Democrat Hypocrites on Reconciliation

Good job LD. What can I say? Facts is facts.

Will the Gang of Fourteen return?

One of the problems in the public perception of “reconciliation” is that the word has so many positive connotations.  When a marriage is apparently on the rocks, a couple can go through a process of reconciliation, and the marriage could be saved.  “Reconciliation” conveys associations of understanding, forgiveness, reasonable resolution of mutual grievances, and peace where there was strife.  It sounds like it’s OK, even desirable.  After all, who’s against the abstract notion of “reconciliation”?  Being conciliatory is nice. 
 
But in the political arena, it’s not always so nice.  It can be like forced sex, even if the weaker partner says “No.”

In order to maintain proper checks and balances in our legislative procedures, our founding fathers thought it necessary to require a 60% vote in the Senate to pass legislation.

Umm … I thought the 60 votes was to prevent a filibuster which was part of the Senate rules and could be amended and not in the constitution.

Wow FF, your deep and nuanced understanding of the two parties is breathtaking.

I’m laughing so hard I can’t catch my breath.

Hi Larry,

I think you have your facts wrong.  The founding fathers (ie. the Constitution) did not impose the 60% threshhold.  In fact that is done by Senate Rules.  (At one time it took 2/3). But, I would agree that the rule has generally served us well in forcing deliberation and moderation in our legislation.

The “nuclear option” that Bush threatened was not the use of reconciliation, but rather a proposal to overturn the filibuster rule entirely.  Judicial appointments can not be passed through reconciliation.  Only bills dealing with the raising or expenditure of money can.  The so called “Gang of 14″ kept the Republicans from using the nuclear option, which likely would have forever killed the filibuster rule. 

We may find that there is a Democratic Senator or two who are for healthcare, but will vote against reconciliation.  That is because they know that some day (perhaps real soon) Republicans will control the Senate, and they will want the Republicans constrained the way Democrats are now. 

Basically 90% of the Democrats and Republicans have simply switched sides on this debate since 2005.  It is a distiinct minority of the Senate who put principle over party, but they do exist in both political parties.

OT: FBI Raids Offices of Toyota Suppliers.
http://www.benzinga.com/markets/company-news/141448/fbi-raids-three-toyota-supplier-offices-in-detroit-tm

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Yes, the current administration has clearly showed its empathy and compassion for those members of society most vulnerable to exploitation, such as Wall Street banks and brokerage firms, labor and public service employee unions, big pharma. major corporate donors like GE and its NBC progeny, and last but not least the poor downtrodden health insurance companies so poor that we will be required under penalty of tax forfeitures just to purchase their flowers, I mean policies, just so they can put a few crumbs of stale bread on the table for the children.

Makes you wonder who is selling short Toyota stock. This while middle class America bleeds… and bleeds… and bleeds. But nobody will even call for help for the middle class. The middel class doesn’t have representation, because they can’t afford and don’t know how to buy congress.

Larry,

When you say: “our founding fathers thought it necessary to require a 60% vote in the Senate to pass legislation.” you’re just wrong. It takes a simple majority to pass legislation in the Senate, just like the House. The 60% is the requirement for “cloture” (cutting off debate, or “calling the question” as Roberts Rules would have it). This wasn’t established by the Founding Fathers – it’s in the Senate Rules (just like reconciliation)and it has only been true since 1975 (prior to that, it took 2/3). Under the Constitution, each House can set its own rules and the procedures for changing them. Reconciliation is used quite frequently – one particular example was the repeal of Glass-Steagal during the Clinton administration, which was accomplished (for better or for worse) through the reconciliation process.

Reid just uses the “60%”as an excuse to cover up his total ineffectiveness – when LBJ ran the Senate, he had a much higher bar to clear (2/3), but it didn’t prevent him from getting legislation passed.

Passing a law by 51 votes is called majority rule, a hallmark of democratic governments.  Most of the major legislation, such as Soc. Sec., Medicare, etc. was passed by a simple majority vote.  To require 60 votes for normal legislation by threatening a filibuster for every proposed action makes absolutely no sense and is something only the US Senate could dream up. 

My bad….!! No surprise that I did better in math than history.

That said, i think the point I’m trying to make here is not lessened as a result. 

Thanks. 

Sorry with the “like” symbol on FF’s post [hit the wrong tag]. 

As for Republicans bad [not that I entirely disagree] and Dems good[currently I cannot agree] how do you square the deals, the give-aways to the insurance companies and Big Pharma that this healthcare reform represents, FF?  Or for the President’s lack of energy when it comes to addressing the repeated fraud and abuse of the financial markets?  Or the doctored stats that the public is receiving on the unemployment numbers, the rosy We Are Recovering chant.

I’m sorry.  But if you’re buying into this nonsense–the lame speeches and kabuki theater–you’re a fool.  The banking/investment crowd staged the biggest heist in history on the backs of the American public.  And what do we hear from the President of the United States? 

The Wall St. crowd are good, savvy business folks.  And then, Lloyd Blankfein has the unmitigated gall to stand up last year and say he’s doing “God’s work.”

These people are a den of thieves that make Bernie Madoff look like a piker.  And they’re being aided and abetted by Dems and Republicans alike.

Unless, of course, you think selling the American public into serdom is a service.  Please, get off the script and start thinking  for yourself.  We’ve been sold out by both parties in the name of Greed and Power.

At some point in time, the Democratic Party decided the ordinary working man and woman wasn’t worth fighting for.  Except with endless lip service.  Now it’s everyman and woman for himself/herself.  And whoever has the most stuff in the end, wins.

Which in this case will be nothing at all.

How can something like this happen if it isn’t that the Federal Government now owns the country and that our government is changing in both directions, towards facism on one side and towards socialism/communism on another.

Where and what was  the Federal crime that was committed for the FBI to raid those companies? Or is the FBI raiding companies based on allegations.

Sorry but Soc Security was passed by a majority of 77 votes in 1935.  There were 77 yeas, 6 nays, and 12 not voting.

The founding fathers dreamed it up, and it has worked well enough until now. Can’t this administration do a single thing without some special treatment or riules being bent or twisted? Apparently, this administration has no regard for the founding fathes or the spirit of the laws of this nation. Oh, they know the law alright. just enough to bastardize it.

i don’t generally agree with a lot of the posts on here other than yours Larry because you don’t let hatred of Obama cloud otherwise logical thinking. 

I completely respect the fact that you can admit when you are wrong (which honestly isn’t very often) instead of continuing to dig with a shovel of lies. 

A very graceful reply, Larry.

Some of us here have the advantage of being naturalized and having this stuff pounded into us so we could pass the test.

If Harry Reid had any guts, he’d have let the Republicans filibuster (just as LBJ let the Southern senators filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1957). Sooner or later, they’d run out of steam and the bill could be brought to a vote. All it takes is patience and conviction.

Of course, neither the Dems nor the Republicans really want to reform health care anyway. They’re just showing off for their respective bases while they insure (pun intended) that their corporate backers get as much as possible.

I thought the “nuclear option” the Dems railed against  7 years ago was changing the Senate rules to allow cloture with a simple majority (which would’ve rendered all this moot).

There is no question in my mind that these Democrat women Congress people have it against industry and will want nothing better than industry goes away. The hate for industry is clearly revealed.

What do you find disagreeable? So far I have only read that you agree with me.

And today’s Toyota Hearings look as if they’re being held by GM’s Board of Directors – which to a certain extent, they are.

How the heck can they block publishing rights?  To what, the art you posted?…but they didn’t make that.  I did link to the page.

Why not a voucher system Larry!  

Every citizen is given 100 points at birth. They can be used , traded or sold or saved.

That way everybody is covered for basic care & the sicker ones die off unless they can buy more.

No different to education vouchers.

Why do you think 95%+ of African Americans support the Democrats?

Peggy Sue, they are not giveaways. The insurance companies have to make a profit to stay in business. If you force them to take on unprofitable clients, they will lose money and go out of business. Then we won’t have any insurance companies. This is simple ECON101.

If the Obama and the Democrats feel it necessary to ram through this reckless healthcare overhaul one way or another, the 2010 and 2012 elections will send Democrats into the minority wildnerness for many, many years to come.

Not surprised here, when was the political world not filled with hypocrites.
Suck it up and prepare for the challenge . Watching Obama’s buddies in the Senate is like watching a really bad soap opera in a language I don’t understand and this so call health summit is just one more Obama photo opp, look at me (Obama) I’m in charge not Congress-
YEA RIGHT 

Larry, you say:

For good reason. In order to maintain proper checks and balances in our legislative procedures, our founding fathers thought it necessary to require a 60% vote in the Senate to pass legislation.

Your statement is not correct.  The U.S. Constitution does not demand 60 votes to pass legislation.  The 60 votes is an old senate rule that can be changed any time the majority decides to change the rule.  Neither party is willing to change the rule because la party in the majority can be in the minority in the future and it would be shut out of influencing legislation.  BUt it’s tradition, not a necesity from the U.S. Constitution.

That’s a good idea, jbjd–An Unlike Tab.  Particularly for bumble fingers like myself  .

Larry,

Your argument is so one side. There is no way in hell you can call the Dems hypocrits, especially given what the Repugs have been doing in terms of filibusters.

First of all the Republicans have changed the rules of the game given their unprecedented use of filibusters, so it is only fair the Dems also do the same. Actually given the use of reconciliation by the Repugs in recent years the Dems are not really changing anything or doing anything new.

The only reason the Dems are threatening to be use reconciliation to get the healthcare bill passed is because of the Repugs are using the filibuster. 51 votes is still a majority and we deserve and up and down vote on healthcare. The filibuster like reconciliation was also put in place to only be very rarely used. In 2009 the Republicans used the filibuster over 100 times. That is incredible. That is more than all the filibusters in the entire 1950s and 1960s combined or the equivalent of 20 years of filibusters in just one year. That is BS.

So the Repugs leave the Dems with no choice, but to use reconciliation. It is only fair, if the Repugs want to block every single thing then in order to get the senate working again the Dems must use reconciliation.

By the way a little history on reconciliation. It once only applied to bills that reduced the budget deficit, but since 1996 it has been used for all matters related to budget issues. The break from past practices really occured in 2001 when Bush/Republicans used it to pass the big tax cut. In 2003 the Republicans used it again to pass another round of tax cuts. In 2005 the Repugs threatened to use reconcilation to even just get judges appointed. So it is only fair the Dems use reconcilation, especially since the Repugs are blocking everything with the filibuster.

77 votes was a majority, wasn’t it – and how many did they need to pass the bill?  There’s a lengthy list of bills passed with the majority rule – I suspect most of them, since this filibuster nonsense was only recently perfected and used to the extreme by the regressives.  Presently, 51 is supposed to be the norm, not 60.

candymarl.  Under the Johnson administration, the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed by a vote of 73 to 27; much higher than the 68 vote threshold.

Excellent post Larry.  You nailed it.  Hypocrits and phonies.

Peggy Sue, you don’t seem to understand the concept of insurance. It is not supposed to provide care nor health. You are basically making a bet, a lot like playing roulette, instead of betting on winning, you are betting against losing big. So if something really bad happens, someone else will pay your bills. Now, if you are young and healthy, you may choose not to make that bet. But, if you want universal coverage, then the insurance companies are forced to cover those who are not profitable unless the rates are raised to the point they become unafforable. So in order to make insurance affordable to those with pre-conditions, then that money must come from somewhere else, if the insurance company is to stay in business. Therefore, everyone is required to buy insurance, so the coverage can be spread around to those who couldn’t afford it otherwise. So to answer you question, no, they are not middlemen nor are they supposed to provide health or care, they provide insurance.

Getting rid of the 60 vote requirement for cloture takes 67 votes (2/3 required to change the Senate rules). That’s not likely to happen, particularly since the Democrats aren’t really interested in doing anything anyway. They’re just using the cloture rule as an excuse (and to preserve the illusion that there is some substantive difference between the Republican branch of the Corporate Party and the Democratic branch of the Corporate Party).

If they were serious, they’d let the Republicans filibuster and just wait them out. The record for a filibuster speech was set by Strom Thurmond against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. It lasted 24 hours and 18 minutes – and the bill passed anyway. Even if every single Republican senator did this, the worst they could do is hold things up for 40 days.

As it stands, the Republicans haven’t actually filibustered anything.

I’m saying you said both of these bills passed by a 51% majority. They did not. They both passed by more than 60  votes so that’s rather a moot point, isn’t it?

One reason for the government not to be in the business of business. Had we not bought out GM we wouldn’t have this conflict, or at least the appearance of it. Alao, maybe somebody would have taken over GM and maybe done a better job with it next time around. But no, instead we have rewarded failure. So, we can most likely expect more of it. And for what? So that Detroit real estate would rebound? So that GM could sell some cars? The proof is in the pudding, at least so far in the absence of that pudding.

“Why do you think 95%+ of African Americans support the Democrats?” Because they buy into the same BS propaganda that you have, i.e., the “Democrats are good.” They are NOT. Any idiot who still thinks the Democrats are the party of the people is, well, an idiot. 

Tyranny of the majority would be passing health care with 51 votes. Therein selaing those 51 votes by making backroom deals with the senators for those 51 votes. That is tyranny. New Democrats are tyranny.

“For good reason. In order to maintain proper checks and balances in our legislative procedures, our founding fathers thought it necessary to require a 60% vote in the Senate to pass legislation.
A mere majority vote in the Senate, otherwise known as utilizing the ‘nuclear option‘ or reconciliation, is allowed but typically only utilized for simple procedural measures.”

Um, you’ve got this wrong six ways from Sunday. 

The founding fathers never “thought it necessary to require a 60% vote in the Senate to pass legislation.”  A majority is all they required to pass legislation.  To end debate on legislation, 60 votes are needed.  UNLESS the items being voted on are BUDGETARY items, in which case a majority is all that is needed to end debate.  The Dems plan on passing BUDGETARY items through the budget reconciliation process, with a majority vote.

And a majority vote is not “otherwise known as the nuclear option”.  The “nuclear option” was an attempt to end the Dems right to filibuster certain judicial nominees back in 2005.  The Dems are not planning to end the filibuster this time around (though some like Tom Harkin would like to, for obvious reasons).  They simply want to use the budget reconciliation process–JUST LIKE THE GOP DID TO PASS BUSH’S TAX CUT–to pass this particular piece of health care legislation.

“Truth be told, Bush did use this procedure during his Presidency – although not frequently and not for something as large as healthcare.”

You’re right.  It wasn’t for something as large as healthcare.  IT WAS FOR SOMETHING LARGER.  Health care is a $1 trillion package paid for by expanding enrollment and cutting costs.  Bush’s tax cut was a $1.4 trillion package that HE DID NOT EVEN BOTHER TO PAY FOR.

You should really read more about this issue before you write columns like this that are so misleading to your readers.

If there was any proof that a Toyota part malfunction would cause that unintended sudden acceleration event in one of the Toyota lines, the President of the company would not have come to Washington to testify as he did. He came because he is protected by the fact that none of the cases provide hard evidence that the accident was caused by a defective part. They are just rectifying conditions conducive to the probability of the event happening but not conclusively.

My bad….!! No surprise that I did better in math than history. 
 
That said, i think the point I’m trying to make here is not lessened as a result.  
 
Thanks. 

The Repugs are just hanging themselves with all the filibusters. Dems need to grow some balls and nuke the fuckers.. we need a healthcare bill now with a strong public option.  and then cap and trade and then an immigration bill.

the repugs had their chance under Bush to move the country in the direction they wanted, now the dems have their turn. let the voters decide. for now the dems have earned the right to move the country in the direction they want.

So 95% of African Americans are idiots?

Yeah JustMe, it simply negates the “like.”  It does not register a “thumbs down.”  Wow, if we had a “thumbs down” option, I think the blog would get out of control in a big hurry.  Folks would be stalking each other looking for revenge (not that this activity does not happen anyway).

FF wrote “Rich people, CEOs, billionaires, movie stars, white people all give big money to the GOP.” 

Movie stars??? Where? Here on earth? 

LOL so true oowawa just like the goverment is “out of control”

Plus did GWB not buy land somewhere that  sits atop huge natural gas reserves, & a “well” or similar.
The land sits astride Latin America’s largest water aquifer,
 
After all that’s the next thing we will be pouring money into “Water”
Guess we will be fighting to get water here instead of oil soon.
 
AND So the world turns!

http://www.cco.net/~trufax/general/bush_family_paraguay_hideaway_up.html

Barack Obama is pushing this healthcare bill because he mocked Hillary and Bill’s approach to healthcare reform during the primaries.  He thought by the shear force of his glorious personality that the heavens would open up, the choir of angels would sing and we would have universal healthcare for all!  Ahem.

Saying George Bush is anti-environment and Barack Obama is pro-environment (remember who opposed Kyoto and who supported Copenhagen) is snark?

Not that it matters, but that’s NOT what I said.  I said they were passed by a simple majority VOTE – which means that the majority rule was in place when they were passed, not that they were passed by one vote more than half.

Finally, someone with enough sense to explain this mess. Thanks.

Hillary or Bust, Freedom Fighter is playing games with us.  He’s rattling our cage.

Onofre’s  arm, Freedom Fighter is playing games with us; he’s rattling our cage.

Folks, Freedom Fighter is playing games with us!  I am reminded of the anti-semite who posted the fake left-wing snark under so many names.  I would not be surprised if “Freedom Fighter” is not another alias of this character(s).

The only conclusion I can reach is that there must be something in the air systems of our revered bi-cameral chambers of this republic that ATE THE BRAINS of these people who now are poised to use reconciliation for their own legislation. 

I looked up “majoritarian” and it’s a real word with a real sinister meaning.  But then, it’s just a word…just a word.

Freedom, BO will “pay a price”

Start Over on Health Care Reform petition
<!– m –>

http://action.gop.com/site/c.ouITL8MRJr … iLSL9MUKwG

A leader in that regard was LBJ.

Beware, Teak, Freedom Fighter is rattling our cage.  Check out the treehugger link in my comment above, and try to reconcile that with his statements.

“I looked up “majoritarian” and it’s a real word with a real sinister meaning.  But then, it’s just a word…just a word.”

You must hate those evil words like “representative democracy” too…

oowawa – isn’t the “flag” option sort of similar to an “unlike” button?  I thought if 5 people hit the “flag”, the offensive post disappears….?

Duh!  Well, yeah.  Because majoritarianism is antithetical to “representative democracy”. 

“Our founding fathers thought it necessary to require a 60% vote in the Senate to pass legislation”. No, you are wrong. A simple majority is what the founding fathers wrote in the Constitution. The 60% requirement is a senate rule. Not even a law. A rule. And 60% is not  required to pass legislation. It can be the requirement to stop debate to vote on a bill. Legislation in the Senate is still passed by a simple majority vote.