The "Nuclear Option " as Trent Lott liked to characterize it, was a popular maneuver in 2005 when the Republicans threatened to use it against the Democratic filibusters who were blocking George Bush's court appointments.
It is funny how it was entirely above board and "constitutional" back in 2005... but not in 2010.
Personally, I dislike the reconciliation option, but I dislike political hypocrites even more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
General discussion
We don't need no steenking Constitution!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503742.html?hpid=topnews
After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on the Senate's health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it.
Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers "deem" the health-care bill to be passed.
The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" -- has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.
------------------------
What next, tanks in the streets of Washington DC?
Discussion is locked
12 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
- Collapse -
the way the Democrats want to use it is unusual and different from what the Republicans did.
If you dislike political hypocrites you have to dislike Schumer and Reid and others who said it was a threat to freedom back then, but are now willing to not only use it but take it way bast previous bounds.
- Collapse -
If they spend the money on Health care, they won't be able to put those tanks you're worried about on the streets.
Every cloud has a silver lining.
- Collapse -
although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill.
That's called inflation...
You didn't need your steenking Constitution then, your don't need it now.
- Collapse -
...we'll ask them if they like this set of tires, then if they like this remote cranking system, then if they like this set of mags, and once they say that sounds good, we'll go grab the car of our choice without asking them if they like it and put all that on it, consider it a done deal.
- Collapse -
OR
They'll say...will you give me a set of tires, or do something for the people of my district that will help me get re-elected, and I'll sign your bill?
So were you in the room when these people are doing their negotiations?
They all know Health Care is a mess, and something has to be done, or it's going to be a bigger mess.
You have to break an egg to make an omelette.
- Collapse -
Government by fiat, and I don't mean a small Italian car.
I have to hope there are enough Democrats who still love liberty and respect democracy that this won't pass.
- Collapse -
....... was geared to giving a leg up for their futures to the war-ravaged countries. But somehow the US thought it should rebuild Iraq. The poor condition of its infrastructure, power systems, etc. was not from our bombs, but from years of neglect by Sadam. On borrowed money. Yet borrowed money to repair our own systems meets meets with political "we can't afford it".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
(...."Mortgaging our children's future")
I think back to those "Harry and Louise" during the last time health care reform was seriously mentioned. That couple was scared to death of "the government being in our medicine cabinets". (It later was with Medicare Part D, but was not funded. I doubt that Harry and Louise would want to lose that coverage now. But that couple did an excellent job of making people afraid of "government takeover".
(.... Mortgaging our children's future")
IMO, this same approach has been the thrust of the present debate. I suspect that the same percentage of US citizens ware against :the government takeover" as there are now. At first I thought that few would believe those rumors of a death squad for elders. But opponents have gained themselves adequate time to employ the fear factor. "You will lose your job." "You will lose your health insurance". "We can't afford it."
(.... Mortgaging our children's future".)
Yes, we have. I do not know the percentage of our debt re: rebuilding Iraq versus rebuilding our own long-neglected systems. I don't know how much of it went into Iraq for Nation Building. I don't know why any investigation of the millions lost by civilian contractors has been off the radar. I recall several years ago when some menders noted the borrowing was mortgaging our children's future it was not well received, some calling it unpatriotic.
Is it possible that it depends on whom wants the borrowing and for what? Or on which lobbies are the most powerful and have the deepest pockets? Or on personal political ambition?
Health care reform was a campaign promise. I can see only one new argument by opponents and that is about the borrowing. "Government takeover of your health care' is decades old. "Putting too much of a burden on the states" is fairly new. ( "No child Left behind" has been criticized by some states. )
As far as reconciliation, its purpose might be debated, but also the same for filibusters.
Angeline
- Collapse -
There were many many. Transparency for one. Where is that? No more back room deals, etc. Obviously his campaign promises are not worth the empty air they are made of.
It has become increasingly clear that the majority of the American people do NOT want this bill. The Dems HAD a super-majority and couldn't pass it. Now they can't pass it with a simple majority, so they want to short-circuit democracy with this cheap trick.
You realize the tax increases start immediately but the supposed benefits don't kick in until after (long after, I hope) the culprits have left the scene. That's accountability for you!
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic