I Hope You Folks At Least UNDERSTAND Why The Dems Are Compromising

[THUNDER HANDS]

You don't have to like it, but at least get the facts right.

The Dems in congress aren't tossing stuff out of the stimulus bill just because they want to. Or because they're scared of Republicans. Or because they have this grand vision for passing a bipartisan bill that both sides will like and then go back to their offices, and roast marshmallows over their fireplaces.


They're doing this because they need to break off two senators or else the bill CAN NOT, BY LAW pass.

Let me state that again. BY LAW the stimulus bill can NOT pass without at least two Republican senators signing on to it.

Those 58 Democrats? They're great. They're also useless when trying to out-muscle Republicans on a bill that's going to increase the national debt.

They don't have the numbers by themselves. So they've got to chip away at the bill until those two moderates come over.

That's what they're doing.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

It has nothing to do with being afraid of a Republican filibuster. It has to do with procedural rules of the Senate itself.

I hope people understand this.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. That's putting it directly out there.

I thank you.

K&R

:patriot:

[AtomicKitten]

2. Relevant details get lost in the hang-wringing. n/t

[yurbud]

3. why didn't Democrats have that much power in the minority? Are they procedurally retarded?

[THUNDER HANDS]

5. because bush never tried to pass

a nearly $1 trillion stimulus package. This is unprecidented.

We're not talking about a vote to confirm a supreme court justice or something that takes just a majority. You need 60 votes to pass this particular type of legislation.

[MrModerate]

16. Excuse me but isn't this a spending bill like any other? Just larger? n/t

[THUNDER HANDS]

24. it's almost 10%

of the national debt.

It's not like any other spending bill. The fact that its this large makes it special.

[MrModerate]

25. But not procedurally different, no?

[THUNDER HANDS]

30. it depends

on how it effects the defecit.

[MrModerate]

36. OK, you just took a big step outside my area of knowledge.

I defer.

[THUNDER HANDS]

41. if it increases the deficit, then it needs 60 votes

to bring it to the floor. if it doesn't, then it can pass with a simple majority. At least, that's my understanding.

[MasonJar]

74. It is not a trillion; in fact it is not as much as the bailout of banks that W passed.

[Hippo_Tron]

98. The bailout gets repaid, or so they tell us

[eridani]

131. No it isn't The Repukes passed a 1 trillion dollar tax cut in 2001

--which is the same damned thing from the standpoint of deficit. The Demns refused to resist. Why? Because they were a minority? Then how come the minority Rethugs get to determine the agenda now? They are a smaller minority now than the Dems were then.

[TheBigotBasher]

159. I may be putting myself out to be a thickee

but I thought all of the requirements to gave Super Majorities on budget issues remained desires of organisations like the Heritage Foundation, not reality. I was trying to find one amendment that passed. There were a number of Republicans pushing for it during the Clinton years.

One was Stenholm ; there were some others. They all failed as well.

If that is not the case, which one passed?

[w4rma]

7. Short term loss for long term gain. They did it to win, by a large margin, this past election.

And there are DLCer and blue dogs who pretty much just follow the power. And corporatists have the power.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. And yet Republicans always vote Republican... something's wrong with this picture :( nt

[w4rma]

21. The Democratic Party should be able to gain seats in the Senate in two years. (nt)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

26. I'm hoping for that, but in the meantime, why can Repukes stand together and we sabotage ourselves?

It's the reason we have such difficulty getting heard out there. We don't stand together; don't support one another.

[w4rma]

29. My theory is that corporatist politicians know that if they help the super-wealthy then they will be

rewarded by the super-wealthy in their post-government life. So, they are going to do everything their corporate masters order them to do to keep their posh retirement.

Helping regular people isn't so materially rewarding. In fact, it requires quite a bit of sacrifice.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

50. Oh ok... that means that Repukes are first and foremost corporate politicians

Makes sense.

[w4rma]

53. Exactly. The model seems to work well for predicting their actions. (nt)

[dmr]

88. Corporate or corrupt, or both, I'd say. Disgusting, either way. n/t

[salguine]

100. Which, if they continue sucking the same corporate dicks as the Republicans,

shouldn't make a damn bit of difference to those of us out here in Citizenland.

[salguine]

101. Which, if they continue sucking the same corporate dicks as the Republicans,

shouldn't make a damn bit of difference to those of us out here in Citizenland.

[DuaneBidoux]

62. Krugman and Reich believe the package is becoming ineffective with these changes.

Hell, even Zandi, who is a respected economist and advised McCain said that the tax cuts that are most effective (i.e., SS tax holiday for truly working folks (which incidently the most regressive American tax in existence) is being compromised for business taxes that won't work at all and actually have a "destimulative" effect (in that they cost one dollar to get less than a one dollar boost).

Obama should have cut out a prime time address, just like FDR, and told the American people "you elected me to make changes that would work--call you congressman and tell them to give me the support I need to make this economy work again" (again? how about for the first time in 30 years).

[sohndrsmith]

94. This scares me. I'm no economist (not even CLOSE), but my biggest

worry was that this whole thing would be massaged and minimized so much that - not only would it be ineffective - it's still significant cost coupled with being ineffective would result in making things worse than they are now, not just be useless but causing no additional harm. If people who actually know about this stuff are warning about this, then I find it really troubling...

I'm amazed that anyone would try to:

--whittle this away with tax cuts that are proven failures

--postpone and/or delay something that is truly an emergency that requires urgency - because... I don't know why. For any reason. Especially when those asking for delay and opposing action are being blatantly hypocritical when they've made DUMB and disastrous spending/budget/economy decisions in the last 8 years, eagerly. And look where we are...

--trying to minimize this simply because they're freaking out over final number rather than thinking about what will/will not work. Spend billions in Iraq but don't let people in this country have better access to health coverage or use food stamps (such wasteful luxuries, I know...).

--cutting many spending initiatives because they don't think they'll be stimulative until 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 or more years from now (HELLO!!
Ignoring long term re-building or calling anything that doesn't show tangible results within 12 months as "not stimulative" is ludicrous).

--deliberately show (or simply give the impression of) willingness to risk probable catastrophe because it is somehow more important to stick to failed principles based on party ideology, or worse, (I think) for coercive political power gain because one's dissolving party.


Right? No?

....ugh....

[VPStoltz]

114. Isn't he going to be on the tube Monday evening?

[creeksneakers2]

9. If, when the Republicans were in the majority, they wanted

to increase the deficit, they needed 60 votes.

[Xipe Totec]

10. Repigs still control the M$M

Until we break up that communications monopoly, we got to play the cards we have.

If the Dems tried the same thing while they were in the minority, they would have been pilloried by the media.

The repigs, though, get a free pass for being obstructionists.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

18. What can we citizens do? Nothing? nt

[Xipe Totec]

43. Call your congressman and senator

tell them you want media monopolies banned.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

46. Wonder if there's a website to gather people to call with that request.... nt

[Xipe Totec]

52. This might help:

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

[yurbud]

39. I wonder if the media is as powerful anymore as DC thinks

People who want to be informed are online, and people who are ignorant don't get up early on Sunday morning to watch Meet the Press, which about as vacuous as Entertainment Tonight.

[Xipe Totec]

49. And yet, how much time do we spend here discussing the media bias?

Where is the criticism of the Republicans in the M$M?

[yurbud]

54. it is biased and owned by GOP's owners, but its influence is waning

Kids get news from the internet not TV.

Pols are behind the curve because they are old farts.

Obama probably knows it's just a matter of time before the MSM dies, so either he thinks they still have some life left or he's courting the GOP for other reasons like outflanking the shit-eating, sold out, blue-dogs.

[Xipe Totec]

55. Problem is, there's nothing to keep them from owning the internet too

It has got to stop.

Edit to add, Google depeering.

[yurbud]

107. depeering?

[yurbud]

108. if they moved in that direction, the freepers would join us in fighting it

[Xipe Totec]

147. It goes on all the time already

For contract dispute reasons, rather than censorship, but the tools and capabilities are there nonetheless.

[Atman]

11. Fascinating, isn't it. When they were in the majority we couldn't do anything...

Now they're not, we still can't do anything. Seems that no matter what, Republicans will fuck things up just by their very existence.

.

[yurbud]

35. if there is one Republican left, the Democrats will kowtow to them

[Sarah Ibarruri]

15. That's an excellent question!!!! nt

[THUNDER HANDS]

48. see this story...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/senate.spending/index.html

[Xipe Totec]

4. I do. K&R

:thumbsup:

[geckosfeet]

6. Does that mean 60 votes/signatures are needed by law, or that by law

two signatures must be from republicans?

[THUNDER HANDS]

19. 60 votes

if we had 60 democrats, we wouldn't need any republicans.

[Ocracoker16]

8. I think you are right on

Thanks for writing this post. It really clarifies the situation. It can be hard to see the bottom line when there are so many things happening at once.

[MrModerate]

12. Except that the cloture hoo-hah is enshrined in Senate RULES . . .

Not law. Spending bills can pass on a simple majority. And Senate rules can be changed. The whole 60-member business (originally agreed in 1975) was turned into a ball and chain to legislative action (2004, 2005?) to facilitate 'Lican hosing of Dem resistance at the time.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

22. Would you mind explaining this simply to someone like me that understands so little about gov?

[MrModerate]

34. It takes 3/5s of the Senators "duly sworn" to end debate on a bill.

If you don't have that ~60, then the minority can debate until doomsday ("filibuster") in opposition. In practice, it never seems to get to actual filibuster -- the threat seems enough to prevent it happening (the last one I remember was Jimmy Stewart's in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," but there probably have been a few since then).

The danger of filibustering is that you look like an asshole, especially when the fate of the nation is on the line. That's my argument for the Dems telling the 'Licans to go pound sand. Let 'em filbuster: they won't be able to sustain it and they'll burn political capital like fireworks on the 4th of July.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

42. How embarrassing me having to ask someone from abroad, no? :) nt

[MrModerate]

47. Oh, I'm a yank, I just live in Oz. n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

56. Really? How cool. I worked with a woman atty who moved there -

She loved it, so she moved.

[MrModerate]

64. Well, I gotta tell you . . .

Since I'm still shaking off the effects of Bushian flu for the last 8 years (during which it was sometimes necessary to pretend to be Canadian when I traveled internationally), and the fact that Australia is a pretty reasonable place with a very small collection of mostly marginalized wingnuts, I may never come back.

I'm hoping Obama succeeds, but people like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Savage still live in the US and that makes it a place I'd rather be from than in.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

68. Can't blame you! I lived in Europe for many years and I LONG to be there...

there's such ignorance here. Maybe it's the educational system is so bad?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

44. Why do you believe the Dems won't tell the Repukes to filibuster? nt

[MrModerate]

63. Well, nobody's done it for quite awhile . . .

Let me go wiki the last Senate filibuster . . . well, that was unenlightening. Wikipedia doesn't distinguish between threatening filibuster and actually filibustering -- as in holding the floor until you drop.

In any case, the negotiations in 2005 to avoid Darth Cheney coming in as president of the Senate and making up rules that would allow Bush judicial nominees to be rammed down Congress' throat (the "nuclear option") seem to have ended the traditional, Jimmy Stewart style filibuster of popular imagination.

As to why Dems won't do it? I think it's too destructive of working relationships they cherish (read "bipartisanship") and the political risk of appear to be the jerk rather than the other guy.

I still say that the American people have rejected the 'Lican vision of the country and Dems shouldn't be shy about acknowledging that.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

67. They should! Hope they do. Thanks for the info! nt

[DCBob]

142. Correct and very well stated.

:thumbsup:

[Born_A_Truman]

90. But I believe it takes 67 votes to change Senate rules

I read that today on another thread explaining Senate procedures.

[shireen]

13. thanks, i did not know that.

who are the two Republicans?

Does the 58 include independents like Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman?

[Jennicut]

23. Dem caucus includes Sanders and Loserman. Snowe, Collins and Specter

will vote with us.

[Still Sensible]

14. Actually, I think what they need those votes for is

to pass a cloture motion and end debate. Once that occurs, they need only 51 votes to actually pass the bill.

[THUNDER HANDS]

27. but the bill

will not pass if these three republicans don't sign off on it. they hold the power to pick and choose, essentially, what they want taken out.

[tbyg52]

58. Yep, but it might as well be 60 the way things are now.

They can just obstruct without having to do a darn thing. I want *real* filibusters. If it means that much to you to obstruct, stand up and read the phone book.

[BlooInBloo]

20. Senate rules are not the same as "by law".

I'm with you on the attempt at lucidity, however.

[THUNDER HANDS]

28. well, BY LAW

sounded a lot more forceful than BY RULES :D

[BlooInBloo]

37. :)

[kstewart33]

31. We need 60 votes to 'call the question' meaning that

60 votes are needed to end debate and move to a direct vote on the bill. Without the 60 votes, the bill dies in debate.

[stevedeshazer]

32. You're right.

:)

[tularetom]

33. Does it require 60 votes because it is a spending bill?

Or does it require 60 votes to avoid a filibuster?

I hope the answer to that is that the 60 votes are needed because it is a spending bill, otherwise it is once again a case of the Dems wussing out.

If the answer is that it needs 60 votes to keep the pukes from filibustering, let 'em. The public will see soon enough who is fucking up the plan.

[THUNDER HANDS]

40. the 60 votes are needed

to get to the stage where they vote for the bill. it has nothing to do with a fillibuster. No Republican is going to fillibuster this once it gets to the floor for an actual vote. In fact, I bet a lot of them will cross over and it'll end up passing with about 70 votes.

[tbyg52]

57. Huh? Isn't a filibuster for preventing cloture?

Meaning you talk to keep debate open and the bill from coming up for a vote? And it takes 60 votes for cloture to stop the debate. I think I've got that right. The problem is, nobody is making them actually stand up and talk anymore.

[BlooInBloo]

71. Yes. The OP knowingly took artistic license with the truth.

[THUNDER HANDS]

78. i've always thought of myself

as an artist!

:D

[BlooInBloo]

80. :)

[tpi10d]

65. after the house and senate compromise...

Will it then require just 51+ votes in senate?

[Hippo_Tron]

99. It is because of filibuster, but a united GOP filibuster isn't something we want

The tactic of letting them filibuster to ware them down works if 12 senators are filibustering. If there are 41 of them they can just take 2 or 3 hour shifts and keep alternating.

[stray cat]

38. We should do whatever worked in the past - oh right nothing has worked in the past

to get us out of a depression. It amazes me how many think they have the absolute answer and that everyone else is wrong. The stimulus may not even work - but I hope its at least done smartly.

[madfloridian]

45. Actually we are having to humor our Blue Dogs

and keep them from barking. And our New Dems, many of them are also Blue Dogs.

They are the ones who do not so much stand with Democrats but do their own thing.

We are paying for electing them as Democrats when they are more like Republicans.

[THUNDER HANDS]

51. REMEMBER WHEN GWB HAS A $820 BILLION SPENDING BILL THAT DEMS FILLIBUSTERED?

no?

Here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/senate.spending/index.html


History. It's a wonderful thing.

[Hippo_Tron]

103. Also, the filibuster stopped social security privatization

[DuaneBidoux]

59. We are compromising just enough to make it not work but not so much that folks will see it as the

fault of the Republicans. This is lose lose for Dems (oh well, fuck the democrats, it's lose lose for Americans).

[leftofthedial]

60. It is not LAW,

it is a Senate rule, Rule 22, on cloture.

With control of the Senate Rules Committee, perhaps actual Democrats could move to change the rules, as repukes have done in the past.

[JohnnieGordon]

66. How much influence could Obama have in getting the rule changed?

Stating that he'd like to see it changed would be a start. Since we are to assume he doesn't like having his modest little stimulus bill watered even further down by the Repugs. He'd probably be uncomfortable requesting a change in a Senate rule, it wouldn't be very "post-partisan" after all. But maybe saving the collapsing economy is actually important enough to consider leaving one's comfort zone.

[leftofthedial]

75. I don't think the DLC wants the rule changed

It is an excellent excuse for not doing what we tell them to do

[JohnnieGordon]

112. So the Senate committee could openly defy Obama's wishes?

If he made it known that he wanted to change the rule? I'm sure technically they could do that, I just wonder if they'd be likely to. If the president's stated wishes wouldn't have enough influence over the Democratic controlled committee to get it changed. It looks like our last hope. They could redraft the bill so it'd actual work, and then ram it through. I wonder if Obama could get this accomplished, and if he doesn't, he's being negligent.

[leftofthedial]

143. they'd have to get it through under the current rules,

which would allow the DLC and repukes to block it.

[tbyg52]

153. Bingo. nt

[MadMaddie]

61. If Franken can ever get seated we would only need 1

[Bluebear]

69. By law a bill cannot pass without at least 2 Republican signatures?

:silly:

[Warren Stupidity]

70. BY LAW? nope, by the rules of the senate only

BY LAW a simple majority is required to pass a bill. By a rule of the Senate, not a law, 60 votes are needed to end debate on a bill. (Actually 3/5 of the full senate, which is not quite 60 votes these days.)

As the fuckheads pointed out eight years ago, the senate could simply change the rules and eliminate the filibuster, and the fuckheads even worked out the sleazy parliamentary maneuver by which the rules could be changed using a simple majority vote immmune itself to a filibuster.

I hope people understand this.

I also hope they understand that our side never calls their bluff.

[quakerboy]

72. I believe you are incorrect.

In actuality, There is no need for 60 senators to pass a bill. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Now, we need 60 to break a filibuster, that I freely admit. Of course, that would be less likely to be a problem if actually, you know, made someone filibuster, not just say they would filibuster. Or if we, say, made noises about a "Nuclear Option" like I seem to recall hearing fairly recently.

But to pass a bill, we only need 51 senators, which means we have 7 democrats to spare.

Or am I wrong?

[paulk]

76. it's not 60 votes to pass a bill

it's 60 votes (3/5 majority) to pass legislation that raises the federal deficit.

http://www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2009/2/7/161443/9275

[bottomtheweaver]

95. Apparently 60 votes are needed to override a "point of order," which no one seems to have raised,

and since the presiding officer of the Senate is a Dem, it shouldn't be a problem if they did:

A POINT OF ORDER is made during floor proceedings to assert that the rules of procedure are being violated.

A point of order halts proceedings while the presiding officer rules on whether or not it is valid.

In the Senate, the chair's ruling may be appealed by any Senator. The Senate votes on the appeal and the chair has been frequently overturned.

In the House tradition, appeals are also possible, but rarely entered and almost never succeed.

http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/pointord.htm

[paulk]

144. if it was ruled invalid, there would surely be an appeal

which would likely get Democratic votes even if not overturned

and in the long run you would lose the votes of any Republicans willing to vote for the legislation,

and possibly some of the centrist Dems

The last thing Obama wants is a 58-41 vote on this - he wants at least some bipartisan support -

it's what he ran on

he needs a big victory for his first major legislation

to wear the "leader" mantle he's made...

[bottomtheweaver]

162. The point is that the Dems can pass any damn legislation they want.

If someone raises a point of order, it's up to the presiding officer, presumably Pelosi or Reid, to decide on it. If he decides there is no rule violation, a member can appeal, but a majority is needed to sustain that appeal. So if Dems had any discipline they could have rolled over Vitter and the gang on day one and gone on with the business they were elected to.

[AlinPA]

73. Senate has 56 Ds, 2 Is, 41 Rs and 1 seat (MN) unresolved.

[Better Believe It]

77. Your claim is total b.s. unless you can provide some credible links

Thunder Hands wrote: "BY LAW the stimulus bill can NOT pass without at least two Republican senators signing on to it."

Is that a "federal LAW", a "LAW" made up by Republicans in Congress, a "LAW" written by Senator Reid, a "LAW" that can be changed by legislative or procedural action in the Senate, a presidential decree or is this simply a "LAW" you just dreamed up?

What "LAW" are you claiming requires two Republican votes in order to pass legislation in the Senate?

I'd sure like to read the exact language of that "LAW" and not just your interpretation of a "LAW" that apparently none of us on DU have seen.

Where's the link to that "LAW"?

[THUNDER HANDS]

79. by "law"

I meant "senate rules"

which I thought I clarified further down when I said it was a procedural matter. But the point of the thread was that it's not a question of Dems being afraid of a filibuster, but rather a matter of pure rules that they can't go forward on the bill until they have 60 votes.

People were missing that point. They could bully as many republicans as they wanted. Stamp their feet and shout to the heavens. Until they turn at least two senators, the stimulus is a non-starter.

I probably should have wrote that more clearly, but I have a cold and am currently taking some wicked medication.


oh, as for credible links....look at any story in connection with the stimulus bill...the requirement of 60 votes should be in there.

[Better Believe It]

81. And of course the Democrats can't change Senate procedural rules because

they are in a majority and Republicans are in a small minority.

Of course.

That makes perfect sense.

If we elect 80 or perhaps 100 Democrats to the Senate would it become possible to change these Senate procedural rules?

Who wrote those "latest rules" and when were they written.

Links please.

[Hippo_Tron]

102. Changing senate rules requires 2/3rds vote

The senate is a place where a small minority can block legislation for a long time and a large minority can block legislation indefinitely. It has been that way since the 1800's. It is arguably the most absurd legislative body on the face of the planet.

[bottomtheweaver]

105. However, it only takes a majority to override a challenge to the presiding officer's

decision on a rule. So if the presiding officer rules that a particular procedure is NOT a rule violation, and any appeal is defeated by a simple majority, the challenge fails. So basically the majority rules if they really care to. Only we're not supposed to know that.

[Hippo_Tron]

106. That's the "nuclear option" argument

Otherwise known as "you can make up the rules as you go along". The senate procedure is based on custom just as much if not more so than written rules. Custom dictates that you don't abuse the power of the chair to dictate that something is not a rule violation when clearly it is a rule violation.

[bottomtheweaver]

109. No, it's the way the oh-so-sacred "rules" are written.

Let's not pretend we're helpless and powerless. Deams about as powerful right now as it's possible to get, and there's absolutely no reason to be rolling over like logs every time some racist fuck from Georgia makes a speech on CNN.

[JohnnieGordon]

113. And they should be willing to do ANYTHING to avoid a new Great Depression!..nt

[bottomtheweaver]

118. Yes. They have the power to because they were elected to.

And they'd better figure that out if they want to keep their offices.

[Hippo_Tron]

115. The rules say that you need 60 votes for cloture

What you don't seem to understand is that majority rules is not the rule in the senate. The senate requires that everybody's objections be attended to until they can be convinced to stop objecting. It has been that way almost since it was formed and it isn't changing anytime soon. As I said, it is arguably the most absurd legislative body on the planet and perhaps not an appropriate one in a democracy such as ours. But for now it does exist and it does operate this way.

[bottomtheweaver]

116. Cloture is a separate issue. Let the pukes fillibuster

if they want to, and not just threaten to. Let them fillibuster for a week and see where'd they'd be. Dems didn't win the White House and both chambers because the electorate wants to see fat pukes fellated 24/7. Dems have a huge majority AND a mandate for dramatic legislation and they're still acting like they're the minority whipped puppies they've been pretending to be since 1994. Well we're not buying it and they'd better get the message.

[Hippo_Tron]

119. It won't take a week it will take months

It takes a week when there are 4 senators filibustering. When they are 41 they can systematically have one senator on the floor for 2 hours at a time reading the phone book and then just take turns doing it. Plus the Democrats have to be at the capitol when the senate is in session otherwise they can just call a quorum call and grind the senate to a halt with that.

The concept of an "emergency stimulus" isn't to pass it months from now it is to pass it NOW. Time is of the essence. Plus a filibuster means that no legislation or even appointments get to go through the senate.

[bottomtheweaver]

120. Fine, let CNN, C-span, and all the networks show them reading the phone book.

I'm sure they'd all love to go down in history as the Senator that fiddled while the banks failed, or the American Nero for short.

[Hippo_Tron]

121. They have absolutely nothing to lose...

Meanwhile the Democrats have everything to lose. The Democrats are in power and are expected to pass legislation and govern. The Republicans know they won't get anything they want passed for two years so they have no reason not to filibuster other than it is a pain in the ass, which it is. But the Democrats also have to stay at work 24/7 just as the GOP does.

The stimulus MUST pass and it must pass now. Working people need some sort of relief even if it's not exactly what we want. Furthermore the Obama Administration needs to get on with other legislative priorities. The stimulus is not the end all be all of Obama's legislative agenda. It is merely an emergency bill designed to provide some form of relief. Why everybody is convinced that we should use up all of our ammunition on the first battle is beyond me. The stimulus needs to get done so that other things can get done. That's the bottom line.

[bottomtheweaver]

122. Except their power, reputations, and offices.

Maybe you missed the inaugural? The pukes are about as discredited as it's possible to be at the moment and the idea that any of them would filibuster on live TV for an hour, let alone a month, is beyond ridiculous. Dems are looking for reasons to cave and the filibuster threat is just another lie.

[Hippo_Tron]

123. That already happened

The GOP has already hit rock bottom and no matter what they do, there is nowhere to go but up. The only reason they would not filibuster is if they genuinely think it will be good for their party in the long run to move toward the center and be more inclusive. But from what I've seen thus far that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems they think marching as far right as possible is the best answer.

[bottomtheweaver]

124. They still hold office,

and most will want to be reelected, or if not, to retire in dignity. Getting on the telly and waving a phone book to stop the show would be a sure fire way of getting a one-line obit as the loon who tried to stop the recovery.

[Hippo_Tron]

126. Most at this point live in states that Obama lost by a significant margin

And they believe that if they rally their base, they will be re-elected. David Vitter is up for re-election in two years and as scandal ridden as he is, he has been the biggest obstructionist of all. It is because he's banking that his constituents aren't a fan of Obama and that mobilizing his base will help him.

[bottomtheweaver]

127. I see your point. But here's the deal:

Sooner or later we're going to have to have this fight, or else Vitter and company will call the shots for the next four or eight years. That being the case, the sooner we get it over with the better, and if that means invoking the nuclear option in one form or other so be it. The country is in no mood for obstruction, and this is Obama's golden opportunity to put the troublemakers in their place once and for all by putting pressure on Reid to do what he needs to do. If he doesn't, he'll never be rid of them, and they'll accomplish what they're after, which is to destroy him.

[Hippo_Tron]

128. While I can appreciate setting the tone, now is not the time for full scale warfare

Americans can't wait months for a stimulus, they need it right now. And furthermore Obama needs to get at least a few legislative accomplishments under his belt before he engages the GOP head on. If we're going to pick a battle to challenge the Republicans to actually filibuster on it needs to be one that is designed for the public opinion to be overwhelmingly in our favor and also something where Americans can be patient and wait for the process to play out. Health care, for example, is something that Americans have been waiting decades for. They can certainly wait another few months if need be.

[cascadiance]

155. Tell that to the Republicans it is THEY who are starting this "war". Let's NOT forget that FACT!

We need to start using rules against them.

We had an equally important set of votes on approving supreme court justices, and we DID have the power to stop them the way THEY are trying to stop us then. THEY threatened to use the nuclear option to shut it down then. Either we were complicit in allowing them to get what they wanted through then now AND letting them stop the process now without major changes in their favor, OR the people leading this charge are IMPOTENT and need to be replaced (aka Reid). WE should be doing the same thing they did now!

[bottomtheweaver]

163. Now is as good a time as any.

I see your reasoning, but playing patsy is NOT going to establish Obama as a leader. It's just going to dilute his legislation and make him look like, well, a patsy. These are not nice people and trying to make them going away by giving them our lunch money is not going to work now or ever.

As far as the stimulus, I personally don't see the practical urgency, but I DO see the political urgency, which is why this would be the perfect battle -- the more the pukes stall the more the public gets stirred up against them.

[Warren Stupidity]

146. That is true for the house, not the senate.

There are vulnerable Republican senators in, for example New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. All it takes is two seat changes and we have the 60 votes needed.

This is exactly what happened in the '34 election.

[jberryhill]

82. That's based on an unproven assumption

It takes a simple majority to pass.

It takes 60 votes to cut off debate.

The unproven assumption is that we can't get 60 votes for cloture, not 60 votes to pass the bill.

And that assumption is not always true. There are instances where senators will vote for cloture, and not vote for the bill.

[Jennicut]

83. What happens when we can't stop a filibuster?

Does it just drag on and on and the time passes by for when you cannot vote on a bill any longer or what?

[Better Believe It]

86. Democrats can break a filibuster .... if they really want to. All filibusters end.

Assume there is a Republican filibuster.

Let them filibuster, don't withdraw the legislation on the excuse the Republicans will engage in a long debate (filibuster) against it.

All filibusters end.

It can end in one of two ways.

The Democrats can surrender to a filibuster by ending cloture votes and withdrawing the legislation, or

they can wait out the filibuster for as long as it takes until they get the 60 votes to end debate.

After cloture is voted we only need 51 votes for passage.

Here's how Republicans defeated another piece of labor legislation 15 years ago with merely a threat to filibuster! We don't need a repeat of this performance by Senator Reid and company. They took two quick votes for cloture, losing them with 53 votes and than proceeded to abandon the legislation without any actual Republican filibuster, just a filibuster threat!

---------------------------------------


Senate Republicans Deal A Major Defeat to Labor
By CATHERINE S. MANEGOLD,
New York Times
July 13, 1994


Handing organized labor a major defeat, Senate Republicans today blocked passage of a bill that would have made it illegal for employers to hire permanent replacements for workers striking over wages and benefits. Republican threats to filibuster the bill, which passed the House comfortably last year, led Senate leaders to schedule today's vote over whether to cut off debate.

Since even the hint of a filibuster can move the Senate toward a cloture vote, which calls for a wider margin of victory than the passage of a bill does, the Republicans have found it an effective tactic in stalling or forcing changes in legislation that the party opposes but cannot defeat on a majority vote.

Speaking of the striker-replacement bill, David Westfall, a Harvard University law professor who specializes in labor and employment law, said, "This was labor's No. 1 priority, and if they could not pull this off even with a Democratic President who said he would sign it, then I think the whole striker-replacement issue is dead."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...754C0A9629...

Does the above sound just a bit familiar .... like something we just experienced with the stimulus bill?

[bottomtheweaver]

92. Exactly. Dems could force through legislation if they wanted to.

The problem is that it's more convenient to let if fail and pretend they were outnumbered.

[Hippo_Tron]

117. If there are 41 of them, we won't ware them down until June

They can take turns holding the floor for 2 or 3 hours at a time and that can go on for months just like it did with the civil rights filibuster. One of the common misconceptions about that filibuster is that Mansfield and Humphrey ended it by waring the opposition down. That's not the case. They got cloture by watering the bill down and getting Republican votes by doing so.

So yes we could get our pure stimulus bill in June. But that means no legislation can be passed or no appointments can be confirmed for four months. That means Obama's first 100 days are ruined. Furthermore it means that those hurt by the economy are suffering for four more months. The stimulus bill was call an "emergency stimulus" for a reason. The idea is to pass it ASAP not four months from now. The stimulus is the beginning of things Obama hopes to get done, not the end.

[Tutonic]

84. Ok, they really need to be more concerned about Nancy. Collins,

Snowe and Spector are coming to the party no matter what the cost--they've got constituents that are hurtin more than in other states. Also Snowe and Spector are up for relection in 2010.

[Bonobo]

85. I learned in Elementary School that it takes 51 votes to pass a bill. It still does.

I hope people understand this.

[THUNDER HANDS]

133. true

however, you can't get the 51 votes without first getting 60.

[donco6]

87. Uh, excuse me captain? What's that red light blinking just there . . . ?

Who cares if it passes, if it doesn't solve the PROBLEM?

I'd rather the Dems put a poison pill in an expensive bill that contains no actual stimulus. Proven stimulus like . . . BUYING STUFF. Food stamps, returning more than spent. Infrastructure, returning more than spent. But no - we think that to pass the BILL, we have to substitute items that return nothing at all, like tax cuts. We've lost sight of what we're even doing this FOR!

A bad bill is an albatross we'll never recover from. Le't not lose site of the point of spending all this money. Because we've only got one shot at this.

[DeltaLitProf]

89. Do you have a source for this?

Otherwise, you should do the honorable thing and remove this, since it is probably incorrect. Many bills have passed the Senate without winning 60 votes, that increased the Federal Deficit. Just about every spending proposal since the Eisenhower era, in fact, has increased the federal deficit.

[THUNDER HANDS]

135. there's multiple stories out there

that explain that in order for the bill to come to the floor for a vote, 60 senators have to sign off on it. This relates to increasing the federal deficit. It has nothing to do with the actual bill itself.

[Two Americas]

91. 51 votes

It takes 51 votes to pass a measure. I am not certain, but I don't think either party has had 60 votes since 1976.

Not having 60 votes never stopped the Republicans much.

If the Democrats had 90 votes, the Republicans would still win. 31 blue dogs would defect, and then the leadership would say "oops we can't stop a filibuster, so we cannot do anything, and so I guess the Republicans win. We tried, really we did. Keep voting for us and keep sending us money."

The Republicans destroyed the country with no more power than the Democrats have now. But they can't save the country?

Don't believe it.

[bottomtheweaver]

93. Yep. But it works out nicely if they can vote for measures and then let them fail.

Come reelection time, their hands are clean, but the banksters and war profiteers still win the game.

[Two Americas]

97. yes

The Republicans ruthlessly and relentlessly promote the desires of the wealthiest 1%.

The Democrats make it look as though they are representing the desperate needs of the other 99%, while not actually doing that.

Then there is a group, disproportionately represented here and throughout the party at all levels, from the upper 10% income bracket and those who identify with the people in the upper 10% income bracket - about $70,000 annual income or so - who provide the vital service of making sure that no popular resistance arises.

They do this by promoting certain ideas, so that communication is difficult:

1. Insisting that "the system works" and that all must "work within it."

2. Portraying the Democratic party as the only possible or imaginable alternative to the extreme right wing.

3. Viciously attacking anyone expressing any left wing political ideas, by evoking red-scare fears and engaging in McCarthyism.

4. Continually expressing contempt for and condescension toward the common people.

5. Promoting the "personal choice" model for approaching politics, so that poor people can be blamed for their own misery for having made "the wrong choices" and so that everyone feels weak and alone.

6. Using armchair psychology to portray critics, dissidents, and poor people as mentally ill.

7. Separatong out different aspects of the struggle into discrete and isolated causes, and place them on a laundry list from which people are them encouraged to select, so that people cannot find common ground and build solidarity.

8. Promoting libertarian free market ideas with a "green" or "organic" veneer, so that they sound different than the right wing agenda.

9. Demanding that people stay within the bounds of a limited range of relatively ineffective political action: voting and writing a check being the main ones.

10. Making the Republican party look as bad as possible, so that it seems that there is more contrast between the two parties than there actually is.

11. Focusing on cultural war issues, and steering discussions away from discussions about economics and power.

[bottomtheweaver]

104. If they weren't master propagandists

they'd have been defeated long ago. But they've managed to make their propaganda outfits permanent parts of the government so we the people are funding the very "intelligence" agencies whose express purpose is to lie to us and when appropriate murder us. That's the bottom line as far as I can tell--we need to root out the shadow government or we're never going to get past 1963.

[bottomtheweaver]

96. We understand all too well.

When it comes to passing legislation that would actually benefit people and reduce even slightly the tyranny of banks and big business, suddenly there's no end to the obscure rules and procedures that make even as ridiculously lopsided a majority as the ones Dems now enjoy helplessly powerless.

Right. :mad:

[Political Heretic]

110. That's the biggest bunch of BULL SHIT I have ever heard.

Stop apologizing for the fact that Democrats don't have the balls to stand up and fight. They could and should refuse to give in until Republican's get on board - let THEM cave in for once in my fucking goddamn lifetime!! If they don't, then NO BILL. And the Democrats can blast them for tanking the country.

It's time to STICK.

It's time to play for all the marbles.

Obama ought use this crisis opportunity to permanently shift politics in this country.

He ought to threaten to veto anything that doesn't give everything that was in the house bill - and threaten to veto every piece of legislation that come to his desk until he is sent a stimulus package that is RIGHT.

Every day the economy crumbles, HANG IT AROUND OBSTRUCTIONISTS HOOVERITE REPUBLICAN NECKS!

I understand real people's lives are on the line.... I'm one of them. No home of my own, well below the poverty line, no health insurance.... *I* am willing to sacrifice, to do my part to DRAW THE LINE HERE against republican ASSHOLES who think that they can still DICTATE ALL THE TERMS!!

NO MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ENOUGH IS E-FUCKING-NOUGH!!

[Political Heretic]

111. PS - please post a SOURCE for your "by law" claim.

Otherwise, I call bullshit on that too.

[THUNDER HANDS]

134. not law

rules. I was a little poorly-worded there. It's senate rules. But the point is, the bill will never get up to a vote without 60 senators signing off on it as it is now.

[Two Americas]

161. not anything

The Republicans have never had 60 votes over the last 30 years, and yet managed to enact most if what they wanted and just about destroy the country.

How could that be if what you are saying were even remotely true?

[EFerrari]

125. Instead of chipping at the bill, they should be chipping at the Republican consensus. nt

[Hekate]

129. I'm really late to the party, but I brought marshmallows to toast over the flames...

... and :popcorn: too.

Hekate

[TexasObserver]

130. No, it's not by law. It's by Senate Rule, a rule that has been changed before.

The filibuster rule is merely a RULE of senate procedure, not a law, and your characterization of it as a law is inaccurate. Laws are bills passed in the same form by both houses of congress and signed by the president into law.

The filibuster rule has been changed several times, each time in order to get around the problem of a senate minority holding up key legislation. The GOP repeatedly threatened to change the rule while in power. It's time to shuck the rule that allows 40 dunderheads to stop any bill from becoming law.

If Harry Reid didn't have a backbone made of jelly, he'd do it.

There is a huge difference between THE LAW and senate rules of procedure, which can be changed in an instant on a majority vote. And contrary to your statement, it has everything to do with being afraid of a GOP filibuster. One rule change on the votes needed to invoke Cloture, and there is no need for two GOP members to vote for the package. We need the senate to change the filibuster rule. It has long been used by special interests and the GOP to kill good bills.

[bridgit]

132. Welcome to the sausage factory

[MadHound]

136. What happy horseshit

Gee, back in the day when 'Pugs were in power, they didn't have sixty votes or more, yet the managed to ram through their legislation without hesitation or compromise. Then again, they had Congress folk who were disciplined(unlike the blue dog and DLC Dems), along with a spine and the courage to stand up and fight, clean or dirty, for what they believed in.

Sadly, the Dems are lacking in all these qualities, thus we're going to wind up with a bill that is almost worse than nothing, full of tax cuts and stripped of beneficial funding that would promote spending and jobs.

It's amazing how many people are willing to rationalize this away. It's going to get real interesting to hear all these excuses over the next four years.

[olegramps]

137. The Democrats should invoke the "Nuclear Option"

The Democrats should cut off Senate debate and invoke the so-called Nuclear Option. They should go before the American public and put forth the case that the Republicans are the enemies of the working class and that their opposition is sole driven by their determination of reduce the working class to a position of servitude. And that it is for this reason to save the Republic that they have been forced into taking this drastic, but necessary action.

[bunkerbuster1]

138. I think that sometimes too.

I'd rather they did it over single payer healthcare or something that will be truly game-changing, rather than percentage points on what amounts to a super-duper appropriations bill.

[bvar22]

149. Single Payer Health Care ????

The Democratic Leadership is not even allowing a discussion of Single Payer at their Townhall Propaganda Meetings.
They have taken Single Payer OFF the Table.

[harun]

154. I completely support them doing it over Health Care. I think you are right

wait and do it for THE MOST IMPORTANT thing, which is getting real Health Care reform.

[olegramps]

140. The goal of the Republicans is to gut the bill, insuring that it doesn't succeed

If the Republicans can gut the bill of the most effective measures to stimulate the economy they will have achieved their goal of discrediting the Obama administration.

This is why it is imperative that this fight be taken directly to the citizens. The citizens should be told in absolutely clear terms that the Republicans are the enemy of working men and women and are determined to reduce them to servitude. The right wing, using their control of the mass media, is attempting to stigmatize the legislation as socialistic if not outright communistic. These lies must be answered and the true motivations of the Republicans exposed.

[acmavm]

139. Pfffffft! That's a crock and you know it.

<snip>

Krugman: Senate Stimulus "compromise" cuts most needed parts of plan.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8178727

[olegramps]

141. Absolutely. This is the intent of the Republicans.

[Skidmore]

145. Understood, but we still need to hammer on the Republicans

who oppose the bill.

[izzybeans]

148. And this will not be the only bill related to economic stimulus this year.

They'll have the chance to do much of what was cut in other bills.

[ClarkUSA]

150. We all need to work as hard as possible to get Democrats a much-needed 60+ Senate seats.

Thanks for the much-needed reality check.

[Bjorn Against]

151. I understand, but I wish they would not have started with a compromise bill.

There were too many tax cuts and not enough spending in the bill from the very beginning, I understand that they may not be able to keep everything they want in the end but they could have at least started with everything they want. If they start out with a really progressive bill they may need to compromise, but the end compromise would still likely be better than what we have now as either way they are going to have to make some sacrifices no matter where they start and it is better to make those sacrifices when you have more to sacrifice.

[ChiciB1]

152. Haven't Read All Post Here... But Is It A FACT That ALL Democrats Will

vote for this bill? Could be old news, but I thought I heard that at least FOUR Democrats weren't on board. And I'm NOT talking about the ones who aren't seated yet.

Please inform and/or update me.

[nichomachus]

156. But wasn't the Dem excuse last year that they didn't have 55 Senators?

And now, they need 60. Somehow, I feel we'd be hearing excuses if they had 99 senators. "Oh, gee, we really can't do that without 100 senators."

[Maven]

157. I heard it had something to do with checkers and chess.

:crazy:

[mzmolly]

158. Good to keep in mind.

Thank you.

[totodeinhere]

160. Your analysis is wrong.

They're doing this because they need to break off two senators or else the bill CAN NOT, BY LAW pass.

There is no law that mandates filibusters. The filibuster is allowed by Senate rules, and it could be changed or eliminated at any time without changing any laws.

[GeorgeGist]

164. Nonsense ...

Procedural laws of the Senate are not legally binding.

[johan helge]

165. What is your source?

You say: "It has nothing to do with being afraid of a Republican filibuster."

Krugman says (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/happy-stan/): "Collender says that in the months ahead there will be several opportunities to introduce new spending in a way that isn’t subject to a filibuster."