GOP Senate win in Georgia

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

No government is perfect.
That said, the best governments are those that do the basics and very little more. Whether health care, social security, etc. need fixed depends on who you talk to. Some think health care is an emergancy situation that needs attention NOW, others think it is just fine.

No one thinks the impending problem for SS or Medicare are just fine. The only question in doubt is when it becomes a problem. We do know that the longer we wait to make any changes, the harder it gets.

That is exactly the wrong issue for a impotent, divided government to solve. A little pain now beats a lot of pain later, but people get reelected (or not) on the pain now, not the long running achievement.

OTOH, in Bush's first term after 9/11, Congress gave him just about anything he asked for, and see the mess that put us in. But was that the fault of a forceful government, or the leader? Most people here will overpick one of the two answers.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

No one thinks the impending problem for SS or Medicare are just fine.

I think they both need help, but to say nobody thinks they are just fine is not an accurate statement. I know several people who feel there is nothing wrong with either and at least one person who thinks both should be eliminated entirely. I don't agree with them, but that doesn't mean I discount their opinion.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

Two questions:
1. Does the procedure to thwart a filibuster require 60 votes or 60% of the votes cast?

It requires three-fifths (if all 100 seats are filled).

...three fifths of the votes cast, of those present, or of the seats filled?

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Two questions:
1. Does the procedure to thwart a filibuster require 60 votes or 60% of the votes cast?

It requires three-fifths (if all 100 seats are filled).

...three fifths of the votes cast, of those present, or of the seats filled?

Seats filled:

Quote

The Cloture Rule originally required a supermajority of two-thirds of all senators "present and voting" to be considered filibuster-proof. For example, if all 100 Senators voted on a Cloture Motion, 67 of those votes would have to be for cloture for it to pass; however if some Senators were absent and only 80 Senators voted on a cloture motion, only 54 would have to vote in favor. However, it proved very difficult to achieve this; the Senate tried eleven times between 1927 and 1962 to invoke cloture but failed each time. Filibuster was particularly heavily used by senators from Southern states to block civil rights legislation.

In 1975, the Democratic Senate majority, having achieved a net gain of four seats in the 1974 Senate elections to a strength of 61 (with an additional Independent caucusing with them for a total of 62), reduced the necessary supermajority to three-fifths (60 out of 100). However, as a compromise to those who were against the revision, the new rule also changed the requirement for determining the number of votes needed for a cloture motion's passage from those Senators "present and voting" to those Senators "duly chosen and sworn". Thus, 60 votes for cloture would be necessary regardless of whether every Senator voted. The only time a lesser number would become acceptable is when a Senate seat is vacant. (For example, if there were two vacancies in the Senate, thereby making 98 Senators "duly chosen and sworn", it would only take 59 votes for a Cloture motion to pass.)

Source

[mnealtx 0]

Interesting info - thanks.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I wasn't overstating anything. He asked the question about how much filibustering going on, I stated that (regardless of majority) filibusters are still used, and effective even without a super-majority.

I was reacting to the complete context of your post, not just the part you've snipped. The complete context includes that part of your post where you said "the democrats have successfully filibustered several notable judge nominations from President Bush over the past two terms. "

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

No one thinks the impending problem for SS or Medicare are just fine.

I think they both need help, but to say nobody thinks they are just fine is not an accurate statement. I know several people who feel there is nothing wrong with either and at least one person who thinks both should be eliminated entirely. I don't agree with them, but that doesn't mean I discount their opinion.

I'll discount the opinion of anyone who thinks the government that sweep aside its obligations and not destroy itself in the process.

If they think it's fine, they probably think pyramid schemes work too, or just don't understand math well.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That said, the best governments are those that do the basics and very little more. Whether health care, social security, etc. need fixed.

By what metric do you measure best?

I use the same metric everyone else uses-my own. What I feel is best is undoubtedly different than what you feel is best which is different from anyone else.

Well, you may have described everyone minus one. I would want some objective metrics and comparable standards (e.g., adherence to rule of law, literacy rates, child mortality rates, defense capability, water treatment/access to clean water, electricity, GDP) as well as some more subjective metrics (e.g., justice, civilian control of military, etc) for determining “best” as opposed to my own subjective criteria (e.g., free chocolate distributed to everyone on alternate Tuesdays ). Some of those measures could be quantitative and some would be semi-quantitative.

A couple objective-based rankings of best governments:

The Economist has determined that Ireland is the best place to live with most effective government.

Norway has repeatedly been determined to have the highest standard of living by the UN. In that year’s rankings the US was 8th. The worst countries usually are the ones that have the weakest or most basic governments, such as Yemen and many sub-Saharan African states. (Notable exceptions for South Africa and Botswana.)

Even if you disagree with both ranking methods (objectively &/or subjectively), that’s still a method to compare “best.” I.e., why are those wrong?

If, as you asserted, the “best” governments are those that only do the “basics and very little more,” what is the closed[st] example of such a government among the 191 or so sovereign states in the world today?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

. . . change for the sake of change is almost always a bum deal.

Probably very true.

But today, we need some changes for the sake of the fact that our foreign and domestic policies just plain suck.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No one thinks the impending problem for SS or Medicare are just fine.

I think they both need help, but to say nobody thinks they are just fine is not an accurate statement. I know several people who feel there is nothing wrong with either and at least one person who thinks both should be eliminated entirely. I don't agree with them, but that doesn't mean I discount their opinion.

I'll discount the opinion of anyone who thinks the government that sweep aside its obligations and not destroy itself in the process.

If they think it's fine, they probably think pyramid schemes work too, or just don't understand math well.

The man i know who would feel ok with the government doing away with social security and Medicare isn't an evil person, or seven ignorant. He just feels very strongly that people should take care of themselves. His views are rather harsh and cold-hearted, but I don't discount them just because i don't agree with them. If I did that with everyone I know i would soon be out of friends.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[kelpdiver 2]

if we eliminated SS, we'd lose our ability to sell bonds, as no one would trust DC not to dispose of that obligation either.

People have been paying 12.4% of the salary in SS since the early 80s, and a somewhat lower rate before then. That's a lot of money paid in with the expectation of some coming back. Same for Medicare. The latter cannot be eliminated unless some sort of universal coverage replaces it.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

The man i know who would feel ok with the government doing away with social security and Medicare isn't an evil person, or seven ignorant. He just feels very strongly that people should take care of themselves. His views are rather harsh and cold-hearted, but I don't discount them just because i don't agree with them. If I did that with everyone I know i would soon be out of friends.

You could feel the same way and not be cold hearted. Just reword the sentence like this:

Quote

He just feels very strongly that people should take care of themselves each other.

I think that people taking care of each other is far too important a task to be trusted to the inefficient, corruption prone, and often incompetent hands of government.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

I wasn't overstating anything. He asked the question about how much filibustering going on, I stated that (regardless of majority) filibusters are still used, and effective even without a super-majority.

I was reacting to the complete context of your post, not just the part you've snipped. The complete context includes that part of your post where you said "the democrats have successfully filibustered several notable judge nominations from President Bush over the past two terms. "

Right, and I was using that in the context that the democrats were able to do so without a super-majority.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I wasn't overstating anything. He asked the question about how much filibustering going on, I stated that (regardless of majority) filibusters are still used, and effective even without a super-majority.

I was reacting to the complete context of your post, not just the part you've snipped. The complete context includes that part of your post where you said "the democrats have successfully filibustered several notable judge nominations from President Bush over the past two terms. "

Right, and I was using that in the context that the democrats were able to do so without a super-majority.

Are you misunderstanding this?

You don't need a super majority to do a fillibuster. You need one to stop one. So long as 41 members of either party will stay the course, they can maintain a fillibuster (or just as importantly, the threat of one) indefinitely.

Merely counting the frequency actually undercounts the impact substantially. Clinton was still trying to get appointees approved well into his second term. We'll see how it goes this time. Obama would do well to force the issue with the GOP on the fence right now. Clinton did not, and his 57 Senators were pretty weak as a result.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Interesting info - thanks.

Yeah, the filibuster itself is quite a story. Its origins seem almost accidental:

Quote

In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question", ending debate and proceeding to a vote. In 1806, Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated. The Senate agreed, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being. Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.

The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until 1841, when the Democratic minority tried to block a bank bill favored by the Whig majority by using this political tactic. Senator Henry Clay, a promoter of the bill, threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate and Clay was unsuccessful in eliminating the filibuster with a simple majority vote.

Source

For some reason, I can't seem to find the "right to unlimited debate" in the Constitution.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I wasn't overstating anything. He asked the question about how much filibustering going on, I stated that (regardless of majority) filibusters are still used, and effective even without a super-majority.

I was reacting to the complete context of your post, not just the part you've snipped. The complete context includes that part of your post where you said "the democrats have successfully filibustered several notable judge nominations from President Bush over the past two terms. "

Right, and I was using that in the context that the democrats were able to do so without a super-majority.

Are you misunderstanding this?

You don't need a super majority to do a fillibuster. You need one to stop one. So long as 41 members of either party will stay the course, they can maintain a fillibuster (or just as importantly, the threat of one) indefinitely.

Merely counting the frequency actually undercounts the impact substantially. Clinton was still trying to get appointees approved well into his second term. We'll see how it goes this time. Obama would do well to force the issue with the GOP on the fence right now. Clinton did not, and his 57 Senators were pretty weak as a result.

I'm not misunderstanding, I think we're on the same page and don't want to admit it...(even if I just did)...what I'm saying, in response to the OP, is this:

-Filibusters still happen regularly.
-Filibusters can be successful, and ongoing without a supermajority (I used the judge issues as an example) for a variety of reasons.
-It is a good thing the democrats did not win a supermajority.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!