You are absolutely incorrect to suggest that a budget bill cannot be passed without 60 votes in the Senate. The Republicans have already eliminated the Senate filibuster twice for other agenda items in this very term, to include doing it just last month. They can eliminate the filibuster for this as well with nothing more than their majority. They don’t need a single Democratic vote in the Senate to eliminate the filibuster and then pass their budget bill. Also, according to polling, this is a Republican shutdown.
Uh, no. You can't pick and choose when to "eliminate the filibuster" like you say, it just exists until Senate rules are permanently changed, which neither side has the will to do in fear it will be used against them should they use power.
The filibuster does not apply to a budget reconciliation bill, of which one can be passed per term. Items in this bill must directly be related to federal budgeting, meaning no non-budget related pork as evaluated by the Senate Parliamentarian. The Republicans' OBBB was the budget reconciliation bill this term, there was no second filibuster-exempt bill.
Seconding Homsar here, contrary to recent hype around the removal of the filibuster, that was merely for a separate set of processes by the Senate (the "Nuclear Option"). "Budget Reconciliation" is in a league of its own. And nobody can blame anybody for missing these strange details, Congress is... incredibly confusing. One of the few people to understand large parts of the formal political processes inside the Rotunda in recent years is a British college student with all the free time in the world.
Anyhow; the consequences of a modern shutdown (which regrettably ended up occurring) have proven their severity, and will certainly continue to do so. There is little precedent in the history of the United States Congress to be so besodden by partisan tensions that they decline to perform basic courtesies like the simple swearing-into office while out of session. This shutdown is going to keep getting worse and break more records; it's already become the 4th longest in our history. That is all of course, mere conjecture from some anonymous stranger on the internet who is neither professionally trained nor paid in politics. So go to the bookies instead. Polymarket, the world's largest prediction market, currently has over 50% odds for the shutdown lasting into November.
Uh, no. You can't pick and choose when to "eliminate the filibuster" like you say, it just exists until Senate rules are permanently changed, which neither side has the will to do in fear it will be used against them should they use power.
The filibuster does not apply to a budget reconciliation bill, of which one can be passed per term. Items in this bill must directly be related to federal budgeting, meaning no non-budget related pork as evaluated by the Senate Parliamentarian. The Republicans' OBBB was the budget reconciliation bill this term, there was no second filibuster-exempt bill.
I was not referring to budget reconciliation at all. I was referring to how Republicans have already, in this very Senate term we’re in, eliminated the filibuster on a separate item that was important to them. They did this *just last month* and could do it again to pass a budget if they’re unwilling to negotiate to get 60 votes. They can eliminate the filibuster with a simple majority & then pass a budget with a simple majority without needing a single Democratic vote.
Also, filibusters with appropriations work differently. For the majority to eliminate it, they would have to leverage a majority vote to literally change chamber precedent. (Dangerous methodology)
And trying to go the route of budget reconciliation doesn’t cover all appropriations. It’s important to consider what’s being filibustered, silly.
JFC, I think you’re the second person to mention “budget reconciliation,” which I never mentioned. I don’t know how many times I have to provide irrefutable proof that Senate Republicans already eliminated the filibuster for a separate agenda item for them just last month. It would be just as easy to eliminate it for all budget bills, or for all legislation period, as it was when they did it last month for advancing nominees all at once instead of separately. This required nothing more than a simple majority:
JFC, I think you’re the second person to mention “budget reconciliation,” which I never mentioned. I don’t know how many times I have to provide irrefutable proof that Senate Republicans already eliminated the filibuster for a separate agenda item for them just last month. It would be just as easy to eliminate it for all budget bills, or for all legislation period, as it was when they did it last month for advancing nominees all at once instead of separately. This required nothing more than a simple majority:
Correct, I mentioned budget reconciliation as another example to *try* to explain to you that there isn’t really an effective way to circumvent a filibuster. Again, shit works differently when dealing with appropriations… you keep bringing up filibusters that’ve been struck down when Congress was voting on very different things.
Correct, I mentioned budget reconciliation as another example to *try* to explain to you that there isn’t really an effective way to circumvent a filibuster. Again, shit works differently when dealing with appropriations… you keep bringing up filibusters that’ve been struck down when Congress was voting on very different things.
It does not matter whether it’s appropriations or not. There is no special “Appropriations Filibuster” with some kind of “higher hurdle” that can never be eliminated or requires 60 votes to eliminate. The Senate filibuster is nothing more than a Senate rule that can be eliminated at any time, for any matter, with a simple majority vote. The majority can eliminate it for a particular matter (appropriations) or can eliminate it totally for any and everything. The filibuster can be found NOWHERE in the Constitution. It’s nothing more than a practice that can be dispensed with the same way you dispense with your trash for the day.
I was not referring to budget reconciliation at all. I was referring to how Republicans have already, in this very Senate term we’re in, eliminated the filibuster on a separate item that was important to them. They did this *just last month* and could do it again to pass a budget if they’re unwilling to negotiate to get 60 votes. They can eliminate the filibuster with a simple majority & then pass a budget with a simple majority without needing a single Democratic vote.
I was unaware of that confirmations change, but you said it happened twice and were not referring to budget reconciliation for either of them, what’s the other use?
Regardless, I posted earlier in this thread that they should get rid of it permanently to prevent partisan gridlock for pork to prevent government shutdowns.
I was unaware of that confirmations change, but you said it happened twice and were not referring to budget reconciliation for either of them, what’s the other use?
Regardless, I posted earlier in this thread that they should get rid of it permanently to prevent partisan gridlock for pork to prevent government shutdowns.
This article gives a rundown of what’s happened with respect to the filibuster in this Senate term that began in January.
It does not matter whether it’s appropriations or not. There is no special “Appropriations Filibuster” with some kind of “higher hurdle” that can never be eliminated or requires 60 votes to eliminate. The Senate filibuster is nothing more than a Senate rule that can be eliminated at any time, for any matter, with a simple majority vote. The majority can eliminate it for a particular matter (appropriations) or can eliminate it totally for any and everything. The filibuster can be found NOWHERE in the Constitution. It’s nothing more than a practice that can be dispensed with the same way you dispense with your trash for the day.
Yeah, and holding a “simple majority vote” to change Senate rules and therefore chamber precedent is a pretty dangerous practice. You don’t want to just go and change up how you fund the government all willy-nilly. This can lead to really big problems as majorities and agendas shift. You’re trying to oversimplify something that has never been done historically by any party, and for good reason.
Yeah, and holding a “simple majority vote” to change Senate rules and therefore chamber precedent is a pretty dangerous practice. You don’t want to just go and change up how you fund the government all willy-nilly. This can lead to really big problems as majorities and agendas shift. You’re trying to oversimplify something that has never been done historically by any party, and for good reason.
Yea, Republicans would never do something unprecedented that's a pretty dangerous practice. They're such pillars of moral integrity and principle!
Have you not been paying attention to any fucking thing they've done all year long? Jesus Christ. They've already been breaking funding laws the entire time. You are willingly ignorant.
Yea, Republicans would never do something unprecedented that's a pretty dangerous practice. They're such pillars of moral integrity and principle!
Have you not been paying attention to any fucking thing they've done all year long? Jesus Christ. They've already been breaking funding laws the entire time. You are willingly ignorant.
I’m not disputing the fact that the GOP wants to ram-rod their way through everything. I’m just explaining to others why neither party will change up the vote this way for appropriations specifically. It’s really not to leverage a shutdown to keep pork out of appropriations, but rather to prevent a dangerous loophole to be exploited in the future which could severely damage the way we fund our government. Again, voting rules haven’t historically changed one time. Why would they do that now during a shutdown which is nothing new?
Yeah, and holding a “simple majority vote” to change Senate rules and therefore chamber precedent is a pretty dangerous practice. You don’t want to just go and change up how you fund the government all willy-nilly. This can lead to really big problems as majorities and agendas shift. You’re trying to oversimplify something that has never been done historically by any party, and for good reason.
Naa, I disagree. I do want the precedent to be set that bills to keep the government open should be a simple majority vote. I want the filibuster to be gone in general as well. Either option is good with me. Stop letting federal employees’ paychecks be pawns for negotiations for pork. If NATCA had a spine they’d be arguing as such too.
I’m not disputing the fact that the GOP wants to ram-rod their way through everything. I’m just explaining to others why neither party will change up the vote this way for appropriations specifically. It’s really not to leverage a shutdown to keep pork out of appropriations, but rather to prevent a dangerous loophole to be exploited in the future which could severely damage the way we fund our government. Again, voting rules haven’t historically changed one time. Why would they do that now during a shutdown which is nothing new?
Everything they are doing is severely damaging how the government is supposed to function. Blatantly illegal is way worse than exploiting a loophole. You're living in a fantasy.
There are a couple reasons they aren't just passing the funding, none of which has to do with any supposed "caring about democracy".
1- They don't want to swear in the new Dem Rep, even though having to be in regular session is a total lie, because Epstein.
2- If they pass funding without addressing ACA costs, they will have to either pass something addressing that later, which will be perceived a win for democrats, or ignore it entirely, let it expire, and screw over a lot of their constituents. Neither are a win. I wouldn't be surprised if they plan to shut down until after the end of the year, let it expire on it's own, try to blame democrats for it, then never address it again even though it was their fault. Then, once costs are so high, they will try to get rid of it entirely claiming it "doesn't work".
If they do wait that long, they're going to royally fuck ATC training when half our devs quit because they're broke.
Everything they are doing is severely damaging how the government is supposed to function. Blatantly illegal is way worse than exploiting a loophole. You're living in a fantasy.
There are a couple reasons they aren't just passing the funding, none of which has to do with any supposed "caring about democracy".
1- They don't want to swear in the new Dem Rep, even though having to be in regular session is a total lie, because Epstein.
2- If they pass funding without addressing ACA costs, they will have to either pass something addressing that later, which will be perceived a win for democrats, or ignore it entirely, let it expire, and screw over a lot of their constituents. Neither are a win. I wouldn't be surprised if they plan to shut down until after the end of the year, let it expire on it's own, try to blame democrats for it, then never address it again even though it was their fault. Then, once costs are so high, they will try to get rid of it entirely claiming it "doesn't work".
If they do wait that long, they're going to royally fuck ATC training when half our devs quit because they're broke.
I think SAIC goes home on 27oct. Is that when the academy is closing too?
For health insurance we have had FEP Blue Focus for the past two years and we have zero complaints. There's a 10 Visit limit per person per calendar year for Dr visits for your copay. Outside of these it becomes a 70/30 split after the deductible ($500 per person/$1000 for the family) is met. It's the cheapest or one of the cheapest plans on the marketplace I believe.
Because keeping people safe from COVID is the same as kidnapping people for being brown
To be fair, on the face of it, it still sounds f'ed up. But if we're comparing it to ICE actions- taking conditions, scale, and short/long term consequences are all relevant.
I don't think anyone can say with intellectual honesty that the camps in Australia (which were predominately used for those who voluntarily travelled and knew the requirements) can compare to what we're seeing with ICE and the methodology, conditions, and short/long term consequences of raids/detainment/deportation on the people impacted.
Anyway, the consensus in Australia (by a crazy margin) is that the virus would've decimated the indigineous if not for heavy handed regulation --and if you've been, you know how strongly they want to protect and honor the indigineous. They feel the worse action on the part of the government than the camps is not investing enough in the health of the indigineous to begin with.
To be fair, on the face of it, it still sounds f'ed up. But if we're comparing it to ICE actions- taking conditions, scale, and short/long term consequences are all relevant.
I don't think anyone can say with intellectual honesty that the camps in Australia (which were predominately used for those who voluntarily travelled and knew the requirements) can compare to what we're seeing with ICE and the methodology, conditions, and short/long term consequences of raids/detainment/deportation on the people impacted.
Anyway, the consensus in Australia (by a crazy margin) is that the virus would've decimated the indigineous if not for heavy handed regulation --and if you've been, you know how strongly they want to protect and honor the indigineous. They feel the worse action on the part of the government than the camps is not investing enough in the health of the indigineous to begin with.
Yeah mate we acknowledge the traditional owners of country only hear it four times a day
Archived from pointSixtyFive. The thread is closed to new posts.