Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I'm sure President Obama will do so gladly. He appears to be the only grown up to take responsibilities, and be open to accept weaknesses in American society.
Glad we are all entitled to opinions....
I would agree with you...but...and this is my opinion...
If pelosi would not have made all those deals that HAD to be made to get this to pass...it never would have passed to begin with...
When it's convenient for you to admit it, yes. I like how you lefties love to blame the right for "blocking" legislation when it's convenient and supports your positions. Kind of like how the right is blamed for having the public option removed from Obamacare.
Do you have a clue how Congress works?
The R's could block legislation last year in the Senate because they used the filibuster--in those instances you need 60 votes vs. 51 to move a bill to a vote, and the D's didn't have 60 votes. The R's had pretty much zero power in the House because the D's had a majority, and they could control the votes on legislation proposed by Dem's by blocking it through filibuster in the Senate, plus the D's had presidential veto. The big issue was that the Dem's were proposing bills and the R's were blocking them.
This time around, it's the R's proposing bills, and the Dem's are able to block them a couple of different ways. The Dem's control the Senate, so they can do it by simple majority vote without using a filibuster. The president can still veto. It's unlikely that the Dem's will be able to pass much legislation of their own without bipartisan support, but the R's aren't going to be able to push anything through that they don't want either.
Here's the really funny part--the R's, who control the House--couldn't even get three of their bills through the HOUSE last week because republicans there were voting against republican legislation. That's not good news for John Boehner. Forget the Democrats--the R's may not be able to do squat for the next couple of years because of fighting in their own party.
Bottom line--very easy to block legislation, and much harder to pass it.
This makes no sense. Under the last congress, the right had filibuster power in the senate to use and abuse which they did non-stop. Now, the right don't have the DINO vote to help them push their bills through and if they do, the D's could filibuster or veto. It some ways, the democrats have more power now as they've backed the republicans into the corner, forcing them to work with the D's if they want to get anything done which they are finding out and Boehner seems to be feeling as well.
uhmm
last congress both had the filbuster, depending on what was being presented by, whom
same for this congress..the republicans (the minority) still have filbuster power
A veto would only serve to secure Obama's defeat in 2012
Don't count on it. That's what Newt thought in '95 when Clinton vetoed his bill to cut entitlements, and they wound up in a government shutdown over it. That pretty much backfired on Newt--the R's got their backsides kicked in 96 and kept losing seats in the Senate and House until the Bush administration and 911 completely changed the political environment.
last congress both had the filbuster, depending on what was being presented by, whom
same for this congress..the republicans (the minority) still have filbuster power
ever seen "Mr. Smith goes to Washington"
OK--let me try to explain this. The only time you need to filibuster a bill is if you don't have a majority of the votes in the Senate. A filibuster is a stalling technique--the minority party can endlessly debate a bill to block it, so it never comes to a vote. In order to end a filibuster, you need 60 votes--it's called voting for "cloture". The Dem's only had 60 votes for a very short time period, so the R's were able to try to block most democratic legislation with the filibuster.
There is no filibuster in the House--votes are done on a straight 50% +1 basis.
It's possible that the Dem's used the filibuster last year in the Senate, , but I can't find an example, and I don't know WHY they would have needed to use it. They had a big majority--59 votes. They had the votes to simply vote it down--they didn't need to try to block a vote by stalling. You don't pass legislation with a filibuster--you can only block it that way. If a bill isn't filibustered in the Senate, it passes the same way as in the house--with 50% +1. The vice president serves as the tie breaker vote in the event that the vote is split 50/50.
EDIT--Remember--the only way you can pass a bill is with a majority vote. There are lots of ways to block a bill. You can vote it down with a majority vote in both the Senate and the House, or in the Senate, the minority party that doesn't have 51 votes can fillibuster it so it never even comes up for a vote. Unless the majority party has 60 votes, the bill dies. Does that make sense to you?
I see some here are still trying to claim that the last elections were about Healthcare Reform, It Wasn't. It Was about spending and the economy in general. The Vast Majority only want the HCR to be modified not repealed, anyone saying different is a Liar, since every bipartisan poll confirms that. I right does Not have the Votes in the Senate and even if thy did The President would veto it. No, it would not cost him his job since most do not want it repealed and by the time of the elections HCR will have been modified. If the right just fights for only reform it will be them that loses their jobs, because Americans Know that one is either part of the solution or part of the problem, they would become the problem. The GOP would be better served working on the budget and solutions to the issues that face us, just saying No is not going to fly. While they are at it, where are the ideas from the new guys on the block when it comes to Jobs? I mean we have been hearing the right whine on and on about Jobs but so far I have seen no real plans on how to deal with Job creation. Do not bring up more tax cuts for the rich, they do not create jobs, history says that idea does not work.
Casper
Ever notice how the more 'conservative' a person claims to be, the more time said person spends on boards yapping instead of working? A couple of posts a day, sure, during breaks and lunch. But numerous postings all day long? Doesn't that tell you something about these posters?
I see some here are still trying to claim that the last elections were about Healthcare Reform, It Wasn't. It Was about spending and the economy in general. The Vast Majority only want the HCR to be modified not repealed, anyone saying different is a Liar, since every bipartisan poll confirms that. I right does Not have the Votes in the Senate and even if thy did The President would veto it. No, it would not cost him his job since most do not want it repealed and by the time of the elections HCR will have been modified. If the right just fights for only reform it will be them that loses their jobs, because Americans Know that one is either part of the solution or part of the problem, they would become the problem. The GOP would be better served working on the budget and solutions to the issues that face us, just saying No is not going to fly. While they are at it, where are the ideas from the new guys on the block when it comes to Jobs? I mean we have been hearing the right whine on and on about Jobs but so far I have seen no real plans on how to deal with Job creation. Do not bring up more tax cuts for the rich, they do not create jobs, history says that idea does not work.
Casper
Cutting funds to the EPA is a great start.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
