Reconciliation...

[EriktheRed]

Reconciliation is allowed under federal law, Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. § 641(e)(2))

The nuclear option is something right wing loons came up with that is not law.

I know it's hard for many of you to grasp...but there is a difference. And Reconciliation has been used over 20 times in the past...even by *gasp* Republicans.

This is also just more goalpost-moving by the GOoPers. They couldn't get by with the argument that they never did it, so now somehow this is totally unprecedented because of the scope. Actually, it's just because it's for legislation they're deathly afraid of and haven't been able to stop so far.

 

[Dr.House]

Reconciliation is allowed under federal law, Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. § 641(e)(2))

The nuclear option is something right wing loons came up with that is not law.

I know it's hard for many of you to grasp...but there is a difference. And Reconciliation has been used over 20 times in the past...even by *gasp* Republicans.

When has it been used to get a hugely unpopular (countrywide unpopular, not internally unpopular) bill through the Senate as is the case with this one?

 

[Dr.House]

Also, were you for reconciliation in the past or only when a Democratic did it?

 

[Ravi]

Reconciliation is allowed under federal law, Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. § 641(e)(2))

The nuclear option is something right wing loons came up with that is not law.

I know it's hard for many of you to grasp...but there is a difference. And Reconciliation has been used over 20 times in the past...even by *gasp* Republicans.

When has it been used to get a hugely unpopular (countrywide unpopular, not internally unpopular) bill through the Senate as is the case with this one?

Bush's tax cuts.

 

[Ravi]

Also, were you for reconciliation in the past or only when a Democratic did it?

I don't have a problem with it. Seems to me that a simple majority should be the rule anyway.

 

[drsmith1072]

Just do it!
The Republican Party's leadership has shown complete disdain for the will of the people for change, and continues to thwart efforts by the Democrats in Congress to provide universal healthcare to all Americans.
Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent to wage war on terror, a freaking noun, without a peep from the chicken hawks as to its cost in blood and treasure.
Yet today the same fiscal neophytes on the right claim Obama&Co are breaking the bank by working towards the reform of how we pay for healhcare.
Worse, the Palin/Gingrich fringe run around doing the Henny Penny Polka, stirring up anger with divisive rhetoric and laying the blame on Democrats who were elected to fix the myriad of problems our nation faces today.

LOL and I just love the way hypocritical republicans who are trying to demonize reconciliation when they have done it themselves, are now trying to scare democrats into caving by repeating "If you pass this bill through reconciliation, then you will pay for it in november" over and over again. LOL

What a load of BS. The republicans have constantly used fear in desperate attempts to manipulate and scare people into doing what the republcians want them to do, so this attempt is not a new tactic for them and is not surprising at all.

 

[Meister]

Reconciliation is allowed under federal law, Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. § 641(e)(2))

The nuclear option is something right wing loons came up with that is not law.

I know it's hard for many of you to grasp...but there is a difference. And Reconciliation has been used over 20 times in the past...even by *gasp* Republicans.

When has it been used to get a hugely unpopular (countrywide unpopular, not internally unpopular) bill through the Senate as is the case with this one?

Bush's tax cuts.

I remember people being pretty happy to get a check in the mail that actually was a rebate of the taxes they had paid.

When was the nuclear option used other than budgetary items, and not legislating a bill like this one would be?

 

[Dr.House]

Reconciliation is allowed under federal law, Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. § 641(e)(2))

The nuclear option is something right wing loons came up with that is not law.

I know it's hard for many of you to grasp...but there is a difference. And Reconciliation has been used over 20 times in the past...even by *gasp* Republicans.

When has it been used to get a hugely unpopular (countrywide unpopular, not internally unpopular) bill through the Senate as is the case with this one?

Bush's tax cuts.

The majority of the country was NOT opposed to tax cuts....

 

[Ravi]

When has it been used to get a hugely unpopular (countrywide unpopular, not internally unpopular) bill through the Senate as is the case with this one?

Bush's tax cuts.

The majority of the country was NOT opposed to tax cuts....

Bush's tax cuts were hugely unpopular, and with good reason.

 

[EriktheRed]

Reconciliation is allowed under federal law, Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. § 641(e)(2))

The nuclear option is something right wing loons came up with that is not law.

I know it's hard for many of you to grasp...but there is a difference. And Reconciliation has been used over 20 times in the past...even by *gasp* Republicans.

When has it been used to get a hugely unpopular (countrywide unpopular, not internally unpopular) bill through the Senate as is the case with this one?

Poll numbers are relevant to politicians, but not the legislative process itself. In the end, these are passed bills like any others. Reconciliation is just a means to come out with a final form for signing.

 

[Meister]

Reconciliation is allowed under federal law, Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. § 641(e)(2))

The nuclear option is something right wing loons came up with that is not law.

I know it's hard for many of you to grasp...but there is a difference. And Reconciliation has been used over 20 times in the past...even by *gasp* Republicans.

When has it been used to get a hugely unpopular (countrywide unpopular, not internally unpopular) bill through the Senate as is the case with this one?

Poll numbers are relevant to politicians, but not the legislative process itself. In the end, these are passed bills like any others. Reconciliation is just a means to come out with a final form for signing.

No, it has never been used on a bill like this, never. Reconciliation has never been to legislate a bill like this, it has been for budgetary items only.

 

[Dr.House]

Bush's tax cuts.

The majority of the country was NOT opposed to tax cuts....

Bush's tax cuts were hugely unpopular, and with good reason.

Unpopular with the leftists...

Popular with the majority of the American public, and for good reason...

 

[boedicca]

Bush's tax cuts.

The majority of the country was NOT opposed to tax cuts....

Bush's tax cuts were hugely unpopular, and with good reason.

No, they were only hugely unpopular with the far left.

 

[EriktheRed]

Bush's tax cuts.

The majority of the country was NOT opposed to tax cuts....

Bush's tax cuts were hugely unpopular, and with good reason.

Maybe, maybe not. Without seeing any data from the that time, I actually suspect not. But again, it's irrelevant. The majority at the time passed them and it was their prerogative to use the reconciliation process to get the legislation through.


This argument that now it's so different in degree as to be different in kind is just desperation

 

[EriktheRed]

When has it been used to get a hugely unpopular (countrywide unpopular, not internally unpopular) bill through the Senate as is the case with this one?

Poll numbers are relevant to politicians, but not the legislative process itself. In the end, these are passed bills like any others. Reconciliation is just a means to come out with a final form for signing.

No, it has niver been used on a bill like this, never. Reconciliation has never been to legislate a bill like this, it has been for budgetary items only.

And where are the rules on how reconciliation is to be used?

 

[boedicca]

This argument that now it's so different in degree as to be different in kind is just desperation

Wrong. The magnitude of the Health Care bill is so beyond anything for which Reconciliation has been used in the past, that even Robert Byrd opposes using it now.

 

[Ravi]

The majority of the country was NOT opposed to tax cuts....

Bush's tax cuts were hugely unpopular, and with good reason.

Unpopular with the leftists...

Popular with the majority of the American public, and for good reason...

Right...that's why they had to use reconciliation.

 

[Dr.House]

Reconciliation is allowed under federal law, Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. § 641(e)(2))

The nuclear option is something right wing loons came up with that is not law.

I know it's hard for many of you to grasp...but there is a difference. And Reconciliation has been used over 20 times in the past...even by *gasp* Republicans.

When has it been used to get a hugely unpopular (countrywide unpopular, not internally unpopular) bill through the Senate as is the case with this one?

Poll numbers are relevant to politicians, but not the legislative process itself. In the end, these are passed bills like any others. Reconciliation is just a means to come out with a final form for signing.

Poll numbers are also relevant to the media and are used to inform the masses of the popularity of someone or something... Just listen to some libs here spouting how popular the "public option" is, yet are silent to the popularity of the overall healthcare legislation...

Oh, I believe something will be passed... If the R's can get some important things in there that don't cost a cent, like being able to buy across state lines and malpractice reform then that would be good for everyone... The name of the game at this point is to make it less painful financially to "Average American" than the Democratics versions...

 

[Meister]

Poll numbers are relevant to politicians, but not the legislative process itself. In the end, these are passed bills like any others. Reconciliation is just a means to come out with a final form for signing.

No, it has niver been used on a bill like this, never. Reconciliation has never been to legislate a bill like this, it has been for budgetary items only.

And where are the rules on how reconciliation is to be used?

Reconciliation Instructions: The process begins with the inclusion of reconciliation instructions in the budget resolution. These instructions require authorizing committees with jurisdiction over mandatory spending and revenue policies (usually more than one) to make legislative changes in those programs to effect a specified level of budgetary savings provisions. The instructions typically cover the same fiscal years as the budget resolution, with separate dollar amounts specified for each of the years in the budget resolution. While the Budget Committees develop these instructions based on policy assumptions for changes in programs and laws (which are often printed in the committee reports on the budget resolution), the authorizing committees have complete discretion over the specific programs to be changed and the substance of those changes. An authorizing committee must only meet the specified spending and/or revenue directive given it. The budget resolution normally includes a timetable by which the authorizing committees must report legislation that meets these saving targets. These committees generally hold hearings and mark-up these legislative products which are sent to the Budget Committees.

THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION PROCESS

 

[Dr.House]

Bush's tax cuts were hugely unpopular, and with good reason.

Unpopular with the leftists...

Popular with the majority of the American public, and for good reason...

Right...that's why they had to use reconciliation.

Are you being purposefully dense?

I said popular with the people, not popular with the Senate... Of course the Democratics hated it...