Stimulus bill passes key Senate hurdle

[SMOKE 1,426]

I Boo-yah right now.

new siggy!

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I would rather invest in an individual so they become good, honest, caring, educated and skilled tax payers who feed into the system rather than leave them poor living off the system.

Agreed. It would be great to have it work this way. Somewhere down the line we have to believe in people and do our best to weed out the abusers.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I Boo-yah right now.

new siggy!

Be sure to highlight the 'right now' part.

[dalegg 143]

The ironic thing is that now they are concerned the house will reject the bill with all the cuts and try to put a lot of it back.

Hey, by the way why do they need 59 votes and not just 50? I thought they just needed a majority unless they are trying to ammend the constitution.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The ironic thing is that now they are concerned the house will reject the bill with all the cuts and try to put a lot of it back.

Hey, by the way why do they need 59 votes and not just 50? I thought they just needed a majority unless they are trying to ammend the constitution.

You're right, they only need a majority but to make if filibuster-proof, they need 60 votes.

I found this interesting...

The much anticipated auto bailout bill failed today on the Senate, by a vote of 52-35. By the way, that’s 52 IN FAVOR, and 35 opposed. This is also one of several major pieces of legislation over the past two years that has failed to pass the Senate despite having the support of between 51 and 59 Senators.

Now, I’m sure you’re thinking to yourself, “Wait a second, if there are a hundred Senators, and 52 are in favor of something, why can’t it get passed?” Well, that’s because sixty votes are required to block a filibuster.

So I bet you’re now thinking that the Senate Republicans filibustered this legislation. Well, you’d be wrong. The Senate Republicans, as they have done for virtually every major piece of legislation since 2006, have THREATENED to filibuster. They haven’t actually done it. And every time they do, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tries to get 60 votes to stop them, or the legislation dies.

So here’s what I’m wondering. Why doesn’t Harry Reid grow a pair, and actually call the Republicans bluff. If they want to stop health care reform, increased veterans benefits, auto bailouts, etc., why doesn’t Harry Reid actually make them filibuster. Why doesn’t he make them go through the exhausting process of talking for days on end, nonstop. If the Republicans want the whole world to know that they are holding up all processes in the Senate, and completely exhaust themselves, eating and sleeping on the Senate floor of days, let them. Maybe the spectacle will get more people to pay attention and hold our leaders accountable. Maybe the Republicans will crack and we won’t need 60 Senators to pass universal health care or increase veterans benefits or the minimum wage. But at the very least, Harry Reid and every single person who voted Democrat in 2006, myself included, won’t look like a total wuss. When someone threatens to do something over and over again, eventually you have to call them on it. Period.

http://teresacentric.com/2008/12/since-whe...ss-legislation/

[Ban Hammer 14,614]

ah, the pork barrel is overflowing still!

What do you think is unnecessary and should have been cut from the bill?

i'm skeptical of this entire thing. people pitched a fit about the money we've spent in iraq, yet here we go throwing more money at another equally questionable project. the same ones that were totally against iraq and the spending for it are all gung-ho to throw money at a problem domestically of dubious value. in both cases there's promises by the government, which realistically we know won't be kept, it won't go where we think it should go, and it will in all likelihood be used to reward someone who's got connections to the current power scheme or pad some senator's pet pork project in his backyard.

and the end result - just like iraq, we'll pay for this grand scheme in the years to come.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

ah, the pork barrel is overflowing still!

What do you think is unnecessary and should have been cut from the bill?

i'm skeptical of this entire thing. people pitched a fit about the money we've spent in iraq, yet here we go throwing more money at another equally questionable project. the same ones that were totally against iraq and the spending for it are all gung-ho to throw money at a problem domestically of dubious value. in both cases there's promises by the government, which realistically we know won't be kept, it won't go where we think it should go, and it will in all likelihood be used to reward someone who's got connections to the current power scheme or pad some senator's pet pork project in his backyard.

and the end result - just like iraq, we'll pay for this grand scheme in the years to come.

But if we're going to throw money away, wouldn't it be better to do it here rather than abroad?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The ironic thing is that now they are concerned the house will reject the bill with all the cuts and try to put a lot of it back.

Hey, by the way why do they need 59 votes and not just 50? I thought they just needed a majority unless they are trying to ammend the constitution.

In 1975, the Democratic majority (of 61 Senators) reduced the number of votes to end debate from 2/3 present and voting, to 3/5 of the duly sworn Senators. The vote is called invoking "Cloture". The rule could be changed with a simple majority, or suspended by a parlimentary motion, known as the "Nuclear Option".

However, since the Senate changes control with a greater regularity than the House, Senators are reluctant to resort to martial law and tend to be more civil, and most things are done by unaminous consent, rather than behave like the House, which is more frequently ruled by martial law (Majority Rules).

Edited February 10, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[Ban Hammer 14,614]

ah, the pork barrel is overflowing still!

What do you think is unnecessary and should have been cut from the bill?

i'm skeptical of this entire thing. people pitched a fit about the money we've spent in iraq, yet here we go throwing more money at another equally questionable project. the same ones that were totally against iraq and the spending for it are all gung-ho to throw money at a problem domestically of dubious value. in both cases there's promises by the government, which realistically we know won't be kept, it won't go where we think it should go, and it will in all likelihood be used to reward someone who's got connections to the current power scheme or pad some senator's pet pork project in his backyard.

and the end result - just like iraq, we'll pay for this grand scheme in the years to come.

But if we're going to throw money away, wouldn't it be better to do it here rather than abroad?

why do we need to throw it away to begin with?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

ah, the pork barrel is overflowing still!

What do you think is unnecessary and should have been cut from the bill?

i'm skeptical of this entire thing. people pitched a fit about the money we've spent in iraq, yet here we go throwing more money at another equally questionable project. the same ones that were totally against iraq and the spending for it are all gung-ho to throw money at a problem domestically of dubious value. in both cases there's promises by the government, which realistically we know won't be kept, it won't go where we think it should go, and it will in all likelihood be used to reward someone who's got connections to the current power scheme or pad some senator's pet pork project in his backyard.

and the end result - just like iraq, we'll pay for this grand scheme in the years to come.

But if we're going to throw money away, wouldn't it be better to do it here rather than abroad?

why do we need to throw it away to begin with?

We shouldn't throw it away at all. But if we are going to spend it somwhere, I prefer it be here. Time to take care of us for a change. If we don't take care of ourselves and get healthy, we won't be able to help anywhere else in the world.

[Ban Hammer 14,614]

ah, the pork barrel is overflowing still!

What do you think is unnecessary and should have been cut from the bill?

i'm skeptical of this entire thing. people pitched a fit about the money we've spent in iraq, yet here we go throwing more money at another equally questionable project. the same ones that were totally against iraq and the spending for it are all gung-ho to throw money at a problem domestically of dubious value. in both cases there's promises by the government, which realistically we know won't be kept, it won't go where we think it should go, and it will in all likelihood be used to reward someone who's got connections to the current power scheme or pad some senator's pet pork project in his backyard.

and the end result - just like iraq, we'll pay for this grand scheme in the years to come.

But if we're going to throw money away, wouldn't it be better to do it here rather than abroad?

why do we need to throw it away to begin with?

We shouldn't throw it away at all. But if we are going to spend it somwhere, I prefer it be here. Time to take care of us for a change. If we don't take care of ourselves and get healthy, we won't be able to help anywhere else in the world.

and i think we are throwing it away in this stimulus bill.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

and i think we are throwing it away in this stimulus bill.

I truly hope not. If it turns out to be that way, then today will seem like good times compared to what will come. Something has to be done, and done quickly. It can be argued till the end of time and there will never be complete agreement. We have to make difficult choices, we have to have a plan to begin. It can be ammended along the way, but we need to start somewhere. The Dems and the Republicans are never going to agree on this. The Republicans had a shot at it, now it's time to try something else. IMHO.

[dalegg 143]

The ironic thing is that now they are concerned the house will reject the bill with all the cuts and try to put a lot of it back.

Hey, by the way why do they need 59 votes and not just 50? I thought they just needed a majority unless they are trying to ammend the constitution.

You're right, they only need a majority but to make if filibuster-proof, they need 60 votes.

I found this interesting...

The much anticipated auto bailout bill failed today on the Senate, by a vote of 52-35. By the way, that’s 52 IN FAVOR, and 35 opposed. This is also one of several major pieces of legislation over the past two years that has failed to pass the Senate despite having the support of between 51 and 59 Senators.

Now, I’m sure you’re thinking to yourself, “Wait a second, if there are a hundred Senators, and 52 are in favor of something, why can’t it get passed?” Well, that’s because sixty votes are required to block a filibuster.

So I bet you’re now thinking that the Senate Republicans filibustered this legislation. Well, you’d be wrong. The Senate Republicans, as they have done for virtually every major piece of legislation since 2006, have THREATENED to filibuster. They haven’t actually done it. And every time they do, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tries to get 60 votes to stop them, or the legislation dies.

So here’s what I’m wondering. Why doesn’t Harry Reid grow a pair, and actually call the Republicans bluff. If they want to stop health care reform, increased veterans benefits, auto bailouts, etc., why doesn’t Harry Reid actually make them filibuster. Why doesn’t he make them go through the exhausting process of talking for days on end, nonstop. If the Republicans want the whole world to know that they are holding up all processes in the Senate, and completely exhaust themselves, eating and sleeping on the Senate floor of days, let them. Maybe the spectacle will get more people to pay attention and hold our leaders accountable. Maybe the Republicans will crack and we won’t need 60 Senators to pass universal health care or increase veterans benefits or the minimum wage. But at the very least, Harry Reid and every single person who voted Democrat in 2006, myself included, won’t look like a total wuss. When someone threatens to do something over and over again, eventually you have to call them on it. Period.

http://teresacentric.com/2008/12/since-whe...ss-legislation/

Well this is interesting. Politics has become so polarized that even the threat of having to debate an issue means it has no chance.