seeker4ever
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-29-11 07:58 AM
Original message |
| Why Did Harry Reid Include a "Super Congress" in his plan? Why is it a good thing? |
|
Edited on Fri Jul-29-11 08:00 AM by seeker4ever
"A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits."
Why?
|
| Enrique
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-29-11 08:01 AM
Response to Original message |
| 1. as a concession to the GOP |
| alcibiades_mystery
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-29-11 08:02 AM
Response to Original message |
| 2. The Super Congress works if they push stuff out while the Dems still hold the Senate |
|
It's just a way to swerve around a filibuster by requiring an up or down vote in the Senate, without earmarks or poison pill amendments. The full Congress still has to actually vote on the proposals.
|
| FSogol
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-29-11 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
| FSogol
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-29-11 08:06 AM
Response to Original message |
| 3. Isn't the term "super congress" just a nonsense corruption of the term "joint committee?" |
|
Things get worked out in joint committees all the time before going to the full Congress for a vote.
This is similar to freepers freaking out over Czars which are nothing more than directors and managers in the Executive office.
|
| seeker4ever
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-29-11 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
| 5. So it's really nothing? I apologize. I thought maybe it was dangerous and unnecessary. My bad. |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts)     |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:04 AM
Response to Original message |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
