Let's talk about the real F word!

[hedgehog]

Let’s take only the Obama presidency. Had the filibuster not applied, the United States would have a market-based system to control carbon emissions, which would limit the damage from global warming, vitalize the clean technology sector, and challenge other large polluters like China and India to do the same. The new health care law would have a public option. Children of undocumented immigrants who served two years in the military or went to college could become US citizens. Women paid less than their male colleagues because of their gender would have broader legal recourse against their employers. Billionaires would not be able to manipulate the political system from behind a veil of anonymity.

Dozens of vacant judgeships would have been filled. The Federal Reserve would have operated with a full slate of governors, including Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond. Elizabeth Warren would be director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not a candidate for the Senate. And Mitt Romney would be paying a higher tax rate than the 13.9 percent he shelled out in 2010, since a provision to end the carried-interest tax break wouldn’t have died in the Senate. (By my math, that filibuster saved Romney $1,480,000 in 2010 alone, the difference between the 15 percent he paid on $7.4 million earned in carried interest and the top marginal rate of 35 percent.)

Each of these measures passed the House and received, or would have received, at least the 50 votes necessary to pass the Senate — but lacked the 60 votes to break a filibuster. (Nominations are handled — or not — solely by the Senate.) Since 2007, the GOP has filibustered legislation with majority support 78 times.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-18/opinion/31749851_1_filibuster-public-option-senate

[msongs]

1. "with majority support" - there it is ladies and gentlemen nt

[libinnyandia]

2. Besides the filibuster issue, the Senate by its very nature is dysfunctional: The 10 states with

the lowest population have 20 Senators. California, with approxiimately the same population has 2. The Senate is an ancient artifact from the past.

[hedgehog]

3. Even worse- those low population states tend to be Redder than the rst of the country!

[Indydem]

4. It is simple enough to rail against the filibuster NOW.

But how vital was it in derailing the agenda of * and his cronies?

Your historical perspective could use some tweaking.

[hedgehog]

5. That's true! Why without the filibuster, Congress might have passed huge tax cuts for the rich and

allowed the Bush administration to invade another country under false pretenses!



Seriously though, most people don't have the time to pay attention, and assume that both parties are the same partly because it doesn't matter who is in control. Just look at all the people here who complain about how little Obama has accomplished!

[Hippo_Tron]

6. How about... privatized social security and made those tax cuts permanent

The filibuster without a doubt prevented W's scheme to hand social security over to wall street from passing congress. However, it is certainly possible that scheme would've never come to implementation after being overturned by subsequent congresses.

[Jamaal510]

7. The filibuster is like a double-edged sword;

with a Democratic president, it can stall progressive agendas. With a Republican president, it can save us from going back to the Gilded Ages. With that said, I still believe we should ditch the filibuster system for good. It is beyond ludicrous that the framers gave the minority votes so much power. It's as if the desires of the minority are prioritized over those of the majority. I thought this was a country where majority rules.

[hedgehog]

8. Typically, the filibuster keeps something new from happening.

Most of the time, Democrats want something new, and Republicans are content to let things go on as they are, so the filibuster favors them!