Obama's overreach

[koshergrl]

The first...the insult of the budget bid:

"— a repackaging of his previous budget, which got precisely zero votes in Congress — was a calculated insult. Obama proposed spending reductions of $60 billion a year — about 1.6 percent of a $3.8 trillion budget. He asked Congress to cede its control over the debt limit. And then he undertook a clumsy campaign swing, accusing Republicans of offering a “lump of coal” and a “Scrooge Christmas.” It was a policy joke, wrapped in a taunt, delivered with a puerile touch.
Obama supporters nodded approvingly, saying that he is finished “negotiating with himself.” But right now, he doesn’t seem to be negotiating with anyone. "

Michael Gerson: Obama’s overreach on the budget - The Washington Post

 

[koshergrl]

The second overreach is Reid's insane bid to change the filibuster rules:

"GOP senators already feel picked upon by Reid’s practice of “filling the amendment tree,” making it impossible for them to introduce amendments to legislation. If Reid kicks off the new session in January by limiting the historical privileges of the minority — because the minority currently happens to be Republican — it will provoke a furious revolt. To get his rule change on filibusters, Reid would need to demonstrate that any Senate rule could be changed by a simple majority. This would make the Senate a smaller, more pompous version of the House, where the majority rewrites the rules every two years, and the minority consequently counts for little.
At least in the short term, Reid would achieve little more than the humiliation of Republicans. An empowered Senate Democratic majority could pass 1,000 bills that would still languish in the Republican House. But Reid would succeed in provoking a constitutional crisis in the middle of a complex, continuing budget negotiation. "

Michael Gerson: Obama’s overreach on the budget - The Washington Post

 

[konradv]

"
President Obama, prone to overestimate his own capacity at communication, is now on the verge of serious overreach in two areas:
First, his opening budget bid — a repackaging of his previous budget, which got precisely zero votes in Congress — was a calculated insult. Obama proposed spending reductions of $60 billion a year — about 1.6 percent of a $3.8 trillion budget. He asked Congress to cede its control over the debt limit. And then he undertook a clumsy campaign swing, accusing Republicans of offering a “lump of coal” and a “Scrooge Christmas.” It was a policy joke, wrapped in a taunt, delivered with a puerile touch.
Obama supporters nodded approvingly, saying that he is finished “negotiating with himself.” But right now, he doesn’t seem to be negotiating with anyone. "

Michael Gerson: Obama’s overreach on the budget - The Washington Post

Over reach? Most would call it an opening bid. We now have a counter-offer from the Republicans. At least they're talking. I wouldn't pay much attention to pundits that treat each proposal as if its a final offer, until we actually have one.

 

[konradv]

The second overreach is Reid's insane bid to change the filibuster rules:

"GOP senators already feel picked upon by Reid’s practice of “filling the amendment tree,” making it impossible for them to introduce amendments to legislation. If Reid kicks off the new session in January by limiting the historical privileges of the minority — because the minority currently happens to be Republican — it will provoke a furious revolt. To get his rule change on filibusters, Reid would need to demonstrate that any Senate rule could be changed by a simple majority. This would make the Senate a smaller, more pompous version of the House, where the majority rewrites the rules every two years, and the minority consequently counts for little.
At least in the short term, Reid would achieve little more than the humiliation of Republicans. An empowered Senate Democratic majority could pass 1,000 bills that would still languish in the Republican House. But Reid would succeed in provoking a constitutional crisis in the middle of a complex, continuing budget negotiation. "

Michael Gerson: Obama’s overreach on the budget - The Washington Post

Where was the outrage on the right when Trent Lott tried to circumvent filibuster rules with the "nuclear option"?

Nuclear option - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[VaYank5150]

Sequestration here we come!!!

“The responsible action for all of us – in industry and in government – is to face the need for reductions, and to get on with it in a manner that protects national security,” he said. “…And yes, spending cuts will more than likely include defense spending cuts.”

Defense industry CEO: federal debt is greatest national security threat

 

[koshergrl]

Thank you for your attempted diversion/logical fallacy.

 

[koshergrl]

Try to stick to the topic, boys.

 

[Old Rocks]

What the wingnuts are really afraid of is that the President will succeed in getting a budget that both raises revenue and decreases expenditures. And that there will be something done in the Senate that prevents the blind obstructionism that we have seen in the past four years.

Should the President succeed in both these tasks, he will be off to a roaring start for his second term. And the wingnuts will be beside themselves with fury.

 

[VaYank5150]

Try to stick to the topic, boys.

Not sure your post #2 did that....

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, whatever.

 

[koshergrl]

Try to stick to the topic, boys.

Not sure your post #2 did that....

My second post is a quote from the source material, the second of two overreaches referenced in the OP.

 

[AmyNation]

They should change the filibuster rule back to what it was.

 

[jillian]

The second overreach is Reid's insane bid to change the filibuster rules:

"GOP senators already feel picked upon by Reid’s practice of “filling the amendment tree,” making it impossible for them to introduce amendments to legislation. If Reid kicks off the new session in January by limiting the historical privileges of the minority — because the minority currently happens to be Republican — it will provoke a furious revolt. To get his rule change on filibusters, Reid would need to demonstrate that any Senate rule could be changed by a simple majority. This would make the Senate a smaller, more pompous version of the House, where the majority rewrites the rules every two years, and the minority consequently counts for little.
At least in the short term, Reid would achieve little more than the humiliation of Republicans. An empowered Senate Democratic majority could pass 1,000 bills that would still languish in the Republican House. But Reid would succeed in provoking a constitutional crisis in the middle of a complex, continuing budget negotiation. "

Michael Gerson: Obama’s overreach on the budget - The Washington Post

how is that an overreach? it was never intended that you should be able to block a vote just by saying "i am filibustering".

a filibuster always required that you put your money where your mouth is and talk until you can't talk anymore...

so what exactly is an "overreach" about that, allie... other than that you hate this president so are going to rage about everything the democrats do?

 

[Old Rocks]

Yep, rage about everything they do, then outrage when they are successful. Kosher is going to have a lot of bile built up by 2016.

 

[beretta304]

The second overreach is Reid's insane bid to change the filibuster rules:

"GOP senators already feel picked upon by Reid’s practice of “filling the amendment tree,” making it impossible for them to introduce amendments to legislation. If Reid kicks off the new session in January by limiting the historical privileges of the minority — because the minority currently happens to be Republican — it will provoke a furious revolt. To get his rule change on filibusters, Reid would need to demonstrate that any Senate rule could be changed by a simple majority. This would make the Senate a smaller, more pompous version of the House, where the majority rewrites the rules every two years, and the minority consequently counts for little.
At least in the short term, Reid would achieve little more than the humiliation of Republicans. An empowered Senate Democratic majority could pass 1,000 bills that would still languish in the Republican House. But Reid would succeed in provoking a constitutional crisis in the middle of a complex, continuing budget negotiation. "

Michael Gerson: Obama’s overreach on the budget - The Washington Post

how is that an overreach? it was never intended that you should be able to block a vote just by saying "i am filibustering".

a filibuster always required that you put your money where your mouth is and talk until you can't talk anymore...

so what exactly is an "overreach" about that, allie... other than that you hate this president so are going to rage about everything the democrats do?

Probably no more than you rage about everything Republicans do...and I mean EVERYTHING!

 

[koshergrl]

The second overreach is Reid's insane bid to change the filibuster rules:

"GOP senators already feel picked upon by Reid’s practice of “filling the amendment tree,” making it impossible for them to introduce amendments to legislation. If Reid kicks off the new session in January by limiting the historical privileges of the minority — because the minority currently happens to be Republican — it will provoke a furious revolt. To get his rule change on filibusters, Reid would need to demonstrate that any Senate rule could be changed by a simple majority. This would make the Senate a smaller, more pompous version of the House, where the majority rewrites the rules every two years, and the minority consequently counts for little.
At least in the short term, Reid would achieve little more than the humiliation of Republicans. An empowered Senate Democratic majority could pass 1,000 bills that would still languish in the Republican House. But Reid would succeed in provoking a constitutional crisis in the middle of a complex, continuing budget negotiation. "

Michael Gerson: Obama’s overreach on the budget - The Washington Post

how is that an overreach? it was never intended that you should be able to block a vote just by saying "i am filibustering".

a filibuster always required that you put your money where your mouth is and talk until you can't talk anymore...

so what exactly is an "overreach" about that, allie... other than that you hate this president so are going to rage about everything the democrats do?

Read the piece, jillian, it explains it in quite simple terms.

I haven't raged about anything. I say let him do whatever.

 

[koshergrl]

Yep, rage about everything they do, then outrage when they are successful. Kosher is going to have a lot of bile built up by 2016.

We have completely different ideas of what "success" is. I don't see more poor people, more hungry people, more sick people, people with less health coverage and worse care as "success" but hey, whatever floats your boat.

 

[jillian]

The second overreach is Reid's insane bid to change the filibuster rules:

"GOP senators already feel picked upon by Reid’s practice of “filling the amendment tree,” making it impossible for them to introduce amendments to legislation. If Reid kicks off the new session in January by limiting the historical privileges of the minority — because the minority currently happens to be Republican — it will provoke a furious revolt. To get his rule change on filibusters, Reid would need to demonstrate that any Senate rule could be changed by a simple majority. This would make the Senate a smaller, more pompous version of the House, where the majority rewrites the rules every two years, and the minority consequently counts for little.
At least in the short term, Reid would achieve little more than the humiliation of Republicans. An empowered Senate Democratic majority could pass 1,000 bills that would still languish in the Republican House. But Reid would succeed in provoking a constitutional crisis in the middle of a complex, continuing budget negotiation. "

Michael Gerson: Obama’s overreach on the budget - The Washington Post

how is that an overreach? it was never intended that you should be able to block a vote just by saying "i am filibustering".

a filibuster always required that you put your money where your mouth is and talk until you can't talk anymore...

so what exactly is an "overreach" about that, allie... other than that you hate this president so are going to rage about everything the democrats do?

Read the piece, jillian, it explains it in quite simple terms.

I haven't raged about anything. I say let him do whatever.

i don't need "simple terms" allie...

your points are nonsense.

 

[Old Rocks]

I think that this election demonstrated that the majority of Americans knew exactly where the source of the problems that we are experiancing lies.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, you do need simple terms. My points are the Washington Post's points.

They aren't nonsense at all. If you don't understand them, I'm sorry for you.