Republican Congressmen want to help fraudsters rip off seniors...

[theDoctorisIn]

Same reason the Dems in the House have changed the requirement from 218 Votes to 290 Votes on the Bill to help 9/11 Victims families. They have 255 Votes and could pass it, But have chose instead to change the required votes to 290 so the bill will not pass, and they can Blame republican Opposition to it. Republicans do Oppose some parts of the Bill, but the point is that Dems COULD PASS IT RIGHT NOW IF THEY WANTED.

Shameless Partisan Political Games, when they could pass it if they wanted. Because Dems are worried about Image, not issues.

The 290 votes refers to a parlimentary procedure which blocks amendments. They put that into place to prevent Republicans from tacking on unrelated amendments onto a widely popular bill. It's going to pass anyway.

that makes no sense
since they already have a majority, how could repubs add anything without at least SOME democrat votes?

It doesn't take a majority to attach amendments to bills.

 

[Vast LWC]

OK, ok, seriously though, here's a real bill that Republicans voted against that should have passed...

I'll use the FoxNews.com story about it to prevent claims of partisan hackery:

New York Lawmakers Spar Over Failed Bill to Aid Sick 9/11 Responders

...Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner noted that 94 percent of all House Democrats voted for the bill, which would have provided free health care and compensation payments to rescue and recovery workers who fell ill after working at Ground Zero after the September 11 terrorist attacks...

But why would Republicans oppose such a bill you may ask???

From the same article:

To pay the bill's estimated $7.4 billion cost over 10 years, the legislation would have prevented foreign multinational corporations incorporated in tax haven countries from avoiding tax on income earned in the U.S.

So, Republicans care more about tax shelters for foreign companies than they do about 9/11 responders. Wow. There's some reality for you.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/30/new-york-lawmakers-spar-failed-aid-sick-responders/

 

[Jeremy]

Example of dem politics:

HR XXXX
THE STOP THE KILLING OF KITTENS BILL



WITH AN AMENDMENT OUTLAWING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY INDEFINATELY

Republicans vote against the bill...

SEE!!!! REPUBLICANS HATE KITTENS!!!!!

 

[Ringel05]

What's the matter boys, can't take your own talking point medicine?

Yeah, the post doesn't tell the whole story, it's a talking point.

How did you like your own tactics being thrown back at you?

Yeah boyee. Hit and run Spinimeister thread!

So. You're saying you've never see this tactic used by anyone other than the right?
Okie dokie........

When were the words "the right" mentioned in that post?

Like it needs to be..... You posted the OP

 

[DiveCon]

The 290 votes refers to a parlimentary procedure which blocks amendments. They put that into place to prevent Republicans from tacking on unrelated amendments onto a widely popular bill. It's going to pass anyway.

that makes no sense
since they already have a majority, how could repubs add anything without at least SOME democrat votes?

It doesn't take a majority to attach amendments to bills.

then what sense does it make to have 290 votes for it?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

that makes no sense
since they already have a majority, how could repubs add anything without at least SOME democrat votes?

It doesn't take a majority to attach amendments to bills.

then what sense does it make to have 290 votes for it?

I don't know all the specifics, but there's a parlimentary rule which allows a bill to have amendments blocked, but requires a 2/3s majority to then pass. At least that's the impression I got, I could be wrong.

 

[DiveCon]

It doesn't take a majority to attach amendments to bills.

then what sense does it make to have 290 votes for it?

I don't know all the specifics, but there's a parlimentary rule which allows a bill to have amendments blocked, but requires a 2/3s majority to then pass. At least that's the impression I got, I could be wrong.

if that was the case, then no republican amendment could be put on a bill without democrat support

 

[theDoctorisIn]

then what sense does it make to have 290 votes for it?

I don't know all the specifics, but there's a parlimentary rule which allows a bill to have amendments blocked, but requires a 2/3s majority to then pass. At least that's the impression I got, I could be wrong.

if that was the case, then no republican amendment could be put on a bill without democrat support

I'm sorry, I think I'm not making it clear. As far as I know, this is the deal:

Normally, a bill needs a simple majority to pass, and anyone can tack on amendments.

There is a rule that allows the majority party to block the addition of amendments, but the bill then needs a 2/3s majority to pass.

The Democrats have activated that particular parlimentary rule.

As far as I know.

 

[Jeremy]

It doesn't take a majority to attach amendments to bills.

then what sense does it make to have 290 votes for it?

I don't know all the specifics, but there's a parlimentary rule which allows a bill to have amendments blocked, but requires a 2/3s majority to then pass. At least that's the impression I got, I could be wrong.

I think it's just refered to "Suspension of the Rules". Mostly used to pass stuff like naming post offices and stuff. Debate is limited to 40 minutes and no amendments can be offered. Needs 2/3 majority vote to pass and both parties have rules in place that limit its usage to bills that have a total cost of 100 million or less. That procedural method is the main reason there is all this hub bub about the 9/11 first responders bill. The republicans were upset that the dems were using this procedure for that type of bill. Not to mention that it goes against both parties rules being the bill would have cost over 7 billion dollars when all said and done. It's all technical stuff but it's being spun into the usual partisan bullshit.

Suspension of the rules in the United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[theDoctorisIn]

then what sense does it make to have 290 votes for it?

I don't know all the specifics, but there's a parlimentary rule which allows a bill to have amendments blocked, but requires a 2/3s majority to then pass. At least that's the impression I got, I could be wrong.

I think it's just refered to "Suspension of the Rules". Mostly used to pass stuff like naming post offices and stuff. Debate is limited to 40 minutes and no amendments can be offered. Needs 2/3 majority vote to pass and both parties have rules in place that limit its usage to bills that have a total cost of 100 million or less. That procedural method is the main reason there is all this hub bub about the 9/11 first responders bill. The republicans were upset that the dems were using this procedure for that type of bill. Not to mention that it goes against both parties rules being the bill would have cost over 7 billion dollars when all said and done. It's all technical stuff but it's being spun into the usual partisan bullshit.

Suspension of the rules in the United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exactly. Thank you!

 

[Yurt]

example of dem politics:

hr xxxx
the stop the killing of kittens bill



with an amendment outlawing the republican party indefinately

republicans vote against the bill...

see!!!! Republicans hate kittens!!!!!

ftw

 

[WillowTree]

Republicans Who Voted Against Senior Fraud Protection Legislation

Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn (TN)
Boehner (OH)
Bono Mack
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Burgess (TX)
Burton (IN)
Buyer (IN)
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor (VA)
Carter (TX)
Chaffetz (UT)
Coble (NC)
Coffman (CO)
Conaway (TX)
Duncan (TN)
Flake (AZ)
Fleming (LA)
Foxx (NC)
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte (VA)
Graves (GA)
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling (TX)
Herger (CA)
Hunter (CA)
Inglis (SC)
Issa (CA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
Kingston (GA)
Lamborn (CO)
Latta (OH)
Lummis (WY)
Mack (FL)
Manzullo (IL)
Marchant (TX)
McCarthy (CA
McClintock (CA)
McKeon (CA)
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (CA)
Myrick (NC)
Nunes (CA)
Olson (TX)
Paul (TX)
Roskam (IL)
Royce (CA)
Pence (IN)
Petri (WI)
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher)
Ryan (WI)
Schmidt (OH)
Sensenbrenner (WI)
Simpson (ID)
Stearns (FL)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry (TX)
Tiberi (OH)
Upton (MI)
Walden (OR)
Westmoreland (GA)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)

Really? They're so dead set on undermining the Democrats that they vote against legislation to protect seniors from fraud?

Wow. Good Work!

what a fucking joke you are, the demonRats just stole 960 billion dollars from the seniors.. asswipe

 

[EriktheRed]

Hell, the Repubs have a fraudster trying to be governor of Florida, too.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Sounds like another twisting of the truth by a idiot dimwit like weiner over the 911 healthcare bill where the dimwits wanted to throw health care for illegal aliens in it and it backfired and the idiot weiner trying to blame P. King. I guarantee that there was some stupid amendment attached to it that the dimwits put there that had nothing to do with the original intent and now are crying foul. Grow up dimwits!!!

 

[mudwhistle]

another dishonest thread by vastly incompetent

The Dems are exposed as the incompitents and corrupt operators that they are...so their response is to invent bills that have poison-pills that no reasonable person would go for.

The Repugs reject it and then the Dems starts screaming THE GOP HATES OLD PEOPLE, THE GOP HATES YOUNG PEOPLE, THE GOP HATES FIREFIGHTERS, THE GOP HATES 9/11 WORKERS!!!

All I can say is

 

[AmericanFirst]

What's the matter boys, can't take your own talking point medicine?

Yeah, the post doesn't tell the whole story, it's a talking point.

How did you like your own tactics being thrown back at you?

Yeah boyee. Hit and run Spinimeister thread!

Typical dimwit, proved a liar and you spin it. I suppose you blindly support the socialist in charge?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

http://politicalcorrection.org/rd?t...dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3040ih.txt.pdf

This bill doesn't do a damn thing. It sets up a new agency to provide people with information about senior fraud, and educates seniors about who to contact about fraud. If anyone but Media Matters had actually said anything about this I would laugh, as it is it is just pathetic.

79 Republicans Vote Against Legislation To Protect Seniors From Fraud | Political Correction

No wonder LWC didn't want to provide a link or find the text of the bill.

 

[AmericanFirst]

OK, ok, seriously though, here's a real bill that Republicans voted against that should have passed...

I'll use the FoxNews.com story about it to prevent claims of partisan hackery:

New York Lawmakers Spar Over Failed Bill to Aid Sick 9/11 Responders

...Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner noted that 94 percent of all House Democrats voted for the bill, which would have provided free health care and compensation payments to rescue and recovery workers who fell ill after working at Ground Zero after the September 11 terrorist attacks...

But why would Republicans oppose such a bill you may ask???

From the same article:

To pay the bill's estimated $7.4 billion cost over 10 years, the legislation would have prevented foreign multinational corporations incorporated in tax haven countries from avoiding tax on income earned in the U.S.

So, Republicans care more about tax shelters for foreign companies than they do about 9/11 responders. Wow. There's some reality for you.

FOXNews.com - New York Lawmakers Spar Over Failed Bill to Aid Sick 9/11 Responders

You are not telling the whole story, the dimwits also attached a n ammendment to provide healthcare for illegal immigrants.

 

[mudwhistle]

http://politicalcorrection.org/rd?t...dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3040ih.txt.pdf

This bill doesn't do a damn thing. It sets up a new agency to provide people with information about senior fraud, and educates seniors about who to contact about fraud. If anyone but Media Matters had actually said anything about this I would laugh, as it is it is just pathetic.

79 Republicans Vote Against Legislation To Protect Seniors From Fraud | Political Correction

No wonder LWC didn't want to provide a link or find the text of the bill.

It's a full time job just keeping on top of all of the deceptions of the Democrats.

They're totally corrupt and totally dishonest.


Under these conditions it's like trying to work out your problems with a wayward husband. You never can trust them.

Or an even better analogy is trying to work with terrorists. They feel that they're obligated by Allah to lie and deceive.

 

[Greenbeard]

This bill doesn't do a damn thing. It sets up a new agency to provide people with information about senior fraud, and educates seniors about who to contact about fraud.

A radically new agency that shall be known as the "Federal Trade Commission." Sounds ominous.