The Republican Party has gone Crazy

[rickc]

A vote for any in the GOP is a vote for all the craziness going on in that party. The trump voters have all the republicans on a string. If they go against them then they are blackballed from the party and will be removed in the next election.

 

[rickc]

That was Mitch's fault 100% He would not bring even one bipartisan bill to the floor.

SOP for Mitch. The senate is a place for legislation to die unless it is tax cuts for the rich, deregulation to increase corporate profits or right wing activists judges.

 

[Bullseye]

You name it and Republicans are on the wrong side.

My question is:

How many of you out there can bring yourselves to vote for the new Republican party in our next election?

Ask in three or four years.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It would be better if the majority was able to enact its agenda that the voters wanted. If they overreach, the voters can punish them in the next election. The filibuster is just a tool for gridlock and obstruction. There is no reason it needs to exist.

(With that said, I like Joe Manchin and I understand why he's reluctant to end it.)

I disagree based on past experience. We simply can’t undo $1T (much less $29T) of past accumulated overspending in the next (2 year) election cycle (aka create an annual federal “budget” surplus of $500B). The wisdom of congress critters (that which has proven to get them re-elected at a rate of over 90%) has evolved such that they continue to spend other peoples’ money far beyond the amount of other peoples’ money that they dare to demand via federal taxation.

The latest wish expressed by congressional demorats (aka the Biden plan) is to spend (at least) an additional $370B (up to $550B if, or rather when, “temporary” additional entitlements continue) annually over and above the roughly $4T (of normal annual federal spending) which they already refuse to support via federal taxation.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That was Mitch's fault 100% He would not bring even one bipartisan bill to the floor.

Hmm… does that make it ok (fair?) for Schumer to jam his 100% partisan legislative agenda through the Senate?

 

[Gatsby]

I disagree based on past experience. We simply can’t undo $1T (much less $29T) of past accumulated overspending in the next (2 year) election cycle (aka create an annual federal “budget” surplus of $500B). The wisdom of congress critters (that which has proven to get them re-elected at a rate of over 90%) has evolved such that they continue to spend other peoples’ money far beyond the amount of other peoples’ money that they dare to demand via federal taxation.

Levels of taxation, spending, and borrowing seem like normal policy disputes that fall into the category of "Elections have consequences."

The latest wish expressed by congressional demorats (aka the Biden plan) is to spend (at least) an additional $370B (up to $550B if, or rather when, “temporary” additional entitlements continue) annually over and above the roughly $4T (of normal annual federal spending) which they already refuse to support via federal taxation.

You disagree with their spending plan, fair enough. But why does your policy disagreement necessitate an extra veto point in the system, when an election would suffice?

I mean, yes, you're right that spending that's happening right now can't easily be undone. Just as I can't undo, say, the Iraq War. Sometimes countries elect leaders that make decisions we don't like...it seems to me the correct remedy is to take our case to the voters and do better going forward.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Levels of taxation, spending, and borrowing seem like normal policy disputes that fall into the category of "Elections have consequences."


You disagree with their spending plan, fair enough. But why does your policy disagreement necessitate an extra veto point in the system, when an election would suffice?

I mean, yes, you're right that spending that's happening right now can't easily be undone. Just as I can't undo, say, the Iraq War. Sometimes countries elect leaders that make decisions we don't like...it seems to me the correct remedy is to take our case to the voters and do better going forward.

That (bolded above) is precisely what the filibuster (used by demorats over 300 times in 2020) is designed to accomplish - at least 60 Senate votes are required to change ‘the law of the land’. The moronic idea that having a 50/50 Senate (plus the WH to break any ties) is a mandate to allow 100% partisan legislation (lasting a decade or more) to pass without any (much less 10) votes from the minority party.

 

[Gatsby]

That (bolded above) is precisely what the filibuster (used by demorats over 300 times in 2020) is designed to accomplish - at least 60 Senate votes are required to change ‘the law of the land’.

Why? I still haven't heard a good reason why the Senate minority (i.e. the party that the voters didn't want) should be able to block legislation. All I've heard is "I don't like their legislation," which IMO isn't a good enough reason.

The moronic idea that having a 50/50 Senate (plus the WH to break any ties) is a mandate to allow 100% partisan legislation (lasting a decade or more) to pass without any (much less 10) votes from the minority party.

Well, if the voters rejected the same party to run the Senate, House of Representatives, and the White House, then yeah, it seems to me that they shouldn't have much of a say. Or at most, their cooperation is a "nice to have" rather than essential. If the voters change their mind and want the minority party in charge again, they'll have another chance every two years.

 

[iguanaman]

Hmm… does that make it ok (fair?) for Schumer to jam his 100% partisan legislative agenda through the Senate?

The party of no has pretty much chosen not to participate in anything that that Biden wants. Infrastructure may be the exception..we will see. I have the feeling their interest is fleeting and more of a delaying tactic than anything else. We can't just stand still any longer.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why? I still haven't heard a good reason why the Senate minority (i.e. the party that the voters didn't want) should be able to block legislation. All I've heard is "I don't like their legislation," which IMO isn't a good enough reason.


Well, if the voters rejected the same party to run the Senate, House of Representatives, and the White House, then yeah, it seems to me that they shouldn't have much of a say. Or at most, their cooperation is a "nice to have" rather than essential. If the voters change their mind and want the minority party in charge again, they'll have another chance every two years.

OK, then limit 100% partisan “reconciliation” legislation to sunsetting with the current congress. BTW, not liking a bill is a perfectly valid reason not to vote for it.

As a reminder:

Democrats used filibuster 327 times, compared to only once by GOP in 2020: Report - Washington Examiner

President Joe Biden has been increasingly critical of the Senate filibuster, calling it a Jim Crow relic and saying it has been widely abused despite Democrats using it over 300 times in 2020, compared to once by Republicans. “After @POTUS @JoeBiden denounced the rampant abuse of the filibuster...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

That is what Senate demorats did when the republicants held a Senate majority and the WH.

 

[Gatsby]

OK, then limit 100% partisan “reconciliation” legislation to sunsetting with the current congress.

Why? It's completely impractical to sunset all legislation you don't like every two years. If some future Congress has a problem with the actions of the current Congress, they can undo it. And to the extent that some decisions are irrevocable, well, that's just how things go in any sort of organization. If someone makes a bad decision, you might be able to hold them accountable, but you still have to deal with the consequences of that decision.

BTW, not liking a bill is a perfectly valid reason not to vote for it.

I agree. It's a perfectly valid reason not to vote for it. But it's not a good enough reason to insist that a congressional minority be able to block it.

As a reminder:

Democrats used filibuster 327 times, compared to only once by GOP in 2020: Report - Washington Examiner

President Joe Biden has been increasingly critical of the Senate filibuster, calling it a Jim Crow relic and saying it has been widely abused despite Democrats using it over 300 times in 2020, compared to once by Republicans. “After @POTUS @JoeBiden denounced the rampant abuse of the filibuster...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

That is what Senate demorats did when the republicants held a Senate majority and the WH.

You keep bringing this up, and I'm not sure what you think it proves. Democrats are going to use whatever obstruction tools are available to them, just as Republicans do. The question is whether those obstruction tools are actually good.

 

[Captain Adverse]

It would be better if the majority was able to enact its agenda that the voters wanted. If they overreach, the voters can punish them in the next election. The filibuster is just a tool for gridlock and obstruction. There is no reason it needs to exist.

(With that said, I like Joe Manchin and I understand why he's reluctant to end it.)

I disagree.

The whole reason for the Founders creation of the methodologies of our government system was to try to put a check on both "pure Democracy" and it's offshoot of "mob rule."

The idea was to reach a consensus which would be acceptable to any temporary majority and minority.

That is why we need the "filibuster," especially in it currently accepted form. To compel any majority to remember they are not the sum/total of citizens in this nation.

 

[Gatsby]

I disagree.

The whole reason for the Founders creation of the methodologies of our government system was to try to put a check on both "pure Democracy" and it's offshoot of "mob rule."

The idea was to reach a consensus which would be acceptable to any temporary majority and minority.

That is why we need the "filibuster," especially in it currently accepted form.

The Founders didn't create the filibuster. It doesn't exist anywhere in the Constitution, or even in legal statute. It's just a Senate process rule, which was introduced in 1806. No one even noticed until 1837, and filibusters didn't start being used on a regular basis until the late 1900s.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The Founders didn't create the filibuster. It doesn't exist anywhere in the Constitution, or even in legal statute. It's just a Senate process rule, which was introduced in 1806. No one even noticed until 1837, and filibusters didn't start being used on a regular basis until the late 1900s.

(Sigh) Filibuster is not a "Constitutional" rule/regulation. It is a Senate rule, and it was first used back in 1837. The old rules required one to speak without yielding the floor aside from certain points of the rules of order, or voluntarily yielding the floor. It could be ended with a vote of cloture.

The current form was developed later, allowing a "presumption of filibuster" requiring 60 votes to invoke "cloture."

 

[Gatsby]

(Sigh) Filibuster is not a "Constitutional" rule/regulation. It is a Senate rule, and it was first used back in 1837. The old rules required one to speak without yielding the floor aside from certain points of the rules of order, or voluntarily yielding the floor.

The current form was developed later, allowing a "presumption of filibuster" requiring 60 votes to invoke "cloture."

Right. That's basically what I just said. So...remind me again why we should hold this silly rule in high esteem?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why? It's completely impractical to sunset all legislation you don't like every two years. If some future Congress has a problem with the actions of the current Congress, they can undo it. And to the extent that some decisions are irrevocable, well, that's just how things go in any sort of organization. If someone makes a bad decision, you might be able to hold them accountable, but you still have to deal with the consequences of that decision.


I agree. It's a perfectly valid reason not to vote for it. But it's not a good enough reason to insist that a congressional minority be able to block it.


You keep bringing this up, and I'm not sure what you think it proves. Democrats are going to use whatever obstruction tools are available to them, just as Republicans do. The question is whether those obstruction tools are actually good.

How was the same “obstruction tool“ good last year, but became suddenly not good this year? The only thing that changed was the party holding a Senate majority and the WH.

Meanwhile, the Texas demorats are busy blocking “icky” voting reform (and other) legislation by simply denying a quorum. Hypocrisy abounds.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Right. That's basically what I just said. So...remind me again why we should hold this silly rule in high esteem?

Now it’s called a “silly rule”, yet it was perfectly OK from 1837 until just last year simply because the party in power changed.

 

[Gatsby]

How was the same “obstruction tool“ good last year, but became suddenly not good this year?

The filibuster has been bad for 100+ years.

The only thing that changed was the party holding a Senate majority and the WH.

Right. If sportsball implemented a new rule that said it was OK for the team on defense to kick their opponents in the nuts and take the ball, I'm sure the teams on defense would do just that. And when the tables were turned, I'm sure their opponents would do it too. That doesn't make it a good rule.

Meanwhile, the Texas demorats are busy blocking “icky” voting reform (and other) legislation by simply denying a quorum. Hypocrisy abounds.

OK but we were talking about a policy dispute (e.g. taxing and spending), which can be corrected through an election if the voters don't like it. I haven't been following the Texas story closely, but my understanding is that they are blocking an effort to actually change the way elections are conducted; so correcting it through an election is simply not an option in that case. If the Texas legislature just passed some silly policy that the Democrats didn't like (e.g. a tax cut for the rich) then I agree, it would be inappropriate for them to deny a quorum to block it.

 

[Quag]

... we don't vote for parties? We vote for individuals. While I share some of your general sentiment, that doesn't mean every member of the GOP is insane.

Should be that way but many people will just vote for whoever has the D or the R after their name

 

[Gatsby]

Now it’s called a “silly rule”, yet it was perfectly OK from 1837 until just last year simply because the party in power changed.

The filibuster has always been stupid. Off the top of my head I can think of zero instances where the republic was better off because we had the filibuster. Maybe there's some odd case here and there, but on the whole it has been overwhelmingly bad.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The filibuster has been bad for 100+ years.

No, it's been effective as it was conceived for 100+ years. Otherwise it would have been eliminated at any point whichever Party had complete control and felt it could "do what it wanted" without fear of repercussion if they LOST their majority status.

Right. If sportsball implemented a new rule that said it was OK for the team on defense to kick their opponents in the nuts and take the ball, I'm sure the teams on defense would do just that. And when the tables were turned, I'm sure their opponents would do it too. That doesn't make it a good rule.

False Equivalence. Figure it out yourself.

OK but we were talking about a policy dispute (e.g. taxing and spending), which can be corrected through an election if the voters don't like it. I haven't been following the Texas story closely, but my understanding is that they are blocking an effort to actually change the way elections are conducted; so correcting it through an election is simply not an option in that case. If the Texas legislature just passed some silly policy that the Democrats didn't like (e.g. a tax cut for the rich) then I agree, it would be inappropriate for them to deny a quorum to block it.

Wrong. We are talking about a dispute over "taxing and spending" that would go into near-immediate effect when passed, and all it's repercussions (increased taxation, inflation, and other economic "damages") would be in effect up to and beyond any new efforts to curtail the damages in a future election.

It is BEST to stop a leak when it first appears in a dam, rather than experience a flood and more costs/efforts to deal with the damages later.

 

[MaryP]

... we don't vote for parties? We vote for individuals. While I share some of your general sentiment, that doesn't mean every member of the GOP is insane.

This is a question close to my heart, since I support our Republican senator, but it is about majorities these days the way Congress has been playing it, and I had to think hard about it in 2020. If I'd had a crystal ball and could see what would transpire after the election, would my vote have been the same? I don't know.

 

[Gatsby]

No, it's been effective as it was conceived for 100+ years. Otherwise it would have been eliminated at any point whichever Party had complete control and felt it could "do what it wanted" without fear of repercussion if they LOST their majority status.

It was never really a problem until the mid-1990s when it started being used frequently. Not really a high priority for anyone to eliminate. That's been changing since the mid-2000s though. The Republicans tried unsuccessfully to get rid of the filibuster for judges when Bush was president, then Democrats successfully got rid of the filibuster for non-SCOTUS judges when Obama was president, then Republicans successfully got rid of the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees when Trump was president. And in recent years, both parties have been playing games with reconciliation to pass whatever they want without the filibuster.

Clearly the filibuster HAS had its wings cut in recent years, and it's on its last legs. I can't imagine it will still be around in another decade. Or maybe it will still be on the Senate rule books, but everyone just ignores it because they've figured out some other goofy shenanigan (e.g. reconciliation for literally everything).

Wrong. We are talking about a dispute over "taxing and spending" that would go into near-immediate effect when passed, and all it's repercussions (increased taxation, inflation, and other economic "damages") would be in effect up to and beyond any new efforts to curtail the damages in a future election.

Yes, current government policies have ramifications in the future. This is an unavoidable consequence of the government doing literally anything.

It is BEST to stop a leak when it first appears in a dam, rather than experience a flood and more costs/efforts to deal with the damages later.

Then the solution is to take your case to the voters and win elections.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The filibuster has always been stupid. Off the top of my head I can think of zero instances where the republic was better off because we had the filibuster. Maybe there's some odd case here and there, but on the whole it has been overwhelmingly bad.

Not according to the current POTUS who was (on record) defending it. He now wants to change it, but still lacks having a Senate majority in favor of doing so.

Biden says Senate filibuster is being 'abused' and must be changed

The president again championed a talking filibuster and expressed willingness to go further, if other options fail.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Gatsby]

Not according to the current POTUS who was (on record) defending it.

OK. So what?

He now wants to change it, but still lacks having a Senate majority in favor of doing so.

Yep. As I said, I like Joe Manchin and I can understand why he is hesitant to change it. But that doesn't make the filibuster any less stupid.