I read it earlier.
You ask a good question. But its been answered a number a times already.
The same reason that the Senate Majority Leader was given the same power when the Senate changed their rules to the exact same thing many years ago... to ensure that the Majority party of the lower house could not overrule the will of the Majority party of the upper house.
In this instance, it has a reverse affect. The Majority party of the upper house could have overridden the will of the Majority party of the lower house without this rule.
There's nothing nefarious in this rule. Its been that way in the Senate for decades.
if you are trying to equate the duties of the senate pro tempore to that of the speaker of the house i find that hard to believe.
everyone recognizes john Boehner as the speaker of the house, which make's him defacto leader of the house republicans, but the senate majority leader is the true leader in the senates hierarchy.
but i am not arguing about majority party of the senate overiding the will of the majority party of the house.
i am arguing about the majority party of the house creating a rule to prevent the minority party in the house from having a chance at ending a deadlock between the house and senate.
A goal they did a great job of accomplishing when they agreed to the exact spending levels the GOP demanded.
but i am not arguing about majority party of the senate overiding the will of the majority party of the house.
i am arguing about the majority party of the house creating a rule to prevent the minority party in the house from having a chance at ending a deadlock between the house and senate.
I understand that. And I've been where you are right now emotionally.
As I said before, the House Rules Committee has trampled on the Minority party as long as our Republic has existed. It's one of the benefits of winning the Majority, and one of the pains of losing the election and being the Minority. Pelosi kept the Republicans from doing anything during her tenure.
Remember the PPACA when it came to the floor for a vote???
Pelosi and the Rules Committee kept every amendment from Republicans coming to the floor for a vote, except a very few that had bipartisan Democrat cosponsors.
The Republicans were shut out and shut down by Pelosi and the Democratic Majority in the House and that's why the House passed the bill with a 219–212 vote on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.
I just want to say... GREAT THREAD.
I truly appreciate you bringing this up and starting this thread.
It has given us all an opportunity to get the TRUTH out and to discuss in a civil way how our government works, whether we like the way it works or not.
So for that, thanks.
i don't think the founding father's envisioned the house creating rules that give power to the leadership.
but at the time the affordable care act was up for a vote, were the senate and house deadlocked and unable to pass a bill or resolution because the difference were too great? the rule i keep mentioning is only used when the house and senate are hopelessly deadlocked.
and i don't think political revenge is a good excuse for changing a rule that offered a way out of the shutdown crisis.
The Democrats held the Majority in both the Senate and the House, as well as held the Presidency. There was no deadlock, because they controlled the debate, the amendments and the vote. If three more Democrats would have voted NO in the House, the vote would have been tied, and been the bill would have been laid upon the table (killed).
That's how slim the vote was. 3 votes... If 37 Democrats, instead of 34, had voted "no", we wouldn't be having this discussion.
In the US House of Representatives, the ONLY part of the vote for the PPACA that was BI-PARTISAN, was the NO vote.
Think about that.
you might not realize it, but you have just stated what i think is the main differance between the passing of the affordable care act and my complaint right now. back when the affordable care act was being voted on there was no deadlock between the house and senate, so the rule i keep bringing up could not have been used. the rule is meant to be used if there is deadlock between the house and senate on a bill or resolution.
Now we're just picking nits.
It's irrelevant to the overall conversation as to under what circumstances the bill is held; the overall conversation is whether the House Majority has the ability and right to make such a rule.
Deadlock is just an intransigent position that created the need for the rule.
i don't doubt they have the right, i am questioning the timing of creating this rule.
the majority could have created this rule at the beginning of the 113th congress, but creating this rule at the time it was created seems bit too conveiniant.
Wow, it's been a while since I've explored libertarianism, but there's no way any part of Obamacare fits with their base philosophy. Has it really changed that much?
i don't doubt they have the right, i am questioning the timing of creating this rule.
the majority could have created this rule at the beginning of the 113th congress, but creating this rule at the time it was created seems bit too conveiniant.
I don't fit much in with the "base philosophy," it's just the best option I had since I find boilerplate "liberalism" to be a little too out there at times.
"Libertarianism" lately has changed into calling every law on the books "tyranny" and taxes "slavery," as far as I can tell from the right-leaning crowd.
My personal philosophy is strong on personal freedoms (including food, drugs, prostitution, speech, gun rights and the right not to be spied on by the government), with transparency in government (something Obama ran on and has been, quite frankly, awful at), a strong social safety net, a pragmatic approach to national defense (i.e. not running out and starting wars we don't need to, maintaining strong diplomatic and military ties with our allies, and maintaining a modern military heavy on technology and intelligence), energy and the environment, and a mixed economy. I definitely don't really identify much with by-the-book libertarians on economics (I stopped believing in the all-powerful free market unicorn a long time ago), nor do I with by-the-book liberals, who seem to want to tax the rich into the stone age.
It wasn't too convenient at all; it was a calculated political move. Just like every other rule that exists in the House or the Senate.
i don't doubt they have the right, i am questioning the timing of creating this rule.
the majority could have created this rule at the beginning of the 113th congress, but creating this rule at the time it was created seems bit too conveiniant.
The House Rules Committee makes rules regarding legislation all throughout the current session...
The "strong social safety net" is where the meat of the issue lies. Government should not have the right to take from some to directly give to others who have made poor choices...
so because they knew that the democrats would use the rule to motion for a vote on the senate's version of the C.R, the republicans decided to change the rules to prevent that from happening and and in the process closd a potential way out of the pending shutdown crisis.
so because they knew that the democrats would use the rule to motion for a vote on the senate's version of the C.R, the republicans decided to change the rules to prevent that from happening and and in the process closd a potential way out of the pending shutdown crisis.
1. Even if, in the long run, it's cheaper to help provide for those in need rather than pay after-the-fact via emergency room (read: free) health care, added crime (and the associated costs that go along with it), and things of that nature?
2. And that's what really gives me the red ass. I don't see how anyone can look at the fallout of the economic collapse and claim (or at the very least imply) that every person who may need a hand up is simply someone who "made poor choices." In millions of cases, those choices were made for them.
I'm all for doing what can be done to get rid of fraud in the safety net, and I think we need to pair benefits with more robust job training and/or public works programs.
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?