Should the Senate Filibuster rules be changed?

[Ziggurat]

1776?

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

 

[Sporanox]

it really is kinda dumb to base legislation on simple polls. i mean, its one thing if several independent and diverse polls show 90% of the population against something, that would be one thing.

but random..infrequent polls? i don't think so. the greatest TRUE reflection of the will of the American people...is votes.

59% of the American electorate voted for a Democratic legislative agenda in the Senate. this is beyond doubt. almost 60% of the House is also Democratic.

this speaks to the will of the American people.

Are you there?

PARKY! I don't know if you understand this, but the people voting the Dems in didn't know exactly what they were going to do and didn't know how they were going to do it and are free to change their mind!!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

[Sporanox]

Also, it is indisputable that more than half of America wants Congress to drop health care reform. But that isn't important to parky because the American people tripped the bear trap when they voted the Dems in.

You weren't going to use that post to argue in favor of repealing the filibuster, were you? Because that essentially amounts to "if we, the American citizenry, make a mistake, then we're screwed."

 

[Thunder]

but the people voting the Dems in didn't know exactly what they were going to do and didn't know how they were going to do it and are free to change their mind!!

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.

 

[Sporanox]

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.

The Democrats that believed Obama when he ran ridiculous attack ads against a health-insurance mandate?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

What is: talking past each other.

(I would note that when it comes to something that affects civil rights, I am in favor in changing the filibuster rules, but not in regards to anything else.)

 

[Thunder]

The Democrats that believed Obama when he ran ridiculous attack ads against a health-insurance mandate?

please expand on this. i am not sure what you are referring to.

 

[Ziggurat]

please expand on this. i am not sure what you are referring to.

I don't remember the attack ads (that doesn't mean they don't exist), but here's Obama vs. Clinton on mandates during a debate, where he attacks the idea of mandates:

 

[Cynic]

Filibusters are childish. Why are they allowed to occur in the first place? Is that what we're paying people for, to stand there with a dictionary literally holding the legislative process hostage?

 

[mortimer]

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.

So why even have votes in Congress? If the Democrats control both houses, then they should be able to pass whatever bill their leaders in Congress (Pelosi and Reid) come up with, right? No voting needed.

 

[Faithkills]

This is retarded, not every Democrat is a liberal.

What is retarded is asserting I said that when anyone may scroll up and see otherwise. I was replying to whines that apparently ignorant people from red states (with typically smaller deficits and better economies) somehow were over-represented compared to enlightened people from blue states (typically in budget crisis and with skyrocketing unemployment). It's the Senate that is unrepresentative.

Also, if people don't like Democrats or their legislation, then they should vote for the other guys. This seems to be a strange concept around these parts.

In progress.

No, it's because they're horribly misinformed (as are you as prices are estimated to go down) about and generally tired of the whole process, see the above poll.

It's impossible for prices to go down because of a mandated demand. If the CBO says otherwise they are wrong, as they usually are. Although, usually it's merely a half a trillion underestimate of the costs of a program. Saying it will actually reduce costs is quite a whopper even for the CBO. Presumably they got their wings clipped.

Yes I am saying I know more than the CBO. Show me a cost estimate where they were accurate and I'll reconsider.

So, one state in the United States decides everything?

It does? Which state is that? I'd like to move there.

Good luck getting any better legislation out of the U.S. Congress, especially with more Republicans in it.

The GOP is the only proponent of any real reform currently. Of course they did nothing when they actually could, and I expect nothing now.

Still nothing is better than the current bill.

It's too bad because portability, tort reform, drug reimportation, legislation against rescission, and not forcing coverage for every special interests groups little medical bailiwick onto mandatory insurance regulations would be easy wins.

What would be so bad about tackling the obvious things that will drive down costs piecemeal?

 

[Peephole]

Right, Republicans won't do health care reform, so it's up to the Democrats. Who delivered a bill that will increase coverage and lower prices and the deficit.

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

 

[Thunder]

So why even have votes in Congress? If the Democrats control both houses, then they should be able to pass whatever bill their leaders in Congress (Pelosi and Reid) come up with, right? No voting needed.

that's just dumb. dumb, dumber, and even more dumb.

 

[Peephole]

So why even have votes in Congress? If the Democrats control both houses, then they should be able to pass whatever bill their leaders in Congress (Pelosi and Reid) come up with, right? No voting needed.

How do you go from Americans electing politicians to those politicans not having any no individual opinions anymore?

Seriously, I know Republicans are pretty crazy, but the past year really seems to have done some pretty twisted things to their brain's logic centers.

 

[Sporanox]

I don't remember the attack ads (that doesn't mean they don't exist), but here's Obama vs. Clinton on mandates during a debate, where he attacks the idea of mandates:

In addition:

The other pamphlet reprises the famous Harry and Louise advertisements opposing “HillyCare” that were used so effectively by Republicans in 1994, claiming that Clinton’s plan would force people either to purchase unaffordable healthcare or to have their wages garnished. This attack on her plan’s mandatory feature – which parallels Social Security and Medicare requirements – is a direct lift from the GOP’s successful effort to block universal health care during the early Clinton administration

http://www.truthfactory.us/2008/02/obama-mudslinging-replaces-rhetoric-of.html

please expand on this. i am not sure what you are referring to.

Now you do.

but the people voting the Dems in didn't know exactly what they were going to do and didn't know how they were going to do it and are free to change their mind!!

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.

I'm talking about the OTHER Democrats, I guess the stupid ones in the caves, that believed Candidate Obama's professed agenda.

All of this goes to prove that banning the filibuster for your stated reasons kind of dooms the majority of Americans to something they don't want in this case.

 

[Faithkills]

Right, Republicans won't do health care reform, so it's up to the Democrats. Who delivered a bill that will increase coverage and lower prices and the deficit..

Yes of course. Mandating demand while restricting supply is a well known economic recipe for lowering costs.

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

Every one? Really?

Oh you mean like Gruber!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/how-the-white-house-used_b_421549.html

But by all means. Clearly the CBO that said the original stimulus would keep unemployment below 8% is on the ball!

 

[Ziggurat]

Clearly the CBO that said the original stimulus would keep unemployment below 8% is on the ball!

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.

 

[WildCat]

Who delivered a bill that will increase coverage and lower prices and the deficit.

I must have missed that bill, you'd think it would have made the news.

 

[WildCat]

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.

Such as the assumption that Medicare would be cut by $500 billion. No way in hell Congress cuts Medicare by $500 billion, even if it's a good idea.

And it was also before the Louisiana Purchase, the bribe to Nelson, excepting unions from the "Cadillac" tax, and who knows what else went into making this sausage.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ay_it_s_time_for_congress_to_drop_health_care



Interesting you keep mentioning that number 60.

It is really quite tragic that you chose to post that right after the Rasmussen poll was posted...

If you want still more evidence that there is bipartisan support to kill the bill, just get a feel for what dailyKos, HuffPo, Howard Dean etc are saying. IIRC all of the major progressive players hated the bill.

I was more talking about your statement, "They don't want it because it will drive up prices and be a huge windfall for insurance companies." I have heard that, but don't know where it comes from. I hear that a public option would kill the private insurance companies (which I doubt), not help them. And reduce costs.

AND I don't think that poll says what you think it says. It says a majority of those polled "... say Congress should drop health care reform and focus on more immediate ways to improve the economy and create jobs." It does not say that they do not want the bill, just that there may be other priorities. Again, from your poll, "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.

Sixty-one percent (61%) of U.S. voters say Congress should drop health care reform

Interesting that you sniped the rest of the statement.