Turn on Rachel Maddow

[The Rabbi]

Rachel is completely irrelevant to the facts here.

Reconciliation is not intended for anything other than budget. You know it, everyone else knows it. and it's completely dishonest to pretend that Rachel is the issue when no one cares what she says.

And THAT is the point. It is constitutional when used for budgetary matters. It is unconstitutional when used to legislate. What is hard with that?

I was under the impression that reconciliation can be used as long as it fits certain budgetary parameters. There are hoops they have to jump through to make it work but as long as they do so it's a legit use of it.

Sadly, it has come to this and I don't like it. It is clear the Republicans intend on continuing to demand concessions from the dems while at the same time being unwilling to support any compromised bill.

They are using Scott Boras negotiating techniques ...

If the GOP were really intersted in anything other than killing health care reform we wouldn't be where we are right now.

How do you compromise on destroying this country through taxation and regulation? We'll give half the economy today, tomorrow we'll bargain for the rest?
The GOP is interested in HCR. THey have floated plans for this. They have published those plans. They have done all this despite their inability to get any legislation heard, much less passed. They have done it despite Obama's lies that they didn't. And he never acknowledged that even after it was pointed out to him publicly.
The Dums could pass anything they wanted for the last year. It isn't the GOP's fault they can't. Blaming them is just deflecting attention away from the fact that every proposal the Dums have pushed has been a disaster and opposed by a majority of Americans.

 

[The Rabbi]

i don't think they call it unconstitutional. but they act like it's somehow 'not fair'.

... unless of course THEY do it.

Rachel did a great job.

It is a misuse of a procedure in the senate that was never meant for a big social program like this. Nor was it ever used for one by the GOP.
Rachel Maddow is an ugly dyke. No wonder you like her.

This has to do with her excellent research abilities......how?

She has excellent research abilitiies?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can read Orrin's masterpiece of deception here:

washingtonpost.com

you can read rdean's pitiful attempt at deception here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/107620-are-republicans-rebuilding-american-hate-groups.html

I'd try to change the subject if I were you guys too.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Cons know a lot about Rachel seeing as how they never saw her.

Rachel is completely irrelevant to the facts here.

Reconciliation is not intended for anything other than budget. You know it, everyone else knows it. and it's completely dishonest to pretend that Rachel is the issue when no one cares what she says.

You cared enough to respond.

 

[MikeHoncho]

if the dems woulc concede on mandating everyone to get health care this process would have been completed by now. why nobody understands that is beyond me.

alot of people have a hard time buying into a program where the government strong arms you into getting something for "your own good." this reminds me of any timeshare salesman in any other country.

thats why they want to start over.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The bill is not being passed through reconciliation. Amendments to the bill would be passed through reconciliation.

Some people seem to have conveniently forgotten, for the sake of advancing a hyperbolic rightwing talking point,

that both the House and Senate PASSED a bill.

From E. J. Dionne:

The real story on health-care 'reconciliation'

Chuck Todd of NBC made a superb point on "Hardball" last night that everyone should pay attention to. He noted that absolutely no one is proposing to pass a health-care bill under the "reconciliation process," that is, with a majority rather than 60 votes in the Senate.

Does that surprise you? Chuck's point is that the health care bill already passed the Senate with 60 votes last December. Democrats would use reconciliation only for a series of rather modest amendments to the overall bill. And he pointed out that some of those amendments (notably broadening the "Nebraska deal" on Medicaid relief for all states) are actually things the Republicans have called for. My hunch, judging from some of the things Rep. George Miller (D) of California said at the summit, is that Democrats may consider adding a few other Republican ideas to the reconciliation package.

I do not expect what I will call the Todd Clarification to stop Republicans from condemning the Democrats if they get a bill through with the reconciliation amendments. But shouldn't all of us be referring to them just that way -- as "amendments" rather than as "a bill"? Todd’s point also brings home the fact that both houses have used a thoroughly conventional legislative process to get the bill this far. We might then begin to ask the obvious question: Why should we take it for granted that one election result in one state (Massachusetts) ought to be allowed to derail a year's worth of legislative work? In any event, my conservative friends have told me for years that my dear native state of Massachusetts is unrepresentative of the country. I don't hear them saying that now.

Kudos to Todd for stating a truth that just about all of us have missed.

 

[The Rabbi]

Except they didnt pasd the same bill, which is what is requried.
Fail.

 

[Vanquish]

Except they didnt pasd the same bill, which is what is requried.
Fail.

Nice try at a quick hit, but right back atcha...fail on your part.

Failure to not be a partisan poster...and failure to give the notion that the Senate already did pass something on the subject its due. Without having passed the same thing, I think the idea that all these senators calling to start over have come to agreement on the subject already deserves some attention.

 

[Vanquish]

BTW, I love TRMS. It's really the only political "character show" (as I call them) worth watching because she really does lay things out in common sense.

My wife who's a Republican and loves Fox News even watches with me and finds herself agreeing with Rachel's logic here and there.

 

[VaYank5150]

Except they didnt pasd the same bill, which is what is requried.
Fail.

Nice try at a quick hit, but right back atcha...fail on your part.

Failure to not be a partisan poster...and failure to give the notion that the Senate already did pass something on the subject its due. Without having passed the same thing, I think the idea that all these senators calling to start over have come to agreement on the subject already deserves some attention.

What else did you expect from a partisan hack like Rabbi?

 

[xsited1]

Turn on Rachel Maddow

I sent her a dead fish. Do you think that'll turn her on?

 

[Missourian]

More than half of Americans are against Democrats using reconciliation to pass a health care bill through the Senate, according to a new Gallup survey out Thursday.



Fifty-two percent of the 1,0009 adults polled nationwide oppose using the procedural maneuver to pass the health care bill in the Senate on 51 votes rather than the 60 votes required to end any filibuster.



Forty-two percent would support the move, and not surprisingly there is a strong partisan split.



Democrats support passing the bill by reconciliation by a margin of 68 percent to 24 percent.



Only 9 percent of Republicans want the bill passed using the maneuver, while 86 percent oppose it.



Independents mostly oppose the move by 53 percent to 38 percent.

Read more: Poll: 52 percent oppose reconciliation - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
​

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

More than half of Americans are against Democrats using reconciliation to pass a health care bill through the Senate, according to a new Gallup survey out Thursday.



Fifty-two percent of the 1,0009 adults polled nationwide oppose using the procedural maneuver to pass the health care bill in the Senate on 51 votes rather than the 60 votes required to end any filibuster.



Forty-two percent would support the move, and not surprisingly there is a strong partisan split.



Democrats support passing the bill by reconciliation by a margin of 68 percent to 24 percent.



Only 9 percent of Republicans want the bill passed using the maneuver, while 86 percent oppose it.



Independents mostly oppose the move by 53 percent to 38 percent.

Read more: Poll: 52 percent oppose reconciliation - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
​

.

lol, well by wingnut logic, that should be at least 60% opposed before it means anything.

 

[Missourian]

More than half of Americans are against Democrats using reconciliation to pass a health care bill through the Senate, according to a new Gallup survey out Thursday.



Fifty-two percent of the 1,0009 adults polled nationwide oppose using the procedural maneuver to pass the health care bill in the Senate on 51 votes rather than the 60 votes required to end any filibuster.



Forty-two percent would support the move, and not surprisingly there is a strong partisan split.



Democrats support passing the bill by reconciliation by a margin of 68 percent to 24 percent.



Only 9 percent of Republicans want the bill passed using the maneuver, while 86 percent oppose it.



Independents mostly oppose the move by 53 percent to 38 percent.

Read more: Poll: 52 percent oppose reconciliation - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
​

.

lol, well by wingnut logic, that should be at least 60% opposed before it means anything.

LOL, by left wingnut logic 52% (Obama's popular vote percentage) represents a mandate.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

IfI ever feel the need to exponentially lower my IQ, I'll certainly turn on Maddow.

 

[Care4all]

And you will continue to leave out the fact that it is indeed supposed to be used for budgetary issues.. continue to leave out that opposition is that it is not being used for budgetary issues this time.. and that opponents are against it because of these very points... showing the basis for your and other winger's deception

budget reconciliation process
Maybe something you should remember

so did the republicans USE reconciliation or NOT to pass the Medicare pill bill? the pill bill was not a budget bill, was it?

 

[Some Guy]

Someone watches Rachel Maddow? Now that's news!

 

[del]

You can read Orrin's masterpiece of deception here:

washingtonpost.com

you can read rdean's pitiful attempt at deception here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/107620-are-republicans-rebuilding-american-hate-groups.html

I'd try to change the subject if I were you guys too.

there's only one of me.

there's a long way to go before reconciliation can be used, and some of the obstacles which may come into play will involve the dems needing to come up with 60 votes in the senate. you know, a supermajority.

 

[WillowTree]

The bill is not being passed through reconciliation. Amendments to the bill would be passed through reconciliation.

Some people seem to have conveniently forgotten, for the sake of advancing a hyperbolic rightwing talking point,

that both the House and Senate PASSED a bill.

From E. J. Dionne:

The real story on health-care 'reconciliation'

Chuck Todd of NBC made a superb point on "Hardball" last night that everyone should pay attention to. He noted that absolutely no one is proposing to pass a health-care bill under the "reconciliation process," that is, with a majority rather than 60 votes in the Senate.

Does that surprise you? Chuck's point is that the health care bill already passed the Senate with 60 votes last December. Democrats would use reconciliation only for a series of rather modest amendments to the overall bill. And he pointed out that some of those amendments (notably broadening the "Nebraska deal" on Medicaid relief for all states) are actually things the Republicans have called for. My hunch, judging from some of the things Rep. George Miller (D) of California said at the summit, is that Democrats may consider adding a few other Republican ideas to the reconciliation package.

I do not expect what I will call the Todd Clarification to stop Republicans from condemning the Democrats if they get a bill through with the reconciliation amendments. But shouldn't all of us be referring to them just that way -- as "amendments" rather than as "a bill"? Todd’s point also brings home the fact that both houses have used a thoroughly conventional legislative process to get the bill this far. We might then begin to ask the obvious question: Why should we take it for granted that one election result in one state (Massachusetts) ought to be allowed to derail a year's worth of legislative work? In any event, my conservative friends have told me for years that my dear native state of Massachusetts is unrepresentative of the country. I don't hear them saying that now.

Kudos to Todd for stating a truth that just about all of us have missed.

Oh contraire' we have not forgotten that the Senate passed a bill, nor have we forgotten HOW the Senate passed a bill.. not to worry on that little point.. WE REMEMBER!

 

[bodecea]

It is a misuse of a procedure in the senate that was never meant for a big social program like this. Nor was it ever used for one by the GOP.
Rachel Maddow is an ugly dyke. No wonder you like her.

This has to do with her excellent research abilities......how?

She has excellent research abilitiies?

Yes she does. But maybe you are too busy dwelling on sexuality. Yes, I think so.