Originally posted by utherpendragonMcConnell won't allow a vote:
Why wont he take a vote on it ? Mitch McConnell told him yesterday lets do it and Reid backed down.
After the tabling vote, Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky could not agree on how to proceed on a bill by Reid. McConnell wanted a filibuster, requiring a 60-vote supermajority to move Reid's bill forward, and Reid wanted a procedure allowing his bill to move with a simple majority. Reid said McConnell refused negotiate with him.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43949638/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
According to The Washington Times, it is Reid who is filibustering his own bill:
Republicans offered to let the vote happen Friday night, just minutes after the chamber voted to halt a House Republican bill. All sides expect Democrats' bill will fail too, and the GOP said senators might as well kill both at the same time so that negotiations could move on to a compromise.
"We would be happy to have that vote tonight," Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republicans' leader, offered.
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid objected, even though the vote would occur on his own bill. He instead said the chamber would have to run out the full procedural clock, which means a vote in the early hours Sunday morning.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jul/30/democrats-enforce-filibuster-against-own-debt-bill/
Originally posted by KunsooHas anyone mentioned the idea that the newly elected republican reps are both politically and ideologically committed to the reduction of government influence by all means at their disposal, including defunding it? By politically, I mean in terms of campaign funding at least as much as voter preferences. Think the Koch brothers. Boehner is powerless against them. He may be out in '12.
His plan is so bad that he knows the credit rating agencies are going to slam it, but it's "beyond his control."
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/boehner-beyond-my-control-how-ratings-agencies-treat-my-debt-limit-plan.php?ref=fpa
Not that it matters. It looks like he doesn't even have the votes from his own party.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/07/this_is_huge.php
Whatever happens, his days are numbered.
Maybe he is, in his message, begging the money interests to control the ratings agencies. It would be a great coup for the republicans if some weakened bill passed (or not!) and the sky didn't fall.
After the Senate vote, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said,
"For the second time, the House has passed a reasonable, common-sense plan to raise the debt limit and cut spending and, for the second time, Sen. Reid has tabled it. The responsibility to end this crisis is now entirely in the hands of Sen. Reid and President Obama."
Boehner said his bill was necessary "after I stuck my neck out a mile trying to get an agreement with the president of the United States. I stuck my neck out a mile. And I put revenues on the table in order to try to come to an agreement to avert us being where we are."
"But a lot of people in this town can never say yes. This house has acted and it is time for this administration to put something on the table, tell us where you are."
Boehner said his bill would cut spending by more than the increase in the debt limit, impose spending caps to restrain future spending, and require Congress to send states a balanced budget amendment before the ceiling could be raised again.
Boehner on Thursday failed to round up enough support for his plan, exposing a rift in the Republican Party. But he tweaked the bill and told the House Friday evening that it was necessary to pass his plan "for the sake of our economy" and to "end this crisis now."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43949638/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
Originally posted by EladarYour and the headline take is misleading and absurd. The Republicans offered to take a vote ONLY if they could filibuster:
[/b]According to The Washington Times, it is Reid who is filibustering his own bill:
Republicans offered to let the vote happen Friday night, just minutes after the chamber voted to halt a House Republican bill. All sides expect Democrats' bill will fail too, and the GOP said senators might as well kill both at the same time so that negotiations could move mes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jul/30/democrats-enforce-filibuster-against-own-debt-bill/
He [Reid] said he would be willing to move up the vote if Republicans didn't insist on a 60-vote threshold,
Originally posted by utherpendragonIt's hardly "reasonable" that this whole charade would have to be played out again in less than a year or to tie Congress' hands with the requirement of a BBA that is poor economic policy.
After the Senate vote, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said,
"For the second time, the House has passed a reasonable, common-sense plan to raise the debt limit and cut spending and, for the second time, Sen. Reid has tabled it. The responsibility to end this crisis is now entirely in the hands of Sen. Reid and President Obama."
Boehner said his nd this crisis now."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43949638/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
Originally posted by EladarAnd the Republicans refused to change the "normal procedure" though requested to. Thus they are the ones holding up a vote, not Reid.
According to the article, the Senate's normal procedure is to go with the 60% vote.
The fact is there are enough votes in the Senate to pass the Reid plan unless the Republicans filibuster.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy should you change the normal procedure?
And the Republicans refused to change the "normal procedure" though requested to. Thus they are the ones holding up a vote, not Reid.
Oh, I see, so that the Dems can push through their plan. Got it.
If it was a Republican plan, then you'd be saying "why change procedures for Republicans?"
Originally posted by EladarCuz there's a short deadline?
Why should you change the normal procedure?
Oh, I see, so that the Dems can push through their plan. Got it.
If it was a Republican plan, then you'd be saying "why change procedures for Republicans?"
The fact remains your original assertion was BS. It is the Republicans blocking a vote until Sunday, not Reid.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe fact remains that the deadline has been known for quite some time. I see no reason to make things easier to pass when time grows short.
Cuz there's a short deadline?
The fact remains your original assertion was BS. It is the Republicans blocking a vote until Sunday, not Reid.
It leads to poor legislation. We pass crap because it is last minute and now you have to accept what we say. It reminds me of what Democrats said about earlier bills: We won't know what's in it until it gets passed and we need to pass it right now!
Even you should be able to see the problem with this kind of stuff.
Originally posted by EladarThis position is quite a flip flop from your position last page that the Democrats were "filibustering" their own bill.
The fact remains that the deadline has been known for quite some time. I see no reason to make things easier to pass when time grows short.
It leads to poor legislation. We pass crap because it is last minute and now you have to accept what we say. It reminds me of what Democrats said about earlier bills: We won't know what's in it until it gets passe ...[text shortened]... d to pass it right now!
Even you should be able to see the problem with this kind of stuff.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214780
Originally posted by EladarOh, I don't know. Maybe because millions of working class people will suffer immensely if they don't?
The fact remains that the deadline has been known for quite some time. I see no reason to make things easier to pass when time grows short.
It leads to poor legislation. We pass crap because it is last minute and now you have to accept what we say. It reminds me of what Democrats said about earlier bills: We won't know what's in it until it gets passe ...[text shortened]... d to pass it right now!
Even you should be able to see the problem with this kind of stuff.
Oh, them. They don't count.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214780
Originally posted by EladarI remember when the Senate was ruled by a simple majority, with filibusters only taking place in the extreme circumstances. Basically, a Democratic majority is 61, while a Republican majority is 41.
According to the article, the Senate's normal procedure is to go with the 60% vote.