https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/senate-republican-tax-spending-bill-e0907a16?st=E3QHQ3&reflink=article_copyURL_share

Because of the Byrd Rule which limits policies to meaningful financial impact if using CR:

- Limiting judges contempt power

- Deregulating gun silencers

- Moratorium on state laws regulating AI

- Banning Medicaid for Transgender care

- Raising fees for Visa and asylum applicants

- Some new tax provisions with supposed little "revenue" impact

So, anyone celebrating the above should probably prepare to be disappointed.

End the filibuster and pass what you want with 51.

The Dems will end it the next time they have the Senate and Congress.

Logos Stick said:

---

End the filibuster and pass what you want with 51.

The Dems will end it the next time they have the Senate and Congress.

---

I'm sure one of them have proposed a "end the racist senate filibuster" rule. Put it to a vote. (or at least seriously threaten it to try to start getting some concessions)

Political novice question for those that know. For a filibuster, could the Rs force the Ds hand? Make them each stand and talk for however long they can. After they each did that (they each wouldnt), could a vote happen? I generally understand they can "filibuster" the debate by yapping all day and night and then the other side generally just caves and ends debate. But procedurally, could a vote happen after they all yapped?. It'd be 50 days or so but we are already more than 100 days out. Very political novice question and not sure how that would work procedurally

YouBet said:

---

gun silencers

---

* suppressors

zephyr88 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

gun silencers

---

* suppressors

---

I was just pulling from the article.

Thankfully, they aren't trying to ban clips with this bill.

YouBet said:

---

zephyr88 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

gun silencers

---

* suppressors

---

I was just pulling from the article.

Thankfully, they aren't trying to ban clips with this bill.

---

They better not touch my shoulder thing that goes up

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

YouBet said:

---

zephyr88 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

gun silencers

---

* suppressors

---

I was just pulling from the article.

Thankfully, they aren't trying to ban clips with this bill.

---

They better not touch my shoulder thing that goes up

---

Or this....amirite!?

Logos Stick said:

---

End the filibuster and pass what you want with 51.

The Dems will end it the next time they have the Senate and Congress.

---

I believe this bill is exempt from the filibuster as a budget reconciliation bill. The problem is there are too many RINOs and Trump's approval numbers aren't high enough to pressure them to go along.

YouBet said:

---

- Deregulating gun silencers

---

This might survive because at its core, the NFA is a taxing mechanism.

Those possible senate revisions to the BBB suck! If they want to do something positive, cut spending.

If Congress cuts spending meaningfully, America's fiscal problems almost all go away.

BigRobSA said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

YouBet said:

---

zephyr88 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

gun silencers

---

* suppressors

---

I was just pulling from the article.

Thankfully, they aren't trying to ban clips with this bill.

---

They better not touch my shoulder thing that goes up

---

Or this....amirite!?

---

You can pry my homie sights from my cold, dead hands!

hmmm

I guess some republican tried and failed to kill the suppressor on Sunday

samurai_science said:

---

hmmm

I guess some republican tried and failed to kill the suppressor on Sunday

---

WTF is wrong with these people? Why would any Republican still support the archaic and unconstitutional inclusion of suppressors in the NFA. There are no legitimate arguments to regulate suppressors more than 4473 guns or at all for that matter.

aggieforester05 said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

hmmm

I guess some republican tried and failed to kill the suppressor on Sunday

---

WTF is wrong with these people? Why would any Republican still support the archaic and unconstitutional inclusion of suppressors in the NFA. There are no legitimate arguments to regulate suppressors more than 4473 guns or at all for that matter.

---

Logic has nothing to do with it