[jeffkrol]

Why I find this amusing is beyond me but it is..... totally funny.......

Filibustering the legislative process

As it looks like all 41 Republicans will filibuster financial reform today, it's worth being clear about what, exactly, they're filibustering.

First, they're not filibustering the bill itself. The Senate hasn't looked at the bill. In fact, it hasn't even seen the version that combines Dodd's proposal with Lincoln's derivatives language. This filibuster isn't preventing a vote on anything. Rather, it's standing in the way of debate and amendment.

The specific motion being filibustered is the motion to move to debate the legislation. That is to say that Republicans who want to see the bill debated and changed are filibustering the process in which the bill can be debated and changed. They're not filibustering legislation so much as the legislative process itself. It's a strange move, as letting the bill be amended and debated doesn't preclude a filibuster against a vote on the legislation. But Republicans have gotten so used to filibustering everything that they filibuster whether it makes sense or not. As it turns out, filibusters are a bit like Pringles: Once you pop, you just can't stop.

Ezra Klein - Filibustering the legislative process
Though not exactly true it is funny.....

NPR said this morning that, once the bill enters the debate and amendment stage, Republicans are scared that Democrats can filibuster any amendments the Republicans offer, and thus the Republicans would rather try to make their changes beforehand. But, thinking about it now, it seems exceedingly unlikely that the Democrats would filibuster anything related to this bill. Why not just let the amendment vote go through, and vote it down with a simple majority? Maybe NPR was just repeating a Republican rationalization for the filibuster.

To get an idea why Democrats say they are so frustrated with filibusters, consider what happened Thursday on the Senate floor when Majority Leader Harry Reid proposed bringing up the financial regulatory bill:
"I ask unanimous consent that at 3 p.m. Monday, April 26, the Senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 349S3217, a bill to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving the accountability and transparency."
"Is there objection?" asked the Senate's presiding officer.
If just one Senator objects, the bill can't be considered unless 60 Senators vote to bring it up.
The one senator in this case was Republican leader Mitch McConnell: "Reserving the right to object, and I will object."
McConnell said Republicans wanted more time to negotiate changes to the bill before it hit the floor. That's because once it does, Republicans wanting to amend it may have to muster 60 votes, because any Democrat can filibuster GOP amendments.
It used to be relatively rare that so-called "motions to proceed," or to bring up a bill, were filibustered.
Before Democrats became the majority in 2007, such filibusters occurred only about eight times a year. Since then, the Republican minority has nearly quadrupled the frequency of such filibusters.
That's why Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) convened a meeting last week of the rules committee he leads -- the first in a series of hearings on what to do about the filibuster.
"The threat of filibusters has become an almost daily fact of life in the Senate, influencing how we handle virtually everything debated on the Senate floor," Schumer said. "The filibuster used to be the exception to the rule. In today's Senate, it's becoming a straitjacket."
Schumer held the hearing at the urging of Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), who is part of a group of freshman and sophomore Democrats who've gotten fed up with the filibuster.
"It is time again for reform," Udall said. "There are many great traditions in this body that should be kept and respected, but stubbornly clinging to ineffective and unproductive procedures should not be one of them."
GOP leader McConnell, who was also at the hearing, said his message on changing the filibuster is: Don't do it.

Will GOP Use Filibuster To Upend Finance Bill? : NPR
thus spoke the party of "NO" or worse....... party of closed doors... just like.. errr.. that's different this is IMPORTANT...

For the better part of a year, the GOP has blasted Democrats for legislating "behind closed doors" and making "secret deals." On Monday afternoon, the Senate will vote on a motion to proceed to debate Wall Street reform in public on the Senate floor.

Yet Republicans say their 41 members are united and will oppose the motion, in order to encourage Democrats to continue negotiating with them behind closed doors.

Condemning closed-door negotiations yet voting to prevent public debate is the height of hypocrisy, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) told HuffPost on Monday. "By voting against cloture, Republicans are voting to keep Wall Street negotiations behind closed doors, demanding changes to the bill without public scrutiny. Instead of closed-door deals, they should support open floor debate," said Merkley.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/26/gop-fighting-to-keep-wall_n_551911.html

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 04-26-2010 at 11:49 AM.

[GingeM]

Are you proffering NPR and the Huffington Post as "reliable and impartial" sources?

[deadwolfbones]

What is it that you feel is factually inaccurate in these articles, Ginge?

[shooz]

Are you proffering NPR and the Huffington Post as "reliable and impartial" sources?

Are you saying they're not?
If so which one is?

[gokenin]

well stepping on a landmine here I question the Huffington report as a legitimate source since it is a blog heck that means that we can take the Drudge Report as legit news as well? I doubt that one but at least he uses actuall news articles not blogs.

[Ratmagiclady]

well stepping on a landmine here I question the Huffington report as a legitimate source since it is a blog heck that means that we can take the Drudge Report as legit news as well? I doubt that one but at least he uses actuall news articles not blogs.

Huffington Post is for the most part a feed for other news sources: they mostly compile stories done by other news agencies. Add commentary down the left side, put their own headlines in the links, etc. Obviously it's a 'liberal publication,' but it's not Arianna's 'blog.' The content comes from all over.

[shooz]

I don't consider either one purely a "news" site.
Opinion maybe.
Still doesn't answer bones question.
Why are they obstructing everything?
They are you know.

[Ratmagiclady]

Definitely, the GOP's been blocking *everything* they can just to be able to sell their 'Government doesn't work' sales pitch... "Elect us, we'll make it work less!"

They've been blocking even the most uncontroversial judicial and regulatory appointments... just to bottle up the works. So they can run on 'populist anger' and all.

[jeffkrol]

Is Harry Reid smart to push for a vote on financial reform? / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

But Reid said on Thursday that he’s “not going to waste any more time of the American people while they come up with some agreement.”

“The games of stalling are over,” Reid said.

[GingeM]

What is it that you feel is factually inaccurate in these articles, Ginge?

It's not the facts that are written that are the issue it's the way they are couched and what is omitted which both sites have, historically, demonstrated a heavy slant to the left with.

Huffington Post is for the most part a feed for other news sources:

Oh, so it's the same a Drudge... <Awaiting incoming>

If so which one is?

I don't know really. Rather than listen to the pontifications of others I prefer to waste my time determining the facts for myself. I find I end up with a picture that is closer to the truth that way.

Why are they obstructing everything?

It astounds me that you can even ask that question and still manage to evoke a tone of "pathetic disbelief". The arrogance is palpable. Dry your eyes Princess. There is a growing number of people who are fed up with "your way' and are standing up for themselves after many years of being "the silent majority". The sweeping changes the current administration and Congress are trying to enact are simply not reflective of the population. The impatience of the left is their Achilles Heel. The population has, several times of late, indicated in "respectable" polls it is "Center/Right" while the government has shown is is Left/Far Left but they continue to try to impose a socialist/semi-socialist agenda on an increasingly unwilling public. Just like with the Gay Marriage issue, (which, before you all start telling me what a bigot I am, I'm all for... Love it... I think it's both cool and fair), the left/gay community pushed too hard. Rather than accept "civil union" in a way that grants the same right as a conventionally married couple they went head to head with religion... Sorry, bad move guaranteed to fail. It's only been 20-25 years since "coming out of the closet" became acceptable and suddenly they wanted 2000 years of anti gay/pro marriage culture to change. It was never going to happen. The same impatience is manifesting itself in the current government... Look at the negative reaction the Gay Marriage movement suffered and then look to the Obama administration... and wave goodbye come November...

[jeffkrol]

Ben Nelson voted a no.. and why not......
Daily Kos: State of the Nation

The WH is engaged in a bit of war at the moment between the Senate and Ben Nelson and Warren Buffet on the matter of derivatives.
Specifically, Warren Buffet is looking for an exemption and the WH is saying "no dice".
Apparently Sen. Nelson didn't learn his lesson from the first cornhusker kickback. He wants to go back to the watering hole again and is trying to create a loophole for Warren Buffet's current derivative markets. Of course in doing this, he's creating a loophole for EVERYBODY.
This is notable because Warren Buffet called derivatives "financial tools of destruction."

Deal Near on Derivatives as Warren Buffett's Berkshire Presses for Eased Curbs - WSJ.com

The provision, sought by Berkshire and pushed by Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson in the Senate Agriculture Committee, would largely exempt existing derivatives contracts from the proposed rules. Previously, the legislation could have allowed regulators to require that companies such as Nebraska-based Berkshire put aside large sums to cover potential losses. The change thus would aid Berkshire, which has a $63 billion derivatives portfolio, according to Barclays Capital.

Mr. Buffett's push is especially notable because he has warned of the potential dangers of derivatives, famously branding them "financial weapons of mass destruction."

The White House has been trying to kill the Berkshire provision on the grounds that it would weaken the government's ability to regulate the enormous market for derivatives. Berkshire Hathaway argued that it shouldn't be made to redo existing contracts and that it is already healthy enough to cover its obligations. The battle over the provision shows how lobbying by businesses and lawmakers to insert just a few words into a complex bill can have a major impact on the country's biggest companies...............Berkshire has argued Congress doesn't have authority to make it redo existing contracts, especially since the company is sitting on about $20 billion in cash. Mr. Buffett has said he rarely has to post collateral, which is why for Berkshire the new rules could hurt.......................Mr. Sokol told lawmakers the Senate bill would force Berkshire to post collateral against good-faith contracts into which it had already entered, for a total congressional aides put in the billions of dollars. Renegotiating those contracts would be a logistical headache, people familiar with his arguments said...............He met scores of lawmakers, aides and government officials, including the offices of Sens. Dodd, Richard Shelby (R., Ala.), Judd Gregg (R., N.H.) and Mike Johanns (R., Neb.).

In March, Nebraska's other senator, Mr. Johanns, pushed a similar amendment in the Senate Banking Committee. It wasn't formally offered after Republican lawmakers decided to pull all their amendments. "There is bipartisan agreement that changing the requirements of existing contracts midstream is wrong and unreasonable," Mr. Johanns said in a statement........Analysts say Berkshire may deserve an exemption.

Last exemption "we" gave was to Enron I believe....... we know where that got "us".....
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_8_18/ai_83699604/

[Rupert]

Are you proffering NPR and the Huffington Post as "reliable and impartial" sources?

Mr Ginge, sir, you just stick with your FAUX News for fair and impartial reporting....so far it has been serving you very well....you are the least well read and most ridiculous poster here for the right. I see where you are also reporting that your right wing Republican buddies are not known as the "Party of NO"? You are right again....on FAUX News that term has never been used....isn't that amazing, no wonder you were shocked to see it here!
Beast Regards!

[yucatanPentax]

Gingey baby, here's some news for you:

65% of the American people favor strict regulation of banks and the financial industry. Most back stricter financial reform, advantage Obama - Behind the Numbers

About two-thirds of Americans support stricter regulations on the way banks and other financial institutions conduct their business, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Majorities also back two main components of legislation congressional Democrats plan to bring to a vote in the Senate this week: greater federal oversight of consumer loans and a company-paid fund that would cover the costs of dismantling failed firms that put the broader economy at risk.

A third pillar of the reform effort draws a more even split: 43 percent support federal regulation of the derivatives market; 41 percent are opposed. Nearly one in five - 17 percent - express no opinion on this complicated topic.

So, who are the obstructionist Republicans representing?

The people or the banks?

Looks like they are standing up for the banks after the big Wall Street conference recently between investment firm heads and over a dozen Republican senators.

[gokenin]

So, who are the obstructionist Republicans representing?

The people or the banks?

Looks like they are standing up for the banks after the big Wall Street conference recently between investment firm heads and over a dozen Republican senators.

President Obama, who traveled to New York last week to deliver his case for sweeping changes to the financial system gets an even-up review of his performance on the issue, with 48 percent of those polled approving of his handling of financial regulation and 48 percent disapproving.

But compared with congressional Republicans, Obama has a clear advantage. A slim majority - 52 percent - of all Americans says they trust Obama over the GOP on the issue, while 35 percent favor the Republicans in Congress. Independents prefer Obama 47 to 35 percent, with 16 percent trusting neither side on the issue.
The area with the highest levels of cross-party support is on more robust federal oversight of the way banks and other financial companies make consumer loans, such as auto loans, credit cards and mortgages. Here, 44 percent of Republicans approve of stricter guidelines, joining 75 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of independents on the issue.

From the article that you selected you cant say that Obama has clear support since 48% disapprove of his handling the situation. I agree that the numbers are not in our favor but 35% of the polling sample side with the Republicans again more than a 1/3 of the sample. The fact that your article says that 44% of the Republicans agree that reforms have to be done sort of contradicts the statement that the Republicans are only a party of NO

[shooz]

Well Gringe.
I never called you anything. I just asked a question.
You didn't answer it. You called me names.
I now have your number.
The only place you claim to get news from is drudgereport. (known to fudge facts and lie)
From this and your personal observations, you form opinions.
I check news sources all over the world.

You claim blocking reform is the right thing to do.
Do you have any idea what a derivative is?
This is what we are seeking to reform among other things.

My question to you is why do want it to go on like it is?
Why do YOU want to stop reform?

Do you have all your money in hedge funds or something?