PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Filibuster Reform Is Upon Us


Direckshun
11-26-2012, 11:38 PM
dun dun DUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Not really.

Harry Reid is seeking two reforms: kill the filibuster of the motion to proceed, and turn the non-speaking filibuster back into the speaking filibuster.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/full-speed-ahead-on-filibuster-reform/2012/11/26/69a38b5a-380f-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_blog.html

Full speed ahead on filibuster reform?
By Greg Sargent
Posted at 05:04 PM ET, 11/26/2012

On the Senate floor today, Harry Reid offered the clearest confirmation yet that he will move forward with filibuster reform at the start of the new Congress. He confirmed he is proposing to “do away with filibusters on the motion to proceed,” which was already known. He added that under proposed reforms, Senators who want to filibuster will have to “stand up and talk about it.” That means Reid supports the “talking filibuster,” the proposal to force filibustering out into the open — on the theory that this will make it politically more difficult.

There’s some debate over whether the latter proposal is likely to be effective. Jonathan Bernstein has argued (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-ghost-of-jimmy-stewart-and-the-live-filibuster/2012/11/15/e74c2830-2f6a-11e2-af17-67abba0676e2_blog.html) that it’s absurd to imagine that Republicans would balk at publicly holding the floor.

That aside, now that there will be a massive spin war over the meaning of reform — Mitch McConnell railed today that Dems are planning a “naked power grab” — it’s worth reiterating that there is a set of actual facts about GOP filibustering and the Dem response to it that shouldn’t get lost in all the false equivalence BS we’re certain to hear:

1) The extent of GOP filibustering is unprecedented. This chart (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm) shows that cloture motions (a rough measure of filibustering) suddenly spiked during the Obama years. Yes, they also spiked in 2007-2008, but according to Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein, the vast majority of those filibusters were mounted by Republicans, presumably to block legislation designed to embarrass George W. Bush. (Indeed, the motions to end filibusters during that period were filed (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/110.htm) mostly by Dems.)

2) The nature of GOP filibustering is unprecedented. Ornstein says this is true in two ways: First, in the extensive blockading of what used to be considered routine Senate business. And second, much of the filibustering is part of a concerted party strategy. “You’re not just looking at filibusters done by rogue senators or factions, like southern Democrats in the 1950s,” says Ornstein. “It’s the first time we’ve had a wide range of filibustering by a whole party.”

3) Filibuster reform would not do away with the minority’s ability to filibuster. The “talking filibuster” reform and the nixing of the filibuster on the motion to proceed would only make it harder to use procedural tactics, under cover of darkness, for the explicit purpose of stalling the Upper Chamber’s business. The minority would still be able to block the will of a simple majority on the vote to end debate. These are not very meaningful restrictions on the “rights” of the minority.

At any rate, now that Reid has made such a vocal push, it’s hard to imagine that Dems won’t move forward on day one of the new session to change the rules with a simple majority vote. Looks like it’s on.

***************************************

UPDATE: It’s also possible that unilateral action on the rules by Democrats to change the filibuster may not happen, if Dems and Republicans reach a deal. As Ornstein emails me:

In 1975, we had the threat of one party action to change the rule, and it led to a bipartisan compromise. That could happen this time, despite the rhetoric — a bipartisan move to eliminate filibusters on the motion to proceed, a few more changes, and in return, a guarantee for the minority on at least some amendments on bills.

RINGLEADER
11-27-2012, 02:17 AM
This is an absolutely stupid idea.

The continued watering down of the Constitutional checks and balances.

Sometimes it's better when congress does nothing when it's unwilling to compromise.

craneref
11-27-2012, 04:31 AM
Maybe they were trying to stall so they had time to read at least PART of the bills before having to vote on it??

banyon
11-27-2012, 06:45 AM
This is an absolutely stupid idea.

The continued watering down of the Constitutional checks and balances.

Sometimes it's better when congress does nothing when it's unwilling to compromise.

Is this serious?

Direckshun
11-27-2012, 06:47 AM
This is an absolutely stupid idea.

The continued watering down of the Constitutional checks and balances.

Sometimes it's better when congress does nothing when it's unwilling to compromise.

Checks and balances refers to balancing between the branches.

And the filibuster isn't constitutional. It's not unconstitutional, it's just not mentioned in the Constitution. It's a procedure invented and enforced by the Senate, and basically Reid is just suggesting we change the rule back to what it used to be a decade or two ago.

Direckshun
11-27-2012, 06:47 AM
Is this serious?

It most likely is, yes.

FD
11-27-2012, 07:57 AM
I agree with returning to the true filibuster system. Let the minority have that ability to stop things, but make them stand on the floor and defend it, not just anonymously place a hold on anything and everything. I'm glad the Dems have come around on filibuster reform after fighting it in 2006.

KC Dan
11-27-2012, 01:08 PM
Checks and balances refers to balancing between the branches.

And the filibuster isn't constitutional. It's not unconstitutional, it's just not mentioned in the Constitution. It's a procedure invented and enforced by the Senate, and basically Reid is just suggesting we change the rule back to what it used to be a decade or two ago.

Mabe Reid, Clinton, Obama and others should check and replay what they stated very publically 6 years ago when the repubs tried this. Better yet, how about ALL the media replay what they stated. F'n hypocrites, all of them

Direckshun
11-27-2012, 01:39 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/27/what-mitch-mcconnell-fears/

What Mitch McConnell fears
Ezra Klein
November 27, 2012 at 1:15 pm

Steve Benen asks (http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/27/15481917-reid-mcconnell-face-off-on-senate-reforms?lite) a sensible question: Harry Reid’s proposed filibuster reforms are quite modest. If they pass wholesale, the 60-vote supermajority requirement will remain unchanged. So why’s he so steamed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/mitch-mcconnells-five-biggest-whoppers-on-the-filibuster/2012/11/26/a00ab200-380e-11e2-9258-ac7c78d5c680_blog.html?wprss=rss_ezra-klein)?

I’ve asked Senate staff the same question, and I’ve gotten, in general, three answers.

First, moving to a “talking filibuster” is not seen as the minor tweak that some – including me (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/09/is-this-the-end-for-the-filibuster/) — have made it out to be. True, it doesn’t change the fact that the Senate is now a 60-vote institution. But it does make the life of an obstructing minority much harder. Given the size of the Republican minority, to fill a day-long filibuster, every senator would have to be up and speaking for at least half an hour, and a critical mass of minority senators would have to be in the chamber at all times. Coordinating that kind of action among 45 senators who’ve got fundraisers and flights and out-of-town family and who usually don’t stay in Washington even for a full week at a time is no small task.

Second, speeding up the time it takes to break a filibuster reduces McConnell’s power to slow the Senate down, which has been a significant element of his strategy. Again, it doesn’t change the number of votes needed at the end of the day, but it does make it easier for Democrats to move through their agenda when they do have the votes.

Third and most importantly, the real fight, according to a number of Senate sources, is simply the effort to use the so-called “constitutional option” to change the Senate’s rules with 51 votes rather than 67. If you look at McConnell’s blistering speech Monday, that’s actually what he focuses on first:

Let me explain in a little more detail what’s being proposed. What this small group of primarily Senate sophomores is now proposing is that when the Senate gavels in at the beginning of the new Congress, a bare majority of senators can disregard the rule that says changes to the Senate’s rules can only be approved on the same broad bipartisan basis we reserve for approving treaties and overriding presidential vetoes, a supermajority-plus. Lyndon Johnson once said of the 67-vote threshold for change to the rules that it, quote, “preserves indisputably the character of the Senate as the one continuing body in our policymaking process.” End quote. And Senator Reid himself once described changing the Senate procedure by majority fiat as, quote, “Breaking the rules to change the rules.”

Of course, Reid made that comment — which is undoubtedly hypocritical in light of his current plans — when McConnell was proposing to, well, change the rules using a majority vote. Here’s what McConnell was saying at the time:

This is not the first time a minority of Senators has upset a Senate tradition or practice, and the current Senate majority intends to do what the majority in the Senate has often done — use its constitutional authority under article I, section 5, to reform Senate procedure by a simple majority vote.

As McConnell says, many rules have been changed using a majority vote, and no one doubts that the Senate can change its rules through a majority vote. But if Democrats use the procedure on a relatively high-profile agenda item like filibuster reform, the question for McConnell is when, and whether, it will stop.

Arguably, that shouldn’t be a particularly big deal. Republicans control the House right now, and they likely will for the near future. So if McConnell actually thought Republicans were going to retake the Senate and the White House anytime soon, he might see the diminishment of the filibuster and the institution of an easier threshold to change Senate rules, at a moment when he won’t get blamed for it and when there are few consequences, as a boon to the coming era of Republican reign.

But Senate Republicans have thrown away two prime opportunities to retake control of the chamber (2013 and 2012), and there’s a dawning sense among the GOP that the demographics might be tilted against them for the foreseeable future. If that’s true, then McConnell is wise to fight this out as if he’ll be in the minority forever, rather than tempering his concern as minority leader with his incentives as a future majority leader. A world in which McConnell’s only tool will be obstruction is a world in which it’s a real problem if Senate Democrats feel empowered to change the rules with 51 votes. Sure, the reforms Reid’s proposing now are modest, but what about the reforms that he’ll propose three years from now?

cosmo20002
11-27-2012, 02:27 PM
This is an absolutely stupid idea.

The continued watering down of the Constitutional checks and balances.

Sometimes it's better when congress does nothing when it's unwilling to compromise.

Uh, no. Not even close.

Chocolate Hog
11-27-2012, 02:54 PM
Is Ezra Klein Direcks brother? He always quotes dude.

whoman69
11-27-2012, 03:10 PM
This is an absolutely stupid idea.

The continued watering down of the Constitutional checks and balances.

Sometimes it's better when congress does nothing when it's unwilling to compromise.

Filibuster is not in the Constitution. It wasn't created until the early 1800s. It was certainly not what the founding fathers had in mind.

donkhater
11-27-2012, 06:09 PM
My understanding is that the prolific use of the filibuster by the GOP was in response to Reid not allowing amendments to bills in by Republicans before they came out of committees. If Reid is shutting them out of the process of creating bills, why shouldn't they filibuster?

BTW, I wonder what the outrage from the left will be when they find themselves in the minority in the future?

Direckshun
11-27-2012, 06:15 PM
My understanding is that the prolific use of the filibuster by the GOP was in response to Reid not allowing amendments to bills in by Republicans before they came out of committees. If Reid is shutting them out of the process of creating bills, why shouldn't they filibuster?

Republicans were attempting to put in poison pill amendments to make bills unpassable. Reid oftentimes shut that out.

That's a common tactic by a minority, and a common tactic by a majority.

What was uncommon was how frequently that led to a filibuster.

theelusiveeightrop
11-27-2012, 06:20 PM
Senate makes their own rules governing how they conduct business inside the Senate. Constitution has nothing to with it. 100 of the most overpaid people in the country though.

BigRedChief
11-27-2012, 06:49 PM
This is an absolutely stupid idea.

The continued watering down of the Constitutional checks and balances.

Sometimes it's better when congress does nothing when it's unwilling to compromise.Senate makes its own rules. Constitution says nothing about the senate rules on filibusters.

What the hell is wrong with making them be on the floor reading the phone book?

Mr. Kotter
11-27-2012, 06:52 PM
Senate makes their own rules governing how they conduct business inside the Senate. Constitution has nothing to with it....

THIS x a Bazillion

KC Dan
11-27-2012, 07:35 PM
Senate makes its own rules. Constitution says nothing about the senate rules on filibusters.

What the hell is wrong with making them be on the floor reading the phone book?Because if the cant read the bills they write, hot can we expect them to read the phone book? The dems had to live with it under Bush and complained the repubs were wrong to try this thus screw them all

Mr. Kotter
11-27-2012, 07:58 PM
Because if the cant read the bills they write, hot can we expect them to read the phone book? The dems had to live with it under Bush and complained the repubs were wrong to try this thus screw them all

Unless you are blind....the GOP has taken this to a whole new level. Blame them.

KC Dan
11-27-2012, 08:04 PM
Unless you are blind....the GOP has taken this to a whole new level. Blame them.
Sorry but it's both. Take off the homer blinders and look up 2006 dem leaders talking about how wrong it would be to change the rules. If you don't see the shear audacity,,,,, I don't know what to say

Mr. Kotter
11-27-2012, 08:30 PM
Sorry but it's both. Take off the homer blinders and look up 2006 dem leaders talking about how wrong it would be to change the rules. If you don't see the shear audacity,,,,, I don't know what to say

Check the NUMBERS....game over. You lose.

Just sayin'... :shrug:

donkhater
11-27-2012, 09:08 PM
Republicans were attempting to put in poison pill amendments to make bills unpassable. Reid oftentimes shut that out.

That's a common tactic by a minority, and a common tactic by a majority.

What was uncommon was how frequently that led to a filibuster.

Why would they need a poison pill to block legislation when they could use the filibuster? That makes no sense.

Do you refer to amendments you don't like as poison pills?

Taco John
11-27-2012, 09:21 PM
This is an absolutely stupid idea.

The continued watering down of the Constitutional checks and balances.

Sometimes it's better when congress does nothing when it's unwilling to compromise.

Completely agree.

patteeu
11-27-2012, 09:24 PM
I agree with returning to the true filibuster system. Let the minority have that ability to stop things, but make them stand on the floor and defend it, not just anonymously place a hold on anything and everything. I'm glad the Dems have come around on filibuster reform after fighting it in 2006.

I don't think any filibusterer will have a big problem with that. I bet the pro-cloture crowd gets tired of it though.

KC Dan
11-27-2012, 11:26 PM
Check the NUMBERS....game over. You lose.

Just sayin'... :shrug:

You're right. They are surely not hypocrits guess you do win if overlooking stupidity is the win. Not you of course. ALL of them

mlyonsd
11-28-2012, 04:33 PM
Sorry but it's both. Take off the homer blinders and look up 2006 dem leaders talking about how wrong it would be to change the rules. If you don't see the shear audacity,,,,, I don't know what to say

Don't say anything. It is mind boggling.

BigRedChief
11-28-2012, 06:24 PM
Because if the cant read the bills they write, hot can we expect them to read the phone book? The dems had to live with it under Bush and complained the repubs were wrong to try this thus screw them allCome on Man, do I really how to post the filibuster # difference since Obama got elected?

http://i2.crtcdn1.net/shows/the-war-room/files/2012/11/Filibuster-graph1.png

BigRedChief
11-28-2012, 06:29 PM
Why would they need a poison pill to block legislation when they could use the filibuster? That makes no sense.

Do you refer to amendments you don't like as poison pills?Both parties do that. Put in amendments to kill bills.

mlyonsd
11-28-2012, 06:36 PM
The filibuster is the most brilliant thing we have in our legislative process.

BigRedChief
11-28-2012, 07:37 PM
The filibuster is the most brilliant thing we have in our legislative process.you think that now but wait till there is a republican president and the dems pay back the R's.

donkhater
11-28-2012, 07:44 PM
Both parties do that. Put in amendments to kill bills.

But why would they need to do that since they could just filibuster the bill?

Perhaps it isn't just poisoning the bill? Perhaps it's an attempt to debate the bill and propose amendments that benefit their constituents? and when they get shut out of that prossess they are left with no alternative?

Are Democrats deluded enough to think that a sleaze like Harry Ried isn't culpable in any of this?

whoman69
11-28-2012, 07:45 PM
The filibuster is the most brilliant thing we have in our legislative process.

If you want nothing to get done, or the minority party setting the agenda.

JonesCrusher
11-28-2012, 08:36 PM
you think that now but wait till there is a republican president and the dems pay back the R's.

Word.... Which ones are the crips and which ones are the bloods?

patteeu
11-28-2012, 09:51 PM
you think that now but wait till there is a republican president and the dems pay back the R's.

We've already seen that.

patteeu
11-28-2012, 09:52 PM
But why would they need to do that since they could just filibuster the bill?

Perhaps it isn't just poisoning the bill? Perhaps it's an attempt to debate the bill and propose amendments that benefit their constituents? and when they get shut out of that prossess they are left with no alternative?

Are Democrats deluded enough to think that a sleaze like Harry Ried isn't culpable in any of this?

Amendments that the majority fears will be popular and might damage them politically to vote them down.

Direckshun
11-29-2012, 08:29 AM
The filibuster is the most brilliant thing we have in our legislative process.

I agree the filibuster is a positive influence on government.

Remember Wisconsin's union-busting law? They don't have filibusters in a lot of state legislatures, so the minority's last-ditch move is to leave the state and hide out to prevent a quorum from being met.

If you tossed out the filibuster, instead of Republican filibusters, Republicans could hop on a ship and sail to international waters to avoid quorum.

The filibuster is decidedly less insane.

Which is why nobody's suggesting removing it.

alnorth
11-29-2012, 09:12 AM
The filibuster is the most brilliant thing we have in our legislative process.

The founding fathers do not agree

alnorth
11-29-2012, 09:15 AM
I agree the filibuster is a positive influence on government.

Remember Wisconsin's union-busting law? They don't have filibusters in a lot of state legislatures, so the minority's last-ditch move is to leave the state and hide out to prevent a quorum from being met.

If you tossed out the filibuster, instead of Republican filibusters, Republicans could hop on a ship and sail to international waters to avoid quorum.

The filibuster is decidedly less insane.

Which is why nobody's suggesting removing it.

There would be a huge political price to be paid for doing that. Obviously a senator from Utah or Alabama could do whatever, but from a competitive state, I can imagine the campaign commercials now about lazy, do-nothing Senator Smith who cant be bothered to go to work and do the job you elected him to do.

Direckshun
11-29-2012, 09:49 AM
There would be a huge political price to be paid for doing that. Obviously a senator from Utah or Alabama could do whatever, but from a competitive state, I can imagine the campaign commercials now about lazy, do-nothing Senator Smith who cant be bothered to go to work and do the job you elected him to do.

All due respect, but that doesn't seem to be much of a hinderance in state legislatures.

whoman69
11-29-2012, 12:58 PM
We've already seen that.

Who was that?

patteeu
11-29-2012, 02:26 PM
Who was that?

Who was what?

Calcountry
11-29-2012, 03:01 PM
I agree with returning to the true filibuster system. Let the minority have that ability to stop things, but make them stand on the floor and defend it, not just anonymously place a hold on anything and everything. I'm glad the Dems have come around on filibuster reform after fighting it in 2006.ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

Taco John
11-29-2012, 03:14 PM
Rand Paul renews threat to filibuster the NDAA

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/29/rand-paul-renews-threat-to-filibuster-the-ndaa/#ixzz2DeVyxeMc

FD
11-29-2012, 05:48 PM
Filibuster fans, do you think we should add it to the House rules?

Direckshun
11-29-2012, 06:19 PM
Filibuster fans, do you think we should add it to the House rules?

Great question...

mnchiefsguy
11-29-2012, 06:23 PM
Filibuster fans, do you think we should add it to the House rules?

I would say no. The House has too many members, and does not the tradition of the filibuster like the Senate does. In addition, House members are up for re-election every two years, so they are in campaign mode much sooner and more vigorously than their Senate counterparts.

WoodDraw
11-29-2012, 08:13 PM
Great question...

The house used to have a very similar " disappearing quorum" rule. It was removed in much the same way the senate is trying now.

I fully support these changes. Protect the filibuster, but make it mean something. Right now the senate is a 60 vote institution. This will make it hard to just filibuster every bill because you're not in power

Chief Gump
11-30-2012, 09:02 AM
I agree with returning to the true filibuster system. Let the minority have that ability to stop things, but make them stand on the floor and defend it, not just anonymously place a hold on anything and everything. I'm glad the Dems have come around on filibuster reform after fighting it in 2006.

Was it just reform or were the Republicans trying to completely do away with it? If it was reform to the same exact tune then yes it is hypocracy on the Dems part.

whoman69
11-30-2012, 03:30 PM
Was it just reform or were the Republicans trying to completely do away with it? If it was reform to the same exact tune then yes it is hypocracy on the Dems part.

Its not hypocrisy when Democrats did not abuse the filibuster to anywhere close to what the Republicans have.

Do away with the filibuster. It does nothing but create a tyranny of the minority and add to gridlock. It creates an unfair burden to pass legislation. It was not created by the founding fathers and is not in the Constitution. The filibuster was created as a mistake by Aaron Burr of all people. Originally a simple majority was needed to stop debate on an issue. Alexander Hamilton stated in the Federal papers that the founding fathers had considered a super majority to pass legislation but considered it too great a burden to govern with.

patteeu
11-30-2012, 03:35 PM
Its not hypocrisy when Democrats did not abuse the filibuster to anywhere close to what the Republicans have.

Do away with the filibuster. It does nothing but create a tyranny of the minority and add to gridlock. It creates an unfair burden to pass legislation. It was not created by the founding fathers and is not in the Constitution. The filibuster was created as a mistake by Aaron Burr of all people. Originally a simple majority was needed to stop debate on an issue. Alexander Hamilton stated in the Federal papers that the founding fathers had considered a super majority to pass legislation but considered it too great a burden to govern with.

Why should anyone care whether it was created by the founding fathers? Are you also opposed to women and blacks having the vote?

FD
11-30-2012, 03:36 PM
Was it just reform or were the Republicans trying to completely do away with it? If it was reform to the same exact tune then yes it is hypocracy on the Dems part.

Republicans wanted to eliminate the filibuster altogether for judicial nominations in the face of unprecedented and outrageous obstructionism from Reid and company in 2005. Democrats are trying to eliminate it for some procedural motions and end dual track legislation but keep the filibuster for others. I think both proposals are good ideas.

The hypocrisy is equal on both sides, and it regards how the majority can change Senate rules.

RNR
11-30-2012, 03:41 PM
Republicans wanted to eliminate the filibuster altogether for judicial nominations in the face of unprecedented and outrageous obstructionism from Reid and company in 2005. Democrats are trying to eliminate it for some procedural motions and end dual track legislation but keep the filibuster for others. I think both proposals are good ideas.

The hypocrisy is equal on both sides, and it regards how the majority can change Senate rules.

It is on both sides, but this time it is nothing more than an attempt to gain an unlimited credit card~

RNR
11-30-2012, 03:46 PM
Why should anyone care whether it was created by the founding fathers? Are you also opposed to women and blacks having the vote?

Uh...bringing up blacks and women in an argument using the founding fathers is not exactly a position of leverage~

alnorth
11-30-2012, 03:52 PM
All due respect, but that doesn't seem to be much of a hinderance in state legislatures.

well, no kidding.

State senate districts are all gerrymandered to hell so that most state senators are safe. Its obviously not possible to gerrymander the senate, and we have a ton of competitive states.

Your fears are completely unfounded. A senator who flees the senate in any but a dark blue or red state is dead.

patteeu
11-30-2012, 04:22 PM
Uh...bringing up blacks and women in an argument using the founding fathers is not exactly a position of leverage~

I'm not sure what you think I'm saying. My point is that there's no reason to revere each and every position the founding fathers might have had (to the extent that they had a consensus). And it's particularly weird when a liberal tries to play the founding fathers card.

RNR
11-30-2012, 04:39 PM
I'm not sure what you think I'm saying. My point is that there's no reason to revere each and every position the founding fathers might have had (to the extent that they had a consensus). And it's particularly weird when a liberal tries to play the founding fathers card.

You and I agree on this subject. However when you bring up the founding fathers saying they created something with the implication being they ( the left) are dismissing the thoughts of the founding fathers and the add "women and blacks" into the argument you have immediately lessen your argument. The founding fathers were derelict in their treatment of both~

patteeu
11-30-2012, 04:59 PM
You and I agree on this subject. However when you bring up the founding fathers saying they created something with the implication being they ( the left) are dismissing the thoughts of the founding fathers and the add "women and blacks" into the argument you have immediately lessen your argument. The founding fathers were derelict in their treatment of both~

That was my point.

In this case, the left (whoman69) was not dismissing the thoughts of the founding fathers, he was citing them.

RNR
11-30-2012, 05:36 PM
That was my point.

In this case, the left (whoman69) was not dismissing the thoughts of the founding fathers, he was citing them.

Fair enough that missed my bat...I apologize~

whoman69
11-30-2012, 08:06 PM
I'm not sure what you think I'm saying. My point is that there's no reason to revere each and every position the founding fathers might have had (to the extent that they had a consensus). And it's particularly weird when a liberal tries to play the founding fathers card.

Because only conservatives can? Conservatives are not all patriots. The latest Congress certainly proved that. You're all over the board on this issue. There is no sense to requiring a 60 % majority to allow anything to pass. We've only had five Presidents that ever got 60% of the vote.

mnchiefsguy
11-30-2012, 08:08 PM
Because only conservatives can? Conservatives are not all patriots. The latest Congress certainly proved that. You're all over the board on this issue. There is no sense to requiring a 60 % majority to allow anything to pass. We've only had five Presidents that ever got 60% of the vote.

So the conservatives in Congress are not patriots because they opposed the President's policies?

go bowe
11-30-2012, 08:28 PM
So the conservatives in Congress are not patriots because they opposed the President's policies?

hmmmm, the minority party criticizing the majority party's policies has always been viewed as a patriotic endeavor...

and straightforward opposition is good for the country, hearing both sides of issues during vigorous debate is a hallmark of democracy...

but blind rejectionism and obstruction are not helpful to the national discourse, because it prevents rational discourse and compromise...

one can argue as to the extent republicans engaged in rejectionism and obstruction in the last congress, but it appeared to be quite prevalent to the untrained eye...

we need dialogue, not rejectionism...

discussions, not ultimatums...

both sides need to learn how to negotiate in good faith or we're fucked in the long run...

heh, fuck me running... i always liked that expression... :D

mlyonsd
11-30-2012, 08:31 PM
hmmmm, the minority party criticizing the majority party's policies has always been viewed as a patriotic endeavor...

and straightforward opposition is good for the country, hearing both sides of issues during vigorous debate is a hallmark of democracy...

but blind rejectionism and obstruction are not helpful to the national discourse, because it prevents rational discourse and compromise...

one can argue as to the extent republicans engaged in rejectionism and obstruction in the last congress, but it appeared to be quite prevalent to the untrained eye...

we need dialogue, not rejectionism...

discussions, not ultimatums...

both sides need to learn how to negotiate in good faith or we're ****ed in the long run...

heh, **** me running... i always liked that expression... :DAgain, tell your pussy president to lead.

But I'm guessing he won't because even he knows he's not a leader.

go bowe
11-30-2012, 08:36 PM
Again, tell your pussy president to lead.

But I'm guessing he won't because even he knows he's not a leader.

he's not MY pussy president...

just because i voted against mitt romney doesn't make me a follower of the pussy president, so there!

in reality, both the pp and the republican leaders in congress need to lead on this one...

it really does take two to tango...

and three's company, or the beginnings of a truly grand orgy...

mlyonsd
11-30-2012, 08:41 PM
he's not MY pussy president...

just because i voted against mitt romney doesn't make me a follower of the pussy president, so there!

in reality, both the pp and the republican leaders in congress need to lead on this one...

it really does take two to tango...

and three's company, or the beginnings of a truly grand orgy...
If Obama chooses to go over the cliff because he won't negotiate on spending or entitlements it's all on him.

If republicans choose to go over the cliff because they won't budge on taxes when Obama negotiates on spending and entitlements it's on them.

Really simple if you look at it.

Mr. Kotter
11-30-2012, 08:42 PM
Again, tell your pussy president to lead.

But I'm guessing he won't because even he knows he's not a leader.

You really should NOT bad mouth our Governor (that thinks he's President) that way....some of his friends from Spink County might be narks. :shrug:

If Obama chooses to go over the cliff because he won't negotiate on spending or entitlements it's all on him.

If republicans choose to go over the cliff because they won't budge on taxes when Obama negotiates on spending and entitlements it's on them.

Really simple if you look at it.

I really hope the Reps in Congress play it that way....because if they do, they will be really, really screwed. They were wrong on November 5...and they are wrong about this.

go bowe
11-30-2012, 08:49 PM
i dunno...

seems like they could both negotiate on taxes, entitlements and spending and then nobody would be wrong...

the right thing for the country would be for a deal to be reached and passed, the bigger the better...

Mr. Kotter
11-30-2012, 08:56 PM
i dunno...

seems like they could both negotiate on taxes, entitlements and spending and then nobody would be wrong...

the right thing for the country would be for a deal to be reached and passed, the bigger the better...

UNLESS...are a RWNJ tea-party douchenozzle...and there are a lot of them around. Especially, here...in D.C. Heh.

JonesCrusher
11-30-2012, 09:48 PM
UNLESS...are a RWNJ tea-party douchenozzle...and there are a lot of them around. Especially, here...in D.C. Heh.

ROFL

go bowe
11-30-2012, 10:01 PM
UNLESS...are a RWNJ tea-party douchenozzle...and there are a lot of them around. Especially, here...in D.C. Heh.

heh, indeed! :toast:

Psyko Tek
11-30-2012, 10:54 PM
I agree with returning to the true filibuster system. Let the minority have that ability to stop things, but make them stand on the floor and defend it, not just anonymously place a hold on anything and everything. I'm glad the Dems have come around on filibuster reform after fighting it in 2006.

I agree this should be the rule
you want to stop something stand up and explain why

there where bills not even brought to the senate floor , because a filibuster was threatened.
Go back to the Mr Smith ways

you want it stopped at least go to the floor and talk it down , no more motions

patteeu
12-01-2012, 02:21 AM
Because only conservatives can? Conservatives are not all patriots. The latest Congress certainly proved that. You're all over the board on this issue. There is no sense to requiring a 60 % majority to allow anything to pass. We've only had five Presidents that ever got 60% of the vote.

I asked you a question. I see no answer.

patteeu
12-01-2012, 02:24 AM
You really should NOT bad mouth our Governor (that thinks he's President) that way....some of his friends from Spink County might be narks. :shrug:



I really hope the Reps in Congress play it that way....because if they do, they will be really, really screwed. They were wrong on November 5...and they are wrong about this.

What is it you think they're wrong about?

patteeu
12-01-2012, 02:25 AM
ROFL

I think we all know what Kotter's been up to again.

mlyonsd
12-01-2012, 05:27 AM
i dunno...

seems like they could both negotiate on taxes, entitlements and spending and then nobody would be wrong...

the right thing for the country would be for a deal to be reached and passed, the bigger the better...Right, we'll see if that happens and which side bargains in good faith. Maybe they will.

One side is worried about re-election and the other his legacy.

whoman69
12-01-2012, 01:03 PM
Again, tell your pussy president to lead.

But I'm guessing he won't because even he knows he's not a leader.

You've been fed a line of crap. What Republicans want is for Obama to continue to bargain against himself. He is the only one offering compromise and Republicans say its not enough. Then they expect another offer.

Republicans want entitlements in the debate but won't say what they are. That way they can say Obama cut social security and medicare. I have never seen such a bunch of spineless anti-patriots in my life.

whoman69
12-01-2012, 01:05 PM
I asked you a question. I see no answer.

You do what you do every time. You pick a minute part of the response and ignore the rest. You don't deserve an answer because a debate with you is like a debate with a pullstring doll.

whoman69
12-01-2012, 01:12 PM
So the conservatives in Congress are not patriots because they opposed the President's policies?

The conseratives are not patriots because they put their party ahead of the country. Small example: the Veterans Jobs Bill. Five Republicans co-wrote the bill and then vote against the move for the bill to go forward after the President said in a speech he was for it. The were for it before he was for it. They oppose progress to make the President look bad instead of doing things that will stabilize the country. Bob Dole came up with the idea for the mandate that was added to Obamacare and now they cite that as the biggest excuse to oppose it. Out of Mitch McConnel's own mouth is his admittance that their most important task was to make Obama a one term President. Fug the American people. We've got to stop Obama.

mnchiefsguy
12-01-2012, 05:18 PM
You've been fed a line of crap. What Republicans want is for Obama to continue to bargain against himself. He is the only one offering compromise and Republicans say its not enough. Then they expect another offer.

Republicans want entitlements in the debate but won't say what they are. That way they can say Obama cut social security and medicare. I have never seen such a bunch of spineless anti-patriots in my life.

Obama is not offering any compromises, he is just offering to raise taxes on the rich. That solves the fiscal cliff problem for a whopping 8 days, so sorry, that is just not goog enough.

And Obama refuses to cut anything as well, because he wants to be viewed as the Savior, and wants the Republicans take the blame for cutting entitlements.

Nobody likes it, but entitlements have to be cut. They are out of control. Both sides need to man up and cut them together, and take the heat for it together.

Obama is just as spineless, and just as much of an anti-patriot in this situation as the Republicans are.

Both sides screwed this up, both need to fix it, and both need to take the blame. And in the end if everything is successful, they both can take credit for it.

mnchiefsguy
12-01-2012, 05:19 PM
The conseratives are not patriots because they put their party ahead of the country. Small example: the Veterans Jobs Bill. Five Republicans co-wrote the bill and then vote against the move for the bill to go forward after the President said in a speech he was for it. The were for it before he was for it. They oppose progress to make the President look bad instead of doing things that will stabilize the country. Bob Dole came up with the idea for the mandate that was added to Obamacare and now they cite that as the biggest excuse to oppose it. Out of Mitch McConnel's own mouth is his admittance that their most important task was to make Obama a one term President. Fug the American people. We've got to stop Obama.

Obama has put himself and his party ahead of country as well, so he is not a patriot either.

La literatura
12-01-2012, 06:10 PM
Obama is not offering any compromises, he is just offering to raise taxes on the rich. That solves the fiscal cliff problem for a whopping 8 days, so sorry, that is just not goog enough.

And Obama refuses to cut anything as well, because he wants to be viewed as the Savior, and wants the Republicans take the blame for cutting entitlements.

Are you even remotely paying attention to what is actually happening?

whoman69
12-01-2012, 06:17 PM
Obama is not offering any compromises, he is just offering to raise taxes on the rich. That solves the fiscal cliff problem for a whopping 8 days, so sorry, that is just not goog enough.

And Obama refuses to cut anything as well, because he wants to be viewed as the Savior, and wants the Republicans take the blame for cutting entitlements.

Nobody likes it, but entitlements have to be cut. They are out of control. Both sides need to man up and cut them together, and take the heat for it together.

Obama is just as spineless, and just as much of an anti-patriot in this situation as the Republicans are.

Both sides screwed this up, both need to fix it, and both need to take the blame. And in the end if everything is successful, they both can take credit for it.

Social Security is paid for. Should be off the table entirely. Everybody paid their money in. They shouldn't have to be 72 to put in for it. Medicare is only on the table because Bush added to the program without paying for it. The defense budget is 40% of world spending. We are essentially in an arms race with ourselves. Spending cuts should start there.

mnchiefsguy
12-01-2012, 06:19 PM
Are you even remotely paying attention to what is actually happening?

Are you? All I hear from Obama is tax, tax, tax, the rich. That is his solution to all of the problems.

If you cannot admit that both sides are at fault here, and that both sides are playing politics trying to not look bad and make the other side look worse, then you are not paying attention.

La literatura
12-01-2012, 06:39 PM
Are you? All I hear from Obama is tax, tax, tax, the rich. That is his solution to all of the problems.

If you cannot admit that both sides are at fault here, and that both sides are playing politics trying to not look bad and make the other side look worse, then you are not paying attention.

Your post was almost entirely false.

mnchiefsguy
12-01-2012, 06:48 PM
Your post was almost entirely false.

No, it wasn't. Obama wants to do cuts "later" or not at all, and the only specifics he has provided is how much he wants to raise taxes.

La literatura
12-01-2012, 07:02 PM
No, it wasn't. Obama wants to do cuts "later" or not at all, and the only specifics he has provided is how much he wants to raise taxes.

$400 billion in cuts, according to the Geitner Plan.

patteeu
12-01-2012, 07:40 PM
You've been fed a line of crap. What Republicans want is for Obama to continue to bargain against himself. He is the only one offering compromise and Republicans say its not enough. Then they expect another offer.

Republicans want entitlements in the debate but won't say what they are. That way they can say Obama cut social security and medicare. I have never seen such a bunch of spineless anti-patriots in my life.

What Obama compromises?

How can you not know what the entitlements are?

patteeu
12-01-2012, 07:41 PM
You do what you do every time. You pick a minute part of the response and ignore the rest. You don't deserve an answer because a debate with you is like a debate with a pullstring doll.

Still no answer.

patteeu
12-01-2012, 07:43 PM
Social Security is paid for. Should be off the table entirely. Everybody paid their money in. They shouldn't have to be 72 to put in for it. Medicare is only on the table because Bush added to the program without paying for it. The defense budget is 40% of world spending. We are essentially in an arms race with ourselves. Spending cuts should start there.

You're clueless.

patteeu
12-01-2012, 07:47 PM
$400 billion in cuts, according to the Geitner Plan.

Can you describe them?

La literatura
12-01-2012, 08:13 PM
Can you describe them?

Don't ****ing tell me that cuts weren't on the table from Obama. Romney never detailed what deductions he would look to end. Does that mean he never was going to end some deductions? Don't lie to us and say that Obama hasn't offered cuts. There was $400 billion worth of cuts in the Geitner proposal.

mlyonsd
12-01-2012, 09:26 PM
You've been fed a line of crap. What Republicans want is for Obama to continue to bargain against himself. He is the only one offering compromise and Republicans say its not enough. Then they expect another offer.

Republicans want entitlements in the debate but won't say what they are. That way they can say Obama cut social security and medicare. I have never seen such a bunch of spineless anti-patriots in my life.The biggest spineless anti-patriot I've witnessed in my life is Obama.

patteeu
12-02-2012, 09:47 AM
Don't ****ing tell me that cuts weren't on the table from Obama. Romney never detailed what deductions he would look to end. Does that mean he never was going to end some deductions? Don't lie to us and say that Obama hasn't offered cuts. There was $400 billion worth of cuts in the Geitner proposal.

It's time to stop campaigning and start governing. Now can you describe these cuts or not? Are they upfront, specific cuts or are they down-the-road, aspirational cuts with no guarantees?

FD
12-03-2012, 08:08 AM
It's time to stop campaigning and start governing. Now can you describe these cuts or not? Are they upfront, specific cuts or are they down-the-road, aspirational cuts with no guarantees?

Someone has put his Medicare/Medicaid cuts together into one graph, for your perusal. They add up to $360-400 billion.

I havent really looked through this yet.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/12/health-cuts.png

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/03/how-obama-would-cut-medicare-spending-in-a-deficit-deal/

Direckshun
12-03-2012, 08:12 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/12/health-cuts.png

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/03/how-obama-would-cut-medicare-spending-in-a-deficit-deal/

:hmmm:

Interesting.

whoman69
12-03-2012, 06:21 PM
The biggest spineless anti-patriot I've witnessed in my life is Obama.

You've just posted the equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?"

mlyonsd
12-03-2012, 06:24 PM
You've just posted the equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?"

Absolutely. No argument there. My post is based on yours.

whoman69
12-03-2012, 06:33 PM
You're clueless.

Get out of the bubble. Tell me where I'm wrong. Is Social Security not paid for? Medicare is not in trouble because of prescription drugs which Bush added? The US is not spending 40% of the world defense budget? If you don't believe tons of money can't be cut out of wasteful defense practices then you're just burying your head up the ass of defense contractors.

Stop pulling the argument to irrelevant tangents like you always do. If we really want to get serious about Medicare its not by cutting back services, its by working on skyrocketing medical costs. That is not something that can be solved in the budgeting process.

JonesCrusher
12-03-2012, 06:36 PM
Someone has put his Medicare/Medicaid cuts together into one graph, for your perusal. They add up to $360-400 billion.

I havent really looked through this yet.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/12/health-cuts.png

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/03/how-obama-would-cut-medicare-spending-in-a-deficit-deal/

Many similar cuts are also taking effect due to Obamacare. Are these in addition to those or is this just some creative math?

mlyonsd
12-03-2012, 06:41 PM
Get out of the bubble. Tell me where I'm wrong. Is Social Security not paid for?

What do you mean paid for? Available benefits start to get scaled back around 2030.

FD
12-03-2012, 07:14 PM
Many similar cuts are also taking effect due to Obamacare. Are these in addition to those or is this just some creative math?

These would be on top of Obamacare's cuts.

patteeu
12-03-2012, 07:21 PM
Get out of the bubble. Tell me where I'm wrong. Is Social Security not paid for?

No, it's not as a matter of fact.

Medicare is not in trouble because of prescription drugs which Bush added?

Medicare is in financial trouble, period. You're right later in this post that the problem is rising health care costs. You're wrong here to suggest that the problem is limited to the prescription drug program.

The US is not spending 40% of the world defense budget? If you don't believe tons of money can't be cut out of wasteful defense practices then you're just burying your head up the ass of defense contractors.

I don't know what the right percentage is and I don't care because it's irrelevant. I don't know what a "ton" of money is but the tone of your statement tells me that you're way off on the amount of waste that can be cut from defense. In any event, the defense budget isn't a source of our fiscal problems and it's foolish to use the defense budget like a piggy bank so you can avoid dealing with entitlements that actually are the source of the problem.

Stop pulling the argument to irrelevant tangents like you always do. If we really want to get serious about Medicare its not by cutting back services, its by working on skyrocketing medical costs. That is not something that can be solved in the budgeting process.

This is about the only thing you got right. It's a shame that democrats decided to ignore this problem and force a medical reform on the country that pursued universal coverage, wasteful levels of preventive care, and ubiquitous contraception instead. When is the President going to get serious about this?

whoman69
12-04-2012, 04:28 PM
No, it's not as a matter of fact.

Medicare is in financial trouble, period. You're right later in this post that the problem is rising health care costs. You're wrong here to suggest that the problem is limited to the prescription drug program.

I don't know what the right percentage is and I don't care because it's irrelevant. I don't know what a "ton" of money is but the tone of your statement tells me that you're way off on the amount of waste that can be cut from defense. In any event, the defense budget isn't a source of our fiscal problems and it's foolish to use the defense budget like a piggy bank so you can avoid dealing with entitlements that actually are the source of the problem.

This is about the only thing you got right. It's a shame that democrats decided to ignore this problem and force a medical reform on the country that pursued universal coverage, wasteful levels of preventive care, and ubiquitous contraception instead. When is the President going to get serious about this?

Social Security has a $2.7 trillion surplus. That surplus is expect to last another 20 years. Of course we could extend that by raising the maximum money that is taxed but Republicans won't go for hurting the "job creators".

In addition to waste, the Defense department is still being funded to fight a Cold War that no longer exists. We can no longer afford the corporate welfare to fund the military industrial complex.

Sen. Coburn (R-OK) states that excessive military overhead is $37 billion over 10 years. He also cites $9 in savings by closing PXs which I would favor with the exception of overseas bases. He also wants to close on base military schools, which I would have to worry about local schools being able to absorb without taxes from those on the base. That would also be of limited savings, only $10.7 million over a decade.

Its ironic that you state using defense budget to piggy bank entitlements when Congress has been doing just the opposite for years. We cannot afford to spend $631 billion every year on defense.

Preventative care will save money in the long term. The current model is one of the reasons healthcare is so high.

patteeu
12-04-2012, 06:03 PM
Social Security has a $2.7 trillion surplus. That surplus is expect to last another 20 years. Of course we could extend that by raising the maximum money that is taxed but Republicans won't go for hurting the "job creators".

Like I said, SS is not paid for. We should stop waiting for crises to fix these things.


In addition to waste, the Defense department is still being funded to fight a Cold War that no longer exists. We can no longer afford the corporate welfare to fund the military industrial complex.

Sen. Coburn (R-OK) states that excessive military overhead is $37 billion over 10 years. He also cites $9 in savings by closing PXs which I would favor with the exception of overseas bases. He also wants to close on base military schools, which I would have to worry about local schools being able to absorb without taxes from those on the base. That would also be of limited savings, only $10.7 million over a decade.

We should, and we have been, constantly reviewing our defense requirements and aligning our defense budget to meet future threats rather than those of yesteryear. Similarly, we should, and we do, continually look for ways to make our defense spending more efficient. None of that means that we can slash our defense spending just because we've made bad decisions to live beyond our means on the domestic and entitlement sides of the budget.

The potential savings that you cite above may well be worthwhile. But you should recognize that you're talking about peanuts compared to the overall defense budget. You're talking about savings of less than $5 billion per year (which is less than 1% of the budget, using your $631 billion number mentioned below). By comparison, the sequestration cuts would be something like 11% of the budget.

Its ironic that you state using defense budget to piggy bank entitlements when Congress has been doing just the opposite for years. We cannot afford to spend $631 billion every year on defense.

No, Congress hasn't been doing the opposite. What Congress has been doing is over-spending on discretionary programs and over-promising on entitlement programs. It's time to face up to our addiction and confront it head on instead of finding another way to enable it just a little longer. Gutting defense to get another fix will only postpone the date we have with our fiscal destiny. By far the biggest fiscal problem we face are spiraling healthcare costs and their impact on entitlements. It's long past time to get serious about this and quit scapegoating our defense budget.

Preventative care will save money in the long term. The current model is one of the reasons healthcare is so high.

Preventative care doesn't always lead to savings. If you spend $10/per person to prevent a malady that costs $500 to treat, it seems like prevention is a no-brainer. And that's how politicians will describe their proposal to prevent Disease X. But if the malady only occurs in 1 out of every 100 people, it would cost you $1000 to prevent it compared to $500 to treat it. That concept isn't well understood. There are too many people who blindly accept the idea that preventative care is always cheaper than the alternative. You seem to be one of them.

Direckshun
12-04-2012, 06:06 PM
Like I said, SS is not paid for. We should stop waiting for crises to fix these things.

SS is set to remain 100% solvent and pay out every cent for at least the next 20 years.

patteeu
12-04-2012, 07:01 PM
SS is set to remain 100% solvent and pay out every cent for at least the next 20 years.

Right, it's scheduled to run out of money. If your personal annuity was scheduled to run out of money in 20 years even if you live another 50, would you find it satisfactory? I know I wouldn't.

Direckshun
12-04-2012, 07:11 PM
Right, it's scheduled to run out of money. If your personal annuity was scheduled to run out of money in 20 years even if you live another 50, would you find it satisfactory? I know I wouldn't.

You just need to qualify when you say it's not paid for.

It's not paid for in 2035.

Until then, and possibly a little past then, it's paid for.

patteeu
12-04-2012, 07:30 PM
You just need to qualify when you say it's not paid for.

It's not paid for in 2035.

Until then, and possibly a little past then, it's paid for.

It's not paid for *now*, until it's perpetually solvent given our best assumptions about demographic changes and economic growth. It's silly to pretend that "SS is paid for" would be an accurate statement if it was going to run out of money next year. It's only marginally less silly to pretend that that phrase is accurate when the insolvency point is 20 years out.

mlyonsd
12-04-2012, 07:36 PM
It's not paid for *now*, until it's perpetually solvent given our best assumptions about demographic changes and economic growth. It's silly to pretend that "SS is paid for" would be an accurate statement if it was going to run out of money next year. It's only marginally less silly to pretend that that phrase is accurate when the insolvency point is 20 years out.
So you're telling me my 100 year mortgage isn't paid for if I die before then?

Shit.

Direckshun
12-04-2012, 07:53 PM
It's not paid for *now*

Yes, it is. It's paid for, for at least 20 years, if not longer.

mlyonsd
12-04-2012, 07:57 PM
Yes, it is. It's paid for, for at least 20 years, if not longer.
Why not make it perpetually solvent so we don't have to worry about it?

Direckshun
12-04-2012, 07:59 PM
Why not make it perpetually solvent so we don't have to worry about it?

I agree (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=266951).

patteeu
12-04-2012, 08:26 PM
Yes, it is. It's paid for, for at least 20 years, if not longer.

No, it's underfunded now because, based on our best estimates of demographic changes and economic factors, it goes broke in 20 years.

donkhater
12-04-2012, 08:27 PM
It's misleading to state that SS has a $2.7 trillion surplus. There is no fund that benefits are extracted from. The 'surplus' is the projected revenue that will be collected before it goes in the red. Government already spent the SS fund. Current benefits are paid out with current tax dollars, it's only shading accounting that allows politicians to say with a straight face that SS doesn't contribute to the debt.

donkhater
12-04-2012, 08:30 PM
You just need to qualify when you say it's not paid for.

It's not paid for in 2035.

Until then, and possibly a little past then, it's paid for.

2035 is when it projected that there will be less than 1 worker for every 1 person collecting SS benefits. At that point, it will be enter into the red.

Direckshun
12-04-2012, 08:40 PM
No, it's underfunded now.

Your definition of "now" means three decades into the future.

That's the assault on language you have to perform for your points to make sense.

Direckshun
12-04-2012, 08:40 PM
It's misleading to state that SS has a $2.7 trillion surplus. There is no fund that benefits are extracted from. The 'surplus' is the projected revenue that will be collected before it goes in the red. Government already spent the SS fund. Current benefits are paid out with current tax dollars, it's only shading accounting that allows politicians to say with a straight face that SS doesn't contribute to the debt.

Social security does not contribute to the debt.

donkhater
12-04-2012, 08:51 PM
Social security does not contribute to the debt.

You're right. It contributes to the deficit. You know the difference, right? ;)

Direckshun
12-04-2012, 08:53 PM
You're right. It contributes to the deficit. You know the difference, right? ;)

LMAO

Do you have anything you can link to to support that claim?

donkhater
12-04-2012, 09:08 PM
LMAO

Do you have anything you can link to to support that claim?

Sure, knock yourself out

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/dems_say_social_security_doesnt_add_to_deficit.html

The American public should be outraged that our public officials ran a Ponzi Scheme on us for years. Alas, no one seems to care. Just raise taxes on those evil rich people!

patteeu
12-04-2012, 09:47 PM
Your definition of "now" means three decades into the future.

That's the assault on language you have to perform for your points to make sense.

No, when I say "now", I mean today.

Direckshun
12-04-2012, 10:47 PM
Sure, knock yourself out

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/dems_say_social_security_doesnt_add_to_deficit.html

Present another source. That one is a conservative media source.

Find one that doesn't have a political ax to grind.

Direckshun
12-04-2012, 10:48 PM
No, when I say "now", I mean today.

Today it's solvent.

The program is solvent, and pays out 100% of its benefits.

patteeu
12-05-2012, 06:52 AM
Today it's solvent.

The program is solvent, and pays out 100% of its benefits.

The short-sightedness that you're demonstrating is what gets us into unnecessarily painful fiscal messes. It's long past time to reject your kind of thinking. It's time to either fund the promises we've already made or modify the promises, far enough in advance that people have time to prepare themselves.

Direckshun
12-05-2012, 08:16 AM
The short-sightedness that you're demonstrating is what gets us into unnecessarily painful fiscal messes.

I support a very specific measure (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=266951) that would fund social security for the rest of our and our children's lifetimes.

patteeu
12-05-2012, 08:24 AM
I support a very specific measure (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=266951) that would fund social security for the rest of our and our children's lifetimes.

Meanwhile, you go around saying that SS is paid for when it's not.

Direckshun
12-05-2012, 08:26 AM
Meanwhile, you go around saying that SS is paid for when it's not.

It is for the next 20 years.

patteeu
12-05-2012, 08:39 AM
It is for the next 20 years.

:facepalm:

donkhater
12-05-2012, 09:48 AM
Present another source. That one is a conservative media source.

Find one that doesn't have a political ax to grind.

Don't need to. Their data and analysis is consistent with what is happening and I believe it. It's on you to refute it with your 'unbiased' source, if you can find one.

Direckshun
12-05-2012, 02:12 PM
Don't need to. Their data and analysis is consistent with what is happening and I believe it.

That you agree with a biased source means even less.

Can you back your points up with anything that isn't a conservative shill site?

Calcountry
12-05-2012, 03:49 PM
Todays stat's, 8/25 threads brought to you by, Direckshun.

Mod's, change the name of the forum to Direckshun's DC.

Needless to say, this place suchs Buchaca.

Bye.

J Diddy
12-05-2012, 04:29 PM
Todays stat's, 8/25 threads brought to you by, Direckshun.

Mod's, change the name of the forum to Direckshun's DC.

Needless to say, this place suchs Buchaca.

Bye.

There is an ignore button. It is free to use.

donkhater
12-05-2012, 06:03 PM
That you agree with a biased source means even less.

Can you back your points up with anything that isn't a conservative shill site?

Can you discount it with anything other than a socialist shrill site? What's the difference? I ve read enough over the years about social security and the Ponzi scheme it is and find the column's data and conclusions entirely believable.

You asked for a source to back up my points, knowing full well it would likely be a conservative source then discount it as biased to make yourself sound above the partisan rhetoric and put your hands over your ears like a little girl. Your act is old. You need to change it. You're the DC's version of Wendler.

If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question in the first place.

whoman69
12-06-2012, 10:17 PM
Now that McConnell has filibustered his own bill, tell me again how its a useful tool and that Republicans haven't abused it.

Direckshun
12-07-2012, 08:21 AM
Can you discount it with anything other than a socialist shrill site? What's the difference? I ve read enough over the years about social security and the Ponzi scheme it is and find the column's data and conclusions entirely believable.

The difference is that if you asked me to back up a point I'm making by citing a shill site, you're likely to call my argument phony.

That's what's happening here.

There is no credible source that's backing up your argument.

Direckshun
12-07-2012, 08:25 AM
Todays stat's, 8/25 threads brought to you by, Direckshun.

You're focusing too much on the messenger.

Here are the topics I've started recently:

1. unemployment rate
2. hilarious move by mcconnell
3. Fox News' impartiality
4. fiscal cliff megathread
5. huge IMF study on spending cuts vs. tax increases
6. GOP ideology issues
7. UN disabilities treaty vote
8. Israel/Palestine megathread
9. GOP ideology issues again

That's just the past few days.

I'll give you the McConnell thread, as that one was just started for chuckles.

Buf if you don't think these are legitimate issues worthy of discussion, that's on you.

BigRedChief
12-07-2012, 05:15 PM
Now that McConnell has filibustered his own bill, tell me again how its a useful tool and that Republicans haven't abused it.That was one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of in politics. Filibuster your own bill on the same day you introduce the bill? ROFL

donkhater
12-08-2012, 10:58 AM
The difference is that if you asked me to back up a point I'm making by citing a shill site, you're likely to call my argument phony.

That's what's happening here.

There is no credible source that's backing up your argument.

:clap:ROFL:clap: Sure.

Direckshun
12-08-2012, 11:45 AM
:clap:ROFL:clap: Sure.

That's not how logic works, brother.

You put up an argument, you must support it. The argument doesn't stand from a lack of counter-evidence, it stands when there's evidence.

The only support you can find, and the only support you'll be able to find will be from conservative shill sites.

That's on you.

donkhater
12-08-2012, 12:35 PM
That's not how logic works, brother.

You put up an argument, you must support it. The argument doesn't stand from a lack of counter-evidence, it stands when there's evidence.

The only support you can find, and the only support you'll be able to find will be from conservative shill sites.

That's on you.

You assume that because the site I linked has a political slant that it voids any argument. Fine, but that's on you.

There isn't a site you'll find to to refute my argument that isn't slanted the other way.

Demagogue, get disagreement, insist on 'links' for support, discount because they are 'shills' for the conservative view.

Rinse, repeat. Your act is old.

Direckshun
01-04-2013, 07:31 AM
Reportedly there's somewhere between 48 to 51 votes for the new rules package. Reportedly (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/01/03/merkley_udall_release_filibuster_reform_plan_claim_between_48_and_51_votes.html):

The rule changes in question were handed out to reporters; both senators averred that the "talking filibuster" was the hardest to build a majority for.

1. Eliminate the Filibuster on Motions to Proceed: Clears a path to debate by making motions to proceed not subject to a filibuster, but providing two hours of debate.

2. Require a Talking Filibuster: Forces Senators who filibuster to actually speak on the floor, greatly increasing public accountability and requiring time and energy if the minority wants to use this tool to obstruct the Senate.

3. Expedite Nominations: Reduces post-cloture debate on nominations from 30 hours to 2 hours, except for Supreme Court Justices (for whom the current 30 hours would remain intact).

4. Eliminate the Filibuster on Motions to Establish a Conference Committee: Reduces the steps to establish a conference committee from three motions to one, and limits debate the consolidated motion to 2 hours.