Why is it that Dems need 60 votes, but repukes only need 51?

[Webster Green]

Doesn't that kind of put us at an unfair disadvantage in getting anything passed?

The chimp and the pukes slammed through anything and everything they wanted, and didn't need to get 60 votes. Actually, the chimp just declared things were law, and that was that.

WTF am I missing here? :shrug:

[Ken Burch]

1. It's because OUR party leaders accept the GOP meme

That 'Pug electoral victories count, but OURS don't. Our leaders further also accept the right-wing corollary to this meme, which is the implication that Democrats have no right to be in power.

And in accepting those assumptions, they've agreed to nothing important with the great victory we won in 2008, and to make it as easy as possible for the 'Pugs to retake power in 2010 and 2012.

In other words, at some deep level, OUR "leaders" have agreed to "remember their place"-which is to say, they accept the right-wing notion that our party's role in the political structure must be one of powerlessness, submission and self-loathing.

[napi21]

2. Because all Pubs ever want to do is lower taxes, and you can do

changes to financial laws with only 51!

[Webster Green]

5. You can do anything with 51..

You just need to be creative with the wording of the bill, to frame it as a financial issue. They could do it with HCR if they cared to.

[napi21]

13. EVERY place I've checked & everyone I've listened to ALL

said you couldn't put the insurance enforcements in a law during reconciliation. It was designed strictly for expediting budget issues. I don't want a HC bill without any enforcement capabilities!

[Webster Green]

15. Couldn't they expand the Medicare budget to include everyone?

Why wouldn't that work under reconciliation?

[napi21]

16. Yes, but there would be no elimination of pre existing cond's,

being kicked out because you cost too much, expansion of age college kids can stay on their parent's ins, etc... That's the problem.

[eridani]

18. What makes you think pre-existing conditions are eliminated, anyway?

They'll just refuse to insure you because you have a bad credit record, as many who have struggled with medical bills do.

[napi21]

22. I don't see an up side for a health ins. co to reject you for your credit history.

If you don't pay your premium, you get canceled. What's the down side for them to accept your $$ until you just don't pay your bill? That doesn't make sense.

[eridani]

23. The upside is that it's a good excuse for not insuring people

--with pre-existing conditions.

[silverweb]

7. That makes the most sense of everything I've heard.

So far, anyway. ;)

[Joe Bacon]

3. Because the Democratic leadership is bought and paid for

When the Republicans ran the Senate they passed the Pill Bill with 54 votes.

Yet we need 60 for anything because the lobbyists have Reid in their pocket. And Reid wouldn't be where he is unless the lobbyists bought off enough Democratic senators to get their stooge in place.

This is 1994 all over again. Forcing people to buy junk insurance policies that won't provide doodley-squat is going to piss millions of voters off to the point that the Republicans will ride the tidal wave back into power.

[robinlynne]

4. Thank-you. I have been wondering the exact same thing for a long time.

[LuvNewcastle]

6. Ezra Klein said on Charlie Rose tonight

that Medicare got passed with 55 votes. He said the filibuster wasn't used 40 years ago the way it is today. This tyranny of the minority that we have today is making it near impossible to get anything meaningful done.

[kysrsoze]

10. What annoys me is that Repubs don't even filibuster. They just threaten to

The whole thing is B.S. They could pass healthcare reform with 51 votes if they really wanted. This is their excuse to water it down and claim victory with a P.O.S. bill.

[LuvNewcastle]

11. All they have to do is threaten, and the

majority cowers. What disgusts me as much as anything else is that the bill is being written by the least democratic of the two houses of Congress. The House bill, while certainly not perfect, was at least acceptable. Klein said that he expects there to be very little discussion in conference and that the House will probably go ahead and pass the Senate bill as it is. That's just the opposite of the way things should work.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

21. Sometimes the GOP doesn't even have to threaten to filibuster

I've heard one Dem Leader (Reid, I think) say he wasn't going to act on something because the Repukes might filibuster.

If I didn't know better, I'd say the Dems in Congress suffer from "battered wife syndrome."

[Dr Fate]

25. DEMS threaten the base that the Republicans will threaten the Senate unless...

...we go along with Republican threats.

Strange- so DEMS would rather threaten the base with the spectre of Republcian threats as opposed to fighting said Republicans.

[Johonny]

29. I've heard that a lot

The way the rules of the Senate are being used is different today. Listen to the Senators opposed and they act like the 60 vote is the vote on final passage. They are despicable.

[Blue_Tires]

38. +1

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. It's shocking

[mth44sc]

9. well let us take wealthyfare

you know - that tax break for the rich so they didn't have to pay for W's war...

51 was all it took. That means it gets revisited in 5 years. You think the Dems are up to making them pay their fair share.

[asdjrocky]

12. You would almost think they were working together to screw us.

Imagine that!

[JamesA1102]

14. Because the Dems did not abuse the cloture rules

the way the GOP has. This Congress will break the record set by the last Congress for failed cloture motions and that record was double the previous record, also set by the GOP.

[RufusTFirefly]

17. Here's what you're missing. A fundamental flaw in your logic

You are assuming that the leadership of the Democratic party is actually working with your interests in mind.

Wake up and smell the coffee. They aren't.

They are working for the corporate donors who pad their wallets. Congress operates much like any other corporation, except that they have a two-year grace period. A sudden boycott won't make any difference because we're still paying them until the next election at least. They don't want to totally alienate their customers (the electorate), but their loyalty lies with their stockholders (their corporate contributors).

Notice how bills that benefit the military-industrial-complex, the shameless carbon polluters, or the multi-billion-dollar Illness Industry move through the process with hot-knife-through-butter-like ease, while bills that benefit you and me get stopped, stymied, and micromanaged to death.

Add an Inc. or Corp. to the end of your name and you will be much happier and a lot less confused. Otherwise, join the rest of us at the back of the bus.

[Dr Fate]

24. It's so clear once we realize this. DEM leaders dont fight conservatives b/c they AGREE with them.

Once you accept this, everything gets really simple-

"I don't understand why Harry Reid wont do something about Joe Lieberman"

Answer: Because he AGREES with Joe Lieberman.

"I don't understand why Obama wont get out there and force Harry Reid to twist some Blue Dog arms!"

OR

"Why isnt Obama out their giving speeches and calling out all those Blue Dogs over their oppostion to HCR?"

Answer: Because both Obama and Harry Reid tend to AGREE with the Blue Dogs more than not, silly!

"Why cant the DEMS stand up to corporations and the Lobbyists and get things done with 51 votes like the GOP did?"

Answer: Silly Goose- they AGREE with the GOP, Lobbyists and corporations on that too.

I still have faith in handful of good DEMS out there- but your post is spot-on. Too often we assume that they are too inept to work for us, but really they are refusing to work for us on purpose.


If a majortiy party refuses to fight for soemthing, it's simply because THEY DO NOT WANT TOO. It's really that simple, and anything else is smokescreens, good cop-bad cop BS, and excuses.

[JamesA1102]

26. So you are saying the whole Democratic party is just one big bait & switch?

What color is the sky in your world?

[RufusTFirefly]

28. What part of the phrase "the leadership of the Democratic party" did you miss?

Talk about switching. I didn't say "the whole Democratic party."

The so-called "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" is all that remains of the party I recognize from when I joined it a generation ago.

[JamesA1102]

30. Except that...

The Democratic party of the 1980s was an aberration of the Democratic party of most of the 20th century which was mainly a centerist party.

[RufusTFirefly]

31. Start by improving your spelling. Then work on your history. n/t

[JamesA1102]

32. I know the history of the Democratic party, Do you?

It was a centerist party that leaned a bit to the left on some issues, made up of a coalition of labor unions in the north and conservatives in the south.

[RufusTFirefly]

33. The word is centrist. Now what's your definition of it?

Do you recall the New Deal? Social Security? Medicare? Civil Rights? Voting Rights? If you know your history, then certainly you know that Harry Truman tried to pass universal health care back in 1945. I assume you also know that thanks to "centerist" Democrats the top tax rate was somewhere between 70 and 90 percent for more than half of the 20th century?

Regarding the coalition of labor in the north and conservatives in the south, you are correct. You got one right. LBJ knowingly lost the south when he signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. He realized what the consequences would be but was enough of a leader to do the right thing instead of "moving to the center" or "reaching across the aisle" to appease the segregationist Dixiecrats.

[JamesA1102]

Thank you spelling monitor!

And remember I said leaned left on certain issues.

Also remember that a big part of the New Deal was the Bank Holiday in 1933 when the Federal government helped the banks stay solvent. (Sound familiar?) And that one of FDR's aim with the New Deal was to save capitalism and its institution and prevent the country sliding into socialism and/or communism.

But in hindsight people forget such things such as when Social Security first passed in 1936, the fourth year of FDR's term, it only covered a limited number of workers and the first benefits were not paid out until 1942.

They also forget that JFK instituted the biggest corporate tax cut in the country's history, vastly increased military spending and was slow to embrace Civil Rights.

Just as they forget those high tax levels were under the GOP administrations of Eisenhower and Nixon as well.

And that LBJ had a 67 seat majority in the Senate to push through what he wanted and still had a hard time passing Civil and Voting Rights which he only did in the end by involking the memory of JFK. And that LBJ originally wanted Medicare to be for all but knew he couldn't pass despite a 67 seat majority in the Senate so he took a more centerist or centrist approach by limiting the program to seniors.

And that after the Dems lost the Dixiecrats they lost the 5 of the next 6 Presidential elections (and Carter would have lost too if Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon) and in the '80s lost working class, union households, who became Reagan Democrats because they felt that the Democratic party had strayed from its roots and become too far left.

[JamesA1102]

37. Self Delete nt

[Marr]

34. That's exactly it.

It honestly makes me laugh when I see people *still* saying things like, "Harry Reid needs to grow a spine", or "Obama needs to kick some butt". There's nothing wrong with their spines. They're not playing to the same goals that we are, that's all. They work for the same crew the Republicans work for.

[classysassy]

19. I want my democracy back

the congresscritters stole it.You and I,Mr and Mrs America can retrieve it next election,vote all of the crooks out.

[d_b]

20. our...uh...'leaders' haven't answered that one yet

[emulatorloo]

27. You need 60 to end a filibuster. You need 51 to pass a bill

A filibuster will effectively kill a bill. IF there is a fillibuster it wont get to "up or down vote" that only needs 51

[Renew Deal]

35. Because Dems weren't willing to fillibuster everything.

[DefenseLawyer]

36. They pass what they want to pass.

They play these games with what they have no intention of passing.