Reconciliation - Want to see the ultimate in Democrat HYPOCRISY?

[RobDownSouth]

Why don't you just ask yourself where the Senate itself drew the line? Did Social Security, Medicare, or the Civil Rights Acts, get passed by reconciliation?

Maybe you don't think this health care act is a big enough reversal of the American status quo, an egregious enough grab for new government power, to warrant bipartisan support. Maybe you think a radical majority in the Senate can legitimately govern against the will of the majority of Americans. Maybe you even think it's constitutional as well.

Well if this is the case, I'd say our differences are too fundamentally opposed to be "reconciled" here in casual conversation. If it's alright with you, I'd just as soon settle for a continued mutual contempt.

Republican Senators decided to draw the line at $1.8 trillion in 2002 when they foisted the Bush tax cuts upon us through reconciliation.

Now that they are out of power, though, $950 billion is "too much" and "an outrage" and stuff.

More than a little hypocrisy there, in my opinion, though I'm not honestly surprised that you agree with them.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Republican Senators drew the line at $1.8 trillion in 2002 when they foisted the Bush tax cuts upon us through reconciliation.

Now that they are out of power, though, $950 billion is "too much" and "an outrage" and stuff.

More than a little hypocrisy there, in my opinion, though I'm not surprised that you agree with them.

I hate to say it, but this wouldn't even be an issue if the Democrats hadn't been trying to be good little girls and boys and pass it through cloture in the first place. No one remembers the Bush tax cuts were "reconciled" through. They only knew that they did or didn't like them.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I hate to say it, but this wouldn't even be an issue if the Democrats hadn't been trying to be good little girls and boys and pass it through cloture in the first place. No one remembers the Bush tax cuts were "reconciled" through. They only knew that they did or didn't like them.

Pass what? Health care reform? Do you honestly believe the Republicans would allow a straight up-or-down vote on Health Care Reform? There were 57 Senators and Lieberman at the time, more than enough to get 51 votes....that's why we had this stallfest.

Quite frankly, *I* had forgotten that the Bush tax cuts were reconciled, too.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Pass what? Health care reform? Do you honestly believe the Republicans would allow a straight up-or-down vote on Health Care Reform? There were 57 Senators and Lieberman at the time, more than enough to get 51 votes....that's why we had this stallfest.

Quite frankly, *I* had forgotten that the Bush tax cuts were reconciled, too.

It's actually not. The dems could pass it through reconciliation tomorrow if they wanted (and could keep enough of themselves on board). They were trying to do the 'right' thing.

It's their Achilles heel.

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

The voters will take care of all reconciliation in the fall elections.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I missed your edit. I consider the summit to be nothing more than grand political theater designed to give the Democrats an opportunity to appear bipartisan while working to discredit Republican ideas, or claiming they're already covered in their legislation, the real intention being to advance their own version with afterburners aflame.

I agree with you on this.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Wrong Element]

Why don't you just ask yourself where the Senate itself drew the line? Did Social Security, Medicare, or the Civil Rights Acts, get passed by reconciliation?

Maybe you don't think this health care act is a big enough reversal of the American status quo, an egregious enough grab for new government power, to warrant bipartisan support. Maybe you think a radical majority in the Senate can legitimately govern against the will of the majority of Americans. Maybe you even think it's constitutional as well.

The reconciliation process didn't exist until the Budget Act was passed in the '70s, so negative on Social Security and Medicare.

As far as the part goes about "a radical majority in the Senate can legitimately govern against the will of the majority of Americans," leaving aside the question-begging regarding the popularity of HCR, obviously it would be legitimate, every bit as legitimate as all actions George Bush took in his first term after getting the second-highest number of votes in the 2000 election. That's the system we have and that's what Congress is there to do. Otherwise we would just have referendums on everything.

Talk radio and Fox News aside, the labeling of a majority vote as tyranny is going to be a tough sell for the Republicans.

 

[hogjack]

Hypocrisy is the American way.

Politicians are strong advocates for family values while simultaneously banging their secretaries or some Argentinian whore.

Chickenhawks parade tirelessly for war while they work just as hard to avoid combat for themselves and their families.

American citizens scream about taxes but want government to do everything, police the world, fight two wars simultaneously, rebuild countries, protect food, make every god-damned building, car, water supply and plane safe... and divvy out entitlements like candy.

Republicans rail against government spending but show little restraint when it's their turn.

Democrats haven't seen a program unworthy of growth & more spending since the Kennedy's were diddling their dates at the compound in Hyannis Port.

Evangelicals pronounce the sanctity of life and then later cheer when another military drone blasts to smithereens family hovels that the Taliban hides amongst. Hell, a few dead Afghan families is fine as long as the bad guys get blowed up real good. Fuck the stupid Central American innocents who get their heads blown off during some military mission against a drug cartel.

America is founded on the Judeo-Christian principles - and by golly God loves us - but fuck you if you're one of the schmucks who can't afford health care after some bastards take your job to India or Mexico.

America is hypocrisy and hypocrisy is America.

 

[koalabear]

The reconciliation process didn't exist until the Budget Act was passed in the '70s, so negative on Social Security and Medicare.

As far as the part goes about "a radical majority in the Senate can legitimately govern against the will of the majority of Americans," leaving aside the question-begging regarding the popularity of HCR, obviously it would be legitimate, every bit as legitimate as all actions George Bush took in his first term after getting the second-highest number of votes in the 2000 election. That's the system we have and that's what Congress is there to do. Otherwise we would just have referendums on everything.

Talk radio and Fox News aside, the labeling of a majority vote as tyranny is going to be a tough sell for the Republicans.

But not to the voters who already have said they do not want this health care bill.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Don't be silly, they are looking for the political cover of claiming it was a bipartisan bill so they don't have to accept the full blame for failure.

60 Democratic votes and 0 Republican votes is no more bipartisan than 57 Democratic votes and 0 Republican votes.

The only reason not to have 'reconciled' it through was so as not to appear petty and sneaky. It was dumb.

The democrats are the party of vanity. The republicans are the party of mythological self-narrative. That's the same condemnation, in the end.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

So why don't we just end the Senate rule and go straight to majority rule and stop pretending that the United States Senate is a deliberative body and be done with it. The truth is, the Democrats know they are governing against the will of the people, and as much as they would love to throw the history of the Senate out the window and pass what they have been trying to pass for 50 years, they do not have the political courage to do it on their own and accept the voters wrath for doing so. In essence they are cowards.

I disagree. They've got at least 55 votes in the Senate, a pretty fair majority, so I don't think you could say they are governing "against the will of the people". They don't, however, have the arbitrary 60 votes required to defeat a Republican procedural filibuster.

I believe we should do away with "procedural" filibuster and go back to the good ole days of REAL filibustering. Let 'em walk the talk, so to speak.

 

[unregistered]

 

[rosco rathbone]

Rachel Maddow was great on this and the Republican lies about the "nuclear option".

 

[unregistered]

 

[rosco rathbone]

What's to lie about? It either is or it isn't.

The lie is the conflation of "nuclear option" with "passing HCR by reconciliation".

I'll find you the link if you want to watch it, but it won't be doing your BP any favors.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

So why don't we just end the Senate rule and go straight to majority rule and stop pretending that the United States Senate is a deliberative body and be done with it. The truth is, the Democrats know they are governing against the will of the people, and as much as they would love to throw the history of the Senate out the window and pass what they have been trying to pass for 50 years, they do not have the political courage to do it on their own and accept the voters wrath for doing so. In essence they are cowards.

I think you've mischaracterized and/or misunderstood some parts of this.

Having said that...I generally agree with it.

 

[unregistered]