While you're all outraged about the bailout... - Page 3

TGRR · 03-26-2009, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop

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

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

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.

03-27-2009, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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

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

Cite.

http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=550052&postcount=32

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.

03-27-2009, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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?

03-27-2009, 10:47 AM	#33
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Amazing! Requiring only 51 votes to pass? It's like we're living ten years in the past! __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

03-27-2009, 10:56 AM	#35
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	How do filibusters affect transparency? __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

03-27-2009, 10:57 AM	#36
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	What filibuster? __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

03-27-2009, 11:02 AM	#37
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	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. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

03-27-2009, 11:21 AM	#42
Redux Guest Posts: n/a	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?

03-27-2009, 11:30 AM	#45
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	This appears to be true. What's the difference?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)