Reconciliation

[Partha]

No, no, no, no, no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Perso ... come_U.png

Fully 70% of individuals in the US make less than the median income. That's why the Gini is so much worse for us than for China - yes, they have more peasants, but we actually have proportionately fewer people controlling more income and having more net worth than they do, which is what Gini measures (the inequality of income). For example, the US has 39 of the world's 100 richest billionaires. China has two. Those 39 Americans control over $400 BILLION of net worth.

And, of course, what really doesn't get talked about is how many of our richest don't create wealth, they merely inherit it. Most of the 39 I talk about above are direct descendants of the people who actually built the business - these are folks like the Waltons and the Mars family. Like Warren Buffett said, they won the genetic lottery. They're only titans of industry by DNA, not by ability.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Yeah, because polling of a confused or misinformed public should be the basis for all policy decisions.

As for the Republican strategy... good luck with that. They must think the parliamentarian is a moron. There's no chance that he's going to allow the minority party to, in essence, filibuster legislation that's been purposely exempted from the filibuster process. Thinking that they could object line by line, sending a bill back to the House for a vote each time only to object to the next line, from now until the election, is laughable. It's almost as if a child who didn't know much about the legislative process came up with a last ditch attempt to stop reform by throwing a massive screaming tantrum.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senat ... ciliation/

Looks like they can do exactly that. And in fact, that strategy has been used before, it seems.

[Lurker]

No party has ever tried to filibuster a reconciliation bill. The strategy has not been used before. You are confused.

Senate Republicans can't object to a line and send it to the House for a vote, object to another line and send it to the House for a vote, and on and on like you described from now until the end of time.

The House will send a reconciliation bill to the Senate. The parliamentarian will make a ruling on what is or is not allowed under the rules. The Republicans can then throw their childish hissy fit and object to every line if they want to. Eventually, the Senate will vote on the final bill and if anything was changed it goes back to the House for a final vote. So the Democrats need to make sure they have a bill that fits solidly within the rules of reconciliation, and every indication is that they are doing exactly that.

Also, the parliamentarian can rule that the Republicans only goal is to waste time and he can end the process. Reconciliation bills are not subject to fillibuster, and that's essentially what the Republicans would be trying to do.

As Greg Sargant noted, and hypocrite Sen. Gregg admitted, the main goal of this "strategy" is to try to frighten House Dems.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I think that if the Reps make a successful challenge that results in the bill being modifed at all, and requiring a revote, they could make the argument that since part of it has changed, then other provisions that didn't matter before matter now. And they could object to those provisions. We'll see how it plays out.

[Lurker]

The reconciliation bill wouldn't go back to the Senate for a new round of objections. As long as the House passes the version that makes it through the Senate they get the final vote.

In more reconciliation news, Reid wrote a letter to McConnell, and the parliamentarian has ruled that the comprehensive reform bill must be signed into law before the reconciliation bill can be passed. This was expected by most.

[Embar Angylwrath]

The reconciliation bill wouldn't go back to the Senate for a new round of objections. As long as the House passes the version that makes it through the Senate they get the final vote.

In more reconciliation news, Reid wrote a letter to McConnell, and the parliamentarian has ruled that the comprehensive reform bill must be signed into law before the reconciliation bill can be passed. This was expected by most.

Was that in response to Slaughter's strategy?

[Lurker]

I don't think so but details aren't clear about what exactly the parliamentarian was responding to.

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02904.html

Good read by former Democrat pollsters. Essentially they say House and Senate Dems (and Obama) are ignoring overwhelming signs from all sorts of sources that passing the broken healthcare legislation will be political suicide. I tend to agree with their last statements... give up the comprehensive approach, and pass the stuff that both sides agree on. Use that as a basis for continuing reform. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

[Lurker]

Didn't you used to attack Clinton for paying too much attention to polls? Now all you want to do is legislate via poll. Amazing.

That op-ed you linked by "former Democrat pollsters", based on one Rasmussen opinion poll, was wrong on just about every level. Crafting legislation based solely on how you think it'll play politically is morally wrong. Trying to enact only the popular parts of reform will not work because you can't do things like eliminating refusal for pre-existing condition without also extending coverage to everyone. And starting over after both the House and Senate (with a super-majority) already passed comprehensive health reform just because a confused and misinformed public thinks they don't like the bill would be incredibly stupid... and exactly what the Republicans hope for.

Those "Democrat" pollsters are morons, and the concern trolling by people that were opposed to reform from the start of the process has reached comical heights the closer we get to passing it.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Didn't you used to attack Clinton for paying too much attention to polls? Now all you want to do is legislate via poll. Amazing.

That op-ed you linked by "former Democrat pollsters", based on one Rasmussen opinion poll, was wrong on just about every level. Crafting legislation based solely on how you think it'll play politically is morally wrong. Trying to enact only the popular parts of reform will not work because you can't do things like eliminating refusal for pre-existing condition without also extending coverage to everyone. And starting over after both the House and Senate (with a super-majority) already passed comprehensive health reform just because a confused and misinformed public thinks they don't like the bill would be incredibly stupid... and exactly what the Republicans hope for.

Those "Democrat" pollsters are morons, and the concern trolling by people that were opposed to reform from the start of the process has reached comical heights the closer we get to passing it.

Those morons helped past Dem presidents. You may not like what they have to say, but then again you'd fall in with the group they identify.. the ones that don't let facts and reality get in the way of desire.

[Lurker]

Those morons helped past Dem presidents.

So did Dick Morris. Now look at him.

I gave a detailed, reality based rebuttal of their op-ed explaining why I think they are idiots.

While your concern about the political future of the Democrats is admirable, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with you just wanting reform to fail for political and financial reasons, I disagree with you. Reform can't be done piecemeal. Starting over when we're almost done would be moronic. Legislating based on polling of a confused and misinformed public would be stupid and immoral.

[Embar Angylwrath]

So what you're saying is just ignore the electorate, because they're too stupid to get it. That's a defining element of the left. In fact, I heard George Will and Robert Reich debating the healthcare process, and Reich made much the same comment as you. And George Will responded in much the same way as me.

What's immoral is for elected represenatives to ignore the electorate. But at least we have a way of correcting that in November.

And you're flat out wrong that healthcare can't be done in smaller peices. You just don't want to hear common sense and truth if it gets in your way.

[Lurker]

No, that isn't what I'm saying. We went over this exact same thing last week.

I think this is where the conversation devolves into me saying you are either a moron or a liar.

P.S. If you really want to legislate via public opinion polls, fine. We'll have either Medicare-for-all or a robust public option open to everyone, funded entirely on tax increases on the wealthy. You know... things with overwhelming support in the polls.

[Embar Angylwrath]

No, that isn't what I'm saying. We went over this exact same thing last week.

I think this is where the conversation devolves into me saying you are either a moron or a liar.

P.S. If you really want to legislate via public opinion polls, fine. We'll have either Medicare-for-all or a robust public option open to everyone, funded entirely on tax increases on the wealthy. You know... things with overwhelming support in the polls.

And a new Congress and President. Might not be a bad trade-off.

[Lurker]

You aren't making sense. You said we should legislate via public opinion polls, and now you're saying that doing what the public wants (reform paid for with taxes on the wealthy, a robust public option open to everyone) would cost the Democrats the Presidency and the Congress. It's almost as if you are just concern trolling because you are anti-reform.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You aren't making sense. You said we should legislate via public opinion polls, and now you're saying that doing what the public wants (reform paid for with taxes on the wealthy, a robust public option open to everyone) would cost the Democrats the Presidency and the Congress. It's almost as if you are just concern trolling because you are anti-reform.

Not anti reform at all. Just anti this reform. I think its a bad idea, too big, too much, has too many side deals, and now even includes student aid reform, something that shouldn't even be in this debate or process. And I find it quite ironic that the Senate and President are clamoring for an up-or-down vote, yes/no, while Pelosi tries to twist the process so her caucus doesn't have to, just to give them political cover. She wants them to vote on a ruling of the bill, not the actual bill itself, so they can say they didn't vote for the bill. How's that for faith in your own party and President?

[Lurker]

If the things you believed about the reform bill were true I'd be against it too. But they're not true.

I just found it amusing that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You said the Democrats faced electoral defeat if they didn't follow opinion polls which show the public doesn't like the reform bill (until they learn what's actually in the reform bill). You then said they faced electoral defeat if they did follow opinion polls showing the public wants to tax the wealthy to pay for reform and have a public option. The reality is you just want the Democrats to do whatever you want, opinion polls be damned.

Well, tough.

[Embar Angylwrath]

If the things you believed about the reform bill were true I'd be against it too. But they're not true.

I just found it amusing that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You said the Democrats faced electoral defeat if they didn't follow opinion polls which show the public doesn't like the reform bill (until they learn what's actually in the reform bill). You then said they faced electoral defeat if they did follow opinion polls showing the public wants to tax the wealthy to pay for reform and have a public option. The reality is you just want the Democrats to do whatever you want, opinion polls be damned.

Well, tough.

Actually.. you misconstrue what I said. What I said is that if healthcare and Obama and Congress owed their existence to the desire of the electorate to have them there, healthcare would be tossed, as would Congress and the President. Its another way of saying the electorate doesn't like the healthcare bill, doesn't like Congress, and doesn't like the President. We'll get a chance to modify Congress in Nov. If this bill passes, you'll see both Dem and Rep candidates campaign on repealing the law. I guarantee it. And it will help get them elected. And if Reps gain control of the Congress, once far fetched but now a toss up, you can kiss goodbye to the rest of Obama's agenda.

And did I notice the predictable Lurker dodge again? No opinion on Dems in the House wanting political cover? About the irony of calls for an "up-or-down" vote, and then Dems in the House trying to do everyhting they can to note vote on the actual Senate bill? It's hypocrisy.

[Lurker]

Do you ever dodge questions, Embar? Cause I can link some examples that show you are the undisputed master of dodging.

Anyways, you misunderstood what some House members were suggesting and why. For one, they want to take every step possible to ensure that the Senate follows through with the reconciliation bill. And they don't want to be attacked by Republicans for voting yes on things contained in the comprehensive Senate bill that they are stripping out through the reconciliation bill. I don't see hypocrisy in any of that.

No Democrat is going to campaign on repealing health reform, not even the ones who vote against it. The popular stuff goes into affect immediately and the stuff you don't understand gets phased in over several years. All of it is necessary for reform to work.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Do you ever dodge questions, Embar? Cause I can link some examples that show you are the undisputed master of dodging.

Anyways, you misunderstood what some House members were suggesting and why. For one, they want to take every step possible to ensure that the Senate follows through with the reconciliation bill. And they don't want to be attacked by Republicans for voting yes on things contained in the comprehensive Senate bill that they are stripping out through the reconciliation bill. I don't see hypocrisy in any of that.

No Democrat is going to campaign on repealing health reform, not even the ones who vote against it. The popular stuff goes into affect immediately and the stuff you don't understand gets phased in over several years. All of it is necessary for reform to work.

What does my responses have to do with your responses? Are you saying that I dictate your response by my response?

And as to your post...
Tell me how the House voting on a procedural move makes sure "the Senate follows through with the reconciliation bill". Seems to me, it provides cover if they don't. House members get to say they voted for a procedural move without saying they voted for the actual bill.

Care to bet on the your statement that "No Democrat is going to campaign on repealing health reform"? A hundred dollars paid by the loser of this wager to a charity of the other's choosing. Ddrak to be the judge and arbiter of the wager (sorry to pull you into this Dd, feel free to decline if you want).