Why is the 109th Congress a bust?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

See this thread.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=22887.msg552542#msg552542

[Jake]

Unbiased here. This term is not yet a "bust", mostly because it's only a third done. The only reason people would call it a bust, failure to reform social security, has been brought about by Democrats calling for a filibuster on every plan.

[minionofmidas]

Hah, I cast the first vote for "It's Clinton's fault" without looking. Always pleases me when I manage that.

[Frodo]

The only reason people would call it a bust, failure to reform social security, has been brought about by Democrats calling for a filibuster on every plan.

Please.  Your party is in control of the White House and both houses of Congress -therefore, as the governing majority, the onus is on the Republican Party, not Democrats.  If Republicans were united on a single plan with regard to Social Security, Democratic obstructionism wouldn't be a problem.  Perhaps your fellow Republicans are more of a problem than Democrats, in this regard.  

Try to take a leaf from your own book, and assume responsibility (not personally, obviously) for the failure of a Republican-controlled federal government in passing Social Security reform, and quit passing the buck on those who aren't in control of anything.    

[Jake]

Frodo, do you know what a filibuster is. Democrats have pledged to use a filibuster on any social security bill that: raises the retirement age or introduces any privitisation. That leaves only raising the payroll tax limit as a viable alternative. 55 is not a governing majority when the other 45 don't back the bill.

[Frodo]

Frodo, do you know what a filibuster is. Democrats have pledged to use a filibuster on any social security bill that: raises the retirement age or introduces any privitisation. That leaves only raising the payroll tax limit as a viable alternative. 55 is not a governing majority when the other 45 don't back the bill.

And Republicans have the power to override any filibuster Democrats might launch by using the 'nuclear option'.  That they haven't done.

Internal divisions are a far more serious threat to any effort Republicans might make to privatize Social Security than anything Democrats might do.   

[Sam Spade]

Frodo, do you know what a filibuster is. Democrats have pledged to use a filibuster on any social security bill that: raises the retirement age or introduces any privitisation. That leaves only raising the payroll tax limit as a viable alternative. 55 is not a governing majority when the other 45 don't back the bill.

And Republicans have the power to override any filibuster Democrats might launch by using the 'nuclear option'.  That they haven't done. 

A clarification of terms is needed here.

The chances of a nuclear option being used on legislative matters (as opposed to judicial confirmation matters) is practically nil. 

Neither party wants to give away that power for future use, as opposed to any filibuster power with regards to judicial nominees.

[Jake]

Frodo, do you know what a filibuster is. Democrats have pledged to use a filibuster on any social security bill that: raises the retirement age or introduces any privitisation. That leaves only raising the payroll tax limit as a viable alternative. 55 is not a governing majority when the other 45 don't back the bill.

And Republicans have the power to override any filibuster Democrats might launch by using the 'nuclear option'.  That they haven't done.

Internal divisions are a far more serious threat to any effort Republicans might make to privatize Social Security than anything Democrats might do.   

The nuclear option doesn't concern bills only judicial nominations.

[Frodo]

Frodo, do you know what a filibuster is. Democrats have pledged to use a filibuster on any social security bill that: raises the retirement age or introduces any privitisation. That leaves only raising the payroll tax limit as a viable alternative. 55 is not a governing majority when the other 45 don't back the bill.

And Republicans have the power to override any filibuster Democrats might launch by using the 'nuclear option'.  That they haven't done. 

A clarification of terms is needed here.

The chances of a nuclear option being used on legislative matters (as opposed to judicial confirmation matters) is practically nil. 

Neither party wants to give away that power for future use, as opposed to any filibuster power with regards to judicial nominees.

I am not disagreeing with you on any of these points -however, theoretically at least, Republicans do have a governing majority, and have the votes (if they had the willpower) to forcibly overpower Democrats through the use of the nuclear option.  

[Jake]

On judicial nominations. No one, not even the most partisan Republican supports removing the filibuster for bills.

[The Dowager Mod]

Worst Congress EVER!

[The Duke]

Frodo, do you know what a filibuster is. Democrats have pledged to use a filibuster on any social security bill that: raises the retirement age or introduces any privitisation. That leaves only raising the payroll tax limit as a viable alternative. 55 is not a governing majority when the other 45 don't back the bill.

And Republicans have the power to override any filibuster Democrats might launch by using the 'nuclear option'.  That they haven't done.

Internal divisions are a far more serious threat to any effort Republicans might make to privatize Social Security than anything Democrats might do.   

Then I'll assume we can count on your support if the nuclear ption ever comes back up for a vote, as you've declared yourself a majoritarian?

[A18]

This "let's filibuster absolutely everything we don't support" garbage is way out of line. The massive 1993 tax hike only passed the Senate 51-50, with the vice president casting the tie breaking vote.

We didn't filibuster that, but the Democrats filibuster the ****ing U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

[Erc]

Nothing's happening because enough people on both sides don't want anything to happen.

[Smash255]

Frodo, do you know what a filibuster is. Democrats have pledged to use a filibuster on any social security bill that: raises the retirement age or introduces any privitisation. That leaves only raising the payroll tax limit as a viable alternative. 55 is not a governing majority when the other 45 don't back the bill.

While the Dems threatening the fillibuster has some impact, it doesn't have as much as you think.  Their are enough Republicans (especially Chafee, Snowe, Collins) as well as a few others who have  some serious rreservations with the Social Security plan for it to even move foward