Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

NPR: Happening Now: Sen. Sanders' Filibuster Of The Tax Deal

alexey

By alexey
in The Tailgate

Which (if any) of the following tax cut proposals do you want Congress to vote for?  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. Which (if any) of the following tax cut proposals do you want Congress to vote for?


Recommended Posts

TMK9973

TMK9973

Posted
Posted

As for those confused about this filibuster and the threat of filibuster.

At some point in the 70's, the senate changed the rules to allow for a "Painless Filibuster". If 41 senators SAY they are going to filibuster- then the senate then has to vote for clousure. If 60 people don't vote for closure it is deemed to be "Filibustered" and no vote on it until you get the 60 (Although you could - In theory, vote down the procedural vote to allow for a closure vote, forcing a true filibuster. I.E - Repubs say they are going to filibuster the vote, Senate president calls for a closure vote, dems object to the closure vote, a procedural vote is held to allow for the closure vote, if Dem's stand pact and vote no to THAT vote, then debate must continue.....What the dems SHOULD have done with the other bill) and it continues.

Rule 22 is for a invisible filibuster and is what happens most of the time.

What is happening NOW is 1 person has taken the floor and decided to start speaking, senators have unlimited time, so he will continue to speak. there can not be a clousre vote (I don't think) until he is done.....

But I could be wrong about that last point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tulane Skins Fan

Tulane Skins Fan

Posted
Posted
As for those confused about this filibuster and the threat of filibuster.

At some point in the 70's, the senate changed the rules to allow for a "Painless Filibuster". If 41 senators SAY they are going to filibuster- then the senate then has to vote for clousure. If 60 people don't vote for closure it is deemed to be "Filibustered" and no vote on it until you get the 60 (Although you could - In theory, vote down the procedural vote to allow for a closure vote, forcing a true filibuster. I.E - Repubs say they are going to filibuster the vote, Senate president calls for a closure vote, dems object to the closure vote, a procedural vote is held to allow for the closure vote, if Dem's stand pact and vote no to THAT vote, then debate must continue.....What the dems SHOULD have done with the other bill) and it continues.

Rule 22 is for a invisible filibuster and is what happens most of the time.

What is happening NOW is 1 person has taken the floor and decided to start speaking, senators have unlimited time, so he will continue to speak. there can not be a clousre vote (I don't think) until he is done.....

But I could be wrong about that last point.

So, you think he can talk forever and forever prevent a vote on the actual bill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted
Wow - Dems REALLY F-d this one up....

What they COULD have done....

Passed a bill in the house that kept all tax breaks in place except for those making over a million (They did)

Push it on the floor (Which they didn't under THREAT of fillibuster), forced the republicans to actually DO a fillibuster. News everywhere would be repubs are fillibusting a tax bill and if they continue with THEIR fillibuster, taxes will raise for everyone...

Instead - They do this crap, push it forward, and are now forcing a dem fillibuster that everyone will see as the DEMS blocking a bill that will now lead to higher taxes for all.....

My God - Who runs this party?

Truer words were never spoken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TMK9973

TMK9973

Posted
Posted
So, you think he can talk forever and forever prevent a vote on the actual bill?

I dont know. I trying to find out...its been what? 40 some years since someone actually did it.....

---------- Post added December-10th-2010 at 03:12 PM ----------

Ok -Pardon me - I last worked on the hill in 1998, so I had to catch up on how to end it.

WHEN he pauses for any reason (Bathroom, to hand off, to get a drink), someone can ask for a vote to close debate. Assuming they have it, assuming 51 senators vote to hold the closure debate and 60 vote to close it, then at that point debate ends in 30 hours.....

But there are no votes scheduled until Monday. Who knows if there are even 60 (or even 50) Senators there right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
Wow - Dems REALLY F-d this one up....

What they COULD have done....

Passed a bill in the house that kept all tax breaks in place except for those making over a million (They did)

Push it on the floor (Which they didn't under THREAT of fillibuster), forced the republicans to actually DO a fillibuster. News everywhere would be repubs are fillibusting a tax bill and if they continue with THEIR fillibuster, taxes will raise for everyone...

Instead - They do this crap, push it forward, and are now forcing a dem fillibuster that everyone will see as the DEMS blocking a bill that will now lead to higher taxes for all.....

My God - Who runs this party?

Pointing out that I made that suggestion, back before the election.

Propose a bill: "Tax cuts, for everybody, no expiration".

Make the GOP filibuster or vote against it.

Don't break for Christmas.

Come January, when everybody's first paycheck is smaller than it used to be, I want everybody in America to remember that the GOP had been blocking this tax cut, for a month, because it didn't have an extra tax cut, for the top 1%.

If the GOP doesn't filibuster, then it's guaranteed to pass. (With like 99% of the vote.)

If the GOP wants a tax cut for the top 1%, let then propose it, and try to pass it, without tying it to everybody else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tulane Skins Fan

Tulane Skins Fan

Posted
Posted
I dont know. I trying to find out...its been what? 40 some years since someone actually did it.....

---------- Post added December-10th-2010 at 03:12 PM ----------

Ok -Pardon me - I last worked on the hill in 1998, so I had to catch up on how to end it.

WHEN he pauses for any reason (Bathroom, to hand off, to get a drink), someone can ask for a vote to close debate. Assuming they have it, assuming 51 senators vote to hold the closure debate and 60 vote to close it, then at that point debate ends in 30 hours.....

But there are no votes scheduled until Monday. Who knows if there are even 60 (or even 50) Senators there right now.

Kinda funny. Also, one of the reasons the Senate is stupid.

I wonder if his plan is to talk until his next election campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tulane Skins Fan

Tulane Skins Fan

Posted
Posted
I'd settle for a link.

He's a socialist. Just like I said before. He's not a democrat, he's a socialist. He's an independent because its hard to win in the socialist party, but he will admit he's a socialist. Here's a link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/magazine/21Sanders.t.html?_r=1

Like I said before, he's a socialist like a lot of peoplel in Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoCalMike

NoCalMike

Posted
Posted

He's more of a hybrid democratic-socialist. The problem when you throw out terms like socialist or communist or fascist, is that everyone has their built in defintion of what the term means and once someone gets labeled that, they can't shake the stereotype of So-and-So is "this" so that means A,B,C,D....

when in reality, they might in fact believe A & D, but not so much B & C.

I mean if you want to break it down, to specifics. A lot of what he preaches as far as economic policy goes, is just returning to certain policies we used to have in this country. Besides Single-Payer healthcare, he isn't proposing "radical new changes" He is more about changing certain rules and regulations back to the way they were in different times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnyderShrugged

SnyderShrugged

Posted
Posted
Hey, I want credit where its due! I said it first and said it was European style socialism!

Absolutely, TSF had it first. His credit.

(Though can I still win a sig bet with Larry? LOl)

---------- Post added December-10th-2010 at 05:33 PM ----------

Yeah - SS is right. ... Always is.....

couldnt resist fixing it

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hubbs

Hubbs

Posted
Posted

Is he still going?

EDIT: Apparently he is. There are some funny tweets under the tag #filibernie:

CNN: Bernie Sanders Singing Queen Songs on the Senate Floor, Cannot Hit Freddie Mercury High Notes #filibernie
BREAKING: White House to attempt risky "top kill" procedure to stop gusher in Senate well. #filibernie
FACT: Southwest Airlines requires Bernie Sanders to pay for two seats because of his massive balls. #filibernie

:ols:

EDIT II: He already has a website! :ols:

http://isberniesandersstilltalking.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hubbs

Hubbs

Posted
Posted

Damn, he just stopped. Following the tweets was hilarious.

---------- Post added December-10th-2010 at 07:01 PM ----------

I've got to give him credit though. The man knows what's up. Too bad there's not more like him

Yeah, props to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

One: Thanks for the info, folks. Learn something new.

I would have laid long odds that nobody could possibly get elected to public office in the US with that label on him.

Frankly, this makes me feel better about my country. Apparently there are some voters who see past labels.

He's more of a hybrid democratic-socialist. The problem when you throw out terms like socialist or communist or fascist, is that everyone has their built in defintion of what the term means and once someone gets labeled that, they can't shake the stereotype of So-and-So is "this" so that means A,B,C,D....

when in reality, they might in fact believe A & D, but not so much B & C.

Tell me about it. I'm a libertarian.

(Which obviously means that I believe that we should disband the Department of Defense, because if the US is ever attacked, private enterprise will defend us. And that we should eliminate all federal laws on subjects like the environment, because anybody who owns a piece of property has the right to dump anything into the environment he wants, and if it harms someone, then that person can sue.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...