fish82 wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

jmog wrote: Trust me, if anything in the health care bill really was bipartisan and not from the far left, you would have many moderate republican senators willing to "jump ship" and vote for it.

The problem here is they HAVE to be the "party of no" right now because quite frankly the D's have allowed zero of their ideas into this bill.

Same with the Crap and Tax that passed in the house. That will NEVER pass in the senate for the same reason.

Listen, we've had this "60 vote" thing in the senate for 200+ years, its something that USED to create cooperation between the majority party and the minority, aka the founding fathers' original plan. Now the D's would rather not negotiate at all and attempt to make the Rs as only saying "no" and having no ideas of their own when this is blatantly false.

As if the previous administration never passed anything with Reconciliation...

And to your point about them not having any ideas, the CBO scored both plans and the D plan IIRC cost less and covered more people

The previous administration passed tax cuts, which were:

1. A budget-related item, which is what the reconciliation process is meant for.

2. Widely supported by the public, unlike the healthcare bill.

derek bomar wrote:

fish82 wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

jmog wrote: Trust me, if anything in the health care bill really was bipartisan and not from the far left, you would have many moderate republican senators willing to "jump ship" and vote for it.

The problem here is they HAVE to be the "party of no" right now because quite frankly the D's have allowed zero of their ideas into this bill.

Same with the Crap and Tax that passed in the house. That will NEVER pass in the senate for the same reason.

Listen, we've had this "60 vote" thing in the senate for 200+ years, its something that USED to create cooperation between the majority party and the minority, aka the founding fathers' original plan. Now the D's would rather not negotiate at all and attempt to make the Rs as only saying "no" and having no ideas of their own when this is blatantly false.

As if the previous administration never passed anything with Reconciliation...

And to your point about them not having any ideas, the CBO scored both plans and the D plan IIRC cost less and covered more people

The previous administration passed tax cuts, which were:

1. A budget-related item, which is what the reconciliation process is meant for.

2. Widely supported by the public, unlike the healthcare bill.

1) you can tie health care to the budget
2) the tax cuts were stupid and weren't paid for even if they were supported by the public...if you're defending passing something only if its supported by the public, you can't also fall back on the "the public is stupid" argument...but maybe the test to pass something really should be if the public is against it, since by and large we really are a bunch of idiots, it'd seem that the best solution would be to pass things the public doesn't want...

2quik4u wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I'm on the fence to see if I want this, let me explain why.
More broadly speaking, the fact that the Senate is basically locked into 60 votes pretty much kills anything and everything big. Meaning, nothing get done. Meaning the large issues, entitlements, spending cuts, etc. will need to really have a supermajority to really change the direction of the country.

Perhaps, a move to use reconciliation to pass something is a step in the right direction. The Senate is a body that is 51% passage on items, save treaties. The 60 vote threshold is just a means to slow down or simply stop progress. Now whether your support or opposition of the Healthcare bill defines your meaning of progress, granted. But, the fact that anything of substance requires 60 votes is, to me is a little troubling.

I guess I approach it from more a democratic theory aspect. In that democracy, you would figure that 51% would allow passage of items, yet it is 60% in the Senate. How democratic is that really? I can see this passage as perhaps opening the doors for more 51 vote passages.

Then again, I'm not a huge fan of the bill either.

The founders did it like that on purpose they didn't want fast changes.

even if the R's get the Senate, what is stopping the Senate D's from blocking everything?

Writerbuckeye wrote: Some of you folks act like filibuster is a bad thing.

It's not.

The Founding Fathers didn't want an efficient government -- one that could pass things quickly. That idea scared the hell out of them. They wanted a SAFER government.

That's why we have so many checks and balances in the system, and so many ways to block a hurried process.

Slow and steady is ALMOST ALWAYS better when it comes to government acts that will spend money (which is basically everything).

If there is something the American people truly want passed, it gets passed.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: Some of you folks act like filibuster is a bad thing.

It's not.

The Founding Fathers didn't want an efficient government -- one that could pass things quickly. That idea scared the hell out of them. They wanted a SAFER government.

That's why we have so many checks and balances in the system, and so many ways to block a hurried process.

Slow and steady is ALMOST ALWAYS better when it comes to government acts that will spend money (which is basically everything).

If there is something the American people truly want passed, it gets passed.

I'll remember you said this next time the Repubs control congress and the Dems become the 'obstructionists" and you guys are all pissed about it.

ccrunner609 wrote: they can pass this bill with 51 votes and since all the entitlements dont kick in for 3-4 years the new congress will go back and kill it.


Go ahead and pass it, the legislation will kill itself.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: Some of you folks act like filibuster is a bad thing.

It's not.

The Founding Fathers didn't want an efficient government -- one that could pass things quickly. That idea scared the hell out of them. They wanted a SAFER government.

That's why we have so many checks and balances in the system, and so many ways to block a hurried process.

Slow and steady is ALMOST ALWAYS better when it comes to government acts that will spend money (which is basically everything).

If there is something the American people truly want passed, it gets passed.

I'll remember you said this next time the Repubs control congress and the Dems become the 'obstructionists" and you guys are all pissed about it.

IggyPride00 wrote: hell hath no fury like an American public that faces the threat of having their entitlements tampered with.

fish82 wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

fish82 wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

jmog wrote:

As long as Obama knows that this move will cost him both houses of congress...

Yea....I don't think so

6 major Republican ideas ALREADY in Health Care Bill
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/five_compronises_in_health_car.html

dwccrew wrote: It's funny that with nothing getting done in Washington DC, the country is doing better than before (if that can actually be said, but the economy has grown). All the stalemating in Congress and nothing getting passed is the best thing that could happen right now.

derek bomar wrote:

dwccrew wrote: It's funny that with nothing getting done in Washington DC, the country is doing better than before (if that can actually be said, but the economy has grown). All the stalemating in Congress and nothing getting passed is the best thing that could happen right now.

I could not disagree more with this statement.

dwccrew wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

dwccrew wrote: It's funny that with nothing getting done in Washington DC, the country is doing better than before (if that can actually be said, but the economy has grown). All the stalemating in Congress and nothing getting passed is the best thing that could happen right now.

I could not disagree more with this statement.

Ok, care to elaborate why? The spending that went on before hasn't helped much, if any, and now that there is gridlock in Congress spending bills aren't getting passed through left and right.

That is a good thing.

QuakerOats wrote: Ok -- how about tyranny then?

QuakerOats wrote: Ok -- how about tyranny then?

QuakerOats wrote: arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.

oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.

This is exactly what is ocurring; incredible that you don't see it.