Nuclear Option in the Senate

Published on May 10, 2005 By COL Gene In Politics

The GOP is playing a dangerous game by threatening to change the rules of the Senate. The GOP claims the president deserves an up or down vote on his judicial nominations. If that is true, many more judicial nominations under Clinton never got an up or down vote because they were bottled up in committee. If the objective is an UP or DOWN vote, the tactics of the Republicans during the Clinton administration to prevent a vote through committee is just as much of a problem is holding up a vote in the Senate through filibuster. The end result is the same in both scenarios - no UP or DOWN vote.

Only nine of the Bush judges out of over 200 have not been approved by the Senate. If the Republicans force this change of the Senate rules, I hope to see the day when the Senate is controlled by the Democrats and they have to live with the change they are attempting to force upon the Senate. The old saying , "Be careful what you asked for " may come back to haunt the Republicans.

Comments (Page 4)

Island Dog

on May 12, 2005

I do not pretend to have all the answers but I do research issues before I put them on this blog site. The problem with Bushies is when any data or information makes it look like their precious leader is in any way wrong and something is negative, one of three things happenes. First, they attack the messenger. Second, they attack the data. Third, they change the subject and ignore the information they believe critical of Bush.There is never an attempt to objectively look at the results of what we're doing and say maybe we should try something different to be more effective. Instead there is a stonewall defense and a "stay the course" and even when what is being done is hurting the American economy public or future we keep on going.

This is so funny coming from you. You never post sources to your information. You insist that a poll of 1000 Americas is proof of everything. You take anything you can find and somehow attribute it to Bush, even though people here will clearly show you that's not the case. You never admit the mistakes that have shown you to be wrong.

Col you never objectively look at anything. You never post in the articles that show good things coming from the economy. Anybody who doesn't follow your bs is always wrong. So tell me how objective you are again.

COL Gene

on May 12, 2005

The purpose of the senator being able to delay a vote was part of the senate from the beginning. I believe at first it only took one senator and that person could not be silence by a majority of the Senate. At some point changed to require a two thirds Senate majority cut off debate. More recently I believe was changed to 60 votes to silence or cause cloture. The issue of having two senators per state versus the house which is apportioned in population was to protect the wishes of the smaller the minority interest against the majority. That's what I've been trying to convey in this argument.

Like anyone else I've had successes and failures. In the military I was fortunate to be promoted the first I was eligible and was in fact promoted to full Colonel after 19 years of service. I was also fortunate to have been given three commands. One is a Major, one as a Lieutenant Colonel and one as a full Colonel. I was also fortunate to be selected to go to the Army War College and was nominated for general officer several times. I never claimed to be perfect or to have all the answers but I do try to take a look at the things we are doing in this country and honestly look at what results that are being achieved. It is the lack of results in such essential areas as trade, jobs, the deficit, border security, energy, Social Security, Medicare/Medicade and the war in Iraq which brings me to the conclusion that the policies we are following are not producing results that will benefit the American people long term.

COL Gene

on May 12, 2005

IslandDog

What would you call the articles in my post above?

drmiler

on May 12, 2005

No the polls below prove I am Correct!

Poll: Social Security plan support drops
By Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Only one in three Americans approve of President Bush's handling of Social Security, his lowest rating on the issue since he took office.

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll conducted Friday-Sunday found that 35% approved of Bush's Social Security record, 56% disapproved and 9% had no opinion. That was down from three weeks ago, when 43% approved. In March 2001, just after he took office, 49% approved

Social Security Plan

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer Fri May 6, 2:40 PM ET

WASHINGTON -
President Bush is pushing for dramatic changes to the nation's policy on
Social Security at a time the public is grouchy about the nation's direction, skeptical about his proposed solutions and sharply divided along partisan lines, an AP-Ipsos poll found.
ADVERTISEMENT
click here

"I approve — except that he's not getting anywhere," John Rose, a retiree from Fort Lauderdale, Fla. said of Bush's Social Security proposals. "He should be doing a better job of selling it."

Six in 10 disapprove of the president's handling of Social Security after Bush spent the last two months campaigning across the nation for the changes.

A week ago, the president tried to build some momentum for his proposal by asking future middle- and higher-income retirees to accept smaller benefit checks than they're currently slated to receive as part of a package to keep the system solvent. His proposal would call for benefits for low-income workers to "grow faster than for people who are better off."

The poll found 56 percent of respondents are not willing to give up some promised benefits, while 40 percent say they are. Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents are opposed to that proposal.

Bush says that younger workers in particular could offset the loss with proceeds from the private investment accounts he wants to establish. Bush has said the current program will not change for workers age 55 and older.

The president is trying to sell these dramatic changes at a time of public anxiety about the nation's direction. Almost six in 10, 59 percent, said the country is headed down the wrong track.

Bush's job approval is at 47 percent with 51 percent disapproving, and his approval on areas like handling
Iraq, the economy and assorted domestic issues is in the low 40s.

ADVERTISER LINK

* Schwab Active Trader

originalreportoriginalreport
Poll: Bush's Social Security Plan Is Tough Sell
President's Job Approval Steady, But Most Americans Don't Like His Social Security Plans
President Bush discusses his Social Security reform proposals

President Bush shares his Social Security reform proposals with an audience in Shreveport, La., on March 11, 2005. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Analysis by GARY LANGER

March 14, 2005 — President Bush's Social Security road show is playing to a tough audience: Not only do most Americans oppose his effort to revamp the retirement system, but nearly six in 10 in a new poll also say that the more they hear about it, the less they like it.

In the midst of a 60-day drive by Bush to build public support for his Social Security initiative, this ABC News/Washington Post poll shows no movement in Bush's direction. Americans oppose his plans by 55 percent to 37 percent, and the intensity of sentiment is against him: Those who are "strongly" opposed outnumber strong supporters by a 2-to-1 margin.

Resources

* The Polling Unit: Archives

Top Stories

* Podcast: The AfterNote
* Bolton's Chances for Approval Brighten
* The Note: Freedom's Light Burning Warm

Just 10 percent rate Social Security as the top priority for Bush and Congress, placing it last of five issues tested. Only 35 percent approve of Bush's handling of the issue, a career low. And by a 12-point margin, 49 percent to 37 percent, the public better trusts the Democrats in Congress to handle Social Security, unchanged since Bush began the policy push in mid-January.

Bush's Social Security Proposals
Support 37%
Strongly 16
Somewhat 21
Oppose 55
Strongly 35
Somewhat 20

The results run counter to the administration's claims that fuller information will turn opinion.

Inside Politics
Poll: Support wanes for Bush's Social Security plan

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 Posted: 7:05 PM EST (0005 GMT)

Image
President Bush promotes his Social Security reforms in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Tuesday.

What's this?

Compare Mortgage Offers
Up to four free mortgage, refinance or home equity offers - one easy form.
www.nextag.com
Refinance Rates Hit Record Lows
Get $150,000 loan for $720 per month. Refinance while rates are low.
www.lowermybills.com
MyCashNow - $100 - $1,000 Overnight
Payday Loan Cash goes in your account overnight. Very low fees. Fast decisions....
www.mycashnow.com
LendingTree.com - Official Site
Lendingtree - Find a mortgage, refinance, home equity or auto loan now. Receive...
www.lendingtree.com

RELATED
Interactive: CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll
• Bush cites progress in debate
• Bush, McCain promote Social Security plan
SPECIAL REPORT
• Bush: Politics stalling Bolton vote
• GOP building support for filibuster rule change
• Highlights: Bush budget
• Gallery: The Bush Cabinet
• Special Report
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
George W. Bush
Social Security Administration
Retirement
or Create your own
Manage alerts | What is this?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Support for President Bush's proposal to revamp Social Security -- allowing younger workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in private retirement accounts -- is sliding, according to a poll out Tuesday.

In the CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey of 909 adult Americans taken Friday through Sunday, 40 percent approved of President Bush's approach to Social Security and 53 percent disapproved. The question had a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.

When the polling question did not mention cutting benefits, Bush's proposal drew 45 percent support and 47 percent opposition. It was posed to 466 people, carrying a 4.5 percentage point margin of error.

But when 443 of the 909 polled were asked whether they supported private retirement accounts in exchange for a reduction of guaranteed retirement benefits, support fell to 33 percent, while opposition rose to 59 percent. The question had a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points.

Tuesday's poll is the latest to show falling public support for Bush's Social Security proposal.

In a poll taken February 7-10, 36 percent of those surveyed supported individual accounts even if that meant benefit cuts, while 60 percent opposed them.

In polls conducted February 4-6 and January 7-9, 40 percent supported the plan under those circumstances, while 55 percent opposed it.

So then I guess that you think ABC, CNN, CBS, Pew and FOX are ALL stupid and don't know shit?

drmiler

on May 12, 2005

Like anyone else I've had successes and failures. In the military I was fortunate to be promoted the first I was eligible and was in fact promoted to full Colonel after 19 years of service. I was also fortunate to have been given three commands. One is a Major, one as a Lieutenant Colonel and one as a full Colonel. I was also fortunate to be selected to go to the Army War College and was nominated for general officer several times. I never claimed to be perfect or to have all the answers but I do try to take a look at the things we are doing in this country and honestly look at what results that are being achieved. It is the lack of results in such essential areas as trade, jobs, the deficit, border security, energy, Social Security, Medicare/Medicade and the war in Iraq which brings me to the conclusion that the policies we are following are not producing results that will benefit the American people long term.

Wrong! You look at "everything" one-sided. It does not matter to you that someone can show PROOF that your wrong, according to you your "still" right!

Second, they attack the data. Third, they change the subject and ignore the information they believe critical of Bush

These are YOUR tactics, NOT ours!

IslandDog

What would you call the articles in my post above?

The ones Lee1776 posted carry *just* as much weight as yours do.

Zoomba

on May 12, 2005

Back to the topic... how is the Up/Down vote rule actually a bad thing? I'm talking about the rule itself, ignoring who is proposing it and for what reasons. Look at the rule as a piece of governing law... how is this a bad thing?

COL Gene

on May 12, 2005

drmiler

The results I posted are as follows:

USA 56 % disapprove of Bush plan
AP-Iposs 56 Disapprove
ABC 55 % disapprove
Cnn 53% disapprove.

How do these results not prove my point?

COL Gene

on May 12, 2005

Zoomba

Here is why- The conservatives have got control of the GOP but not all the GOP are conservatives. If the Senate rules change, the net result is that a minority, the conservative republicans, can do what ever they want and act aginst the majority which ARE NOT conservtives. The problem is that the interests of the two parties have become mismatched. Many of the issues that drive conservatives are not really in agreement with moderates, independents or liberals want but because the choice is either a voting Republican or Democrat many Republicans who don't agree with the conservative policies have voted Republican as opposed to voting for a Democrat. The lack of balance between the House, Senate and White House is allowing a minority interest, the conservatives, to act as if they had a majority which they do not have in this country. The result are laws and policies that ignore the majority and play to the desires of the minority.

Zoomba

on May 12, 2005

No no no no NO... You're taking this as a political issue and using your own personal bias to evaluate the issue. I'm asking you to step back and evaluate the rule based on the merits of the rule itself and nothing else.

If a majority of senators vote to confirm a judge, how is that being controlled by a minority in the party? All they're asking for is a fair vote, which should be a rule anyway. Try thinking a bit more long-term here, and leave partisan concerns aside.

Island Dog

on May 12, 2005

The results I posted are as follows:

USA 56 % disapprove of Bush plan
AP-Iposs 56 Disapprove
ABC 55 % disapprove
Cnn 53% disapprove.

How do these results not prove my point?

Because a poll is not a valid indicator of America. A poll of a very small amount of Americans does not prove your point or make you right. I would be %99 of those people polled don't even know how social security works, much less know how to fix it.

The lack of balance between the House, Senate and White House is allowing a minority interest, the conservatives, to act as if they had a majority which they do not have in this country. The result are laws and policies that ignore the majority and play to the desires of the minority.

These people were all voted in by Americans. You are not going to change that.

Lee1776

on May 12, 2005

The polls I provided above were to show that something needs to be done.

Not to support Bush's plan, but to show that the people wants some type of plan. Some thing only Bush has provided. Congressmen Ford (D) from Tennessee has been trying to get another plan through, but the Democratic leadership have refused to entertain any plans. Even from their own party members.

I am not blind to the fact that there are three times as many mostly slanted questioned and a few none slanted polls showing people don't want his plan. Most of the Slanted questions have an overwhelming disapproval, but notice those polls have a sentence criticizing the plan before the actual question. With the non-slanted polls, disapprovals still out number the approved, but the margins are much closer.

As for the nuclear option, I think if someone wants to filibuster something they should do it the way the original rule required: STAND UP IN FRONT OF CONGRESS TALKING. If the minority does not have the conviction to keep debate going on the floor itself, then they need to vote like the Constitution says.

Aaah, the good old days, when Senator would stand up reading from the Bible for two weeks.

COL Gene

on May 12, 2005

The issue you all avoid is the Bush individual account plan not only does not solve the problem of Social Scecuity being unable to pay 100% of the benefits after 2042 but actually makes Social Security more insolvent. Why would anyone propose something that makes the problem they identify worse? Please answer this question!

Island Dog

on May 12, 2005

Nobody has avoided this. Many people have explained to you about individual accounts. This is what you revert to when people start dismantling your theories.

COL Gene

on May 12, 2005

There has been NO explination as to how the creation of individual accounts solve the issue of Social Security being able to pay 100% of the retirement benefits after 2042. The issues I have included have been from many sources including the Social Security Administration which said the Bush plan WILL NOT solve the problem. Therefore there are only two lodgical resons Bush would propose something that is not a solution. He is trying to help another group of his supporters or he is stupid.Which one do you think is correct?

ParaTed2k

on May 12, 2005

That's really funny ColGene... I thought the issue of this thread was

The GOP is playing a dangerous game by threatening to change the rules of the Senate. The GOP claims the president deserves an up or down vote on his judicial nominations.

and that:

If the Republicans force this change of the Senate rules, I hope to see the day when the Senate is controlled by the Democrats and they have to live with the change they are attempting to force upon the Senate. The old saying , "Be careful what you asked for " may come back to haunt the Republicans.

;~D

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!