• 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!

The "Hastert Rule" may be dead.

NIMBY said:
The problem with that is the interpretation of the 2011 GOP congress to require 218 votes from the GOP to pass anything
...
Click to expand...

That rule could have been in place - I'm just not sure. But that requirement is not, based on my understanding or what Gingrich described, the Hastert Rule, but something different.
 
JasperL said:
That rule could have been in place - I'm just not sure. But that requirement is not, based on my understanding or what Gingrich described, the Hastert Rule, but something different.
Click to expand...

I can only deal with what GOPs are doing now; plotting against Ryan because of what Trump did.

Ryan and McConnell chose to load up Harvey with the debt ceiling, expecting 8 DEMs in the Senate to cross under pressure.

Then getting 218 GOP votes with the 18-month debt ceiling and playing politics with Harvey. Trump called their bluff, good on him ,,,
 
Beaudreaux said:
Well folks, the US House of Representatives voted today on Hurricane Harvey Relief and it passed, with less Republicans (133) voting in favor than Democrats (183). 90 Republicans, mostly the "Freedom Caucus" voted NO, and 27 from both parties didn't vote at all.

Here's the vote tally: FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 480 - How'd your Representative vote - mine voted Yeah - McHenry from NC10

So, for the thread topic, what does this mean for the Hastert Rule? Is it dead? Will the GOP leadership take heat from their base for teaming up with the Democrats and turning their back on the Freedom Caucus? How will this make the neverTrump GOP loyalists think, with this cross-isle hug with the Democrats to agree to a deal that Trump brokered with Nancy and Chuckie?

Things may get interesting.

As for me, I'm glad to see cross-isle teamwork to help the nation, especially regarding critical spending such as disaster relief. Politics should stop, both, at the waters edge and inside a disaster zone.
Click to expand...

My GOP Congressman Kinzinger IL-16 also voted YES. He's getting a tea party primary as usual and is in a safe GOP CD; we'll see if I go GOP primary next year; Kinzinger's office greatly helped me when my Air Force Dad died;

I feel I still owe him; his predecessor Halvorson was a mod/con DEM like me and I miss her--also great on Veteran's issues; she got redistricted into an unwinnable primary ;;;
 
MaggieD said:
But what did it look like? And raising the debt limit was and is going to happen, so what's the point?
Click to expand...

The point, I suppose, was to make a statement against the debt. I disapprove of most of what the federal government does and even though it is going to do what it does regardless of what I think about it, I still disapprove. The reason the government needs more borrowing is that it is spending more when it should be spending less. It is unconscionable in my view.

The government should send money to Texas and then give up something else. If the government were running in a fiscally responsible manner and something like Harvey showed up, it would be fine to borrow in order to recover from it. But it doesn't work that way. The government operates on debt.
 
NIMBY said:
That was your GOP leaders who attached the debt ceiling to Harvey relief ...
Click to expand...

They are your GOP leaders if you like. I certainly didn't vote for them.
 
fmw said:
The point, I suppose, was to make a statement against the debt. I disapprove of most of what the federal government does and even though it is going to do what it does regardless of what I think about it, I still disapprove. The reason the government needs more borrowing is that it is spending more when it should be spending less. It is unconscionable in my view.

The government should send money to Texas and then give up something else. If the government were running in a fiscally responsible manner and something like Harvey showed up, it would be fine to borrow in order to recover from it. But it doesn't work that way. The government operates on debt.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. I look at it like Charlie Reese did in his famous editorial. The government can't spend a dime without the approval of Congress. Not one thin dime. So. They have gotten us into this fiscal mess. And THEN they clamor and campaign about what a mess it is and clamor for a fix. We're so broken.

I personally think NOTHING should be tied to spending bills like Harvey. Blackmailing for relief funds is just wrong. That's why Inthink DT did the right thing in this case. Whatever it took to get this quickly passed was worth it. Politics as usual be damned.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Well folks, the US House of Representatives voted today on Hurricane Harvey Relief and it passed, with less Republicans (133) voting in favor than Democrats (183). 90 Republicans, mostly the "Freedom Caucus" voted NO, and 27 from both parties didn't vote at all.

Here's the vote tally: FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 480 - How'd your Representative vote - mine voted Yeah - McHenry from NC10

So, for the thread topic, what does this mean for the Hastert Rule? Is it dead? Will the GOP leadership take heat from their base for teaming up with the Democrats and turning their back on the Freedom Caucus? How will this make the neverTrump GOP loyalists think, with this cross-isle hug with the Democrats to agree to a deal that Trump brokered with Nancy and Chuckie?

Things may get interesting.

As for me, I'm glad to see cross-isle teamwork to help the nation, especially regarding critical spending such as disaster relief. Politics should stop, both, at the waters edge and inside a disaster zone.
Click to expand...

Trump has confused the political elites.

Hopefully, the drones in the media and the party loyalists are not watching what is happening.

They are a cancer in our country and those with eyes to see are amused by the foundations beneath them being dismantled.

When I see McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer and Ryan all so very happy with themselves, I see dinosaurs who don't know they're on the wrong side of the KT boundary.
 
MaggieD said:
I'm with you. I look at it like Charlie Reese did in his famous editorial. The government can't spend a dime without the approval of Congress. Not one thin dime. So. They have gotten us into this fiscal mess. And THEN they clamor and campaign about what a mess it is and clamor for a fix. We're so broken.

I personally think NOTHING should be tied to spending bills like Harvey. Blackmailing for relief funds is just wrong. That's why Inthink DT did the right thing in this case. Whatever it took to get this quickly passed was worth it. Politics as usual be damned.
Click to expand...

Maggie, you definitely have your head on straight. Exactly right.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The Hastert Rule is what has kept the GOP controlled House of Representatives from allowing numerous bills from ever reaching the floor for a vote of the whole House. If a bill couldn't pass with a "majority of the majority" it would never see the floor of the House, and would die in committee.

The majority of the majority doesn't mean what it sounds like. It means what I described above. A bill would have to have a be able to pass (have a minimum of 218 votes in favor) with just the majority party voting for it. If that wasn't the case, if there were less than 218 votes from the majority party, the Hastert Rule wouldn't allow the bill to be voted upon.

In this instance, there were not 218 Republican votes, and the Speaker and the Majority Leader had to ask for Democrats to vote with the majority to pass the bill. That's almost sacrilegious in todays day and age - hence the reason for me starting this thread. Is this the beginning of the end of gotcha BS politics? Or is it just a one-off because Trump did an end run around the GOP and cut a deal with the Democrat leadership?

The purpose of the rule (even though it's unofficial) was to limit the power of the minority party in the House. It was simply political payback by the GOP for decades of Democratic control of the House where the Democrats tended to run roughshod over the GOP whenever they wanted, with similar rules and procedures.

Political payback is not a reasonable way to run a country or a government. Both parties are guilty of the same crap. I hope this is the beginning of the end of that type of politics. We can have lively fights over policy and whether this or that is Constitutional or not, or whether that or the other thing is a power of the federal government or the states, but when it comes to balancing the budget, raising the debt ceiling when and only when it's critical to do so (like now), supporting the overall economy when it's critical to do so (nationally after a market crash or locally after a hurricane, flood, or tornado), and helping our own people (citizens) get back on their feet following a disaster or even just a personal low point in their lives, we ALL should agree that we must come together for those reasons alone - plus national defense and other obvious issues.

Sorry, I just noticed that I went on, and on...
Click to expand...

Well said. It sometimes looks like actually governing has taken a back seat to party politics and eternal campaigning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom