• 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!

Question On Gridlock

Moderate Right

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,864
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
OK. So, I guess I have to start this off by admitting that I'm not 100% up on how the legislative process works. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the midterms determine that Republicans hold the Senate and Democrats take over the majority of the House. Now, I believe that it is the House and the House alone which authors up new legislation and then it gets sent over to the Senate and then the Senate comes up with their own version of the legislation and then they meet and hash it all out with compromises, coming up with the finalized piece of legislation which they then send on to the president to either sign or not sign. Sometimes the Senate may work on legislation that they know the House is already working on or will work on. Anyway, let's say that a Democratic House works on liberal legislation which is a non starter or dead on arrival as far as the Senate is concerned and that the Senate has no wish to even consider anything like it in any way, shape, or form. Can the senate play tiddly winks, tic-tac-toe, and debate about what they're having for lunch and just totally ignore that Democratic legislation from the House like it never happened? Do they actually have to address what the House did in some fashion or, is it burgers and fries for lunch today instead of chicken salad?
 
Moderate Right said:
OK. So, I guess I have to start this off by admitting that I'm not 100% up on how the legislative process works. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the midterms determine that Republicans hold the Senate and Democrats take over the majority of the House. Now, I believe that it is the House and the House alone which authors up new legislation and then it gets sent over to the Senate and then the Senate comes up with their own version of the legislation and then they meet and hash it all out with compromises, coming up with the finalized piece of legislation which they then send on to the president to either sign or not sign. Sometimes the Senate may work on legislation that they know the House is already working on or will work on. Anyway, let's say that a Democratic House works on liberal legislation which is a non starter or dead on arrival as far as the Senate is concerned and that the Senate has no wish to even consider anything like it in any way, shape, or form. Can the senate play tiddly winks, tic-tac-toe, and debate about what they're having for lunch and just totally ignore that Democratic legislation from the House like it never happened? Do they actually have to address what the House did in some fashion or, is it burgers and fries for lunch today instead of chicken salad?
Click to expand...

It's the same situation that we had from 2010-2014 in reverse when the Republicans voted to repeal Obamacare 60 times. No response necessary.
 
Anagram said:
It's the same situation that we had from 2010-2014 in reverse when the Republicans voted to repeal Obamacare 60 times. No response necessary.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought. So, other than the House being able to investigate the hell out of Trump, other Republicans, and Kavanaugh, what can they actually accomplish agenda wise, other than gathering bullets to use in their propaganda wars?
 
Moderate Right said:
OK. So, I guess I have to start this off by admitting that I'm not 100% up on how the legislative process works. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the midterms determine that Republicans hold the Senate and Democrats take over the majority of the House. Now, I believe that it is the House and the House alone which authors up new legislation and then it gets sent over to the Senate and then the Senate comes up with their own version of the legislation and then they meet and hash it all out with compromises, coming up with the finalized piece of legislation which they then send on to the president to either sign or not sign. Sometimes the Senate may work on legislation that they know the House is already working on or will work on. Anyway, let's say that a Democratic House works on liberal legislation which is a non starter or dead on arrival as far as the Senate is concerned and that the Senate has no wish to even consider anything like it in any way, shape, or form. Can the senate play tiddly winks, tic-tac-toe, and debate about what they're having for lunch and just totally ignore that Democratic legislation from the House like it never happened? Do they actually have to address what the House did in some fashion or, is it burgers and fries for lunch today instead of chicken salad?
Click to expand...

1. The only legislation that must begin in the House is spending bills. The Senate is free to initiate other legislation.

2. Yes, either chamber is free to just decide not to bring legislation to the floor for consideration. It happens all the time. It's called gridlock.
 
Moderate Right said:
That's what I thought. So, other than the House being able to investigate the hell out of Trump, other Republicans, and Kavanaugh, what can they actually accomplish agenda wise, other than gathering bullets to use in their propaganda wars?
Click to expand...

Funding the government is a pretty important duty of the House. The Dems will own whatever actions...and the political consequences...they take in this regard.
 
Moderate Right said:
That's what I thought. So, other than the House being able to investigate the hell out of Trump, other Republicans, and Kavanaugh, what can they actually accomplish agenda-wise, other than gathering bullets to use in their propaganda wars?
Click to expand...

It's less about what they can accomplish and more about what the damage they can prevent Republicans from doing. They could certainly vote for impeachment as well and force the Senate to take up that matter.
 
Mycroft said:
Funding the government is a pretty important duty of the House. The Dems will own whatever actions...and the political consequences...they take in this regard.
Click to expand...

Does that mean the republicans own the political consequences of their actions when they had the house during the Obama administration?
 
Moderate Right said:
OK. So, I guess I have to start this off by admitting that I'm not 100% up on how the legislative process works. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the midterms determine that Republicans hold the Senate and Democrats take over the majority of the House. Now, I believe that it is the House and the House alone which authors up new legislation and then it gets sent over to the Senate and then the Senate comes up with their own version of the legislation and then they meet and hash it all out with compromises, coming up with the finalized piece of legislation which they then send on to the president to either sign or not sign. Sometimes the Senate may work on legislation that they know the House is already working on or will work on. Anyway, let's say that a Democratic House works on liberal legislation which is a non starter or dead on arrival as far as the Senate is concerned and that the Senate has no wish to even consider anything like it in any way, shape, or form. Can the senate play tiddly winks, tic-tac-toe, and debate about what they're having for lunch and just totally ignore that Democratic legislation from the House like it never happened? Do they actually have to address what the House did in some fashion or, is it burgers and fries for lunch today instead of chicken salad?
Click to expand...

Gridlock is good. :)

That means leftist whack jobs in the gov't can't hurt us with higher taxes and over burdensome regulations like they did during The Regime years. The flip side is, nothing good will happen because the Brownshirt leftists will see to it.

Essentially, the American people need to kick 1200+ more of the whacker-doodle leftist out of gov't. I mean local, state and federal, not just federally. What this country needs right now is civility, and the Brownshirts already said they weren't interested.
 
Mycroft said:
1. The only legislation that must begin in the House is spending bills. The Senate is free to initiate other legislation.

2. Yes, either chamber is free to just decide not to bring legislation to the floor for consideration. It happens all the time. It's called gridlock.
Click to expand...

Each chamber gets a turn at screwing things up too. :)
 
Moderate Right said:
That's what I thought. So, other than the House being able to investigate the hell out of Trump, other Republicans, and Kavanaugh, what can they actually accomplish agenda wise, other than gathering bullets to use in their propaganda wars?
Click to expand...

That worked for the repubs from 2010-2016. Investigate the same nonsense over and over and over. Pass the same go-nowhere legislation over and over. Then run on the dems preventing any progress. Will that work for the dems for 2, 4 or 6 years?
 
We have Gridlock because both parties suck and all you have to do to determine why is read the comments of the partisans on this site. Guess who keeps sending those worthless lieces of **** from BOTH parties back to congress.

Once upon a time, both parties worked together-along their own ideological lines-for the good of the country. Today...and for decades...congress is nothing more than a collection of partisan twats supported by a collection of partisan twats. Its not getting better...its getting worse. There is a reason why Presidents Trump, Obama, and Bush effectively HAVE to govern by Executive Order.
 
Moderate Right said:
OK. So, I guess I have to start this off by admitting that I'm not 100% up on how the legislative process works. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the midterms determine that Republicans hold the Senate and Democrats take over the majority of the House. Now, I believe that it is the House and the House alone which authors up new legislation and then it gets sent over to the Senate and then the Senate comes up with their own version of the legislation and then they meet and hash it all out with compromises, coming up with the finalized piece of legislation which they then send on to the president to either sign or not sign. Sometimes the Senate may work on legislation that they know the House is already working on or will work on. Anyway, let's say that a Democratic House works on liberal legislation which is a non starter or dead on arrival as far as the Senate is concerned and that the Senate has no wish to even consider anything like it in any way, shape, or form. Can the senate play tiddly winks, tic-tac-toe, and debate about what they're having for lunch and just totally ignore that Democratic legislation from the House like it never happened? Do they actually have to address what the House did in some fashion or, is it burgers and fries for lunch today instead of chicken salad?
Click to expand...
House initiates budget and appropriations bills. Either house can initiate other legislation. Senate can bury House bills: She "Reid, Harry" for more detail on how split congress works.
 
VanceMack said:
We have Gridlock because both parties suck...
Click to expand...

Gridlock can be good.

But your right about both parties. Gov't GOP'ers and the leftist Brownshirts are in it for themselves. Both parties ought to be looking out for the best interest of the nation as a whole. We were given a beautiful document by the Founders, not to mention freedom and liberty, self determination and other wonderful things.

We need to get back to our founding principles. And reintroduce civility.
 
DamnYankee said:
Gridlock can be good.

But your right about both parties. Gov't GOP'ers and the leftist Brownshirts are in it for themselves. Both parties ought to be looking out for the best interest of the nation as a whole. We were given a beautiful document by the Founders, not to mention freedom and liberty, self determination and other wonderful things.

We need to get back to our founding principles. And reintroduce civility.
Click to expand...
Well...I am probably not the best person to be talking about 'civility'....

I left the GOP in 2003. Both parties suck. I have yet to see a major party candidate that I felt worthy of a vote. I have been dismayed at the Libertarian candidates...such a tragic waste of opportunity. But...I'll keep voting and keep holding out hope.
 
lwf said:
Does that mean the republicans own the political consequences of their actions when they had the house during the Obama administration?
Click to expand...

Sure.
 
Mycroft said:
Funding the government is a pretty important duty of the House. The Dems will own whatever actions...and the political consequences...they take in this regard.
Click to expand...

No doubt, if Trumps bubble bursts the day after the election, the right will blame the Democratic Congress and develope amnesia about their own cyclical recklessness. I've seen it happen before.

Being conservative means never having to say you're sorry.
 
VanceMack said:
Well...I am probably not the best person to be talking about 'civility'....

I left the GOP in 2003. Both parties suck. I have yet to see a major party candidate that I felt worthy of a vote. I have been dismayed at the Libertarian candidates...such a tragic waste of opportunity. But...I'll keep voting and keep holding out hope.
Click to expand...

The GOP left me about the same time. Now it's ran by a bunch of RINOs and eGOP'ers who mostly ignore the Constitution. The party of Nathan Bedford Forrest, Jim Crow, violence, leftists, and Brownshirts ought to be declared a terror group, that's how I feel about those a-holes, whose only goal is to turn our nation into a socialistic welfare state where producers get screw with high taxes and over regulation, and the Brownshirt elites get richer and richer. No thanks.

Anyway, sometimes gridlock is a good thing :)
 
D_NATURED said:
No doubt, if Trumps bubble bursts the day after the election, the right will blame the Democratic Congress and develope amnesia about their own cyclical recklessness. I've seen it happen before.

Being conservative means never having to say you're sorry.
Click to expand...

Both Parties play the same game.

Did Dingy Harry say he was sorry about lying...on the Senate floor about Romney's taxes? No...he just said "It worked, didn't it?"

So don't tell me about Republicans. Party Elites...corrupt politicians are Elites and corrupt whatever their Party.
 
Mycroft said:
Both Parties play the same game.

Did Dingy Harry say he was sorry about lying...on the Senate floor about Romney's taxes? No...he just said "It worked, didn't it?"

So don't tell me about Republicans. Party Elites...corrupt politicians are Elites and corrupt whatever their Party.
Click to expand...

Sure, let's pretend that Harry Reid's statements are the equivalent of the right's dangerously reckless fiscal policy. The victim count is 350 million to one.
 
Gridlock is undesirable when both parties have the best interests of the electorate and country at heart. But that is no longer the guiding principle of most our legislatures so I welcome gridlock. In this day and age I don’t want one party controlling both chambers AND the Presidency.
 
D_NATURED said:
Sure, let's pretend that Harry Reid's statements are the equivalent of the right's dangerously reckless fiscal policy. The victim count is 350 million to one.
Click to expand...

Fiscal policy???

What does that have to do with anything?

The topic is about actions by politicians. If you want to construct your own moral equivalence goal posts, build your own field first.
 
Moderate Right said:
OK. So, I guess I have to start this off by admitting that I'm not 100% up on how the legislative process works. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the midterms determine that Republicans hold the Senate and Democrats take over the majority of the House. Now, I believe that it is the House and the House alone which authors up new legislation and then it gets sent over to the Senate and then the Senate comes up with their own version of the legislation and then they meet and hash it all out with compromises, coming up with the finalized piece of legislation which they then send on to the president to either sign or not sign. Sometimes the Senate may work on legislation that they know the House is already working on or will work on. Anyway, let's say that a Democratic House works on liberal legislation which is a non starter or dead on arrival as far as the Senate is concerned and that the Senate has no wish to even consider anything like it in any way, shape, or form. Can the senate play tiddly winks, tic-tac-toe, and debate about what they're having for lunch and just totally ignore that Democratic legislation from the House like it never happened? Do they actually have to address what the House did in some fashion or, is it burgers and fries for lunch today instead of chicken salad?
Click to expand...

In a word no. Mitch McTurtle can simply not bring anything he doesn't like to the floor and it dies. No debate no vote. The only exceptions are the bills that deal with funding of the Govt. which would shut it down if nothing was passed.
 
VanceMack said:
We have Gridlock because both parties suck and all you have to do to determine why is read the comments of the partisans on this site. Guess who keeps sending those worthless lieces of **** from BOTH parties back to congress.

Once upon a time, both parties worked together-along their own ideological lines-for the good of the country. Today...and for decades...congress is nothing more than a collection of partisan twats supported by a collection of partisan twats. Its not getting better...its getting worse. There is a reason why Presidents Trump, Obama, and Bush effectively HAVE to govern by Executive Order.
Click to expand...

There is no one else to vote for. Both parties have made sure of that.
 
Mycroft said:
Fiscal policy???

What does that have to do with anything?

The topic is about actions by politicians. If you want to construct your own moral equivalence goal posts, build your own field first.
Click to expand...

Use your mind a little, even if a little is all it's capable of. The OP is about gridlock. Money and taxes are a major source of disagreement between the parties. The right does the same ****, time and time again, building up bubbles which inflate the earnings of the rich and then watching as it bursts, taking out a lot of little guys' retirement accounts. Do you see the connection now?

Our gridlock is caused as much by unrelenting false fiscal myths as it is about real things. The right will not own the obvious consequences of their elitist thievery, they just keep pretending it's "normal" for poor people to suffer for the benefit of the rich.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom