I learned a couple of things from last weeks 7 hour seminar.... other than that Obama rather enjoys exposing Repube talking points and lies.

One was this, that reconciliation is being used only for changes to smaller financial aspects of the bill, just what it was created for, to a Senate Bill that has already passed with 60 votes

Also, that the only excuse Repubes now have for calling this Bill an "ebil gubmint takeover" or "Socialism", since the public option isn't included, is, as Obama pointed out, that the Exchange, a Repube idea, has a minimum standard for health care policies to keep out the trash policies that are so prevalent these days.

Just like the Fed Employees plan does.

So, that's what qualifies as "Socialism" with today's rwingnuts, a minor bit of consumer protection.

If at first you don't succeed in cramming a front-loaded mandatory bullshit health plan on an unwilling public, try, try again.

The Sen Bill has poor polling numbers based on opposition from the right who oppose any change at all and from the left who oppose half measures such as this bill without the public option.

But then, historically, if we governed by polls we'd likely all be speaking German now.

But kudos to Cookfish for attempting to post a cogent political thought without exhibiting his normal homoerotic projections. Good work.

Reconciliation was used commonly during the GWB years. Only difference this time is that the Healthcare bill is a vastly larger bill than any ever enacted in this manner. Personally, I think that The Republicans have created this mess through a refusal to negotiate in good faith with the Democrats. In effect, the Dems are being left with no alternative. I blame rightwingers for the current situation. Washington DC at it's most dysfunctional.

In other words, the Democrats are going to tell the Party of FAIL to go piss in the Potomac and get health care reform passed.

Good on them for finally getting it done, VERY BAD on them for taking so long and putting so much Rtard bullshit in the bill.

"If at first you don't succeed in cramming a front-loaded mandatory bullshit health plan on an unwilling public, try, try again."

Hmmmm....

-Only difference this time is that the Healthcare bill is a vastly larger bill than any ever enacted in this manner.

Again, only some financial oriented changes to a Bill that has already passed will be passed under reconciliation.

Otherwise, spot on.

Only difference this time is that the Healthcare bill is a vastly larger bill than any ever enacted in this manner.

#4 | Posted by moder8 at 2010-03-01 11:49 AM

If GW's tax cuts for the rich and his war on Iraq can be passed under reconciliation, so can these financial changes to the already passed Senate Bill.

"I think that The Republicans have created this mess through a refusal to negotiate in good faith with the Democrats."

I agree with you! Those rats locked themselves up behind closed doors and their leader said, "We're gonna go pole-vaulting over walls and parachuting.."....or something like that. Never could trust those republicans.

"If GW's tax cuts for the rich and his war on Iraq can be passed under reconciliation, so can these financial changes to the already passed Senate Bill."

Maybe....if they can get the votes in the House.

"If at first you don't succeed in cramming a front-loaded mandatory bullshit health plan on an unwilling public, try, try again."

Signed,
Mitt Romney

"If GW's tax cuts for the rich and his war on Iraq can be passed under reconciliation, so can these financial changes to the already passed Senate Bill."

Maybe....if they can get the votes in the House.

GWB's war on Iraq passed 77 to 23 they didn't use reconciliation

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Russell: Difference being that GWB/Cheney told lies and misrepresented intelligence about WMDs in order to get Democratic support for their elective war. Had the Dems not been lied to, there is NO WAY they would have initially supported the war. In fact, once the truth was known, opposition was immediate and intense. So maybe you don't want to use the Iraq war as an example of the GOP not using reconciliation.

"So maybe you don't want to use the Iraq war as an example of the GOP not using reconciliation."

Beam me up, Scotty...no intelligent life here.

#14 The financing for the war was passed under reconciliation.

Corky: Russell is referring to the initial Senate vote. Not the subsequent financing legislation after the worm had turned.

In 1999, the Senate for the first time used reconciliation to pass legislation that would increase deficits: the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act 1999. This act was passed when the Government was expected to run large surpluses: it was subsequently vetoed by President Clinton.

A similar situation happened in 2000, when the Senate again used reconciliation to pass the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 2000, which was also vetoed by Clinton. At the time the use of the reconciliation procedure to pass such bills was controversial.[3]

During the administration of President George W. Bush, Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts, each of which substantially increased the deficit.[4] These tax cuts were set to lapse after 10 years to satisfy the Byrd Rule.

The GOP really created this Frankenstein. Now they are crying foul because their monster has turned against them. Oh the irony...

It was established by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, in part, to lower the bar for passing tough deficit-reducing legislation.

The GOP really created this Frankenstein. Now they are crying foul because their monster has turned against them.

What?

-to lower the bar for passing tough deficit-reducing legislation.

-During the administration of President George W. Bush, Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts, each of which substantially increased the deficit

uh-huh. Leave it to the GNOP to turn deficit cutting tools into deficit creating tools.

uh-huh. Leave it to the GNOP to turn deficit cutting tools into deficit creating tools.
#22 | Posted by Corky

It's their special skill.

"Ah has skilz!" -GW "Got War?" Bush

I love the deflection here, this has nothing to d with Bush. It is about the dems crying like babies in 2005 about reconciliation, but now they are all for it. You can't have both sides, just be honest.

"You can't have both sides, just be honest."

So are the Republicans going to admit they were for reconciliation, before they were against it?

Just to be honest.

EM3: If rightwingers like you are going to cry 'foul', then this has everything to do with Bush and the tactics you guys were using less than five years ago. What's good for the goose... Sadly you guys have forced it to come to this point.

-It is about the Repubes using reconciliation in 2005, but now they are crying like babies about it. You can't have both sides, just be honest.

tftfy

IMPOSSIBLE

CANT HAPPEN

how do I know..
democrat kent conrad said on FACE THE NATION yesterday that its just not possible.,.

or was he being just another lying sack of shit?????

Go ahead, Demmies! Check your principles at the door! And all those letters you're getting from back home? Ignore them! Pelosi and Reid need a big legislative "victory"--FAST!! Hurry!

anyone who gives a damn about the country should get online and see if they can get the interview between chris wallace and paul ryan yesterday on health care...
ryan goes into detail on where and how the dems are lying thier ass off about the cbo and other conclusions on the subject..
as I SAY ON THE NOONER

the left wing media and dems better SHUT HIM up and ignore these things or obamacare will die a deserved quick death.

and the RYAN interview is on the backpage..

you are welcome

DOCUMENTED proof that kent conrad says that reconciliation is NOT possible
lets keep this for when an obama 'associate' "changes" his mind..

SORRY if you have to sit through the whole thing but I couldnt take the conrad commens out on thier own.,

C'mon November!

As if no one is expecting losses in the midterms as usually happens to the incumbent WH party in the first term. Especially during a recession.

I expect America will be reminded who got us into this mess in the first place. Campaign season isn't upon us yet.

And, just for the record, if reconciliation is used it won't be to pass the bills. Both chambers have already passed HCR.

Reconciliation will be used in place of conference committees.

Hahaha. The GOP's all upset, oh nooooo you can't use reconciliation, you're ramming this down the throats of U.S. Citizens. This is all good news for you GOPpers, isn't it? I mean the way you talk about this "gubmint takeover" (etc. etc.) this is going to assure you of electoral victory.

Isn't it? /snark

No one said that Reid and Pelosi had to be smart about this, but from a political suicide standpoint, this makes sense.

The Blue Dogs are already saying that they are against reconciliation, and if Hill and Shuler come out against the Senate version, there are no guarantees that the House will pass it prior to reconciliation.

This will be fascinating political theatre, to say the least.

C'mon November!

These ass-clowns have no idea how the American people are going to punish them.

The Dem's lost Mass. for Christsakes!
If that's not a shot across the bow....

This is not the Hope & Change (Whatever the fuck that ment) people voted for.

Dicsmooth has to reply to her own posts because no one else gives a fuck what she thinks.

I blame rightwingers for the current situation. Washington DC at it's most dysfunctional.

#4 | POSTED BY MODER8

really? do people honestly feel this way or is it just partisanship? There aren't weren't enough republicans for most of 2010 to filibuster this bill... the delays and the obstructions were only made possible by Democrats (and one independent who has been a democrat his whole life).

Undeniable Republicans wanted nothing to do with this bill from the start, but Democrats didn't need them if they could only control their own. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are horrendous leaders. You guys need to look to your own house to find out why you haven't been able to pass a bill yet and the one you will likely pass does nothing to actually reform the system.

Heckuva Job Dems!

the delays and the obstructions were only made possible by Democrats (and one independent who has been a democrat his whole lifeI

ROB, Lieberman's speech at the GOP convention and his campaigning for McCain leave his former Dem creds in the dust.

"Undeniable Republicans wanted nothing to do with this bill from the start"

Over a hundred Republican amendments to the bill notwithstanding....

ROB, Lieberman's speech at the GOP convention and his campaigning for McCain leave his former Dem creds in the dust.

#42 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

Then why wasn't he (hasn't he) been stripped of all power in the Senate? If he's such a horrendous member of the caucus then strip him of his chairmanship of homeland security. Shit, kick him out of the caucus all together. Senators love power and Lieberman is no exception. They should have strong armed him into at least voting for cloture.

I can see Democrats voting against a bill in an up or down vote, but you guys had members of your own party voting to filibuster the centerpiece of democratic legislation. Landrieu, Nelson, Lieberman, and all the others should have been told voting against cloture on Obama's healthcare was the same as resigning from the party.

But that would have taken actual leadership from the Democrats. Something we just don't see at any level.

Over a hundred Republican amendments to the bill notwithstanding....

#43 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Put forth to clog up the works while at the same time allowing them to say they were playing ball but the Democrats weren't serious about bipartisanship.

BTW AmericanUnity, Lieberman has said that he would have supported a Democrat, but nobody asked him for his support. McCain was the only one who asked. Not that it means he should have gone against his party... just saying nobody on the Left wanted Lieberman's support. I think he took that as an insult.

"I think he took that as an insult."

Probably as it was intended. Rightly so.

"But that would have taken actual leadership from the Democrats. Something we just don't see at any level."

Unfortunately, I agree with you on that. What a bunch of clowns.

Good, about time we told the rethugs to go F themselves. The anti-Obama party has been holding things up for far too long. It's time to make it happen and bring about some real change.

Get ready 'working class'... your great Prez is about to stick it to you in the worst way.. the 'bottom feeders and dregs' of society are drooling and cannot wait for another handout at your expense..

hello the dems didnt need the repubs remember? they were claiming the repubs were not acting in good faith last fall, so they shoulda, coulda but didnt vote this into law not b/c of repubs but from resistance in their own party. it is insane to hope this will be as hoped for. why is it that all of you think this program will be any better? medicare is a joke, fraud fewer doctors accepting it etc, i just dont get the faith you show in this program, do you trust them to administer this one with less fraud and more competence? i seriously want someone to explain there belief in this, and please dont say it was a start so was medicaid and it is full of holes, coverage gaps, etc

known as cloture. By using reconciliation, only a majority vote would be needed to advance a bill.

Seems that it was called the nuclear option when the republicans had the majority and now nancy is calling it "a sinple majority".

"Seems that it was called the nuclear option when the republicans had the majority and now nancy is calling it "a sinple majority".

For the third time, the Nucler Option was then and still is a completely different procedure.

Now continue posting your assigned talking points.

IIRC, the Repub cry was "up or down vote" (meaning Dem threats of fillibuster were out of line). OK, I'll second that! UP OR DOWN VOTE!

I think they also made a lot of noise about how "majority rule" was being obstructed by the Dems.

Warren Buffett said that if this Health Care bill passes, there will be no drop in health care cost, in fact he went on to say that health care cost will go up.

Can't Wait

Fuck the repubes. Git 'er done, Dems!

"I oppose using the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform and climate change legislation.... As one of the authors of the reconciliation process, I can tell you that the ironclad parliamentary procedures it authorizes were never intended for this purpose."

Robert "KKK" Byrd.

The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:

1. if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;

2. if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;

3. if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;

4. if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;

5. if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and

6. if it recommends changes in Social Security.

And healthcare would fit under rule......

Here's the part they haven't told you...

...in order to get your free healthcare...

...you will need to submit to their "diet plan"...

...no more sugary foods or drinks - or - you will have to pay penalties imposed by the IRS.

Have fun with it.

Time to show they have dem balls.

"no more sugary foods or drinks - or - you will have to pay penalties imposed by the IRS."
#59 | Posted by BENDOR at 2010-03-02 01:06 PM

And they will know what you are eating and drinking how, exactly?

For the third time, the Nucler Option was then and still is a completely different procedure.

Now continue posting your assigned talking points.

#53 | Posted by danni

Once again, your eyes are getting browner.

I always thought that the nucular option was to eliminate the filibuster altogether?

"no more sugary foods or drinks - or - you will have to pay penalties imposed by the IRS."
#59 | Posted by BENDOR at 2010-03-02 01:06 PM

And they will know what you are eating and drinking how, exactly?

#61 | Posted by WhoDaMan

Well, you're the expert on the Big Government Solution to Everything...

...so you tell me.

Your choices are: body mass index, body mass index, and, well, body mass index.

Danni, are you listening?

It was to stop a filibuster. Read on.

US Senate Republican leadership has publicly decried Democrat efforts to block Presidential nominations that require Senate approval. Senate leadership threatens to invoke a "nuclear option" which would ban the minority from blocking judicial nominees.

Some news reports have characterized the filibuster, a historical method used to delay vote or block debate, as unconstitutional, unfair, a historical relic. Others report that it is a tool that protects the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

By their nature, filibusters elevate visibility and have, as a by-product, the potential to inspire compromise. A final vote can only be taken if 60 Senators agree; this is called a vote of cloture (vote to end the filibuster).

Dan, you tell me how dems blocking a filibuster on the healthcare bill doesn't fit the definition.

I guess you are like nancy, kinder and gentler, by calling it "a sinple majority". Nuclear option sounds so terrible.

Which begs the question...

...is being fat considered a pre-existing condition?

Lots and lots of fatties everywhere are about the get spooned fed by Big Government.

And it will only cost $24 trillion to do it!

Time to lose some weight, DEMS!

I absolutely cannot fathom that working Americans, who have taken even a glancing look at their tax bills, are not ready to storm Washington and throw the bums out!

The notion that INCREASING government's involvement in ANYTHING(!) is a good idea is just beyond belief for me.

I am left to assume that liberals fall into one of two categories:

1. Bottom feeding (I liked the use of this term in someone's post above), government check receiving, blame others for their own problems types.. and

2. Hundred-dollar-bill-printing press owners.

SN - *Latest tax here in Mass. (this week) --
Call the registry of motor vehicles and speak to one of the geniuses there about anything - get billed FIVE DOLLARS. I swear that I am NOT making this up.

JM

If at first you don't succeed in cramming a front-loaded mandatory bullshit health plan on an unwilling public, try, try again.

#2 | POSTED BY COOKFISH

move if you don't like it motherfucker.

People like Cookfish who don't love America should leave. There are lots of fascist countries throughout the world where I am sure they would be happier. Singapore and Zimbabwe come to mind.

"SN - *Latest tax here in Mass. (this week) --
Call the registry of motor vehicles and speak to one of the geniuses there about anything - get billed FIVE DOLLARS. I swear that I am NOT making this up."

Actually that is a fee which is the new way for states to raise money. It shifts the more of the burden from wealthier taxpayers (income tax) or owners of property. We're seeing many fees getting much bigger down here in Florida too as they try to make up the revenue lost when property values dropped.

"In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by invoking a point of order to essentially declare the filibuster unconstitutional which can be decided by a simple majority, rather than seeking formal cloture with a supermajority of 60 senators. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) first called the option "nuclear" in March 2003;[1][2] proponents later attempted to rebrand it as the constitutional option.[3][4] Other names have included the ExLax option, the Turnip-truck option, and the Byrd option.[5]"

"I absolutely cannot fathom that working Americans, who have taken even a glancing look at their tax bills, are not ready to storm Washington and throw the bums out!"

Those bills are the lowest they have been in fifty years. Never mind the facts though.

"Those bills are the lowest they have been in fifty years. Never mind the facts though."*

Income tax that is.

People like Cookfish who don't love America should leave.

#71 | Posted by BuffaloBoOb

#69..you are right, DOCKJ... most people who would support this particular bill are the bottom feeders of society who are very complacent, with little initiative, who have never owned a business or probably anything of significant value, but have been raised to expect handouts and who share that equal 'entitlement' mentality with Oboner.. I know both conservatives and liberals who, unfortunately, fall into that category.. they expect the ones who do have the tenacity and initiative and value system to make something of themselves to continue to handout and make life easy for them... this perpetuates from family to offspring in big ways.. the apple does not fall far from the tree..!!!

For the third time, the Nucler Option was then and still is a completely different procedure.

Technically, that is true. However, certain similarities are prevalent as well. Using reconciliation to pass a bill of this nature is a clear violation of the intended purpose of the bill itself, which draws it closer in comparison with the nuclear option that the GOP was considering a few years ago before cooler heads prevailed.

The differences between reconciliation for this bill and the prior 2 GOP-lead bills that utilized this procedure are stark:

1. Both the tax cuts and welfare reform had not only bi-partisan support but were supported by the public as well. This bill has neither - it is hugely unpopular.

2. This bill is far more complex and has a much more profound impact on America as a whole than the 2 pieces of legislation cited by the Dems as justification for 'going nuclear' in order to pass this attrocity.

Quite frankly, I don't know why reconciliation was used previously on the 2 instances that I cited - it wasn't necessary as far as I can tell.

"1. Both the tax cuts and welfare reform had not only bi-partisan support but were supported by the public as well. This bill has neither - it is hugely unpopular.

2. This bill is far more complex and has a much more profound impact on America as a whole than the 2 pieces of legislation cited by the Dems as justification for 'going nuclear' in order to pass this attrocity."

Neither point amounts to anything in a parliamentarian way. If the shoe were on the other foot the same folks who are in Congress complaining (Republicans) would go right ahead and do it.

It seems highly partisan to claim that the Dems use of reconciliation is even as much of a stretch of Senate rules as is the Republicans' filibuster on so many bills.

#64 | Posted by BENDOR at 2010-03-02 01:46 PM
...so you tell me.

Your choices are: body mass index, body mass index, and, well, body mass index.

So somebody (govt. if it is mandatory) will have to at least pay for everybody to have a physical exam (with associated Dr. fees) to prove what their body mass index is? That alone might be an improvement, since a lot of people can't afford a physical in the first place!

Although it doesn't address other "risky behaviors" that might lead to medical costs, like: drinking, accidents due to prescription drugs, surfing, diving, driving fast, sky-diving, bungee-jumping...ad adsurbum

ad adsurbum = ad absurdum

"In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by invoking a point of order to essentially declare the filibuster unconstitutional which can be decided by a simple majority, rather than seeking formal cloture with a supermajority of 60 senators. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) first called the option "nuclear" in March 2003;[1][2] proponents later attempted to rebrand it as the constitutional option.[3][4] Other names have included the ExLax option, the Turnip-truck option, and the Byrd option.[5]"

#73 | Posted by danni

the nuclear option is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by invoking a point of order to essentially declare the filibuster unconstitutional which can be decided by a simple majority,

What are they trying to do with the healthcare bill? Ar they not going to try to push it through with a simple majority over the objection of the minority?

They are talking about using reconciliation. The same process the GOP used to pass the Bush Tax Cuts and Medicare part D. Reps have used the process something like 3x as often as Dems in the last 30 years. How can they now suggest that it's "unconstitutional"? GMAFB!

tell me what 'comprehensive' measures gop used it for...they make a case that they were all budget matters....so argue that if you like..but the fact remains..this issue is like so many others

dems blast bush forever for doing something and then DO THE SAME FUCKIN THING and thier reasoning??????

well gop and bush did it.
THATS why jim bunning should get a medal on THAT issue and in the end DEMS WILL Pay for it.

#77 | Posted by drsoul

#69..you are right, DOCKJ... most people who would support this particular bill are the bottom feeders of society who are very complacent, with little initiative, who have never owned a business or probably anything of significant value, but have been raised to expect handouts and who share that equal 'entitlement' mentality with Oboner.. I know both conservatives and liberals who, unfortunately, fall into that category.. they expect the ones who do have the tenacity and initiative and value system to make something of themselves to continue to handout and make life easy for them... this perpetuates from family to offspring in big ways.. the apple does not fall far from the tree..!!!
----------
Every example I saw that explained in detail who would benefit from this legislation was somone with 4 kids or more making 50 thousand or less. Hmmm I wounder who falls into that category.

#85 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2010-03-02 04:17 PM |

"tell me what 'comprehensive' measures gop used it for"

How about the $trillion medicare drug program (that they didn't bother to fund, while eliminating bargaining for the best price)?

okay then you still make my point...and by the way if you ask seniors if they like it I believe they will say yes...but I digress..

so that makes it okay now? simply because the people doing it have a 'd' after thier name?

and DONT FORGET

senator kent conrad said sunday,.,.that its IMPOSSIBLE to take this and use reconciliation..
its in a link posted earlier...

so how is he right and the other dems ALSO right who say they can.

The senate rules are whatever the Senate says they are. The Parliamentarian's opinions are just that - opinions. Guess who has the final say on the rules? The President of the Senate. And who is that? Joe Biden.

I have 2 words for the dems that think reconciliation should be used

Robert Bork

Again, which rule under reconcilliation does this monster of a bill fall:

The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:

1. if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;

2. if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;

3. if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;

4. if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;

5. if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and

6. if it recommends changes in Social Security.

It does not fit under any - the dems are breaking procedure and going against the man who the rule was written after.

ol' plugs is going to look funny with a 1000 page bill jammed up his ass.

Then when Americans take the U.S. government back in the next election cycle, we will undo this cluster fuck bill, jam it up reid and pelosi's asses as well.

Tutamen Deus

Why would "Americans" spend every moment from the beginning of this administration try to bring a newly majority elected president to "his Waterloo". Sounds suspiciously anti-American to me. After all, we only get one president at a time who is the president of ALL Americans. That's what we were told when Bush was president, wasn't it? And a wartime president at that (there still is a war going on, you know)!

I hope all the dems remember, if you ram this health care bill down our throats, we will shove it up your ass in November.

Rightnut-
That's be a 3 year

How's that 1000 day wait thing workin for yeh?
Start counting...
Till then-cry like Glenn Beck getting an enema...

Love my Repubican hoes....

Hey ELCID, do you really think those rules mean anything??? Puhleeeeez, you seem to want two different sets of rules, one for Rethugs and another for Dems....here let me make things clear for you.....

"Rules Keeper Is Dismissed by Senate"
By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM
Published: May 8, 2001

WASHINGTON, May 7 Republican leaders decided last week to dismiss the Senate's parliamentarian, Robert B. Dove, because of their frustration over his recent rulings on tax and budget matters, a top leadership staff assistant said today.

"He's made inconsistent calls, and frustration has mounted," said the staff assistant, who would not agree to be named. "He has made it hard for the leadership to plot a strategy."

One of Mr. Dove's recent rulings was that only one tax bill could be considered this year under special budget rules that prevent filibusters. The final straw apparently came last week when Mr. Dove determined that a Republican plan to set aside more than $5 billion in next year's budget to cover expenses related to natural disasters could be removed from the budget unless Republicans could muster 60 votes to keep it."

If the liberal get their way this will end America as we used to know it and we will never recover. They are out of control and drunk with power and are being led by a phony with no concept of reality. Any one that believes the government can run health care or anything else is mistaken. Doctors will be unionized and paid like auto workers-and there won't be enough of them.

"We will insure 30,000,000 more people and this will result in large savings"

These guys are sooooooo hypocritical!

If they try this, they are begging for a filibuster from the RNC.

"Bring it on!"

#99 | Posted by Retire36 at 2010-03-03 11:13 AM
Any one that believes the government can run health care or anything else is mistaken

Riight. All the other industrialized countries in the world have governments that can handle this competently. How come the government of the "greatest country in the world" can't do what all the others can?

Senate Republicans have begun a campaign to cast doubt on the Senate Parliamentarian and his capacity to impartially handle the reconciliation process for passing health care fixes. Several lawmakers and GOP officials told Politico that Alan Frumin is too close to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and thus predisposed to rule in his favor when reconciliation is raised.

It's a bold gambit to "work the ref" before the game has begun and it reflects some chutzpah on the part of the GOP, considering the recent history of the position.

Frumin was elevated to the post by Republican leadership in 2001, in part because he had a reputation for adhering to institutional mores rather than personal ideology. At the time, Majority Leader Trent Lott said he was confident Frumin could do the job, having known him for many years.

"It's going to be pretty hard for anybody to be too critical of it," Lott said of the appointment.

For Republicans to now raise concerns that Democratic leadership has compromised Frumin's objectivity is even more peculiar considering the GOP's antics leading up to his hiring.

more

the nuclear option is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by invoking a point of order to essentially declare the filibuster unconstitutional which can be decided by a simple majority,
What are they trying to do with the healthcare bill? Ar they not going to try to push it through with a simple majority over the objection of the minority?
#83 | Posted by Sniper

Sniper...DANNI is right, they are two different things. The "Nuclear option:" so named by redubs would have changed long standing Senate rules, Reconciliation is a rule in place nothing nefarious by going to it.

"Ar they not going to try to push it through with a simple majority over the objection of the minority?"

SNIPER...never heard of a bill passing with a simple minority.

If the liberal get their way this will end America as we used to know it and we will never recover.

Too late friend. That event horizon was crossed on December 12, 2000 when the Supreme Court declared George W Bush President of the United States.

the nuclear option is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by invoking a point of order to essentially declare the filibuster unconstitutional which can be decided by a simple majority,
#83 | Posted by Sniper

I read that and wondered whether Snoops might've undergone some sort of miracle recovery or taken a gigantic and inexplicable evolutionay leap forward, until I realized there was no way on God's green earth he could've possibly put is name to that statement without stealing it from someone else. Poor Snoops, where would he be without Wikipedia?

#98 | Posted by danni at 2010-03-03 09:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

The rule was made up by a dumbocrat you stupid idiot. BYRD RULE. KKK Byrd wrote it and even explained when not to use it:

"I oppose using the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform and climate change legislation.... As one of the authors of the reconciliation process, I can tell you that the ironclad parliamentary procedures it authorizes were never intended for this purpose."
-Robert "KKK" Byrd

Two seperate sets of rules? Yeah, dumbocrats never do that. At least be honest - oh wait, your a mindless liberal that can only parrot the phrase: Republican bad, Democrat good. Forgot for a second. Why I even bother to respond to your partisian blather.

Quick DANNI, name one good thing Reagan did. 3....2....1.....

And please tell me which of the six catagories healthcare falls into? ANYONE?????

Gee, I wonder if the founders of the country realized that they were being "unconstitutional" by defining Senate votes to be determined by a simple majority with the President of the Senate (VP) voting to break a tie? If everything requires a "filibuster-proof" majority, is a tie even a possibility?

Oh, I forgot, they didn't put filibusters in the Constitution!

Elcid- so how many times has the filibuster been used by the NOPERS? I don't remember you whining once about the Republicans taking advantage of the rules to block and delay any meaningful legislation by the Dems!

As the presiding officer of the Senate, VP Joe Biden does not need to follow the advice of the parliamentarian. During debate on a reconciliation bill, he has the power to reject every point of order made about a provision that might violate the Byrd rule. And, if he did, it would take 60 votes to overrule him and remove the provision. Ultimately, Joe Biden could decide that nothing, or almost nothing, runs afoul of the Byrd rule, and allow practically anything to pass the Senate using reconciliation and a simple majority vote.

This would be a violation of Senate tradition re: reconciliation and the Byrd rule, but it is still technically allowed under a strict interpretation of the rules. It is important to remember that the "tradition" of reconciliation only dates back to its creation in 1974, and the Byrd rule was created in 1985.

#110 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-03-03 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Love how those that voted for "hope and change" really don't want it. Explain again how comparisons to similar Republican strategies in the past define your "hope and change" party?

Using Bush as a benchmark is another great tool - hope and change - two words used to get the most un-qualified candidate in the history of the US elected president. Darn that GWB.

Filibuster = Reconcilliation now Donner? And when did the Republicans use it for something that represents 1/6 of the economy?

They are ramming it through - own up. Most people do not want either of THESE bills.

And please tell me which of the six catagories healthcare falls into? ANYONE?????
#108 | Posted by ELCIDCE90==============

ELCIDCE90...I think you are reading the rule wrong, the six points of the Byrd Rule are exclusionary, if health care falls under any of the provisions it would be excluded from reconciliation.

"Under the Byrd rule, the Senate is prohibited from considering extraneous matter as part of a reconciliation bill or resolution or conference report thereon. The definition of what constitutes "extraneous matter" is set forth in the Budget Act;"

Please tell me what the point of elections is, if the minority can systematically (not just on one or two fundamental principles like, e.g., civil rights) prevent the majority from fulfilling the campaign promises that got them elected into the majority in the first place?

Republicans really don't believe in democracy, do they?

Please tell me what the point of elections is...

I've wondered that too. When the republicans are in power, the ills of the country are their fault. When the democrats have the Senate, House, and Executive Branch, the blame for the ills of the country still fall on the republicans. So yours is a valid question: Why have elections? Just keep the republicans in there since it is always there fault, no matter what.

Republicans really don't believe in democracy, do they?

They do. The democrats, however don't. At least they don't believe in using the power a democracy hands them. They'd rather whine that the minority party is to blame for everything than lead.

When the democrats have the Senate, House, and Executive Branch, the blame for the ills of the country still fall on the republicans.

Sure, when they're justifiably the fault of Republicans - like our massive debt and deficits that needn't have been.

They are ramming it through - own up. Most people do not want either of THESE bills.

#111 | Posted by ELCIDCE90

Rethugs left them/us no choice. No negotiation no bipartisan support. Make this "Obama's Waterloo."
No
NO
NO!

Your time is up friend. The RUSE is up. There is no way RETHUGS will support ANYTHING.

Pass the bill! Get Health Care Reform going now. It isn't perfect. YOU have made sure of that!

But, People are dying. Families are in distress. It's not funny anymore.

If the Republican are willing to play hardball by with the Senate rules by filibustering everything, the Democrats have no other option but to respond in kind.

Sure, when they're justifiably the fault of Republicans - like our massive debt and deficits that needn't have been.

Both parties bear responsibility for the past. At any rate, I was referring to the present, not the past. I wish the democrats of TODAY would quit whining how everything is the republicans fault and fucking lead. Isn't that what y'all elected them to do?

GOATMAN

Much of the unfunded liabilities we're still paying for were passed through reconciliation without Democrat support.

Sorry you hate to hear the truth.

What is 'whining' are the same GOP politicians who got us in this hellhole of debt and recession whining about the problems they created. I've yet to hear one GOP politician take responsibility for their actions.

Much of the unfunded liabilities we're still paying for were passed through reconciliation without Democrat support.

That is true. MUCH, not all.

Sorry you hate to hear the truth.

I love the truth and I love hearing you speak it. As you said, Republicans may have done MUCH, but not ALL

Hey, anyone here want to talk about the present and the future and the lame excuse we have for a federal government TODAY, not the one prior to 2009 which, unless you own a time machine, we can do nothing about.

"I've yet to hear one GOP politician take responsibility for their actions."

But you heard the american people in 2006 and 2008. I guarantee you will hear them again in November.

Once again we see a slippery slope. Now that they are perverting the rules of the Senate [for the first time using Reconciliation for a non budgetary purpose] the door is open and I wonder, when the Republications are in control, how the dems will like it when it is (and it will be) used against them.

CRISPEE

That isn't the point. Being forced to take responsibility via the voting booth and actually mouthing the words 'sorry we created this mess we're whining about now' are two entirely different things.

An armed robber getting caught by the cops and turning himself in is the analogy.

What is 'whining' are the same GOP politicians who got us in this hellhole of debt and recession whining about the problems they created.

Democrats are in charge. What else is there to say?

I've yet to hear one GOP politician take responsibility for their actions.

And when democrats fuck up they never take responsibility for their actions either. C'est politique, non? You reinforce my oft stated point: There is no difference between the two rotten choices we voters have.

Democrats are in charge. What else is there to say?

"We're sorry we did it" - the GOP

Instead of pointing the finger at those who now have to pass deficit budgets to pay for the GOP's mess.

And when democrats fuck up they never take responsibility for their actions either.

Examples please

I'll give you Democrats who voted for the Iraq War on scrubbed intel and promises from the Bush WH war would be a last resort they were gullible enough to fall for. They apologized for their votes based on that.

I wish the democrats of TODAY would quit whining...

Seems to me Goat that TODAY it is the Rethugs and YOU that are doing all the whining.

Hey, anyone here want to talk about the present and the future and the lame excuse we have for a federal government TODAY, not the one prior to 2009 which, unless you own a time machine, we can do nothing about.

Except take responsibility. No doubt the GOP have put 2001-2009 in the 'time machine' and sent it to Uranus.

CRISPEE

"That isn't the point. Being forced to take responsibility via the voting booth and actually mouthing the words 'sorry we created this mess we're whining about now' are two entirely different things."

The point is the dems won on blaming the mess on repubs, now that the dems have proven they are worse, you still want repubs to say they are sorry? Good luck with that political strategy.
Like Goat wrote earlier, were they not elected to lead?

Seems to me Goat that TODAY it is the Rethugs and YOU that are doing all the whining.

You say I'm whining. OK. I'll buy that. I'm whining about the fucked up government we have. But I find it amusing on a grand scale that you focus on my single raindrop of whine and ignore the hurricane of whining from the democrats about not being able to do anything because of republicans, even though they have the majority in congress and the WH.

But that's what partisian idiots do, isn't it? Selective hearing. Your a good little sheeple, donnyboy. Your masters love your type.

Except take responsibility.

As I pointed out, democrats don't either when they fuck up. It's politics dude, and (again) reinforces my point -- neither party is fit to lead.

Funny. Repuglicans call it whining when Democrats point out the extreme and unprecedented steps the GOPhers have taken to prevent the elected POTUS from pursuing an agenda. Other than the armed insurrection of the Civil War, in the history of the Union, obstructionist tactics of this extreme type have never been engaged in before by any political Party in such a wholesale manner. Yet it is the Republicans who claim the Dems are the whiners. The hypocrisy is really mind boggling.

Examples please

It's not logically possible to prove a negative. (they never took responsibility) Or are you saying that democrats have never fucked up and therefore have nothing to take responsibility for?

Honestly, I grow weary of debating against that there is only one party that is clean, spotless, pure, and truly innocent of all wrongs. They are both rotten to the core and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

"The hypocrisy is really mind boggling."

Like I asked AU on another thread, 100 congressional repubs are willing to forgo their current health insurance plan and sign up for the passed reforms, why won't any dems do the same?

Funny. Repuglicans call it whining when Democrats point out the extreme and unprecedented steps the GOPhers have taken to prevent the elected POTUS from pursuing an agenda.

You know what's funnier, moder-h8? The democrats have the majority and still can't get anything passed, so they blame the minority party. And funnier yet is that there are people so politically beholden to their masters that they ignore the power of majority they people they elected are throwing away.

Ideologically funny, yes. That there are people so stupid and blind who can legally vote -- not so funny.

The hypocrisy is really mind boggling.

The inability of a party to lead when it has overwhelming majorities in the Senate, House, and has the WH is even more mind-boggling.

("LALALALALALALA" say moder-h8 et alia as they plug their fingers into their ears.)

YOU have made sure of that!

#116 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-03-03 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

What - I am a senator now! Thanks Donderboy. The dems could have passed a shit as big as you through the senate when they had the 60. QUIT FUCKING WHINING ABOUT THE REPUBLICANS BLOCKING HEALTHCARE!!!!.

Fucking pussy you are. People are dying? - WTF do you think happened before health insurance? WTF do you think will happen if this bill gets passed.

But I find it amusing on a grand scale that you focus on my single raindrop of whine and ignore the hurricane of whining from the democrats about not being able to do anything because of republicans, even though they have the majority in congress and the WH.

Ahhh Mr NonPartisan opines on how ironic this situation is now!

The Democrats are not whining anymore. They tried to work with the Thugs but (as Thugs will do) they refused to negotiate in good faith.

So, TODAY the Democrats are going on without you.

So let's se how they handle this without any more Rethug obfustication.

Now it is YOUR TURN to whine.

Enjoy your Whine.

Crispee: That is a strawman having nothing to do with whether the the bill would benefit America.

Goatman: I realize you are extremely partisan in your outlook, but wouldn't you acknowledge that your Party has gone to unprecedented extremes in the history of Congress to delay and block all of the POTUS's agenda?

Ahhh Mr NonPartisan opines on how ironic this situation is now!

???

I see no irony whatsoever, much less "opine" on it. WTF are you talking about donnyboy? Is it too much to ask you to stick to the truth?

The Democrats are not whining anymore.

"Anymore". Good one. Now if they would only lead. Isn't that what you elected them to do, donnyboy?

So, TODAY the Democrats are going on without you.

It'll be without me. I don't do the lemming thing over the edge of a cliff.

Enjoy your Whine.

Enjoy your leap into the abyss, donnyboy.

but wouldn't you acknowledge that your Party has gone to unprecedented extremes in the history of Congress to delay and block all of the POTUS's agenda?

I acknowledge both parties play that political game. I also acknowledge that the failures of the present can no longer be hidden by dredging up the past. Except for the hard core sheeple like you, people are growing weary of it. We want to see action NOW, not a replay of "whodunnit" for the 10,000th time.

Fucking pussy you are. People are dying? - WTF do you think happened before health insurance? WTF do you think will happen if this bill gets passed.

#139 | Posted by ELCIDCE90

hmmm so much for trying to keep this discussion civil.

I see we need to get through our Rethug "formalities" before we can discuss the issues.

So listen you stupid dickweed fartblossom fuckwad. (there is that better?) 30 million Americans die every year due to lack of access to health care. Americans are losing their Health Care every day. Americans are being denied Health Care every day.

What happened before was that Republicans ignored and avoided the problem until the Democrats finally forced it to the table. Many Americans died and are still dying because of that.

How does that make you feel? It disgusts me.

It is time to quit fucking around with asshats like YOU and the Rethugs who you are supporting and pass some kind of reform NOW.

It is because of Idiots LIKE YOU that NOTHING is being done and things have only gotten worse. But HOPEFULLY the Dems will be able to pass SOMETHING that will begin to improve the situation for MILLIONS of Americans. It won't be perfect because you and dickheads LIKE YOU fucked it up with your so-called 'Negotiations" which were NOT Negotiations at all but were Tactics designed to STOP delay and destroy any form of health care at all.

"Obama's Waterloo" will be the "Rethugs Waterloo" if any form of Health Care Reform passes and if it works at all.

Enjoy your Whine!

Re#142

Enjoy your Whine!

#145

Enjoy your leap into the abyss, donnyboy!

(see, I can childishly spam just like you, donnyboy, but truthfully, I don't get what you see in it)

Ok Goat... Let's put it another way that maybe you can understand...

I am enjoying YOUR whine.

I am enjoying YOUR whine.

Whatever. Simple things for simple minds.

I acknowledge both parties play that political game. I also acknowledge that the failures of the present can no longer be hidden by dredging up the past. Except for the hard core sheeple like you, people are growing weary of it. We want to see action NOW, not a replay of "whodunnit" for the 10,000th time.

When we see the first Republican accepting responsibility for the mess our budgets are in instead of pretending the GOP Congress/WH never existed ....

According to your reasoning, a criminal should be immediately released from prison because his crime occurred in the past and he's now blaming the cops for catching him.

"How does that make you feel? It disgusts me."

Really, how bad does it disgust you, what did you do about it? What did you do about it for 10 years? Did you volunteer as a candy stripper? Pay for someones medical care? Or Did you do nothing like you are now, but complain that others should pay for your disgust? Really putting yourself out there aren't you?

"and if it works at all."

Thats a mighty big matzo ball hanging out there, I am sure pumping more money, and people into the same system will drive the price down.

According to your reasoning, a criminal should be immediately released from prison because his crime occurred in the past and he's now blaming the cops for catching him.

No. My reasoning is more like this: I learned that Columbus discovered American in 1492. I didn't need that fact pounded into my brain every day by every teacher until I graduated from HS. I figured it out the first time I heard it.

Bad example Goat, as that "fact" is a lie and Columbus never stepped foot in America. He discovered Cuba.

Bad example Goat, as that "fact" is a lie and Columbus never stepped foot in America. He discovered Cuba

Bad trolling, kanrei. I expect better from you. *grin*

How many Congressmen have read the bill?

#151 | Posted by goatman

OK. How about acknowledging that we probably wouldn't be running deficits had the GOP practiced what they preached?

#150 | Posted by AndreaMackris

You have no idea who I am or what I have been doing for the last ten years.

I would bet that I have done more than you in protecting the rights of my fellow Americans and changing the government.

At the least I have not been the "Toad in the Road" that the Rethugs and Teabaggers have become.

Enjoy your Whine!(tm)

(kinda like "Here's your sign!)

OK. How about acknowledging that we probably wouldn't be running deficits had the GOP practiced what they preached?

I acknowledge that if every politician gave us what they promised, we'd live in paradise. They are all the same, AU.

I know by your onscreen name that you want unity, and having met you, I know you are sincere about that. But honestly, do you really think that forever badmouthing the republicans is the way to make it happen? That tends to be devisive in nature, not unifying. Would Dale Carnegie approve of your methodology? *grin*

You have no idea who I am or what I have been doing for the last ten years.

Dreaming up and trademarking clever bon mots like "Enjoy your whine"?

Crispee: That is a strawman having nothing to do with whether the the bill would benefit America.

#141 | Posted by moder8 at 2010-03-03 03:16 PM

Seeing as I responded to the "hypocrisy is mind boggling" I am confused why you think that was a strawman. Let me try it another way... If the bill is so good, why shouldn't the federal government employees be the first to sign up? What are they afraid of? Why should the american people be the guinea pig?

LOL GOATMAN

Someone has to be the yin to your yang on party bashing.

I have a lot of GOP friends, some who have Fox on all day. But, we just agree to disagree, most times with humor. In fact, I was at a birthday party for a retired policeman friend a few weeks and pulled up a rug for 'Muslim prayer time' after he accused Obama and his followers of being secret Muslim terrorist sympathizers. He got a big kick out of it.

Politics doesn't affect my friendships one iota. It's all about what kind of person they are that counts. All my friends are good people regardless of their party affiliation. I respect everyone's right to their opinion, but not their own facts if they differ from reality.

The problem I have with GOP politicians is not entirely that they created the situation, but that they're now the biggest hypocrites they can be in whining about what they did.

Dreaming up and trademarking clever bon mots like "Enjoy your whine"?

#158 | Posted by goatman

lol that took five seconds (and I prolly stole it anyway!)... not 10 years..

The problem I have with GOP politicians is not entirely that they created the situation, but that they're now the biggest hypocrites they can be in whining about what they did.

#160 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-03 04:26 PM

Does anyone wonder why Congress is polling at about 17%? Well other than AU and 16 others out of 100.

"Today, I stand with my Republican colleagues and challenge the Democrats to accept this amendment that simply says those who plan to vote for the public plan will also commit to joining their constituents in the public plan," he added. "To do any less smacks of hypocrisy and highlights the lack of Democratic leadership that exists here in Washington."

Politics doesn't affect my friendships one iota. It's all about what kind of person they are that counts. All my friends are good people regardless of their party affiliation. I respect everyone's right to their opinion, but not their own facts if they differ from reality.

#160 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

A-fricking-men!

Some of the best people I know, people who would endure tremendous personal sacrifice are completely opposite of me when the issue is worldview.

JEFFJ

That's what's great about America and why I'm not a fan of personal attacks on a site like this. Discussing politics can be interesting, but when it devolves into the personal BS it gets mean spirited, childish, and pointless.

Leaning one way or the other politically doesn't make anyone a bad person. We're all entitled to our opinions and America is a two party system afterall.

But, when someone goes out of their way to be an asshole on a site like this politics doesn't have anything to do with their being an asshole. They just are an asshole.

What I know is that when the Republicans were in the majority and the Dems tried to represent their constituencies, the cry was "majority rule" and "up or down vote". Is that only valid when Reps have the majority?

"What I know is that when the Republicans were in the majority and the Dems tried to represent their constituencies, the cry was "majority rule" and "up or down vote"."

By all means have the vote. It is obvious the dems do not have enough votes, otherwise it wuld have been signed, sealed and delivered. This so called political theater by Obamateur and Company has nothing to do with trying to garner republican votes.

CRISPEE

There aren't any Republican votes, as you most likely know by now.

The issue in the House is about reconciling the differences between the House and Senate versions. They'll get the votes. Sad it has to come to this after the House bill already passed with a majority and the Senate version with a supermajority.

PS When they have the vote they'll have the votes

They are ramming it through - own up. Most people do not want either of THESE bills.

#111 | POSTED BY ELCIDCE90

there dickweed goes with the "most people" horseshit.

"Most" people I know want it. They don't want a free ride, just coverage to insure that their family doesn't become bankrupt.

After all the disinformation the GOP bandied about, it's no wonder it polls low.

However, when the main individual elements of the bill are polled they poll very highly. Also, the 'public option' was always highly popular in public opinion polls, but it's not in the bill after all the GOP talking heads squawking about 'government takeover of our health care'.

Sad it has to come to this after the House bill already passed with a majority and the Senate version with a supermajority.

#167 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-03 05:25 PM |

Its a bitch when rules that we have used to govern for hundreds of years get in the way of Rham ing it through. It is the reason they were developed in the first palce

The filibuster rule being the first rule you should mention. Since when is a majority 60 votes in a 100 seat chamber?

Its a bitch when rules that we have used to govern for hundreds of years get in the way of Rham ing it through. It is the reason they were developed in the first palce
#171 | POSTED BY WI_HUNTER

More hyperbolic bullshit. Senate and House rules have been developed continuously over hundreds of years and the rules in place in the 1850's are not applicable to today.

The framework is the same. That being said..don't "bitch" when it gets passed using said rules.

If Oboner and his 'bottom feeder' support group get this bill by ramming it down throats, it will only serve to magnify his REAListic greatest defeat and the lack of his effectiveness as a leader.. to have to take the 'alternative' route as a desperate measure, will in the long-term serve to undermind any twing of credibility left in this 'community organizer'... it only portrays what intelligence knows now; he is 'over his head' and not qualified to be in the position.. when you have to take the short cuts and side tracks to get to the destination, it defines a large void of integrity and character...!!!

Oh, please! The republicans set out on inauguration day to deny any success of this president. They would have said "no" regardless of what he proposed. They're on the public record. DeMint talking about healthcare being his "Waterloo" that they would use to bring him down. Not as a matter of principle, they just refuse to accept that they lost the election by a sizable majority and that this president has a larger mandate than his predecessor ever had. Bush claimed a mandate when he lost the popular vote, for crying out loud! Elections have consequences. They are supposed to, after all. Otherwise, why have them at all?

Once again, we've been obama'd to ... he told us he would do this with 60 votes (which he had but couldn't get to cooperate.)

And obama'd to about being open and transparent.

And not using the "Nuclear Option" but getting consensus.

The list goes on....one obama'd item after another.

#176 | Posted by daprof at 2010-03-03 08:23 PM
And not using the "Nuclear Option" but getting consensus.

It is not possible to reach a consensus with people who are determined to see you fail at any cost.

Reconciliation won't happen. This is a game of chicken; Obama needs ONE NOPer. He conceded some ground. He'll get a NOPer.

#178 | Posted by Sycophant

I see you use a lot of talking point name calling. Must be nice to be lifted from the responibility of actually having to think for yourself.

#178 | Posted by Sycophant

This debate is disastrous for you Democrats because the American people are constantly reminded that:

1) Obama promised an open process with no bowing to special interests. He failed miserably at both.
2) He couldn't get it passed when he had unstoppable majorities in both houses. If it's such a great plan why did many Democrats reject it?
3) Most Americans realize the government forcing them to buy health insurance is a direct assault on their freedoms.
4) Any American with common sense knows that you can not insure another 30 million people and not either drastically reduce benefits to some getting now OR being incredibly more expensive to those who have it now OR will be a huge budget buster.

I hope you pass this monstrosity. I will be enjoying a beer watching the election returns in November.

#183 | Posted by SonOfaDemocrat

Rogers, could we please get an "OVERUSED TALKING POINT" flag? Thanks in advance.

Whatsleft,

Why do you and President Obama insist on calling every argument that destroys their position a "talking point". Could you please point out what is factually inaccurate with my statement? Or is it easier to just chalk it up as a talking point and continue on your merry way.

Ignorance is bliss.

1) Obama promised an open process with no bowing to special interests. He failed miserably at both.

What special interests? There were hundreds of hours on C-SPAN if you wanted to watch. What special interests?

2) He couldn't get it passed when he had unstoppable majorities in both houses. If it's such a great plan why did many Democrats reject it?

It's already passed the House with a majority and the Senate with a supermajority

3) Most Americans realize the government forcing them to buy health insurance is a direct assault on their freedoms.

I'd guess you drive without the required auto insurance? Holding any demonstrations?

4) Any American with common sense knows that you can not insure another 30 million people and not either drastically reduce benefits to some getting now OR being incredibly more expensive to those who have it now OR will be a huge budget buster.

Unlike the GOP's trillion dollar mandates, this has been scored by the CBO and will save $1 Trillion in the next 2 decades. The larger the pool, the lower the cost. As things stand, every person is paying $1000 more a year to cover those without HI who go to ER's.

This could be the best thing to happen to repubs in a long time.

If this gets shoved down peoples throats, I expect the dems will get RAPED in November (and deserve every inch of it).

Then, if the repubs are smart, they will not pass a single bill, not a single continuing resolution, not a single appropriation measure until the repeal of this whole health care mistake. And with the bad taste in the mouth of so many, the repubs might even win the PR battle, for a change.

See, a win-win-win. Get worthless dems out of office, get the people solidly behind repubs, and close the gov't for days [weeks? months?].

Special interests - The special deals the Obama administration made with pharma, the insurance companies and at the last minute the unions. All done behind closed doors.

Two different bills passed the House and Senate following months of wrangling and special deals for certain Senators after which big blocks of Democrats on both Houses of Congress saying they would not accept either version of the bill. It was going nowhere even before the shocking loss of Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusets.

Ah yes the auto insurance argument. If you want to drive, you must have auto insurance per the government. However this mandatory health insurance is assessed simply because you exist. You can choose not to drive, what choice are you making to avoid this government intrusion on your free choice. Not to exist?

You only chose one point of my argument on your final rebuttal. Let's assume the CBO (which assumes all the savings in the bill is real) is accurate. There is still a 500 billion cut in Medicare. Thus those on Medicare have huge cuts.

Keep plugging away with this socialist mess lol. I can't wait until November.

Could you please point out what is factually inaccurate with my statement?

AU handled that quite well.

Or is it easier to just chalk it up as a talking point and continue on your merry way.

Most of your points have been repeated so often that even my dog has them memorized, and she's been dead for 6 months. What else could they be but talking points?

Whatsleft,

They are often repeated simply because they are true and that the majority of Americans, as well as independent voters much to your chagrin, are extremely angry about those very points. And you and your Democratic party keep going blindly ahead lol.

I just hope your Democrats continue to not address the anger behind these "talking points".

The only cuts being made in Medicare are to Medicare Advantage to address the 13% overcharges private insurers have been ripping taxpayers off for.

WHATSLEFT is right, SON. You're points are all talking points that have little to do with the good this bill will do almost everyone in this country.

Oh, we've heard 'the anger' from the Teabaggers in D.C. When interviewed, most of them, it turns out, didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground. Their 'talking points' went 'POOF'.

1) Obama promised an open process with no bowing to special interests. He failed miserably at both.

"What special interests? There were hundreds of hours on C-SPAN if you wanted to watch. What special interests?"

Regardless of the broken promise Obama would make it transparent and open, C-SPAN was covering DC long before Obama walked into the WH. If you want to play dumb to the fact lobbyists spent more money last year than any othe in history and pretend that is not special interest money, sadly that speaks volumes.

2) He couldn't get it passed when he had unstoppable majorities in both houses. If it's such a great plan why did many Democrats reject it?

"It's already passed the House with a majority and the Senate with a supermajority."

Then maybe you can explain why it has not been delivered to the WH for signature? Seems like you are missing something AU.

3) Most Americans realize the government forcing them to buy health insurance is a direct assault on their freedoms.

"I'd guess you drive without the required auto insurance?"

So now you are going to require the passengers pay for auto insurance as well? The auto insurance comparison is an insult and losing talking point.

My favorite segment in this video starts about 6:20 over 'Czars'.

CRISPEE

I guess as a fireman (right?) you're completely incensed you HAVE to use that damned 'socialist paid for health care' you get. It's easy for anyone receiving publicly paid for health insurance to bitch about others having the same level of coverage.

If you aren't a fireman, please tell us about the wonderful health insurance coverage you have and who pays for it.

My wife and I are small business owners with in the individual health insurance market. It pisses us off. We're paying more than double what we did 10 years ago. I've been to the doctor maybe once a year if that.

Just curious if this bill will lower the price of an Advil a hospital doles out from $10.00 to $5.00 a tablet. Will it reduce smoking, alcohol abuse, heart disease, diabetes, obesity... You know all those little nagging preventable diseases which drive the cost of insurance and treatment? Or does that not matter?

Americanunity,

If the Medicare Advantage program is so bad and unwanted, why was one of the special deals for your Democratic Senator making his state exempt from those cuts?

Oh and about the anger? How can you explain Obama's polling numbers dropping like a rock and Democratic losses in the gubernatorial races in New Jersey (good heavens lol), Virginia and the loss of the father of the national health care plan's Senate seat by a candidate running explicitly on the promise that he will stop this health care abomination?

What caused these losses AU????

If the Medicare Advantage program is so bad and unwanted, why was one of the special deals for your Democratic Senator making his state exempt from those cuts?

It's Florida. Obama never represented Florida.

VA wouldn't have had a special election if Obama hadn't been elected and Kaine appointed head of DNC.
In MA, the Dem ran a horrible, lackluster campaign

Special and midterm elections are the bastions of true believers with low turnout. Look at Texas last night. 16.5% turnout.

I fully expect Dems to lose seats in the fall. That's what usually happens during the first term of the opposition party in the WH. Big deal.

BTW, this is exactly the kind of rhetoric used when Medicare was passed in the '60's. Try overturning it and see how the GOP do for the next 40 years. Medicare enjoys the highest percentage of satisfaction of any insurance plan in the U.S., and has the lowest administrative costs of any as well.

Just touch it. Touch the '3rd rail' - Social Security. See how you do. America heard all the same nonsense about it too back when.

Oh, and what caused the two losses you mentioned besides their being special elections?

A public angry at the recession more than anything else. They take it out on incumbent parties. Always.

You didn't mention the historically held Republican seat in NY-23 won by a Democrat for the first time since the Civil War.

"I guess as a fireman (right?) you're completely incensed you HAVE to use that damned 'socialist paid for health care' you get. It's easy for anyone receiving publicly paid for health insurance to bitch about others having the same level of coverage."

Sorry AU, not a Fireman or ever worked as a civil servant, I have been on commission and an independent contractor since 1992 in the Mortgage Industry. Nobody pays anything for my SS, Workman Comp, Unemployment, Health Insurance...

"If you aren't a fireman, please tell us about the wonderful health insurance coverage you have and who pays for it."

I visit a doctor twice a year at $85.00 "cash" which inlcudes x-rays and blood work, pay $17.00 for 100 pillsfor the only daily medication I have to take.(30% off using AAA)Granted I am single and lucky both my parents are healthy, and retired with excellent lifetime coverage, so I don't have the same burdens others are forced to deal with. I am not against reducing the cost of health insurance and understand what the future will be without some sort of reform. I am saying this isn't the right bill and forcing people to buy something they either don't want or need is not reform.

AU,

Obama never represented Florida? What does this mean?

Who cares why VA needed a special election. They did and the Democrats lost.

You didn't address NJ, one of the most liberal Democratic state in the union, going with a Republican governor. Care to impress us with your excuse here?

The Republican who won in MA EXPLICITLY did so saying he would stop health care. I don't care what type of campaign a deomcrat ran, this guy made stopping health care the centerpiece of his campaign.

Midterm elections do turn out those passionate about issues. You made my point for me here. The Republicans and many independents (see MA) do not want this health care bill and sent a message (which you and your party keep ignoring lol).

You also didn't address Obam's meteoric drop in the polls. Why did this happen???

California and Michigan are two of the most 'liberal' states who've had about 50/50 Rep/Dem governors. I live in Tennessee. We have a Democrat governor. So?

Obama's poll ratings are higher right now than Ronald Reagan's were at the same point in his Presidency. So?

I don't call a 19% drop 'meteoric'. I doubt he'll ever reach the historic low Bush ended his Presidency with - even beating Richard Nixon. Quite an accomplishment no one would ever have expected.

As for the New York election, you had a essentially a split Republican party because the candidate up until the last minute was very liberal and remained on the ballet. You had 2 Republican party candidates on teh ballot. Remember how Clinton was helped into office by Ross Perot? Not too hard to figure that out.

As far as NJ goes, wasn't Christine Todd Whitman - a Republican - governor there? Didn't NY have Pataki?

Governorship shovenorship.

and remained on the ballet

I had no idea she danced.

One real problem the GOP have is they are now a party with a 'no moderates welcome' sign hanging out front.

Yes, I would call a 19% drop in the polls meteoric since it is the largest drop at the start of any presidency since they have been taking polls.

The fact is that Obama did have a huge popularity rating when he got elected because he pretended he was a moderate and claimed that he would "reach out" to the Republicans, stop the partisan bickering, become transparent, end earmarks etc, etc. The American people now see him for what he is and they are not impressed, as shown by his huge drop in the polls in such a short time.

And this push for his health care program will be the end of the Democratic majority in November.

The fact is that Obama did have a huge popularity rating when he got elected because he pretended he was a moderate and claimed that he would "reach out" to the Republicans

And he's reached out across the aisle like no modern President has.

OK. I've heard all your talking points here ad nauseum for a year. I know the book by heart. Later.

Ah AU, resorting to criticizing my typos. Tough going in the argument so roll out critiquing the typos lol.

The no moderates in the Republican party is such an ironic statement. The whole reason the Democrats won Congress is that were smart and found moderate "blue dog" democrats in traditional Republican districts. Now these same blue dogs and other moderates (Evan Byeh) are dropping out of the next election. Pelosi and Reid and the other progressive democrats own the party now and forcing the blue dogs to vote for this bill will be the end of their seats in Congress.

"The fact is that Obama did have a huge popularity rating when he got elected because he pretended he was a moderate and claimed that he would "reach out" to the Republicans"

If that was true I'd be a democrat today.

AU, I guess you had enough when you start pointing out typos and resort to calling my arguments "talking points". We have come full circle lol.

Remember how Clinton was helped into office by Ross Perot?

#203 | Posted by SonOfaDemocrat

Precisely how I hope the Tea Party splits the pubbies in the future.

You didn't address NJ, one of the most liberal Democratic state in the union, going with a Republican governor. Care to impress us with your excuse here?

I already posted Christine Todd Whitman was the Republican Governor of NJ. They've had several in recent years.

I'm done 'debating' you. You have the same tired talking points we've all heard around here ad nauseum.

The GOP don't want moderates? OK. Fine. BTW, the GOP are down to 5 solidly Red states. Nice going!

SON

Your arguments ARE 'talking points'.

AU,

LOL if my arguments are talking points, then what are yours? I hear the same tired drivel from you and your ilk as well. It cuts both ways.

Have a great night!!

Just for a little historical reference. Reagan's 2nd year, when the economy was headed in the tank, not as bad as it is right now either:

"Things got worse for Reagan in 1982. The public's view of the economy remained sour, and the president's ratings during 1982 stayed concomitantly low, in the 40% range, ending the year at 41%. The 1982 midterm elections were not good ones for Reagan and for the GOP. The Republicans lost about 25 seats in the House."

Obama - Gallup:

52% approval

I hate to terribly disappoint you, SON, but when the country's in a recession the incumbent party loses approval and seats in midterms. Always. The public takes out it's anger.

So attribute it to whatever you'd like, but it won't change the fact that this axiom still applies: "It's the economy, stupid".

Americans doubt lawmakers will agree on a new healthcare bill at Thursday's bipartisan summit. Without a deal, Americans lean against Congress passing a bill similar to the one President Obama (49% to 42%) proposed and oppose Democrats trying to side step a Republican filibuster (52% to 39%).

AU,

You missed the point. Reagen didn't start out with very high ratings. He was hated by most Democrats.

I'm addressing the meteoric drop.

I can google too.

"In fact, the 9-point drop in the most recent quarter is the largest Gallup has ever measured for an elected president between the second and third quarters of his term, dating back to 1953. One president who was not elected to his first term -- Harry Truman -- had a 13-point drop between his second and third quarters in office in 1945 and 1946."

#215 | Posted by SonOfaDemocrat

I'm posting linked facts. You're blaming losses of governorships and the MA Senate seat on 'health care', which is BS. The Dem candidate in MA ran a pitifully horrible campaign. The economy is in the tank and the electorate is pissed about it, even though Democrats inherited it when Obama was sworn in. We've gone from 800,000 jobs lost in January 2001 when he was sworn in to 20,000 a month the past 4 months.

"It's the economy, stupid" - Clinton 'war room' mantra. And true. That's what it's ALL about.

AU,

Keep repeating it to yourself, "It's not health care and Obama's poor job, its the first midterm" lol. I guess if you say it enough you might believe it to be true.

Whatever dude. Reagan, 'GOD of the GOP', a modern President is a much better comparison.

What do you call Bush's 90% approval after 9/11 to an outgoing 21% approval rating since we're talking 'meteoric'?

#223...

So I take it Obamateurs drop is due to Reagan and Bush's numbers? lol

Uh I've linked facts and crispee above as well that contradict some of your linked facts.

I know you want to defend Obama and absolve him from blame for this mess, and actually I admire your loyalty to him in the face of many facts. I guess we will have to wait until 2012 to see what the American people think of our President since the crushing your Democrats will take in November will be explained away by all of your "talking points" LOL.

Ahh AU. You couldn't resist bringing Bush into the argument. I never made the point he didnt have a huge drop. I readily admit he did. But what does that have to do with my point about Obama's historic drop in the polls at the start of his Presidency. The George Bush comparisons and talking points are not german but loved to dredge up I guess when you have lost an argument.

Ahh AU. You couldn't resist bringing Bush into the argument. I never made the point he didnt have a huge drop.

Since you wanted to bring up Obama's 17 point drop, which you called 'meteoric', it's only fair, dude.

Bush's, BTW, was 69% drop. Now THAT'S 'meteoric'!!!!

#225 | Posted by SonOfaDemocrat

The 'facts' I know - which are indisputable - are Bush was handed a roaring economy with 4% unemployment, 20 million new jobs, and surpluses as far as the eye can see.

What he left was 10% unemployment, 8 million lost jobs, the first drop in 'real wages' ever in the U.S., deficits as far as the eye can see, and a recession that may last longer than any in recent history.

If you'd care to provide credible links to 'facts' disputing any of that, help yourself.

So I take it Obamateurs drop is due to Reagan and Bush's numbers? lol

CRISPEE

If you can take what I typed and make that stretch, you're 'rubber man'.

Well AU, I called it meteoric simply because it was the largest drop at the start of a presidency in history per Gallup (who you enjoy linking to). And no George Bush numbers you provide will change that fact. Tough one to explain away huh? And by the way if you read the Gallup article, the timing was directly during the health care debates at town halls and the rise of the tea party movement.

But they are unrelated huh? LOL.

#228...

Just curious, at what point do you make Obama responsible? Hypotheticaly, if the numbers do not improve by 2012, will it still be Bush's fault?

AU,

Why are you trying to turn this argument into a George Bush discussion? Can't you let go? He's been out of office for a year.

Didn't Obama promise to fix everything? He had all the answers in the debates. He promised if we passed the earmark laden stimulus package unemployment would not go over 8%. Why did Obama lie?

Get a grip, Bush is gone now.

#200 | Posted by crispee_oc

Don't get sick or you'll lose your house.

Personally, I want to buy into a large pool like the HCR bill proposes. My wife and I pay more than 100% what we paid 10 years ago. We've never been to the doctor for anything more than a bad cold or the flu.

I recently had a shoulder injury, but paid out of pocket for my care because I didn't want to see my premiums go up astronomically. And they would have had I used my insurance.

So I take it Obamateurs drop is due to Reagan and Bush's numbers? lol

C"RISPEE
If you can take what I typed and make that stretch, you're 'rubber man'."

#229 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-03 11:57 PM

Sorry AU, that seems to be all you have. The least you can do is throw a shot at the Majority if you want to deflect Obama's numbers. Even though that is Obama's fault for putting his agenda in the hands of the likes of Pelosi and Reid. Bt at least it is more credible than bringing up presidents from 25 years ago.

Get a grip, Bush is gone now.

Thankfully. But, the effects of his Presidency still leave the country in sorry shape and will for some time to come.

We know you'd all love to forget Bush. We won't. And we won't quit talking about him until the horrible effects of his Presidency are in the rear view mirror and we're far down the road.

I remember what America was like before he came along. He and the GOP Congress have practically ruined this country. Gee, thanks.

And yet, you want MORE of the same. Go figure.

AU,

You could bring up George Bush until you are blue in the face as far as I care. But it is embarassing to you when you bring him into an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with him. You bring Bush into the argument about Obama's poll numbers to somehow deflect the historical fact that Obama has seen the largest drop at the start of his presidency in history. How does that logically follow?

CRISPEE

I agree it was a bad idea for Obama to put too much in the hands of Congress, but after the "Hillarycare" debacle of 1993 I don't blame him. Hopefully, he's learned.

How's the mortgage biz going in the OC? Probably some foreclosure sales and such?

Don't get sick or you'll lose your house.
#233 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-04 12:01 AM

If that is what happens, then like everything else, I am responsible and have nobody to blame but myself. I certainly wouldn't blame anyone or look for the Government to bail me out. Never filed for unemployment, never took a dime from workmans comp, never had an insurance claim paid to me. Obviously I have been lucky, on the other hand I don't get the thousands and thousands of dollars back that I was forced to pay into before becoming self-employed.

BTW, comparing Obama to Reagan, 'GOD of the GOP' is a fair comparison. They both had recessions in their first couple years. I know, with you being from the OC, Reagan statues are probably all over, but hey, the Gallup numbers are what they are... LOL

"How's the mortgage biz going in the OC? Probably some foreclosure sales and such?"

I work on the mortgage financing and not the realty side. Foreclosure sales not only kill values, but take way to long to fund and are not something I try to market. Sadly, there has been some overkill in regards to regulations and qualifying guidelines. Really going to be tough on first time home buyers. But rates are awesome...

CRISPEE

Hey, man, I wish you nothing but the best. The OC is a great place, and things will bounce back.

I got that you work on the mortgage side. My reference was to foreclosures that come on the market and need to be financed, thinking that might generate more mortgages than you'd normally write.

Anyway, all the best.

But it is embarassing to you when you bring him into an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with him.

SONOFADEMOCRAT

It has EVERYTHING to do with Bush. I laid out where we were before he took office and where we were when he left office. Doesn't get more clear than that. Numbers don't lie.

Just curious, at what point do you make Obama responsible? Hypotheticaly, if the numbers do not improve by 2012, will it still be Bush's fault?

Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-03-03 11:59 PM

When unemployment's back to 4%, the 8 million jobs are back, the national debt is back to $5 Trillion, Medicare Part D isn't costing us an unfunded $150 Billion a year and we're completely out of Iraq.

When we're back to where we started on January 20th, 2001. THEN we'll be on a level playing field to judge his performance on the economy, deficit reduction, etc.

30 million Americans die every year due to lack of access to health care. Americans are losing their Health Care every day. Americans are being denied Health Care every day.

#144 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-03-03 03:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

10% of the country dies every year due to lack of access to health care?

If you're going to be a dumbfuck piece of shit libtard at least use a realistic made up number.

NO ONE IS DENIED HEALTH CARE. Some people do not have health insurance. Emergency rooms cannot turn patients away due to lack of insurance.

So please continue on with your BS socialist lazy workers talking points Donder - Civil discussion? When you and others try to fuck over people who have earned their money by hard work, risk and initiative- yeah I get upset. Get it through your thick skull - ITS NOT YOUR MONEY!!!!!!!

If you REALLY felt bad about people without health INSURANCE, why don't you find one and take them to the doctor once in a while and pay for it out of YOUR pocket. Asshole.

If they don't pass it before the Recess, why not have some town hall meetings and talk to the people about it.

Certainly, after the last fiasco, the people are better informed about this bill.

Again, as asked before, of all the Congressmen - who has read the bill?

#245 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2010-03-04 11:57 AM
NO ONE IS DENIED HEALTH CARE. Some people do not have health insurance. Emergency rooms cannot turn patients away due to lack of insurance.

Emergency Rooms do not provide for follow-up treatment that might be necessary, nor for treatment of chronic diseases. People can die from that. BTW not all chronic diseases are the result of "lack of personal responsibility". Not only that, but you are billed for services and if you can't pay you may very well end up bankrupt. There is no "free" ER treatment. The only way to avoid financial responsibility is if you falsify your identification in the first place, which is a crime IIRC. So the fact that they can't turn people away doesn't solve anything. It just adds the cost to the government and to the insured to cover the losses.

This is the only "civilized" country in the world where people can lose their homes and their futures because they get sick. Please explain why it is better that they can in the U.S.? Social Darwinism? If you can't make money you deserve to die? As I said on another thread yesterday, conservatives better hope that the Christian constituency on your side of the political spectrum is wrong because those expressing some of the sentiments on this blog are going to have some 'splainin' to do to Saint Peter!

As ye have treated the least of these...