Id like to see the amount needed to pass a bill in the senate raised to seventy.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Id like to see the amount needed to pass a bill in the senate raised to seventy.
What is wrong with one man/women, one vote?
Id like to see the amount needed to pass a bill in the senate raised to seventy.
Why?
Id like to see the amount needed to pass a bill in the senate raised to seventy.
Why?
I'd better go a step further and add a seventy percent stipulation for the hor also. Simple, WC, if a bill is that great and beneficial to the citizens of the united states then it really should have no problem garnering 70 percent of the vote in congress or the senate.
Why?
I'd better go a step further and add a seventy percent stipulation for the hor also. Simple, WC, if a bill is that great and beneficial to the citizens of the united states then it really should have no problem garnering 70 percent of the vote in congress or the senate.
LOL, you guys think ANYTHING would get done?
Why?
I'd better go a step further and add a seventy percent stipulation for the hor also. Simple, WC, if a bill is that great and beneficial to the citizens of the united states then it really should have no problem garnering 70 percent of the vote in congress or the senate.
LOL, you guys think ANYTHING would get done?
Should the Senate revise its rules and allow for a simple majority to call for the vote, ending a filibuster?
Filibusters no longer serve any purpose, other than to impose a de facto supermajority requirement on every single piece of legislation introduced in the chamber.
The idea behind requiring a 66 vote majority was to preclude a majority party from trampling all over the minority. When the democrats lowered it to 60 they intended to allow themselves to do exactly that. By doing so they increased their chances to ignore the repubs, as they did with the ACA.
Why?
I'd better go a step further and add a seventy percent stipulation for the hor also. Simple, WC, if a bill is that great and beneficial to the citizens of the united states then it really should have no problem garnering 70 percent of the vote in congress or the senate.
LOL, you guys think ANYTHING would get done?
The idea behind requiring a 66 vote majority was to preclude a majority party from trampling all over the minority. When the democrats lowered it to 60 they intended to allow themselves to do exactly that. By doing so they increased their chances to ignore the repubs, as they did with the ACA.
I get that; that said our government is gridlocked by ideology. The American voter, generally, won't abide by extreme changes and sets a course correction, seemingly every year.
[I don't know that the R's were ignored; clearly they were opposed to the idea of health care reform ideologically. The harsh rhetoric (Communism! Socialism!) from the right and even elected officials pretty much effected the R's ability to provide mature and responsible input into the need for health care reform in our nation.]
If the majority of the American voters were displeased by Obamacare, Romney's promise to repeal it on day one would have carried the day. Honest and educated people understood that Obamacare is not socialized medicine, that reform to our system of health care was necessary and voted to continue it (Obamacare).
If in 2016 Obamacare is a failure, the R's will carry the day and try to repeal it. If the Senate rules continue unabated, however, now that the Supreme Court has rule upon it, Obamacare will likely remain in effect for the foreseeable future. If it carries out its promises, even those opposed may learn to love it. However, those who feel their Golden Goose has been murdered will continue to work their ways with the Members of Congress they own.
Paying for it is the concern. It is up to Congress and the President to come to agreement on taxes, spending and priorities. But, that requires compromise and it appears that the most radical Republicans consider compromised to be the works of a RINO.
The idea behind requiring a 66 vote majority was to preclude a majority party from trampling all over the minority. When the democrats lowered it to 60 they intended to allow themselves to do exactly that. By doing so they increased their chances to ignore the repubs, as they did with the ACA.
I get that; that said our government is gridlocked by ideology. The American voter, generally, won't abide by extreme changes and sets a course correction, seemingly every year.
[I don't know that the R's were ignored; clearly they were opposed to the idea of health care reform ideologically. The harsh rhetoric (Communism! Socialism!) from the right and even elected officials pretty much effected the R's ability to provide mature and responsible input into the need for health care reform in our nation.]
If the majority of the American voters were displeased by Obamacare, Romney's promise to repeal it on day one would have carried the day. Honest and educated people understood that Obamacare is not socialized medicine, that reform to our system of health care was necessary and voted to continue it (Obamacare).
If in 2016 Obamacare is a failure, the R's will carry the day and try to repeal it. If the Senate rules continue unabated, however, now that the Supreme Court has rule upon it, Obamacare will likely remain in effect for the foreseeable future. If it carries out its promises, even those opposed may learn to love it. However, those who feel their Golden Goose has been murdered will continue to work their ways with the Members of Congress they own.
Paying for it is the concern. It is up to Congress and the President to come to agreement on taxes, spending and priorities. But, that requires compromise and it appears that the most radical Republicans consider compromised to be the works of a RINO.
I don't remember Reid whinging about gridlock in 2004, why does he have a problem now?
I get that; that said our government is gridlocked by ideology. The American voter, generally, won't abide by extreme changes and sets a course correction, seemingly every year.
[I don't know that the R's were ignored; clearly they were opposed to the idea of health care reform ideologically. The harsh rhetoric (Communism! Socialism!) from the right and even elected officials pretty much effected the R's ability to provide mature and responsible input into the need for health care reform in our nation.]
If the majority of the American voters were displeased by Obamacare, Romney's promise to repeal it on day one would have carried the day. Honest and educated people understood that Obamacare is not socialized medicine, that reform to our system of health care was necessary and voted to continue it (Obamacare).
If in 2016 Obamacare is a failure, the R's will carry the day and try to repeal it. If the Senate rules continue unabated, however, now that the Supreme Court has rule upon it, Obamacare will likely remain in effect for the foreseeable future. If it carries out its promises, even those opposed may learn to love it. However, those who feel their Golden Goose has been murdered will continue to work their ways with the Members of Congress they own.
Paying for it is the concern. It is up to Congress and the President to come to agreement on taxes, spending and priorities. But, that requires compromise and it appears that the most radical Republicans consider compromised to be the works of a RINO.
I don't remember Reid whinging about gridlock in 2004, why does he have a problem now?
Ask Reid. While you're at it ask McConnell why he choose to Nullify the election of President Obama and make his number priority to ensure President Obama was a one term President. Abject failure on his part, even partisan hacks must agree. Huh windbag?
I don't remember Reid whinging about gridlock in 2004, why does he have a problem now?
Ask Reid. While you're at it ask McConnell why he choose to Nullify the election of President Obama and make his number 1 priority was to ensure President Obama was a one term President. Abject failure on his part, even partisan hacks must agree. Huh windbag?
Strange how the only person on the planet that remembers that meeting is named Newt, yet you keep repeating it like it is fact. Tell me something, if that meeting actually happened, why would they have invited Newt?
Ask Reid. While you're at it ask McConnell why he choose to Nullify the election of President Obama and make his number 1 priority was to ensure President Obama was a one term President. Abject failure on his part, even partisan hacks must agree. Huh windbag?
Strange how the only person on the planet that remembers that meeting is named Newt, yet you keep repeating it like it is fact. Tell me something, if that meeting actually happened, why would they have invited Newt?
What meeting do you reference? BTW, Solyndra was a $500,000 "bondoggle"; Iraq cost us $10 Billion per month and the lives of too many Americans for years. Both were funding by votes in the Senate.
Strange how the only person on the planet that remembers that meeting is named Newt, yet you keep repeating it like it is fact. Tell me something, if that meeting actually happened, why would they have invited Newt?
What meeting do you reference? BTW, Solyndra was a $500,000 "bondoggle"; Iraq cost us $10 Billion per month and the lives of too many Americans for years. Both were funding by votes in the Senate.
Solyndra, by itself, cost that much, how much does corporate welfare cost?
By the way, the Senate did not vote on the Solyndra loan, stop lying.
Should the Senate revise its rules and allow for a simple majority to call for the vote, ending a filibuster?
Background:
Debate, Filibusters, and Cloture
The presiding officer of the Senate may not use the power to recognize senators to control the flow of business. If no senator holds the floor, any senator seeking recognition has a right to be recognized, and then, usually, to speak for as long as he or she wishes (but only twice a day on the same question). Once recognized, a senator can move to call up any measure or offer any amendment or motion that is in order. Senate rules do not permit a majority to end debate and vote on a pending question.
Generally, no debatable question can come to a vote if senators still wish to speak. Senators who oppose a pending bill or other matter may speak against it at indefinite length, or delay action by offering numerous amendments and motions. A filibuster involves using such tactics in the hope of convincing the Senate to alter a measure or withdraw it from consideration. The only bills that cannot be filibustered are those few considered under provisions of law that limit time for debating them.
The only procedure Senate rules provide for overcoming filibusters is cloture, which cannot be voted until two days after it is proposed in a petition signed by 16 senators. Cloture requires the support of three-fifths of senators (normally 60), except on proposals to change the rules, when cloture requires two-thirds of senators voting. If the Senate invokes cloture on a bill, amendment, or other matter, its further consideration is limited to 30 additional hours, including time consumed by votes and quorum calls, during which each senator may speak for no more than one hour.
Link: U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Legislative Process > Senate Legislative Process