PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Time to end the Fillibuster option in the Senate. Effective 2012.


BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 02:01 PM
Just in case you didn't know, it's not in the constitution. It's use has just gotten out of hand since the Clinton years. It use to be used for only the "big" agendas, civil rights etc. Now its used for everything including lower level appoinments to government departments.

t's only been around since 1917. Heres a brief history from the senate.gov website.

in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Cloture_Rule.htm)." The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a 57 day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 of the current one hundred senators.
From wiki:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cloture_Voting%2C_U.S._Senate%2C_1947_to_2008.jpg


It's keeping us from getting the work done in Washington. The Dems will payback the Republicans when they return to power so its going to be an endless cycle. This country was founded on majority rule, 51%, not 60%.

We get two election cycles for the political parties to get their ducks in a row. The public to decide how they want to handle the issues with a simple majority.

Who's with me?

wild1
02-11-2010, 02:02 PM
LMAO

banyon
02-11-2010, 02:10 PM
The Dems should just have the stones to make them filibuster for real. This fake filibuster by threat stuff is ridiculous.

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 02:15 PM
The Dems should just have the stones to make them filibuster for real. This fake filibuster by threat stuff is ridiculous.I agree and I think that will happen if this healthcare summit doesn't produce. They will break out the health care into pieces and force the Republicans to fillibuster every piece and then have to explain their votes. Same thing with financial reform of the banks. Let them try to explain voting for Big bank bonus's to their fellow citizens.

wild1
02-11-2010, 02:23 PM
It's interesting how the worm has turned since the nuclear option was discussed for Miguel Estrada.


Senator Feinstein Declares Opposition to “Nuclear Option”
May 10, 2005
pdf version

Washington, DC – With the battle over judicial nominations looming, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) delivered a speech on the Senate floor to protest the Republicans threat of changing Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster. Click here to view Senator Feinstein’s speech.

“The majority has decided the time has come to unravel the Senate’s traditional role of debate; and that the time has come to break the rules and discard Senate precedent,” Senator Feinstein said. “I am very concerned about this strategy. It is important to remember that once done, once broken, it will be hard to limit and hard to reverse.”

Following is the text of Senator Feinstein’s speech delivered on the Senate floor:

“Mr. President, I speak today as a member of the Judiciary Committee for the past 12 years. In this capacity, I have worked with members from both sides of the aisle, and on nominations from both Democratic and Republican Presidents. In all, I have voted to confirm 573 judges, and voted ‘No’ on the Senate floor on 5, and voted against cloture on 11.

I evaluate each candidate on a case by case basis and thoroughly examine their writings, opinions, statements, temperament, and character. The fact that federal judges are lifetime appointments weighs heavily. They do not come and go with an Administration, as do Cabinet appointments; rather, they cannot be removed from the bench except in extremely rare circumstances. In fact, in our government’s over 200 year history only 11 federal judges have been impeached, and of those only two since 1936.

Over the years we have had heated debates and strong disagreements over judicial nominees. However, that debate is what ensures the Senate confirms the best qualified candidates. I am deeply troubled when our legitimate differences over an individual’s qualifications to be given a lifetime appointment to the federal bench become reduced to inflammatory rhetoric. I am even more concerned when rhetoric turns into open discussions about breaking Senate rules and turning the Senate into a body where might makes right.

I am here today because some members on the other side of the aisle have decided that despite a Constitution that is renowned world-wide and used as a model for emerging democracies; despite a confirmation rate of 95% of President Bush’s judicial nominees; and despite the other pressing priorities that the American people want us to address, that the time has come to unravel our government’s fundamental principle of checks and balances.

The majority has decided the time has come to unravel the Senate’s traditional role of debate; and that the time has come to break the rules and discard Senate precedent.

I am very concerned about this strategy. It is important to remember that once done, once broken, it will be hard to limit and hard to reverse.

In fact, just last month Senator Coleman stated on CNN, ‘The president has a right to make appointments. They are not to be filibustered. They deserve an up or down vote. That’s true for any kind of appointee, whether it’s undersecretary of state or a judge.’ And this is exactly my point. First the rules would be broken with regard to judicial nominees, then it is executive branch nominees, then it is legislation, and then the Senate has no rules at all and simply becomes a replication of the House of Representatives.

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 02:27 PM
It's interesting how the worm has turned since the nuclear option was discussed for Miguel Estrada.My point is not that only one side is doing it. It's that both sides are doing it. The Republicans have threatned a fillibuster on just about every single thing proposed. Thats just not sustainable. And I know that the Democrats are going to pay back in spades. So, for the benefit of our country we should go back to majority rule. We got 6 years(which is a lifetime in politics) to prepare as a voting public.

wild1
02-11-2010, 02:32 PM
My point is not that only one side is doing it. It's that bothe sides are doing it. The Republicans have threatned a fillibuster on just about every single thing proposed. Thats just not sustainable. And I know that the Democrats are going to pay back in spades. So, for the benefit of our country we should go back to majority rule. We got 6 years(hich is a lifetime in politics) to prepare as a voting public.

They were doing it to Bush's judicial nominees, a process you would have defended, though you now say you would not have. And you will defend it when they do it in the future, though you say today you will not.

Your party's problem is not the fillbuster, it's that they didn't have the cajones to vote on their own bill without any "bi-partisan" support when they had an entire year to do so. They didn't need a vote from the other party. You've swallowed the bait on the excuse they gave you.

KC Dan
02-11-2010, 02:41 PM
My point is not that only one side is doing it. It's that both sides are doing it. The Republicans have threatned a fillibuster on just about every single thing proposed. Thats just not sustainable.
Yes, it is sustainable. The bottom line is that getting rid of the ability to filibuster just takes the easy road legislatively and not good for the country as a whole IMO. The filibuster forces the majority to negotiate with the minority fostering compromise which people that want the filibuster to "go away" are trying desparately to avoid to ram crap through.

Our legislators need to take a page from the past and negotiate rather than one side closing the door behind them and the other side standing outside saying no-no-no...Throw all the bums out and start over

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 05:34 PM
They were doing it to Bush's judicial nominees, a process you would have defended, though you now say you would not have. And you will defend it when they do it in the future, though you say today you will not.

Your party's problem is not the fillbuster, it's that they didn't have the cajones to vote on their own bill without any "bi-partisan" support when they had an entire year to do so. They didn't need a vote from the other party. You've swallowed the bait on the excuse they gave you.oaky for the 3rd time already....jeeezzz I'm not saying for it to take eccect until 2012. This isn't about the dems getting their programs through this year.

ClevelandBronco
02-11-2010, 05:56 PM
oaky for the 3rd time already....jeeezzz I'm not saying for it to take eccect until 2012. This isn't about the dems getting their programs through this year.

Doesn't seem to matter. So far you're the only one voting to get rid of it.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 06:32 PM
The Dems should just have the stones to make them filibuster for real. This fake filibuster by threat stuff is ridiculous.

It's harder to force the filibuster from the majority side than it is to maintain it from the minority side. The majority has to maintain a quorum while the minority just needs one speaker.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 06:34 PM
I agree and I think that will happen if this healthcare summit doesn't produce. They will break out the health care into pieces and force the Republicans to fillibuster every piece and then have to explain their votes. Same thing with financial reform of the banks. Let them try to explain voting for Big bank bonus's to their fellow citizens.

Haven't you heard? Big banks are now run by savvy businessmen and we don't begrudge their success or their wealth. Get with the program.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 06:37 PM
My point is not that only one side is doing it. It's that both sides are doing it. The Republicans have threatned a fillibuster on just about every single thing proposed. Thats just not sustainable. And I know that the Democrats are going to pay back in spades. So, for the benefit of our country we should go back to majority rule. We got 6 years(which is a lifetime in politics) to prepare as a voting public.

Here's a deal for you. We go back to 1917-era majority rules and at the same time we roll back the welfare state and constitutional jurisprudence with respect to federal authority to 1917-era levels. Deal?

Saul Good
02-11-2010, 06:40 PM
My point is not that only one side is doing it. It's that both sides are doing it. The Republicans have threatned a fillibuster on just about every single thing proposed. Thats just not sustainable. And I know that the Democrats are going to pay back in spades. So, for the benefit of our country we should go back to majority rule. We got 6 years(which is a lifetime in politics) to prepare as a voting public.

Trillion dollar slush funds disguised as stimulus aren't sustainable. Gridlock is very cost-effective.

banyon
02-11-2010, 07:53 PM
It's harder to force the filibuster from the majority side than it is to maintain it from the minority side. The majority has to maintain a quorum while the minority just needs one speaker.

Well fine. They need to get off their butts and do it then. I mean they are paid to be there anyway, right?

Saul Good
02-11-2010, 08:32 PM
Well fine. They need to get off their butts and do it then. I mean they are paid to be there anyway, right?

What would that achieve beyond turning it into an even bigger pissing contest? The filibuster is a gentlemen's agreement of sorts. It works both ways promoting gridlock.

RINGLEADER
02-11-2010, 08:37 PM
Before 1917 a single senator could hold things up. Until 1975 it required two-thirds majority. And it is in the constitution in as much as congress is left to make up its own rules. Seems like we got along just fine with it.

And thankfully it DOES exist to keep the government in check. The less these idiots "accomplish" the better the country is for it.

wazu
02-11-2010, 08:37 PM
60 votes shouldn't be that big of an obstacle if your idea is really embraced by the American people. That's 60%. In school, that would be a D-. Not hard to get.

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 08:58 PM
And thankfully it DOES exist to keep the government in check. There are constitutional divisions of powers. That is suppose to be the government check and balance, not a fillibuster.

Chief Faithful
02-11-2010, 09:18 PM
There are constitutional divisions of powers. That is suppose to be the government check and balance, not a fillibuster.

The Senate is supposed to be a group of professional politicians, unlike the House made up of farmers and locals. The intended nature of the Senate is to be more deliberate with more concensus building. Filibuster rules have been around for a long time and they absolutely belong in the Senate. I think you will find there is little support on either side of the aisle to end the Filibuster rules.

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 09:49 PM
Yeah, I'm not the only one thinking this. Tom Harkin had a press conference today to call for the removal of the fillibuster. The house has passed over 200 bills that are now humg up in the Senate.

You may be happy about this now because you don't like whats in those bills but what will you say when the Republicans want a bill to go through and they don't have 60 votes? Whatever it is you want next time you are in power you can forget it also. Payback will be done. More gridlock. It needs to stop.

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 09:52 PM
Harkin to reintroduce bill to bust filibusters


By Jordan Fabian - 12/27/09 08:51 AM ET
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Saturday that he plans to reintroduce legislation to reform the filibuster process in the Senate.

The top senator on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee said that he will once again attempt to pass the bill he first introduced in 1995 when Democrats were the minority party.

"I'm going to reintroduce that again in January," Harkin told the Washington Post's Ezra Klein (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/end_the_filibuster_an_intervie.html)."And people are going to say I only worry about this because I'm in the majority. But I come with clean hands! I started when I was in the minority!"

Harkin's comments come as the filibuster has come under fire from Democrats and liberal interest groups. Thay say that the requirement that the Senate need a 60 vote supermajority to approve procedural motions makes it too difficult to move significant legislation like healthcare reform. Some liberals blamed the filibuster for the removal of certain provisions favored by liberals such as the public health insurance option and the Medicare buy-in proposal.


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) struck the measures as part of an effort to attract holdout centrist senators. Reid neeeded to bring together all 60 members of the Democratic caucus to proceed toward a vote on healthcare reform.

But Harkin says that the filibuster is now being abused by Republicans who are using it too frequently and on noncontroversial measures, making it difficult to get things done in the Senate.

The Iowa senator said that a GOP filibuster on the unemployment extension that attracted 97 votes and early procedural votes on healthcare were out of line.


"You're supposed to filibuster something that is a deep seated issue," he said. "The idea is to give some time for extended debate but eventually allow a majority to work its will. I do believe there's some reason to have extended debate."

Harkin's plan would reduce the amount of votes needed to break a filibuster the longer it goes on. Senators would need 60 votes to break the first vote but then the amount of votes needed would drop to 57, then 54 votes and finally 51 votes.


"If a group of senators filibusters a bill, you want to take their worries seriously," he said. "Make sure you're not missing something. My proposal will do that."


Harkin compared what Republican effort to stymie the Democrats in the Senate to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's (R-Ga.) strategy of stalling the Democrats in the House when the GOP was in the minority.

philosophy," he said. "Took them 10 years, or even more. But it was a constant attack. And now it looks like they're trying to do that in the Senate."

Harkin also blamed Republican leaders for not reigning in members who constantly try to filibuster legislation, like Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who is known as "Dr. No."


"You don't have a minority leader putting them in check, saying we have to work together," he said. "[Former Seante Republican leader Bob] Dole would never put up with what's going on over there. Neither would [former Senate Republican leader] Trent Lott."


Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/73649-harkin-to-reintroduce-measure-to-change-filibuster (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/73649-harkin-to-reintroduce-measure-to-change-filibuster)

ClevelandBronco
02-11-2010, 09:53 PM
More gridlock. It needs to stop.

You really, really misunderstand the beauty of gridlock.

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 09:57 PM
You really, really misunderstand the beauty of gridlock.As I said, when the shoe is on the other foot. Lets see if your opinion changes.

Guru
02-11-2010, 09:57 PM
Yeah, I'm not the only one thinking this. Tom Harkin had a press conference today to call for the removal of the fillibuster. The house has passed over 200 bills that are now humg up in the Senate.

You may be happy about this now because you don't like whats in those bills but what will you say when the Republicans want a bill to go through and they don't have 60 votes? Whatever it is you want next time you are in power you can forget it also. Payback will be done. More gridlock. It needs to stop.SSDD politics as usual in DC. This is nothing new for either side. As a voter, I would rather them keep it in there.

ClevelandBronco
02-11-2010, 09:58 PM
As I said, when the shoe is on the other foot. Lets see if your opinion changes.

Don't hold your breath. I appreciate gridlock no matter which party is in power.

Taco John
02-11-2010, 09:59 PM
This country was founded on majority rule, 51%, not 60%.



Huh?

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 09:59 PM
SSDD politics as usual in DC. This is nothing new for either side. As a voter, I would rather them keep it in there.Yes it is new. There were 55 couture votes against Bush when the Dems took back control of the house in 2007. There have been 139 Republican couture votes already in the first year.

ClevelandBronco
02-11-2010, 10:00 PM
Huh?

Good catch. Where the hell did he get that idea?

Taco John
02-11-2010, 10:03 PM
Good catch. Where the hell did he get that idea?

Public school is my guess.

Guru
02-11-2010, 10:04 PM
Yes it is new. There were 55 couture votes against Bush when the Dems took back control of the house in 2007. There have been 139 Republican couture votes already in the first year.No, it really is the same. Just because there might be more right now doesn't make it different. It is the same policy either way and both sides use it.

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 10:09 PM
No, it really is the same. Just because there might be more right now doesn't make it different. It is the same policy either way and both sides use it.Technically, more doesn't = new. Yet, this is a new approach to stop policies you don't like.

The Dems will pay back the Republicans with their own gridlock. And at that point the public might be fed up enough to throw them both out and have a major 3rd party candidate with a legitamate chance at the Presidency.

Guru
02-11-2010, 10:18 PM
Technically, more doesn't = new. Yet, this is a new approach to stop policies you don't like.

The Dems will pay back the Republicans with their own fridlock. And at that point the public might be fed up enough yo throw them both out and have a mjot 3rd party candidate with a legitamate chance at the Presidency.That is what I really want to see happen to DC. I would like to think the public is already there but unfortunately, too many are brainwashed into the "my party is right" mentality.

ClevelandBronco
02-12-2010, 01:53 AM
That is what I really want to see happen to DC. I would like to think the public is already there but unfortunately, too many are brainwashed into the "my party is right" mentality.

Whereas the enlightened independently minded person knows that we'd all be okay if we'd just stop fiddling around with this whole two-party thing and agree with you.

I'm sure it's just a matter of time. We have refreshments and football discussion available in the lobby while you wait.

Guru
02-12-2010, 05:15 AM
Whereas the enlightened independently minded person knows that we'd all be okay if we'd just stop fiddling around with this whole two-party thing and agree with you.

I'm sure it's just a matter of time. We have refreshments and football discussion available in the lobby while you wait.Yeah. That was exactly what I meant there. :rolleyes:

dumbass

LOCOChief
02-12-2010, 05:48 AM
The Dems should just have the stones to make them filibuster for real. This fake filibuster by threat stuff is ridiculous.

:LOL: dems having stones. I've yet to meet a lib that sports a pair.

patteeu
02-12-2010, 07:07 AM
Yeah, I'm not the only one thinking this. Tom Harkin had a press conference today to call for the removal of the fillibuster. The house has passed over 200 bills that are now humg up in the Senate.

You may be happy about this now because you don't like whats in those bills but what will you say when the Republicans want a bill to go through and they don't have 60 votes? Whatever it is you want next time you are in power you can forget it also. Payback will be done. More gridlock. It needs to stop.

I'd rather stop 100 democrat bills than pass 1 Republican bill. That's what I'd say.

Any of the people who constantly talk about how bad both parties are, ought to agree with me on that.

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 07:11 AM
I'd rather stop 100 democrat bills than pass 1 Republican bill. That's what I'd say.

Any of the people who constantly talk about how bad both parties are, ought to agree with me on that.And thats a valid opinion, wrong but your entitled to it.

Get nothing done instead of what those guys want done. And if it means we also don't get anything done...so be it. Whats the point of Congress, the senate, even voting? Why even have elections if nothing is going to get done?

ClevelandBronco
02-12-2010, 07:18 AM
Yeah. That was exactly what I meant there. :rolleyes:

dumbass

You seem to think that it matters what you meant.

Ebolapox
02-12-2010, 07:23 AM
Yeah, I'm not the only one thinking this. Tom Harkin had a press conference today to call for the removal of the fillibuster. The house has passed over 200 bills that are now humg up in the Senate.

You may be happy about this now because you don't like whats in those bills but what will you say when the Republicans want a bill to go through and they don't have 60 votes? Whatever it is you want next time you are in power you can forget it also. Payback will be done. More gridlock. It needs to stop.

GRIDLOCK IS GOOD!

(/gordon gecko)

Ebolapox
02-12-2010, 07:25 AM
Huh?

exactly. if we're gonna go back to 'how the country was founded,' we'll go back to white men landowners, slaves, no women voting, no direct senatorial vote (that's the state gov's job), etc.

is that REALLY a place we want to go back to?

mlyonsd
02-12-2010, 07:32 AM
Oh, well, if a brain like Tom Harkin says we should get rid of it we should just get rid of it.

patteeu
02-12-2010, 07:32 AM
exactly. if we're gonna go back to 'how the country was founded,' we'll go back to white men landowners, slaves, no women voting, no direct senatorial vote (that's the state gov's job), etc.

is that REALLY a place we want to go back to?

Did you say "no women voting"? Hmmm... Tempting.

mlyonsd
02-12-2010, 07:34 AM
Did you say "no women voting"? Hmmm... Tempting.

Give'em the vote and the next thing you know you have Nancy Pelosi.

patteeu
02-12-2010, 07:37 AM
Give'em the vote and the next thing you know you have Nancy Pelosi.

LMAO

Velvet_Jones
02-12-2010, 07:45 AM
This country was founded on majority rule, 51%, not 60%.

Wrong. Did you even have a citizenship class in High School or were you absent that year(s)?

Who's with me?

Doesn't look like many people are with you.

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 07:56 AM
I'm well aware that the constitution was written to prevent majority rule. In fact one of the reason for the Declaration of Independence was to give voice to the limits of majority rule.

I was talking about majority rule in the Senate and Congeress. How they vote since our inception as a union. You put forth a bill. People vote. The side with the most votes gets their way. Majority wins.

ChiefaRoo
02-12-2010, 08:02 AM
I've got a good idea. Why don't we vote out the radicals in both parties and vote in Center/Right Dems and Repub's who are adult enough to work together? Of course this would require D's and R's who both believe the US is a well founded country. No more social engineering and gridlock will disappear.

Velvet_Jones
02-12-2010, 08:17 AM
Wrong. Did you even have a citizenship class in High School or were you absent that year(s)?



Doesn't look like many people are with you.


No - you are not well aware of the constitution. Start with baby steps. Spend some time researching and understanding Robert's Rules of Order. This will help you get a grasp on parliamentary procedures and may help you understand why mob rule (democracy 50.01%) is not desirable for certain critical issues.

banyon
02-12-2010, 08:21 AM
No - you are not well aware of the constitution. Start with baby steps. Spend some time researching and understanding Robert's Rules of Order. This will help you get a grasp on parliamentary procedures and may help you understand why mob rule (democracy 50.01%) is not desirable for certain critical issues.

That's his point. This procedure isn't being reserved for certain critical issues, it's being utilized as a way to obstruct what are otherwise very routine matters.

patteeu
02-12-2010, 08:35 AM
It's funny that the guy who was squealing the loudest about the recent SCOTUS decision (Citizen's United) changing "something" that had been in place for 100 years*, is now trying to eliminate a Senate rule that has existed in one form or another for over 200 years.



----------------------
* he didn't really know what that "something" was, but he was super confident, and wrong btw, that it existed

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 08:39 AM
It's funny that the guy who was squealing the loudest about the recent SCOTUS decision (Citizen's United) changing "something" that had been in place for 100 years*, is now trying to eliminate a Senate rule that has existed in one form or another for over 200 years.BS. Fillibuster started in 1917. And the problem is really its overuse in the current enviornment. Since our politicans can't seem to restrain themselfs we need to take away their toys. :p

HonestChieffan
02-12-2010, 08:41 AM
BS. Fillibuster started in 1917. And the problem is really its overuse in the current enviornment. Since our politicans can't seem to restrain themselfs we need to take away their toys. :p

Ita all about control to democrats. Even Controlling the controllers.

banyon
02-12-2010, 08:41 AM
It's funny that the guy who was squealing the loudest about the recent SCOTUS decision (Citizen's United) changing "something" that had been in place for 100 years*, is now trying to eliminate a Senate rule that has existed in one form or another for over 200 years.



----------------------
* he didn't really know what that "something" was, but he was super confident, and wrong btw, that it existed

You're talking about BRC right?, because I hated that decision, but voted the other way on this.

DJ's left nut
02-12-2010, 08:42 AM
The best thing for our country is Federal gridlock.

Removing anything that speeds up the process of government is a HORRID idea.

Let's not grease the tracks for an inevitable anal raping any more than necessary.

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 08:43 AM
The best thing for our country is Federal gridlock.

Removing anything that speeds up the process of government is a HORRID idea.

Let's not grease the tracks for an inevitable anal raping any more than necessary.So why vote? Why even have elections?

patteeu
02-12-2010, 08:44 AM
BS. Fillibuster started in 1917. And the problem is really its overuse in the current enviornment. Since our politicans can't seem to restrain themselfs we need to take away their toys. :p

That's not correct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster).

In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being.[19] Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.

The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until the late 1830s. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837.

As RINGLEADER alluded to earlier in the thread, 1917 was a year in which it became possible for a large enough majority to put an end to a filibuster through the use of cloture. Since then, it has been watered down a few more times. The only way to stop a filibuster before 1917 was to convince the filibustering Senator to give up either by exhausting him or persuading him.

DJ's left nut
02-12-2010, 08:44 AM
Here's a deal for you. We go back to 1917-era majority rules and at the same time we roll back the welfare state and constitutional jurisprudence with respect to federal authority to 1917-era levels. Deal?

Now that's an idea I could get behind.

I'd be surprised that BRC equates more legislation being passed with "what's good for the country"...if he wasn't a closet commie.

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 08:48 AM
That's not correct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster).



As RINGLEADER alluded to earlier in the thread, 1917 was a year in which it became possible for a large enough majority to put an end to a filibuster through the use of cloture. Since then, it has been watered down a few more times. The only way to stop a filibuster before 1917 was to convince the filibustering Senator to give up either by exhausting him or persuading him.
Don't you have some corporations to go to and grovel at their corporate feet? Velvet's waiting on you. :p

1917 is when it first became a "real" issue. Was used to stop or try to stop major legislation.

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 08:49 AM
Now that's an idea I could get behind.

I'd be surprised that BRC equates more legislation being passed with "what's good for the country"...if he wasn't a closet commie.
Who in the hell is a "commie" in 2010?

DJ's left nut
02-12-2010, 08:53 AM
So why vote? Why even have elections?

You mean why cede all of our authority to the federal government?

Damn good question.

When the SCOTUS essentially gutted the 10th amendment, the fillibuster became necessary.

By making everything so Federally orientated, the SCOTUS essentially made every law passed the previous equivalent of a Constitutional Amendment.

Think it only took 50% to pass one of those?

This government was never designed to paint with such broad strokes. It was never designed to marginalize the state governments and do everything at a federal level. In fact, it was designed so that virtually anything of substance done at a federal level required a Constitutional super-majority to get through.

Getting rid of the fillibuster will just speed legislation up. More government is bad. More laws are bad. (I know this idea is foreign to you, BigRedComrade) Our government hasn't done anything to improve the state of American living for the last 50 years, only a jilted idealogue would want to see us put anything place to speed up the process.

patteeu
02-12-2010, 08:55 AM
Don't you have some corporations to go to and grovel at their corporate feet? Velvet's waiting on you. :p

1917 is when it first became a "real" issue. Was used to stop or try to stop major legislation.

My job is to try to stop the spread of bad populist ideas here on ChiefsPlanet. Especially ones that put more power in the hands of legislators at the expense of the citizenry. The last thing I want is for swing voting independents (who are as likely to be fooled by a charming smile as they are to have any idea about what the consequences of policy proposals are) to be able to create unstoppable majorities in Congress.

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 09:00 AM
Our government hasn't done anything to improve the state of American living for the last 50 years, only a jilted idealogue would want to see us put anything place to speed up the process.:LOL:

Yeah, nada a damn thing in 50 years.

wild1
02-12-2010, 09:04 AM
My job is to try to stop the spread of bad populist ideas here on ChiefsPlanet. Especially ones that put more power in the hands of legislators at the expense of the citizenry. The last thing I want is for swing voting independents (who are as likely to be fooled by a charming smile as they are to have any idea about what the consequences of policy proposals are) to be able to create unstoppable majorities in Congress.

:thumb:

Luckily, the poll indicates that nearly 90% of respondents still have their sanity.

Velvet_Jones
02-12-2010, 09:09 AM
That's his point. This procedure isn't being reserved for certain critical issues, it's being utilized as a way to obstruct what are otherwise very routine matters.

No that's not his point. Healthcare is not a routine matter. He wants it for free. And to get it he is willing to change the rules which will also alter procedure to allow this congress to pass something that 80% of the American people do not want. But it may be good for you because this will probably also change my current status from "in good standing" to "criminal" for owning a gun. You can represent me in court.

ChiefaRoo
02-12-2010, 09:24 AM
Who in the hell is a "commie" in 2010?

Van Jones for starters.


Inappropriate title: Obama’s “Green Jobs Czar” is admitted communist
July 13, 2009, 1:03 pm


Is Van Jones is a watermelon: green on the outside, red on the inside
One would think it newsworthy if the President of the United States appointed an admitted communist to a key position in his administration. Wouldn’t one?

Then how can it be explained that the media has given virtually no attention to the political beliefs of Van Jones, the man President Obama has named “Green Jobs Czar”?

Jones is William Ayers without the bombs. He’s the ultimate watermelon: green on the outside, red on the inside.

Here’s how the East Bay Express described the “Green Jobs Czar’s” background:

Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, “I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’” Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. “I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.” In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”

And now he’s a member in good standing of the Obama administration, one of “czars” appointed by Obama who reports only to Obama and who, therefore, never had to withstand the rigors of a senate confirmation process.

Network television news? Hello? Hello? Hello? Anybody out there?

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 09:27 AM
:thumb:

Luckily, the poll indicates that nearly 90% of respondents still have their sanity.maybe in this place but nationwide....better think again. Poll released last night NY Times/CBS News poll...

Three-quarters of the public disapproves of Congress, matching the highest level measured by the New York Times/CBS News Poll since it began asking the question in 1977. Four out of five voters thought Congress was more interested in serving special interests than voters.
“I think Congress and the Senate need to be completely revamped,” said Michael Wish, 30, a Democrat from Medina, Ohio. He added, “The old way of doing things is no longer working.”

Americans appear hungry for an end to partisan infighting in Washington, so much so that half of respondents said the Senate should change the filibuster (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/filibusters_and_debate_curbs/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) rules that Republicans have used to block Mr. Obama’s agenda. Almost 60 percent said both Mr. Obama and Congressional Republicans should compromise in the interest of consensus.

But Mr. Obama is seen as making more of an effort to do that: 62 percent said Mr. Obama was trying to work with Congressional Republicans, while the same percentage said that Republicans were not trying to work with Mr. Obama.

“Obama is certainly trying,” said Bonnie Ewasiuk, 60, of Woodbridge, Va. “I’m a Republican so I don’t like to go against the party, but Obama has reached out and had meetings and I don’t think the Republicans are going to be responsive. All you see from them is negativity.”

patteeu
02-12-2010, 09:40 AM
Americans appear hungry for an end to partisan infighting in Washington, so much so that half of respondents said the Senate should change the filibuster rules that Republicans have used to block Mr. Obama’s agenda. Almost 60 percent said both Mr. Obama and Congressional Republicans should compromise in the interest of consensus.

What kind of a brain-dead moron wrote that passage? How would elimination of the filibuster promote bipartisanship when it would, in fact, give even more power to the same majority that locked Republicans out of health care discussions in 2009 than they already have?

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 09:44 AM
What kind of a brain-dead moron wrote that passage? How would elimination of the filibuster promote bipartisanship when it would, in fact, give even more power to the same majority that locked Republicans out of health care discussions in 2009 than they already have?Writing style notwithstanding....looks like I'm not the only one thinking about ending the fillibuster. I'm just a Chiefs Planet trailblazer.:rolleyes:

Tango&Cash
02-12-2010, 10:07 AM
Well lets see, liberals had the great idea on force feeding Govt ran Healthcare down our throats without reading the bill, explaining the bill, pretty much trying to sneak in shit in the middle of the night. <=== FAIL

The American people have spoken in the town hall meetings etc. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to know that the American people don't want this, and that this is nothing more than to try and buy votes (power) in the future. And I'm not even getting into the financial part of this mess.

But, the dems don't care. You've heard the SOTH Pelosi, that ****ing witchy bitch. Pretty much telling American whether you like it or not, we're going to force this thing down your ****ing throats. What a ****in rotten satan ****.

I hope the Rep's fillibuster ever ****ing sentence of this HC bill. Eventually the dem's will give up, and go home with the tails up their asses with big FAIL signs stapled to their foreheads. Then rep's will win back majority of congress and we can stop this bullshit spending that's creating debt for our children's children's children's children's children.

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 10:14 AM
I hope the Rep's fillibuster ever ****ing sentence of this HC bill. Eventually the dem's will give up, and go home with the tails up their asses with big FAIL signs stapled to their foreheads. Then rep's will win back majority of congress and we can stop this bullshit spending that's creating debt for our children's children's children's children's children.And the last time the Rep's were in charge we got $2.2 trillion in borrowed spending for big pharma and tax cuts for the wealthy. But, you learned your lesson now, right? Give us another chance to be fiscial responsible again? We really mean it this time.

patteeu
02-12-2010, 11:36 AM
And the last time the Rep's were in charge we got $2.2 trillion in borrowed spending for big pharma and tax cuts for the wealthy. But, you learned your lesson now, right? Give us another chance to be fiscial responsible again? We really mean it this time.

I'll listen to this from Ron Paul conservatives, but democrats in general and Obama supporters in particular have no right to play this card. GWBush-era Republicans spent a lot more than they should have, but democrats were there at every point along the way, with the exception of national defense, trying to spend even more.

wild1
02-12-2010, 11:55 AM
I'll listen to this from Ron Paul conservatives, but democrats in general and Obama supporters in particular have no right to play this card. GWBush-era Republicans spent a lot more than they should have, but democrats were there at every point along the way, with the exception of national defense, trying to spend even more.

Precisely. Obama not only suppoted all those plans, but the Dems wanted to spend even more. We'd have gotten more porkbarrel spending and no tax cuts.

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 12:20 PM
Precisely. Obama not only suppoted all those plans, but the Dems wanted to spend even more. We'd have gotten more porkbarrel spending and no tax cuts.
Uhhhhh wrong. 45% of the total stimulus package went for tax cuts.

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 12:24 PM
As a matter of fact....From a non-partisan website
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/taxes/?page=1

Promises about Taxes on the Obameter
<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_inTheWorks.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/39/phase-out-exemptions-and-deductions-for-higher-ear/)
No. 39: Phase out exemptions and deductions for higher earners

Restore the phaseouts of personal exemptions and itemized deductions for those making more than $250,000 (couples) or $200,000 (single), with threshholds indexed for inflation.

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/39/phase-out-exemptions-and-deductions-for-higher-ear/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_promiseKept.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/40/extend-and-index-the-2007-alternative-minimum-tax-/)
No. 40: Extend and index the 2007 Alternative Minimum Tax patch

Extend and index the temporary fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax that was passed in 2007

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/40/extend-and-index-the-2007-alternative-minimum-tax-/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_inTheWorks.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/41/freeze-the-2009-estate-tax-law/)
No. 41: Freeze the 2009 estate tax law

Freeze the 2009 estate tax law, which exempts the first $3.5 million and has a top rate of 45 percent.

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/41/freeze-the-2009-estate-tax-law/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_inTheWorks.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/42/tax-carried-interest-as-ordinary-income/)
No. 42: Tax carried interest as ordinary income

Carried interest is a way of compensating executives by giving them ownership stakes, or "interest," in a business. Carried interest is taxed as a capital gain, which has a lower tax rate than ordinary income. Obama proposes taxing carried interest at the same rate as regular income.

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/42/tax-carried-interest-as-ordinary-income/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_stalled.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/44/lift-the-payroll-tax-cap-on-earnings-above-25000/)
No. 44: Lift the payroll tax cap on earnings above $250,000

"Barack Obama believes that the first place to look to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Obama believes that one strong option is increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security by lifting the payroll tax cap on only earnings above $250,000."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/44/lift-the-payroll-tax-cap-on-earnings-above-25000/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_inTheWorks.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/53/give-tax-credits-to-those-who-need-help-to-pay-hea/)
No. 53: Give tax credits to those who need help to pay health premiums

"Income-based sliding scale tax credits will be provided for people and families who need it."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/53/give-tax-credits-to-those-who-need-help-to-pay-hea/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_inTheWorks.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/54/create-a-small-business-tax-credit-to-help-with-he/)
No. 54: Create a small business tax credit to help with health premiums

"Create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to provide small businesses with a refundable tax credit of up to 50 percent on premiums paid by small businesses on behalf of their employees. To be eligible for the credit, small businesses will have to offer a quality health plan to all of their employees and cover a meaningful share of the cost of employee health premiums."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/54/create-a-small-business-tax-credit-to-help-with-he/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_compromise.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/257/create-the-american-opportunity-tax-credit-to-offs/)
No. 257: Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit to offset college costs

"Will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Recipients of the credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of community service."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/257/create-the-american-opportunity-tax-credit-to-offs/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_inTheWorks.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/330/support-tax-deduction-for-artists/)
No. 330: Support tax deduction for artists

Will support the Artist-Museum Partnership Act, introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. "The Act amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow artists to deduct the fair market value of their work, rather than just the costs of the materials, when they make charitable contributions."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/330/support-tax-deduction-for-artists/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_stalled.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/409/give-tax-incentives-to-new-farmers/)
No. 409: Give tax incentives to new farmers


Obama "will also provide tax incentives to make it easier for new farmers to afford their first farm. Obama will increase incentives for farmers and private landowners to conduct sustainable agriculture and protect wetlands, grasslands and forests."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/409/give-tax-incentives-to-new-farmers/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_compromise.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/445/extend-production-tax-credit-to-encourage-renewabl/)
No. 445: Extend Production Tax Credit to encourage renewable energy

"Will . . . extend the federal Production
Tax Credit (PTC) for 5 years to encourage the production of renewable energy."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/445/extend-production-tax-credit-to-encourage-renewabl/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_stalled.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/446/enact-windfall-profits-tax-for-oil-companies/)
No. 446: Enact windfall profits tax for oil companies

"Will require oil companies to take a reasonable share of their record-breaking windfall profits and use it to provide direct relief worth $500 for an individual and $1,000 for a married couple. The relief would be delivered as quickly as possible to help families cope with the rising price of gasoline, food and other necessities. The rebates would be fully paid for with five years of a windfall profits tax on record oil company profits."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/446/enact-windfall-profits-tax-for-oil-companies/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_promiseKept.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/459/enact-tax-credit-for-consumers-for-hybrid-cars/)
No. 459: Enact tax credit for consumers for plug-in hybrid cars

"We will leverage private sector funding to bring these cars directly to American consumers. We'll give consumers a $7,000 tax credit to buy these vehicles."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/459/enact-tax-credit-for-consumers-for-hybrid-cars/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_inTheWorks.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/471/provide-tax-credits-for-automakers-to-build-fuel-e/)
No. 471: Provide tax credits for automakers to build fuel-efficient cars

"Will provide $4 billion retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that the new fuel-efficient cars can be built in the U.S. by American workers rather than overseas."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/471/provide-tax-credits-for-automakers-to-build-fuel-e/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_promiseKept.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/484/equalize-tax-breaks-for-driving-and-public-transit/)
No. 484: Equalize tax breaks for driving and public transit

"The federal tax code rewards driving to work by allowing employers to provide parking benefits of $205 per month tax free to their employees. The tax code provides employers with commuting benefits for transit, carpooling or vanpooling capped at $105 per month. This gives drivers a nearly 2:1 advantage over transit users. Obama and Biden will reform the tax code to make benefits for driving and public transit or ridesharing equal."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/484/equalize-tax-breaks-for-driving-and-public-transit/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_inTheWorks.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/505/create-a-new-american-jobs-tax-credit-for-companie/)
No. 505: Create a $3,000 tax credit for companies that add jobs


"During 2009 and 2010, existing businesses will receive a $3,000 refundable tax credit for each additional full-time employee hired."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/505/create-a-new-american-jobs-tax-credit-for-companie/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_promiseKept.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/506/raise-the-small-business-investment-expensing-limi/)
No. 506: Raise the small business investment expensing limit to $250,000 through the end of 2009

Will provide "temporary business tax incentives through 2009. The February 2008 stimulus bill increased maximum Section 179 expenses to $250,000 but this expires in December 2008. This provision will encourage all firms to pursue investment in the coming months, but will particularly benefit small firms which generally have smaller amounts of annual property purchases and so choose to expense the cost of their acquired property."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/506/raise-the-small-business-investment-expensing-limi/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_promiseKept.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/507/extend-unemployment-insurance-benefits-and-tempora/)
No. 507: Extend unemployment insurance benefits and temporarily suspend taxes on these benefits

"Obama and Biden believe Congress should immediately extend unemployment insurance for an additional 13 weeks to help families that are being hit hardest by this downturn. In addition, they believe we should temporarily suspend taxes on unemployment insurance benefits as a way of giving more relief to families."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/507/extend-unemployment-insurance-benefits-and-tempora/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_compromise.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/515/no-family-making-less-250000-will-see-any-form-tax/)
No. 515: No family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase."

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/515/no-family-making-less-250000-will-see-any-form-tax/)

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 12:24 PM
Promises about Taxes on the Obameter
<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_inTheWorks.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/1/increase-the-capital-gains-and-dividends-taxes-for/)
No. 1: Increase the capital gains and dividends taxes for higher-income taxpayers

Increase capital gains and dividends taxes from 15 to 20 percent for those making more than $250,000 (couples) or $200,000 (single)

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/1/increase-the-capital-gains-and-dividends-taxes-for/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_inTheWorks.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/2/eliminate-all-oil-and-gas-tax-loopholes/)
No. 2: Eliminate all oil and gas tax loopholes

"Eliminating special tax breaks for oil and gas companies: including repealing special expensing rules, foreign tax credit benefits, and manufacturing deductions for oil and gas firms."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/2/eliminate-all-oil-and-gas-tax-loopholes/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_compromise.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/3/eliminate-capital-gains-taxes-for-small-businesses/)
No. 3: Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups

"Barack Obama understands that small businesses are the engines of our economy, and he will eliminate all capital gains taxes on investments in small and start-up firms."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/3/eliminate-capital-gains-taxes-for-small-businesses/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_inTheWorks.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/4/extend-child-tax-credits-and-marriage-penalty-fixe/)
No. 4: Extend child tax credits and marriage-penalty fixes

Will extend aspects of the Bush tax cuts such as child credit expansions and changes to marriage bonuses and penalties.

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/4/extend-child-tax-credits-and-marriage-penalty-fixe/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_compromise.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/5/expand-the-earned-income-tax-credit/)
No. 5: Expand the earned income tax credit

Expand the earned income tax credit for workers without children and taxpayers with more than three children. Equalize threshholds for married filers and head of household filers.

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/5/expand-the-earned-income-tax-credit/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_stalled.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/10/expand-the-child-and-dependent-care-credit/)
No. 10: Expand the child and dependent care credit

Expand and make refundable the child and dependent care credit.

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/10/expand-the-child-and-dependent-care-credit/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_stalled.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/11/require-publicly-traded-financial-partnerships-to-/)
No. 11: Require publicly traded financial partnerships to pay the corporate income tax

Require publicly traded financial partnerships to pay the corporate income tax.

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/11/require-publicly-traded-financial-partnerships-to-/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_inTheWorks.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/12/create-an-international-tax-haven-watch-list/)
No. 12: Create an international tax haven watch list

Create an international tax haven watch list of countries that do not share information returns with the United States.

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/12/create-an-international-tax-haven-watch-list/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_stalled.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/14/close-loopholes-in-the-corporate-tax-deductibility/)
No. 14: Close loopholes in the corporate tax deductibility of CEO pay

Congress has set rules regarding the tax deductibility of the salaries of CEOs, but forms of non-salary compensation have become popular. Obama would look at revamping definitions of compensation.

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/14/close-loopholes-in-the-corporate-tax-deductibility/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_inTheWorks.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/17/require-economic-justification-for-tax-cuts/)
No. 17: Require economic justification for tax changes

Adopt the economic substance doctrine, a policy that states that tax changes must have significant economic justification, as a federal law.

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/17/require-economic-justification-for-tax-cuts/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_stalled.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/18/provide-option-for-a-pre-filled-out-tax-form/)
No. 18: Provide option for a pre-filled-out tax form

Will direct the Internal Revenue Service to "give taxpayers the option of a pre-filled tax form to verify, sign and return to the IRS or online. This will eliminate the need for Americans to hire expensive tax preparers and to gather information that the federal government already has on file."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/18/provide-option-for-a-pre-filled-out-tax-form/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_stalled.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/19/create-a-mortgage-interest-tax-credit-for-non-item/)
No. 19: Create a mortgage interest tax credit for non-itemizers

Create a refundable tax credit equal to 10 percent of mortgage interest for nonitemizers, up to a maximum credit of $800.

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/19/create-a-mortgage-interest-tax-credit-for-non-item/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_inTheWorks.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/20/make-permanent-the-research-development-tax-cred/)
No. 20: Make permanent the Research & Development tax credit

The Research & Development tax credit and the renewable energy production tax credit are intended to spur innovation in the private sector, but the tax credits have expiration dates under current law. Obama would make them permanent.

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/20/make-permanent-the-research-development-tax-cred/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_inTheWorks.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/21/require-automatic-enrollment-in-401k-plans/)
No. 21: Require automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans

Automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans for workers whose employers offer retirement plans.

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/21/require-automatic-enrollment-in-401k-plans/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_inTheWorks.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/22/require-automatic-enrollment-in-ira-plans/)
No. 22: Require automatic enrollment in IRA plans

Require employers who do not offer retirement plans to offer their workers access to automatic IRAs and contribute via payroll deduction.

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/22/require-automatic-enrollment-in-ira-plans/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_inTheWorks.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/23/create-a-retirement-savings-tax-credit-for-low-inc/)
No. 23: Create a retirement savings tax credit for low incomes

A tax credit for retirement savings up to $500 (couples) or $250 (singles). Phases out when incomes exceed $65,000 (couples) or $32,500 (single). Indexed for inflation.

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/23/create-a-retirement-savings-tax-credit-for-low-inc/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_promiseBroken.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/24/end-income-tax-for-seniors-making-less-than/)
No. 24: End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000

"Will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors -- saving them an average of $1,400 a year-- and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all."

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/24/end-income-tax-for-seniors-making-less-than/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_compromise.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/32/create-a-tax-credit-for-workers/)
No. 32: Create a tax credit of $500 for workers

Enact a Making Work Pay tax credit that would equal 6.2 percent of up to $8,100 of earnings (yielding a maximum credit of approximately $500). Indexed for inflation.

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/32/create-a-tax-credit-for-workers/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_inTheWorks.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/37/extend-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-lower-incomes/)
No. 37: Extend the Bush tax cuts for lower incomes

Extend the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 (couples) or $200,000 (single)

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/37/extend-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-lower-incomes/)




<!--Obameter says:
-->http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Fobameter_inTheWorks.gif (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/38/repeal-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-higher-incomes/)
No. 38: Repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes

Repeal the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 (couples) or $200,000 (single)

>>More (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/38/repeal-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-higher-incomes/)

RINGLEADER
02-13-2010, 01:42 AM
There are constitutional divisions of powers. That is suppose to be the government check and balance, not a fillibuster.

Where to even begin with this one.

Have you even read the Constitution?

And, again, the filibuster as it is defined in the dictionary existed before 1917, albeit in a less constructed fashion.

Getting rid of that benchmark would be a terrible move that gives the politicians more of an opportunity to screw up the country.

Psyko Tek
02-13-2010, 03:28 AM
Iam just so fucking tired of politics as a sport
my god it's just us vs them
nobody seems to be trying to work for the peopl;e anymore,if they ever were,...

yeah let's just throw up an internet IQ test thing
and makethe smarter people serve
you have been drafted into the senate
now, help save the country

and lawyers will be shot on sight
maybe just to wound btu it will keep the lawsuits down

Guru
02-13-2010, 04:18 AM
You seem to think that it matters what you meant.You're the one commenting on it.

Gary
02-13-2010, 07:05 AM
Did you say "no women voting"? Hmmm... Tempting.

It's nice to meet your new girlfriend...Palmula Handerson.

ILChief
02-13-2010, 08:07 AM
i think the fillibuster should be eliminated immediately and permanently. I hate it when either side uses it. If your side lost, deal with it. If the idea is as bad as you think, then the voters will take care of the problem next election.

Calcountry
02-13-2010, 08:12 AM
The Dems should just have the stones to make them filibuster for real. This fake filibuster by threat stuff is ridiculous.ROFL

Calcountry
02-13-2010, 08:14 AM
I agree and I think that will happen if this healthcare summit doesn't produce. They will break out the health care into pieces and force the Republicans to fillibuster every piece and then have to explain their votes. Same thing with financial reform of the banks. Let them try to explain voting for Big bank bonus's to their fellow citizens.Look, I know it is hard being on the wrong side of a clear majority of the American people. It sucks, but, a few of you haven't figured out that the rest of us are not going to follow the pied piper over the cliff.

Calcountry
02-13-2010, 08:18 AM
My point is not that only one side is doing it. It's that both sides are doing it. The Republicans have threatned a fillibuster on just about every single thing proposed. Thats just not sustainable. And I know that the Democrats are going to pay back in spades. So, for the benefit of our country we should go back to majority rule. We got 6 years(which is a lifetime in politics) to prepare as a voting public.The senate will bend to the will of the American people.

As it should. If the people don't give a damn, then neither should the Senate.

Calcountry
02-13-2010, 08:19 AM
oaky for the 3rd time already....jeeezzz I'm not saying for it to take eccect until 2012. This isn't about the dems getting their programs through this year.This is about the Marxists not getting their agenda through this year, and preserving our country for our posterity.

patteeu
02-13-2010, 01:44 PM
Iam just so ****ing tired of politics as a sport
my god it's just us vs them
nobody seems to be trying to work for the peopl;e anymore,if they ever were,...

yeah let's just throw up an internet IQ test thing
and makethe smarter people serve
you have been drafted into the senate
now, help save the country

and lawyers will be shot on sight
maybe just to wound btu it will keep the lawsuits down

It's us vs them because both us and them think that we have a better way of saving the country and that the other guys are going to ruin it. The biggest difference between us and them is that us is right and them is wrong.

patteeu
02-13-2010, 01:46 PM
It's nice to meet your new girlfriend...Palmula Handerson.

WTF? Did you tell my wife about this thread or something? :)

Calcountry
02-15-2010, 11:47 AM
Margaret Thatcher says, "The only problem with socialism is that sooner or later you will run out of other peoples money."

Take that to the bailed out bank.