Skip to main content

View Diary: House GOP intend to destroy public employee unions (364 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The House thinks it can do so much things (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bythesea, Dirtandiron, VickiL

    but they are going to hit a BIG reality which is the Senate.

    The Senate won't pass this bill.

    Jim Manley: "Republicans are making love to Wall Street, while the people on Main Street are getting screwed."

    by Drdemocrat on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 07:03:37 AM PST

    •  Maybe not today (5+ / 0-)

      But getting rid of the filibuster would go along way toward helping them in the future when they have 51 seats.

      "Political Correctness" is a term coined by those who trivialize the scars of others and minimize the suffering of victims while highlighting their own wounds.

      by Coss on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 07:05:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The house has the power (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea, Dirtandiron

      to hold the purse strings hostage. They will get their way.

      •  Then why didn't we get shit? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HylasBrook

        Didn't we have the house?  Why didn't we get shit?  Why did everyone say that we needed 60 votes in the Senate, I am confused.  Why do the Repubs not need shit, but we never have enough Democrats?

        Repubs - the people in power are not secretly plotting against you. They don't need to. They already beat you in public. (Bill Maher)

        by Sychotic1 on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 07:38:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Dems are missing 2 key parts of their anatomy: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus

          spines & cajones.

          HylasBrook @62 - fiesty, fiery, and fierce

          by HylasBrook on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 07:44:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  it's the system (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HylasBrook

            we need a better system of checks and balances.

            Local Third parties that contest only local winnable elections and otherwise vote strategically would check the influence of both major parties.  

            And if we used 3-seated state assembly elections, it'd make it impossible for either major party to dominate a state's politics...

            This would increase the number of competitive seats, which would naturally reduce the influence of $peech.

            dlw

            •  There are a number of things that can be done, (0+ / 0-)

              but no one in government is going to start working on that or several other proposals until things are really, really, bad.  

              Sadly.

              HylasBrook @62 - fiesty, fiery, and fierce

              by HylasBrook on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 09:22:26 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes we all can! (0+ / 0-)

                Barack Obama already introduced legislation that would have brought back the use of 3-seated state assembly elections in 2001.  So we can cite him as a supporter.

                Here's a diary entry where I list those who'd benefit.
                http://www.dailykos.com/...

                I'd add that anti-war protestors would benefit, because more competitive elections would set up greater checks against our country's imperialistic tendencies.  We just need to get them to change strategies somewhat.

                dlw

        •  the system's broken. (0+ / 0-)

          too few competitive congressional elections...and too many blue dog democrats.

          This is why strategic election reform that uses 3-seated elections for state reps matters.  They'd be competitive for the third seat and that would excite more voter interest in them and higher turnout by nonvoters.  This would then spill over into affecting congressional elections for the better.

          dlw

          •  That has almost nothing to do with the questions (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sychotic1

            please stop injecting your pet issue into areas where it isn't really relevant.  I support electoral reform too, but that has very little to do with this.

            •  it's relevan t. (0+ / 0-)

              because it affects all reform issues for the better.

              The underlying reason things weren't better when the Democratic party controlled the House of Reps is the influence of $peech.  If you want to check the influence of  $peech on politics then we need to change the election rules and that is best done at the state level.

              dlw

              •  I apologize (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SElectionR

                for using the phrase "pet issue" as that is condescending unnecessarily.  I was momentarily irritated that the person seemed to be sincerely asking a question about the way Congress works, and electoral reform is at best tangentially related to what was being asked about.  

                •  I'm sorry too. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bythesea

                  for spamming folks with my issue.

                  It's better to relate than be right.

                  I still believe it was relevant, because the undue influence of $peech was the underlying issue and the absence of competitive elections to hold Democratic congress-persons accountable.

                  But I need to work more at taking people's existing frames for issues seriously.
                  dlw

        •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

          because to pass things the Senate and House have to concur, but to not pass things just required one of them not to act.  We passed many things in the House but the GOP could often block it in the Senate, but now they control the House.  We can refuse to pass things they want in the Senate, but all the House must do is just do nothing and all funding must originate in the House.  If the GOP just won't take action in the House, nothing the Senate does can compel them.  This is exactly why before the election many of us tried to argue with those dumbasses who thought losing the House would be a good thing somehow for the party and the country.

        •  Because Dem leadership are wimps. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sychotic1

          Period.  

          What are the core principles of the Democratic Party? Serious Question...

          by Beelzebud on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 08:51:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  The Problem Is (5+ / 0-)

      A lot of what the House wants to accomplish, they can accomplish by doing "nothing."  And the Senate can't stop them from doing nothing.

    •  As other's keep pointing out (0+ / 0-)

      they obviously can't pass things on their own, but they can refuse to pass anything they want and refuse to fund thing through inaction.  They don't need the Senate to concur just to simply do that.

    •  Think not? How do you justify voting (0+ / 0-)

      against a bill that tells California, New York, and Illinois that the rest of the country won't bail them out and that forces states to be honest about the true costs of their pension obligations?

      I bet you a lot of Democrats from the other 47 states will support that bill!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site