I think it was a good bill, but it was politicized.”
Christine28374 on Apr 24, 2013 at 17:38:53
“Ooops just realized my spelling error Newtown not Newton! da How can you say this bill has nothing to do with Newtown? The families of several victims were actively supporting this bill, it may not have their names on it, but it most certainly was being pushed through due to the recent shootings and also for Gabby Gifford and every one else in this country who has been effected by gun violence.”
“Even if it went through the filibuster it would still fail in the house. Obama had a SUPERMAJORITY for a few months, and a large majority thereafter. What did he do? Waste all of his political capital on an unpopular healthcare law. He can't even get his own party to vote for his bills.”
kain099 on Apr 18, 2013 at 16:22:35
“Health care involves 1/6th of all spending in this country. 1/6th of all the trillions being spent. And Medicare cant even negotiate lower drug prices because of Republican policies.
Reform we needed. Obama offered a huge concession by taking Republican party ideals in the individual mandate and expansion of Medicaid (and the right to sell across state lines, beginning in 2014 with regulations). Despite this, it is termed socialist, even though it matches over half of what Republicans wanted in 1996.
Obama had the votes to get this out of the Senate. Republicans refused to let it be passed. Most people are to stupld to realize that the bill didnt fail to get the votes needed to be passed, it didnt get the sixty needed to end a filibuster.
At some point, Republicans are going to have to work with the majority party. Because if they continue to do this, over and over again, when they become the majority, this will happen from the Democrats. Republicans have made this business as usual, and it needs to stop, because it has made government dysfunctional. ”
“There are more now, I'm not refuting that. However, don't act like it hasn't been used by both sides in the past....”
kain099 on Apr 18, 2013 at 14:46:34
“Yes, it has been used in the past, and saw a rise in use after the rules were changed to mean the threat of a filibuster could force a cloture vote, without standing up and talking.
But never before in our history has every piece of legislation for almost four years from the majority party had a filibuster threatened against it, forcing a sixty vote super majority for ANYTHING to pass.
This is not just a simple rule change in the Senate, this transforms the Senate from a part of Congress where only a simple majority is needed to pass legislation to a part of Congress where you need 60 votes to pass things.
That is unfair, it isn't house the Senate works, and it is ridiculous of you to compare them. Bush got the agenda he wanted, he had complete control of Congress for four years, and even though Democrats fundamentally disagreed, they did not obstruct.
Democrats had a super majority for about three months, not two years, and Republicans have done everything possible to prevent any of their agenda from coming together, not just court nominees, but cabinet and executive appointments, health care officials, everything Obama wants is being obstructed by Republicans.”
2004-2005, there were 62 Democratic filibustered. 2005-2006, 68 Democratic filibusters.
2007 - 2008, 139 Republican filibusters, 2009 - 2010, 138 Republican filibusters, 2011 - 2012, 104 Republican filibusters.
The four years Bush had complete control of Government.. 130 total filibuster threats that forced cloture (60 votes).
Before Obama even had control, they had used the filibuster more, just because Democrats had control of the Senate. The four years of his first term, 242. Since Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, a total of *381* times. ”