Reconciliation...

[Dr.House]

The majority of the country was NOT opposed to tax cuts....

Bush's tax cuts were hugely unpopular, and with good reason.

Maybe, maybe not. Without seeing any data from the that time, I actually suspect not. But again, it's irrelevant. The majority at the time passed them and it was their prerogative to use the reconciliation process to get the legislation through.


This argument that now it's so different in degree as to be different in kind is just desperation

I'm not arguing they shouldn't do it....

I don't think anyone else in this thread is arguing they shouldn't do it...

I hope they do, but I don't think they will...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Wow.. aren't these the same whining assholes that threw a tantrum when the Repubs threatened to use it to get Bush's nominees seated (which by the way, were being held up by the MINORITY for no good reason)

 

[EriktheRed]

No, it has niver been used on a bill like this, never. Reconciliation has never been to legislate a bill like this, it has been for budgetary items only.

And where are the rules on how reconciliation is to be used?

Reconciliation Instructions: The process begins with the inclusion of reconciliation instructions in the budget resolution. These instructions require authorizing committees with jurisdiction over mandatory spending and revenue policies (usually more than one) to make legislative changes in those programs to effect a specified level of budgetary savings provisions. The instructions typically cover the same fiscal years as the budget resolution, with separate dollar amounts specified for each of the years in the budget resolution. While the Budget Committees develop these instructions based on policy assumptions for changes in programs and laws (which are often printed in the committee reports on the budget resolution), the authorizing committees have complete discretion over the specific programs to be changed and the substance of those changes. An authorizing committee must only meet the specified spending and/or revenue directive given it. The budget resolution normally includes a timetable by which the authorizing committees must report legislation that meets these saving targets. These committees generally hold hearings and mark-up these legislative products which are sent to the Budget Committees.

THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION PROCESS

I'm seeing terms like "typically", "normally" and "generally". What is actually being violated here?

 

[Meister]

And where are the rules on how reconciliation is to be used?

Reconciliation Instructions: The process begins with the inclusion of reconciliation instructions in the budget resolution. These instructions require authorizing committees with jurisdiction over mandatory spending and revenue policies (usually more than one) to make legislative changes in those programs to effect a specified level of budgetary savings provisions. The instructions typically cover the same fiscal years as the budget resolution, with separate dollar amounts specified for each of the years in the budget resolution. While the Budget Committees develop these instructions based on policy assumptions for changes in programs and laws (which are often printed in the committee reports on the budget resolution), the authorizing committees have complete discretion over the specific programs to be changed and the substance of those changes. An authorizing committee must only meet the specified spending and/or revenue directive given it. The budget resolution normally includes a timetable by which the authorizing committees must report legislation that meets these saving targets. These committees generally hold hearings and mark-up these legislative products which are sent to the Budget Committees.

THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION PROCESS

I'm seeing terms like "typically", "normally" and "generally". What is actually being violated here?

For the love of God, Erik......This IS What The Nuclear Option Was Set Up For.
Stop your damn spinning on it. Like I said, it has never been used beforeon bills like this, and it wasn't set up for legislating a bill like this.
This is the reason that level headed democrats aren't buying into the reconcilaiation, they understand and you don't.


You wanted the rules, and I've shown you the rules......and it was about budgetary items only, they didn't write anything more broad than that. So if your looking at what's in the 4 borders of the paper, it's not for legistlating the healthcare bill.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's fascinating how the right has suddenly decided that sticking your finger in the wind and doing whatever the polls say is a good thing.

What were all those attacks on Clinton about, for allegedly doing exactly that?

Other than the obvious answer, i.e., just more phoney bullshit from conservatives.

Curious....when was the last time polls were ignored by the right as it pertained to an initiative that would affect 17% of our economy?

Jeez...wake up and stop the partisan crap.....17% of the economy and a streong majority of Americans are against the current proposal.

SO you are OK with just pushing it through anyway?

Why? DO you ALSO believe that the American people are too naive to realize how good the plan is?

First of all, it doesn't affect 17% our economy.

Now answer the question. Was it wrong for Clinton to just do whatever the polls told him or not?

And while we're at it, why did Bush get so much praise from the right for not going with the polls?

 

[Ravi]

Unpopular with the leftists...

Popular with the majority of the American public, and for good reason...

Right...that's why they had to use reconciliation.

Are you being purposefully dense?

I said popular with the people, not popular with the Senate... Of course the Democratics hated it...

Here is a poll on it from the time period. It did not enjoy widespread popular support.

Americans More Optimistic About Economy, But Not Bush Tax Cut: Summary of Findings - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

 

[drsmith1072]

Reconciliation is allowed under federal law, Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. § 641(e)(2))

The nuclear option is something right wing loons came up with that is not law.

I know it's hard for many of you to grasp...but there is a difference. And Reconciliation has been used over 20 times in the past...even by *gasp* Republicans.

Either these righties know the difference between reconciliation and the nuclear/constitutional option but don't care that they are being dishonest all so they can try to attack obama for comments he made about the republicans trying to change senate rules to cancel out the filibuster (nuclear option) OR these righties are just too damn retarded to know that there is indeed a difference and are merely following marching orders like good little lemmings.

So i wonder, which is it?? Hmm?

 

[Oddball]

Reconciliation is allowed under federal law, Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. § 641(e)(2))

The nuclear option is something right wing loons came up with that is not law.

I know it's hard for many of you to grasp...but there is a difference. And Reconciliation has been used over 20 times in the past...even by *gasp* Republicans.

Yes it has...For BUDGET bills, Sally simpleton.

Even Robert Byrd (y'know the guy who AUTHORED reconciliation) knows that using it to ram legislation through goes against it's intended purpose...After all, he made that very point when the dems considered pulling this stunt with Hillarycare.

 

[CMike]

Just do it!
The Republican Party's leadership has shown complete disdain for the will of the people for change, and continues to thwart efforts by the Democrats in Congress to provide universal healthcare to all Americans.Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent to wage war on terror, a freaking noun, without a peep from the chicken hawks as to its cost in blood and treasure.
Yet today the same fiscal neophytes on the right claim Obama&Co are breaking the bank by working towards the reform of how we pay for healhcare.
Worse, the Palin/Gingrich fringe run around doing the Henny Penny Polka, stirring up anger with divisive rhetoric and laying the blame on Democrats who were elected to fix the myriad of problems our nation faces today.

Scott Brown

 

[boedicca]

First of all, it doesn't affect 17% our economy.

Now answer the question. Was it wrong for Clinton to just do whatever the polls told him or not?

And while we're at it, why did Bush get so much praise from the right for not going with the polls?

Uhhhh..., it does. Health care spending was 17.3% of the economy in 2009. The ObamaCare bill addresses virtually every aspect of health care via mandates, taxes, fees, fines, etc.

Perhaps it leaves homeopathy and ear candling alone, but these can't amount to much.

 

[Meister]

I'm wondering what blue dog democrats are going to be willing to dive on that grenade.

 

[Cuyo]

This argument that now it's so different in degree as to be different in kind is just desperation

Wrong. The magnitude of the Health Care bill is so beyond anything for which Reconciliation has been used in the past, that even Robert Byrd opposes using it now.

I love how 3 Cons jumped on to thank you for this false information.

Bush tax cuts - Cost 2x+ as much as proposed bill - Passed by reconciliation.

 

[Oddball]

This argument that now it's so different in degree as to be different in kind is just desperation

Wrong. The magnitude of the Health Care bill is so beyond anything for which Reconciliation has been used in the past, that even Robert Byrd opposes using it now.

I love how 3 Cons jumped on to thank you for this false information.

Bush tax cuts - Cost 2x+ as much as proposed bill - Passed by reconciliation.

Tax cuts don't "cost" anything, and were passed a part of a budget bill.

 

[Cuyo]

Wrong. The magnitude of the Health Care bill is so beyond anything for which Reconciliation has been used in the past, that even Robert Byrd opposes using it now.

I love how 3 Cons jumped on to thank you for this false information.

Bush tax cuts - Cost 2x+ as much as proposed bill - Passed by reconciliation.

Tax cuts don't "cost" anything, and were passed a part of a budget bill.

That's true, but by that logic the HC bill doesn't cost anything either, the CBO estimates it will save money. Granted, it's paid for by raising certain taxes, so there's some difference there.

Is that you skiing? Just curious.

 

[Oddball]

The CBO only crunches the jimmied numbers they're given.

The Medical Marxism bill will not only end up costing ten times what it is projected to cost, given the track record of Medicare/medicaid, it will also cost millions of lives through the rationing of services that is only inevitable.

 

[boedicca]

Indeed. Every entitlement ever enacted has far exceeded the estimates provided when it was initially approved.

 

[NYcarbineer]

First of all, it doesn't affect 17% our economy.

Now answer the question. Was it wrong for Clinton to just do whatever the polls told him or not?

And while we're at it, why did Bush get so much praise from the right for not going with the polls?

Uhhhh..., it does. Health care spending was 17.3% of the economy in 2009. The ObamaCare bill addresses virtually every aspect of health care via mandates, taxes, fees, fines, etc.

Perhaps it leaves homeopathy and ear candling alone, but these can't amount to much.

Except that the bill does not affect every single bit of healthcare. I know for example that the bill wouldn't really have any effect on my healthcare plan.

 

[boedicca]

Except that the bill does not affect every single bit of healthcare. I know for example that the bill wouldn't really have any effect on my healthcare plan.

Really, how? It puts in place 100+ oversight boards, sets minimum standards, fines people for opting out, raises taxes directly or indirectly for everyone, and puts in place price controls for the entire industry.

Oh. I get it.

You're in Congress.

 

[Dr.House]

Right...that's why they had to use reconciliation.

Are you being purposefully dense?

I said popular with the people, not popular with the Senate... Of course the Democratics hated it...

Here is a poll on it from the time period. It did not enjoy widespread popular support.

Americans More Optimistic About Economy, But Not Bush Tax Cut: Summary of Findings - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Reading this link, the results of the poll show people were skeptical of the results of tax cuts, not that they opposed it...

The raw data shows more approve (481) than disapprove (448).

(see the second graphic)

 

[Cuyo]

The CBO only crunches the jimmied numbers they're given.

The Medical Marxism bill will not only end up costing ten times what it is projected to cost, given the track record of Medicare/medicaid, it will also cost millions of lives through the rationing of services that is only inevitable.

Well, Duderino, I disagree. Shocking.

It may well go over estimates as you say, however I think it will save far more lives than it will kill. Rationing is what the current system does, as badly as the overhaul will; In all likelyhood worse. Why do you think Medicare and Medicaid are in trouble? It's because they, just like Johnny Citizen, did not predict the skyrocketing costs of healthcare and longer life expectancies.

Would you agree that a laissez-faire system cannot reduce costs without denying care to non-payers? That's what nobody's given me a coherent answer to. A huge part of the cost is from non-payers who show up in the ER. That said, what do you propose different from the Dems for addressing this?