Conquer Club

PLAYER57832 wrote:More correctly, the Republicans want to cut anything that benefits average Americans, but not the things that benefit their big business cronies... and they will do this while proclaiming "family values" and "low taxes"... never mind that its their policies that turned our country into a deficit hog, at the expense of our futures.

stahrgazer wrote:

Night Strike wrote:By the way.....don't forget who controls the Senate......failure for them to pass a budget is NOT a fundamental flaw of the Republican party.

Yes, it is. (Nor is it the first time they've used the stall tactic because a Dem was in the White House - reference to Clinton era.)

Night Strike wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:

Night Strike wrote:By the way.....don't forget who controls the Senate......failure for them to pass a budget is NOT a fundamental flaw of the Republican party.

Yes, it is. (Nor is it the first time they've used the stall tactic because a Dem was in the White House - reference to Clinton era.)

The budget is a non-binding resolution and as such does not require 60 votes because a filibuster is not allowed on it. This is all about the Democratic majority not wanting to actually put down a spending plan because then people would have to see all the taxing and spending they're proposing. The Democrats are supposed to actually present a budget plan later today....we'll see if they actually vote on it and approve it as their budget guidelines for passing spending bills for FY2014. A few years ago the only budget the chamber voted on was the President's and it failed on a vote of 0-99.

Republicans have relentlessly harangued the Senate's Democratic leadership for failing to pass a budget resolution. "1,000 days without a budget," was the title of a typical missive last month. On the weekend Jack Lew, who has just been named Barack Obama's chief of staff after serving as his budget director, defended the Senate by saying it couldn't pass a budget without 60 votes, i.e. without the cooperation of some Republicans. Republicans jumped on Mr Lew, pointing out that under Congress' budget procedure, a budget resolution cannot be filibustered and thus only needs a simple majority vote - typically 51 votes - to pass. Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post's fact checker, awarded Mr Lew four Pinocchios, the top score, for fibbing.

In fact, Mr Lew, while wrong on the narrow wording, is right on the substance. It is true that the Senate can pass a budget resolution with a simple majority vote. But for that budget resolution to take effect, it must have either the cooperation of the house, or at least 60 votes in the Senate. Only someone intimately familiar with Parliamentary procedure can explain this. Jim Horney of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is such a person. The following are his edited remarks from our email conversation:

It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate. But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate. If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation. But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement. And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to.
Does the lack of a budget resolution matter? Jim notes that budget resolutions are supposed to set limits on discretionary spending in appropriations bills and facilitate changes in taxes and entitlements via reconciliation instructions or via allocations to authorizing committees. But nowadays, discretionary spending caps have already been set by the Budget Control Act (which ended the debt ceiling standoff) and there is little or no prospect of cross-party agreement on tax or entitlement policies. Moreover:

With the exception of reconciliation legislation, it effectively takes 60 votes to consider any legislation in the Senate so it really does not matter whether the resolution has been adopted; if you have 60, you can consider the legislation, if you don't, you can't. The bottom line is the budget process set out in the Budget Act works pretty well when the Congress can agree on budget policies. When they cannot, no process in the world can make things work smoothly, but Congress muddles through and does what absolutely has to be done (like keeping the government from shutting down or defaulting on the debt). Not having a budget resolution in place is a symptom of the inability to reach agreement – not the cause of Congress not being able to accomplish things.

So yes, the Senate could pass a budget resolution, but without the cooperation of the house or 60 votes, that resolution would not take effect; it would be an empty gesture. The fact that the House managed to pass a budget last year, including a major overhaul of Medicare, reflects its different rules that allow it to deem the budget resolution to have taken effect. But it didn't ultimately matter: the provisions in its budget, including the Medicare changes, were not binding on the Senate.

Aren't you glad you asked?

stahrgazer wrote:Thanks Sym.

NS, research rather than talking points would help your cases.

In fact, "reliance on talking points rather than full facts," is probably a fundamental flaw in the Republican Party.

Symmetry wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:Thanks Sym.

NS, research rather than talking points would help your cases.

In fact, "reliance on talking points rather than full facts," is probably a fundamental flaw in the Republican Party.

No problem, it's not as if NS regularly provides evidence or sources.

stahrgazer wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:Thanks Sym.

NS, research rather than talking points would help your cases.

In fact, "reliance on talking points rather than full facts," is probably a fundamental flaw in the Republican Party.

No problem, it's not as if NS regularly provides evidence or sources.

Well, since I listen to talk radio, I'm going to guess that his source is frequently Rush Limbaugh, because Rush is good at giving partial truth and twisting it, sometimes hilariously so. (Another fundamental flaw in the Republican Party is many Reps seem to take Rush's words as gospel.)

stahrgazer wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:Thanks Sym.

NS, research rather than talking points would help your cases.

In fact, "reliance on talking points rather than full facts," is probably a fundamental flaw in the Republican Party.

No problem, it's not as if NS regularly provides evidence or sources.

Well, since I listen to talk radio, I'm going to guess that his source is frequently Rush Limbaugh, because Rush is good at giving partial truth and twisting it, sometimes hilariously so. (Another fundamental flaw in the Republican Party is many Reps seem to take Rush's words as gospel.)

Symmetry wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:Thanks Sym.

NS, research rather than talking points would help your cases.

In fact, "reliance on talking points rather than full facts," is probably a fundamental flaw in the Republican Party.

No problem, it's not as if NS regularly provides evidence or sources.

Well, since I listen to talk radio, I'm going to guess that his source is frequently Rush Limbaugh, because Rush is good at giving partial truth and twisting it, sometimes hilariously so. (Another fundamental flaw in the Republican Party is many Reps seem to take Rush's words as gospel.)

Nah- while I suspect he listens to Limbaugh occasionally, he's not Scotty levels of crazy.

stahrgazer wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:Thanks Sym.

NS, research rather than talking points would help your cases.

In fact, "reliance on talking points rather than full facts," is probably a fundamental flaw in the Republican Party.

No problem, it's not as if NS regularly provides evidence or sources.

Well, since I listen to talk radio, I'm going to guess that his source is frequently Rush Limbaugh, because Rush is good at giving partial truth and twisting it, sometimes hilariously so. (Another fundamental flaw in the Republican Party is many Reps seem to take Rush's words as gospel.)

Nah- while I suspect he listens to Limbaugh occasionally, he's not Scotty levels of crazy.

Then why is he spouting Rush Limbaugh's talking points so readily and ignoring the same "other facts" that Limbaugh ignores?

At least Tom Sullivan, another Conservative talk show host, acknowledges that it's Congress/Senate who aren't passing the budget. Tom blames Obama on alot of things, but not this, because Tom likes to give all facts, even though he ALSO leans toward "Republican talking points."

Symmetry wrote:Fair enough. I've always liked Andrew Sullivan (no relation) on the conservative side.

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Fair enough. I've always liked Andrew Sullivan (no relation) on the conservative side.

There's nothing conservative about him. In fact, he essentially hates conservatives.

tzor wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:More correctly, the Republicans want to cut anything that benefits average Americans, but not the things that benefit their big business cronies... and they will do this while proclaiming "family values" and "low taxes"...

Yes we know, we know, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."
Common, say it with me, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."
One more time, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."

Symmetry wrote:Fair enough. I've always liked Andrew Sullivan (no relation) on the conservative side.

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Fair enough. I've always liked Andrew Sullivan (no relation) on the conservative side.

There's nothing conservative about him. In fact, he essentially hates conservatives.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Fair enough. I've always liked Andrew Sullivan (no relation) on the conservative side.

You do know that Andrew Sullivan is a libertarian, right? I ask only because you seem to take umbrage with both libertarian arguments and libertarians generally, so it confused me that you would like Andrew Sullivan.

I mean the guy publicly supported Ron Paul for president. Twice. And you detest Ron Paul!

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Fair enough. I've always liked Andrew Sullivan (no relation) on the conservative side.

You do know that Andrew Sullivan is a libertarian, right? I ask only because you seem to take umbrage with both libertarian arguments and libertarians generally, so it confused me that you would like Andrew Sullivan.

I mean the guy publicly supported Ron Paul for president. Twice. And you detest Ron Paul!

I find libertarian arguments vague. My dislike of Paul is complex.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Fair enough. I've always liked Andrew Sullivan (no relation) on the conservative side.

You do know that Andrew Sullivan is a libertarian, right? I ask only because you seem to take umbrage with both libertarian arguments and libertarians generally, so it confused me that you would like Andrew Sullivan.

I mean the guy publicly supported Ron Paul for president. Twice. And you detest Ron Paul!

I find libertarian arguments vague. My dislike of Paul is complex.

Gillipig wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Fair enough. I've always liked Andrew Sullivan (no relation) on the conservative side.

You do know that Andrew Sullivan is a libertarian, right? I ask only because you seem to take umbrage with both libertarian arguments and libertarians generally, so it confused me that you would like Andrew Sullivan.

I mean the guy publicly supported Ron Paul for president. Twice. And you detest Ron Paul!

I find libertarian arguments vague. My dislike of Paul is complex.

I haven't heard your reasoning for this. Why do you dislike Ron Paul?
I quite like the way he talks about U.S foreign policy.

Gillipig wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Fair enough. I've always liked Andrew Sullivan (no relation) on the conservative side.

You do know that Andrew Sullivan is a libertarian, right? I ask only because you seem to take umbrage with both libertarian arguments and libertarians generally, so it confused me that you would like Andrew Sullivan.

I mean the guy publicly supported Ron Paul for president. Twice. And you detest Ron Paul!

I find libertarian arguments vague. My dislike of Paul is complex.

I haven't heard your reasoning for this. Why do you dislike Ron Paul?
I quite like the way he talks about U.S foreign policy.

"...I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."[180]
"Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day!"[178][187]
"An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth [to defend yourself against armed robbery], you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible... I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."[178][188]
“I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came 'out of the closet,' and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy? I don't believe so, medically or morally.”[189][190]
“[Magic] Johnson may be a sports star, but he is dying [of AIDS] because he violated moral laws.”[179][191]

thegreekdog wrote:

Gillipig wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Fair enough. I've always liked Andrew Sullivan (no relation) on the conservative side.

You do know that Andrew Sullivan is a libertarian, right? I ask only because you seem to take umbrage with both libertarian arguments and libertarians generally, so it confused me that you would like Andrew Sullivan.

I mean the guy publicly supported Ron Paul for president. Twice. And you detest Ron Paul!

I find libertarian arguments vague. My dislike of Paul is complex.

I haven't heard your reasoning for this. Why do you dislike Ron Paul?
I quite like the way he talks about U.S foreign policy.

Symmetry doesn't like the racist newsletters printed in Ron Paul's name that came out in the late 90s and early 2000s. He thinks those were written and approved by Ron Paul. Ron Paul has denied approving those newsletters and has additionally apologized for the context. Nevertheless, Symmetry denigrates arguments using Ron Paul's beliefs by pointing to those racist newsletters.

When criticism of the newsletters was leveled against Paul during his 1996 congressional election, he did not deny writing the newsletters, but instead defended them and said that the material had been taken out of context.[180][181][182] In later years, Paul said that the controversial material had been ghostwritten by members of a team that included 6 or 8 others and that, as publisher, not editor, he had not even been aware of the content of the controversial articles until years after they had been published.[182][193] He eventually disavowed those passages, and stated that in 1996 his campaign advisers had thought denying authorship would be too confusing and that he had to live with the material published under his name.[182][193] Some political commentators made note of the changing nature of the explanations he had provided over the years about his involvement with the newsletters.[194][195][196]
An estranged former long-term aide of Paul, Eric Dondero, alleged that Paul was lying about his role in the production of the controversial newsletters.[197][198] During the 2012 Republican presidential primary campaign, in January 2012, the Washington Post reported[199] that several of Paul's former associates said that Paul had been very involved in the production of the newsletters and had allowed the controversial material to be included as part of a deliberate strategy to boost profits. Paul's former secretary said, "It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product... He would proof it."[199] Paul continued to deny the accusations and to disavow the material.[200]

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Gillipig wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Fair enough. I've always liked Andrew Sullivan (no relation) on the conservative side.

You do know that Andrew Sullivan is a libertarian, right? I ask only because you seem to take umbrage with both libertarian arguments and libertarians generally, so it confused me that you would like Andrew Sullivan.

I mean the guy publicly supported Ron Paul for president. Twice. And you detest Ron Paul!

I find libertarian arguments vague. My dislike of Paul is complex.

I haven't heard your reasoning for this. Why do you dislike Ron Paul?
I quite like the way he talks about U.S foreign policy.

Symmetry doesn't like the racist newsletters printed in Ron Paul's name that came out in the late 90s and early 2000s. He thinks those were written and approved by Ron Paul. Ron Paul has denied approving those newsletters and has additionally apologized for the context. Nevertheless, Symmetry denigrates arguments using Ron Paul's beliefs by pointing to those racist newsletters.

When criticism of the newsletters was leveled against Paul during his 1996 congressional election, he did not deny writing the newsletters, but instead defended them and said that the material had been taken out of context.[180][181][182] In later years, Paul said that the controversial material had been ghostwritten by members of a team that included 6 or 8 others and that, as publisher, not editor, he had not even been aware of the content of the controversial articles until years after they had been published.[182][193] He eventually disavowed those passages, and stated that in 1996 his campaign advisers had thought denying authorship would be too confusing and that he had to live with the material published under his name.[182][193] Some political commentators made note of the changing nature of the explanations he had provided over the years about his involvement with the newsletters.[194][195][196]
An estranged former long-term aide of Paul, Eric Dondero, alleged that Paul was lying about his role in the production of the controversial newsletters.[197][198] During the 2012 Republican presidential primary campaign, in January 2012, the Washington Post reported[199] that several of Paul's former associates said that Paul had been very involved in the production of the newsletters and had allowed the controversial material to be included as part of a deliberate strategy to boost profits. Paul's former secretary said, "It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product... He would proof it."[199] Paul continued to deny the accusations and to disavow the material.[200]

Symmetry wrote:
I dislike his homophobia and racism, for a start.

"...I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."[180]
"Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day!"[178][187]
"An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth [to defend yourself against armed robbery], you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible... I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."[178][188]
“I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came 'out of the closet,' and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy? I don't believe so, medically or morally.”[189][190]
“[Magic] Johnson may be a sports star, but he is dying [of AIDS] because he violated moral laws.”[179][191]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Newsletters_controversy