• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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?
 
Paschendale said:
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?
Click to expand...

Not really. That was just the first link I got. That being said, not even all of the dem's voted for it anyway.
 
Paschendale said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
DashingAmerican said:
Obama Jobs Bill Fails in Dem-Controlled Senate - President Obama - Fox Nation
Click to expand...
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?
 
washunut said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
washunut said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DashingAmerican said:
Not really. That was just the first link I got. That being said, not even all of the dem's voted for it anyway.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AdamT said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they'd vote no and wreck the economy anyway. Their first goal is making sure Obama doesn't get re-elected. Not governing. Not doing what's best for the country. Winning is their goal.
 
Paschendale said:
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?
Click to expand...
It was 50 Dems, the other 3 voted with Republicans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom