Are Republicans going to remove the reconciliation rule?

[Craig234]

Republicans have their power for plutocracy largely locked in. Voter suppression, now even the power to simply steal elections, Gerrymandering, a plutocratic Supreme Court, unlimited dark money, and with the abuse of the filibuster and a party consensus to block almost anything, for Democrats to pass almost anything needs the White House, and the House, and *60* votes in the Senate, all but impossible.

The one exception still open is one bill per year affecting only the budget. Republicans were happy with this because it let them pass tax cuts for the rich, and locked Democrats out of any bill but that one once a year. Great!

But now, Democrats are using that exception to pass, hopefully, trillions in things for the American people. Covid relief, human infrastructure, poverty reduction - that is not the plutocracy Republicans want!

So there is little doubt the army of the rich - Republicans and the political organizations for plutocracy such as Heritage - will see this 'risk' of Democrats being able to spend trillions for the American people as a top priority to remove.

How will they do it? They've already tried 'paygo' rules as one hurdle. Might they simply try to remove reconciliation bills now that their tax cuts are locked in? Or limit reconciliation so that it can be used for their agenda, but not for Democrats to spend on the American people?

As soon as Republicans have the Senate back, would could be as soon as 18 months, it's hard to see how this won't be a top agenda for them to remove the exception to their power to almost totally obstruct.

 

[jnug]

Doubt it. That is how they passed their tax bill.

 

[Mycroft]

Republicans have their power for plutocracy largely locked in. Voter suppression, now even the power to simply steal elections, Gerrymandering, a plutocratic Supreme Court, unlimited dark money, and with the abuse of the filibuster and a party consensus to block almost anything, for Democrats to pass almost anything needs the White House, and the House, and *60* votes in the Senate, all but impossible.

The one exception still open is one bill per year affecting only the budget. Republicans were happy with this because it let them pass tax cuts for the rich, and locked Democrats out of any bill but that one once a year. Great!

But now, Democrats are using that exception to pass, hopefully, trillions in things for the American people. Covid relief, human infrastructure, poverty reduction - that is not the plutocracy Republicans want!

So there is little doubt the army of the rich - Republicans and the political organizations for plutocracy such as Heritage - will see this 'risk' of Democrats being able to spend trillions for the American people as a top priority to remove.

How will they do it? They've already tried 'paygo' rules as one hurdle. Might they simply try to remove reconciliation bills now that their tax cuts are locked in? Or limit reconciliation so that it can be used for their agenda, but not for Democrats to spend on the American people?

As soon as Republicans have the Senate back, would could be as soon as 18 months, it's hard to see how this won't be a top agenda for them to remove the exception to their power to almost totally obstruct.

Ummm...

Do you have any indication from any Republicans that this is on their mind?

Or, is this something that is only on YOUR mind?

In any case, I'm glad you've finally admitted to yourself that the Republicans will be taking the Senate back in 2022. The first step to rejoining reality.

 

[btthegreat]

1. You have to amend the Congressional Budget Act to ditch the rule, because that is where it sits. To do that, ironically, you have to have a supermajority of the Senate to vote to avoid the filibuster it exempts.
2. There is zero advantage for a simple majority of the Senate, to propose to ditch the only process by which the same simple majority can get anything at all done.

The only time it would ever make sense to propose the amendment, is if one party already has that Supermajority in the Senate ( so it can sustain a filibuster challenge), in December of its legislative session (lame duck status waiting for the new Congress to be sworn in), when it has taken a total beat down at the November election and will loose both its supermajority and simple majority. If it drops from 60 Senators to under 50 in one election.

To make it is more unlikely, this amendment to the Senate Budget Act, has to get rammed through both Houses of Congress and get a President's signature in the brief period between that November election and when the new Congress gets sworn in.

 

[Moderate Right]

Republicans have their power for plutocracy largely locked in. Voter suppression, now even the power to simply steal elections, Gerrymandering, a plutocratic Supreme Court, unlimited dark money, and with the abuse of the filibuster and a party consensus to block almost anything, for Democrats to pass almost anything needs the White House, and the House, and *60* votes in the Senate, all but impossible.

The one exception still open is one bill per year affecting only the budget. Republicans were happy with this because it let them pass tax cuts for the rich, and locked Democrats out of any bill but that one once a year. Great!

But now, Democrats are using that exception to pass, hopefully, trillions in things for the American people. Covid relief, human infrastructure, poverty reduction - that is not the plutocracy Republicans want!

So there is little doubt the army of the rich - Republicans and the political organizations for plutocracy such as Heritage - will see this 'risk' of Democrats being able to spend trillions for the American people as a top priority to remove.

How will they do it? They've already tried 'paygo' rules as one hurdle. Might they simply try to remove reconciliation bills now that their tax cuts are locked in? Or limit reconciliation so that it can be used for their agenda, but not for Democrats to spend on the American people?

As soon as Republicans have the Senate back, would could be as soon as 18 months, it's hard to see how this won't be a top agenda for them to remove the exception to their power to almost totally obstruct.

I must remind you that when Mitch McConnell and the Republicans had the Senate, McConnell, even after pressure from Trump, refused to get rid of the filibuster.

 

[Far right dem]

I must remind you that when Mitch McConnell and the Republicans had the Senate, McConnell, even after pressure from Trump, refused to get rid of the filibuster.

He did for Sc judges. He wasnt interested in passing legislation so he let the filibuster for legislation continue.

 

[Moderate Right]

He did for Sc judges. He wasnt interested in passing legislation so he let the filibuster for legislation continue.

I must remind you that when Mitch McConnell and the Republicans had the Senate, McConnell, even after pressure from Trump, refused to get rid of the filibuster.

 

[Far right dem]

I must remind you that when Mitch McConnell and the Republicans had the Senate, McConnell, even after pressure from Trump, refused to get rid of the filibuster.

Like i said, he didn't care about legislation. The dems do care about passing legislation.

 

[Moderate Right]

Like i said, he didn't care about legislation. The dems do care about passing legislation.

The Dems only care about passing THEIR legislation. As I said, McConnell could have passed more Republican legislation under Trump if he had eliminated the filibuster. He wouldn't do it, even when Trump pressured him to do so.

 

[Far right dem]

The Dems only care about passing THEIR legislation. As I said, McConnell could have passed more Republican legislation under Trump if he had eliminated the filibuster. He wouldn't do it, even when Trump pressured him to do so.

LOL. Mcconell didn't remove it because he didn't care about legislation. He realized the gop legislation isn't popular so he kept it as an excuse of not being able to do anything during trump years. Dem legislation is popular and he kept the filibuster so he can block them when they take over.

 

[Moderate Right]

LOL. Mcconell didn't remove it because he didn't care about legislation. He realized the gop legislation isn't popular so he kept it as an excuse of not being able to do anything during trump years. Dem legislation is popular and he kept the filibuster so he can block them when they take over.

Seriously? He didn't care about Republican legislation?

 

[Far right dem]

Seriously? He didn't care about Republican legislation?

No. He knows gop legislation isn't popular. So he kept it so he can block dems in the future. Here is what you get if both parties can pass legislation without being blocked.

Gop
Ban birth control
Ban abortion
Deport all immigrants
Permitless weapon purchases
Remove health care coverage for folks with pre exisiting conditions
End medicare
End social security
Raise taxes for middle class
Lower taxes for wealthy
Make it harder for poor people to vote.
No infrastructure spending
Make pollution legal
End protections for workers
Universal right to work laws

Dem
Pathway to citizenship for dreamers
infrastructure spending
climate change legislation
universal health care
protect social security
Free birth control
Increase child tax credit
raise taxes for wealthy
Free 4 year college tuition
universal back ground checks
equal pay for equal work.
protect women's right to choose
make it easier of us citizens to vote

Want to take a guess which set of legislation will be more popular with a majority of americans?

 

[Moderate Right]

No. He knows gop legislation isn't popular. So he kept it so he can block dems in the future. Here is what you get if both parties can pass legislation without being blocked.

Gop
Ban birth control
Ban abortion
Deport all immigrants
Permitless weapon purchases
Remove health care coverage for folks with pre exisiting conditions
End medicare
End social security
Raise taxes for middle class
Lower taxes for wealthy
Make it harder for poor people to vote.
No infrastructure spending
Make pollution legal
End protections for workers
Universal right to work laws

Dem
Pathway to citizenship for dreamers
infrastructure spending
climate change legislation
universal health care
protect social security
Free birth control
Increase child tax credit
raise taxes for wealthy
Free 4 year college tuition
universal back ground checks
equal pay for equal work.
protect women's right to choose
make it easier of us citizens to vote

Want to take a guess which set of legislation will be more popular with a majority of americans?

Why don't you just ask Americans if they want a free $100,000 check every year for the rest of their life. Would most Americans want that?

 

[Far right dem]

Why don't you just ask Americans if they want a free $100,000 check every year for the rest of their life. Would most Americans want that?

Maybe, but that is not proposed by any democrat that I know off. Maybe some fringe leftist.

 

[Moderate Right]

Maybe, but that is not proposed by any democrat that I know off. Maybe some fringe leftist.

Maybe? Democrats buy votes by handing out free shit. Of course Americans want free shit. Hopefully the electorate is smart enough to know that the madness has to stop somewhere, since one way or another we are all going to pay the piper through increased prices (it's called inflation). Hey, wait a minute, what's happening now? We're all paying skyrocketing prices to pay for the national debt and Democrats want to add loads more to the debt. I wonder what will happen then? It won't be long until the slogan is "fight for $25, 50, 100, etc". And the dumbass Democrats won't figure out that the out of control spending is actually being paid for by the 99%. " Fight for $200"!

 

[Far right dem]

Maybe? Democrats buy votes by handing out free shit. Of course Americans want free shit. Hopefully the electorate is smart enough to know that the madness has to stop somewhere, since one way or another we are all going to pay the piper through increased prices (it's called inflation). Hey, wait a minute, what's happening now? We're all paying skyrocketing prices to pay for the national debt and Democrats want to add loads more to the debt. I wonder what will happen then? It won't be long until the slogan is "fight for $25, 50, 100, etc". And the dumbass Democrats won't figure out that the out of control spending is actually being paid for by the 99%. " Fight for $200"!

So trump increases inflation and national debt and somehow its dems fault?

 

[Craig234]

2. There is zero advantage for a simple majority of the Senate, to propose to ditch the only process by which the same simple majority can get anything at all done.

The only time it would ever make sense to propose the amendment, is if one party already has that Supermajority in the Senate ( so it can sustain a filibuster challenge), in December of its legislative session (lame duck status waiting for the new Congress to be sworn in), when it has taken a total beat down at the November election and will loose both its supermajority and simple majority. If it drops from 60 Senators to under 50 in one election.

To make it is more unlikely, this amendment to the Senate Budget Act, has to get rammed through both Houses of Congress and get a President's signature in the brief period between that November election and when the new Congress gets sworn in.

You make a good point on the difficulty to change the law, but I disagree with you about what 'makes sense' to them. Republicans are almost entirely about obstruction. When they have power they don't want to do almost anything except they've wanted tax cuts for the rich they now have, and to stack the courts which wouldn't be affected.

So to them, it makes huge sense to prevent anyone from being able to do anything. You think they're two parties with competing agendas who each want to be able to pass their agendas when they have a simple majority; no, they're not. Republicans would love for the government to not to be able to do much at all.

 

[btthegreat]

You make a good point on the difficulty to change the law, but I disagree with you about what 'makes sense' to them. Republicans are almost entirely about obstruction. When they have power they don't want to do almost anything except they've wanted tax cuts for the rich they now have, and to stack the courts which wouldn't be affected.

So to them, it makes huge sense to prevent anyone from being able to do anything. You think they're two parties with competing agendas who each want to be able to pass their agendas when they have a simple majority; no, they're not. Republicans would love for the government to not to be able to do much at all.

A lot of their constituent interest groups want to do things. Yes you mentioned tax breaks for the wealthy, but they also want to deregulate some industries, pass laws that undo environmental legislation, 'reform' medicaid, medicare and social security,, provide liability protection to corporations ( they like to call it tort reform) etc. And they are not satisfiend to obstruct Democratic initiatives at the federal level. They want to obstruct blue state governments who want to pass green bills, or regulate corporations, or pass gun control laws etc. To do any of that requires the Congress pass bills prohibiting states, and cities from legislating in ways the corporate bedfellows find offensive.

 

[Craig234]

A lot of their constituent interest groups want to do things. Yes you mentioned tax breaks for the wealthy, but they also want to deregulate some industries, pass laws that undo environmental legislation, 'reform' medicaid, medicare and social security,, provide liability protection to corporations ( they like to call it tort reform) etc. And they are not satisfiend to obstruct Democratic initiatives at the federal level. They want to obstruct blue state governments who want to pass green bills, or regulate corporations, or pass gun control laws etc. To do any of that requires the Congress pass bills prohibiting states, and cities from legislating in ways the corporate bedfellows find offensive.

There's some point to your position, but I think it's mostly outweighed by:

- Republicans have already gotten most of what they want passed, especially tax cuts for the rich
- They rely more on the courts to stop things they don't want than laws, which is why stacking the courts with radical anti-government judges has been one of their top priorities for decades
- They'd gladly give up the bits left (how much did they pass under trump when they had all three branches), in exchange to stop Democrats from being able to pass big bills that could spend trillions and roll back tax cuts for the rich. I think they are very happy with total government obstruction.