Obama May Use Legislative Ploy to Jam Through Health, Tax Bills

[ScreamingEagle]

March 18 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama may try to push through Congress a health-care overhaul, energy proposals and tax increases by using a partisan tactic that would thwart Republican efforts to block the measures.

The administration and congressional Democrats are debating whether to use a parliamentary procedure called reconciliation to advance some of the biggest items on the president’s agenda. The move would allow Democrats to approve plans to raise taxes by $1 trillion, create a cap-and-trade system to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions, and overhaul health care without a single Republican vote.

“You’re talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them into the Chicago River,” said Senator Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican who stepped down last month as Obama’s pick for Commerce secretary. “It takes the minority completely out of the process.”

Reconciliation reduces the number of votes needed to pass legislation in the 100-seat Senate to a simple majority rather than the 60 required to overcome resistance to major bills. The tactic also limits debate to no more than 20 hours and imposes restrictions on amendments.

Senate Democrats have a majority with 58 votes, though Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who is struggling with brain cancer, is frequently absent. Several other Democrats often vote with Republicans.

Obama May Use Legislative Ploy to Jam Through Health, Tax Bills - Bloomberg.com

 

[WillowTree]

I'm sure he will do it. That's the kind of thug he is.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/11/...ressive-study/



• By a margin of almost nine to one, Americans agree that “government investments in education, infrastructure, and science are necessary to ensure America’s long-term economic growth,” (79 percent agree, 12 percent neutral, 9 percent disagree).

• More than three in four Americans (76 percent) also agree with the president’s argument that “America’s economic future requires a transformation away from oil, gas, and coal to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.”

• Nearly three in four Americans believe that “government regulations are necessary to keep businesses in check and protect workers and consumers,” (73 percent agree, 15 percent neutral, 12 percent disagree).

• Nearly two in three Americans (65 percent) agree that “the federal government should guarantee affordable health coverage for every American.”

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/11/...ressive-study/



• By a margin of almost nine to one, Americans agree that “government investments in education, infrastructure, and science are necessary to ensure America’s long-term economic growth,” (79 percent agree, 12 percent neutral, 9 percent disagree).

• More than three in four Americans (76 percent) also agree with the president’s argument that “America’s economic future requires a transformation away from oil, gas, and coal to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.”

• Nearly three in four Americans believe that “government regulations are necessary to keep businesses in check and protect workers and consumers,” (73 percent agree, 15 percent neutral, 12 percent disagree).

• Nearly two in three Americans (65 percent) agree that “the federal government should guarantee affordable health coverage for every American.”

So that means that the minority should have no say in the matter at all?

 

[DavidS]

You mean a President will try to cram through his agenda with a congress of the same political party? That's never happened before!!

*insert sarcasm here*

We had six years of it and not one right winger bitched.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You mean a President will try to cram through his agenda with a congress of the same political party? That's never happened before!!

*insert sarcasm here*

We had six years of it and not one right winger bitched.

So why is it ok for Obama to do it if you didn't agree with Bush doing it?

 

[mash107]

You mean a President will try to cram through his agenda with a congress of the same political party? That's never happened before!!

*insert sarcasm here*

We had six years of it and not one right winger bitched.

They're absolutely not conservatives when they were socializing our economic system for the past 8 years and bringing it to the brink of destruction with excess spending.

Not to mention, I sure as hell protested as did everyone at the Mises and CATO institutes.

Six years of too much spending can't be solved by four more years of too much spending. There are too many unemployed people that have to shoulder that shit, and it won't last for that much longer.

 

[Immanuel]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/11/...ressive-study/



• By a margin of almost nine to one, Americans agree that “government investments in education, infrastructure, and science are necessary to ensure America’s long-term economic growth,” (79 percent agree, 12 percent neutral, 9 percent disagree).

• More than three in four Americans (76 percent) also agree with the president’s argument that “America’s economic future requires a transformation away from oil, gas, and coal to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.”

• Nearly three in four Americans believe that “government regulations are necessary to keep businesses in check and protect workers and consumers,” (73 percent agree, 15 percent neutral, 12 percent disagree).

• Nearly two in three Americans (65 percent) agree that “the federal government should guarantee affordable health coverage for every American.”

So that means that the minority should have no say in the matter at all?

Of course, if the minority is the Republican Party then it absolutely means that they should have no say in the matter at all, now if you put the shoe on the other foot, TM would be screaming about corruption and Republican cheating for the next 40 years.

Immie

 

[Gunny]

March 18 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama may try to push through Congress a health-care overhaul, energy proposals and tax increases by using a partisan tactic that would thwart Republican efforts to block the measures.

The administration and congressional Democrats are debating whether to use a parliamentary procedure called reconciliation to advance some of the biggest items on the president’s agenda. The move would allow Democrats to approve plans to raise taxes by $1 trillion, create a cap-and-trade system to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions, and overhaul health care without a single Republican vote.

“You’re talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them into the Chicago River,” said Senator Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican who stepped down last month as Obama’s pick for Commerce secretary. “It takes the minority completely out of the process.”

Reconciliation reduces the number of votes needed to pass legislation in the 100-seat Senate to a simple majority rather than the 60 required to overcome resistance to major bills. The tactic also limits debate to no more than 20 hours and imposes restrictions on amendments.

Senate Democrats have a majority with 58 votes, though Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who is struggling with brain cancer, is frequently absent. Several other Democrats often vote with Republicans.

Obama May Use Legislative Ploy to Jam Through Health, Tax Bills - Bloomberg.com

Is "reconciliation" Constitutional? At a glance, my answer would be no.

 

[Gunny]

You mean a President will try to cram through his agenda with a congress of the same political party? That's never happened before!!

*insert sarcasm here*

We had six years of it and not one right winger bitched.

Wrong. We ALL bitched because Bush WOULDN'T ram through an agenda, and the Republican majority in Congress cringed every time that whackjob Reid raised his voice.

Try again.

 

[Gunny]

You mean a President will try to cram through his agenda with a congress of the same political party? That's never happened before!!

*insert sarcasm here*

We had six years of it and not one right winger bitched.

So why is it ok for Obama to do it if you didn't agree with Bush doing it?

Oh, THAT's different ....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You mean a President will try to cram through his agenda with a congress of the same political party? That's never happened before!!

*insert sarcasm here*

We had six years of it and not one right winger bitched.

So why is it ok for Obama to do it if you didn't agree with Bush doing it?

Oh, THAT's different ....

Must be, I'm waiting on an answer to that one.

 

[Gunny]

So why is it ok for Obama to do it if you didn't agree with Bush doing it?

Oh, THAT's different ....

Must be, I'm waiting on an answer to that one.

I'll bet you I dunk a basketball before THAT happens.

 

[Zoom-boing]

You mean a President will try to cram through his agenda with a congress of the same political party? That's never happened before!!

*insert sarcasm here*

We had six years of it and not one right winger bitched.

So why is it ok for Obama to do it if you didn't agree with Bush doing it?

Such a straight forward, simple question . . . . yet, what's that I hear? Silence.

 

[Old Rocks]

March 18 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama may try to push through Congress a health-care overhaul, energy proposals and tax increases by using a partisan tactic that would thwart Republican efforts to block the measures.

The administration and congressional Democrats are debating whether to use a parliamentary procedure called reconciliation to advance some of the biggest items on the president’s agenda. The move would allow Democrats to approve plans to raise taxes by $1 trillion, create a cap-and-trade system to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions, and overhaul health care without a single Republican vote.

“You’re talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them into the Chicago River,” said Senator Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican who stepped down last month as Obama’s pick for Commerce secretary. “It takes the minority completely out of the process.”

Reconciliation reduces the number of votes needed to pass legislation in the 100-seat Senate to a simple majority rather than the 60 required to overcome resistance to major bills. The tactic also limits debate to no more than 20 hours and imposes restrictions on amendments.

Senate Democrats have a majority with 58 votes, though Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who is struggling with brain cancer, is frequently absent. Several other Democrats often vote with Republicans.

Obama May Use Legislative Ploy to Jam Through Health, Tax Bills - Bloomberg.com

Excellant. I hope Obama does just that.

 

[Old Rocks]

You mean a President will try to cram through his agenda with a congress of the same political party? That's never happened before!!

*insert sarcasm here*

We had six years of it and not one right winger bitched.

So why is it ok for Obama to do it if you didn't agree with Bush doing it?

Such a straight forward, simple question . . . . yet, what's that I hear? Silence.

The answer is that you guys had your way for eight years, and we have two failed wars, an economic debacle, and a citizenary that are totally pissed with the Conservative incompetance and corruption.

What you are terrified of, with justification, is that Obama will ram through his agenda, and it will work. That would be a very stark contrast to the last eight years.

 

[Zoom-boing]

So why is it ok for Obama to do it if you didn't agree with Bush doing it?

Such a straight forward, simple question . . . . yet, what's that I hear? Silence.

The answer is that you guys had your way for eight years, and we have two failed wars, an economic debacle, and a citizenary that are totally pissed with the Conservative incompetance and corruption.

What you are terrified of, with justification, is that Obama will ram through his agenda, and it will work. That would be a very stark contrast to the last eight years.

If it was wrong for Bush, why is it ok for Obama?

 

[auditor0007]

You mean a President will try to cram through his agenda with a congress of the same political party? That's never happened before!!

*insert sarcasm here*

We had six years of it and not one right winger bitched.

They're absolutely not conservatives when they were socializing our economic system for the past 8 years and bringing it to the brink of destruction with excess spending.

Not to mention, I sure as hell protested as did everyone at the Mises and CATO institutes.

Six years of too much spending can't be solved by four more years of too much spending. There are too many unemployed people that have to shoulder that shit, and it won't last for that much longer.

You mean more spending is not the answer? I thought the real problem was that Bush didn't spend enough.

 

[auditor0007]

So why is it ok for Obama to do it if you didn't agree with Bush doing it?

Such a straight forward, simple question . . . . yet, what's that I hear? Silence.

The answer is that you guys had your way for eight years, and we have two failed wars, an economic debacle, and a citizenary that are totally pissed with the Conservative incompetance and corruption.

What you are terrified of, with justification, is that Obama will ram through his agenda, and it will work. That would be a very stark contrast to the last eight years.

C'mon OR, are you saying Bush didn't spend enough? I mean the answer from the Dems is to spend much more than Bush, so are you saying Bush should have spent more? That would have made things better?

The bottom line is the more we borrow, the less we will have to spend down the road as the cost of just maintaining the increasing debt will continue to eat up a larger portion of the budget. That will lead to massive tax increases which will deflate the economy leading to even more tax increases.

What Bush and the Republicans did was irresponsible. What Obama and the Dems are doing is complete negligence.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So why is it ok for Obama to do it if you didn't agree with Bush doing it?

Such a straight forward, simple question . . . . yet, what's that I hear? Silence.

The answer is that you guys had your way for eight years, and we have two failed wars, an economic debacle, and a citizenary that are totally pissed with the Conservative incompetance and corruption.

What you are terrified of, with justification, is that Obama will ram through his agenda, and it will work. That would be a very stark contrast to the last eight years.

So far I've seen little difference to the last 8 years, and that doesn't answer why something that was wrong for Bush is ok for Obama.