Perchoutofwater Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 the GOP did use reconciliation to pass both of George W. Bush's ill-advised tax cuts. Weren't those both part of a budget bill, which is what reconciliation is for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Maybe because the broken leg premise is completely flawed? Speaking of someone has has a child with autism, they consider that a "pre-existing condition" and do not cover things for a year . . . i have a son with CP and its the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Refresh my memory, but did Republicans actually use the Nuclear option, and what did Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, and Hillary say about it back then? yes both parties have used it since the late 1970's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Weren't those both part of a budget bill, which is what reconciliation is for? Oh Perch . . . you are so cute when you get all "finger pointy and partsian" Both parties have used it, and if you want to hide behind parlimentary procedure in some way to justify the right using versus the left, go ahead. But that just diminishes your "mavericky, rogueish" position to paint yourself as. Excuses by politicans why their way is better than the other party . . except when they are the "victims" How original . . . . The bill is flawed, but dont hide behind procedure Perch . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 yes both parties have used it since the late 1970's I may be wrong in that I view reconciliation and the nuclear option as two different things. I view reconciliation as dealing with budgets as defined by the Senate glossary for the term, and I would agree both parties have used it several times. I view the nuclear option as basically reconciliation on anything other than budgets, such as judicial appointments and stand alone health care bills. I don't think that type of nuclear option has ever been used. There is some merit to reconciliation, because a if a budget doesn't get approved there will be a government shutdown. If a judge doesn't get approved or a stand alone health care bill doesn't get approved doesn't seem to have the same sense of urgency and need. Has either party used reconciliation or the "nuclear option" on any thing other than a budget? Yes I realize things such as tax cuts and even small health care provisions have been thrown into budget bills that have been reconciled, but has bill that did not start of as a budget resolution ever been reconciled? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Oh Perch . . . you are so cute when you get all "finger pointy and partsian" Both parties have used it, and if you want to hide behind parlimentary procedure in some way to justify the right using versus the left, go ahead. But that just diminishes your "mavericky, rogueish" position to paint yourself as. Excuses by politicans why their way is better than the other party . . except when they are the "victims" How original . . . . The bill is flawed, but dont hide behind procedure Perch . . . . See post 105. I can see why they do it for budget resolutions as if a budget isn't passed, government shuts down. What happens if this health care bill doesn't pass, we have the same health care system we have today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 I view the nuclear option as basically reconciliation on anything other than budgets, such as judicial appointments and stand alone health care bills. I don't think that type of nuclear option has ever been used. Perch . . do you think that forcing a cloture vote to avoid filibuster on routine procedural issues such as minor judical appointmnets and voting to end discussion is a "nuclear option"? Cause the right has done that with disturbing regularity with this congressional session. Why? To slooooow down gubmnet. How efficent and cost effective! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Perch . . do you think that forcing a cloture vote to avoid filibuster on routine procedural issues such as minor judical appointmnets and voting to end discussion is a "nuclear option"? Cause the right has done that with disturbing regularity with this congressional session. Why? To slooooow down gubmnet. How efficent and cost effective! I've never been a supporter of the filibuster of judicial appointments, though I don't see it as an immediate threat to the government that not passing a budget could be. I'd also say that while I'm not a fan of it, both sides have done it and it is clearly within the realm of the senate rules. Do you think passing a health care bill via reconciliation is abiding by senate rules regarding reconciliation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 bp, tell me one time that reconciliation has been used on anything other than a budget, and I'll concede the argument. If it hasn't I would expect you to admit that what the Dems are trying to do is not right, and should not be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 bp, tell me one time that reconciliation has been used on anything other than a budget, and I'll concede the argument. If it hasn't I would expect you to admit that what the Dems are trying to do is not right, and should not be done. Perch . . i dont agree with using reconciliation for this current bill. That being said, unless you can point out any reason that would prevent it, then you are just repeating a talking point by the Republicans. If it is legal, and they use it, then there really aint a lot that can be done about it . . is there? Just like the gubmnet can lump ANYTHING under the commerce clause, they can pass anything through reconciliation and claim it is going to effect the budget . . . . really not much else to say about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Weren't those both part of a budget bill, which is what reconciliation is for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Perch . . i dont agree with using reconciliation for this current bill. That being said, unless you can point out any reason that would prevent it, then you are just repeating a talking point by the Republicans. If it is legal, and they use it, then there really aint a lot that can be done about it . . is there? Just like the gubmnet can lump ANYTHING under the commerce clause, they can pass anything through reconciliation and claim it is going to effect the budget . . . . really not much else to say about it. How does a stand alone health care bill apply to this definition: reconciliation process - A process established in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by which Congress changes existing laws to conform tax and spending levels to the levels set in a budget resolution. Changes recommended by committees pursuant to a reconciliation instruction are incorporated into a reconciliation measure. US Senate Glossary I just don't see the health care bill as a budget resolution, and as I stated before one of the authors of the reconciliation process Robert Byrd shares that opinion. I'd also think that the bastardization of the Commerce Clause due to the heavy handed tactics of FDR (Like Obama he had no respect for separation of powers) is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are in today. It opened the door for all the out of control spending programs we have today. If the Dems are allowed to use reconciliation in this manner, it will just take us that much farther down the road of our eventual destruction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Perch . . it REALLY doesnt matter if you dont view it as legit. if Congress DOES, what can be done about it? jack squat. Just like the filibuster shouldnt be abused the way it has been done and the commerce clause should be applied to everything under the sun, reconciliation is all in how the party that uses it interprets it. If the right was so against it, then why dont they appleal to the Supreme Court for not following the law? Cuase they want to reserve the right to use the same damn procedure when they regain control of congress in the very near future. Crooks one and all . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Perch . . it REALLY doesnt matter if you dont view it as legit. if Congress DOES, what can be done about it? jack squat. Just like the filibuster shouldnt be abused the way it has been done and the commerce clause should be applied to everything under the sun, reconciliation is all in how the party that uses it interprets it. If the right was so against it, then why dont they appleal to the Supreme Court for not following the law? Cuase they want to reserve the right to use the same damn procedure when they regain control of congress in the very near future. Crooks one and all . . WIll you please answer the following questions with a yes or no answer only. 1. Has reconciliation ever been used to pass anything other than a budget bill? 2. Does Robert Byrd (You know the Democrat that helped author reconciliation rule) think that reconciliation can legitimately be used to pass a health care bill? Here I'll even help you with #2. “Reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits...it was not designed to…restructure the entire health care system.” Robert Byrd (D - W.V.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 . If the right was so against it, then why dont they appleal to the Supreme Court for not following the law? Cuase they want to reserve the right to use the same damn procedure when they regain control of congress in the very near future. Crooks one and all . . It really is as simple as this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 . 1. Has reconciliation ever been used to pass anything other than a budget bill? really havent bothered to look it up, but I bet it is no according to the Republican talking points. Doesnt mean that affecting the budget with health care reform cant be lumped under the same umbrella.. 2. Does Robert Byrd (You know the Democrat that helped author reconciliation rule) think that reconciliation can legitimately be used to pass a health care bill? So the person that authors a bill, is now the sole arbitrator of its application? C'mon perch . . . . Here I'll even help you with #2. “Reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits...it was not designed to…restructure the entire health care system.” Robert Byrd (D - W.V.) Perch if it REALLY was breaking a rule, then it wouldnt be discussed. If it was REALLY against rules, it would have to be challenged by teh Supremem Court. Neither is being done, as the right wants to reserve their use of it in the future. Where are you ultimately going with this? Intent or not, the rules are on the books, and whether or not is the correct thing to do, the Dems are playing by the rules. Bitching about the rules doesnt change em perch . . . . I can bitch about a non-call on roughing the passer at the end of the Packers/cardinals playoff game . . but it doesnt do any good . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Perch if it REALLY was breaking a rule, then it wouldnt be discussed. If it was REALLY against rules, it would have to be challenged by teh Supremem Court. Neither is being done, as the right wants to reserve their use of it in the future. Where are you ultimately going with this? Intent or not, the rules are on the books, and whether or not is the correct thing to do, the Dems are playing by the rules. Bitching about the rules doesnt change em perch . . . . I can bitch about a non-call on roughing the passer at the end of the Packers/cardinals playoff game . . but it doesnt do any good . . . Didn't you say at one time you were a congressional aide? Surely you know that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction on senate or house rules, only the legislation that they pass. If health care is passed via reconciliation then it would in fact bastardize the senate rule. Please go back and re-read the senate definitions I've given you for reconciliation and budget resolution. If this is done then it will open the door to doing away with the filibuster completely, which I don't think is a good idea at all. Remember your Dems won't always hold the majority, are you sure you want the filibuster to go out the window? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted March 1, 2010 Author Share Posted March 1, 2010 An Indiana experiment that is reducing costs for the state and its employees Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Didn't you say at one time you were a congressional aide? Surely you know that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction on senate or house rules, only the legislation that they pass. If health care is passed via reconciliation then it would in fact bastardize the senate rule. Please go back and re-read the senate definitions I've given you for reconciliation and budget resolution. If this is done then it will open the door to doing away with the filibuster completely, which I don't think is a good idea at all. Remember your Dems won't always hold the majority, are you sure you want the filibuster to go out the window? Perch, why dont you think the right is making too big a deal on this? because they used reconciliation in the past and want to reserve the power to use it again. Same corrupt dance, but by different players . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 And this is EXACTY why the current bill has mandates that basically force people to buy insurance. And in your wet-dream, Orwellian, Gattica like, vision, everything that is not compulsory is prohibited. More obamessiah "spread the wealth" crap... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mucca Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Perch, why dont you think the right is making too big a deal on this? because they used reconciliation in the past and want to reserve the power to use it again. Same corrupt dance, but by different players . . . If I understand this correctly, the right can't do anything until after the reconciliation. Then they can hold the vote up through an appeal to the Supreme Court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 And in your wet-dream, Orwellian, Gattica like, vision, everything that is not compulsory is prohibited. More obamessiah "spread the wealth" crap... Amazingly enough, Switzerland has mandated that people buy health care and yet they still score higher than the US in terms of Economic Freedom (as measured by the Heritage Foundation). How does that fit with your rantings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Amazingly enough, Switzerland has mandated that people buy health care and yet they still score higher than the US in terms of Economic Freedom (as measured by the Heritage Foundation). How does that fit with your rantings? and they all have guns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mucca Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Amazingly enough, Switzerland has mandated that people buy health care and yet they still score higher than the US in terms of Economic Freedom (as measured by the Heritage Foundation). How does that fit with your rantings? Switzerland is one of the least taxed Countries, so I guess they figure their citizens can actually afford it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.