Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Biden/Harris Potential Legislative/Policy Agenda Discussions


goskins10
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, tshile said:

I hear Brian Tyler Cohen throw out an idea I really liked. I don’t know that it was his, more an idea floating around the more progressive circles (which outside of a few odd things like listening to BTC’s podcasts, I’m not really a part of)

 

filibuster should require 41 to sit in chambers throughout it. Sort of a reversal of who is responsible here. 
 

if one person objects why is it the responsibility of the majority to find 60 people to overrule the 1?

 

why shouldn’t it be the 1’s responsibility to find 40 others willing to object with him/her? As it currently stand the gop can have one person “take the heat” of filibustering. The rest of the GOP can enjoy the legislation not passing but hide behind the fact they didn’t vote against it and didn’t filibuster it themselves. 
 

This way the people who are against what a simple majority want would be required to make that known by their actions. And as such can then be held accountable for it (if their constituents choose to do so)

 

ive thought about it it a bit since I heard it on his last podcast. I’m sure I’m missing some component that maybe makes it less of an awesome idea. But currently, with only a little thought, I kind of really like it.


that's one reform idea floating around and I like it. All the reforms involve putting pressure on the minority doing the filibustering. Make all 41 hold be in the senate. They can’t go home, they can’t go to their office etc. you grind them to halt for opposing the legislation until they relent. They can only sit there and listen to people read Dr Seuss for so long. 
 

the talking filibuster also needs to stipulate they can’t hand off to another senator. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:


that's one reform idea floating around and I like it. All the reforms involve putting pressure on the minority doing the filibustering. Make all 41 hold be in the senate. They can’t go home, they can’t go to their office etc. you grind them to halt for opposing the legislation until they relent. They can only sit there and listen to people read Dr Seuss for so long. 
 

the talking filibuster also needs to stipulate they can’t hand off to another senator. 


yeah I mean on the one hand I respect the idea of a filibuster. 
 

On the other hand the idea is not to allow one person to hold everything up all the time, by doing nothing but saying “I filibuster” (whatever it is they actually say idk what it is I’ve heard it but can’t remember)

 

so I’m less for the idea of removing a mechanism where a simple majority can be put in check. I do not think the best way to govern is by simple majority. 
 

but... it needs to cost you something. It needs to be worth the price. And it needs to be difficult. It needs to have accountability. And it needs to not be something that can be ****ized into what they’re doing now. 
 

i like requiring the 41 hold. In my brief thinking of it, it accomplishes what I want. I’m open to the idea there is a flaw. 
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tshile said:


yeah I mean on the one hand I respect the idea of a filibuster. 
 

On the other hand the idea is not to allow one person to hold everything up all the time, by doing nothing but saying “I filibuster” (whatever it is they actually say idk what it is I’ve heard it but can’t remember)

 

so I’m less for the idea of removing a mechanism where a simple majority can be put in check. I do not think the best way to govern is by simple majority. 
 

but... it needs to cost you something. It needs to be worth the price. And it needs to be difficult. It needs to have accountability. And it needs to not be something that can be ****ized into what they’re doing now. 
 

i like requiring the 41 hold. In my brief thinking of it, it accomplishes what I want. I’m open to the idea there is a flaw. 
 

 

 

I really do into agree with the filibuster at all (and yes i have changed my mind from when this was first discussed). The majority rules. With the filibuster it let's the minority rule.

 

Having said that, I would still be Ok with them keeping it but they have to make it painful to use it. Right now, all you have to do is say - filibuster! and it's a done deal. BTC has a good idea (or whoever) but there could be others. 

 

Something like you get 24 hours to change enough minds to get the vote to your way - simple majority. If not, then too bad. Vote goes on. This letting the minority party dictate what happens is wrong. And I felt that way when the Dems did it to the rep. I hate the Rep and everything they stand for, but when you win an election you should be able to enact your agenda. Letting a minority of people stop the entire process makes no sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:


🤨

The slang for a kid without a known father 

Add ‘ized’ to it 

10 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

Having said that, I would still be Ok with them keeping it but they have to make it painful to use it

You and I are in the same page. It needs to be painful to point that the reason why you’re doing it, is worth doing it. 
 

I’m really against ideas that are fundamentally: I can’t do what I want therefore I will just change the rules. 
 

but I feel like this is more of a: hey you twisted the rules into a pretzel and are now using them in violation of the spirit of the rule and why it existed in the first place, so let’s un**** that pig and set it right again. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revoking the Keystone pipeline doesn't seem like a good idea to me.  Besides killing jobs,  I think the short to medium term carbon emissions would increase because oil would have to be transported via trucks. I am all for the government adding mega funds to advance green research, but this just seems like a misguided publicity move.

The best way to reduce carbon emissions is a carbon tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Riggo-toni said:

Revoking the Keystone pipeline doesn't seem like a good idea to me.  Besides killing jobs,  I think the short to medium term carbon emissions would increase because oil would have to be transported via trucks. I am all for the government adding mega funds to advance green research, but this just seems like a misguided publicity move.

The best way to reduce carbon emissions is a carbon tax.

 

I agree with the bolded. Hang in there with me till I get there....

 

The oil would not be transported by truck but instead by rail - which in fairness does create its own set of risks. Also, the claim from republicans that he is cutting 1000s of jobs is disingenuous at best. Yes, short term during the building of the pipeline there are several 1000s (up to 42,000, 4000 of which are construction) to be employed. However, that is very temporary and once built the estimated jobs creation is literally less than 50. But there are positives like cementing our relationship with Canada since this is a Canadian supported initiative. Also, stopping this pipeline will not stop the production of oil from the Alberta Sand Lands. It will just make it harder. Last but probably most important, the emissions contribution which is the major complaint from environmentalists is nominal in terms of total carbon emissions.  

 

Back to your point - The problem I have with the Biden administration is picking this as one of the first hills to stand on. So much of the pipeline is complete so it's not worth abandoning. It gives conservatives another easy talking point. I would have left this alone for now.

 

So yes, it feels like nothing more than a publicity stunt, and an ill advised one at that. 

Edited by goskins10
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I'm not all that well versed on the Keystone pipeline issue, but wasn't Biden pretty consistent during the campaign that he was going to rescind the permit?  Do I have that wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bearrock said:

Honestly, I'm not all that well versed on the Keystone pipeline issue, but wasn't Biden pretty consistent during the campaign that he was going to rescind the permit?  Do I have that wrong?

 

No, you have it right. However, I still think it was not the right thing to start off with. He could have gotten through the first 100 days and maybe even the first 6 months, get some wins and then go after something like this. 

 

I am not so opposed to his actions as I am to the timing. But again I also kind of see both sides. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just pass as much as you can in 2 years and campaign on that in the mid-terms.  At minimum you get a whole lot passed that in some cases would be hard for GOP to overturn, like an infrastructure bill.  Can always draw the line if they lose congress and say "hey, at one point bills were getting pass then they weren't, what changed?  hmmm...

Edited by Renegade7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"raising taxes on the rich and businesses"  You know, I will challenge that narrative.  Until tax rates go back to pre-Reagan era levels (and then maybe we can all get together and find a proper solution for modern time taxes & tax code stuff) then raising the taxes on those two groups is really course-correcting the disastrously harmful trickle down tax policies of the last 30+ years.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m all on board with raising taxes on the rich. 
 

am a little concerned what “rich” means. Sometimes it doesn’t mean “rich”. We’ll see. 
 

(I am ok with paying higher taxes myself, but sometimes these plans look like people that are well off but not rich to pay for a person accountant get targeted, while those who can pay for a personal accountant are able to skirt most of it... and im not ok with that)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, tshile said:

I’m all on board with raising taxes on the rich. 
 

am a little concerned what “rich” means. Sometimes it doesn’t mean “rich”. We’ll see. 
 

(I am ok with paying higher taxes myself, but sometimes these plans look like people that are well off but not rich to pay for a person accountant get targeted, while those who can pay for a personal accountant are able to skirt most of it... and im not ok with that)

 

 

Everything I have ever heard said is people making over $400k/yr as a threshold. They may make some concessions to that but not much. 

Edited by goskins10
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...