Over the objection of the Tea Party, this will go where it should have started. A democratic vote on the House Floor.
Essentially a clean CR and clean debt ceiling vote. Let's look at the two "conditions."
1. Budget Conference. A good condition. The Republicans have been blocking this since March. The budget conference will be fruitless, unfortunately, if Boehner does not let a balanced approach of spending cuts and revenue increases go to the House Floor.
2. Income verification on ACA subsidy. Thus, while ACA essentially unaffected, now the IRS will not be able to use audit function (as with tax returns) on ACA subsidy income verification, but will be even more involved in American lives, at the demands of Republicans.
No other conditions. Actually very clean with just a little terrorist dirt. A rare kudos to McConnell -- for taking the lead for the GOP here. Good precedent by the President. Will help the country and future Presidents including Republican Presidents against a radical liberal minority holding America hostage. Sad and hurtful to the country, however, that Boehner and the Tea Party put us through this last two weeks.
Originally posted by moon1969 Over the objection of the Tea Party, this will go where it should have started. A democratic vote on the House Floor.
Essentially a clean CR and clean debt ceiling vote. Let's look at the two "conditions."
1. Budget Conference. A good condition. The Republicans have been blocking this since March. The budget conference will be fruitless, ...[text shortened]... tful to the country, however, that Boehner and the Tea Party put us through this last two weeks.
It is just kicking the can down the road another couple of months. Wake me when there is movement to a real solution.
The "budget conference" taint no good, because it dilutes the Constitutional power of the House, as well as limits the restraint of the Senate.
Originally posted by normbenign The "budget conference" taint no good, because it dilutes the Constitutional power of the House, as well as limits the restraint of the Senate.
The House does not get to enact bills on their own. Instead, requires the consent of the Senate. Not sure what you are talking about on restraint of the Senate.
It does the House no good to originate and vote for a bill that has no chance to get a majority in the Senate.
Again, the House does not get to enact bills on their own. In addition to needing to agreement from the Senate, also requires a signature by the President (or 2/3 majority votes in both houses to override a Presidential veto).
Originally posted by utherpendragon More verbal diarrhoea
You do agree that there was a vote on the House Floor on the CR and to increase the debt ceiling with only the two conditions: 1. Budget conference and 2. Have IRS verify income for those seeking ACA subsidy?
Originally posted by moon1969 The House does not get to enact bills on their own. Instead, requires the consent of the Senate. Not sure what you are talking about on restraint of the Senate.
It does the House no good to originate and vote for a bill that has no chance to get a majority in the Senate.
Again, the House does not get to enact bills on their own. In addition to n ...[text shortened]... oth houses to override a Presidential veto).
It is called the legislative democratic process.
Apparently it is you who doesn't understand the limitations of the bicameral legislative process. The Senate is considered the "more deliberative" body, as it has unlimited debate, and 60 votes are required to close debate. Of course the House doesn't make bills on their own, and neither does the Senate even if the President is of the same party.
"It does the House no good to originate and vote for a bill that has no chance to get a majority in the Senate."
It puts the ball into play. The Senate has to table it or vote on it, and offer an alternative bill. The House is not obliged to pitch softballs to an opposing party Senate. Sometimes no bill is better than capitulating to the opposing party.
I understand the legislative process. Do you? Any one of the three parties can stop or hold up the process. That is as it should be.
Originally posted by Phranny President Elizabeth Warren!
I've been telling my Democratic friends that Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic candidate in 2016. Too much baggage, too old, too ill, and a bad record of campaigning. Warren and Booker look like better candidates, but I suspect a star governor will show up and get the nomination.
The two Senators in recent memory that won the Presidency, JFK and BHO both were very short term Senators who hadn't had the chance to mouth off in the Senate.
Originally posted by rwingett President Booker sounds better.
That would be awesome, the more I understand about the guy. I always knew about it him, and kind of paid more attention when he saved that person from the fire. Now, he gives energetic speeches, and seems to mean it.
Originally posted by normbenign Apparently it is you who doesn't understand the limitations of the bicameral legislative process. The Senate is considered the "more deliberative" body, as it has unlimited debate, and 60 votes are required to close debate. Of course the House doesn't make bills on their own, and neither does the Senate even if the President is of the same party.
"It ...[text shortened]... Do you? Any one of the three parties can stop or hold up the process. That is as it should be.
Yeah, but it does not have much significance where the bill originates if the votes are not there in the other house.
Further, I am sure agree that the Senate filibuster have way over-used as compared to historically.
Boehner to Release Hostages
17 Oct '13 01:0512 edits
Back to Top