Forum Announcement

Please don't panic! You are not in the Twilight Zone, you are experiencing the new CNET forums platform! Please click here to read the details. Thanks!!


General discussion

It's gonna be real hard

by TONI H / January 1, 2013 / 7:34 AM UTC

to get this new deal through the House if Boehner uses the Hasserty Rule (needing a majority of the majority party) because as I've been listening to various Reps talk about what they've read so far in the bill there are a couple of huge issues for them...

For every $1 in 'cuts' there is $41 in increased taxes....

Supposedly there is $15B in 'cuts' that they haven't found yet in the 100 pages of the bill, but there is $630B in increased revenue.......which indicates to them there will be nothing but more spending, not less.

The House convenes at 1PM EST, and they aren't anticipating a vote anytime soon.....they might make amendments and send it back to the Senate since they have that option. We'll see........

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: It's gonna be real hard
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: It's gonna be real hard
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
It'll be impossible as long as neither side is interested
by Roger NC / January 1, 2013 / 8:13 AM UTC

in passing a bill.

Neither is operating in good faith.

Neither gives a damn about their constituency, only their special interest groups financing them and their individual pet projects.

Collapse -
Changes I'd like to see in Congress:
by Josh K / January 2, 2013 / 8:32 AM UTC

1. Pay raises are put to a national vote. I don't get to give myself a raise; why should they, especially when they're paying themselves with our money?

2. Instead of a flat salary, they get paid by the vote. Any time a bill gets put to a vote, they get a certain amount of money. Doesn't matter if it's a yes/no vote (otherwise they'll be passing bills just to get paid for them).

3. $1,000 per day penalty for filibustering, out of the filibusterer's own pocket.

4. $1,000 per day penalty for every bill that has to sit on ice while they're on vacation.

5. Automatic expulsion for anyone voting based on politics and not the merits of the bill. Don't know how you'd prove or enforce that one, but I'd like to see it happen.

I bet there are other ideas...

Collapse -
A start but I don't see how it's practical
by Steven Haninger / January 2, 2013 / 8:57 AM UTC

I don't want to pay them for voting just because a bill is up for it. What's to keep them from padding their wallets by just drafting more legislation? Do we really need to continually make new laws? In my house, the rule is nothing new is purchased until something of equal or greater volume is removed.

As for pay raises, let them tie any raises to the same criteria used for adjustments to Social Security payments. As well, I'd disallow any increase to 1st term representatives. Consider that their probationary period. I'd also like to add something we see in the private sector which decelerates raises once a person has been in the same job long enough that they are no longer growing in value. After so many terms, I'd want to see raises slow or stop.

If there's one law I'd want to see passed, it's that which forbids congress from excluding itself from adhering to any law imposed on the rest of us.

Collapse -
Not sure if you're aware
by TONI H / January 2, 2013 / 9:06 AM UTC

but the House had already cut their own budget by 11%.........and Bachmann just submitted a bill to take away the raise that BO gave them, including the raise BO gave to Biden. From what I've read BO did that on his own through another Executive Order and wasn't requested by either House.

Collapse -
That executive order....
by Josh K / January 2, 2013 / 9:15 AM UTC
Collapse -
I didn't say that BO got a raise too
by TONI H / January 2, 2013 / 11:26 AM UTC

I said that nobody had asked for it. BO did it on his own and Bachmann wants them all done away with.

Collapse -
I didn't mean to suggest that you did
by Josh K / January 2, 2013 / 11:59 AM UTC

I just threw that in as an aside.

Collapse -
While you're making a list
by TONI H / January 2, 2013 / 9:05 AM UTC

How about a rule that says every bill that comes from either house HAS to be put to a vote instead of jamming it into a leader's pocket constituting an automatic veto just because that leader doesn't like it?

Collapse -
as far as committees also
by Roger NC / January 2, 2013 / 3:02 PM UTC

a bill is reported to the floor for a vote by a majority vote within the committee, not by the chairman choice alone.

Collapse -
Reid doesn't allow it to
by TONI H / January 3, 2013 / 3:26 AM UTC

even get to the floor........

Collapse -
(NT) I've heard
by Roger NC / January 3, 2013 / 4:05 AM UTC
Collapse -
as far as filibuster, first step is
by Roger NC / January 2, 2013 / 3:00 PM UTC

make them stand up there and talk the entire time again, they're phoning it in like Steve Martin monologue on SNL


Collapse -
(NT) giv'em enough rope?
by James Denison / January 1, 2013 / 8:47 AM UTC
Collapse -
(NT) that's about what their job performance rates, hanging
by Roger NC / January 1, 2013 / 8:59 AM UTC
In reply to: giv'em enough rope?
Collapse -
Actually what kind of BS is that anyway
by Roger NC / January 1, 2013 / 10:09 AM UTC
needing a majority of the majority party

meaning a minority of the members can vote down a bill, it's just like the committees stifling bills, something that's been complained about here enough.

Granted somethings, at least in the Senate require the "super majority" of 60%, but still that's allowing for the individual votes to count.

You require a majority of the majority, and you just disenfranchised every representative of the miniority party, and all their constituents. How does that fit in with any type of representation?

More BS and proof of how little politicians care about the people.
Collapse -
That's why
by TONI H / January 1, 2013 / 11:17 AM UTC

Boehner didn't present the "Plan B" bill up for a vote....he needed the "Hasserty Rule" of the majority of the majority party to vote for it and he didn't have enough votes.

Collapse -
and he knew he would not be speaker anymore
by Roger NC / January 1, 2013 / 11:28 AM UTC
In reply to: That's why

and probably won't if he ignores it this time. That probably meant more to him that just the existence of the precedent, since it is not law. Hopefully if they don't vote, all of them will lose their next election. I'm not conditioning it on passing it, but on allowing it be voted on and a roll call vote too, put them all on record. It may help some, it may hang some.

Still, this is a disenfrachisment rule, it means 51% of 51% can defeat anything.

Let's see, the Republicans won 55% of the house.

That means for the next 4 years, 28% of the House can stop any legislation. So out of 435 elected officials, 122 can kill a bill. That's a representative government, duh.

I know you'll point out about bills not being allowed out of committee, yeah, that sucks too, that should be by committee majority vote IMO, not one person.

It just proves they are not interested in representing their voters.

Collapse -
It just amazes me
by TONI H / January 1, 2013 / 12:42 PM UTC

though how easily Reid's pocket veto practice is always allowed to go unnoticed or unmentioned....He hasn't allowed a House bill up or down vote in a long time, including the House bill that solved all of this six months ago, and yet Pelosi comes out at the mike a few minutes ago and insists that the House should allow and up or down vote on the one that passed early this morning. It's disgusting to me.

Collapse -
I wonder if some of all this is a political fight
by Roger NC / January 1, 2013 / 2:32 PM UTC

within the House Republicans started by some who want to replace Boehner? It certainly made him look weak and ineffectual when he proposed the "plan B" and had it shot down by his own party.

Probably an tea party cabel trying to seize the head position.

Collapse -
The House Reps are
by TONI H / January 1, 2013 / 3:40 PM UTC

already up in arms over the 'deal' calling for an additional $4 Trillion in spending over the next ten years......

Collapse -
So no surprise
by Roger NC / January 1, 2013 / 3:58 PM UTC
In reply to: The House Reps are

and no surprise to me they don't care about what happens if they don't do something.

Collapse -
Maybe Boehner just wanted to hit the bars earlier than usual
by Josh K / January 2, 2013 / 12:10 PM UTC
Collapse -
I'd like to send them all out to bars
by James Denison / January 2, 2013 / 12:14 PM UTC

and keep them there. We'd be a lot better off I think.

Collapse -
This story is about as disgusting
by TONI H / January 2, 2013 / 1:05 PM UTC

that the one that the liberals spread about Romney killing that woman, seven years after a plant shutdown.

Actually the story I like best came out yesterday.......Boehner, after a lousy meeting with Reid, told Reid to "Go f... yourself"........Reid asked him what he Boehner accommodated him by repeating it.

Collapse -
Why is it disgusting, Toni?
by Josh K / January 2, 2013 / 1:12 PM UTC

Are you saying it isn't true? Boehner's affinity for alcohol appears to be well-known on both sides of the aisle.

Collapse -
LOL, you worry more about
by James Denison / January 2, 2013 / 1:37 PM UTC

someone's alcohol consumption than guys cornholing each other, passing along HIV to their she-males?

Collapse -
by Josh K / January 3, 2013 / 5:26 AM UTC

What does Boehner's drinking have to do with AIDS? And do you even know what a she-male is?

Collapse -
(NT) Has to do with what worries you!
by James Denison / January 3, 2013 / 8:56 AM UTC
In reply to: Huh?
Collapse -
what do you think of Noah?
by James Denison / January 2, 2013 / 1:40 PM UTC

a righteous man who had too much drink, but still acted responsibly, and the one who tried to ridicule him because of it? Whose side was God on? Who was cursed?

Collapse -
I didn't know the man
by Josh K / January 3, 2013 / 9:27 AM UTC

I don't even know of any proof that he actually existed. The story is a fable, you know.

If Boehner ever tried to wrap Congressional business early so he could start drinking, then he was not doing his job.

Popular Forums
Computer Help 45,842 discussions
Computer Newbies 10,052 discussions
Tablets 1,149 discussions
Security 28,606 discussions
Home Audio and Video 18,995 discussions
HDTV Picture Setting 1,743 discussions
Cell Phones 11,258 discussions
Windows 8 1,311 discussions
Networking & Wireless 10,496 discussions