GOP Senator Gregg: Senate Finance Committee may just kill health care

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Well, I think the real question is — if there is a bipartisan bill that comes out of the Senate, and there may well be, because the Baucus-Grassley group is working hard, you’ve got the Wyden-Bennett bill as you mentioned, which is bipartisan — how do you preserve the bipartisan elements of that bill when you go to conference with the House and you’ve got people like Speaker Pelosi who are absolutely committed to having the government take over the system? And that I think is the great, is the big hurdle here.

In other words, why would people sign onto a bill in the Senate if they know that the Speaker of the House and the President’s people are going to torpedo that bill and move towards the government plan when it gets into conference?

So unless the President comes out and says he’s for the bipartisan bill as it leaves the Senate, and he’s going to stand by that bill as it goes to conference, I don’t think you’re going to get a bill here.

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002064/

[Peikko 1,575]

This system of government is totally screwed up. It really favours doing nothing. I am not always dismissive of the 'doing nothing' approach but much prefer it when the 'doing nothing' doesn't cost an arm and a leg in false advertising.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Well, I think the real question is — if there is a bipartisan bill that comes out of the Senate, and there may well be, because the Baucus-Grassley group is working hard, you’ve got the Wyden-Bennett bill as you mentioned, which is bipartisan — how do you preserve the bipartisan elements of that bill when you go to conference with the House and you’ve got people like Speaker Pelosi who are absolutely committed to having the government take over the system? And that I think is the great, is the big hurdle here.

In other words, why would people sign onto a bill in the Senate if they know that the Speaker of the House and the President’s people are going to torpedo that bill and move towards the government plan when it gets into conference?

So unless the President comes out and says he’s for the bipartisan bill as it leaves the Senate, and he’s going to stand by that bill as it goes to conference, I don’t think you’re going to get a bill here.

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002064/

Sounds reasonable. Everybody should realize the "magic" all happens in conference. I bet Obama is really wishing Judd Gregg had taken that job he offerred him.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If the Senate Finance Commitee doesn't produce a bill, then it never gets to conference. Game, set, match. The GOP wins again.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If the Senate Finance Commitee doesn't produce a bill, then it never gets to conference. Game, set, match. The GOP wins again.

Damn...the Obama Administration is outsmarted by the GOP's winning strategerie once again.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If the Senate Finance Commitee doesn't produce a bill, then it never gets to conference. Game, set, match. The GOP wins again.

Reid can always bring the House bill to the floor of the Senate, and offer that bill for consideration. The Senate does not "have to" consider their own bill. If Reid moves immeadiately to cloture, and fills the tree, then the bill can be sent back to the House as approved, or amended. Besides, being a revenue bill, the Senate can only offer their version as a substitute, and that would go to conference. However, if Reid can get the House bill passed in the Senate without amendment, then the House bill gets enrolled, and offered to Obama for his signature, without the need for conference.

Nope, the real action is still happening in the House.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[Pooky 3,847]

Well, I think the real question is — if there is a bipartisan bill that comes out of the Senate, and there may well be, because the Baucus-Grassley group is working hard, you’ve got the Wyden-Bennett bill as you mentioned, which is bipartisan — how do you preserve the bipartisan elements of that bill when you go to conference with the House and you’ve got people like Speaker Pelosi who are absolutely committed to having the government take over the system? And that I think is the great, is the big hurdle here.

In other words, why would people sign onto a bill in the Senate if they know that the Speaker of the House and the President’s people are going to torpedo that bill and move towards the government plan when it gets into conference?

So unless the President comes out and says he’s for the bipartisan bill as it leaves the Senate, and he’s going to stand by that bill as it goes to conference, I don’t think you’re going to get a bill here.

If the Senate Finance Commitee doesn't produce a bill, then it never gets to conference. Game, set, match. The GOP wins again.

Damn...the Obama Administration is outsmarted by the GOP's winning strategerie once again.

But the entire focus of Senator Gregg's quote is that the bipartisan element of any bill that comes out of the Senate will be meaningless once Speaker Pelosi gets her claws into it to twist it her way. So why even try to produce a bill with common ground between the Democrats and Republicans, when it's all going to get stripped away before it ever reaches a vote?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well, I think the real question is — if there is a bipartisan bill that comes out of the Senate, and there may well be, because the Baucus-Grassley group is working hard, you've got the Wyden-Bennett bill as you mentioned, which is bipartisan — how do you preserve the bipartisan elements of that bill when you go to conference with the House and you've got people like Speaker Pelosi who are absolutely committed to having the government take over the system? And that I think is the great, is the big hurdle here.

In other words, why would people sign onto a bill in the Senate if they know that the Speaker of the House and the President's people are going to torpedo that bill and move towards the government plan when it gets into conference?

So unless the President comes out and says he's for the bipartisan bill as it leaves the Senate, and he's going to stand by that bill as it goes to conference, I don't think you're going to get a bill here.

If the Senate Finance Commitee doesn't produce a bill, then it never gets to conference. Game, set, match. The GOP wins again.

Damn...the Obama Administration is outsmarted by the GOP's winning strategerie once again.

But the entire focus of Senator Gregg's quote is that the bipartisan element of any bill that comes out of the Senate will be meaningless once Speaker Pelosi gets her claws into it to twist it her way. So why even try to produce a bill with common ground between the Democrats and Republicans, when it's all going to get stripped away before it ever reaches a vote?

Good question. The GOP should have thrown the towel in after the election. What were they thinking?

[Pooky 3,847]

Well, I think the real question is — if there is a bipartisan bill that comes out of the Senate, and there may well be, because the Baucus-Grassley group is working hard, you've got the Wyden-Bennett bill as you mentioned, which is bipartisan — how do you preserve the bipartisan elements of that bill when you go to conference with the House and you've got people like Speaker Pelosi who are absolutely committed to having the government take over the system? And that I think is the great, is the big hurdle here.

In other words, why would people sign onto a bill in the Senate if they know that the Speaker of the House and the President's people are going to torpedo that bill and move towards the government plan when it gets into conference?

So unless the President comes out and says he's for the bipartisan bill as it leaves the Senate, and he's going to stand by that bill as it goes to conference, I don't think you're going to get a bill here.

If the Senate Finance Commitee doesn't produce a bill, then it never gets to conference. Game, set, match. The GOP wins again.

Damn...the Obama Administration is outsmarted by the GOP's winning strategerie once again.

But the entire focus of Senator Gregg's quote is that the bipartisan element of any bill that comes out of the Senate will be meaningless once Speaker Pelosi gets her claws into it to twist it her way. So why even try to produce a bill with common ground between the Democrats and Republicans, when it's all going to get stripped away before it ever reaches a vote?

Good question. The GOP should have thrown the towel in after the election. What were they thinking?

They were thinking that Speaker Pelosi meant what she said when she talked about garnering bipartisan opinion, even with a crushing Democrat majority.

They'll never learn

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well, I think the real question is — if there is a bipartisan bill that comes out of the Senate, and there may well be, because the Baucus-Grassley group is working hard, you've got the Wyden-Bennett bill as you mentioned, which is bipartisan — how do you preserve the bipartisan elements of that bill when you go to conference with the House and you've got people like Speaker Pelosi who are absolutely committed to having the government take over the system? And that I think is the great, is the big hurdle here.

In other words, why would people sign onto a bill in the Senate if they know that the Speaker of the House and the President's people are going to torpedo that bill and move towards the government plan when it gets into conference?

So unless the President comes out and says he's for the bipartisan bill as it leaves the Senate, and he's going to stand by that bill as it goes to conference, I don't think you're going to get a bill here.

If the Senate Finance Commitee doesn't produce a bill, then it never gets to conference. Game, set, match. The GOP wins again.

Damn...the Obama Administration is outsmarted by the GOP's winning strategerie once again.

But the entire focus of Senator Gregg's quote is that the bipartisan element of any bill that comes out of the Senate will be meaningless once Speaker Pelosi gets her claws into it to twist it her way. So why even try to produce a bill with common ground between the Democrats and Republicans, when it's all going to get stripped away before it ever reaches a vote?

Good question. The GOP should have thrown the towel in after the election. What were they thinking?

They were thinking that Speaker Pelosi meant what she said when she talked about garnering bipartisan opinion, even with a crushing Democrat majority.

They'll never learn

Was it any different when Hastert was Speaker?

[Pooky 3,847]

Well, I think the real question is — if there is a bipartisan bill that comes out of the Senate, and there may well be, because the Baucus-Grassley group is working hard, you've got the Wyden-Bennett bill as you mentioned, which is bipartisan — how do you preserve the bipartisan elements of that bill when you go to conference with the House and you've got people like Speaker Pelosi who are absolutely committed to having the government take over the system? And that I think is the great, is the big hurdle here.

In other words, why would people sign onto a bill in the Senate if they know that the Speaker of the House and the President's people are going to torpedo that bill and move towards the government plan when it gets into conference?

So unless the President comes out and says he's for the bipartisan bill as it leaves the Senate, and he's going to stand by that bill as it goes to conference, I don't think you're going to get a bill here.

If the Senate Finance Commitee doesn't produce a bill, then it never gets to conference. Game, set, match. The GOP wins again.

Damn...the Obama Administration is outsmarted by the GOP's winning strategerie once again.

But the entire focus of Senator Gregg's quote is that the bipartisan element of any bill that comes out of the Senate will be meaningless once Speaker Pelosi gets her claws into it to twist it her way. So why even try to produce a bill with common ground between the Democrats and Republicans, when it's all going to get stripped away before it ever reaches a vote?

Good question. The GOP should have thrown the towel in after the election. What were they thinking?

They were thinking that Speaker Pelosi meant what she said when she talked about garnering bipartisan opinion, even with a crushing Democrat majority.

They'll never learn

Was it any different when Hastert was Speaker?

Did the Democrats throw in the towel when Hastert was the speaker?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Well, I think the real question is — if there is a bipartisan bill that comes out of the Senate, and there may well be, because the Baucus-Grassley group is working hard, you've got the Wyden-Bennett bill as you mentioned, which is bipartisan — how do you preserve the bipartisan elements of that bill when you go to conference with the House and you've got people like Speaker Pelosi who are absolutely committed to having the government take over the system? And that I think is the great, is the big hurdle here.

In other words, why would people sign onto a bill in the Senate if they know that the Speaker of the House and the President's people are going to torpedo that bill and move towards the government plan when it gets into conference?

So unless the President comes out and says he's for the bipartisan bill as it leaves the Senate, and he's going to stand by that bill as it goes to conference, I don't think you're going to get a bill here.

If the Senate Finance Commitee doesn't produce a bill, then it never gets to conference. Game, set, match. The GOP wins again.

Damn...the Obama Administration is outsmarted by the GOP's winning strategerie once again.

But the entire focus of Senator Gregg's quote is that the bipartisan element of any bill that comes out of the Senate will be meaningless once Speaker Pelosi gets her claws into it to twist it her way. So why even try to produce a bill with common ground between the Democrats and Republicans, when it's all going to get stripped away before it ever reaches a vote?

Good question. The GOP should have thrown the towel in after the election. What were they thinking?

They were thinking that Speaker Pelosi meant what she said when she talked about garnering bipartisan opinion, even with a crushing Democrat majority.

They'll never learn

Was it any different when Hastert was Speaker?

[luckytxn 2,265]

I believe that every committee is dominated by the Socialists so they do not need a Bipartisan bill to pass. They may want one and all but if they want Socialized medicine to happen then they need to ignore the right wing and just do it. If they feel that the majority pf people are behind them then just get that bill out.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well, I think the real question is — if there is a bipartisan bill that comes out of the Senate, and there may well be, because the Baucus-Grassley group is working hard, you've got the Wyden-Bennett bill as you mentioned, which is bipartisan — how do you preserve the bipartisan elements of that bill when you go to conference with the House and you've got people like Speaker Pelosi who are absolutely committed to having the government take over the system? And that I think is the great, is the big hurdle here.

In other words, why would people sign onto a bill in the Senate if they know that the Speaker of the House and the President's people are going to torpedo that bill and move towards the government plan when it gets into conference?

So unless the President comes out and says he's for the bipartisan bill as it leaves the Senate, and he's going to stand by that bill as it goes to conference, I don't think you're going to get a bill here.

If the Senate Finance Commitee doesn't produce a bill, then it never gets to conference. Game, set, match. The GOP wins again.

Damn...the Obama Administration is outsmarted by the GOP's winning strategerie once again.

But the entire focus of Senator Gregg's quote is that the bipartisan element of any bill that comes out of the Senate will be meaningless once Speaker Pelosi gets her claws into it to twist it her way. So why even try to produce a bill with common ground between the Democrats and Republicans, when it's all going to get stripped away before it ever reaches a vote?

Good question. The GOP should have thrown the towel in after the election. What were they thinking?

They were thinking that Speaker Pelosi meant what she said when she talked about garnering bipartisan opinion, even with a crushing Democrat majority.

They'll never learn

Was it any different when Hastert was Speaker?

Did the Democrats throw in the towel when Hastert was the speaker?

I don't know...you tell me? In other words...is there any real difference between how the two parties behave when they are in power?