Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[FearfulJesuit]

Reid and McConnell have reached a deal, with no opposition from Cruz. Now it's all on the House, and especially on Boehner. It's nearly impossible that the bill will get through the Hastert Rule, so depending on how spineless Boehner is we could still tank.

[Frumple]

Hnn... for what it's worth, Boehner's apparently ignored the Hastert rule a few times already. What's one more, eh? Can bloody hope, anyway

[PTTG??]

This isn't impressive. It'd depressing. I've been trying to come up with a simile that's appropriate for this and I think the best one is that Congress has, after months and months of trial and error, gotten second place in this game.

They successfully, and with only seconds to spare, gotten their collective pants off.

This is the entirety of their success.

[Owlbread]

This is a bit like watching a meteorite move very close to the Earth.

[smirk]

This is a bit like watching a meteorite move very close to the Earth.

Or even into an unstable near-earth orbit. The proposed bill funds the gov't through Jan 15 - three months - and raises the debt ceiling through Feb 7 - three and a half months. So rather than this fight being a yearly event, we can look forward to it roughly every quarter! Hooray!!

Nothing bad will ever come of this.

[SealyStar]

This is a bit like watching a meteorite move very close to the Earth.

I'll call Mr. Willis.

[Xantalos]

This is a bit like watching a meteorite move very close to the Earth.

Or even into an unstable near-earth orbit. The proposed bill funds the gov't through Jan 15 - three months - and raises the debt ceiling through Feb 7 - three and a half months. So rather than this fight being a yearly event, we can look forward to it roughly every quarter! Hooray!!

Nothing bad will ever come of this.

Of course.

[lue]

http://rt.com/usa/senate-leaders-reach-deal-default-269/

The line from that which surprised me was:

Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), the speaker of the House, is prepared to rely on Democratic votes in Congress to approve the bipartisan deal, NBC News correspondent Kelly O’Donnell heard from sources.

Oh, I hope it's true.

And for what it's worth, I've never liked the Hastert rule, it's never made much sense. Not only because it's very possible to pass bills without the majority of the majority, but also because I get this sense that it operates on a misunderstanding of the process. We vote on bills to see if a majority of the House agrees on it, not as a formality when a majority of the House agrees on it, right? I of course understand trying to get as many people as possible to go for the bill beforehand, but I just get this sense of a wrong attitude about the vote's purpose from things like the Hastert rule. The Hastert rule in particular has the added bonus of discouraging compromise in favor of partisanship (specifically, by making a bill pass with enough of the minority party + a minority of the majority look like a bad thing).

Of course, the fact that the Hastert rule is a very recent invention doesn't help my opinion of its worth.

[Owlbread]

I'll call Mr. Willis.

He'll need an ample supply of shoulder holsters, infinite M9 magazines, bloodied, torn vests and world-weary humour. Probably a sidekick as well.

[Descan]

I can see a good point for the rule. Don't want to waste time on a vote you know will fail, and instead use that time to re-hash the bill to something that WILL pass.

In practice, I don't know if that's the rationale, or if it's what it's used for.

Edit: Reading the wiki article on it makes me realize that, once again, I assumed the American democracy was actually trying to be efficient and democratic. Nope, it's not "majority of the house will vote for a bill, or else we won't put it to the floor", it's "Majority of the majority will vote for it, regardless of the house majority or if the votes are in the minority, or else we won't put it to the floor"

If you guys don't default, I'm hoping all this dirty laundry of -how- you guys run your system puts some impetus to at least token change. Like seriously, everywhere you turn there's institutional corruption and "You can't be serious" systems in place.

[lue]

I can see a good point for the rule. Don't want to waste time on a vote you know will fail, and instead use that time to re-hash the bill to something that WILL pass.

In practice, I don't know if that's the rationale, or if it's what it's used for.

Like I said, making deals, convincing others to go along with you, is a good thing. I suppose I just don't like how it's been codified as a "how to have a successful vote" (Make sure it passes the vote!) rule instead of a "how to have a successful bill" (Make sure a majority likes it!) rule.

I dunno, maybe I'm just being screwy in my opinions on what the vote means, and how I interpret the Hastert rule. All I know is that I would never hold it against Boehner or anyone else for "breaking the Hastert rule".

[Bauglir]

Near as I can tell, the major purpose it serves is to ensure the Speaker remains Speaker by subverting the system in favor of the people who vote for Speakers. Corruption at its finest, somehow being upheld as a moral imperative.

[misko27]

I will comment on the rules when on a computer, as opposed to a phone, but mini update: DOW surges 200 points because of deal.

[Descan]

I can see a good point for the rule. Don't want to waste time on a vote you know will fail, and instead use that time to re-hash the bill to something that WILL pass.

In practice, I don't know if that's the rationale, or if it's what it's used for.

Like I said, making deals, convincing others to go along with you, is a good thing. I suppose I just don't like how it's been codified as a "how to have a successful vote" (Make sure it passes the vote!) rule instead of a "how to have a successful bill" (Make sure a majority likes it!) rule.

I dunno, maybe I'm just being screwy in my opinions on what the vote means, and how I interpret the Hastert rule. All I know is that I would never hold it against Boehner or anyone else for "breaking the Hastert rule".

Read mah edit, babe~

[RedKing]

The Hastert rule is essentially "Make sure that the ONLY legislation to even see the light of day are the bills that we want". Could be a bill that's incredibly popular, that could have as much as 74% support in the House at large. But if the Republican Party is majority against it, it never even gets a chance at a vote. It's party discipline codified into a procedural hijack of the legislative process.


Should also be noted that, to my knowledge, ONLY the Republican party uses this "rule" (it's purely an internal party rule, not a procedural rule for Congress). Pelosi didn't pull this crap when the Dems last held the House.