51 Vote ‘Nuclear Option’ Is ‘Arrogant’ Power Grab Against the Founders’ Intent

[EDK99]

This pretty much speaks for itself and they were just whining about the process of a few Bush appointees being appointed. You got to love Joe Biden at about 3:48 of the video. What a great compilation.
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-i...unders-intent/

Funny that yesterday Reid was telling Republicans to stop crying about the nuclear option, well I mean reconciliation which is now the politically correct way to say it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02...y6235624.shtml

[whathappened]

Yawn.

Anyone can easily find tons of contradictory pro-nuke option Republican statements from the same time period that contradict all the anti-nuke option stuff the Republicans are saying now too. Anyone can also find plenty of instances where Repubs used reconciliation to pass big bills too. Like the Bush tax cuts, for example.

So if you want to use this issue to play a tit-for-tat Republican vs. Democrat game in an attempt to score some political points, you are just going to make yourself look silly. Both parties have been on both sides of this issue, and all of them have made contradictory statements. It is minus 1 point for both sides.



What is of real interest is then HUGE increase in the use of the Filibuster from then to now. There has been a full order of magnitude increase between the number of filibusters the Democrats ran per year, vs the number the Republicans have run. While the number of times the Democrats have used reconciliation to maneuver around filibusters is way less. It's about time the Democratic Senators got some balls and use reconciliation the same way the Republicans did. It's the time-honored check-and-balance to the filibuster power, used plenty of times by Republicans. Our system of gov't is designed around checks-and-balances, and NO power (including the filibuster) is without these checks-and-balances. Reconciliation is the correct check/balance to handle this, and the full nuke option isn't needed at all.

Anyone who complains about reconciliation being used will be hypocrites unless they also condemn all the times the Republican party used it over the last decade.

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by whathappened

Yawn.

Anyone can easily find tons of contradictory pro-nuke option Republican statements from the same time period that contradict all the anti-nuke option stuff the Republicans are saying now too. Anyone can also find plenty of instances where Repubs used reconciliation to pass big bills too. Like the Bush tax cuts, for example.

So if you want to use this issue to play a tit-for-tat Republican vs. Democrat game in an attempt to score some political points, you are just going to make yourself look silly. Both parties have been on both sides of this issue, and all of them have made contradictory statements. It is minus 1 point for both sides.



What is of real interest is then HUGE increase in the use of the Filibuster from then to now. There has been a full order of magnitude increase between the number of filibusters the Democrats ran per year, vs the number the Republicans have run. While the number of times the Democrats have used reconciliation to maneuver around filibusters is way less. It's about time the Democratic Senators got some balls and use reconciliation the same way the Republicans did. It's the time-honored check-and-balance to the filibuster power, used plenty of times by Republicans. Our system of gov't is designed around checks-and-balances, and NO power (including the filibuster) is without these checks-and-balances. Reconciliation is the correct check/balance to handle this, and the full nuke option isn't needed at all.

Anyone who complains about reconciliation being used will be hypocrites unless they also condemn all the times the Republican party used it over the last decade.

Welcome back Nixon.

1. The nuclear option under the Republicans was directed at the filibuster of judicial nominees only. It was never meant to apply to general legislation.

2. Tax bills such as the Bush tax cuts are budget related items that the reconciliation process was designed for so the use of the process in that circumstance is not similar to the use of it for health care legislation.

Try to compare your apples to apples and your oranges to oranges.

[whathappened]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

Tax bills such as the Bush tax cuts are budget related items that the reconciliation process was designed for so the use of the process in that circumstance is not similar to the use of it for health care legislation.

Try to compare your apples to apples and your oranges to oranges.

I've got my apples and oranges perfectly straight. You don't.

Tell me what the "R" in COBRA stands for, and what type of bill COBRA is, and then explain again how Reconciliation isn't for health care legislation....

[whathappened]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

The nuclear option under the Republicans was directed at the filibuster of judicial nominees only. It was never meant to apply to general legislation.

Try to compare your apples to apples and your oranges to oranges.

I put in my post that I didn't think the nuke option was the way to go, that reconciliation was the right way to go for this situation. Why are you comparing apples to oranges by mixing the nuke option with reconciliation? The two things are completely different.

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by whathappened

I put in my post that I didn't think the nuke option was the way to go, that reconciliation was the right way to go for this situation. Why are you comparing apples to oranges by mixing the nuke option with reconciliation? The two things are completely different.

Your reading comprehension ain't what it used to be.

1. You compared the nuclear option as proposed by the Republicans to the current situation when the comparison is invalid.

2. You compared using reconciliation in the current matter to its use for the tax cuts. Again, the comparison is invalid.

3. If you believe reconciliation is the proper way to go, I suggest you ask Sen Byrd, the author of the Byrd rules which govern the reconciliation process.

[whathappened]

Reconciliation has been used for health care legislation like COBRA health insurance, sCHIP children's health coverage, and Medicare/Medicaid health care in 5 out of the total 22 times that Reconciliation was used. That is nearly a quarter of all Reconciliation bills!

COBRA health insurance program is itself is actually just short for "Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985".

It simply isn't credible to say that Reconciliation can't be used for health care issues, when it has historically already been used repeatedly.

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by whathappened

Reconciliation has been used for health care legislation like COBRA health insurance, sCHIP children's health coverage, and Medicare/Medicaid health care in 5 out of the total 22 times that Reconciliation was used. That is nearly a quarter of all Reconciliation bills!

COBRA health insurance program is itself is actually just short for "Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985".

It simply isn't credible to say that Reconciliation can't be used for health care issues, when it has historically already been used repeatedly.

Senator Robert Byrd (D, WV); “I oppose using the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform and climate change legislation. Such a proposal would violate the intent and spirit of the budget process and do serious injury to the Constitutional role of the Senate.”

...

“As one of the authors of the reconciliation process, I can tell you that…reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits...it was not designed ... to restructure the entire health care system.”

Now he is the man who wrote the rules. My guess is he knows them a bit better than you.

[whathappened]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

Senator Robert Byrd (D, WV); “I oppose using the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform and climate change legislation. Such a proposal would violate the intent and spirit of the budget process and do serious injury to the Constitutional role of the Senate.”

...

“As one of the authors of the reconciliation process, I can tell you that…reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits...it was not designed ... to restructure the entire health care system.”

Now he is the man who wrote the rules. My guess is he knows them a bit better than you.

Senator Byrd does not hold veto power over the Senate, House, and President of the United States. By definition, 50+ Senators, the majority of Representatives, and the President of the United States REPEATEDLY agreed that reconciliation was the appropriate tool for health care issues. The proof is in the results of what has already been passed.

I have the majority of Senators, Representatives, and the Executive Branch on my side who have ALREADY DONE what you say can't be done. I'll put the winning majority up against whoever you want to put up any day. Since my side has already won this debate, and have the health care legislation already on the books to prove it, you are dead in the water.

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by whathappened

Senator Byrd does not hold veto power over the Senate, House, and President of the United States. By definition, 50+ Senators, the majority of Representatives, and the President of the United States REPEATEDLY agreed that reconciliation was the appropriate tool for health care issues. The proof is in the results of what has already been passed.

I have the majority of Senators, Representatives, and the Executive Branch on my side who have ALREADY DONE what you say can't be done. I'll put the winning majority up against whoever you want to put up any day. Since my side has already won this debate, and have the health care legislation already on the books to prove it, you are dead in the water.

Comprehensive health reform legislation has not been passed using reconciliation but only specific, limited changes that comply with the reconciliation rules.

Every single provision in the bill needs to meet the qualifications laid out in the Byrd rules and a comprehensive bill such as being discussed does not.

The point is more than likely moot as it looks as though there are not enough votes in the House to pass the Senate bill anyway.

[EDK99]

Read my lips!!
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-americ...lus-1-strategy

[xbook]

I still think it's fun to watch people on a BMW board discuss the matter of universal health care. It's like watching people in a lifeboat next to the Titanic criticize the people that have to jump into the water.

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by xbook

I still think it's fun to watch people on a BMW board discuss the matter of universal health care. It's like watching people in a lifeboat next to the Titanic criticize the people that have to jump into the water.

So, I take that to mean that you think only those who might benefit from the program get to discuss it, not those expected to pay for it?

[whathappened]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

So, I take that to mean that you think only those who might benefit from the program get to discuss it, not those expected to pay for it?

Anyone can comment on anything they want. Nobody is stopping you.

But nobody gets an exclusion from making themselves look bad. And when people make whatever comments that make them look bad, others are free to point it out. Like xbook just did.

What do you want? Prior restraint to keep other people from saying that you sound out of touch?

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by whathappened

Anyone can comment on anything they want. Nobody is stopping you.

But nobody gets an exclusion from making themselves look bad. And when people make whatever comments that make them look bad, others are free to point it out. Like xbook just did.

What do you want? Prior restraint to keep other people from saying that you sound out of touch?

That's true, if people were excluded from making themselves look bad, then we never have the pleasure of your posts.

[xbook]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

That's true, if people were excluded from making themselves look bad, then we never have the pleasure of your posts.

Hey shppirate87, don't worry dude, to some of us your posts look far worse than how you feel about your beloved Nixon.

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by xbook

Hey shppirate87, don't worry dude, to some of us your posts look far worse than how you feel about your beloved Nixon.

Let me guess, English major?

[Mighty M]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

Let me guess, English major?

How about I venture a guess of you Mr. Shpriate87?

You dont even break six figures, yet you're deluded in to thinking that some day, some how, by the great grace of our lord and savior Jesus, that you'll make over $250,000/year, and thus be "expected to pay for it."

[Negotiator]

Originally Posted by Mighty M

How about I venture a guess of you Mr. Shpriate87?

You dont even break six figures, yet you're deluded in to thinking that some day, some how, by the great grace of our lord and savior Jesus, that you'll make over $250,000/year, and thus be "expected to pay for it."

I don't think I will ever understand how Republicans command the support of so many people in the states, given the demographics. The irony is that people vote against their interests for a party that strongly reinforces traditional economics, which includes making rational descisions.

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by Mighty M

How about I venture a guess of you Mr. Shpriate87?

You dont even break six figures, yet you're deluded in to thinking that some day, some how, by the great grace of our lord and savior Jesus, that you'll make over $250,000/year, and thus be "expected to pay for it."

Let's see, as I am 22 years old and in college, you are right I do not make six figures yet. As my current career plans are to be commissioned in the US Army I do not expect to make it any time soon. I do however expect to pay for this program were it ever to see the light of day. I do pay for Social Security, Medicare, and see no reason why this massive entitlement program will be any different.

For now, my parents will pay for this program as they make far more than your magical $250K and every dollar they pay out in taxes is one fewer they can save or even pass to me.

Now we can move on to the specious nature of your argument. Whether I will pay for this program to your satisfaction is irrelevant to the comment you are allegedly responding to.

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by Negotiator

I don't think I will ever understand how Republicans command the support of so many people in the states, given the demographics. The irony is that people vote against their interests for a party that strongly reinforces traditional economics, which includes making rational descisions.

Economic determinist are we?

Many people in this country object to confiscatory levels of taxatiin out of a sense of basic fairness regardless of how it personally affects them.

They understand that taxing the man who pays their salary does nothing to help them either.

[xbook]

Shpirate,

You are a conundrum man. So you are in here saying things like tax cuts are great, and that health care for all of the citizens is bad. Bad because someone like your parents will have to pay maybe 3% more in tax, not because it effects your directly, only people connected to you. Yet you are planning on joining the US military, a "company" that is solely funded by taxes. You are a funny man. I would figure someone who is joining in the military would want that military funded. Guess your convictions for you parents hanging onto their dough is stronger than your want for the military to have dough.