Author Topic: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?  (Read 4699 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Celtics4ever

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6667
  • Tommy Points: 410
Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #60 on: November 09, 2012, 05:36:47 PM »
They better compromise and the DEMS too because something needs to get done.   Both sides have some good ideas but both sides have guys who think they are always right and get nothing done.   

A lot folks just want results and are not blinded by ideology.

Online BballTim

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21180
  • Tommy Points: 945
Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #61 on: November 09, 2012, 05:47:06 PM »
I guess that you are conceding the point about Grassley and Snowe, since you ignored it.

  I read in the article that Obama added the mandate in a compromise with the insurance industry. You claimed that wasn't the case, because companies don't vote. If you're claiming that what's in the article is false, you can't very well use it to support your claim, can you?

Offline LooseCannon

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8139
  • Tommy Points: 606
Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #62 on: November 09, 2012, 05:50:53 PM »
They better compromise and the DEMS too because something needs to get done.   Both sides have some good ideas but both sides have guys who think they are always right and get nothing done.   

A lot folks just want results and are not blinded by ideology.

If both sides fail to reach a compromise because one side is willing to compromise but the other one isn't, would you be able to tell and do you think the side that is more willing to compromise should be rewarded by control of both houses of Congress in the 2014 mid-term elections?
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Offline nickagneta

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26101
  • Tommy Points: 1878
Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #63 on: November 09, 2012, 05:55:33 PM »
My entire recollection of the Obamacare compromise was that Republican stance, for about 98% of Republicans in Congress) was this:

We think this is horrible for the country and want nothing to do with it. You will not have any of our votes and we will filibuster this to death unless you get a super majority. Only after coming off the first payor and other portions of the idea(as well as some political payoffs/bribes written into the bill) was the President able to force this through, still without any support from most if not all Republicans.

I could be wrong but that was always my recollection of the proceedings.
DKC Brooklyn Nets
Pick 2 New Orleans Pelicans
PG: George Hill/Jameer Nelson
SG: Victor Oladipo/Mario Chalmers/Kobe Bryant
SF: Chandler Parsons/P.J. Tucker
PF: Anthony Davis/Brandon Bass/Mike Scott
C: DeAndre Jordan/Enes Kanter

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6817
  • Tommy Points: 889
Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #64 on: November 09, 2012, 07:10:18 PM »
What's happened in the past is in the past.  Dems and Repubs need to find common ground and I firmly believe Boehner and Obama want to (and will) find common ground.  Harry Reid will do as Obama asks.  I am not a fan of Reid or Pelosi and wish they would both be ousted from their leadership roles, but I doubt that will happen.

Online BballTim

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21180
  • Tommy Points: 945
Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #65 on: November 09, 2012, 08:01:01 PM »
^ I'd also add to this, as supporting evidence, the larding up of the ARRA with largely ineffective tax cuts. Also something that's not a Democratic priority, but something that Obama did to reach out to the GOP.

Note that while there were mistakes made WRT the ARRA (letting Pelosi write too much of it, for one), that doesn't detract from the point I'm making about bipartisan overtures.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2012, 08:25:36 PM by BballTim »

Online BballTim

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21180
  • Tommy Points: 945
Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #66 on: November 09, 2012, 08:07:45 PM »
They better compromise and the DEMS too because something needs to get done.   Both sides have some good ideas but both sides have guys who think they are always right and get nothing done.   

A lot folks just want results and are not blinded by ideology.

If both sides fail to reach a compromise because one side is willing to compromise but the other one isn't, would you be able to tell and do you think the side that is more willing to compromise should be rewarded by control of both houses of Congress in the 2014 mid-term elections?

  Hopefully the republicans will pick up control of the senate on their own, but thanks for the offer.

Offline thirstyboots18

  • Chat Moderator
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8306
  • Tommy Points: 2177
Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #67 on: November 11, 2012, 04:07:03 PM »
Ironic that this is so hot button now, when Dems in control. Of course it was a sacred institution when Republicans were in control.

I agree with any change taking place for 2017 or later.

Isn't that always the case? Republicans questioned the patriotism of their democratic colleagues during the Bush era when Nancy Pelosi was just a loudmouth from California.

Filibustering sucks.
Nancy Pelosi is still a just a loudmouth from California.
Yesterday is history.
Tomorrow is a mystery.
Today is a gift...
   That is why it is called the present.
Visit the CelticsBlog Live Game Chat!

Offline IndeedProceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36645
  • Tommy Points: 1773
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #68 on: November 11, 2012, 04:22:20 PM »
Ironic that this is so hot button now, when Dems in control. Of course it was a sacred institution when Republicans were in control.

I agree with any change taking place for 2017 or later.

Isn't that always the case? Republicans questioned the patriotism of their democratic colleagues during the Bush era when Nancy Pelosi was just a loudmouth from California.

Filibustering sucks.
Nancy Pelosi is still a just a loudmouth from California.

True. Well, she's a bit more than JUST a loudmouth, but she's still a loudmouth from California.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Quote from: IndeedProceed
(insert funny/insightful/inside joke from me here at some point)

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1957
  • Tommy Points: 220
Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #69 on: November 13, 2012, 04:18:19 PM »
I read in the article that Obama added the mandate in a compromise with the insurance industry. You claimed that wasn't the case, because companies don't vote. If you're claiming that what's in the article is false, you can't very well use it to support your claim, can you?
You read a different article than I did, apparently. I don't know how many other different ways it can be stated, that you don't really compromise with actors who have no leverage unless you're feeling particularly magnanimous.

Hillary was right about the mandate, Obama was wrong. He eventually realized it after he educated himself on the subject. But once he caught up with the history of HC reform, he was on the same page as everyone else.

Online BballTim

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21180
  • Tommy Points: 945
Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #70 on: November 13, 2012, 04:36:24 PM »
I read in the article that Obama added the mandate in a compromise with the insurance industry. You claimed that wasn't the case, because companies don't vote. If you're claiming that what's in the article is false, you can't very well use it to support your claim, can you?
You read a different article than I did, apparently. I don't know how many other different ways it can be stated, that you don't really compromise with actors who have no leverage unless you're feeling particularly magnanimous.

  First of all you've been saying that Obama was compromising with the republicans, how much leverage did they have? Secondly, though, do you think that politicians never include or exclude elements of bills at the behest of industry? That the insurance industry has no influence on legislation because they don't vote on it?
 

Offline Brendan

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2987
  • Tommy Points: 72
    • Self Assay
Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #71 on: November 13, 2012, 04:53:33 PM »
So apparently Reid doesn't have the filibuster votes (at least yet.) And Mitch is calling out Obama - saying show us a plan. I think this is a smart tactic - if Obama wants specifics from the House, make him ask for it, so he cannot demigod all around the issue.

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1957
  • Tommy Points: 220
Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #72 on: November 13, 2012, 05:02:22 PM »
First of all you've been saying that Obama was compromising with the republicans, how much leverage did they have? Secondly, though, do you think that politicians never include or exclude elements of bills at the behest of industry? That the insurance industry has no influence on legislation because they don't vote on it?
Let's not play games with words. Influence is different than compromise. You can bet that the insurance companies were lobbying just like any other interest group, but that's all they can do. He doesn't need their campaign contributions, and as an industry the insurance companies are about as popular as lepers. They can educate and argue; that's about it.

With regard to the Republicans, they have actual votes (in both wings: House was a squeaker as well). Olympia Snowe was courted like you wouldn't believe, personally, by Obama himself. She could have gotten almost anything that she wanted in that bill if she'd agree to vote for it. The deal that happened with the conservative/independent Democrats, was available to Republicans as well.

The R's maintained a united front in the end, but that doesn't mean it was because the D's were unwilling to compromise. Obama did everything he could to get them on board; he even lost support in the House from the hard left because he compromised TOO much (i.e., Dennis Kucinich), and had to wrangle the super-liberals as well.

I just have to laugh at the notion that there was no compromise in the ACA.

Online BballTim

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21180
  • Tommy Points: 945
Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #73 on: November 14, 2012, 01:16:11 PM »
First of all you've been saying that Obama was compromising with the republicans, how much leverage did they have? Secondly, though, do you think that politicians never include or exclude elements of bills at the behest of industry? That the insurance industry has no influence on legislation because they don't vote on it?
Let's not play games with words. Influence is different than compromise. You can bet that the insurance companies were lobbying just like any other interest group, but that's all they can do. He doesn't need their campaign contributions, and as an industry the insurance companies are about as popular as lepers. They can educate and argue; that's about it.

  Obama may not need their campaign contributions but I'm sure that some of the senators do and Obama needed their votes. If the insurance industry can influence the process and Obama wants/needs them to influence the process in his direction then he'd need to make concessions to appease them, that's called compromise. You're the one trying to play games with words.

With regard to the Republicans, they have actual votes (in both wings: House was a squeaker as well). Olympia Snowe was courted like you wouldn't believe, personally, by Obama himself. She could have gotten almost anything that she wanted in that bill if she'd agree to vote for it. The deal that happened with the conservative/independent Democrats, was available to Republicans as well.

  We both know this isn't true. Obama courted Snowe because she's to the left of many of the democrats that he was trying to bargain with, her vote wouldn't have come with a real price. I don't recall Obama adding anything to the bill or taking anything out where the democrats were almost all opposed to it because the right would have preferred it, I don't remember any offers to do so either.

The R's maintained a united front in the end, but that doesn't mean it was because the D's were unwilling to compromise. Obama did everything he could to get them on board; he even lost support in the House from the hard left because he compromised TOO much (i.e., Dennis Kucinich), and had to wrangle the super-liberals as well.

  Again, not true. Obama lost support of the far left because he compromised too much with moderate democrats, not with republicans.

I just have to laugh at the notion that there was no compromise in the ACA.

  Yes, there was compromise, all of it within the democratic party. The fact that Obama didn't compromise at all with the right is what led to the democrats getting killed in the mid-term elections, when Obama left the republican party out of the process he left a large segment of the population out of the process as well.

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1957
  • Tommy Points: 220
Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #74 on: November 14, 2012, 01:47:23 PM »
Obama may not need their campaign contributions but I'm sure that some of the senators do and Obama needed their votes. If the insurance industry can influence the process and Obama wants/needs them to influence the process in his direction then he'd need to make concessions to appease them, that's called compromise. You're the one trying to play games with words.
Uhh, no. Obama himself is a better fundraiser than the insurance companies, if it comes to money. Their "influence" on the process is basically to make this argument:

1) if you're going to force us to accept people with pre-existing conditions, then
2) you need to handle the "free-rider" problem", otherwise
3) health care reform will bankrupt us and/or costs will skyrocket.

It happens that the administration agreed with this, hence the individual mandate, which solves the free rider problem by requiring the young invincibles to subsidize the sick. This wasn't a case where an organization with leverage put the squeeze on Obama, this is a case where they made a reasonable argument, aka lobbying.

Quote
We both know this isn't true. Obama courted Snowe because she's to the left of many of the democrats that he was trying to bargain with, her vote wouldn't have come with a real price. I don't recall Obama adding anything to the bill or taking anything out where the democrats were almost all opposed to it because the right would have preferred it, I don't remember any offers to do so either.
Obama courted Snowe because unlike the insurance companies, Snowe actually had a vote in the Senate. This process is called "negotiation", from which "compromise" can result. If Snowe is to the left of the moderate Democrats, why did she vote for the ACA in conference and then vote against it on the floor? Spoiler alert: because she's a Republican.

Obama didn't actually add or remove anything, because he left it to Congress as much as possible, but his fingerprints are in the places he didn't push for: public option, Medicare expansion, etc.

Quote
Again, not true. Obama lost support of the far left because he compromised too much with moderate democrats, not with republicans.
The "moderate Democrats" supported the Republican orthodoxy. They are the ones who killed the public option, the one who insisted on an inefficient free-market solution to the problem, the ones who supported the "personal responsibility" part of the legislation which we call the "individual mandate".

You are confusing political opposition with "disinclination to compromise".

Quote
Yes, there was compromise, all of it within the democratic party. The fact that Obama didn't compromise at all with the right is what led to the democrats getting killed in the mid-term elections, when Obama left the republican party out of the process he left a large segment of the population out of the process as well.
Obama did not leave the Republican part out of the process: the Republican party refused to cooperate. Grassley played "Lucy with the football" for an entire year. Republicans never came up with any sort of credible competing health care plan whatsoever.

There is plenty of evidence that Obama and the Democrats were seeking -- desperate for, even -- Republican buy-in for the ACA. There is next to nothing to suggest that the Republicans were even interested in compromising. That the ACA has conservative ideas in it at all, is the result of those outreach attempts.

As I said: rolling on the floor laughing.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog