$1.5 Trillion GOP Tax Cut Thread

[GlobeSoc]

How long is this session of Congress going to be before they adjourn?

[Sestak]

By the same logic, wouldn't the Republicans have already gotten rid of the legislative filibuster at this point? I'm going to extend the rate benefit of the doubt to them in this case, although I think you are right in the rest of your post about how it's better to have 4 extra years of Obama appointments to the bench.

Not necessarily. Democrats/liberals lose out more with a legislative filibuster because many big things we want to do then take 60 votes. Meanwhile, big things conservatives want to do, like cutting taxes and spending on liberal stuff can be done with bare majorities. I'm sure conservatives have their own dreams that require 60 votes right now, but they get by pretty well with the status quo.

Also consider that even without a legislative filibuster, after Democrats go buck wild in their turn with a federal trifecta, and enact a slew of new social programs, Republicans would be hard-pressed to roll those back due to the inevitable backlash. It's very hard to take those things away once they are implemented, hence why Republicans would want to keep a filibuster to block them from ever being implemented in the first place.

You are thinking only economic policy.

Think of what they could do on SOCIAL policy.

Planned Parenthood. Immigration. Bathroom Bill. Many more.

This is not a good idea.

[Pericles]

Genius idea: Schumer abolishes the filibuster when Democrats get back in power. Then, when Democrats lose the majority, he reinstates the filibuster, and changes the rules to require all future rule changes get the support of a majority of Democratic Senators(so it can't be changed back without his consent). Republicans can't do anything. Democrats come back, abolish filibuster again. Rinse and repeat.

[Cashew]

If there were no filibusters we'd just keep going back and forth between ultraconservative periods, ultraprogressive periods, and stagnant periods.

The judicial system was just fine pre 1970's when you actually needed to talk for filibusters.

[Pericles]

By the same logic, wouldn't the Republicans have already gotten rid of the legislative filibuster at this point? I'm going to extend the rate benefit of the doubt to them in this case, although I think you are right in the rest of your post about how it's better to have 4 extra years of Obama appointments to the bench.

Not necessarily. Democrats/liberals lose out more with a legislative filibuster because many big things we want to do then take 60 votes. Meanwhile, big things conservatives want to do, like cutting taxes and spending on liberal stuff can be done with bare majorities. I'm sure conservatives have their own dreams that require 60 votes right now, but they get by pretty well with the status quo.

Also consider that even without a legislative filibuster, after Democrats go buck wild in their turn with a federal trifecta, and enact a slew of new social programs, Republicans would be hard-pressed to roll those back due to the inevitable backlash. It's very hard to take those things away once they are implemented, hence why Republicans would want to keep a filibuster to block them from ever being implemented in the first place.

Exactly.

[GlobeSoc]

By the same logic, wouldn't the Republicans have already gotten rid of the legislative filibuster at this point? I'm going to extend the rate benefit of the doubt to them in this case, although I think you are right in the rest of your post about how it's better to have 4 extra years of Obama appointments to the bench.

Not necessarily. Democrats/liberals lose out more with a legislative filibuster because many big things we want to do then take 60 votes. Meanwhile, big things conservatives want to do, like cutting taxes and spending on liberal stuff can be done with bare majorities. I'm sure conservatives have their own dreams that require 60 votes right now, but they get by pretty well with the status quo.

Also consider that even without a legislative filibuster, after Democrats go buck wild in their turn with a federal trifecta, and enact a slew of new social programs, Republicans would be hard-pressed to roll those back due to the inevitable backlash. It's very hard to take those things away once they are implemented, hence why Republicans would want to keep a filibuster to block them from ever being implemented in the first place.

Exactly.

[junior chįmp]

Genius idea: Schumer abolishes the filibuster when Democrats get back in power. Then, when Democrats lose the majority, he reinstates the filibuster, and changes the rules to require all future rule changes get the support of a majority of Democratic Senators(so it can't be changed back without his consent). Republicans can't do anything. Democrats come back, abolish filibuster again. Rinse and repeat.

Democrats aren't ballsy enough to do this. They're still harping on about, "muh purple America" while the GOP steamrolls em.

The instant the GOP heard this kind of centrist rhetoric, they fangs come out

[Yank2133]

If there were no filibusters we'd just keep going back and forth between ultraconservative periods, ultraprogressive periods, and stagnant periods.

Fine by me.

Our policies vs theres. I think will win that fight.

Did you forget 2010, 2014 and 2016, mate?

Terrible economy in 2010, gerrymandering in 2014 and 2016.

I don't think gerrymandering will be as much as a factor in 2020.

[Keep cool-idge]

I really wish the Rubio/Lee Admendment passed and that they got rid of more special interest loopholes. The private jet provision should also be scrapped. I'm very happy that the Cruz admendment was adopted.

[Indy Texas]

If there were no filibusters we'd just keep going back and forth between ultraconservative periods, ultraprogressive periods, and stagnant periods.

Fine by me.

Our policies vs theres. I think will win that fight.

That would create a lot of instability.

Imagine everyone's tax rates going up and down every few years. Or everyone getting enrolled in a national health insurance plan only to have it abruptly ended four years later.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

If there were no filibusters we'd just keep going back and forth between ultraconservative periods, ultraprogressive periods, and stagnant periods.

Fine by me.

Our policies vs theres. I think will win that fight.

Did you forget 2010, 2014 and 2016, mate?

Terrible economy in 2010, gerrymandering in 2014 and 2016.

I don't think gerrymandering will be as much as a factor in 2020.

Gerrymandering is why we had massive losses in the Senate in 2014 and why we lost the Presidential race and had weak Senate gains in 2016?

[Yank2133]

By the same logic, wouldn't the Republicans have already gotten rid of the legislative filibuster at this point? I'm going to extend the rate benefit of the doubt to them in this case, although I think you are right in the rest of your post about how it's better to have 4 extra years of Obama appointments to the bench.

Not necessarily. Democrats/liberals lose out more with a legislative filibuster because many big things we want to do then take 60 votes. Meanwhile, big things conservatives want to do, like cutting taxes and spending on liberal stuff can be done with bare majorities. I'm sure conservatives have their own dreams that require 60 votes right now, but they get by pretty well with the status quo.

Also consider that even without a legislative filibuster, after Democrats go buck wild in their turn with a federal trifecta, and enact a slew of new social programs, Republicans would be hard-pressed to roll those back due to the inevitable backlash. It's very hard to take those things away once they are implemented, hence why Republicans would want to keep a filibuster to block them from ever being implemented in the first place.

Bingo.

It is why much what LBJ passed 50+ years ago is still around and the same will happen for Obama's legislative achievements.

So get rid of the fillibuster and ram your agenda through and dare them to repeal it when they are in charge. These assholes got cold feet when it came to rolling back the ACA expansion, do you really think they would roll back Medicare for All?

[Cashew]

If there were no filibusters we'd just keep going back and forth between ultraconservative periods, ultraprogressive periods, and stagnant periods.

Fine by me.

Our policies vs theres. I think will win that fight.

That would create a lot of instability.

Imagine everyone's tax rates going up and down every few years. Or everyone getting enrolled in a national health insurance plan only to have it abruptly ended four years later.

As I keep having to point out, the filibuster was almost nonexistent pre 1970's, and most of those were segregation related, and yet despite this society chugged along fine. Blame the culture, not a lack of gentleman's agreements for instability.

[LimoLiberal]

Why are all these Democrats voting against sending it back to committee?

[Matty]

Can we all agree that the senate procedures are archaic and inefficient and need to be modernized?

Do votes take this long in other countries? Christ on a cracker!

[Keep cool-idge]

Bernie sanders voted against manchins bill!

[Keep cool-idge]

Why are all these Democrats voting against sending it back to committee?

Because they are left wing hacks who don’t want any tax cuts!

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Why are all these Democrats voting against sending it back to committee?

They know it's not going to pass regardless, so if they don't like the instructions, they see no reason to cast a meaningless "AYE" vote.

[emailking]

Genius idea: Schumer abolishes the filibuster when Democrats get back in power. Then, when Democrats lose the majority, he reinstates the filibuster, and changes the rules to require all future rule changes get the support of a majority of Democratic Senators(so it can't be changed back without his consent). Republicans can't do anything. Democrats come back, abolish filibuster again. Rinse and repeat.

The rules only bind the current Senate session (this is why they have to pass a rules package every session), and you can't pass a law to change to that because the constitution allows the Senate to set its own rules.

[Classic Conservative]

The motions to commit are so useless.

[junior chįmp]

Can we all agree that the senate procedures are archaic and inefficient and need to be modernized?

Do votes take this long in other countries? Christ on a cracker!

The Senate seems to have historically run smooth when Democrats have it. Republicans just can't government worth a shít

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The Manchin motion to send the bill back to committee fails 38-61.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Next up: Cantwell drilling amendment

[Sestak]

Genius idea: Schumer abolishes the filibuster when Democrats get back in power. Then, when Democrats lose the majority, he reinstates the filibuster, and changes the rules to require all future rule changes get the support of a majority of Democratic Senators(so it can't be changed back without his consent). Republicans can't do anything. Democrats come back, abolish filibuster again. Rinse and repeat.

But no matter what you do, a simple majority can override the parliamentarian on rules issues. The simple majority of the Senate has the right to choose its rule.

So that's impossible.

[butters]

I can't believe a tax bill got me to sign up for a political forum.  Anyway, hello everybody.

Also, please don't support killing the filibuster for legislation.  If you don't like how things are going now, imagine how bad they would be after the next GOP takeover.  I don't love the way the Senate does thing, but at least it helps prevent complete chaos every 4-8 years.