Bad News For Repubs; Economy May Be Getting Better

You're a fool, a liar and a punk, as well as wrong. The bill was changed under threat of a filibuster, Republicans spent the summer of 2009 doing everything possible to prevent health care reform both procedurally and by lies, misrepresenations and using emotion charged pejoratives. Money flowed from special interests to defeat or make the bill less noxious to those who benefit from the current system.


I just don't believe what I'm reading here, revisionist history at it's finest. In fact the bill was NOT changed under threat of a filibuster, the dems passed it while they had the chance even though most Americans told them specifically they didn't want it. Let's review: the dems have a filibuster proof senate for all of 2009, Scott Brown is not sworn in as a senator from Mass until what, Jan 2010. So for the whole freakin' year the Dems had total control to do whatever they wanted, and the repubs could do absolutely nothing to stop them. That is the plain unvarnished truth.

So the dems go home for the August break and get a real earful from the public. Despite the fact that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and every other lib/dem including the MSM tried to convince people how great it was, nobody bought it. Did the GOP fight it? Of course, from their perspective it was a piece of shit, and most Americans thought so too then and still think so now. Last I heard more people want it repealed now than then, it was never popular.

So Pelosi passes the ACA in the House, and the Senate passes their version in the Senate. But holy shit, Scott Brown is electd to become the 41st repub in the Senate and the dems realize they can't change the senate bill because it'll fail the vote. So they pass the senate version in the House and Obama signs it into the law. That about the way you remember it? So what YOU said was WRONG, they in fact did not change the law but passed it without any confernece action to reconcile the two bills.

At no time could the repubs have done anything but bitch about it. As far as special interest money, you got any links to prove more of it flowed to the GOP to kill it than went to the dems to pass it? I recall big pharma wanted it cuz they thought they'd get big bucks out of it from taxpayer dollars.

The dems own ACA, lock, stock, and barrel. It is beyond lame AND hypocritical to claim otherwise. The sad truth is, your guys had total control and fucked it up. And now you want to put blame on the repubs for not supporting a shitty piece of legislation that was against their principles.

I thought that it was changed to prevent a filibuster, but not as Wry Catcher is indicating. If I remember correctly, Speaker Pelosi was having trouble getting the moderate Democrats to bow down to her and it was they who threatened to break ranks and join the Republicans if she didn't water the damned thing down.

The Republicans could not have done anything had the Democrats been of one mind. Thank goodness there are actually some reasonable Democrats in Congress or who knows what kind of shit they would have given us?

Immie


I assume you're talking about the House bill, no filibusters happen in the House. Pelosi may have watered down the bill to get her wayward democrats on board with it, but at no time did the repubs have any influence at all.

Once the dems passed it in the House, the Senate passed their version. But then Scott Brown gets elected as the 41st repub, horrors! Normally these things go into a committee and they have to pass the revised final version in both chambers of Congress. BUT - with Scott Brown on board, the dems know they won't get an amended version through the senate cuz he promised to vote against the ACA. So, the House passes the senate version and that became law.

So - by the time Scott Brown arrives on the scene the bill was in it's final form, no changes were made to it to avoid a filibuster. Whatever is in that legislation is entirely owned by the Dems, and it is dishonest as well as hypocritical for them to suggest otherwise.
 
Last edited:
I just don't believe what I'm reading here, revisionist history at it's finest. In fact the bill was NOT changed under threat of a filibuster, the dems passed it while they had the chance even though most Americans told them specifically they didn't want it. Let's review: the dems have a filibuster proof senate for all of 2009, Scott Brown is not sworn in as a senator from Mass until what, Jan 2010. So for the whole freakin' year the Dems had total control to do whatever they wanted, and the repubs could do absolutely nothing to stop them. That is the plain unvarnished truth.

So the dems go home for the August break and get a real earful from the public. Despite the fact that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and every other lib/dem including the MSM tried to convince people how great it was, nobody bought it. Did the GOP fight it? Of course, from their perspective it was a piece of shit, and most Americans thought so too then and still think so now. Last I heard more people want it repealed now than then, it was never popular.

So Pelosi passes the ACA in the House, and the Senate passes their version in the Senate. But holy shit, Scott Brown is electd to become the 41st repub in the Senate and the dems realize they can't change the senate bill because it'll fail the vote. So they pass the senate version in the House and Obama signs it into the law. That about the way you remember it? So what YOU said was WRONG, they in fact did not change the law but passed it without any confernece action to reconcile the two bills.

At no time could the repubs have done anything but bitch about it. As far as special interest money, you got any links to prove more of it flowed to the GOP to kill it than went to the dems to pass it? I recall big pharma wanted it cuz they thought they'd get big bucks out of it from taxpayer dollars.

The dems own ACA, lock, stock, and barrel. It is beyond lame AND hypocritical to claim otherwise. The sad truth is, your guys had total control and fucked it up. And now you want to put blame on the repubs for not supporting a shitty piece of legislation that was against their principles.

I thought that it was changed to prevent a filibuster, but not as Wry Catcher is indicating. If I remember correctly, Speaker Pelosi was having trouble getting the moderate Democrats to bow down to her and it was they who threatened to break ranks and join the Republicans if she didn't water the damned thing down.

The Republicans could not have done anything had the Democrats been of one mind. Thank goodness there are actually some reasonable Democrats in Congress or who knows what kind of shit they would have given us?

Immie


I assume you're talking about the House bill, no filibusters happen in the House. Pelosi may have watered down the bill to get her wayward democrats on board with it, but at no time did the repubs have any influence at all.

Once the dems passed it in the House, the Senate passed their version. But then Scott Brown gets elected as the 41st repub, horrors! Normally these things go into a committee and they have to pass the revised final version in both chambers of Congress. BUT - with Scott Brown on board, the dems know they won't get an amended version through the senate cuz he promised to vote against the ACA. So, the House passes the senate version and that became law.

So - by the time Scott Brown arrives on the scene the bill was in it's final form, no changes were made to it to avoid a filibuster. Whatever is in that legislation is entirely owned by the Dems, and it is dishonest as well as hypocritical for them to suggest otherwise.

My mistake you are right no filibusters in the House as there are rules limiting the time of debate.

However, I do believe that the watering down of the bill came in the house because Pelosi could not get her own people to agree to the bill without major concessions. This happened before the Senate Passed its version of the bill.

Immie
 
I thought that it was changed to prevent a filibuster, but not as Wry Catcher is indicating. If I remember correctly, Speaker Pelosi was having trouble getting the moderate Democrats to bow down to her and it was they who threatened to break ranks and join the Republicans if she didn't water the damned thing down.

The Republicans could not have done anything had the Democrats been of one mind. Thank goodness there are actually some reasonable Democrats in Congress or who knows what kind of shit they would have given us?

Immie


I assume you're talking about the House bill, no filibusters happen in the House. Pelosi may have watered down the bill to get her wayward democrats on board with it, but at no time did the repubs have any influence at all.

Once the dems passed it in the House, the Senate passed their version. But then Scott Brown gets elected as the 41st repub, horrors! Normally these things go into a committee and they have to pass the revised final version in both chambers of Congress. BUT - with Scott Brown on board, the dems know they won't get an amended version through the senate cuz he promised to vote against the ACA. So, the House passes the senate version and that became law.

So - by the time Scott Brown arrives on the scene the bill was in it's final form, no changes were made to it to avoid a filibuster. Whatever is in that legislation is entirely owned by the Dems, and it is dishonest as well as hypocritical for them to suggest otherwise.

My mistake you are right no filibusters in the House as there are rules limiting the time of debate.

However, I do believe that the watering down of the bill came in the house because Pelosi could not get her own people to agree to the bill without major concessions. This happened before the Senate Passed its version of the bill.

Immie


All true, as far as I know. But blaming the repubs for the dem's problems, failures, and unpopularity with this bill is just not right.
 
I assume you're talking about the House bill, no filibusters happen in the House. Pelosi may have watered down the bill to get her wayward democrats on board with it, but at no time did the repubs have any influence at all.

Once the dems passed it in the House, the Senate passed their version. But then Scott Brown gets elected as the 41st repub, horrors! Normally these things go into a committee and they have to pass the revised final version in both chambers of Congress. BUT - with Scott Brown on board, the dems know they won't get an amended version through the senate cuz he promised to vote against the ACA. So, the House passes the senate version and that became law.

So - by the time Scott Brown arrives on the scene the bill was in it's final form, no changes were made to it to avoid a filibuster. Whatever is in that legislation is entirely owned by the Dems, and it is dishonest as well as hypocritical for them to suggest otherwise.

My mistake you are right no filibusters in the House as there are rules limiting the time of debate.

However, I do believe that the watering down of the bill came in the house because Pelosi could not get her own people to agree to the bill without major concessions. This happened before the Senate Passed its version of the bill.

Immie


All true, as far as I know. But blaming the repubs for the dem's problems, failures, and unpopularity with this bill is just not right.

Did I say it was? :razz:

Also, in the world of politics, who said anything about doing what is right? To politicians, it is win the vote and screw the country.

Immie
 
Consider:

"Debate, Filibusters, and Cloture

The presiding officer of the Senate may not use the power to recognize senators to control the flow of business. If no senator holds the floor, any senator seeking recognition has a right to be recognized, and then, usually, to speak for as long as he or she wishes (but only twice a day on the same question). Once recognized, a senator can move to call up any measure or offer any amendment or motion that is in order. Senate rules do not permit a majority to end debate and vote on a pending question.


Generally, no debatable question can come to a vote if senators still wish to speak. Senators who oppose a pending bill or other matter may speak against it at indefinite length, or delay action by offering numerous amendments and motions. A filibuster involves using such tactics in the hope of convincing the Senate to alter a measure or withdraw it from consideration. The only bills that cannot be filibustered are those few considered under provisions of law that limit time for debating them.


The only procedure Senate rules provide for overcoming filibusters is cloture, which cannot be voted until two days after it is proposed in a petition signed by 16 senators. Cloture requires the support of three-fifths of senators (normally 60), except on proposals to change the rules, when cloture requires two-thirds of senators voting. If the Senate invokes cloture on a bill, amendment, or other matter, its further consideration is limited to 30 additional hours, including time consumed by votes and quorum calls, during which each senator may speak for no more than one hour."

Notice in my earlier post I mentioned both the filisbutster and procedures. I failed to mention the full court press by the Republican Party during the summer of 2009, by Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, and by Dick Armey and FreedomWorks, all working to defeat health care reform using hate and fear rhetoric funded by the specisal interests who profit greatly from the current system.

All of which worked, helped develop a grass roots movement based on ignorance and fear. The tea party, armed with talking points supplied by the New Right, attacked representatives verbally at town hall meetings parroting the same hate and fear rhetoric, many believing reform was tantamount to socialism.
 
This is turning into politics more than economics, sorry for hijacking the thread. Not much point in continuing the argument with Wry Catcher anyway, I think that his/her point of view is totally wrong but I'm sure he/she feels the same way about mine so it's time to move on.
 
Moot point, as the economy is not getting better...

True true, its still getting worse.

But lets just play the whole "In theory" thing and say that "in theory, if the economy was getting better" how would that be bad for republicans who are just as hurt by a bad economy as democrats?

It wouldn't be...

The lib argument is that the R's would have nothing to point to at re-election time that the D's fucked up... They're not very bright because politicians will be politicians... The R's would just point to the fact that the (theoretical) economic upswing was due to their House leadership from 2010 onward...

It's a stupid argument in many ways, only made more funny because it's coming from the same loopy leftoids who whined when other stupid people accused them of wishing for failure in Iraq...

Hypocrisy sure is humorous...:D
 

Forum List

Back
Top