5 GOP break with party on jobs bill, vote w/Dems
 

Wow - finally, the Senate may get something done? One of the 5 GOP who voted with the Dems was newly-elected Mass Senator Scott Brown.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/us...cs/23jobs.html

I certainly don't have any problem with people voting for bills that they believe in. Be they Republicans or Democrats they should vote for what they think is right. For the most part they weren't elected to vote a straight party line.

:tro:

:tro: Correct. Brown was elected by the independents.

i think they should get rid of the parties. george washington warned about the 'party first' mentality, and what havoc it could wreak. and he's right on about it.

there should be far more voting across party lines then there is-i've always thought that.

but then again, arguing that obama should get everything he wants because he got over 50% of the vote is absolute hogwash. people voted for him because they thought he was the better candidate, not because they agreed with him 100% on all issues.

That should clear a few things up!

no we just need to get the dems to vote with their constituents instead of with their party

the same could be said of the republicans. most voters, just like in massachusetts, consider themselves to be independant. they don't follow the party line, they don't blindly vote. i know a few people vote dem/rep because they always have voted that way. i know others who won't vote, rather than vote across lines. so, it comes down to all of us in the middle. we don't agree with either candidate, so we vote for the one we like better-or dislike less! but on individual bills, we expect to be heard. that's the way it's supposed to be, isn't it? they 'represent' us. they being both parties elected members.

one would think so..........

Well, if so, we would have had health care last August :tro:

I agree with your post. That's the way it used to work - plenty of room in the middle for people from both parties to find common ground dependent upon the issue.

But unfortunately in the past year, the GOP not only has a straight party line, it's extremely narrow. Never has one so clear a minority party consistently voted as an immovable block in the US Senate. It's better in the House. But the Senate has completely blocked nearly all House bills, due simply to adherence to voting not to vote on anything!

bull

why do you continue to treat this as a new behavior? it's the same old, same old that's been going on for years. are you that determined to paint this as a new thing, solely due to who the current president is?

why should we have had healthcare last August, when Obama only published his half-assed "plan" yesterday? It doesn't even contain enough specifics for the CBO to score.

Independents will rise to the top.

:zz: I'm not painting it as "new" behaviour, I'm saying it's the worse ever.

You say that's bull? Nonsense. It's not bull, look at the numbers for cloture votes - this last session has been the worse, ever. There's no disputing that.

Edit: And here's those numbers for you, in a graph: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...the-senate.php

:zz: I guess you haven't been following what's happened, and what has been trying to work through the House and Senate, and public polling from early last summer, since this President was elected.

Let's try copying this image, and see if it works:

all this graph demonstrates is that Dems, even if they are the majority, can't get it together!

more in total for all three categories. you might want to figure percentages, which tells the tale better than overall numbers. for instance, in the 97th congress, when republicans took over-look at motions, look at votes on cloture-virtually even. about 40 of each, compared to now with over 100 more motions than then, but about 80 more votes on cloture. number wise, both are higher-but percentage of cloture to motions isn't the same.
look at when republicans again took control, motions are similar to the last democrat controlled, 95-96. motions similar to 94, but look at the grey and yellow bars. especially for 2000-'02.

not a very good graph tho, it doesn't say which side filed the motions.

'Zig, I love ya, but the party in control doesn't fillibuster itself <g>

You make a nice attempt at spin, above, with the "percentages" thing, but that doesn't stand.

It's crystal clear who are filing the fillibuster motions that block everything and grind everything to a complete halt (dark gold line) - it's higher than it's ever been right now, and it's the GOP.

The actual votes the GOP has made this past year (No versus Yes votes), and the number of bills approved by the House but languishing unvoted upon due to Republican blockage not allowing those bills to even come for a vote in the Senate, is on the .gov website. *** and I just found that number, it's 290. 290 bills sent from the House to the Senate for action, and nothing. has. been. done. because the GOP votes to fillibuster and refuse to act upon virtually every damn thing.

Note:
The gold line indicates fillibusters by the opposition party. You don't have to stand on the floor and physically fillibuster now, you just have to "file the motion" with intent. That essentially starts a fillibuster for all intents and purposes. That means everything grinds to a halt, as if some Senator was standing on the floor reading the telephone book.

The "cloture vote" is someone calling for a vote to vote upon closure of the fillibuster, and a vote is taken to close the fillibuster or not. And "cloture invoked" means that the votes were enough in favor to stop the fillibuster. At this point, the Senate continues on with business.

first of all, i brought up that it would be good to know who put up what motions because you'd get a better idea of how many party motions were filibustered by the other party-right? for instance, if there were 100 motions, with 30 filibusters, but 50 of the motions were by the other party, than they filibustered 50 motions, not 100.

as for the percentages being spin, that's incorrect. in total numbers, there are both more motions and more filibusters in the last graph-that's indisputable. however, the last lines show 140 motions, with 60 filibusters. that means less than 50% of all motions were filibustered by the reps. however, the last previous line, when republicans were in control, shows about 68 motions, with about 35 filibusters. that's MORE than half of all motions. so, not only am i correct in saying that filibustering is not in use more now than before, but i'm also correct in saying this is an ongoing issue by both sides, at least since 1998 when the amount of filibusters increased.
thanks for posting that, it was helpful.

The fillibusters are by the minority party. There is no need for the majority party to fillibuster itself, or fillibuster a minority proposal (they just vote it down).

"Who put up the motions" are on .gov, in the congressional and senate records.

Again, it clearly shows that the GOP is the party of "NO" this session, with historic interference, never worse, in allowing things to not come to a vote.

your own chart belies that.

i looked over the title, and it wasn't very clear on whether they only showed motions that were filibustered, so thanks for clearing that up.

:zz: How in the world can you look at that chart, which is a numeric count of the actual number, and say it belies that the number of fillibusters and cloture votes have never been worse - more numerous - than right now?

and so has the number of motions. you can't just look at the total and say 'it's worse'. it's higher, but it's not worse-look at the previous graph. over half of motions were filibustered, while this last congress has had less than half of the total motions filibustered. so how can less than half be worse than more than half? it can't. the totals of both are higher than the previous, but the percentage of motions that were stalled is LOWER. how is that worse? but i like how suddenly you're throwing in 'more numerous'. i said a few posts above that it's indisputable that all three numbers are higher. nice touch.
you said it's the worst it's ever been, and that simply isn't true. of course if the number of motions increases, and it's been a huge increase, then the other number will rise in response. you're using that as a way to say it's the worst yet, but i'm saying having less than half of the measures stalled vs having more than half stalled in the past doesn't show that it's the 'worst ever' now.


and on another note. the amount of filibustering has increased suddenly since 2000, with one drop in '04, and then a rise again every congress since. does that sudden rise coincide with the new rules? formerly, it took 2/3's to vote cloture. now, it's 3/5's. so, it's somewhat easier to vote cloture-so do the parties choose to filibuster more often as a way of saying ' see, we're fighting against____' when in fact, it's only a procedural move that most likely doesn't stop most worthwhile legislation?

:zz:

Can you tell me what you think the three colored lines on the graph indicate?

:zz: I'm not "suddenly throwing in more numerous". In the first post where I linked to this very graph, I said, "You say that's bull? Nonsense. It's not bull, look at the numbers for cloture votes - this last session has been the worse, ever. There's no disputing that.

lol
those dizzy heads sure bolster your argument. i came home and asked my soon (hopefully) to be headed to the naval academy 18 year old son to ref this debate-he said you're wrong, that you're only looking at the total numbers-admittedly higher, but not 'worse'. but you're exactly right, they are certainly more numerous.

'Zig - you are mistaking the gold line for all motions being brought before the body to be voted upon, aren't you? That's not what that is.

Here is another chart:

no, you said those were the filibusters. i can read. but i can also do math. it makes perfect sense that if there are a lot more motions, that the minority party will respond in kind. but you are only considering the number of filibusters being the highest ever, without looking at the red line, which is the highest ever as well. but, in other instances you look at the red and yellow lines, and can see the difference in motions vs filibusters. so, again, the last lines do not indicate it's the 'worst ever'. like i said, blocking more than half of motions would be worse than blocking less than half, right? regardless of total numbers, that would be worse-wouldn't it?

Those are not "motions to vote on stuff", those are cloture motions (against filibuster).

Neither chart indicates the number of motions brought to the floor, which is what you are assuming and basing your percentages upon.

(and the charts are not duplicates)

I give up :wf

The second chart: The red and yellow lines are NOT "motions vs filibusters". The red line is votes on cloture, and the yellow line is where that vote prevailed, and cloture was invoked. The blue line is not the entire number of motions about everything brought to the floor to be voted upon, it is the number of times a cloture motion was filed to (nearly always) end a fillibuster.

There is nothing at all in the second chart that tells one how many motions (to vote on this and that) were brought to the floor.

Now I give up for sure <g>

i was talking about the first chart-you wrote that the gold line was number of filibusters.

but i'm sure it's all just over my head anyway, and that you're exactly right that one party will cause the utter destruction of this country, while the other does everything possible to save us from ourselves.

i'm going to watch hockey.

Great exit, except too bad I don't think that.

umm no

that was my point an overwhelming majority of working American are totally against any Obama healthcare reform

This President was elected with one of the largest electoral majorities in history, and ran on a platform including healthcare reform.

Polls that show people are "against healthcare reform" didn't start to go that way until after the protracted arguments within the Senate and House, and the August recess emphasizing loud and persistent lying about crap like "death panels will kill your grandma!"

Yet people today still overwhelmingly support the creation of the public option, and still strongly support individual health insurance reforms when line itemized.

My point is the Dems should have listened to their constituents last year, and passed healthcare reform by August.

wheres the proof..:rolleyes:

are these the f.a.t. charts..