question about how our government works

Koggit

Koggit

CAGiversary!
Feedback
3 (100%)
from the beginning of this http://www.hulu.com/watch/130347/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-wed-feb-24-2010

here's what (i think) i know, feel free to correct any of this, three as-far-as-i-know facts:

(1) without 60 votes, the republicans could filibuster

(2) the democrats can realistically get about 55 for obama's heath care bill even with public option, but they'd have to go the reconciliation route (which i don't know a lot about, but is evidently a loophole to break filibusters).

(3) the democrats don't want to push the bill in through reconcillation, FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON, so they're trying to get 60, and because they can't, they're throwing up the white flag and bending over.



can someone fill me in on the underlined unknown?
 
The Republicans were able to gin up poutrage over Obama's choice of mustard.

The hissy fit from using reconciliation will be immense, but I think he made it clear it is the only option and will be used although apparently not for the public option.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Looks like.

The Republicans were never operating in good faith and the fallout (political or otherwise) would be worse from not doing anything.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Looks like.

The Republicans were never operating in good faith and the fallout (political or otherwise) would be worse from not doing anything.[/QUOTE]

i guess i disagree, #3 feels like a solid conclusion to me. did you hear obama's closing comments? i heard he wants to start over and write a new bill that both parties will vote for, he even tried to sugar coat it by saying that since everyone is familiar with what needs to be done it could be done in a matter of weeks. and as further evidence, in his rebuttals throughout the whole meeting anytime a republican would specify this bill or that bill Obama would say something along the lines of "forget about that bill for a moment" and just talk more big picture. it definitely sounded like he was encouraging dems to throw in the towel on the current bills that don't have gop support.
 
[quote name='Koggit']from the beginning of this http://www.hulu.com/watch/130347/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-wed-feb-24-2010

here's what (i think) i know, feel free to correct any of this, three as-far-as-i-know facts:

(1) without 60 votes, the republicans could filibuster

(2) the democrats can realistically get about 55 for obama's heath care bill even with public option, but they'd have to go the reconciliation route (which i don't know a lot about, but is evidently a loophole to break filibusters).

(3) the democrats don't want to push the bill in through reconcillation, FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON, so they're trying to get 60, and because they can't, they're throwing up the white flag and bending over.



can someone fill me in on the underlined unknown?[/QUOTE]

Reconciliation is made for budget issues, not sweeping healthcare reform. Thus, using it to do so would be inappropriate, and would give republican a big, massive, shining bullet point to prove that Democrats are "the man" keeping you down as they essentially are inappropriately using gov't loopholes to pass big gov't legislation that the majority of the population does not want as per all of the national polls. Normally the house would make changes they wanted to the bill and then the senate would vote again on the bill (with 60) for those changes - that basically can't happen anymore, however, with the Scott Brown election. And, the house does not have the votes to just pass the senate bill without changes.

So, the idea is that the house bill will pass the senate bill as-is, then the senate will promise to use reconciliation to modify some of the parts that the house does not like. Of course, this is problematic for a number of reasons, but it is the only option if it is to pass at all.

First the house needs to pass the senate bill in general, which actually may not be possible anymore as the house bill barely passed back when there was little drama over this issue. Now there is drama, the fact that by far the majority thinks the current healthcare bill should be scrapped, and the recent political races that should have went democrat that went republican (i.e. NJ, MA). All signs point to voting for Obamacare = voting yourself out of office.

Second, there is the fact that house democrats will have to just trust that the senate will get it done w/ reconciliation - such as the stricter abortion language and relaxations of excise tax for union cadillac plans. If the senate does not get it done, said house democrats will have their stamp on very touchy and unpopular issues. They are not done at the same time, first the house has to pass the senate bill, and only after that will the senate attempt to make the fixes the house wants. If the senate can't make the fixes, the house democrats are stuck with what they voted on - which could be disasterous for certain moderate democrats politicians political careers (abortion language comes to mind) and totally extinguish any hope of re-election.

Third is the unpopularity of reconciliation. Since this is essentially unorthadox use of it and smells fishy, it will look quite bad for the democrats and again will give republicans heaps of ammo. The only place it would make sense is that if democrats have already given up on maintaining their majority over the next few years, and are just trying to pass something while they still have the ability to, even if it is not ideal in their eyes. People generally don't change, so it is unlikely that the 56-58% of Americans that don't want this legislation will all of a sudden like it in 2010-2012. The benefits of it won't even go into effect for some time yet people will begin paying for it right away. Republicans will ensure people don't forget about it during the elections, too.
 
[quote name='Koggit'](1) without 60 votes, the republicans could filibuster[/quote]
Right, but here's where the joke's on you (and by you I mean us). You don't actually need to vote *to* filibuster. Just against cloture, which is moving the bill to an actual vote. Since you need 60 votes to move the bill to a vote, essentially all the Republicans are doing is never voting for cloture. That way they don't have to actually vote no, which might hurt them in the elections. Then, on that rare occasion where the Dems can ram one through, the Republicans then turn around and decide whether they want to vote for it or not, even though they filibustered. They're hedging just in case. The jobs bill was as example.
(2) the democrats can realistically get about 55 for obama's heath care bill even with public option, but they'd have to go the reconciliation route (which i don't know a lot about, but is evidently a loophole to break filibusters).
Click to expand...
Nobody's sure. Rockefeller, a staunch supporter of the public option, has said he will vote against it if it goes reconciliation. Then again, whether he'll really do it...
(3) the democrats don't want to push the bill in through reconcillation, FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON, so they're trying to get 60, and because they can't, they're throwing up the white flag and bending over.
Click to expand...
Because they have no guts. Because, despite the thrustbuckets and Bobs that would never ever consider voting for them or supporting them in any way, despite an opposition party who literally votes against its own interests and its own supposed economic beliefs if it means it will hurt the Democrats, the Democrats are trying to find an equitable partner and don't want to use procedure to pass such an important piece of legislation.

The health care thread is the perfect example of the situation the Dems face. 2000 posts and there's only actually been like 4 arguments made against the public option, 3 of which are utter horse shit that the average middle schooler could refute.
Third is the unpopularity of reconciliation.
Click to expand...
Nobody had a fucking opinion about reconciliation until AM radio told them to. They can't even get the "nuclear option" right unless they're intentionally lying, which we both know they are.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Reconciliation is made for budget issues, not sweeping healthcare reform. Thus, using it to do so would be inappropriate, and would give republican a big, massive, shining bullet point to prove that Democrats are "the man" keeping you down as they essentially are inappropriately using gov't loopholes to pass big gov't legislation that the majority of the population does not want as per all of the national polls. Normally the house would make changes they wanted to the bill and then the senate would vote again on the bill (with 60) for those changes - that basically can't happen anymore, however, with the Scott Brown election. And, the house does not have the votes to just pass the senate bill without changes.

So, the idea is that the house bill will pass the senate bill as-is, then the senate will promise to use reconciliation to modify some of the parts that the house does not like. Of course, this is problematic for a number of reasons, but it is the only option if it is to pass at all.

First the house needs to pass the senate bill in general, which actually may not be possible anymore as the house bill barely passed back when there was little drama over this issue. Now there is drama, the fact that by far the majority thinks the current healthcare bill should be scrapped, and the recent political races that should have went democrat that went republican (i.e. NJ, MA). All signs point to voting for Obamacare = voting yourself out of office.

Second, there is the fact that house democrats will have to just trust that the senate will get it done w/ reconciliation - such as the stricter abortion language and relaxations of excise tax for union cadillac plans. If the senate does not get it done, said democrats will have their stamp on very touchy and unpopular issues. They are not done at the same time, first the house has to pass the senate bill, and only after that will the senate attempt to make the fixes the house wants. If the senate can't make the fixes, the house is stuck with what they voted on - which could be disasterous for certain politicians political careers.

Third is the unpopularity of reconciliation. Since this is essentially unorthadox use of it and smells fishy, it will look quite bad for the democrats and again will give republicans heaps of ammo. The only place it would make sense is that if democrats have already given up on maintaining their majority over the next few years, and are just trying to pass something while they still have the ability to, even if it is not ideal in their eyes. People generally don't change, so it is unlikely that the 56-58% of Americans that don't want this legislation will all of a sudden like it in 2010-2012. The benefits of it won't even go into effect for some time yet people will begin paying for it right away. Republicans will ensure people don't forget about it during the elections, too.[/QUOTE]
Except that the vast majority of modifications to our health care system have been through reconciliation. And its not unorthodox. Its used a little less than once a year
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Except that the vast majority of modifications to our health care system have been through reconciliation. And its not unorthodox. Its used a little less than once a year[/QUOTE]

There have been "modifications" to healthcare through reconciliation, yes. There has never been a massive sweeping healthcare overhaul legislation rammed through using reconciliation, ever. That is the major difference.

The Democrat (Robert Byrd) who was one of the original sponsors of senate reconciliation rule has the following to say about it re: healthcare reform: "Reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits. It was not designed to restructure the entire health care system.”
 
[quote name='Koggit']i guess i disagree, #3 feels like a solid conclusion to me. did you hear obama's closing comments? i heard he wants to start over and write a new bill that both parties will vote for, he even tried to sugar coat it by saying that since everyone is familiar with what needs to be done it could be done in a matter of weeks. and as further evidence, in his rebuttals throughout the whole meeting anytime a republican would specify this bill or that bill Obama would say something along the lines of "forget about that bill for a moment" and just talk more big picture. it definitely sounded like he was encouraging dems to throw in the towel on the current bills that don't have gop support.[/QUOTE]

He sounded fairly resolute to me.

There is no starting over BTW, it is this or nothing for years.

Republicans know this, which is why they are being so incredibly dishonest when they say we should start over.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Who here knows what the R stands for in COBRA?[/QUOTE]

COBRA was a restructuring of the entire healthcare system from top to bottom? News to me.
 
Keep moving those goalposts, not like you can look like any more of a dishonest hack.

Most voters don't even know what the filibuster is let alone reconciliation, it may be a legislative loophole but then so is the filibuster.

The GOP might be able to get some people to feign outrage but it would be the exact same idiotic whine seen when they complain about Obama's mustard or birth certificate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']Keep moving those goalposts, not like you can look like any more of a dishonest hack.[/QUOTE]

Moving goalposts? lol? The first sentence of my first post, which you quoted, notes that reconciliation is made for budget issues and not made for quote "SWEEPING HEALTHCARE REFORM." In terms of healthcare COBRA was modification of existing healthcare to simply give employees the option to continue purchasing their healthcare after their employment ended. It is nowhere near, and is laughable to compare it to, the sweeping massive legislation that is the senate bill. One of the primary Democrat senators who introduced the reconciliation rule agrees with me.

Nice attempt at deflection, though. I appreciate the insults too... They usually occur in debates when someone is losing the argument and has no solid retort and must result to personal attacks. :)
 
If reconciliation is to be revered and respected and reserved, I'm ok with that.

But let's do the same thing to the filibuster. Get 40 asses in the Senate building, break out the phonebooks, put on a pot of coffee, and get all Mr Smith Goes to Washington with your bad selves.

If the Republicans want to filibuster, fine. BUT MAKE THEM FILIBUSTER.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Moving goalposts? lol? The first sentence of my first post, which you quoted, notes that reconciliation is made for budget issues [/QUOTE]
Given that:
1. More reconciliation bills have dealt with health care than any other issue and
2. Every issue is a budget issue

You're full of it. But I guess dropping "sweeping" in there absolves you of outright lying.
 
I will give ruin his own personal definition of sweeping although I fail to see how reform done almost entirely through profit making insurance companies is "sweeping".

Although one would be amazed at what can be considered budget issues (note a lot of this is genuinely budgetcentric).

Did ruin complain when Republicans pushed through things like oil drilling with reconciliation?

I would laugh if he claimed he even knew what it was before Rush "explained" it to him.

Anyhoo, does ruin even realize that any of us have you know read his other posts on healthcare?

Is there a single one where he didn't embarrass himself?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Really, depending on which version of a public option they would be able to get through, it may not be sweeping at all. For instance, but version that was in the senate briefly wouldve covered less people(kids) than are covered by SCHIP, also created through reconciliation.

But the sweeping part is hardly an argument anyway.
 
As far as I ever knew, the "old fashioned filibuster" was always just a myth. When Strom Thurmond used it to stall the vote on the civil rights act, he did it to make a point, not because he had to.

Either way, at this point they have two options if they want to do anything with health care:

The first is to use reconciliation to push through whatever proposal the Democrats want. This is logistically more difficult, as they may not even have enough votes from within their own party to do this in the first place. Certainly Lieberman and Nelson wouldn't vote with the party. There's been a few others including Robert Byrd who have said that reconciliation isn't the way to go about this either.

If they DO somehow manage to get this through using reconciliation, it's going to be the nail in the coffin for a lot of Democrats reelection chances this year. Barring some sort of outrageous scandal or death, the GOP will be picking up five or six Senate seats in the fall, and if the Democrats use reconciliation to push this through, the GOP is going to pound them on it, and they could end up losing ten or more seats as a result. If this wasn't an election year, I would say that reconciliation might be a solution for the Democrats, but given the current political climate, it just isn't going to happen right now.

The second option of course is to scale back the entire initiative and start over, and come up with a new plan that the Republicans would get on board with, whatever that may be.

Of course the real wild card would be the remote possibility of the Democrats somehow getting Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins to vote with them, but that seems to be as likely as the reconciliation option at this point.

Whatever option they choose however, they only realistically have another month or two to get it done before everyone leaves to start campaigning and refuses to take a hard line position on anything, let alone make politically risky votes on something like this.
 
Anyone who thinks getting this done through reconciliation is going to be a bigger political loser than wasting a years worth of political capital needs a clue injection.

Oh wait, this is spam and ruin.

I posted a fairly comprehensive link a while ago showing that Democrats are hurting because they look like they aren't getting anything done and are cast as ineffectual weenies.

The vast majority of voters don't even really know what the filibuster or reconciliation is, they might recognize what 30 million people who didn't have health coverage look like or that their insurance company cannot just define their coverage away.

CHIP was pretty damn "sweeping", how many people are still crying about using a supposed dirty trick to give children healthcare?

If Democrats fix it up a bit and pass this and then get an actual Jobs bill through they imho have it locked up, even if they lose a few seats they sure wouldn't lose the majority.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']And that's a problem.[/QUOTE]
Isn't it basically because they just don't want to bother? The dems just back down at the threat of a filibuster, if they called the bluff wouldn't that force the 'cans to actually get somebody to speak for fucking ever? I mean i don't see it accomplishing much, but it would be nice to see the republicans have to make good on their threats.
 
Less government is better government. At least thats my stance if the democrats are running the government. If its republicans running shit, nah bro, fuck being a libertarian.

Or, in the words of the great PJ O'Rourke:

The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.
Click to expand...
 
Democrats won't push it through because they care more about staying in power than going through with what they believe is the right course of action.

Face it. In Obama, you elected a man of words. We need men of action.
 
Dude, Obama isn't the one pushing the legislation through. He's telling them what he wants but remember, he's part of the executive branch, not the legislative branch.
 
Ok that is three stooges so far, is curly joe now going to grace us with his presence?

No but seriously, if this is really causing them so much anguish how about we work out a compromise?

Democrats will keep reconciliation off the table if Cons agree to give up filibustering and agree to an up or down vote.

Deal?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Dude, Obama isn't the one pushing the legislation through. He's telling them what he wants but remember, he's part of the executive branch, not the legislative branch.[/QUOTE]

What, they need 51/59 Democratic Senators to vote thumbs up on this? Are 9+ Senators going to back down if Obama says "jump"?

I *want* them to push it though. Could be fun to watch. Like a scary movie. Not "Scary Movie" though. That sucked.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022505948.html?hpid=topnews

"We just can't afford this," said Eric Cantor, the fresh-faced House minority whip from Virginia, while John Boehner, the House Republican leader, called it "a new entitlement program that will bankrupt our country." What they were referring to, of course, was the $125 billion a year that Obama and his Democratic allies propose to spend in subsidies
Click to expand...

Remember cons passed a multi trillion dollar prescription drug bill that didn't even try to pay for itself.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']1) they're morons
2) they're wimps
3) ????[/QUOTE]

3) even more evidence congress needs term limits. because thats what it is.
 
Yeah, term limits would help a bit. Senators and congressmen would be a bit more willing to stick their necks out if they were in their final term, vs. playing it safe to keep their seat.

I imagine if presidencies were limited to one 6-8 year term as well we'd see Obama (and past presidents) being much more aggressive from the start as well. But maybe not as 2nd terms don't see that much as they still have pressure not to do anything extreme and drive independents to vote for the other parties candidate in the next election.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Term limits dont help because the corporations have plenty of replacements that they can then elect.[/QUOTE]

True, which will be worse with the supreme court ruling.

I think we need a constitutional amendment barring anyone but individuals from making campaign donations. And put pretty modest caps on the amount any one individual can donate (which is already pretty low, but lots of loop holes of course).

A representative democracy should be ran by the people, not by corporations. If corporations want to have influence, their individual executives and other employees can make their own donations, write their own letters to their representatives etc.
 
[quote name='Msut77']http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022503828.html

Finally.

I am not saying spam and ruin are wrong when they say there will be people upset, what I was saying is that those upset will be on the level of those upset over Obama's love of Arugula or his use of policy Czars.[/QUOTE]

Of course Obama is saying defending the Democrat-only Healthcare plan, he's not up for election this year.

Regardless, if the Health Care bill is passed with zero Republican support, the GOP is going to frame the issue as "The Democrats want to kill Grandma", even though that is not going to be the case. There's too many political implications that will come from supporting this measure using reconciliation, which is why I don't think it's going to happen.

If you say that Voters aren't sophisticated enough to know much about what a filibuster or reconciliation is, and that most of the Democrats problems lie in the fact that they feel that feel they are all "Ineffectual Weenies", then odds are they don't even know WHY they feel they are all "Ineffectual Weenies" other than the fact that Rush Limbaugh or Fox News says so. Most voters are never going to read whatever legislation we will or won't get out of this, all they will know is whatever 10 second sound bytes or hyperbole they hear on TV or the Radio, and most of that will probably not be favorable to the Democrats.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Of course Obama is saying defending the Democrat-only Healthcare plan, he's not up for election this year.[/quote]

Do you ever not post non sequitors?

Are you perhaps willing to admit that maybe concern for the well being of the American people might have a little to do with it?

Regardless, if the Health Care bill is passed with zero Republican support, the GOP is going to frame the issue as "The Democrats want to kill Grandma", even though that is not going to be the case. There's too many political implications that will come from supporting this measure using reconciliation, which is why I don't think it's going to happen.
Click to expand...

There are nearly 300 bills being held up by the obstructionist ninnies, even if what you were saying was not just pulled right from your bum the Republicans would just find something new to lie about. Obama and the Democrats tried in good faith to get them on board, there isn't any who can say otherwise with a straight face, quite frankly I take the fact that you and ruin think this will hurt Democrats as pointing towards this being a solid win for them.

If you say that Voters aren't sophisticated enough to know much about what a filibuster or reconciliation is, and that most of the Democrats problems lie in the fact that they feel that feel they are all "Ineffectual Weenies", then odds are they don't even know WHY they feel they are all "Ineffectual Weenies" other than the fact that Rush Limbaugh or Fox News says so. Most voters are never going to read whatever legislation we will or won't get out of this, all they will know is whatever 10 second sound bytes or hyperbole they hear on TV or the Radio, and most of that will probably not be favorable to the Democrats.
Click to expand...

The Republicans are usually better at messaging, if they did policy 1/100th of how they handle marketing this country would be a better place. In the end though saying voters do not understand some of the undeniably arcane legislative practices is not the same thing as they do not understand any of the impact of legislation. When this passes the Democrats can start working on a real jobs bill, people understand high unemployment.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']True, which will be worse with the supreme court ruling.

I think we need a constitutional amendment barring anyone but individuals from making campaign donations. And put pretty modest caps on the amount any one individual can donate (which is already pretty low, but lots of loop holes of course).

A representative democracy should be ran by the people, not by corporations. If corporations want to have influence, their individual executives and other employees can make their own donations, write their own letters to their representatives etc.[/QUOTE]

Except giant corporations already control the news.
 
[quote name='Msut77']
Did ruin complain when Republicans pushed through things like oil drilling with reconciliation?

[/QUOTE]

you mean failed at using reconciliation to push through oil drilling
 
Mea Culpa, should read "Did ruin complain when Republicans attempted to push through things like oil drilling with reconciliation?"

Now do you have some sort of point or is this another attempt at obfuscation like your blatant misuse of words?
 
[quote name='Msut77']
Now do you have some sort of point or is this another attempt at obfuscation like your blatant misuse of words?[/QUOTE]

does that mean I can't join the club =(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If it means anything it means you are already a member of a club.

If you call the conservative clown car crew around here a club.
 
[quote name='Msut77']If it means anything it means you are already a member of a club.

If you call the conservative clown car crew around here a club.[/QUOTE]


Is it a hybrid?
 
Conservative clown car crew?

I bet that was phrase-of-the-day on Dailykos recently..... But usually they are a little more clever in their defamations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top