Ramming healthcare thru via reconciliation?

Damocles said:
:rolleyes:

Anybody can see it would be difficult to unwind it without either an R President or supermajorities. Nobody believes that Rs will get a supermajority in the Congress. Bad legislation is still bad legislation when you can't unwind it.
Click to expand...
and if your wrong and it turns out to be sound legislation? What then?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You're confused. It was called "The Nuclear Option" when it was suggested that the Senate rules be changed so that a simple majority would be enough for cloture and bring a straight up and down vote.

The Republicans have used reconciliation far more then Democrats have and it's never been called "The Nuclear Option."
Click to expand...

He is not confused, he is just buying into the Propaganda of the Republican party.
 
Southern Man said:
They are basically the same thing, changing the rules during the middle of the game. When was "reconciliation" use for other than simple budget issues?
Click to expand...
Again, you're factually wrong. They are not changing the rules in the middle of the game. Reconciliation has been on the table long before this and has been used more widely by Republicans to push through legislation they favored when they were in the majority then it has been used by Democrats. Why are you pitching a bitch now when the Dems are discussing using this option for a bill which has all ready been passed by both houses and you didn't complain when Republicans used it? Can you say "Partisan hack"?
 
NigelTufnel said:
Not really. All sorts of major policy initiatives have passed through reconciliation and, frankly, until you know what matters may be addressed through the reconciliation process you really have no basis to make such a claim.

Welfare Reform passed through the reconciliation process. The Bush Tax Cuts passed through reconciliation. COBRA, reconciliation. CHIP program, reconciliation. And there are others. It really isn't much different from the uses to which Republicans put reconciliation when they are in the majority.
Click to expand...
I believe the USAPatriot Act passed via reconcilliation too.
 
NigelTufnel said:
The Pill Bill didn't pass through reconciliation because it wasn't filibustered. That was back in the day when not all legislation was required to have a supermajority for passage. You know, when Democrats were in the minority.

And if people want to get into a pissing match about who is abusing Senate rules we can certainly have that discussion. I'll start:




http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...ter-Gone-Awry-Analysis.html?_r=2&ref=aponline
Click to expand...

How is threatening or using the filibuster "abusing" senate rules?

And of course the Repubs used it more because:
A) The Dems have/had 59-60 votes in the senate, with 2 moderates, while the Repubs only ever went up to 54 votes which includes enough moderates to go below 50 for reliable support on anything Conservative
B) The Repubs were largely ineffective and proposed nothing radical, even the Iraq war was mainstream for its time, whereas the Dems are trying to pass trillion dollar social welfare spending initiatives like "healthcare reform" or yet more massive bailouts that are adding far more than the usual bad amounts to the debt
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You're confused. It was called "The Nuclear Option" when it was suggested that the Senate rules be changed so that a simple majority would be enough for cloture and bring a straight up and down vote.

The Republicans have used reconciliation far more then Democrats have and it's never been called "The Nuclear Option."
Click to expand...
I think you're reffering to the Democrats denying Bush's judicail nominations under "advise and consent", which is not the same as usurping the Constitution with 'Rat's health care plan.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Again, you're factually wrong. They are not changing the rules in the middle of the game. Reconciliation has been on the table long before this and has been used more widely by Republicans to push through legislation they favored when they were in the majority then it has been used by Democrats. Why are you pitching a bitch now when the Dems are discussing using this option for a bill which has all ready been passed by both houses and you didn't complain when Republicans used it? Can you say "Partisan hack"?
Click to expand...
If it was passed by both houses then it wouldn't need to be rammed through the senate. You're FOS on this.
 
KingCondanomation said:
How is threatening or using the filibuster "abusing" senate rules?

And of course the Repubs used it more because:
A) The Dems have/had 59-60 votes in the senate, with 2 moderates, while the Repubs only ever went up to 54 votes which includes enough moderates to go below 50 for reliable support on anything Conservative
B) The Repubs were largely ineffective and proposed nothing radical, even the Iraq war was mainstream for its time, whereas the Dems are trying to pass trillion dollar social welfare spending initiatives like "healthcare reform" or yet more massive bailouts that are adding far more than the usual bad amounts to the debt
Click to expand...


Using the filibuster to create a de facto super-majority requirement for any legislation whatsoever to pass the Senate is an unprecedented use of the tactic and is unprecedented.

Now, you can attempt to justify it all you want (although your justifications are irrational) but unless you acknowledge that the Republican regular use of what was once an extraordinary tactic I'm not inclined to debate the matter.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Using the filibuster to create a de facto super-majority requirement for any legislation whatsoever to pass the Senate is an unprecedented use of the tactic and is unprecedented.

Now, you can attempt to justify it all you want (although your justifications are irrational) but unless you acknowledge that the Republican regular use of what was once an extraordinary tactic I'm not inclined to debate the matter.
Click to expand...
Is it unprecedented for the same comparison in numbers? Do you really think that had the Repubs had a 60 or 59 member majority in earlier years, the Dems would have tried using it more? They didn't need to, they could rely on lefty-moderate Repub votes from Repub senators in the northeast to vote with them on what was more controversial.
And again that you might consider overuse, not abuse, they are using it for what it was designed for. Abuse to me is when you use a rule for something it was never designed for like this new definition of reconciliation.

And you want a better justification? The Repubs were largely (and correctly) viewed as losing power first and foremost because they could not stop the overspending. So they are correcting that by stopping it now, good for them and good for America - they are doing what the majority wants.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Not really. All sorts of major policy initiatives have passed through reconciliation and, frankly, until you know what matters may be addressed through the reconciliation process you really have no basis to make such a claim.

Welfare Reform passed through the reconciliation process. The Bush Tax Cuts passed through reconciliation. COBRA, reconciliation. CHIP program, reconciliation. And there are others. It really isn't much different from the uses to which Republicans put reconciliation when they are in the majority.
Click to expand...
None of those were an FDR sized "reform" of 1/6 of our economy. It's ridiculous to suggest that the Pill Bill is equitable to this monstrosity. Although the Pill bill sucked nearly as much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top