So I hope in the future when (god forbid) we get a republican in the white house and a republican majority in the congress that you won't have any objection to them using the same reconciliation procedure to pass their shitty legislation with a majority vote.
Barry
03-25-2010, 06:16 PM
So I hope in the future when (god forbid) we get a republican in the white house and a republican majority in the congress that you won't have any objection to them using the same reconciliation procedure to pass their shitty legislation with a majority vote.
They have and will. And as I remember, they don't have half the consternation about using that technique that the Dems do, who have a sense of fair play.
This whole "breakthrough" was just Obama and the Dem's getting up the courage to use reconciliation.
Especially that it has and will be abused, I think the filibuster should be dispensed with altogether and return to "majority rules" rather than minority rules.
someguy
03-25-2010, 06:24 PM
They have and will. And as I remember, they don't have half the consternation about using that technique that the Dems do, who have a sense of fair play.
This whole "breakthrough" was just Obama and the Dem's getting up the courage to use reconciliation.
Especially that it has and will be abused, I think the filibuster should be dispensed with altogether and return to "majority rules" rather than minority rules.
Personally, I don't think two wrongs make a right. Just because the republicans abuse the system, does not (in my eyes) give democrats the right to stoop to that level. If the system is able to be abused, we should think about reforming the system, either back to its original state, or to something new all together.
podfish
03-26-2010, 09:09 PM
Personally, I don't think two wrongs make a right. Just because the republicans abuse the system, does not (in my eyes) give democrats the right to stoop to that level. If the system is able to be abused, we should think about reforming the system, either back to its original state, or to something new all together.
Abuse is in the eye of the beholder - the cries of outrage are primarily theater. The system's features are there for a reason. Just because the uses weren't fully anticipated (and who's to say they weren't) doesn't make them abusive. Note that 'reconciliation' and 'deemed passed' both have severe restrictions and could only be used in very specific ways. For example, you heard no talk of reconciliation being used for a public option. Despite the disdain people express for lawyers and the frequent claims that the laws can be ignored at will or twisted to any purpose, there actually -are- real limitations that will almost certainly be upheld by the courts.
someguy
03-26-2010, 10:05 PM
Abuse is in the eye of the beholder - the cries of outrage are primarily theater. The system's features are there for a reason. Just because the uses weren't fully anticipated (and who's to say they weren't) doesn't make them abusive. Note that 'reconciliation' and 'deemed passed' both have severe restrictions and could only be used in very specific ways. For example, you heard no talk of reconciliation being used for a public option. Despite the disdain people express for lawyers and the frequent claims that the laws can be ignored at will or twisted to any purpose, there actually -are- real limitations that will almost certainly be upheld by the courts.
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't reconciliation for passing budget issues? Could anyone honestly say this health care bill is a budget issue? Heres a hypothetical that bugs me: Sarah Palin is president, and she has 50 republicans willing to pass an anti-abortion bill through reconciliation claiming it will reduce the deficit. Are you gonna sit there and say thats not abuse of the system?
podfish
03-27-2010, 07:34 AM
what if she declares martial law and becomes emperor? Hypotheticals need a little better grounding than that...
Heres a hypothetical that bugs me: Sarah Palin is president, and she has 50 republicans willing to pass an anti-abortion bill through reconciliation claiming it will reduce the deficit. Are you gonna sit there and say thats not abuse of the system?
someguy
03-27-2010, 08:39 AM
what if she declares martial law and becomes emperor? Hypotheticals need a little better grounding than that...
Oh come on. So do you agree that this health care bill wasn't a budget bill? If you do, then the hypothetical I proposed seems likely. Even if its not abortion in the future, it doesn't matter. I was just throwing out an issue that would be distasteful for democrats. Just because your a fan of health care being passed, doesn't mean your gonna like the next thing some other president decides to pass through reconciliation. Especially when the bill has little to do with the budget. SO come on, don;t be cherry picking your response. I asked you several questions, so answer them and lets have a real discussion about this.
podfish
03-31-2010, 01:39 PM
Oh come on. So do you agree that this health care bill wasn't a budget bill? If you do, then the hypothetical I proposed seems likely. Even if its not abortion in the future, it doesn't matter. I was just throwing out an issue that would be distasteful for democrats. Just because your a fan of health care being passed, doesn't mean your gonna like the next thing some other president decides to pass through reconciliation. Especially when the bill has little to do with the budget. SO come on, don;t be cherry picking your response. I asked you several questions, so answer them and lets have a real discussion about this.
Since you ask directly:
" wasn't a budget bill " is irrelevant. Reconciliation wasn't used to pass the health care bill; it was already passed by the Senate. Reconciliation was used to address some (highly) related topics but had to be narrowed to ones which were primarily budget oriented. No public option, no abortion, etc.
I don't see "several questions" - just that one.
someguy
03-31-2010, 02:03 PM
Since you ask directly:
" wasn't a budget bill " is irrelevant. Reconciliation wasn't used to pass the health care bill; it was already passed by the Senate. Reconciliation was used to address some (highly) related topics but had to be narrowed to ones which were primarily budget oriented. No public option, no abortion, etc.
I don't see "several questions" - just that one.
No. The senate passed their version of the health care bill around Christmas time. After that the bill had to be passed through the house of representatives and then go back to the senate for a final vote. Obama, fearing a republican filibuster in the senate, decided to use the reconciliation process in the house so that when the bill passed and went on for a final vote in the senate he would only need 51 votes instead of the 60 that they didn't have (remember Scott Brown).
"The path to enactment, as it is envisioned now, requires two steps. First, the House would pass the exact bill that cleared the Senate on Christmas Eve — even though it is loaded with provisions that many in the House say they would not accept in a final product. Next, the two chambers would fine-tune that bill with a set of compromises that they would pass under a filibuster-proof procedure known as budget reconciliation, which requires only 51 votes to clear the Senate."
Read more: Health Care Reform: Will Obama, Dems Use Reconciliation? - TIME (https://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1969568,00.html#ixzz0jn41mR84)
Zeno Swijtink
03-31-2010, 02:10 PM
So I hope in the future when (god forbid) we get a republican in the white house and a republican majority in the congress that you won't have any objection to them using the same reconciliation procedure to pass their shitty legislation with a majority vote.
The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were in fact passed using the same reconciliation procedure.
someguy
03-31-2010, 02:18 PM
The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were in fact passed using the same reconciliation procedure.
Whats your point? Because Bush did something bad, its okay for Obama to do it too? I don't get it.
Zeno Swijtink
03-31-2010, 02:29 PM
Whats your point? Because Bush did something bad, its okay for Obama to do it too? I don't get it.
My point is that you - in the post opening this thread - suggested falsely that the Republicans may learn this use of the reconciliation process from the Democrats.
someguy
03-31-2010, 02:43 PM
My point is that you - in the post opening this thread - suggested falsely that the Republicans may learn this use of the reconciliation process from the Democrats.
No. What I suggested was that if and when the republicans do this in the future, democrats have no right to be angry about it. You misconstrued what I said.
Zeno Swijtink
03-31-2010, 03:06 PM
No. What I suggested was that if and when the republicans do this in the future, democrats have no right to be angry about it. You misconstrued what I said.
If that was your point - a remark about the "right to be angry" - you should have explained why the Republicans don't have a right to be angry.
someguy
03-31-2010, 03:09 PM
If that was your point - a remark about the "right to be angry" - you should have explained why the Republicans don't have a right to be angry.
Am I speaking to a republican crowd? No. Maybe if I was I would be explaining that to them. However, the audience here happens to be part of a progressive bulletin board. :idea:
Plus you seem to be disregarding that Ive said on this thread, that two wrongs don;t make a right. Meaning that neither side was right to use it. Obviously the republicans have no right to be angry that the democrats used it. But Im not talking to republicans, am I?
Zeno Swijtink
03-31-2010, 03:39 PM
Am I speaking to a republican crowd? No. Maybe if I was I would be explaining that to them. However, the audience here happens to be part of a progressive bulletin board. :idea:
Plus you seem to be disregarding that Ive said on this thread, that two wrongs don;t make a right. Meaning that neither side was right to use it. Obviously the republicans have no right to be angry that the democrats used it. But Im not talking to republicans, am I?
Fair enough.
But you are not necessarily talking to Democrats either. My sense is that many or most of the people speaking up at this "progressive" bulletin board don't identify with either party.
someguy
03-31-2010, 04:11 PM
Fair enough.
But you are not necessarily talking to Democrats either. My sense is that many or most of the people speaking up at this "progressive" bulletin board don't identify with either party.
Originally, I was addressing Barry on his thread 'Political Cartoons'. Barry ended up making the discussion that ensued into its own thread. Also, I was speaking to anyone who supported the reconciliation process used in this health care passage. Again, mostly democrats in that crowd.
It is true though that this board is not entirely made up of progressives or democrats and I thank god everyday for it. Just kidding. But I really do appreciate the diversity of ideas.
When I first entered this community, I considered myself a progressive. But what really attracted me here was the idea of a community of individuals who are all striving to be more conscious and aware of themselves and reality. Obviously I'm no longer a progressive, but I still place a high value on awareness and progress. That is why I like Waccobb, because it has aided me in heightening my awareness of myself and the world around me. Believe it or not, I actually like quite a few of your articles Zeno. Heres one that has stuck with me for a while that I like quite a lot. In fact, it seems somewhat relevant to this conversation we are having right now. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccoreader/60586-conservatives-live-different-moral-universe-heres-why-matters.html So thanks for that good read.
podfish
03-31-2010, 04:27 PM
I probably should go look up the numbers of the bills in question so I could be more precise, but I'll plead laziness here rather than try to bulletproof my point (the main one was HR 3200 and I think the reconciliation bill was 3590) . However: re-read your excerpt - it doesn't support your claim. The senate passed a bill. To prevent having to re-vote on a compromise bill, INSTEAD the house passed the identical bill. Then they sent a companion bill back to the senate. It too needed to be passed by both houses. The senate has options as to how to pass a bill. Some are subject to various parliamentary delays, including filibuster. However, if the contents of the bill don't prevent its use, you can also use the budget reconciliation process. So they did. Which isn't particularly rare, and certainly isn't evil, and doesn't somehow 'get around the intentions of the founders' or anything like that. It's a process that has limitations so that it can't be egregiously abused. One thing to note is that if this second phase had failed, we'd still have had the first bill as law.
I must say, I fail to see the merit to the whole discussion of "two wrongs don't make a right" and "boy, if -they- did it you'd hate it" and "do they have a right to be angry" etc. Maybe those things are true (they were true in kindergarden, where I learned everything important [tm]), but they don't seem relevant to a pretty technical and tedious political process. What we're seeing is the theater wrapped around a hard-fought contest, where there are so many goals and people fighting for various purposes it's going to take decades to sort it out. There are plenty of those mixed up in it who I think acted very badly and I think unethically or with disregard for values I consider important. So?? Others disagree or they'll be soon voted out of office.
No. The senate passed their version of the health care bill around Christmas time. After that the bill had to be passed through the house of representatives and then go back to the senate for a final vote. Obama, fearing a republican filibuster in the senate, decided to use the reconciliation process in the house so that when the bill passed and went on for a final vote in the senate he would only need 51 votes instead of the 60 that they didn't have (remember Scott Brown).
"The path to enactment, as it is envisioned now, requires two steps. First, the House would pass the exact bill that cleared the Senate on Christmas Eve — even though it is loaded with provisions that many in the House say they would not accept in a final product. Next, the two chambers would fine-tune that bill with a set of compromises that they would pass under a filibuster-proof procedure known as budget reconciliation, which requires only 51 votes to clear the Senate."
Read more: Health Care Reform: Will Obama, Dems Use Reconciliation? - TIME (https://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1969568,00.html#ixzz0jn41mR84)
jeremysgold
04-02-2010, 07:48 PM
I think all bills should be passed by majority vote, regardless of who is in power. No parliamentary tricks. Just simple democracy.
I probably should go look up the numbers of the bills in question so I could be more precise, but I'll plead laziness here rather than try to bulletproof my point (the main one was HR 3200 and I think the reconciliation bill was 3590) . However: re-read your excerpt - it doesn't support your claim. The senate passed a bill. To prevent having to re-vote on a compromise bill, INSTEAD the house passed the identical bill. Then they sent a companion bill back to the senate. It too needed to be passed by both houses. The senate has options as to how to pass a bill. Some are subject to various parliamentary delays, including filibuster. However, if the contents of the bill don't prevent its use, you can also use the budget reconciliation process. So they did. Which isn't particularly rare, and certainly isn't evil, and doesn't somehow 'get around the intentions of the founders' or anything like that. It's a process that has limitations so that it can't be egregiously abused. One thing to note is that if this second phase had failed, we'd still have had the first bill as law.
I must say, I fail to see the merit to the whole discussion of "two wrongs don't make a right" and "boy, if -they- did it you'd hate it" and "do they have a right to be angry" etc. Maybe those things are true (they were true in kindergarden, where I learned everything important [tm]), but they don't seem relevant to a pretty technical and tedious political process. What we're seeing is the theater wrapped around a hard-fought contest, where there are so many goals and people fighting for various purposes it's going to take decades to sort it out. There are plenty of those mixed up in it who I think acted very badly and I think unethically or with disregard for values I consider important. So?? Others disagree or they'll be soon voted out of office.