Republicans reject 'Buffett rule' in the Senate

sorry don't trust MSM by the way I'm not republican

easy one...the blue dogs didn't got with it...which are the conservatives....you don't think all the Dixie-crats left the Democrat party...right?

The house is republican but since you need 60 votes in the senate and there are only 51 Dems they can't get it done. However I think you knew that. You just wanted to put out that half truth didn't you?

Republicans reject anything that's good for America...

The senate is democrat controlled which means they didn't agree with it either. What's your argument now?

As I suggested to you, do some research it'll save you some embarrassment...

All but one Democrated voted against it. So did you have a relevant point or what?

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Democrats were unable to get the 60 votes necessary to break a filibuster and proceed to a full consideration of the measure, with the Senate voting 51 to 45 to move ahead. The vote was largely along party lines, although Republican Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) voted with Democrats to allow the measure to proceed and Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.) voted to block it..

Republican care enough about American to let General Motors fail.

The senate is democrat controlled which means they didn't agree with it either. What's your argument now?

Are really that stupid? Don't you know that a simple majority doesn't work in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to pass in the Senate. The 51-45 vote left Democrats nine votes short of the 60 they needed to advance the bill.

Although surprised., but not unexpected...I would not say they do not care about America...but it just happens to be their version that they care about.

The senate is democrat controlled which means they didn't agree with it either. What's your argument now?

I didn't specify a party. There are 1%'ers on both sides of the aisle. But there are certainly more of them in the GOP, which is irritating the Americans voters more.

It figures. Let he rich get richer and the middle class ......well, you know the rest of the story. Sad all around except for the Romney's in the world.

The senate is democrat controlled which means they didn't agree with it either. What's your argument now?

As I suggested to you, do some research it'll save you some embarrassment...

All but one Democrated voted against it. So did you have a relevant point or what?

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Democrats were unable to get the 60 votes necessary to break a filibuster and proceed to a full consideration of the measure, with the Senate voting 51 to 45 to move ahead. The vote was largely along party lines, although Republican Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) voted with Democrats to allow the measure to proceed and Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.) voted to block it..

The least objectionable choice of the two.
But it is strictly a political poly for every account to lead with "Republicans Block". Especially since the vote was bipartisan.

I'm not sure you understand what bipartisan means. The vote was strictly along party lines. Only one Democrat voted against and one Republican for.

That makes it Bipartisan!

bi·par·ti·san   [bahy-pahr-tuh-zuhn]
adjective
representing, characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions:

http://dictionary.reference.c...

LOL Um, no. If you have everyone but one on both sides voting as a bloc, that is the OPPOSITE of bipartisan.

Then you are telling me that the definition of bipartisan is wrong? Or are you just submitting your own definition?

There is no required number to certify bipartisan. The fact that there is votes on one side from both parties MAKES it bipartisan!

No, I'm telling you that for an issue to be bipartisan it would need to have roughly equal support from both sides. To have one side voting one way and the other side voting the complete opposite is PARTISAN politics, not BI-partisan.

As I said before you are determining your own definition of the term "bipartisan". Nothing in the definition has any indication of a necessary quantity in order to be classed as "bipartisan".

It only "requires"; "characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions:", which in this case occurred.

It's not my definition, genius. Look, here's Merriam Webster:

"specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties"

Here's the Washington Post Political glossary:

"Lawmakers from two different political parties working together to pass legislation or to meet a mutual goal."

What you saw with the bill in question was PARTISAN politics. Meaning that the two parties were ANTAGONISTIC on the bill, not working together.

For the vote to have been bi-partisan they would either have had to agree and pass the bill together or both disagree and vote it down. That was the exact opposite of what happened. Do you understand now?

Answer me this. Is Simpson - Bowles bipartisan?

What was the vote?

The question was and is is the Simpson-Bowles Act bipartison. And your answer is what was the vote. Simpson-Bowles was the work of only the two authors. The entire committee, other than those two, wanted nothing to do with it. So the Act was written by ONE Democrat & ONE Republican. According to you this is not bipartison.

The citations you made on the definition of bipartison do nothing to even weaken my case.
First; you use the term "specifically" in characterizing the vote as partisan. The fact that members of the opposing party voted with the opposition that is clearly false.

Second; "marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties". The fact that a member of each opposed party "cooperated" with their opposition, supports bipartisan.

Third; "Lawmakers from two different political parties working together to pass legislation or to meet a mutual goal." Again members of the opposed parties worked with their opposition to meet a mutual goal. Again supporting the bipartisan nature of the vote!!

"The question was and is is the Simpson-Bowles Act bipartison. And your answer is what was the vote"

Of course I'm asking about the vote. The vote is all that matters. That's what shows whether a bill has partisan or bi-partisan support.

"So the Act was written by ONE Democrat & ONE Republican. According to you this is not bipartison."

I can't claim one way or the other until I see the vote.

"The fact that members of the opposing party voted with the opposition that is clearly false."

If a bill vote has every member but one of each party on opposing sides of the vote, that is the very definition of partisan politics.

"The fact that a member of each opposed party "cooperated" with their opposition, supports bipartisan."

And you ignore the fact that EVERY OTHER MEMBER of each party voted along strict party lines. Seriously, the fact that you believe this to be bi-partisan would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.

"Again members of the opposed parties worked with their opposition to meet a mutual goal."

Really? Then why'd they vote almost unanimously AGAINST each other? That's not cooperation, that's antagonism. The polar opposite of bi-partisan.

"If a bill vote has every member but one of each party on opposing sides of the vote, that is the very definition of partisan politics."
..No it is not, it is the very opposite as it has support from the opposition party.

"And you ignore the fact that EVERY OTHER MEMBER of each party voted along strict party lines."
..I, unlike some, ignored nothing. Note that in order to express "strict party lines" requires removing the opposition party votes.

"Seriously, the fact that you believe this to be bi-partisan would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic."
..It meets the definition! Even the ones you presented.

"Then why'd they vote almost unanimously AGAINST each other? "
..Again, it is necessary for you to qualify your statement with "almost".

Posted by Ezra Klein at 03:56 PM ET, 04/17/2012
The House recently rejected a version of the Simpson-Bowles plan, 382-38. But Simpson-Bowles is from 2010 where the committee that was supposed to produce this product all rejected Simpson-Bowles.

"No it is not, it is the very opposite as it has support from the opposition party."

How do you call having every Republican but one voting against something "support"? That's what you're resolutely ignoring here.

You can't call something "bi-partisan" if one side votes nearly unanimously for it and the other almost unanimously against it. That is partisan politics, which is the opposite of bi-partisan.

And to answer your question, it appears that Simpson-Bowles was bi-partisan since the vote is so lopsided. I could say for sure if you had provided the party breakdown, but it certainly looks bi-partisan.

"How do you call having every Republican but one voting against something "support"? That's what you're resolutely ignoring here."
..Because the count of votes in favor include more than Demoncrats.

"And to answer your question, it appears that Simpson-Bowles was bi-partisan since the vote is so lopsided. I could say for sure if you had provided the party breakdown, but it certainly looks bi-partisan."
..A vote held two years after the fact. Still haven't found my original reference!

"Because the count of votes in favor include more than Demoncrats. "

For what vote? If we're still talking about the Buffet Rule vote, you have it backwards. The Democrats were for and the Republicans against. 51-45 was the vote. 50 Dems, 1 Repubc for. 44 Repubs, 1 Dem against.

BTW, every story I've read so far (five and counting) about that vote calls it "partisan" voting.

Because reporters get it wrong we have to change the definition?

Right. So everyone but you is wrong.

I've wasted enough time on this silliness. Have a good one.

"So everyone but you is wrong."
..Nope! But I generally require evidence to support the alternate claim. Something those with an inclination to lean left routinely seem to be unwilling to do.

But it is kind of hard to disprove a definition.

I don't agree with either answer. My answer is that fair is paying the same percentage. Not some sliding scale tax system. Taking from the rich to give to the poor is stealing. Let people do with their money what they want to do.