Democrats Support Federal Funding Of Viagra For Sex Offenders...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's a tool used to pass budgets.

Twenty-two bills have been passed on reconciliation -- 17 of them pushed by GOP houses of Congress or under a Republican president.

Five were passed Democrats Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Only 19 made it into law; Clinton vetoed three of them in 1995 and 1997.

• Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980
  
• Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981
  
• Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
  
• Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982
  
• Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1983
  
• Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
  
• Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
  
• Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
  
• Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
  
• Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
  
• Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
  
• Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (vetoed)
  
• Personal Responsibility and Budget Reconciliation Act of 1996
  
• Balanced Budget Act of 1997
  
• Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
  
• Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (vetoed)
  
• Marriage Tax Relief Act of 2000 (vetoed)
  
• Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
  
• Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
  
• The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
  
• Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005
  

some budgets...

[CDAgirlMI 51]

Sex offenders should be castrated...IF allowed to walk the streets

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Sex offenders should be castrated...IF allowed to walk the streets

That's kind of harsh figuring the broad definition of sex offenders.

Not all 'registered' offenders are really 'offenders' necessarily.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Nice try Paul, but the real reason behind ammendment 3556 to the bil was to block any funding to drugs that are related to abortion. Associating this ammendment to viagra is just an attempt at sensationalism.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That's kind of harsh figuring the broad definition of sex offenders.

Not all 'registered' offenders are really 'offenders' necessarily.

Which would make the Coburn amendment somewhat problematic, wouldn't it?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Which would make the Coburn amendment somewhat problematic, wouldn't it?

Not really, I don't think Viagra should be paid for with Federal funds regardless......

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not really, I don't think Viagra should be paid for with Federal funds regardless......

In which case the Coburn amendment would be problematic, too. It's either reaching too far or not far enough.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

In which case the Coburn amendment would be problematic, too. It's either reaching too far or not far enough.

and this would be different from the entire health care bill, how?

[DukeOfYork 28]

As promised, here's where Democrats, including Senator Obama, cried about Republicans' use of Reconciliation. Note how "damaging" it would be to the country. Note that Biden prays to God that they wouldn't do that when they came to power. I guess God didn't hear his prayers...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reC_20FzqQw

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As promised, here's where Democrats, including Senator Obama, cried about Republicans' use of Reconciliation. Note how "damaging" it would be to the country. Note that Biden prays to God that they wouldn't do that when they came to power. I guess God didn't hear his prayers...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reC_20FzqQw

Reconciliation is NOT the "Nuclear Option". Reconciliation is an established and often used Senate procedure while the "Nuclear Option" refers to a change of Senate rules which - specifically in 2005 - was discussed by the GOP in a way to effectively put away with the filibuster on judicial nominations. So, established rules vs. change of rules. Get it? Now, go and think about how you can construct a meaningful argument.

[Fandango 1,439]

Give em erections, but lose the elections!

[DukeOfYork 28]

Reconciliation is an established and often used Senate procedure...

Yes, for budgetary matters. The Democratic majority in the Senate essentially changed the rules for passing legislation when they constructed this in a budgetary fashion requiring only 51 votes, something they only did when the lost their "super majority". They weren't going to do this, even Obama said that his health care bill would have to pass by 60 votes when he was campaigning.

I'm requoting what Happy Bunny posted to reinforce my point, since you apparently didn't read it:

"The bottom line is that our health care plans are similar," Obama said. "The question once again is, who can get it done? Who can build a movement for change? This is an area where we're going to have to have a 60 percent majority in the Senate and the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We're gonna have to have a majority to get a bill to my desk. That is not just a fifty plus one majority."

Obama went back on that. Is this the kind of "change in government" Obama promised.

Even the article you cited says that Republicans have never passed legislation this massive.

The government can't even keep Medicare solvent [it has $34 Trillion in unfunded liability], how do you expect them to actually save money with this law?

Edited March 26, 2010 by DukeOfYork

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yes, for budgetary matters. The Democratic majority in the Senate essentially changed the rules for passing legislation when they constructed this in a budgetary fashion requiring only 51 votes, something they only did when the lost their "super majority".

The Senate has not changed any rules. They operate under the same rules as they did when this Congress convened. Prove me wrong. Show me when the Senate changed the rules. It's not hair-splitting, it's just that you're wrong.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

"The bottom line is that our health care plans are similar," Obama said. "The question once again is, who can get it done? Who can build a movement for change? This is an area where we're going to have to have a 60 percent majority in the Senate and the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We're gonna have to have a majority to get a bill to my desk. That is not just a fifty plus one majority."

Obama went back on that. Is this the kind of "change in government" Obama promised.

Actually, no. He didn't backtrack at all. Here is the roll call on the health care bill the Senate passed on 24 December, 2009. Go ahead, click on the link and count. There are 60 votes for the bill. 60 out 100 is a 60% majority. Simple math, buddy.

Measure Number: H.R. 3590 (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act )

Measure Title: An act entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Vote Counts:

YEAs 60

NAYs 39

NV's 1

[DukeOfYork 28]

The Senate has not changed any rules. They operate under the same rules as they did when this Congress convened. Prove me wrong. Show me when the Senate changed the rules. It's not hair-splitting, it's just that you're wrong.

You are technically right, they didn't change the rules. But you still haven't been able to prove me wrong that reconciliation is primarily used for budgetary matters. If that is the case, this health care and education act [how did college loan funding find its way into this bill anyway?] still does not fit the normal rules for reconciliation. It was a stretch and everyone knew it. The only way they were able to prove that the bill "cut the deficit" is by taking the so-called doctor fix out of the bill. If you add that into the bill, it actually puts the bill in the red by $59 billion. With a deficit that high, it technically doesn't qualify for reconciliation. Furthermore, it was only used once nominally in the past--by Democrats--when it didn't have anything to do with a budget. Follow the link I provided you and you'll see it in there.

Actually, no. He didn't backtrack at all. Here is the roll call on the health care bill the Senate passed on 24 December, 2009. Go ahead, click on the link and count. There are 60 votes for the bill. 60 out 100 is a 60% majority. Simple math, buddy.

You are also right that the Senate passed their version on December 29, 2009 with 60 votes. But the story didn't end there. If that's all that was needed, why didn't it become law?

Perhaps you didn't pay attention to the process. Every talking head on tv and radio talked ad nauseum about the details of what would happen.

First the House voted on their version of the bill that came out of their committees on 10/8/09.

Second, as you pointed out, the Senate voted on their version with 60 votes.

What was supposed to happen next was both bills were to go to a conference committee between the House and Senate (Pelosi and Reid) where they would construct one bill. Then both the House and Senate would each vote on it, according to normal rules: a simple majority in the house and a filibuster proof 60 vote majority in the Senate.

That sort of got interrupted when Democrats lost their super-majority when Ted Kennedy kicked it.

Without their 60 votes, Obama and Reid strong-armed Pelosi and the House and forced them to vote on the Senate version which many Democrats didn't like. All the backdoor dealings that happened until the final vote were shady and quite honestly, not the kind of change Obama allegedly promised. But hey, I live in Illinois and have seen Chicago-style politics infiltrate even our own state government, so when Obama chanted change over and over again and got people to repeat it with that dreamy look in their eyes, I knew it was just a bunch of poppycock.

And you talk about math. Can you explain how any of this is going to be paid for? You still haven't addressed the fact that Medicare has $34 trillion in unfunded liabilities. I work for a pretty large insurance company (not health insurance) and if we even had $34 billion in unfunded liability, we'd be out of business. Oh, and this bill cuts Medicare by $500 billion! Wait, there's more. It's still cheaper for a young person to pay the fine than buy health insurance they don't want, that is, until they get sick with something really bad, like cancer. Then they can just sign up, not get denied for pre-existing conditions and pay just as much as everyone else who was healthy and isn't sick, only to gobble up the benefits while not paying their fair share in premiums.

That simple math gets confusing after awhile when you begin to notice people will take advantage of the system. And believe me, when insurance is involved, people love to take advantage.

We're already bankrupt, so I don't know how much more this law will bankrupt this country, but it will.