President Obama's Immigration Speech

Quote: Dalex64

If I recall, during the time when the democrats 'controlled' both the house and the senate, the republicans prevented a vote on whatever they wanted by threats of secret filibusters. They didn't acutally have to do the filibuster, they just had to threaten, and since the democrats didn't have enough votes to end a filibuster, there was never a vote on a bill the republicans didn't like.

With the ability to cause that kind of obstruction, I don't know how Obamacare passed.

That is just a plain ole bunch of hogwash for an excuse not to take action and I'll say the same thing if the Republicans allow the Democrats to threaten filibuster to stop things that should pass...

Their idea should have been...Let them filibuster. Make them filibuster. Put the items on the table that you believe got you elected in 2008 with significant majorities in both houses and make them talk until the fall down if they want to stop them. If it is truly what the "people" want, you'll score big with them and make the other side look bad.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, I expect the Republicans to present bills that represent the reasons they won this election and let the Democrats obstruct as necessary. If they present a good case for something, the Democrats filibuster it or the President vetos it, all the better for them.

All this obstruction crap on both sides is bullstuff. If a bill passes the House, let the Senate vote on it. If it passes both Houses, let the President make a decision to sign or veto. What those lifer politicians do is kick the can so they don't look bad or mean and they keep on duping the partisans on both sides to vote them in time after time. We the people get a shit sandwich and then everyone attacks the other side when it is really the lifers doing the dirty deeds--both Democrats and Republicans.

RonC, I agree with you completely on this.

Quote: RonC

All this obstruction crap on both sides is bullstuff. If a bill passes the House, let the Senate vote on it. If it passes both Houses, let the President make a decision to sign or veto. What those lifer politicians do is kick the can so they don't look bad or mean and they keep on duping the partisans on both sides to vote them in time after time. We the people get a shit sandwich and then everyone attacks the other side when it is really the lifers doing the dirty deeds--both Democrats and Republicans.

Part of what caused the GOP to filubuster so often was the tactics of Harry Reid and refusing to allow them any input on the bills. The tactic is called "filling the tree." In a nutshell, there is a rule on how many amendments a bill may have added and voted on. So Reid would have the Democrat side propose them all. So the GOP sees this an says, "you are shoving this down our throat with no input at all? Screw this!"

So while it was a good show for the wingnuts on the left, it was poor government. The Senate didn't even pass a budget for several years. Perhaps the public was watching based on the recent Senate wipe-out which was nearly several seats worse in states that look like the deep blue sea.

Quote: AZDuffman

Part of what caused the GOP to filubuster so often was the tactics of Harry Reid and refusing to allow them any input on the bills. The tactic is called "filling the tree." In a nutshell, there is a rule on how many amendments a bill may have added and voted on. So Reid would have the Democrat side propose them all. So the GOP sees this an says, "you are shoving this down our throat with no input at all? Screw this!"

So while it was a good show for the wingnuts on the left, it was poor government. The Senate didn't even pass a budget for several years. Perhaps the public was watching based on the recent Senate wipe-out which was nearly several seats worse in states that look like the deep blue sea.

AZ, I understand exactly what happened but Reid--and the Republicans--should have forced actual filibusters if the issue was important enough to fight about or allow the bill to move forward if not important. Obstructionism backfired on Reid but it also kept the Republicans as being the choice of those who were tired of they way it was and not necessarily the choice of being the best. It is a win for the Republicans but it could be shallower than it should have been.

If you don't allow a vote, the Democrats can't be held accountable for that vote.

The Republicans should not allow the same thing to happen now that they have control. Pass the bill, send it over to the White House. Make 100% sure that it is obvious when the Democrats are being obstructionists. You will still be fighting a biased press, but even they can see there is a fire after there is enough smoke...

Again, my contention is that there are politicians in office who don't give two craps about good or bad law--they just want to stay there, enjoy the perks, get rich, and get a huge retirement...they are unwilling to put their career on the line because they forgot that they did something else before being elected...the bad part is that they are on both sides...

Quote: RonC

Again, my contention is that there are politicians in office who don't give two craps about good or bad law--they just want to stay there, enjoy the perks, get rich, and get a huge retirement...they are unwilling to put their career on the line because they forgot that they did something else before being elected...the bad part is that they are on both sides...

There are many problems, a big one being too many people and entities depend too much on government. Another is the idea that we must "do something" about every little thing that does not work out for somebody. A third is the idea that if something is not "comprehensive" or "ominbus" we need not bother.

Until we lose the ability to create money the world will take out of thin air nothing will change. When we do many people and institutions will not survive the change.