Obama Oval Office Speech

[Embar Angylwrath]

No Lurker... not wrong. Just a different standard. It has bipartisan support, your hissy-fit about not enough Reps notwithstanding. Its supporters even claim it has bipartisan support. The Senate bill is held up because of disagreements about cap-and-trade mostly. However, they have apath to climate legislation via the CLEAR Act, which gives them enough Republican support to pass the reforms.

[Lurker]

Do you support the House legislation?

What differences are there in the House bill and the Senate bill that would swing two republican senators?

[Lurker]

Let me save you the trouble on the second question.

The reason there isn't bi-partisan support in the Senate (two Senators by your standards) is not because of anything contained in the bill. Lindsay Graham pulled support from the bill he helped author because he had a hissy fit over Immigration reform. If he hadn't pulled his support it's likely that the two Senators from Maine and one from Massachusetts would have also supported the bill. That's four Republican Senators. Double the level of bi-partisan support we saw in the House.

Still want to hear your answer on the first question, since according to you all Obama needs to do to get an energy bill through Congress is submit the legislation that already passed the House.

[Kulaf]

Gee... will the Obama failures never cease? In his speech Obama engaged in "blatant pandering" (to quote Embar), promising the impossible! And today, he... oh wait...

I don't think anyone ever set it was "impossible", merely that it would not be a seperate fund from what BP would be facing in potential liability suits. This is just going to try to streamline that effort, which could be good for businesses that might otherwise go out of business. If anything it might serve to limit BP's liability exposure.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Let me save you the trouble on the second question.

The reason there isn't bi-partisan support in the Senate (two Senators by your standards) is not because of anything contained in the bill. Lindsay Graham pulled support from the bill he helped author because he had a hissy fit over Immigration reform. If he hadn't pulled his support it's likely that the two Senators from Maine and one from Massachusetts would have also supported the bill. That's four Republican Senators. Double the level of bi-partisan support we saw in the House.

Still want to hear your answer on the first question, since according to you all Obama needs to do to get an energy bill through Congress is submit the legislation that already passed the House.

How is my support or non-support of the energy bill relevant to getting one passed? Last I checked, I was not elected to the House or Senate. My position is Obama could get one passed if he tried.. doesn't matter if I want him to or not.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

HR 2454.

Dems voting for:211 Against:44
Reps voting for:8 Against:168

It wouldn't have passed if not for those 8 Rep votes. As I said before, it had bipartisan support and could pass a standing vote. You may not think 8 votes are anough bipartisan support, but without them, it would have failed (because of the 44 Dems voting against)

I'd have to argue that if the 8 Reps that voted for it voted no instead that enough Dems would've switched. Theres a lot of playing with numbers and votes going on so they can try and save their asses come this fall.

[Embar Angylwrath]

HR 2454.

Dems voting for:211 Against:44
Reps voting for:8 Against:168

It wouldn't have passed if not for those 8 Rep votes. As I said before, it had bipartisan support and could pass a standing vote. You may not think 8 votes are anough bipartisan support, but without them, it would have failed (because of the 44 Dems voting against)

I'd have to argue that if the 8 Reps that voted for it voted no instead that enough Dems would've switched. Theres a lot of playing with numbers and votes going on so they can try and save their asses come this fall.

Really? And what evidence do you have of that? Its more likely the Dems had to hunt for Rep votes because they knew they didn't have enough on their own side of the aisle.

[Lurker]

How is my support or non-support of the energy bill relevant to getting one passed?

You said that the House bill would enjoy bi-partisan support in the Senate. Of course, you also thought the House hadn't yet voted and that the House bill didn't contain cap-and-trade language, but that's besides the point. I think asking whether you support the House bill is relevant and might help us understand why you think it would be supported by the Senate. Of course, you could just admit you were talking out of ignorance and put this "discussion" out of it's misery.

And this might be the first time I say this, but Fallakin is absolutely correct. Pelosi would not have brought the legislation to the floor if she didn't have the votes, and she wouldn't have trusted the Republican whip count. There's no question in my mind that she had the votes on the Democratic side of the isle and released them to vote no when victory was assured.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

HR 2454.

Dems voting for:211 Against:44
Reps voting for:8 Against:168

It wouldn't have passed if not for those 8 Rep votes. As I said before, it had bipartisan support and could pass a standing vote. You may not think 8 votes are anough bipartisan support, but without them, it would have failed (because of the 44 Dems voting against)

I'd have to argue that if the 8 Reps that voted for it voted no instead that enough Dems would've switched. Theres a lot of playing with numbers and votes going on so they can try and save their asses come this fall.

Really? And what evidence do you have of that? Its more likely the Dems had to hunt for Rep votes because they knew they didn't have enough on their own side of the aisle.

I happened to pay attention when it was being voted on. They hunted for the Rep votes they could get so they could spare some of the weaker Dems. Its a strategy they've been playing for a year now. You'd have to be living under a rock to have missed it.

Also, what Lurker said.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You agreeing with Faillikin.. surely one of the sign of the Armegeddon

But since you do agree with him, I'll ask you the same question.. what evidence do you have? Probably none. If Pelosi only brought resolutions to the floor she knew would pass, then HR 5486, HR 4855, and HR 5072 wouldn't have failed, would they?

Now, as to the climate legislation. I can get behind the CLEAR Act. I think cap-and-dividend is more sustainable than cap-and-trade. The issues of increasing production costs being passed on to consumers from the production cost increases imposed by cap-and-trade are largely negated (at least 75% anyway) by returning those costs to consumers. It also has a nod to imbalances between rich/poor. Even though rich people consume more, and therefore should get a higer rebate, thats not the case with the CLEAR Act. The lower economic quintiles get a boon funded by the upper quintiles.

I also feel we have to make a national movement to reduce our dependency on oil. For me, its a national security and national energy independence issue. If we can't reduce our need for oil, we'll be tethered to the mideast, and all the nastiness that happens there. The quicker we can divest ourselves of that area, the better. Energy independence is criticial to that.

Having said that, we just can't turn off the tap overnight. We need a transition. As we wean ourselves of oil, I suggest we use US natural gas reserves to supplement oil-derived energy. Concurrently, we need more nuclear, wind, solar and geothermal elements incorporated into the national grid as well. And we need research into other energy sources as well, like gravitational (tidal) and fusion. I see this as an investment in the future of the US.

[Embar Angylwrath]

HR 2454.

Dems voting for:211 Against:44
Reps voting for:8 Against:168

It wouldn't have passed if not for those 8 Rep votes. As I said before, it had bipartisan support and could pass a standing vote. You may not think 8 votes are anough bipartisan support, but without them, it would have failed (because of the 44 Dems voting against)

I'd have to argue that if the 8 Reps that voted for it voted no instead that enough Dems would've switched. Theres a lot of playing with numbers and votes going on so they can try and save their asses come this fall.

Really? And what evidence do you have of that? Its more likely the Dems had to hunt for Rep votes because they knew they didn't have enough on their own side of the aisle.

I happened to pay attention when it was being voted on. They hunted for the Rep votes they could get so they could spare some of the weaker Dems. Its a strategy they've been playing for a year now. You'd have to be living under a rock to have missed it.

Also, what Lurker said.

You never pay attention to anything political, unless its spouted by Beck. You've proved that time and again. Sorry chuckles.. nice try, but no one will buy that excuse.

[Harlowe]

You never pay attention to anything political, unless its spouted by Beck. You've proved that time and again. Sorry chuckles.. nice try, but no one will buy that excuse.

That's something Embar and I can agree on.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Wow, how times change. Thanks for showing your true colors Embar. Its nice to know that you're just as vile as everyone else around here. You're actually making Lurker look like someone I could get along with right now.

I do happen to pay attention to things that I'm personally concerned about, even if Beck doesn't talk about them. Cap and Trade happened to be something I was very concerned about.

Pelosi scheduled the vote to give her and the other Democrats supporting it time to corral votes. They passed an amendment the night before the vote on the final bill that added roughly 300 pages. John Boehner spent something like 40 minutes to an hour reading parts of the bill and showing his charts to explain why this bill was bad for america and bad for american jobs. I watched all of it on C-Span.

Additionally you're talking about bills that were brought to the floor this year, not similar bills that were brought up last year. This year happens to be an election year and everyone is starting to cover their own asses in regards to what they vote on so that they have a chance this November.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Pelosi didnt get every resolution passed last year, either...

[Fallakin Kuvari]

No, you're right that she didn't. She did however get major things on the Progressive's wishlist passed through the House as well as other minor spending bills.

This year is a different story because they all smell the blood in the water and they're trying their best not to be a casualty of a pissed off voter base. That's also why many of them are canceling town halls they would normally be having during this time.

[Lurker]

If Pelosi only brought resolutions to the floor she knew would pass, then HR 5486, HR 4855, and HR 5072 wouldn't have failed, would they?

Your examples aren't very good because they aren't major agenda items. Looking at your examples, the first never went to the floor for a vote, the second needed 2/3 of the House instead of the usual 50% +1, and the third did pass. Anyways, for major agenda items I think it holds true that Pelosi won't bring them to the floor until she has the votes. Obviously she doesn't win every vote even on major agenda items, so I'll concede that point so you don't have to hunt around for better examples. This is all just a distraction anyways.

If Republicans were serious about solving problems and Linsay Graham hadn't acted like a child over immigration reform, the Senate bill would have had the same bi-partisan support (by your standards) that the House bill enjoyed. You were wrong to say that it's Obama's fault or the Democrats fault for not pushing the House language. You don't know what the differences are between the House and Senate bill.