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

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

The Democrats did not decide what can be passed via reconciliation. The Senate Parliamentarian does that. The provisions passed all had the required budget impact to qualify them for the reconciliation procedure and the two that had to be dropped did not. No rules were changed and I am not 'technically right' I am right on this point. Now you accumulated a fail and a great fail on this issue. Are you going to go for an epic fail on it?

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?

Oh boy. You should really try and peruse the news from time to time if you want to talk about current issues. Not sure how it escaped you that the President signed into law the exact bill which passed the Senate with 60 votes on 24 December (not 29 December, I didn't say that you made that up, too). That piece of legislation passed the House on Sunday, March 21 and was signed into law on Tuesday, March 23. So, just to be sure you grasp this: IT IS THE LAW SINCE TUESDAY MARCH 23, 2010. Again, you accomplished both a fail and great fail. Care to go for an epic fail on this point too?

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.

And yet, you failed to understand any of it. Or perhaps you didn't pay attention...

Edited March 26, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Sofiyya 1,687]

If you're trying to prove that Obama was full of sh!t when he promised change and ethics in how his government operated, you're doing a hell of a good job, puppy! Keep it up

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...

[ready4ONE 5,400]

http://www.youtube.c...SM&feature=fvsr

[DukeOfYork 28]

Again, you accomplished both a fail and great fail. Care to go for an epic fail on this point too?

Your epic failure is your inability to comprehend what you read. I outlined it all very nicely for you and demonstrated what the Democrats' plan was all along until Teddy kicked the bucket. Reconciliation wasn't in their plans until they saw it was a losing battle by going to a conference committee.

I had already conceded your point that the Senate passed their bill in December. A new bill was to be voted on; they never got there.

Again, I outlined it rather nicely. Maybe I shouldn't have used so many words.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Your epic failure is your inability to comprehend what you read. I outlined it all very nicely for you and demonstrated what the Democrats' plan was all along until Teddy kicked the bucket. Reconciliation wasn't in their plans until they saw it was a losing battle by going to a conference committee.

I had already conceded your point that the Senate passed their bill in December. A new bill was to be voted on; they never got there.

Again, I outlined it rather nicely. Maybe I shouldn't have used so many words.

You outlined it rather wrongly, too. The plan was to craft a bill with support from both sides of the isle. That's what the various committee negotiations with Democrats and Republicans were all about. That's also how so many Republican provisions made their way into the legislation.

The GOP backed out of that plan and Sen DeMint publicly announced that the goal of the GOP is to make the health care reform effort Obama's Waterloo. Bipartisanship was off the table at that point. Not because the administration or Democrats in the Congress made that choice but because the GOP decided to take their marbles and go home.

While the reconciliation path was not the original intent - it never is - it is not actually a result of Senator Kennedy's death as much as it was a result of Sen. Browns victory in the Massachusetts special election in January. Remember that the Senate passed the health care bill with 60 votes (Dec) after Sen. Kennedy's passing (Aug).

Once the GOP had 41 votes in the Senate and made very clear in no uncertain terms that they would filibuster any health care legislation in the Senate, there were exactly two options: 1) let the effort fail or 2) negotiate a reconciliation package between the House and the Senate, have the House pass both the Senate bill and the reconciliation measure and then have the Senate pass that measure to complete the process.

Faced with either failing or succeeding, the Democrats chose to succeed and pursued option 2. Why would they have chosen failure or why should they have after having passed health care legislation in each chamber of Congress already? There is no rational reason as to why they should have given up if they could find a viable way forward.

With that in mind, there is absolutely no backtracking, broken committments or any such thing to be found. The strategy to accomplish health care reform had to be adjusted to the political realities at various stages of the process - that is what happens in every Congress.

[DukeOfYork 28]

Faced with either failing or succeeding, the Democrats chose to succeed and pursued option 2. Why would they have chosen failure or why should they have after having passed health care legislation in each chamber of Congress already? There is no rational reason as to why they should have given up if they could find a viable way forward.

Or they could have looked at the polls. If they had, they would have seen that the majority of Americans (including Left-wing progressives) were against this bill. They still had at least one willing Republican Senator (Olympia Snow) who would have negotiated, but it went even too far for her.

I agree that something had to be done about health care, but I think the Democrats simply went about it wrong. Maybe it's just different political philosophy, but I think it would have been better to attack the actual reasons cost are up. Republicans harped on letting insurance companies sell across state lines and enacting real tort reform. Those two right there would definitely affect the cost of medicine in this country. I'd also like to see pharmaceuticals barred from advertising on tv. If they spent less on marketing, they wouldn't have to charge so much for drugs.

I posted this in another thread, but it's worth a look. Perhaps for its own topic:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/an_insurance_industry_ceo_expl.html

Edited March 26, 2010 by DukeOfYork

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They still had at least one willing Republican Senator (Olympia Snow) who would have negotiated, but it went even too far for her.

No, the didn't have a single Republican willing to negotiate. Remember that the GOP raised a constitutional point of order in regards to the individual health insurance mandate which was contained in the draft bill which Sen. Snowe supported in the Finance Committee. Sen. Snowe voted in line with the GOP on this point of order trying to sink the bill in the Senate. That was as clear a signal as could be sent that Sen. Snowe was no longer available for cooperation. There can be no prohibition of denial of insurance based on pre-existing conditions w/o a mandate to carry health insurance. Otherwise, everyone would go w/o health insurance until they know they need it. Health insurance would become unaffordable for everyone.

Oh, and I agree on the cost side of the equation. That, unfortunately, got the short end of the stick. There are provisions in the bill to seek ways out of the fee-for-service scheme but there should have been a lot more in it to contain cost. Nobody ever claimed the bill is perfect. It's merely a start.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog