- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 15,483
- Reaction score
- 8,227
- Location
- North Texas
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Texas is welcome to secede anytime it wants too.....good riddance.
they can't pass it cuz it's a pig
and you can't reconcile a pig, either
it's PHYSICALLY impossible
cuz the pig has too much SOCIAL reform in it
public option via reconciliation---LOL!
Republicans have been calling this healthcare summit, a televised meeting where they are highly encouraged to bring their ideas to the table for open negotiations, doing exactly what they've been asking for all along, "a trap."
Republicans keep saying they've been shut out, that the administration doesn't really want bipartisanship.
We took out the public option.
We took out the "death panel" clause despite it being nothing of the sort.
We changed the language regarding illegal aliens, despite the bill already prohibiting funds being used for those in this country illegally.
We added the across-state-lines selling of insurance.
We added a requirement for each state to address malpractice lawsuits. AKA tort reform.
All of these were Republican ideas. Demands made that Democrats gave in to.
Now the Republicans are getting another demand: televised, transparent negotiations for all Americans to see.
And they have the nerve to keep saying that they're being shut out, and that this is "a trap." The only way its a trap is if you guys actually have no helpful ideas.
How much more ground should the Democrats give before they just say "**** it, these people have absolutely no intention of governing."
Last chance, Republicans. We've been patient enough with you.
Texas is welcome to secede anytime it wants too.....good riddance.
half a trillion cuts to m and m
10 years of taxes, 6 of benefits
mandates on individuals to buy for themselves that which they can't afford, fines and potential criminalization down the road if they don't
200B of unfunded mandates on already bankrupt states in the form of massive expansion of medicaid, the ghetto of health care
the doc fix, a quarter T, off budget
the double counting of another quarter T, according to cbo
i could go on (and on), believe me
we have been over this ground a thousand times
it's a pig of a bill, a real stinker
you betcha, we opposed it
and we were REWARDED massively, 25 to 30 point swings towards red in MA, VA and NJ
ALL THREE extremely important and meaningful states
if you can pass it, pass it
grow the heck up
america has NEVER seen leadership act like such babies
it's a big part of YOUR problem
In my opinion, this is bad, and for the following reasons:
1) It mandates that most Americans purchase insurance. This IS Socialistic in nature.
2) It will add more than a trillion dollars to the deficit over the next decade.
3) It will make steep cuts in Medicare, a program that many Americans have spent a lifetime paying into already.
4) It will put the Federal government in the insurance business, something that it has no business being in.
This is absolutely horrible.
No, I'm not talking about them putting the Public Option back in. Enough people will be talking about that.
I'm talking about reconciliation.
While yes, this is TECHNICALLY legal, this is incredibly bad precedent. Reconciliation is there for budgetary purposes only. Primarily it seems in the cases where a filibuster could potentially cause the government to simply not have a working budget or to institute budgetary changes to increase the flow of money into the government. Even a Democrat, Robert Byrd, highlighted this issue when he was in opposition of Bill Clinton's attempt to use it in 1993 for HIS health care plan stating such a use was out of bounds for what reconciliation was meant for.
The last time it was done successfully for a "questionable", ie not directly budgetary reason, was in regards to the Bush Tax cuts. At the times Democrats and liberals were against such a use but it was at least a realistic stretch, as the purpose was at least extremely closely tied to budgetary since it was taxes which is directly tied to revenue brought in. Also, while questionable, it was at least reasonably similar to past uses of it.
The last time it was attempted to be done questionably and failed to happen was with Republicans attempting to use it for ANWR and the democrats, rightfully, being upset at the attempted use and putting enough political pressure to stop it from happening.
This time it is most definitively NOT budgetary. Any attempts to tie it to a budgetary method would take an amount of political acrobatics so large that it'd be qualified for Cirque de Soleil. This would be akin to saying that a tax on automakers to limit carbon emissions was Military legislation by attempting to tie it to less reliance on foreign oil and then to national security and then to terrorism and then to the War on Terror. Technically right? Sure. Realistically and understandably? Absolutely not.
If the Dem's actually do this, and do this on such a HUGELY contested bill (This entire bill makes the arguments about ANWR seem like deciding between going to Pizza Hut or Papa Johns after the little league game), especially interjecting an even more controversial provision, then this is going to cause a seismic shake up in the fabric of our Political Culture.
By invoking Reconciliation on something so far from its intended purpose, and so amazingly controversial, when in the past one of their own members even stated such a use was not in bounds for something similar (93's attempt) the Democrats are opening the flood gate for this to become the political norm rather than the EXTREME and appalling exception they're doing now.
Will this make it right when the Republicans do something similar in 2 or 4 or 8 years down the line, possibly on something even LESS tied to the budget or even more than just once? Absolutely not. However when that happens the Democrats and Liberals of this country will first have to look at themselves in the mirror and realize this as much their fault as anyones for setting the precedent and opening the flood gates for this. Much like their repeated filibustering in the early 2000's led to the even increased filibustering of the current Republicans that is so often bitched about, so too will this usher in a continuance of this era of disgustingly low politics which serves no one but the politicians.
If this goes forward as planned it is a dark day and a black mark upon America....not because its "socialist" to require health care, not because of the "abomination" of the Public Option, but because of the underhanded and despicable methods that the Democrat Party will go to force down the throats of the American People a bill that is one of the most highly contest, controversial, and divisive bills in recent memory.
This is not Change we can believe in.
This is not post partisanship.
This is anything but a divergence from politics as usual.
This is despicable, pathetic attempt at extreme partisan politics and if signed by Obama the man should have his picture in the dictionary next to "Fraud" based on his rhetoric and promises given during the campaign.
That would certainly help balance the budget as Texas is not a contributor but rather a net dependent state.
This is absolutely horrible.
No, I'm not talking about them putting the Public Option back in. Enough people will be talking about that.
I'm talking about reconciliation.
While yes, this is TECHNICALLY legal, this is incredibly bad precedent. Reconciliation is there for budgetary purposes only. Primarily it seems in the cases where a filibuster could potentially cause the government to simply not have a working budget or to institute budgetary changes to increase the flow of money into the government. Even a Democrat, Robert Byrd, highlighted this issue when he was in opposition of Bill Clinton's attempt to use it in 1993 for HIS health care plan stating such a use was out of bounds for what reconciliation was meant for.
The last time it was done successfully for a "questionable", ie not directly budgetary reason, was in regards to the Bush Tax cuts. At the times Democrats and liberals were against such a use but it was at least a realistic stretch, as the purpose was at least extremely closely tied to budgetary since it was taxes which is directly tied to revenue brought in. Also, while questionable, it was at least reasonably similar to past uses of it.
The last time it was attempted to be done questionably and failed to happen was with Republicans attempting to use it for ANWR and the democrats, rightfully, being upset at the attempted use and putting enough political pressure to stop it from happening.
This time it is most definitively NOT budgetary. Any attempts to tie it to a budgetary method would take an amount of political acrobatics so large that it'd be qualified for Cirque de Soleil. This would be akin to saying that a tax on automakers to limit carbon emissions was Military legislation by attempting to tie it to less reliance on foreign oil and then to national security and then to terrorism and then to the War on Terror. Technically right? Sure. Realistically and understandably? Absolutely not.
If the Dem's actually do this, and do this on such a HUGELY contested bill (This entire bill makes the arguments about ANWR seem like deciding between going to Pizza Hut or Papa Johns after the little league game), especially interjecting an even more controversial provision, then this is going to cause a seismic shake up in the fabric of our Political Culture.
By invoking Reconciliation on something so far from its intended purpose, and so amazingly controversial, when in the past one of their own members even stated such a use was not in bounds for something similar (93's attempt) the Democrats are opening the flood gate for this to become the political norm rather than the EXTREME and appalling exception they're doing now.
oh, no, my so right on friend, that might be a worry if they had a chance but they don't, they're gonna get their clocks cleaned, there will be no precedent
Will this make it right when the Republicans do something similar in 2 or 4 or 8 years down the line, possibly on something even LESS tied to the budget or even more than just once? Absolutely not. However when that happens the Democrats and Liberals of this country will first have to look at themselves in the mirror and realize this as much their fault as anyones for setting the precedent and opening the flood gates for this. Much like their repeated filibustering in the early 2000's led to the even increased filibustering of the current Republicans that is so often bitched about, so too will this usher in a continuance of this era of disgustingly low politics which serves no one but the politicians.
If this goes forward as planned it is a dark day and a black mark upon America....not because its "socialist" to require health care, not because of the "abomination" of the Public Option, but because of the underhanded and despicable methods that the Democrat Party will go to force down the throats of the American People a bill that is one of the most highly contest, controversial, and divisive bills in recent memory.
This is not Change we can believe in.
This is not post partisanship.
This is anything but a divergence from politics as usual.
!!!
This is despicable, pathetic attempt at extreme partisan politics and if signed by Obama the man should have his picture in the dictionary next to "Fraud" based on his rhetoric and promises given during the campaign.
And it will lead to SO many new jobs, won't it? I mean, the key to getting the economy moving is to nationalize healthcare.
This is absolutely horrible.
No, I'm not talking about them putting the Public Option back in. Enough people will be talking about that.
I'm talking about reconciliation.
While yes, this is TECHNICALLY legal, this is incredibly bad precedent. Reconciliation is there for budgetary purposes only. Primarily it seems in the cases where a filibuster could potentially cause the government to simply not have a working budget or to institute budgetary changes to increase the flow of money into the government. Even a Democrat, Robert Byrd, highlighted this issue when he was in opposition of Bill Clinton's attempt to use it in 1993 for HIS health care plan stating such a use was out of bounds for what reconciliation was meant for.
The last time it was done successfully for a "questionable", ie not directly budgetary reason, was in regards to the Bush Tax cuts. At the times Democrats and liberals were against such a use but it was at least a realistic stretch, as the purpose was at least extremely closely tied to budgetary since it was taxes which is directly tied to revenue brought in. Also, while questionable, it was at least reasonably similar to past uses of it.
The last time it was attempted to be done questionably and failed to happen was with Republicans attempting to use it for ANWR and the democrats, rightfully, being upset at the attempted use and putting enough political pressure to stop it from happening.
This time it is most definitively NOT budgetary. Any attempts to tie it to a budgetary method would take an amount of political acrobatics so large that it'd be qualified for Cirque de Soleil. This would be akin to saying that a tax on automakers to limit carbon emissions was Military legislation by attempting to tie it to less reliance on foreign oil and then to national security and then to terrorism and then to the War on Terror. Technically right? Sure. Realistically and understandably? Absolutely not.
If the Dem's actually do this, and do this on such a HUGELY contested bill (This entire bill makes the arguments about ANWR seem like deciding between going to Pizza Hut or Papa Johns after the little league game), especially interjecting an even more controversial provision, then this is going to cause a seismic shake up in the fabric of our Political Culture.
By invoking Reconciliation on something so far from its intended purpose, and so amazingly controversial, when in the past one of their own members even stated such a use was not in bounds for something similar (93's attempt) the Democrats are opening the flood gate for this to become the political norm rather than the EXTREME and appalling exception they're doing now.
Will this make it right when the Republicans do something similar in 2 or 4 or 8 years down the line, possibly on something even LESS tied to the budget or even more than just once? Absolutely not. However when that happens the Democrats and Liberals of this country will first have to look at themselves in the mirror and realize this as much their fault as anyones for setting the precedent and opening the flood gates for this. Much like their repeated filibustering in the early 2000's led to the even increased filibustering of the current Republicans that is so often bitched about, so too will this usher in a continuance of this era of disgustingly low politics which serves no one but the politicians.
If this goes forward as planned it is a dark day and a black mark upon America....not because its "socialist" to require health care, not because of the "abomination" of the Public Option, but because of the underhanded and despicable methods that the Democrat Party will go to force down the throats of the American People a bill that is one of the most highly contest, controversial, and divisive bills in recent memory.
This is not Change we can believe in.
This is not post partisanship.
This is anything but a divergence from politics as usual.
This is despicable, pathetic attempt at extreme partisan politics and if signed by Obama the man should have his picture in the dictionary next to "Fraud" based on his rhetoric and promises given during the campaign.
Dead on! I don't think they'll actually go through with it, though. Heads would roll...
One of two things will happen:
1) They WILL actually go through with it. Arlen Specter just signed onto the public option, and this is where the HCR bill is headed.
OR
2) Republicans will compromise by caving in on other parts of the bill, thus killing the public option. This could very well be the Democrats' threat of their own "nuclear option".
We will know for sure by the end of next week which of the 2 directions the bill will take. Either way, get ready to bend over and take it. The robber barons are coming soon, to a wallet near you.
You talk like Obama WANTS to sink the economy. I have a lot of disagreements with Obama, but I will never stoop so low as to claim that he is unamerican, wants the economy to fail, or any other ludicrouos garbage. Despite my feeling strongly that Obama is wrong, I DO realize that he loves this country just as much as I do. I just think his policies are wrong.
Don't count on that. My money says that HCR will pass. One of two things will happen:
1) They WILL actually go through with the public option, through reconciliation. Arlen Specter just signed onto the public option, and this is where the HCR bill is headed.
OR
2) Republicans will compromise by caving in on other parts of the bill, thus killing the public option. This could very well be the Democrats' threat of their own "nuclear option".
We will know for sure by the end of next week which of the 2 directions the bill will take. Either way, get ready to bend over and take it. The robber barons are coming soon, to a wallet near you.
However, there might be a hurdle here, in that the Senate parliamentarian may deny the public option, and declare it is against the rules. Let's hope for that.
FINAL NOTE: This is the same Democratic Congress that bashed Bush for his "my way or the highway" approach. Seems that some Democrats actually would make outstanding Neocon Republicans, if they chose to switch parties. :mrgreen:
Lawmakers in 35 states have filed or proposed amendments to their state constitutions or statutes rejecting health insurance mandates
While yes, this is TECHNICALLY legal, this is incredibly bad precedent.
Zyphlin said:This time it is most definitively NOT budgetary. Any attempts to tie it to a budgetary method would take an amount of political acrobatics so large that it'd be qualified for Cirque de Soleil. This would be akin to saying that a tax on automakers to limit carbon emissions was Military legislation by attempting to tie it to less reliance on foreign oil and then to national security and then to terrorism and then to the War on Terror. Technically right? Sure. Realistically and understandably? Absolutely not.
Zyphlin said:If the Dem's actually do this, and do this on such a HUGELY contested bill (This entire bill makes the arguments about ANWR seem like deciding between going to Pizza Hut or Papa Johns after the little league game), especially interjecting an even more controversial provision, then this is going to cause a seismic shake up in the fabric of our Political Culture.
Zyphlin said:By invoking Reconciliation on something so far from its intended purpose, and so amazingly controversial,
Zyphlin said:when in the past one of their own members even stated such a use was not in bounds for something similar (93's attempt) the Democrats are opening the flood gate for this to become the political norm rather than the EXTREME and appalling exception they're doing now.
Zyphlin said:Will this make it right when the Republicans do something similar in 2 or 4 or 8 years down the line, possibly on something even LESS tied to the budget or even more than just once?
Zyphlin said:Absolutely not. However when that happens the Democrats and Liberals of this country will first have to look at themselves in the mirror and realize this as much their fault as anyones for setting the precedent and opening the flood gates for this. Much like their repeated filibustering in the early 2000's led to the even increased filibustering of the current Republicans that is so often bitched about, so too will this usher in a continuance of this era of disgustingly low politics which serves no one but the politicians.
Zyphlin said:If this goes forward as planned it is a dark day and a black mark upon America.
That's the thing...I'm not going to bend over and take anything, and I don't suspect the rest of America will either. You think people were mad before? Just wait. There is a populist rage waiting to boil over in this country. Using reconciliation to pass this monstrosity would be an act of outright defiance on the part of the Congress.
Ethereal said:That is the very definition of tyranny and many Americans are on their last nerve...
Yes, it's "the very definition of tyranny" for a bill with the support of 59% of the Senate, a majority of the House, and the President to become law. That's pretty much the same as Idi Amin. :roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?