Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
After you lose the Senate it will work against you....think about that.
Forget that, let's go a step further.
NUCLEAR OPTION!
LOL, Reconciliation is the "Nuclear Option" with respect to the Senate, or were you referring to something else?
No, it's not.
Reconciliation is when the Senate creates a limited legislation, pertaining to the budget, that only requires a majority vote.
The "Nuclear Option" is to change the rules of the Senate entirely (which only requires a majority vote) to do away with the 60 vote requirement to override a filibuster, buy essentially declaring the filibuster itself unconstitutional.
There's a big difference. Here, check it out:
Nuclear option - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Uhhhhhhhh......you think that might be due to it NOT passing? Don't take away the very tools you may need to check power when your Democrats lose the Senate.
What you're referring to doesn't exist in the rules of the Senate thus reconciliation has become synonymous with "the nuclear option" and it is exactly what Durbin was referring to.
After all Durbin isn't stupid enough or crazy enough to suggest trying what your referring to with respect to the current Health Care Legislation.
Chimp never voted, nor did the GoP use reconcilation to 'pass what they wanted.'Brown's win could help the Democrats. Now, instead of trying to pass watered down legislation to get a 60 vote majority in the Senate, they should just do what George Bush did...use reconciliation to pass what they want.
No more negotiating with scumbags like Nelson and Liebermann. Just pass what is best for the country instead of what will avoid a filabuster.
And while you are at it, get rid of the filabuster. It is incredibly undemocratic.
No they didn't. A few members did discuss it a time or two in order to get perfectly qualified judges through the confirmation process and onto the bench, but they never went so far as to actually do that. They never even suggested it regarding a massive piece of legislation that would affect every American.
But don't you hope the Democrats are stupid enough to do that? A majority of people are mad enough about all the other underhanded stuff they've done to bypass the will of the people, if they did that, we might sweep most of the bums out of Washington come November.
What you're referring to doesn't exist in the rules of the Senate thus reconciliation has become synonymous with "the nuclear option" and it is exactly what Durbin was referring to.
After all Durbin isn't stupid enough or crazy enough to suggest trying what your referring to with respect to the current Health Care Legislation.
It doesn't need to exist in the rules of the Senate. The rules of the Senate can be changed with a majority vote if the challenge is made based on the constitutionality of the rule.
And "reconciliation" was never synonymous with "the nuclear option".
Unless FoxNews is making a serious effort at trying to re-define the term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)
Uhhhhhhhh......you think that might be due to it NOT passing? Don't take away the very tools you may need to check power when your Democrats lose the Senate.
It never passed because every time it was brought up, the other side backed down and compromised.
The reduction in the number of votes needed to overturn a veto was in fact a compromise between the 67 number and the 51 number.
Apparently you haven't been paying attention, it's the Senate Democrats that have given reconciliation the "nuclear option" definition, and I'm aware of the avenues for changing the Senate Rules, I'm also aware that doing what you are proposing for this health care legislation would be tantamount to the Democrats taking over the Senate by force of arms.
It's an idiotic suggestion that not even the most deranged progressive politician in Congress would pursue unless they happen to be interested in getting lynched by the American People.
threatened the Nuclear option.
And strangely they didn't seem to suffer any consequences at all due to those actions
What you say is very true...however....right now the Democrats don't have a leg to stand on with the American people. If they try to do away with the filibuster I can guarantee you they will NOT hold power after the 2010 elections and will lose the WH in 2012 regardless of who runs against Obama.
The American people are tired of getting throatfucked by Congress.
2) Then the 2005 Republican leadership must have been pretty damned deranged, since they specificallythreatened the Nuclear option.
And strangely they didn't seem to suffer any consequences at all due to those actions
See 2006 election results.
What you say is very true...however....right now the Democrats don't have a leg to stand on with the American people. If they try to do away with the filibuster I can guarantee you they will NOT hold power after the 2010 elections and will lose the WH in 2012 regardless of who runs against Obama.
The American people are tired of getting throatfucked by Congress.
Your definition of "the American People", as usual, being the section of the population that belongs to the "Tea Party".
One of the main reasons, in reality, why the legislation at hand is so unpopular, is that many people on the left are very unhappy because they feel too many compromises were made, and that the bill DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH.
Like the Howard Dean wing of the Democratic party for instance, who are generally PISSED with this bill.
Better check and see who gave Senator Scott Brown his victory and then get back to me.
Your definition of "the American People", as usual, being the section of the population that belongs to the "Tea Party".
One of the main reasons, in reality, why the legislation at hand is so unpopular, is that many people on the left are very unhappy because they feel too many compromises were made, and that the bill DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH.
Like the Howard Dean wing of the Democratic party for instance, who are generally PISSED with this bill.
My bad since I assumed that when Harry Reid said this when asked by Tom Daschle about the possibility of a (Frist style) nuclear option under his leadership he said .....1) please feel free to give us a specific quote where a Senate Democrat called "Reconciliation" a "Nuclear Option".
Yes the 2005 Republican leadership WAS deranged, however the instance in question was a judicial nomination not anything even approaching the magnitude current health care legislation AND they didn't go through with it, did they?2) Then the 2005 Republican leadership must have been pretty damned deranged, since they specifically threatened the Nuclear option.
Were you hiding in a cave in November 2006 or something?And strangely they didn't seem to suffer any consequences at all due to those actions.
Yes, the cons haven't had 60 votes since 1923, but they pushed through all kinds of stuff.Brown's win could help the Democrats. Now, instead of trying to pass watered down legislation to get a 60 vote majority in the Senate, they should just do what George Bush did...use reconciliation to pass what they want.
No more negotiating with scumbags like Nelson and Liebermann. Just pass what is best for the country instead of what will avoid a filabuster.
And while you are at it, get rid of the filabuster. It is incredibly undemocratic.
Uhhhhhhhh......you think that might be due to it NOT passing? Don't take away the very tools you may need to check power when your Democrats lose the Senate.
It never passed because every time it was brought up, the other side backed down and compromised.
The reduction in the number of votes needed to overturn a veto was in fact a compromise between the 67 number and the 51 number.
What you say is very true...however....right now the Democrats don't have a leg to stand on with the American people. If they try to do away with the filibuster I can guarantee you they will NOT hold power after the 2010 elections and will lose the WH in 2012 regardless of who runs against Obama.
The American people are tired of getting throatfucked by Congress.
What you say is very true...however....right now the Democrats don't have a leg to stand on with the American people. If they try to do away with the filibuster I can guarantee you they will NOT hold power after the 2010 elections and will lose the WH in 2012 regardless of who runs against Obama.
The American people are tired of getting throatfucked by Congress.
Your definition of "the American People", as usual, being the section of the population that belongs to the "Tea Party".
One of the main reasons, in reality, why the legislation at hand is so unpopular, is that many people on the left are very unhappy because they feel too many compromises were made, and that the bill DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH.
Like the Howard Dean wing of the Democratic party for instance, who are generally PISSED with this bill.
What you say is very true...however....right now the Democrats don't have a leg to stand on with the American people. If they try to do away with the filibuster I can guarantee you they will NOT hold power after the 2010 elections and will lose the WH in 2012 regardless of who runs against Obama.
The American people are tired of getting throatfucked by Congress.
Your definition of "the American People", as usual, being the section of the population that belongs to the "Tea Party".
One of the main reasons, in reality, why the legislation at hand is so unpopular, is that many people on the left are very unhappy because they feel too many compromises were made, and that the bill DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH.
Like the Howard Dean wing of the Democratic party for instance, who are generally PISSED with this bill.
That is exactly it.
There are so many cost savings associated with national health insurance done right.
Every other industrialized nation has it, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. And they don't have medical bankruptcies and "pre existing conditions." And their businesses are more competitive worldwide because they don't have to pay for employee's healthcare.
After you lose the Senate it will work against you....think about that.
I would rather that then have a half-century of getting ABSOLUTELY NOTHING DONE before us, as the partisanship gets more and more bitter, leaving the country to go down the tubes.
Personally, I like to see people pass legislation, rather than block it.
Who knows? Maybe even some of the Republican legislation that's sure to come at some point will prove to be fruitful.
