Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But can't Obama simply veto what comes out of this unless there are 60 votes to override him? (I don't know and am just respectfully asking this question) Thanks.
2/3rds vote to override veto. In the Senate that works out to 67 votes.
Have you seen the GOP proposals for health care? It is almost identical to Obamacare except for the mandatory insurance. So, if Americans are mad about Obamacare then they will not be real happy with the GOP alternative.
The again, the GOP could be just blowing wind.
From what i understand, Obama care mimics their counterproposal to Hillarycare back in the 90's too. Seriously...these guys are frickin' confused.
From what i understand, Obama care mimics their counterproposal to Hillarycare back in the 90's too. Seriously...these guys are frickin' confused.
It's pretty much exactly what the republicans proposed as an alternative to Hilary care (which either let you keep your private insurance, or move to a government employee plan or medicare). The crazy part--the mandate was part of the republican plan then as well. It was proposed by the Heritage Foundation, and embraced as the free market option to the Clinton's "socialized medicine."
So...back then it was a free market option, and now it's the end of the free world and a slide into communism. Do ya think there might be some partisan politics going on there, since the Dem's passed a pretty much 100% republican plan?
If the Dem's hadn't had 60 votes to begin with to originally pass the bill through the Senate, they wouldn't have been able to use reconciliation to conform the Senate and House bills. The republicans filibustered the bill the first time around, and the Senate pulled the super majority to beat it. Let me get this straight--you think it's unfair that a bill passed the Senate by 60-40, and that the Dem's used some kind of unfair rule to pass it by that margin? The only thing the Dem's did was to work out the compromise--not the entire bill--with a simple majority vote. As for the confusion between the nuclear option and reconciliation--I knew they had the 60 votes the first time, but in the heat of the moment I called it the wrong thing. You were implying that they never had the votes to begin with. It was still a legitimate use of the Senate rules, and one that's been used many times in the past by the R's.
I never implied any such thing, do not attribute what you *think* I meant.
I never said it wasn't a legitimate use of senate rules to get legislation passed, although highly questionable. I think it was a highly unpopular use of senate rules to force through legislation, but what goes around comes around. The pendulum is swinging back to the right, so I hope the left remembers how they used reconciliation to pass HCR. If reconciliation can be used for things like HCR, which is a broadly liberal use of its historical purpose, then remember that again in the future when the R's use it too.
Again, let's revisit the point I was trying to make in this thread.... the republicans were utterly powerless to do much against whatever the democrats wanted. Period. End of Story. There really is nothing else and all the spinning "Al Franken!" "Teddy Kennedy!" "Filibuster!" "Reconciliation!" is just blah blah blah blah.... doesn't change a thing.
It's pretty much exactly what the republicans proposed as an alternative to Hilary care (which either let you keep your private insurance, or move to a government employee plan or medicare). The crazy part--the mandate was part of the republican plan then as well. It was proposed by the Heritage Foundation, and embraced as the free market option to the Clinton's "socialized medicine."
So...back then it was a free market option, and now it's the end of the free world and a slide into communism. Do ya think there might be some partisan politics going on there, since the Dem's passed a pretty much 100% republican plan?
So a wildly unpopular crappy plan back then is now America's Saving Grace? If it was a bad idea back then, it's still a bad idea now. Not to mention, it will most likely be found to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.
I never implied any such thing, do not attribute what you *think* I meant.
I never said it wasn't a legitimate use of senate rules to get legislation passed, although highly questionable. I think it was a highly unpopular use of senate rules to force through legislation, but what goes around comes around. The pendulum is swinging back to the right, so I hope the left remembers how they used reconciliation to pass HCR. If reconciliation can be used for things like HCR, which is a broadly liberal use of its historical purpose, then remember that again in the future when the R's use it too.
Again, let's revisit the point I was trying to make in this thread.... the republicans were utterly powerless to do much against whatever the democrats wanted. Period. End of Story. There really is nothing else and all the spinning "Al Franken!" "Teddy Kennedy!" "Filibuster!" "Reconciliation!" is just blah blah blah blah.... doesn't change a thing.
The ONLY reason the GOP wasn't able to stop HCR is because it passed the Senate during the four month period where the Dems had a filibuster proof majority. Other than that the GOP could block anything and everything, and based off the filibuster records they set, well they did exactly that.
Why stop at Obamacare? Since Repubs believe so much in small government, why not repeal or defund all social programs and entitlements? Or at least vote to do so, even if it doesn't pass. And you'd be doing it to make a point that you're serious. And i mean ALL social programs and entitlements...in one fell swoop. That's what the American people voted for this past November....right?
I never implied any such thing, do not attribute what you *think* I meant.
I never said it wasn't a legitimate use of senate rules to get legislation passed, although highly questionable. I think it was a highly unpopular use of senate rules to force through legislation, but what goes around comes around. The pendulum is swinging back to the right, so I hope the left remembers how they used reconciliation to pass HCR. If reconciliation can be used for things like HCR, which is a broadly liberal use of its historical purpose, then remember that again in the future when the R's use it too.
Again, let's revisit the point I was trying to make in this thread.... the republicans were utterly powerless to do much against whatever the democrats wanted. Period. End of Story. There really is nothing else and all the spinning "Al Franken!" "Teddy Kennedy!" "Filibuster!" "Reconciliation!" is just blah blah blah blah.... doesn't change a thing.
Of course they were powerless, because they didn't have a majority in the House, or over 40 votes in the Senate. Is that somehow WRONG?
Read your own posts. You said they had some kind of super majority for a year, and that they rammed the HCR bill through with some type of trick of the rules, without a majority, or even the 60 vote majority they needed to pass it. None of that is true. You also said the R's were unable to filibuster? HCR originally passed with a super majority to over ride the R filibuster, and they conformed it with the House bill with a majority vote through reconciliation.
The R's have used reconciliation repeatedly in the past--that's nothing new. If they control both the House and Senate sometime in the future, and they have 60 votes in the Senate to over ride a Dem filibuster to pass a bill the first time around, I'm sure they'll use it again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
