Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Obama's Jobs bill falls short

  1. #1
    Civil Libertarian
    DashingAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    08-31-17 @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,357
    If you strike me down, I'll become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

  2. #2
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Obama's Jobs bill falls short

    Yeah, the majority Democratic caucus of 53 couldn't get enough Republican votes to get the 60 required to defeat a filibuster. Does it really count as controlled if you don't actually have the votes to do anything?
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  3. #3
    Civil Libertarian
    DashingAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    08-31-17 @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,357

    Re: Obama's Jobs bill falls short

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Yeah, the majority Democratic caucus of 53 couldn't get enough Republican votes to get the 60 required to defeat a filibuster. Does it really count as controlled if you don't actually have the votes to do anything?
    Not really. That was just the first link I got. That being said, not even all of the dem's voted for it anyway.
    If you strike me down, I'll become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

  4. #4
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,360

    Re: Obama's Jobs bill falls short

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Yeah, the majority Democratic caucus of 53 couldn't get enough Republican votes to get the 60 required to defeat a filibuster. Does it really count as controlled if you don't actually have the votes to do anything?
    Can't the dems actually make them filibuster. Let the Republicans have to stand there tying up the senate for days or weeks so that this does not get a vote?

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Obama's Jobs bill falls short

    Just my opinion but if all it would have taken is 50 votes the 50 votes wouldn't have been there.

    So give Reid credit for changing the bill from what Obama presented to something he could at least get Democrats to make a worthless vote on but once again, Obama is stuck sending a bill to Congress that not even the Dems could support as-is.

  6. #6
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,715

    Re: Obama's Jobs bill falls short

    When is a jobs bill not a jobs bill?

    "The plan would have included Social Security payroll tax cuts for workers and businesses and other tax relief totaling about $270 billion. There also was to be $175 billion in new spending on roads, school repairs and other infrastructure - as well as jobless aid and help to local governments to avoid layoffs of teachers, firefighters and police officers."

    Of course...Harry Reid didnt help...but then...when has he ever?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Obama's Jobs bill falls short

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    Can't the dems actually make them filibuster. Let the Republicans have to stand there tying up the senate for days or weeks so that this does not get a vote?
    I believe they changed this awhile back because the Dems didn't want to get stuck doing it either. I'd have to look it up.

  8. #8
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Obama's Jobs bill falls short

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    Can't the dems actually make them filibuster. Let the Republicans have to stand there tying up the senate for days or weeks so that this does not get a vote?
    Well, yes, but it doesn't have the effect it once did. A filibuster no longer requires standing up and reading recipes or whatever, so there's nothing really newsworthy. Nowadays, a filibuster just means having one person around to say "I object" to the unanimous consent to move to vote.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  9. #9
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,360

    Re: Obama's Jobs bill falls short

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Well, yes, but it doesn't have the effect it once did. A filibuster no longer requires standing up and reading recipes or whatever, so there's nothing really newsworthy. Nowadays, a filibuster just means having one person around to say "I object" to the unanimous consent to move to vote.
    Maybe we need to go back to the old system. Then perhaps we would only have to deal this this junk on really major issues and not every freaking bill and nothing getting done.

  10. #10
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama's Jobs bill falls short

    Quote Originally Posted by DashingAmerican View Post
    Not really. That was just the first link I got. That being said, not even all of the dem's voted for it anyway.
    Right, Obama *only* got about 95% of the Democratic votes.

    We are in a completely unsustainable situation. The administration can't get anything passed even with 100% support from Democrats, and Republicans oppose everything in knee-jerk fashion UNLESS voting no would literally wreck the economy in short order. Even then it's a tough sell. F*cking crazy.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •