The Cellar
Page 3 of 11 12 3 45678910 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   While you're all outraged about the bailout... (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=19857)

TGRR 03-26-2009 08:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 549829)
Why?
:)

TheMercenary 03-27-2009 10:38 AM
Pelosi to ramrod 634 billion dollar funding through House for funding for health care over 10 years.

Quote:
Pelosi defended a drive by House Democrats to put health- care legislation on a fast track under a budget proposal announced this week.

Legislative Maneuvers

A draft of the House tax-and-spending blueprint calls for using “reconciliation” procedures, a maneuver that would allow a health-care overhaul to move through the Senate with a requirement for a simple majority of 51 votes. Under normal Senate debate rules, 60 votes are needed to keep opponents from blocking legislation.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=worldwide

Transparency. Not.

Happy Monkey 03-27-2009 10:47 AM
Amazing! Requiring only 51 votes to pass? It's like we're living ten years in the past!

TheMercenary 03-27-2009 10:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 550056)
Amazing! Requiring only 51 votes to pass? It's like we're living ten years in the past!
You're right! With the even less tranparency than under Bush!

Happy Monkey 03-27-2009 10:56 AM
How do filibusters affect transparency?

TheMercenary 03-27-2009 10:57 AM
What filibuster?

Happy Monkey 03-27-2009 11:02 AM
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.

TheMercenary 03-27-2009 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 550070)
The filibuster that would have otherwise caused it to take 60 votes.

Laws are supposed to take 51 votes to pass.
Not for things that cost 600 billion dollars and radically change the way business is done in this country.

Quote:
It's only the ridiculous overuse of the filibuster that has made 60 votes a de facto requirement.
Your opinion.

Redux 03-27-2009 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 550052)
Pelosi to ramrod 634 billion dollar funding through House for funding for health care over 10 years.



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=worldwide

Transparency. Not.
There is no transparency issue.

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)

Happy Monkey 03-27-2009 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 550075)
Not for things that cost 600 billion dollars and radically change the way business is done in this country.
Cite.

TheMercenary 03-27-2009 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 550083)
Cite.
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=550052&postcount=32

Redux 03-27-2009 11:21 AM
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?

Undertoad 03-27-2009 11:22 AM
Quote:
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)
It was termed "the nuclear option" and they used it on Republican judicial nominees, but not on the tax cuts.

Redux 03-27-2009 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 550090)
It was termed "the nuclear option" and they used it on Republican judicial nominees, not on the tax cuts.
Nope...its not the same thing as the so called "nuclear option"

The Republicans in 2003 used the "reconciliation" procedure to avoid the 60 vote threshold.

Undertoad 03-27-2009 11:30 AM
This appears to be true. What's the difference?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:18 PM.
Page 3 of 11 12 3 45678910 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.