General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCan anyone explain this?
Link to tweet
Why would any decent Democrat choose to vote against these cuts?
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)Voting for one provision, even with an amendment still,puts the rest of the bill on track.
Lunabell
(6,078 posts)BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)Apparently you just didn't like my musings.
Ms. Toad
(34,059 posts)To minimize it's impact on the lives of the real people they represent. Had the amendment passed, at least some of the most vulnerable would have had protection.
Adding protection for vulnerable people is the morally right thing to do. No dem should be playing partisan politics with people's lives.
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)I thought the Bernie purists had a very different take on things....no compromise, no giving any evil a foot hold.
Ms. Toad
(34,059 posts)BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)Ms. Toad
(34,059 posts)connected with Bernie or not, I have been consistently challenging anyone who says the equivalent of, "don't lift a finger, make them own this."
My first priority is mitigating the direct damage, and I dont' give a damn who is involved with the mitigation.
Prohibiting, or making it harder to, cut Medicare mitigates the damage - if the bill is ultimately passed. That's what the proposed amendment did. Mitigate damages.
It's not an excuse, and it certainly isn't wonderfulness. It is a moral imperative to do what we can to try to lessen the impact of this travesty.
rogue emissary
(3,148 posts)Read the responses to the tweet it's pretty self-explanatory.
Lunabell
(6,078 posts)It was a serious inquiry. I couldn't understand why they would vote against it. I know nothing about the procedures and, yes it pissed me off. But now I know.
brush
(53,764 posts)If he wasn't, why waste his time on amending a piece of shit tax scam bill that should be fought tooth and nail, not amended?
Someone pls explain the spinning their wheels.
Ms. Toad
(34,059 posts)You amend it to protect vulnerable people, so that if it ultimately passed, those depending on Medicare and Medicaid have some protection.
Amending a bill has nothing to do with supporting it.
dweller
(23,625 posts)it's a procedural move...
"Yes Emma it's procedural. If you vote "yes" i.e. On the winning side in this case, you have the right (Roberts rules of order) to move to bring the bill back for consideration"
elleng
(130,861 posts)dweller
(23,625 posts)they know what they are doing
✌🏼️
elleng
(130,861 posts)Procedural stuff is difficult, and most aren't aware of it.
Lunabell
(6,078 posts)I don't know much about procedures or the Roberts rules, but that makes much more sense.
BigmanPigman
(51,584 posts)ACA and it seemed like the rules changed daily. It is confusing, especially when they do not follow the rules or change them constantly to suit their agenda.
Igel
(35,296 posts)But Roberts is based on Congressional rules from the last century. They haven't changed all that much in most respects, but Roberts changed a few things just because, well, they're his rules and he thought what he said worked better.
But it makes sense in principle. If you lose a vote, you have a motive to try to get a revote over and over just to gum things up. Otherwise, non-action is non-action. Something wins 51-49, each of those 49 "losers" could constantly move to reintroduce the measure. Minorities in a committee have rights; majorities also have rights. Roberts tries to balance them and give a workable set of procedures to get the committee to work efficiently with due regard to majority and minority rights.
Regular order in the Senate is there to preserve minority rights. McCain was right in decrying violating this order. However, his was an equal opportunity decrial that landed severe blows on both parties. Trying to point out small differences and make them into huge mountains of principle I think is specious.
There's another provision in Robert's that you can't reintroduce a measure unless it's substantially different from a previous measure. That gives teeth to the "you can only reintroduce a measure that lost if you were on the winning side." If not for this, then the former rule would be meaningless. "Yeah, it's the same as the measure that I voted for but which lost yesterday, but I'm giving it a different name so it's a new measure."
Congress, sadly, plays with this rule quite a bit when it suits the leadership. It's a bipartisan sort of play that has the effect of saying, "Minorities have no rights." It weakens the system greatly, makes it a majoritarian system that each side loves when it gets them things and hates when it gets their forever enemies things. It's comparable to the cracks that form in metal when it's repeatedly bent but hasn't yet broken.