The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Chris_ on October 15, 2009, 05:18:09 PM
-
BREAKING: Dems Go Nuclear on Obamacare
House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) held a hearing this morning to certify that H.R. 3200 -- the main House Obamacare bill which was the subject of all the town hall rage in August -- has met all requirements to pass as a “budget reconciliation†measure.
Under reconciliation, the bill can be passed by a simple majority vote in the Senate -- just 51 votes -- and will be given preferential treatment on the House floor as well. The Dems have apparently invoked the “nuclear option†to shut out Republicans and ensure the bill is passed before the end of the year.
The bill certified for “reconciliation†is the Ways & Means version of H.R. 3200 that was passed out of committee before the August break, and before it was read aloud at town hall meetings across the country and blasted by voters across the country.
It contains all of the horrors previously exposed: federal funding of abortion, coverage for illegal aliens, comparative effectiveness, healthcare rationing, deep cuts to Medicare. Everything the American people overwhelmingly reject.
No amendments were allowed at the hearing and no debate. Rangel told Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the committee, that he would not have preferred to do it this way, but leadership -- i.e., Speaker Pelosi -- forced his hand.
MORE (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33997)
Bend over America.
-
****ing bastards.
-
No ****ing way...is this even legal??
-
No unanimous consent on the flooring of the bill.
Send each clause for review, striking all that do not meet criteris for reconciliation.
-
No ****ing way...is this even legal??
Reconciliation is "legal" for budget bills. I have no idea how this even qualifies.
-
I was chatting with a moonbat co-worker last week and asked him to give me his personal approval rating for Obama...He responded with a "well, at least he's not mccain.." I pushed him to respond to my question and he stated "he needs to push through the healthcare legislation and I'll give him a 100% approval rating"
This is the same dirtbag that poked me whenever we debated during Bush's presidency...a big moonbat who had a "Impeach Bush!" bumper sticker on his beat-up Datsun.
He may have just gotten his wish.
-
Perhaps a bridge too far for any Democrats who are still same enough to realize there is indeed a tomorrow, and what goes around comes around.
-
Reconciliation is "legal" for budget bills. I have no idea how this even qualifies.
Unfortunately, it qualifies if they say it qualifies.
But, IIRC, there've been rumblings of a couple of Dem Senators that might be inclined to vote for the bill under normal circumstances, that would not vote for it under "reconciliation."
Also, and this is for lurking DUmb****s, what this does is to remove the 60-vote rule for any budget bills that come up . . . after the Republicans retake control of the Senate. And it will probably mean the end of the fillibuster, too. They want to play hardball? They better be ready for the same tactics to be used against them--but a degree worse.
It will happen--probably in four years.
-
Reconciliation is "legal" for budget bills. I have no idea how this even qualifies.
Wouldn't this be grounds to have it thrown out at a later date? Like 2010/2012
-
It will happen--probably in four years.
Not if the current batch of nutless wonders remain in charge of the GOP. Even if they have super majorities in both houses, the GOP would still reach across the aisle just to have their hand slapped at every turn.
-
Not if the current batch of nutless wonders remain in charge of the GOP. Even if they have super majorities in both houses, the GOP would still reach across the aisle just to have their hand slapped at every turn.
I'm hoping against hope that even some of the RINOs have been enlightened since the last elections. I know, I know, call me an optimist.
By doing this, the Dems are admitting they're frantic, don't give a shit about bipartisanship (shocking!), and desperately need to do something, anything, as long as it's "progressive." They're digging their own graves if they follow through on this.
-
I'm hoping against hope that even some of the RINOs have been enlightened since the last elections. I know, I know, call me an optimist.
By doing this, the Dems are admitting they're frantic, don't give a shit about bipartisanship (shocking!), and desperately need to do something, anything, as long as it's "progressive." They're digging their own graves if they follow through on this.
What they are admitting is that the majority of the people don't want this crap shoved down our throats, but they are willing to sacrifice some Dem congress critters next year, because they know that once a social program is in , it never goes away.
-
What they are admitting is that the majority of the people don't want this crap shoved down our throats, but they are willing to sacrifice some Dem congress critters next year, because they know that once a social program is in , it never goes away.
Yeah, that too. The bill is so far-reaching there would be little chance of just "canceling" it in 2010.
Not that I have any real affinity for Republicans, but if they don't fight against this tooth and nail I will forever be done with the party.
-
What they are admitting is that the majority of the people don't want this crap shoved down our throats, but they are willing to sacrifice some Dem congress critters next year, because they know that once a social program is in , it never goes away.
Hopefully, enough of them will have received the message from their constituents that this shit needs to be starved of funds as long as Obama is president, before conservatives can restore the Republic.
-
Okay, I'm having a little conceptual problem on calling it a budget bill, budget bills are temporary session-to-session bills that do not get codified into permanent law.
-
Forgive me for not being very knowledgeable about process on these things but what are the chances that Senate Republicans can actually filibuster the Senate version or keep it bogged down with procedural votes on amendments?
-
Okay, I'm having a little conceptual problem on calling it a budget bill, budget bills are temporary session-to-session bills that do not get codified into permanent law.
To reasonable people, yes. Apparently the Senate Democrats have redefined the phrase ::)
-
I guess it's time to start trying to figure out the new name for the country.
The Un-united Socialist States of America?
-
I guess it's time to start trying to figure out the new name for the country.
The Un-united Socialist States of America?
Barackistan
-
The DUmmies were right all along, maybe. Amerika. The USSoA
-
Ther sould be no problem canceling it. It does not take effect until 2013.
-
What scares me is that under "conventional wisdom" the Congress considering a "Public Option" Health Care Bill, or any other "Health Care Bill" that is supported by only 35% of the voters (and in the face of vocal and well funded opposition)is considered to be "Political Suicide"...
But these Democratic Dimwits are more than willing to go "full steam ahead" and F**k the voters and pass this legislation..in effect committing "Political Suicide" .... like they aren't afraid of the November 2010 Elections.
What do the Democrats know that we don't know... perhaps a plan to screw with the 2010 Elections?
-
We are sooooooooooo screwed.
-
Let's not throw our hands in the air and admit defeat quite so soon. The bill has not passed and we don't know for sure that moderate democrats will fall in line. Politicians want job security, and if voting for this bill will jeapordize it, I seriously can not see them voting for this.
But I've been wrong before....I never thought the bronze statue would become president.
-
Just when I start to think I'm figuring out our legislative process, something like this comes up. Budget reconciliation? What? How does this remotely qualify? New federal boards and positions are created. A freaking government insurance company is created. The way insurance companies do business is changed pretty significantly. An insurance exchange is created. "We spend money on it" is enough to be a "budget bill" now?
Granted, I never figured out why 60 votes needed for any bill to pass made any sense - a "filibuster" these days doesn't even require you to hold the floor, so no reading of recipes anymore. One side just has to say "We're filibustering," essentially, and nothing can happen without a vote for cloture - 60 votes. I've always considered that to be a pretty ridiculous legislative tactic. Simple majority is supposed to pass in the Senate, right?
We might need to start over with the Legislative Branch...
edit: Hilarious how only Fox News and a couple conservative columns are the only ones carrying this story. Wait, hilarious isn't the word.
Infuriating. That's the one!
-
It's time to vote out ANYONE who isn't upholding the Constitution and representing the public. Period.
-
The Dems will try anything in order to make the President look like a healthcare hero.
The cost of coverage for us that now have it, will go up, so others can also have coverage. If I choose not to insure myself, they will fine me.
-
Let's not throw our hands in the air and admit defeat quite so soon. The bill has not passed and we don't know for sure that moderate democrats will fall in line. Politicians want job security, and if voting for this bill will jeapordize it, I seriously can not see them voting for this.
But I've been wrong before....I never thought the bronze statue would become president.
I don't think that they would be considering this method unless they are positive that they have the votes to pass it.
-
No ****ing way...is this even legal??
Legal, yes. Right?
You decide.
-
Three things:
1. If they do not get unanimous consent to vote on a bill any ONE senator can demand the ENTIRE bill be read on the senate floor. That means EVERY time the bill is brought to the floor.
2. They can have the senate rules keeper (I for get his actual title) examine EVERY single provision to adjudicate which are budgetary are which are not meaning the gearworks of the bill will be gutted.
3. If, after an additional 2 months of reading and rule scrubbing the public hasn't rioted and the damn thing still passes it automatically sunsets in 5 years.
Bring it.
-
Three things:
1. If they do not get unanimous consent to vote on a bill any ONE senator can demand the ENTIRE bill be read on the senate floor. That means EVERY time the bill is brought to the floor.
2. They can have the senate rules keeper (I for get his actual title) examine EVERY single provision to adjudicate which are budgetary are which are not meaning the gearworks of the bill will be gutted.
3. If, after an additional 2 months of reading and rule scrubbing the public hasn't rioted and the damn thing still passes it automatically sunsets in 5 years.
Bring it.
If that is the case, why would anyone even bring up reconciliation? Other than the medicaid extension, the funding provisions, and maybe-if-you-stretch the subsidies for low-income households is there anything in the bill that can be possibly construed as budgetary?
-
If that is the case, why would anyone even bring up reconciliation? Other than the medicaid extension, the funding provisions, and maybe-if-you-stretch the subsidies for low-income households is there anything in the bill that can be possibly construed as budgetary?
I got the impression from the article that if the Means and Ways Committee says it is, then it is. I'm open to correction, of course. Sometimes I get to thinking that the legislative process is convoluted, like, on purpose. :uhsure:
-
If that is the case, why would anyone even bring up reconciliation? Other than the medicaid extension, the funding provisions, and maybe-if-you-stretch the subsidies for low-income households is there anything in the bill that can be possibly construed as budgetary?
A bluff. They're trying to get the blue dogs and pink RINOs to accept the bill as fiat accompli.
"Well, I may as well support it now instead of being on the wrong side of something that will happen anyway."
Two things lead me to think this strategy is much ado about nothing:
1) regardless of what blue dogs and pink RINOs may do it only takes 1 super-heated conservative to literally shut down all other senate business while they exploit all the parliamentarian procedures I described above.
2) I'm not seeing this story much anyplace else. I think this is the commiecrats ****ing up a wet dream.
-
We won't even get into the multitude of legal questions--Constitutional ones, to be determined by the SCOTUS--that the "reform" entails, that will have to be examined before this becomes law.
-
This strikes me as something SCOTUS could strike down on procedural grounds.
God I hate our legislative process. The Senate disproportionately represents low-population states, the House does the same for high-population states. There's a thousand minute rules and procedures that guarantee that the last thing we ever get is a vote on the bill at hand. And our voting system guarantees two parties and two parties only, so if neither party fits your views very well, you're kinda screwed.
-
This strikes me as something SCOTUS could strike down on procedural grounds.
God I hate our legislative process. The Senate disproportionately represents low-population states, the House does the same for high-population states. There's a thousand minute rules and procedures that guarantee that the last thing we ever get is a vote on the bill at hand. And our voting system guarantees two parties and two parties only, so if neither party fits your views very well, you're kinda screwed.
Agreed. I'm sick of holding my nose and voting for the less-smelly pile of shit. We've come to the point that you're throwing your vote away if you vote third-party, thus ensuring that the smelliest piece of shit gets in as the votes split on the other side. It's garbage.
-
This strikes me as something SCOTUS could strike down on procedural grounds.
God I hate our legislative process. The Senate disproportionately represents low-population states, the House does the same for high-population states. There's a thousand minute rules and procedures that guarantee that the last thing we ever get is a vote on the bill at hand. And our voting system guarantees two parties and two parties only, so if neither party fits your views very well, you're kinda screwed.
That the Senate is equal by state and the House is population based strikes me as a brilliant move by the founders.
-
That the Senate is equal by state and the House is population based strikes me as a brilliant move by the founders.
concur
Otherwise states like Montana and Rhode Island would get steamrollered.
-
Yes, that compromise was quite clever. It still contributes to the mess, though :)
-
Yes, that compromise was quite clever. It still contributes to the mess, though :)
Ain't nothin' better.
-
Yes, that compromise was quite clever. It still contributes to the mess, though :)
I don`t see it as a mess but a terrific check and balance.
What I agree with you on as a mess is the overall process that has developed that is extra constitutional.
Committees and stuffing unrelated amendments (both parties) on to bills is one peeve I have.
-
I don`t see it as a mess but a terrific check and balance.
What I agree with you on as a mess is the overall process that has developed that is extra constitutional.
Committees and stuffing unrelated amendments (both parties) on to bills is one peeve I have.
The United States inherited its basic parliamentary procedures from the British Parliament during the colonial era. New England town meetings and colonial legislatures followed these traditional methods of operating, as did the Continental Congress, the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention, and the U.S. Congress. In 1801 President Thomas Jefferson published the first volume of parliamentary procedure in the United States, known as Jefferson's manual, which is still part of the House rules.
The House and Senate adopt their own rules and set precedents by their actions. Parliamentarians on the staff of both houses compile and study these rules and precedents in order to advise the presiding officers on how to keep the floor proceedings moving fairly and properly.
To casual visitors in the galleries, the procedures on the House and Senate floor may seem excessively formal. But the parliamentary procedure that they are witnessing evolved over 200 years of legislative activity to enable the Senate and House to function in ways that are reasonably fair and efficient. The procedures prevent presiding officers from ruling arbitrarily, and they ensure that both sides have an opportunity to be heard and to offer their own bills and amendments. Although their emotions often rise over the immediate issues before them, members of Congress have adopted parliamentary procedures that enable them to operate in a rational and orderly manner.
http://www.answers.com/topic/parliamentary-procedure-1
-
A bluff. They're trying to get the blue dogs and pink RINOs to accept the bill as fiat accompli.
"Well, I may as well support it now instead of being on the wrong side of something that will happen anyway."
Two things lead me to think this strategy is much ado about nothing:
1) regardless of what blue dogs and pink RINOs may do it only takes 1 super-heated conservative to literally shut down all other senate business while they exploit all the parliamentarian procedures I described above.
2) I'm not seeing this story much anyplace else. I think this is the commiecrats ******* up a wet dream.
THANK YOU MR. BUNNY.
I went to bed last night upset because it seems like everything is so out of control and they can just cram this down our throats even knowing that the majority of the American people don't want health care reform in this way. I had heard there were all sorts of procedures the republicans could hit them with to slow it down and delay it but the democrats all seem to be celebrating and talking tough about how they will push this through this year.
Thank you for listing some of the procedures and maneuvers the republicans can use.
-
Thank you for listing some of the procedures and maneuvers the republicans can use.
I throw bombs where I can.
:evillaugh: :cheersmate:
-
I throw bombs where I can.
:evillaugh: :cheersmate:
Okay, 'fess up . . . laser-guidance or GPS-guidance? :tongue:
-
If that is the case, why would anyone even bring up reconciliation? Other than the medicaid extension, the funding provisions, and maybe-if-you-stretch the subsidies for low-income households is there anything in the bill that can be possibly construed as budgetary?
Obama wants this passed any way that he can.
If it gets passed...no matter how it's done....Obama will be able to say I passed a health care bill giving medical care to every person in America!!!!
Think of all the votes that phrase will buy.....doesn't matter that it won't take effect until 2013 ...after Obama manages to get reelected in 2012.
Doesn't even matter if it gets shuts down after Obama is reelected....the goal is to get him reelected.....and all of his Band of Merry Idiots get to stay in office too.
What this will do is not screw us over so quickly in the health care area....what it will do is screw us over for the 2010 and 2012 elections.
Especially if all those millions of illegals get granted citizenship in the meantime.
Think about it.
Health care for everyone gets passed.
Then the illegals are all granted amnesty and become US citizens....who get to vote for president!
Who they gonna vote for?
Their saviour....Obama....
:censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored:
please excuse me while I go :puke: :puke: :puke:
-
What scares me is that under "conventional wisdom" the Congress considering a "Public Option" Health Care Bill, or any other "Health Care Bill" that is supported by only 35% of the voters (and in the face of vocal and well funded opposition)is considered to be "Political Suicide"...
But these Democratic Dimwits are more than willing to go "full steam ahead" and F**k the voters and pass this legislation..in effect committing "Political Suicide" .... like they aren't afraid of the November 2010 Elections.
What do the Democrats know that we don't know... perhaps a plan to screw with the 2010 Elections?
How about giving 20 million illegal aliens the right to vote Democrat. :banghead:
-
How about giving 20 million illegal aliens the right to vote Democrat. :banghead:
did you read my post above?
-
did you read my post above?
Not before I posted. But I agree wholeheartedly. If 20 million more Mexican become elligible voters, we will never win another election again. The spread is just too close.
-
Not before I posted. But I agree wholeheartedly. If 20 million more Mexican become elligible voters, we will never win another election again. The spread is just too close.
Right.....and while I would like to see them have to pay taxes....what it will do the presidential and congressional races is frightening....
-
Right.....and while I would like to see them have to pay taxes....what it will do the presidential and congressional races is frightening....
Then you would have a full-on Civil War.
-
Right.....and while I would like to see them have to pay taxes....what it will do the presidential and congressional races is frightening....
I would question how many taxes it would generate beyond what they may pay now in the way of sales tax.
Unless they moved up the employment scale I don`t see much and would guess they will avail themselves of public services even more then now.
-
I would question how many taxes it would generate beyond what they may pay now in the way of sales tax.
Unless they moved up the employment scale I don`t see much and would guess they will avail themselves of public services even more then now.
You should see all the work they do around here (this area)
Construction, landscaping (do you have any idea how much they charge to mow a lawn these days? the guy that does my foreclosures charges a minimum of $60 for a biweekly mow. :o), restaurant kitchen work, hotel staff.
While they aren't doing "white collar" jobs or working in factories.....they are making pretty good money because they are willing to work such long hours. The ones doing construction work from daylight to dark, and if they are doing interior work, will often work later.
Lot of money being paid out in cash....and no taxes are paid on it.
-
Yes, that compromise was quite clever. It still contributes to the mess, though :)
No, what contributed to the mess was the 17th Amendment, which effectively changed the Senate to another House of Representatives. The Senate was originally supposed to represent the states themselves, and as such, were appointed by the several state governors and approved by the state legislatures. This system basically ensured that we wouldn't have what we have now, with Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Strom Thurmond, et al, serving for life, but as temporary servants of the state. Each state was equally represented, the same as the people were equally (as best as could be practiced) represented. Making the election of Senators direct from the popular vote ensured that the incumbent just had to "bring home the bacon" and they could stay forever.
-
You should see all the work they do around here (this area)
Construction, landscaping (do you have any idea how much they charge to mow a lawn these days? the guy that does my foreclosures charges a minimum of $60 for a biweekly mow. :o), restaurant kitchen work, hotel staff.
While they aren't doing "white collar" jobs or working in factories.....they are making pretty good money because they are willing to work such long hours. The ones doing construction work from daylight to dark, and if they are doing interior work, will often work later.
Lot of money being paid out in cash....and no taxes are paid on it.
More a curious question then anything but what would make them go above the table after an amnesty.
Both parties are already breaking the law so why change?
-
More a curious question then anything but what would make them go above the table after an amnesty.
Both parties are already breaking the law so why change?
Good point.
Those contracting for the work will have to pay more.
Hard telling what the illegals will want.
Just an FYI....not sure if my guy is a US citizen or not...he's from England. But I know he pays taxes, because he's a direct vendor for the bank....and I know they submit a 1099 on him. His wife is US born.
-
Good point.
Those contracting for the work will have to pay more.
Hard telling what the illegals will want.
Just an FYI....not sure if my guy is a US citizen or not...he's from England. But I know he pays taxes, because he's a direct vendor for the bank....and I know they submit a 1099 on him. His wife is US born.
If they are filing a 1099 I would imagine everything is above board as that would be too easy for the IRS to jump on with that documentation.
-
If they are filing a 1099 I would imagine everything is above board as that would be too easy for the IRS to jump on with that documentation.
The only way I can use someone without a 1099, is to hire them directly, pay them myself and then submit an invoice and get reimbursed. And it's a real hassle to get reimbursed :banghead:.
It's so much easier for me to use this person. I request a work order for him at a specific price that he sends a quote in writing...then it goes into his queue, he does the work, sends in pictures of completed work with the invoice and I don't have to do anything except make sure to submit the info for the work order. He lets me know if there's any hold up that I need to get involved in....which isn't very often.
At my own house...we pay cash paper money after the work is done.
Having had someone with a business and having had someone that I'm not sure is legal....I'll take the one that may or may not be legal. It's been my experience around here, that those who work the hardest and quickest ...may or may not be legal. We have found out about them with the help of one of the priests at our church.
-
Do even the illegals like what is going on with this? Wrecking health care is not on their agenda either. They want on the gravy train, not to wreck it.
-
Do even the illegals like what is going on with this? Wrecking health care is not on their agenda either. They want on the gravy train, not to wreck it.
Bet they regret letting ACORN and LULAC tell them who to vote for.
-
Do even the illegals like what is going on with this? Wrecking health care is not on their agenda either. They want on the gravy train, not to wreck it.
You're assuming they care. People getting handed free stuff hand over fist don't usually think about how the consequences will affect them.
-
Bet they regret letting ACORN and LULAC tell them who to vote for.
Little late for regrets now. I regret wasting my vote on Juan McLame back in November, but crying over that isn't even going to slow down the Marxist Express train we're on now.