Shout Box

Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 2 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#50807 - 03/16/10 04:46 PM If Bush would have said this....
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
"Now, so let me talk about the third thing, which is my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for families, for businesses, and for the federal government. So Americans buying comparable coverage to what they have today -- I already said this -- would see premiums fall by 14 to 20 percent -- that's not my numbers, that's what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says -- for Americans who get their insurance through the workplace. How many people are getting insurance through their jobs right now? Raise your hands. All right. Well, a lot of those folks, your employer it's estimated would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent [sic], which means they could give you a raise."

This guy is a trip. How can a premium be reduced 3000%? If you reduce the premium 100% there is no more premium to reduce. So I guess Obama means the insurance companies are now going to pay me to buy insurance.

Top
#50808 - 03/16/10 04:51 PM Re: If Bush would have said this.... [Re: alicex4]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5977
Loc: 212 land

Top
#50810 - 03/16/10 11:29 PM Re: If Bush would have said this.... [Re: oenophore]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Funny strip.

Are you at all concerned that Ms. Pelosi's vaunted promises of transparent, open govt and dialogue in regards to the healthcare legislation have been exchanged for unconstitutional sleight of hand tactics to pass this "developing" bill despite the fact the majority of Americans oppose the bill in it's present, albeit amorphous state? I find it disturbing that 'deem and pass', which was formerly used to raise the deficit level, is now being considered to shepherd a very 'bastardized' bill through to law without any actual record of the vote?

Top
#50815 - 03/17/10 09:52 AM Re: If Bush would have said this.... [Re: alicex4]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5977
Loc: 212 land
My purpose in posting the above is to show (as you probably know) that Obama is much criticized from the left. It has been said that the reason that most Americans oppose the current bill is that it isn't a single payer plan or doesn't have a public option. Although there has been some legislative trickery here, I don't see any constitutional violation. Recall the quip attributed to Mark Twain and Bismarck: most people sleep better not knowing how laws and sausages are made.
_________________________

Top
#50828 - 03/18/10 04:59 AM Re: If Bush would have said this.... [Re: alicex4]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
Originally Posted By: alicex4
Are you at all concerned that Ms. Pelosi's vaunted promises of transparent, open govt and dialogue in regards to the healthcare legislation have been exchanged for unconstitutional sleight of hand tactics to pass this "developing" bill despite the fact the majority of Americans oppose the bill in it's present, albeit amorphous state? I find it disturbing that 'deem and pass', which was formerly used to raise the deficit level, is now being considered to shepherd a very 'bastardized' bill through to law without any actual record of the vote?


It's entirely constitutional, and something that was argued for by the Rethuglicans in the last congress and upheld in court. Why the "concern" and feigned outrage on your part now, and absolute, hypocritical silence when the American Taliban Republican party used the tactic 35 times between 2005 and 2006, when they controlled congress, and hundreds of times prior to that?

From Thinkprogress.org:
Quote:
...this morning on Good Morning America, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) explained the rule in some very clear terms:

Quote:
HOYER: We are going to have a clean up or down vote on the Senate bill, that will be on the rule. This is a procedure, by the way, that was used almost 100 times under Newt Gingrich and over 100 times by Speaker Hastert, which my friend Mr. Cantor supported most of the time, if not all of the time. So this is not an unusual procedure. We're going to vote on a rule. It's simply like a conference report. Conference report comes back. You vote on it, with amendments.

Unfortunately, the Republicans are a little bit like the boy who killed his two parents and then wants sympathy because he's an orphan. They've tried to stop the passage of this bill. Slowed it up. Wouldn't agree to go to conference, so what we're going to do is report out what essentially is a conference report with amendments. So we'll vote on the Senate bill in the rule and we will amend the Senate bill in the process...


Cantor sheepishly smiled at Hoyer and ultimately agreed. "Yes, Steny is right. The rules of the House allow for this type of deeming provision, it's called a self-executing provision which means that once the bill, the rule for the next bill passes, the Senate bill is automatically is deemed as having passed," he said. As Norman Ornstein points out, "that strategy, then decried by the House Democrats who are now using it, and now being called unconstitutional by WSJ editorialists, was defended by House Republicans in court (and upheld). Dreier used it for a $40 billion deficit reduction package so that his fellow GOPers could avoid an embarrassing vote on immigration."
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#50838 - 03/18/10 07:14 PM Re: If Bush would have said this.... [Re: MarcC]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Two wrongs don't make a right. The Constitution clearly states how a bill becomes law.

Top
#50840 - 03/18/10 07:34 PM Re: If Bush would have said this.... [Re: alicex4]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
Originally Posted By: alicex4
Two wrongs don't make a right.


Apparently it does if the SCOTUS agrees to it. (Assuming the "upheld in court" refers to SC).

Quote:
The Constitution clearly states how a bill becomes law.


And defines a role for the courts to be involved in what is/isn't law.

Top
#50849 - 03/19/10 03:02 AM Re: If Bush would have said this.... [Re: Mike Rawdon]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
So should we as citizens try to express our political preferences on the system, or is it mute/moot to expect to exert any political influence in your own orbit?
I lived through Watergate (watched the Sirica trials at lunchtime), Clinton tries to define 'is' and 'alone', and now we come to this. Passing a bill that the House won't vote on because there might be a record of the vote! God forbid there be an actual vote, with debate, in public. Like the Chinese say, "May you live in interesting times."


Edited by alicex4 (03/19/10 03:03 AM)

Top
#50865 - 03/19/10 04:10 PM Re: If Bush would have said this.... [Re: alicex4]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
You liberals go ahead and keep pointing to the "Its ok to use the not so popular tactics since the other guy did" argument. WEAK

Anyone in this current administration care to rise above the shit storm created by the previous administration?

Some "Hope and change" eh?

Top
#50893 - 03/20/10 05:11 PM Re: If Bush would have said this.... [Re: Smike]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
Originally Posted By: Smike
You liberals go ahead and keep pointing to the "Its ok to use the not so popular tactics since the other guy did" argument. WEAK

No, the issue is that you Republicans supported the tactic with silence when the Bush/Congress clusterfuck used it hundreds of times but only now squawk with hypocritical indignation.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored