Dems will nuke filibuster if health-care reform doesn’t pass by October 15

shagdrum

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
6,568
Reaction score
44
Location
KS
Dems will nuke filibuster if health-care reform doesn’t pass by October 15

So says TNR. They want this to be bipartisan, of course, the same way they wanted the stimulus to be “bipartisan” — i.e. the GOP getting little in return for voting yes and thereby giving the left political cover in case the program stinks — but they’re not going to wait forever. If there’s no deal by October 15, they’ll invoke “reconciliation” and push it through with a simple majority in the Senate. They’ve got the votes and, evidently, the political will. Nothing left to do now except wait and watch the inevitable decline of American health care.
The reonciliation instruction specifies a date. That date, according to one congressional staffer, is October 15. (The original House reconciliation instruction had a late September deadline.)

In other words, the House and Senate each have until that day to pass health care legislation.

If they haven’t, then both houses will consider health care under the reconciliation process, which is relevant primarily for the way it affects the Senate. There will be a limit on the time of debate. Republicans won’t be able to filibuster it.

So there’s still a chance for bipartisanship, which is what both Obama and Democratic leaders want–or, at least, what they say they want. But if bipartisanship doesn’t work, then Dems can pass this on their own. They won’t even need Ben Nelson.
The GOP is threatening to make life hell for Reid procedurally if they follow through on this, but as David Freddoso explains, there’s not much they can do to stop it. Read his whole post; it’s a valuable primer on “reconciliation,” a topic we’re all going to become very familiar with as this debate gets going. Using it to bust the filibuster is actually an abuse of what it was intended for, but then the same could be said of the filibuster itself. Exit quotation from Paul Ryan: “This takes mission creep to a whole new level. Now they’re talking about the possible nationalization of 17 percent of our economy in health care, 8 percent of the economy in energy, and the largest tax increase in history — all through a process which will have between 35 and 105 total hours of debate between the House and the Senate . . . That’s an enormous power grab.”
 
People can debate the philosophies of Ayn Rand, but they cannot dispute her predictions. Atlas Shrugged is HAPPENING.

Who is John Galt?
 
People can debate the philosophies of Ayn Rand, but they cannot dispute her predictions. Atlas Shrugged is HAPPENING.

Who is John Galt?

Can you elaborate on that. Because people who aren't at least familiar with the book and see the post and think you're just being a flippant jerk. They don't understand what that means. And then the comment, but without the perspective or even considering what a Rand of John Galt reference might provide them.
 
I'm simply encouraging people to pick up the book and read it.

Do you really want a synopsis? Have you even counted the pages?
 
The Abridged Atlas Shrugged
Colin Ferm

"It sure is hard to find good men now-a-days. I wonder what the hell is going on," Dagny smirked to herself as she entered the towering monolith to capitalism that was the headquarters of Taggart Transcontinental. "There are so few men like Hank Rearden, the man who single handedly invented a new greenish tint metal that is far stronger than steel," she said bursting in on her brother. "There are too many like you, Jim," she mocked.

"Well, if that's the case, you so-not-a-woman-and-I-can't-believe-a-woman-wrote-this, why don't you go redeem yourself by sleeping with him. By being his servile little mistress you'll serve the cause of capitalism far better than you have," Jim mocked.

Dagny smirked in her mocking way. Yes, she thought, she had tried that with another man, and it seemed so right until he, gasp, went to the other side. He became a slacker. Hank. Hank, Hank, Hank. Don't you know you're all I dream about though I don't actually do anything about it until page five-hundred? "I know what I want Jim, but what do you want?"

"Who is John Galt?"....

Read the rest here...
 
Really, really dumb. No wonder you don't understand the book, reading sources like that.
 
I'm simply encouraging people to pick up the book and read it.

Do you really want a synopsis? Have you even counted the pages?
1088 pages. But I make it a habit to look for the answers when I have a question I can't answer.

I just think anyone who would understand the point you are making are already familiar with the book. The people who aren't familiar with the book won't have any idea what you're talking about.

I agree with your point, but I don't someone like Mr.Wiggles, even if he were motivated or self-interested, would have the first clue to what you were talking about. Hell, I gave him a link to the federalist papers and he told us the constitution was irrelevant and out of date.
 
-On the issue of the nuclear option-
I wonder if John McCain feels like an :q:q:q:q:q:q:q for taking it off the table while the Republicans had a majority and could have used it for some good. "We can't use that because that would set a precedent and they'll use it on us!"

Good planning there. Bank on the Democatic Party as it's led by Pelosi and having integrity or respect.
 
Really, really dumb. No wonder you don't understand the book, reading sources like that.

Foss - Colin's Abridged version is funny -

I wonder if you really read Shrugged? Do you realize that you would be considered weak and ineffectual in the world that Ayn built in Atlas Shrugged?

And I do recommend the book - read it twice - once while you are in college - or that age bracket - 18 to 23, 24, and then read it again after you have been in the 'real world' for a few years.

And heck, Foss, if you read Shrugged you would be able to come up with something better than your current 'running' critique of me - "Really, really dumb"

So, I'll take this opportunity to use one of my favorites from Dagny...

“You b@st@rd,” she said evenly, without emotion, since the words were not addressed to anything human.
 
1088 pages. But I make it a habit to look for the answers when I have a question I can't answer.

I just think anyone who would understand the point you are making are already familiar with the book. The people who aren't familiar with the book won't have any idea what you're talking about.

I agree with your point, but I don't someone like Mr.Wiggles, even if he were motivated or self-interested, would have the first clue to what you were talking about. Hell, I gave him a link to the federalist papers and he told us the constitution was irrelevant and out of date.
Exactly. And my comment wasn't meant for him. He's not interested in learning anything.

Fox, you can wonder all you want. And if you'd stop saying dumb things, I would stop calling you out. And if you'd read Shrugged, you'd be able to come up with something better than "Clinton's government spending brought us out of recession."
 
Fox, you can wonder all you want. And if you'd stop saying dumb things, I would stop calling you out. And if you'd read Shrugged, you'd be able to come up with something better than "Clinton's government spending brought us out of recession."

So, even though Clinton had the Newtster's congress - he, the president is responsible for the spending? Just double checking because this little bit does float back and forth with members on this site. Sometimes the president is responsible for spending during his administration, even though the congress could be held by the opposing party. And magically the reverse is true during different administrations. Then the congress is responsible for spending, and the president is pretty much just a bystander in the whole proceedings....

Oh, don't forget that Clinton raised taxes - specifically he raised taxes a lot on the wealthy...
 
So, even though Clinton had the Newtster's congress - he, the president is responsible for the spending? Just double checking because this little bit does float back and forth with members on this site. Sometimes the president is responsible for spending during his administration, even though the congress could be held by the opposing party. And magically the reverse is true during different administrations. Then the congress is responsible for spending, and the president is pretty much just a bystander in the whole proceedings....

Oh, don't forget that Clinton raised taxes - specifically he raised taxes a lot on the wealthy...

Oh stop with the disingenuousness. You know better then what you are saying and we know you know better. You are simply playing ignorant to mischaracterize things, as is your norm. A president is responsible for spending to varying degrees depending on his actions in going toward increased spending. Simply signing something into law doesn't warrant the same responsibility as helping craft the legislation, using the bully pulpit to try and push the legislation through the legislature, etc. The same is true of tax increases and tax cuts. In all those things, Congress is not absolved from responsibility either, but their responsibility can fluctuate too.

You are ignoring the necessary areas that ascribe responsibility for an action and dictate the degree to which that responsibility is ascribable. How intentional were the actions and to what degree where they dictated by other factors, the context of the actions, the character of the people involved (where the actions habitual or uncharacteristic and why), what where the consequences of the actions? You are oversimplifying to try and imply that the only difference in judging these actions among some people on this forum is weather the person in the oval office has an "R" or a "D" next to their name. You are the only person who writes on this forum who has been honestly shown to change the standards depending on party affiliation and nothing else. Stop projecting.
 
It's politics.

Let me offer an alternative point of view before everybody goes and panics. There is a reason we don't have socialized health care yet, because it doesn't work - and they know it. However, the vast majority of the American people don't understand that, and for them, 'free' health care sounds like the best thing since sliced bread. Thus, for the politicians, it behooves them to publicly promote universal health care while really not doing anything to put it in motion. Even better, in this case, the Dems are happy to try and push it through and let the Republicans block it - thus making their opponents look bad while still managing to avoid implementing a failed system. That's two birds with one stone.

Disclaimer: I don't support universal health care in any way, shape or form. I fear it. And my Senator & Congressman will be hearing my opinion on the matter (and I sincerely hope they listen). But I also encourage people to think outside the box before allowing fear to get in the way of rational thought.
 
I just find it fascinating that the right has often put the 'blame' for all of the spending during the Reagan years on Tipp's congress, and yet spending during the Clinton administration is Clinton's responsibility and Newt has nothing to answer for.

So shag, are you finally admitting that it is a combination of both? That is what I have been trying to state over and over and over on all sorts of threads. It is give and take on Capital Hill... The president wants his programs and congress wants theirs and then they meet somewhere in the middle.

You have used the black and white argument in the past - and I have used the gray... You were the one that oversimplified...
 
It's politics.

Let me offer an alternative point of view before everybody goes and panics. There is a reason we don't have socialized health care yet, because it doesn't work - and they know it.
No, we don't have it yet because when they attempted to implement it in the 90s, there was a political backlash and most people rejected that.

They aren't making the same mistake right now. They are moving fast to prevent that from happening again. The ground work for it has been inserted into the stimulus bill and the budgets. The only question right now is do they continue to implement the system in small pieces without anyone like yourself noticing, or they really accelerate things and start take more aggressive steps to expand the coverage.

It's easy to get lost in the chaos, but we've all mentioned this stuff in the past... but there's so much going on right now, it's basically in possible to catch it all, focus, and really discuss or fight it.

Even better, in this case, the Dems are happy to try and push it through and let the Republicans block it - thus making their opponents look bad while still managing to avoid implementing a failed system. That's two birds with one stone.
No, the Republicans don't have the numbers TO block it.

Disclaimer: I don't support universal health care in any way, shape or form. I fear it. And my Senator & Congressman will be hearing my opinion on the matter (and I sincerely hope they listen). But I also encourage people to think outside the box before allowing fear to get in the way of rational thought.
You still don't get it. This isn't fear, it IS rational thought.
You weren't paying attention during the election, but at one time or another, though the media didn't really tell you, Obama said what he intended to do.
Everything he's doing could easily have been anticipated, and all he will do is fairly easy to figure out as well.
 
I just find it fascinating that the right has often put the 'blame' for all of the spending during the Reagan years on Tipp's congress, and yet spending during the Clinton administration is Clinton's responsibility and Newt has nothing to answer for.

So shag, are you finally admitting that it is a combination of both? That is what I have been trying to state over and over and over on all sorts of threads. It is give and take on Capital Hill... The president wants his programs and congress wants theirs and then they meet somewhere in the middle.

You have used the black and white argument in the past - and I have used the gray... You were the one that oversimplified...

More lies. You have always been the one to oversimplify and try to create and perpetuate a false picture. You can use the black and white argument to do so when the truth is less clear or more complex then that, or you can use the shades of gray argument to muddy the waters when the issue is a bit more clear cut then that. Both techniques have been utilized by you. The one constant is that you habitually misrepresent the truth to line up with your ideological views and against those hostile to those views.

Even now, you are oversimplifying when you say that, "It is give and take on Capital Hill... The president wants his programs and congress wants theirs and then they meet somewhere in the middle." This is, presumably, justification for no (or next to no) responsibility to be assigned to, at least the president, maybe congress too. Your continuous dishonest and rude dodging makes it unclear. The fact is that you have to look at the circumstances and the people involved and make a determination unique to each circumstances. While no one has absolute responsibility, the president can have more or less responsibility depending on how he supported whatever spending/taxing issue we are talking about.

The fact is that we are being consistent in trying to judge everything in context and you are constantly trying to take things out of context to dishonestly and falsely compare them to something and claim that they are the same. We are being honest, you are distorting. But we stopped expecting anything other then dishonest opportunism in your arguments a long time ago. :rolleyes:
 
So, even though Clinton had the Newtster's congress - he, the president is responsible for the spending? Just double checking because this little bit does float back and forth with members on this site. Sometimes the president is responsible for spending during his administration, even though the congress could be held by the opposing party. And magically the reverse is true during different administrations. Then the congress is responsible for spending, and the president is pretty much just a bystander in the whole proceedings....

Oh, don't forget that Clinton raised taxes - specifically he raised taxes a lot on the wealthy...

No, he raised taxes on the middle class. Largest one in history, actually.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top