The Naked Emperor

Chickens coming home to roost?

was reconciliation ever used for something as big as healthcare?

Was it ever used when polls showed that about half of the Amereican people were against the legislation?

Or was it used when they needed to decide if new chairs were needed in the House...and most were not around to cast their votes?
 
Chickens coming home to roost?

was reconciliation ever used for something as big as healthcare?

Was it ever used when polls showed that about half of the Amereican people were against the legislation?

Or was it used when they needed to decide if new chairs were needed in the House...and most were not around to cast their votes?

I wonder what percentage of that 50% voted against it had actually read and studied into it.............what % of that 50% heard and ran with some of the debunked/sensationalized talking points and dismissed it simply based on those................I'd be curious to know these things before I say "do exactly as the public polls you should do!"
 
Shit.

War and Peace ain't got nothing on that 2,0000 odd page clusterfuck of a bill.

Does anyone serioiusly think any of the Clown in DC would actually read it?? Jeeze.
 
Chickens coming home to roost?

was reconciliation ever used for something as big as healthcare?


From the 2005 era video... Dianne Feinstein: “it begins with judicial nominations, next will be executive appointments, and then legislation.”

I guess she was wrong. Under the unholy trinity of Pelosi/Reid/Obama it begins with legislation. :eek:

Also from the video...

Obama: Reconciliation = "absolute majoritarian power... not what the founders intended"

Hillary Clinton: (speaking for Republicans) "a bridge too far, you have to restrain yourself Mr. President"

Sen. Schumer: "the precipice of a Constitutional crisis"

Harry Reid: "the right to extend debate... never more important than when one party controls the Congress"

Joe Biden: "the arrogance of power"

Chris Dodd: "I don't know of a single piece of important legislation that did not have a Democrat and a Republican in the lead" ... Founders understood "tyranny of the majority"

Joe Biden: “I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”

Sen. Baucus: "This is the way Democracy ends, not with a bomb, but with a gavel"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNpoJ8W53D8&feature=youtube_gdata]YouTube - Dramatic Olbermann vs. Dramatic Chipmunk[/ame]

What do Biden, Obama, Schumer, Clinton, Baucus, Reid and Feinstein have to say about using reconciliation as a wedge for a future takover of 1/6th of the economy?
National Item (LA Times)
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg]YouTube - Cricket Sound[/ame]
 
Last edited:
No one has read the bill.

This is a talking point. The Congressman and Senators have a staff, the staff reads the Bill (and the Senator and Congressman still SHOULD), but the talking point "noone read it!!" is just another fantastical talking point ignorant of how we've been Governing for YEARS. The Representative is advised by his staff, that's how it's worked. Using this talking point is shear partisanship.
 
Chickens coming home to roost?

was reconciliation ever used for something as big as healthcare?

Was it ever used when polls showed that about half of the Amereican people were against the legislation?

Or was it used when they needed to decide if new chairs were needed in the House...and most were not around to cast their votes?

I didn't know, so I checked. Here's what I found.

Although reconciliation was originally understood to be for the purpose of improving the government's fiscal position (reducing deficits or increasing surpluses), the language of the 1974 act referred only to "changes" in revenue and spending amounts; not specifically to increases or decreases. In 1999, the Senate for the first time used reconciliation to pass legislation that would substantially worsen the government's fiscal position: the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act 1999. This act was passed when the Government was expected to run large surpluses: it was subsequently vetoed by President Clinton. A similar situation happened in 2000, when the Senate again used reconciliation to pass the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 2000, which was also vetoed by Clinton. At the time the use of the reconciliation procedure to pass such bills was controversial.[3]

During the administration of President George W. Bush, Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts, each of which substantially increased the deficit. These tax cuts were set to lapse after 10 years to satisfy the Byrd Rule. Efforts to use reconciliation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling failed.


So, Like I said before....... Chickens coming home to roost? You (GOP) can't complain when you're the one who initially took something beyond it's intent and now someone wants to take it further.

BTW, I am not in favor of doing healthcare in reconcilliation. But I do recognize hypocrisy (both sides) when I see it.
 
No one has read the bill.

I did. And I'm an Obama supporter, but if I were a congressman, I'd vote against it.

All they have to do is introduce a public option right now. Let the republicans and conservative dems vote against it and then let them answer to the voters who want a public option.

Either the voters will send back a congress that will not pass a public option or they'll send back a congress that will. In either case, it will bring this to a close.
 
No one has read the bill.

This is a talking point. The Congressman and Senators have a staff, the staff reads the Bill (and the Senator and Congressman still SHOULD), but the talking point "noone read it!!" is just another fantastical talking point ignorant of how we've been Governing for YEARS. The Representative is advised by his staff, that's how it's worked. Using this talking point is shear partisanship.

Sounds like that old game of "telephone" we played as kids. Whisper something in one persons ear, they pass it on to the next person, and so on and so on until you check the message at the end and it bears no resemblance to the original message.

There is no substitute for doing your own homework. Especially when that is your job.
 
No one has read the bill.

I did. And I'm an Obama supporter, but if I were a congressman, I'd vote against it.

All they have to do is introduce a public option right now. Let the republicans and conservative dems vote against it and then let them answer to the voters who want a public option.

Either the voters will send back a congress that will not pass a public option or they'll send back a congress that will. In either case, it will bring this to a close.

Isnt that the way it is supposed to work?
 
No one has read the bill.

This is a talking point. The Congressman and Senators have a staff, the staff reads the Bill (and the Senator and Congressman still SHOULD), but the talking point "noone read it!!" is just another fantastical talking point ignorant of how we've been Governing for YEARS. The Representative is advised by his staff, that's how it's worked. Using this talking point is shear partisanship.

We do not elect interns to read bills and offer their conclusions/summations that, as I am sure you know, are usually skewed by personal ideologies....and is why many see different "morals" and/or underlying stories in books...and thus way book clubs meetings are so popular.

We elect politiicans based on what they say is their thought process and ideology with the hopes that they will make educated decisions based on the information they read.

And before you say "they only hire interns that have the same idology as they do".....please...be reasonable.....a 22 year old in an interview will say whatever the interviewer wants to hear in an effort to get a job
 
No one has read the bill.

This is a talking point. The Congressman and Senators have a staff, the staff reads the Bill (and the Senator and Congressman still SHOULD), but the talking point "noone read it!!" is just another fantastical talking point ignorant of how we've been Governing for YEARS. The Representative is advised by his staff, that's how it's worked. Using this talking point is shear partisanship.

It hasnt been written has it?
How can it be read?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top