Reconciliation...it's coming

• derek bomar

  

  fish82 wrote:

  derek bomar wrote:

  jmog wrote: Trust me, if anything in the health care bill really was bipartisan and not from the far left, you would have many moderate republican senators willing to "jump ship" and vote for it.
  
  The problem here is they HAVE to be the "party of no" right now because quite frankly the D's have allowed zero of their ideas into this bill.
  
  Same with the Crap and Tax that passed in the house. That will NEVER pass in the senate for the same reason.
  
  Listen, we've had this "60 vote" thing in the senate for 200+ years, its something that USED to create cooperation between the majority party and the minority, aka the founding fathers' original plan. Now the D's would rather not negotiate at all and attempt to make the Rs as only saying "no" and having no ideas of their own when this is blatantly false.

  As if the previous administration never passed anything with Reconciliation...
  
  And to your point about them not having any ideas, the CBO scored both plans and the D plan IIRC cost less and covered more people

  The previous administration passed tax cuts, which were:
  
  1. A budget-related item, which is what the reconciliation process is meant for.
  
  2. Widely supported by the public, unlike the healthcare bill.

  1) you can tie health care to the budget
  2) the tax cuts were stupid and weren't paid for even if they were supported by the public...if you're defending passing something only if its supported by the public, you can't also fall back on the "the public is stupid" argument...but maybe the test to pass something really should be if the public is against it, since by and large we really are a bunch of idiots, it'd seem that the best solution would be to pass things the public doesn't want...
• fish82

  

  derek bomar wrote:

  fish82 wrote:

  derek bomar wrote:

  jmog wrote: Trust me, if anything in the health care bill really was bipartisan and not from the far left, you would have many moderate republican senators willing to "jump ship" and vote for it.
  
  The problem here is they HAVE to be the "party of no" right now because quite frankly the D's have allowed zero of their ideas into this bill.
  
  Same with the Crap and Tax that passed in the house. That will NEVER pass in the senate for the same reason.
  
  Listen, we've had this "60 vote" thing in the senate for 200+ years, its something that USED to create cooperation between the majority party and the minority, aka the founding fathers' original plan. Now the D's would rather not negotiate at all and attempt to make the Rs as only saying "no" and having no ideas of their own when this is blatantly false.

  As if the previous administration never passed anything with Reconciliation...
  
  And to your point about them not having any ideas, the CBO scored both plans and the D plan IIRC cost less and covered more people

  The previous administration passed tax cuts, which were:
  
  1. A budget-related item, which is what the reconciliation process is meant for.
  
  2. Widely supported by the public, unlike the healthcare bill.

  1) you can tie health care to the budget
  2) the tax cuts were stupid and weren't paid for even if they were supported by the public...if you're defending passing something only if its supported by the public, you can't also fall back on the "the public is stupid" argument...but maybe the test to pass something really should be if the public is against it, since by and large we really are a bunch of idiots, it'd seem that the best solution would be to pass things the public doesn't want...

  I'm not "defending" anything. I'm merely pointing out the potential political folly of doing a procedural "end around" to pass something that a significant majority doesn't even want.
  
  As long as Obama knows that this move will cost him both houses of congress...then I guess it's just a matter of how bad they want to pass this thing.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  2quik4u wrote:

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I'm on the fence to see if I want this, let me explain why.
  More broadly speaking, the fact that the Senate is basically locked into 60 votes pretty much kills anything and everything big. Meaning, nothing get done. Meaning the large issues, entitlements, spending cuts, etc. will need to really have a supermajority to really change the direction of the country.
  
  Perhaps, a move to use reconciliation to pass something is a step in the right direction. The Senate is a body that is 51% passage on items, save treaties. The 60 vote threshold is just a means to slow down or simply stop progress. Now whether your support or opposition of the Healthcare bill defines your meaning of progress, granted. But, the fact that anything of substance requires 60 votes is, to me is a little troubling.
  
  I guess I approach it from more a democratic theory aspect. In that democracy, you would figure that 51% would allow passage of items, yet it is 60% in the Senate. How democratic is that really? I can see this passage as perhaps opening the doors for more 51 vote passages.
  
  Then again, I'm not a huge fan of the bill either.

  The founders did it like that on purpose they didn't want fast changes.

  I get that, but shouldn't there be a balance? There is literally no movement in anything large and in order to tackle the large issue that will be facing us in the next 10 years, shouldn't really really look at the negative views of that 60 vote threshold?
  
  As someone already pointed out, even if the R's get the Senate, what is stopping the Senate D's from blocking everything?
• IggyPride00

  

  even if the R's get the Senate, what is stopping the Senate D's from blocking everything?

  Nothing. Republicans have demonstrated masterfully how well it works politically because it allows you to run against a do-nothing Congress (because you're blocking them from doing anything), which always angers the public. The public doesn't sit there and analyze who is filibustering and who is offering ideas and things like that. They just see nothing is getting done and assign blame accordingly.
• hookshot

  Iggy: First, obstructionism in the opposition of awful public policy is a virtue. Second, the Democrats took filibuster to new heights many years ago on judicial nominations and the Senate has gone down hill ever since.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Some of you folks act like filibuster is a bad thing.
  
  It's not.
  
  The Founding Fathers didn't want an efficient government -- one that could pass things quickly. That idea scared the hell out of them. They wanted a SAFER government.
  
  That's why we have so many checks and balances in the system, and so many ways to block a hurried process.
  
  Slow and steady is ALMOST ALWAYS better when it comes to government acts that will spend money (which is basically everything).
  
  If there is something the American people truly want passed, it gets passed.
• Gobuckeyes1

  Writerbuckeye wrote: Some of you folks act like filibuster is a bad thing.
  
  It's not.
  
  The Founding Fathers didn't want an efficient government -- one that could pass things quickly. That idea scared the hell out of them. They wanted a SAFER government.
  
  That's why we have so many checks and balances in the system, and so many ways to block a hurried process.
  
  Slow and steady is ALMOST ALWAYS better when it comes to government acts that will spend money (which is basically everything).
  
  If there is something the American people truly want passed, it gets passed.

  I'll remember you said this next time the Repubs control congress and the Dems become the 'obstructionists" and you guys are all pissed about it.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  I think it is a good thing, but when every little thing is blocked, it becomes a hindrance.
  
  Also, anything large or needed, say SS or Medicare reform never, ever gets done. Why, because you will never get 60 Senators to agree. Even W, got the wrath of the lack of 60 votes when tried to tackle SS reform. He failed horribly in 2005 because he could not get the 60 votes to even get to a vote.
  
  It is a balance, and right now, the balance is tilted in favor of blocking anything big.
  
  How are we going to reform the system (health, SS, Medicare, spending, etc) if we can't get to the 60 vote threshold?
• fish82

  

  Gobuckeyes1 wrote:

  Writerbuckeye wrote: Some of you folks act like filibuster is a bad thing.
  
  It's not.
  
  The Founding Fathers didn't want an efficient government -- one that could pass things quickly. That idea scared the hell out of them. They wanted a SAFER government.
  
  That's why we have so many checks and balances in the system, and so many ways to block a hurried process.
  
  Slow and steady is ALMOST ALWAYS better when it comes to government acts that will spend money (which is basically everything).
  
  If there is something the American people truly want passed, it gets passed.

  I'll remember you said this next time the Repubs control congress and the Dems become the 'obstructionists" and you guys are all pissed about it.

  Been there, done that. See circa 2001-2007.
  
  I fail to see why you people continue to whine about "obstructionists" when you still have the largest majority in a generation.
  
  Tell Harry Reid to sew his vagina closed and force the pubs to actually fillibuster. It ain't that hard.
• bigmanbt

  I guess I see it a little different. The 60+ forces the 2 sides to work together and if they won't, they get nothing done, and also get what they deserve in being voted out. Thank god the R's are doing this, a MAJORITY of American's do not want the public option. If gov't run businesses worked, the US would have lost the Cold War to the USSR.
• IggyPride00

  

  ccrunner609 wrote: they can pass this bill with 51 votes and since all the entitlements dont kick in for 3-4 years the new congress will go back and kill it.
  
  
  Go ahead and pass it, the legislation will kill itself.

  The key for that is getting BHO out of office.
  
  He will veto any and all bills that kill his healthcare proposals should there be a new Congress next year.
  
  A new Congress will allow him to run against them the way Clinton ran against Republican Congress so effectively, which will help his re-election bid. I think the White House would secretly rather have that.
  
  Once the entitlements take hold, they will be politically impossible to repeal much like Medicare is now. The American public doesn't want to be taxed, but hell hath no fury like an American public that faces the threat of having their entitlements tampered with.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Gobuckeyes1 wrote:

  Writerbuckeye wrote: Some of you folks act like filibuster is a bad thing.
  
  It's not.
  
  The Founding Fathers didn't want an efficient government -- one that could pass things quickly. That idea scared the hell out of them. They wanted a SAFER government.
  
  That's why we have so many checks and balances in the system, and so many ways to block a hurried process.
  
  Slow and steady is ALMOST ALWAYS better when it comes to government acts that will spend money (which is basically everything).
  
  If there is something the American people truly want passed, it gets passed.

  I'll remember you said this next time the Repubs control congress and the Dems become the 'obstructionists" and you guys are all pissed about it.

  It's not likely to be the issue you think it is.
  
  In my view, Congress interferes too much in things. The less activity they get involved in, the better.
  
  Of course, that's assuming they don't have to clean up the gargantuan mess the Democrats are creating.
• BoatShoes

  IggyPride00 wrote: hell hath no fury like an American public that faces the threat of having their entitlements tampered with.

  I agree with this because look at guys like Believer, etc. who dislike the welfare state...but the second they start putting money into it and expecting a return, they're going to demand they get a return.
• gibby08

  

  fish82 wrote:

  derek bomar wrote:

  fish82 wrote:

  derek bomar wrote:

  jmog wrote:
  
  As long as Obama knows that this move will cost him both houses of congress...

  Yea....I don't think so
  
  6 major Republican ideas ALREADY in Health Care Bill
  http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/five_compronises_in_health_car.html

• dwccrew

  

  It's funny that with nothing getting done in Washington DC, the country is doing better than before (if that can actually be said, but the economy has grown). All the stalemating in Congress and nothing getting passed is the best thing that could happen right now.
• derek bomar

  

  dwccrew wrote: It's funny that with nothing getting done in Washington DC, the country is doing better than before (if that can actually be said, but the economy has grown). All the stalemating in Congress and nothing getting passed is the best thing that could happen right now.

  I could not disagree more with this statement.
• dwccrew

  

  derek bomar wrote:

  dwccrew wrote: It's funny that with nothing getting done in Washington DC, the country is doing better than before (if that can actually be said, but the economy has grown). All the stalemating in Congress and nothing getting passed is the best thing that could happen right now.

  I could not disagree more with this statement.

  Ok, care to elaborate why? The spending that went on before hasn't helped much, if any, and now that there is gridlock in Congress spending bills aren't getting passed through left and right.
  
  That is a good thing.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  dwccrew wrote:

  derek bomar wrote:

  dwccrew wrote: It's funny that with nothing getting done in Washington DC, the country is doing better than before (if that can actually be said, but the economy has grown). All the stalemating in Congress and nothing getting passed is the best thing that could happen right now.

  I could not disagree more with this statement.

  Ok, care to elaborate why? The spending that went on before hasn't helped much, if any, and now that there is gridlock in Congress spending bills aren't getting passed through left and right.
  
  That is a good thing.

  
  I agree with Crew on this. Proof is in the puddin'!
  
  Analogy:
  
  I have a huge flower garden. Some of the best plants (growth, spreading, general health and bloom) are the ones that I do the least amount of handling.
  Some of the plants that don't see much grown, spreading, general health and bloom are the plants that I constantly have to meddle with from March to September/October.
  
  Some things are just better left to their own resources, which come naturally.
• QuakerOats

  http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/white-house-if-gop-filibusters-well-pass-health-reform-via-reconciliation/
  
  Despite massive public opposition, these socialist/marxists want to proceed with ramming their legislation through --------------- they ought to be ran out of DC on rail today!!!
• derek bomar

  

  http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F5F25DC5-18FE-70B2-A8617C0756F24121
  
  no public option...
  
  and the whole socialism marxism thing is more played out than Madonnas vagina so I'm not even going to bother...
  
  as for crew...I don't agree with what you said because you're statement claimed that doing nothing was the best thing that could happen right now...that makes the assumption that there isn't an option out there that would result in some kind of net benefit to the American people, which is basically bs.
• QuakerOats

  Ok -- how about tyranny then?
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  QuakerOats wrote: Ok -- how about tyranny then?

  Explain?
• derek bomar

  

  QuakerOats wrote: Ok -- how about tyranny then?

  I don't think you know what they word tyranny means...
  
  "in modern usage, the word "tyrant" carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population, which the tyrant governs or controls." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant
  
  what small group of people is Obama trying to give benefit to over the best interests of the rest of us? If anything, it's the other way around...taxing upper income (the minority) to pay for health care (a benefit to the majority).
• QuakerOats

  arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
  
  oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
  
  This is exactly what is ocurring; incredible that you don't see it.
• derek bomar

  

  QuakerOats wrote: arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
  
  oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
  
  This is exactly what is ocurring; incredible that you don't see it.

  I literally lol'd