Is there something wrong with majority rules?

[Dr Grump]

Glad your leaving...That village is missing its idiot.....

[Translation]: " I know that I lost this argument...and I haven't the GUMPtion to carry it further in debate for *I* am a Statist LOSER*

I thought you were leaving?

Move along....Only a moron doesn't know when their arse has been wupped..

Haven't you got a gun to polish...

...somewhere...

 

[jeffrockit]

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. “Is there something wrong with majority rules?” Mr. Gregg asked. “I don’t think so.”

people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

It goes both ways just as in 2005, Obama was against the Reconciliation process that Bush was trying to push through regarding SS saving's accounts. They go with the political winds so most wind up being total hypocrites.

 

[frazzledgear]

No, actually in 2005 it was used for healthcare reform.

No it wasn't. It was used to reduce Medicare spending, not to create Medicare itself.

It was used to dramatically increase medicare spending, not reduce it.

So if the healthcare bill before the house and senate merely consisted of extending medicare to all you would then support a reconciliation effort to pass it?

A couple of points here. One wrong cannot EVER be used to justify another one. Otherwise all bad acts committed by our own government (or any person) are always "justified". I have always opposed the creation of reconciliation for what it really is -the means for those in the Senate to avoid living up to its Constitutional obligations, restrictions and limitations for the benefit of those who happen to be serving at the moment. Which was never their right in the first place. They didn't like the fact it took a lot of work to hammer out budget issues TOUGH SHIT -it was never meant to be easy and quick for government to go hog wild with spending and taxing in the first place. Making it EASIER to hike taxes and thereby skirt the Constitutional restrictions that required at least 60 votes to raise taxes -is THE only reason Byrd, a Democrat, even came up with this one. So no surprise it is now Democrats who want to abuse this BIG TIME in order to ram down the throats of the American people what they have made clear they do not want and is a MAJOR, life altering MONSTROSITY intended to permanently change how this nation even functions forever while stripping people of rights and freedoms -forever!

Secondly you failed to point out a big fact about when reconciliation was used with regard to Medicare Part D. Unlike the THIS bill, it did not result in nearly doubling the size of government and create SEVENTY new government bureaucracies did it? And unlike this bill, it did NOT result in government laying claim to all sorts of "rights" it doesn't have -like ORDERING people to buy a product government has decided they must have just to exist in this country. Or face CRIMINAL CHARGES and a financial penalty! Where in the Constitution does it say I must spend my money as Congress sees fit just to EXIST in this country as a citizen? Or risk going to prison and having government confiscate my money?

And you failed to point out that Medicare Part D still passed with more than the Constitutional requirement of 60 votes, just like the Republican tax cuts passed with more than the 60 Constitutionally required votes as well. Reconciliation was used because of the belief they did not have the votes (which does not justify using it in the first place) but in the end, these passed with more than the number of Constitutionally required votes. Not the same thing here. Democrats are resorting to reconciliation BECAUSE they do not have the CONSTITUTIONALLY required 60 votes and know they never will on this one. Even people in their own party are refusing to vote in favor of this MONSTROSITY. They are doing it BECAUSE they know they cannot Constitutionally pass this bill. They are doing it to AVOID, BYPASS and SKIRT our CONSTITUTION! THIS bill will result in THE most massive expansion of government AND government powers in our history. And just where do you think government gets more power than it had before? Anyone?

Government can ONLY claim new powers for itself by taking away powers we have, denying them to us ever again -and laying claim to those powers for itself instead. And it is liberals who applaud the loudest about government stripping people of more of their rights and powers and claiming it for government instead. As I've said many times, liberals LOVE the totalitarian state. Their agenda REQUIRES a totalitarian state because they know when people have the freedom to decide for themselves, they reject that liberal agenda every time. Just like they oppose the socialist health care MONSTROSITY Democrats are intent on ramming down our throats against our will.

If you think government has the right to order every adult in this country to buy a particular product it has deemed to be "good" for them, where do YOU draw the line? Think government has the right to punish you if you eat food items it has deemed "bad"? Do you think government has the right to punish you if you engage in activities it has deemed "unhealthy"? Did you know government is funding an NIH study trying to link gun ownership with health problems and another one trying to show that having "too many" liquor stores in a neighborhood increases the risk of being shot? Why would they waste OUR tax dollars on such studies I wonder? I'm sure those intent on trying to figure out another way of skinning that gun control cat were disappointed these nonstop studies trying to link gun ownership with all sorts of social ills just aren't panning out for them. So what is the REAL motive for those in government to keep funding such studies over and over looking for SOME link between gun ownership and a "social ill" that would justify government disarming citizens -and having the balls to use OUR money to do it! Just what do they intend to do about it when they finally find someone to produce their desired "results"?

If government owns your health care, it owns YOU and you have become the slave of government. In the name of trying to "reduce" health care costs, it will claim the "right" to financially penalize you for failing to live the way the government has decided is best for everyone -one size fits all. And maybe you really don't realize this one -but it means forfeiting your freedoms and right to run your own life and make your own decisions. Because government -oh, in the name of wanting to PROTECT you from your own "bad" decisions -will lay claim to the "right" to run your life for you.

"Freedom" means government cannot punish you for how you choose to exercise that freedom. PERIOD. If government has the "right" to punish you for it -you aren't free.

I know there are people who really do think its a wonderful trade off to sell off their liberty and freedoms (and those of everyone else) for such a cheap price -but I'm not one of them and I resent like hell the people demanding I must forfeit my own freedoms and those of my children just because they placed no real value on their own freedoms. I don't want a nanny government, I do not need nor want government telling me how to run my life in any way, punishing me for consuming food and drinks it has decided is not "good" for me or for engaging in activities it has deemed "unhealthy" and requires I be penalized for making those choices. It is not the proper role of government to provide what the vast majority of people can and DO provide for themselves. PERIOD. Because if government does it for you instead, you must first dance to its tune to get what you will now be paying even MORE than what it cost you before anyway! It will cost you more than before but now in order to get it, you must do what you are ORDERED to do to receive what you will still be billed for! And most importantly, for what is in reality a tiny minority who require assistance to get health care insurance, it will NEVER require destroying the entire system for everyone else who is actually satisfied with how it works for THEM!

Americans thought they already won the fight over who gets to tell the individual what to do in this country -whether it is government or the individual. Apparently some people think the wrong side won that fight.

 

[California Girl]

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits reconciliation as a congressional prerogative for the majority to ram its agenda down the minority's throats. Elections have consequences, and we are facing one of them now. The Democrats will have to swallow the same bitter pill when the Republicans take the Senate back, as they surely will.

Well, gee, Jerk.... it's clear that you know far more about it than the guy who designed it. I don't know why we ever debate anything, we should just ask you. The Fountain of All Knowledge.

You clearly are no smarter than the rest of the assclowns who can't seem to grasp very basic concepts. Reconciliation is not for legislation. It is for budgetary items. Saying that is not true does not make it not true. Because it is true. It's fact. An Inconvenient Truth.

 

[California Girl]

No, actually in 2005 it was used for healthcare reform.

No it wasn't. It was used to reduce Medicare spending, not to create Medicare itself.

It was used to dramatically increase medicare spending, not reduce it.

So if the healthcare bill before the house and senate merely consisted of extending medicare to all you would then support a reconciliation effort to pass it?

It isn't an extension so your point is.... well... pointless. Fact, reconciliation is not for legislation..... and a certain Democratic Senator said back in '07 that 'a straight 50 + 1 vote is no way to govern a country', further he commented that any President who used it may 'have Airforce 1', but he has lost his ability to govern. Who was that?

 

[Si modo]

Article I Section 7 defines the powers of the legislative process in Congress. Nothing in that section can be construed in denying the majority party in the Senate from enacting its will by a single vote in excess of 50%..

Nope, because 2/3 != 50+1.

 

[Dante]

No, actually in 2005 it was used for healthcare reform.

No it wasn't. It was used to reduce Medicare spending, not to create Medicare itself.

D'oh! 2005? medicare created? get a ******* grip. nobody even inferred medicare was created in 2005...yet you saw that here?

 

[Dante]

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. “Is there something wrong with majority rules?” Mr. Gregg asked. “I don’t think so.”

people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

You really wanna go with the majority rules? Do heteros outnumber homos? do women outnumber men??

Do you really want to go with majority rules?

stop asking other people and answer the ******* question yourself you stupid *****.

 

[Dante]

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. “Is there something wrong with majority rules?” Mr. Gregg asked. “I don’t think so.”

people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

Obama condemned the use of reconciliation for policy changes
...

listen up you stupid prick...answer the question yourself. do you want majority rules?

 

[Dante]

majority rule is totally evil, if you are in the minority.

burp

For me and others it always depends on what constitutes a majority. I think 51/49 is always a recipe for disaster or an unsound foundation. It doesn't always mean I think the 51 were wrong, only that as time goes by, the 51 needs to convince more of the 49 that they were right.

A simple majority is not the same things as a large majority or overwhelming majority. Nuance is needed. The very thing the neo anti-reconciliation folks are asking for now: nuance.

Socialized healthcare is a total reorganization of our Society. It should not be allowed just on a simple majority. This action should require an amendment to the constitution since it affects all of our lives.

taxes affect all our lives, but like with the others morons...I asked you...


do you want majority rules?

why are you people afraid to answer a simple question?

 

[Dante]

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. “Is there something wrong with majority rules?” Mr. Gregg asked. “I don’t think so.”

people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

majority rules

it does NOT tyrannize


majority rule ends where my rights begin

thank you.


one of the posters who answered the ******* simple question.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

It is what the constitution outlines.

There are a few caveats you're not mentioning.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

It is what the constitution outlines.

The Constitution outlines majority rule with protections for the minority.

Pure majority rule results in what Tocqueville very properly labelled "The Tyranny of the Majority:".

Reeeeeally?

Identify the proviso by Article, section and clause.

.

ummm.... all of it....

 

[☭proletarian☭]

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. “Is there something wrong with majority rules?” Mr. Gregg asked. “I don’t think so.”

people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

Obama condemned the use of reconciliation for policy changes

"Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes," then-Sen. Barack Obama said in December of 2005.

Barack Obama Opposed Reconciliation Before He Supported It - Peter Roff (usnews.com)

"The reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning," Obama said on the Senate floor during a debate over changes to the federal Temporary Aid to Needy Families program, adding that the use of reconciliation to deal with those changes meant that "A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked to facilitate reckless deficits and unsustainable debt."

I've been trying to tell you people that ALL politicians are ******* hypocrites but you don't listen do you?

We already know. That's why we don't listen when you repeat it.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Socialized healthcare is a total reorganization of our Society..

 

[☭proletarian☭]

It is what the constitution outlines.

not really. not in all cases.

Cite where in the constitution it gives the different cases.

Let me google that for you

dumbass

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Article I Section 7 defines the powers of the legislative process in Congress. Nothing in that section can be construed in denying the majority party in the Senate from enacting its will by a single vote in excess of 50%..

huh?

I don't see what you see

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 7 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[☭proletarian☭]

from my cold dead hands

so you don't believe in the constitution....

..roger....

huh?

You'd refuse to follow the Constitution is guns were made unconstitutional. You've implied as much.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

huh?

Huh what?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0B_UZNtEk4"]YouTube - From my cold dead hands[/ame]

Pay attention Grump you ******* MORON

So you're with C?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

It is what the constitution outlines.

YOU say that...but *I* Belive that *YOU* don't belive a WORD of what you posted...otherwise *YOU'D* have posted (CITED) Chapter and VERSE.

You may CEASE being a pretender. *WE* Know now that YOU don't MEAN what YOU say...IDIOT.

Chapter and verse?

What document are we talking about, again?