![]() |
Quote:
|
Pelosi to ramrod 634 billion dollar funding through House for funding for health care over 10 years.
Quote:
Transparency. Not. |
Amazing! Requiring only 51 votes to pass? It's like we're living ten years in the past!
|
Quote:
|
How do filibusters affect transparency?
|
What filibuster?
|
The filibuster that would have otherwise caused it to take 60 votes.
Laws are supposed to take 51 votes to pass. It's only the ridiculous overuse of the filibuster that has made 60 votes a de facto requirement. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Obama's 2010 budget proposal, which includes the health care reform initiative, has been on the WH website since he sent it to Congress several weeks ago. The budget proposal is being debated in various committees in both the House and Senate and the Republicans are not excluded from the debate nor from offering amendments. The Democrats are considering using a parliamentary procedure that was used by Republicans in the past to prevent the Senate from forcing a 60 vote threshold. It may not represent "change" but the hypocrisy is the Republicans bitching about a procedure they used themselves (mostly notably to get Bush's tax cuts enacted) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The budget proposal does not "ramrod 634 billion dollar funding through House for funding for health care over 10 years."
It proposes a $650b reserve fund over 10 years (half through anticipated savings in the outyears) and both the House and Senate have seen the proposal, will debate it and have opportunities to offer amendments. So where is the ramrod? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The Republicans in 2003 used the "reconciliation" procedure to avoid the 60 vote threshold. |
This appears to be true. What's the difference?
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:18 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.