- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
And that is what they did with antitrust laws...
And that is what they did with product safety laws...
And that is what they did with consumer fraud laws...
Antitrust laws regulate whether or not a particular company controls an industry in a marketplace. They do not set price.
Product safety laws look at the objective safety of a product and set a minimum threshold for performance in order to allow things to be sold. They do not set price.
Consumer fraud laws protect individuals from actual criminal frauds perpetrated by corporations. They do not set price.
This entire thing just reeks of half-baked populism. How do they actually think this is going to work in practice?
Well this is different, we're talking about something really really important. :spin:The dems show their hypocrisy by using reconciliation remember this?
Breitbart.tv Obama & Dems in ‘05: 51 Vote ‘Nuclear Option’ Is ‘Arrogant’ Power Grab Against the Founders’ Intent
Dav, you went the wrong way with this. OP is about a new proposed regulation. Texmaster pipes in with an example of a regulation that did not work great. I list examples of ones that do, to show that just because one does not work does not mean all do. Nowhere did I claim or suggest that examples mean everything is like that, I pointed out that flaw in another person's post. Go back and look at what I quoted, and what my response was, and note the chain of logic.
Actually, now that I think about it, they know exactly what they're doing.
The dems show their hypocrisy by using reconciliation remember this?
Breitbart.tv Obama & Dems in ‘05: 51 Vote ‘Nuclear Option’ Is ‘Arrogant’ Power Grab Against the Founders’ Intent
You hit it on the head- the public option was designed to put private insurers out of business. The administration denied that up and down, but it was confirmed by virtually every private economist that studied it.
The Public Health Insurance Option: Unfair Competition on a Tilting Field
Care to support that?Yes, a Heritage Foundation article is certainly credible evidence for your position.... a pretty circular argument if you ask me.
The 2005 issue was the Democrats wanting to use the fillibuster for its intended purpose: to further the debate and discussion.
Yes, a Heritage Foundation article is certainly credible evidence for your position.... a pretty circular argument if you ask me.
How many of those Congresses were under Dem control? Could it possibly be the makeup of the two chambers that makes this option more important than for the Dems? Republican controlled Congresses only had marginal Republican majorities.The Dems hands aren't clean, but GOP has got them beat.
107 Congress - 61
108 Congress - 49
109 Congress - 54
110 Congress - 104 Holy ****!!
Talk about bringing things to a screeching halt!!
Does anyone have the total number by year. How many last year and how many so for this year?
Nice try, but not exactly the same thing. The fillibuster has a purpose to ensure debate. The senate was intended to the deliberative body where all voices were heard. The fillibuster was not intended to require 60 votes on all pieces of legislation. The Republicans have abused the fillibuster, including holding up over 200 pieces of HR passed legislation. They have abused their power, and like all abuse of power situations (where people don't respect the responsibility that comes with the power), stripping them of that power is an intelligent option.
The 2005 issue was the Democrats wanting to use the fillibuster for its intended purpose: to further the debate and discussion.
I think, if you study the record, you will see the use of the fillibuster is now at an all-time high. The Republicans are abusing it.
No, Republicans and moderate Democrats are using the filibuster as it was meant to be used- to prevent legislation that's wildly unpopular from being passed. A 2/3rds majority of Americans don't want the health care bill to be passed.
Nice try, but not exactly the same thing. The fillibuster has a purpose to ensure debate. The senate was intended to the deliberative body where all voices were heard. The fillibuster was not intended to require 60 votes on all pieces of legislation. The Republicans have abused the fillibuster, including holding up over 200 pieces of HR passed legislation. They have abused their power, and like all abuse of power situations (where people don't respect the responsibility that comes with the power), stripping them of that power is an intelligent option.
The 2005 issue was the Democrats wanting to use the fillibuster for its intended purpose: to further the debate and discussion.
I think, if you study the record, you will see the use of the fillibuster is now at an all-time high. The Republicans are abusing it.
The Dems hands aren't clean, but GOP has got them beat.
107 Congress - 61
108 Congress - 49
109 Congress - 54
110 Congress - 104 Holy ****!!
Talk about bringing things to a screeching halt!!
Does anyone have the total number by year. How many last year and how many so for this year?
In addition, it's pointless to use the number of cloture votes in an attempt to draw any conclusions about the changing perception/use of the filibuster over time. First, the number of votes needed for cloture was 67 until 1975 when it was reduced to 60. Second, the reason the number has fluctuated so wildly in recent years is because whether or not something counts as a technical filibuster depends on whether a Senator brings something up for a procedural vote. Since 99% of the time everyone knows how the vote will turn out, Senators don't make cloture motions that they know will be doomed to failure unless they're doing so for political reasons.
Think about it - if you were part of the majority and wanted to paint the minority as "obstructionist" in order to score political points, what would you do? You'd take a few dozen bills that you know would never win a cloture vote and bring cloture motions on all of them. They all fail, and BOOM! You've got a ready-made headline: "Obstructionist Minority Filibusters Record Number of Bills."
I see it is ok when Dems do it but not when the GOP does.
Healthcare is not a budget issue so reconciliation should not be used.
The Dems have generally used the fillibuster for its intended purpose; to ensure a full debate. The Repubs have decided that it takes 60 votes to get anything through the senate; that is an abuse of power. My issue is not Dem or Rep, its about abuse of power.....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?