and 1 in the White House for this to actually make it into law.

At the point that the nation has elected 270 sociopaths with a common, Liberty-Destroying Agenda, I don't think a filibuster is really going to stop them. Heck, being Liberty-Hating Sociopaths, they'll probably have already revoked the filibuster rules by then, anyway.

[Sporanox]

Originally Posted by ZenFountain

It's simply not possible when the Republicans are willing to filibuster every bill they don't want. It is historically unprecedented, although both parties took part in the march up to this point as the minority.

They had a filibuster-proof majority. Like it or not, the bill could have been passed if the Blue Dogs didn't get so scared.

Originally Posted by ZirconBlue

At the point that the nation has elected 270 sociopaths with a common, Liberty-Destroying Agenda, I don't think a filibuster is really going to stop them. Heck, being Liberty-Hating Sociopaths, they'll probably have already revoked the filibuster rules by then, anyway.

Probably so.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Francesca R

It's there so that your politicians have to really want something to pass it. Tyranny of the supermajority is supposed to be better than tyranny of the simple one.

It's slower, which, generally speaking, is a good thing with government. See, it's the demagogues skilled in taking advantage of the blowing passions of the masses that's been, you know, the main preventable killer of humanity.


There is nothing so damned urgent it must be passed now, now, now!

And if you want to get rid of the 60 rule because you're scared the winds will blow the other way for another 20 years, well, guess what? You're part of the problem.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by parky76

exactly. 41% of the Senate, which could represent 25% of the American people, should not be able to impose its will on the rest of the country.

You mean the remaining 59% of the senate which, according to your math, not mine, represents a whopping 35% of the country?


Sorry, don't want them ruling, either.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by parky76

by what basis do you have to suggest that if the Democrats lose control of the Senate, I will take back my assertion that a filibuster should be broken by 55 instead of 60 votes?

I note you pick a minor supermajority number that the Democrats frequently clear, but the Republicans rarely do.

Purely accidentally, I'm sure.


Given the unfortunate "re-interpretation" of the Constitution over the past 80 years to give Congress power over almost everything (very telling: in a Supreme Court decision that, thankfully, went against Congress, the majority challenged the minority opinion to come up with even one example that the "interstate commerce clause" wouldn't cover, and the pro-clause justices couldn't do it), the role of this super-majority to end debate so the vote can take place has become amplified in its effect.

I don't see why this is a problem. Oh, I know why people complain -- their pet project of the month can't get passed, and they rationalize the hideousness of the 60 rule. But that's not a problem, and it's a good thing because it stops the laws.

After all, if the law is so god damned good, most people will think so, not just a bare majority, right? And they will think so next year, and in 5 years and 10 years, not just for a few months, right?

I mean, nobody wants to pass laws that are only favored briefly due to the shifting passions of political winds, right?


I am right in those ideas, aren't I? Or is there some goodness to be found in passing massive, permanent changes, based on a few months or a year of bare majority popularity?