|
Ogmius815 posted:Why can't ACA repeal be filibustered? They can do ACA repeal via their once-per-session (or year, I forget) budget reconciliation, which can only involve financial affairs but also can't be filibustered. Or just abolish the filibuster lol (though I wouldn't bet on this happening right away).
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
Fulchrum posted:How long does the period you can put forward this bill last? Or is the window for it basically the entirety of the year? It's the latter; it only works for the yearly budget resolution, but that can happen at any time (because I'm pretty sure it's for the upcoming year anyway). But yes, there's only one freebie a year, short of procedural fuckery. E: oh yes that reminds me! Look forward in the 115th Congress to actual budgets again. Granted they will consist entirely of six pages of military spending and fifty two pages of insane cackling, but hey, baby steps.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
935 posted:Senator Ted Cruz does something... good? Though I eagerly await a D&D explanation on why this in fact bad and wrong by nature of having been proposed by the Zodiac Killer. I mean, for the past six years the Republican Party in Congress has been comprised of very bad long-time congressmen and super double extra bad Tea Party freshmen like David Brat. If you want Congress to be composed entirely of freshmen for the rest of forever, be my guest (actually don't, please). Term limits are generally dumb because they ensure that legislators are 100% unable to develop any experience, devolving power in practice to established, unelected staffers and lobbyists. If you must establish them, long term limits like ~30 years or whatever aren't as bad, but that doesn't make them good.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:Rand Paul is so adorable. Behold, as the Republican Party immediately attempts to balance the cognitive dissonance of their anti-government rhetoric while simultaneously governing in a way consistent with their policy positions. They will, of course, succeed, thanks to their stranglehold on the media narrative.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Those are far too short term limits. Some sort of term-limit is an idea worth exploring, but 6 years? Experience is not a guarantee of wisdom, but there is still something to be said for people who know what the gently caress they are doing in the corridors of power. It's not as if there will be term-limits for lobbyists, so you'll just end up with a whole bunch of inexperienced knuckleheads relying even more heavily on lobbyists than they currently do. Not sure the medicine in this case is better than the problem it's meant to cure. You'd need to extend the term for Representatives at the very least. Which should probably be done anyway because it'd be nice if they could go even one year without desperately panicking about fundraising for the next campaign. A better solution here would be to expand the number of Reps so less money needed to go into each campaign, but it'd need to be coupled with campaign finance restrictions so nobody could just moneybomb out of state races, and neither is likely to happen ever.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Coatlicue posted:So assuming the gop has the votes they need for this budget resolution thing, how soon could the aca be repealed? Things could start going out the window immediately. Enforcement of the tax penalty could be immediately halted, thus ending the individual mandate, for instance. Other things would take time to go into effect, like cessation of subsidies for Medicaid expansion. But the repeal itself could happen the moment Trump was in office to sign it. It seems likely, however, that they will instead set things to phase out over time, thus distancing the effects from the cause and framing the next, potentially Democratic, president for the problems.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:Rand Paul is not losing this "repeal and delay" fight without bring out the big, orange, racist guns. Yes, Rand, Donald Trump fully agrees with the last person to talk to him, that's the point. Next he'll talk to some other guy who believes there are Mexicans on the moon and he'll be on board with funding nuclear satellites.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
Reconciliation can include only budget measures. So yes to defunding everything, no to anything that doesn't involve money.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Okay, then why does that allow them to dictate what the CBO does? Because the CBO is an appendage of Congress, and Congress is its boss, so what they say goes.  They don't have to pass a law to do that, apparently.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The advantage will come when Trump nominates someone who read the Constitution super hard and came to the conclusion that banks shouldn't have to pay taxes. Then we can watch the DNC be like "The time for bipartisanship is now!" and sell us all down the river. Your cynicism is noted, and also, super tired by this point. None of the people Trump has on his nomination short list in any way comport with what "Democratic donors" want on the bench; if they did, they'd have donated to one of the billion Republicans who promised to appoint clones of Scalia grown by the Heritage foundation, because that's what Trump has promised us since well before the election.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Just like it did in 2009, right? The Democrats of 2009 had substantially greater respect for decorum and the institutions of the legislature than the Republicans of 2017. I don't necessarily disagree that the filibuster is staying for now, but only because it's useful as an excuse and the GOP thinks it has a good chance of getting a supermajority in 2018.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Considering we have entered the era of governance via hot takes and twitter burns, this is a good move and I thoroughly approve.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Tir McDohl posted:What are the pros/cons of Chuck Schumer as the representative of Senate Democrats? I don't know much about him but saw a lot of negativity over the last few months. I did like his interview on Maddow last week though and I appreciate moves like this. Cons: politically quite moderate, politically inconvenient ties to finance and industry, not anointed by Bernie Sanders Pros: good at clowning, pretty experienced in Senate procedure, adept at seeing which way wind blowing (see: endorsing Ellison for DNC chair) The main fear is as mentioned that he's said some boilerplate stuff about working with Trump on some stuff, but everyone did, the question is when balls connect with the wall how defiant they're willing to be.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Yeah Obama occupies approximately the most radical extreme of the US Overton window on the Israel issue, that being, Israel is a good thing to exist, but its ruling party generally and Netanyahu in particular should really cut it out with the human rights abuses, please?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
Fulchrum posted:...what? If it's a simple majority decision to uphold or take away the means by the minority to block the majority, why does it even exist at all? What does a supermajority even matter? There's a reason it's called the "nuclear option," and that's because until now both parties thought it was useful to have around. Once it starts getting used for everything, and one party is convinced they have enough power to ram through every single element of their agenda and face no consequences, and that party had zero respect for institutions, why keep it?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 05:37
|
|