Another Freeper said to me the other day if doing away with the filibuster LIMIT to Appropriation bills so they can keep the money flowing (for now) but any other legislation, no.
Would that be a good idea?
I was against it because we know the Dems will yield it against us, but after hearing Trump talk about it, sure why not. The problem is we have crazy Rand, the 2 Karens, Mitch and the Utah b#### to keep Trump from accomplishing anything even if the filibuster is gone.
But it might be the last shot at saving this country. Gotta have vote reform and an end to these insane, completely unconstitutional mass mail in ballots that give the Dems millions of extra ‘votes’.
What happened in NY is coming to an area near you unless something is done. Thank LBJ and Ted Kennedy, even though they promised their 1965 open border act would NOT change the demographics of this country. Now we have to pay the price for their globalist communism.
Republicans will chicken out. As the holiday travel season picks up with missed flights the rats will gamble on the GOP taking the blame. Trump called for it but he can’t lose. Americans listen to him.
Can they eliminate it and then vote it back before the midterms?
If they do it, they better go balls to the wall on everything but that’s not how repubs work. They’ll get rid of it and then not do enough and then when dems get in there, they WILL go balls to the wall.
No it is not.
Dems foolishly decided to drop the judge approvals to 51.. and other things ...
GOP should keep forcing the democrats to vote on individual bills piecemeal if need be and let them keep voting it down.
If the GOP was smart, they would get on the ground, and get directly involved with food banks and churches and other private socialization programs.
Every single GOP congressman should be at one every single day handing out food, the RNC and the various Right Wing PAC should be making big donations etc to fund these various groups.
And with every single interview just drive home how the Dems have kept this going.
Millions upon millions of people who have lived for whatever reason on government dependence, are learning that the government giveth the government can take it away... and that’s not a good place for the Democrats long term. If even a small percentage of those people learn this lesson, this will change drastically the dynamic.
if those same people see GOP on the ground actually doing the legwork helping them get by, while Democrats keep voting to keep it shut down, that’s going to have an impact as well.
Killing the fillabuster is short sighted and stupid move IMHO.
It is a forced choice and one which we really have no option but to do.
The fact is democrats and liberals have broken every convention and will continue to do so, up to and including falsely imprisoning their opponents and assassinating them.
We have no choice left now but to fight the war they have thrusted upon us. We have to fight with equal intensity.
No. It’s a bad idea. The Democrats tried to do it, hard, but Sinema and Manchin prevented it. They will try again if they take the majority.
But there are at least two other options. First, filibuster has already been removed for most judicial nominations. They could just add *very carefully defined* clean CRs to the list of things that do not require cloture (60 votes). Republicans have and will always give Dems CRs when Dems are in the majority, so we lose nothing and gain everything.
Second, when in session, the Senate is either debating a bill or calling the question. Cloture is a courtesy. If Thune calls the question (schedules a vote) then a Democrat can stand up and talk to delay the vote. This is a traditional filibuster. In this case, Republicans have to stay in the chamber to keep the session running and the Dems can delay the vote as long as that person talks. But when that person is finally exhausted the vote can happen and only requires 50 + 1 votes, regardless of cloture.
That’s a hard option. But it’s time they earned their money and our respect.
Both of these options are far short of ‘going nuclear’.
Bad idea. Get rid of it and when the Dems take over, and they will, you’ll see 13 SCOTUS judges, statehood for DC and PR, and who knows what other garbage.
The words I haven’t heard uttered in years are “The Art of the Deal.’
Since Democrats are using healthcare as a cudgel against a CR, why not unveil an alternative plan NOW? That would change the dynamic and weaken the united Democrat resistance.
A better idea is for Trump to veto any agreement that doesn’t have a balanced budget. Trump should actually play hardball with the Senate (he really hasn’t be tough on them in 5 years). His constitutional authority which is unchallengeable is to VETO all legislation that doesn’t fit his priorities. When they make some deal to open the government VETO it. Let’s see if the Senate is willing to play ball after 6 more weeks of no SNAP. This would be the last bull in a China shop move for Trump to do. I’m hoping he does it at least once before his time in politics is over.
Trump's point is that regardless of what the pubbies do during this cycle, the demonRATs have become so far left, that when they get back into a Senate majority, the first thing they do will be to kill the filibuster.
If our prudes, especially your Dr. Rand Paul, think that our playing be current rules will get today's demonRATs to do likewise is plain nuts.
The real problem is that there are too many of today's unicrats that don't want to be called names by the press, so they will surrender any common sense while knowing that once the demonRATs get in power in the senate, they will kill the filibuster.
Ball-less bastards.
The Democrats are right to be concerned about unaffordable PPACA healthcare cost coverage.
I would offer a trade of partial enhanced subsidy continuation for other PPACA reforms.
PARTIAL ENHANCED SUBSIDY CONTINUATION [to 2036]
Except as required by the Fair Share PPACA premium minimums below, the monthly to be paid on a plan would not exceed the Schumer formula amount by more than 1.5 times the household’s income in percentage terms of FPL exceeds 90% FPL in terms of dollars.
If the household’s income is 400% of FPL, the percentage difference is 310% and increase would typically be capped at $465/month.
If the household’s income is 300% of FPL, the percentage difference is 210% and increase would typically be capped at $315/month.
FAIR SHARE PPACA PREMIUM MINIMUMS
I would impose premium minimums of the higher of: 1. 1/65th of the Medicare Part B premium amount per insured year of age as of the start of coverage
2. one-tenth the percentage of the policy premium of the household income’s as a percentage of FPL.
For a 5-year-old, 7-year-old, 32-year-old and 34-year-old, the ages would sum to 88 and the monthly absolute minimum premium amount would be a (88/65)*$185 or $250.46.
For a 5-year-old kid and a 27-year-old mom the ages would sum to 32 and the monthly absolute minimum premium amount would be (32/65)*$185 or $91.07.
For the second minimum, a family whose income is 300% of FPL would have to pay at least 30% (one-tenth of 300%) of the cost of the policy.
[NOTE: About half the premium is to subsidize unhealthy people. Paying 30% is covering well over 60% of true risks of most insureds.]
Insurers could waive the minimums for up to 20% of their PPACA policy holders after the first month’s premium is paid provided $20 is paid upfront for a financial review fee. Waivers may not be granted in any space open to insureds (to prevent racial discrimination and threats). Insurers need not waive for the entire remaining term.
HOSPITAL COST REDUCTION [by 2028]
Break most hospitals into two highly competitive entities. Convert other hospitals into real estate leasing entities with competing surgical suites and nursing wings.
AFFORDABILITY
Silver plans would be limited to a maximum deductible of three times the Medicare Part A amount [2025: $1676]. A plan should be able to offer at least one maximum benefit premium cost reduction rider. The maximum benefit must not be less than twice the average operation payout of the insurer. The PPACA subsidy would be reduced in proportion to the premium reduction.
I would also make bronze plans low cost by having co-insurance up to $10,000 at up to 50% with the policy upfront amount paid up front to the insurance company by the insured. Co-insurance percentages would normally be 20% and based on the Medicare amounts unless contractually specified otherwise. Policy percentages might be less for certain things and contractually capped by time periods, by say 50% of the upfront amount the first three months of the calendar year, 60% the first six months of the calendar year, 70% the first eleven months of the calendar year and the whole amount the whole calendar year. The rising percentages are so policyholders are cost sensitive most of the policy term. If and how an upfront amount would get invested would be subject to contract. Unused amounts of upfront money would be refunded after each policy is closed out. A policy would not be closed out until the time allowed for claim submission and needed for claim processing under the policy has expired.
Bronze and silver plans would retain drug coverage.
I would also make copper plans low cost by only covering Part A scope items plus what Part B would pay for any general or regional anesthesia surgery. These would be like the Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans of my youth.
The two-operation hospital coverage plan would cover an amount equal to twice the median Medicare DRG hospital amount plus a percentage of say 20% minimum on the Medicare amount for the first operation if the hospital agrees prior to 10 days after discharge to perform any needed second operation for the remaining amount left on the policy. A Blue Shield equivalent rider for the amounts Medicare pays for the surgeon(s) and anesthesiologist(s) might be purchased too.
My bronze, copper, and two-operation hospital coverage plans are meant for higher income folks and would not be PPACA subsidy eligible.
Lower it to 56 votes. 56% of the chamber. Or 58 votes, or 55. Only for Clean CRs in the future.
The obvious thing to do would be to keep the filibuster, but actually force people to filibuster.
That was going to be my question. I’d love to hear opinions because I don’t know enough to have one.
A good idea but just revert the filibuster to what it was in the past - make the filibustering person/party talk and talk and talk 24/7.
Make those old decrepit Democrats work for the filibuster.
No way they could hold out for more than a few days before they collapse, or get tripped up by a parliamentary maneuver.
Old school filibuster, fair and square.
This “filibuster” is DEI - didn’t earn it.
Nothing is moving anymore. One side of the other is going to end it soon. May as well be us.