Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

Foamfollower

(1,097 posts)
2. Just goes to show how fucking stupid the man is.
Tue May 30, 2017, 10:54 AM
May 2017

Dems could have changed the filibuser rule while McTurtle was busy blocking everything, but they didn't.

Not to mention the fact that the ACA passed with 60 votes in the Senate.

underpants

(182,826 posts)
4. The filibuster goes back to the ancient Roman Senate.
Tue May 30, 2017, 10:56 AM
May 2017

On RW radio I heard during the Gorsuch thing that the filibuster is a creation of the nuclear age. Yes their listeners are lead to believe it has no real history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

dsc

(52,162 posts)
19. In one sense they are right
Tue May 30, 2017, 09:48 PM
May 2017

The filibuster used to be unbreakable, then it required 67 votes, and now it is down to 60. The 60 vote threshold was adopted in 1975.

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,414 posts)
8. McConnell
Tue May 30, 2017, 11:03 AM
May 2017

is now reduced to only being able to promise a vote sometime, but not passage. And whatever they pass would have to travel back through the House again for final passage I believe as well.

unblock

(52,253 posts)
9. this may actually come to pass, though not a sure thing
Tue May 30, 2017, 11:15 AM
May 2017

if i understand the procedures, republicans are in a bind.

they obviously can't reach 60 votes without democratic cooperation, which is (perhaps surprisingly given our lack of unity in the past) a major challenge.

under current rules, they can pass things with a simple majority only, by using the "reconciliation" rules, but in order to do that, if i understand correctly, it has to be scored by the cbo as not adding to the deficit.

that means they can't just pass a tax cut without offsetting revenue-raising measures, which they're having a tough time agreeing on. it also means they can't just repeal the aca, because that really is a tax cut as well (for the rich, anyway).


so the easiest political solution for them would seem to be to just pass the tax cuts and let it increase the deficit. some of the deficit hawks certainly wouldn't be happy, but they're not likely to turn down a tax cut for the rich over it at the end of the day. they're republicans, after all, and they can be bought.

the only problem is actually getting the votes to eliminate the filibuster. they need 50 senators for this and again, none of the democrats will help. but a few republican senators will have a tough time voting for that.

we shall see.


of course, if they eliminate the filibuster and actually get their act together, all hope is lost.
the filibuster and their incompetence are our last hopes.

moonscape

(4,673 posts)
15. And some moderate Republicans who won't speak out, might
Tue May 30, 2017, 09:17 PM
May 2017

like that Dems are able to block things they see would be a disaster for them.

unblock

(52,253 posts)
17. That's the challenge in getting the filibuster killed
Tue May 30, 2017, 09:35 PM
May 2017

Those last few republicans.

which is more awkward for them, defying the party or allowing some extreme things that would be hard to explain back home.

 

GatoGordo

(2,412 posts)
16. Maybe I am in the minority here,
Tue May 30, 2017, 09:24 PM
May 2017

But I think they ought to change the filibuster rules (talking filibuster) back to the way they were. (pre 1975)

Too much is not getting done in Congress. Imagine what could have been when Obama had to have only a simple majority.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Donald Trump calls for en...