• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrat Threat: Health Bill Can Pass Senate With 51 Votes, Van Hollen Says

U.S. Army Retired

New member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
43
Reaction score
14
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The US congress refuses to represent The People anymore. They are all about special interest and they are bound and determined to cram this mess down everybody’s throats. They planned this ahead of time in case Coakley lost.



Health Bill Can Pass Senate With 51 Votes, Van Hollen Says - Bloomberg.com

Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Even if Democrats lose the Jan. 19 special election to pick a new Massachusetts senator, Congress may still pass a health-care overhaul by using a process called reconciliation, a top House Democrat said.

That procedure requires 51 votes rather than the 60 needed to prevent Republicans from blocking votes on President Barack Obama’s top legislative priorities. That supermajority is at risk as the Massachusetts race has tightened.

“Even before Massachusetts and that race was on the radar screen, we prepared for the process of using reconciliation,” said Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

“Getting health-care reform passed is important,” Van Hollen said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. “Reconciliation is an option.”

Using reconciliation would likely force Democrats to scale back their health-care plans. The procedure is designed to make deficit-cutting easier by reducing the number of votes needed to pass unpopular tax increases and spending cuts. Lawmakers can’t include policy changes that the parliamentarian deems have only an “incidental” connection to budget-cutting, and senators would need 60 votes to override those rulings.

Van Hollen also said he expects Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley to win in Massachusetts.

‘Pure Hallucination’

Van Hollen said Republican predictions that the political climate had changed so much that they can capture the 40 seats needed to regain control of the House was “pure hallucination.”

“Why would you hand the keys to the car back to the same guys whose policies drove the economy into the ditch and then walked away from the scene of the accident?” Van Hollen said. “For the Republicans to say vote for us and bring back the guys who got us into this mess in the first place, I don’t think it’s a winner.”

He said Democrats expect to see their majority shrink this year because the party that occupies the White House traditionally loses congressional seats in the first midterm election.

At the end of a week dominated by images of death and destruction after the Jan. 12 earthquake in Haiti, Van Hollen said lawmakers likely will approve whatever relief money the president requests. Obama has already asked for $100 million.

“We want to help people who need relief immediately, and so to that extent I support it,” Van Hollen said.
 
Last edited:
Most threads don't have gratuitous Nazi and Hitler references till several posts in. Good job not waiting and getting them in early so we can just dismiss this all as hyper-partisan ranting.
 
Most threads don't have gratuitous Nazi and Hitler references till several posts in. Good job not waiting and getting them in early so we can just dismiss this all as hyper-partisan ranting.
What are you talking about? Do you wish to discuss the topic about getting healthcare passed with 51 votes?
 
What are you talking about? Do you wish to discuss the topic about getting healthcare passed with 51 votes?

That which you edited out 4 minutes after my post, that's what I am talking about. Nice try, but still a fail.
 
Most threads don't have gratuitous Nazi and Hitler references till several posts in. Good job not waiting and getting them in early so we can just dismiss this all as hyper-partisan ranting.

So just a trolling whine about a non-existing Hitler reference. Got it.


I'd say that politically, the bill will pass one way or another. Democrats have many options to still get the bill passed - but the fallout of doing this is the real story. It could be reconciliation with 51 votes, it could be a delay in getting Brown into the Senate seat until the bill passes, it could be that they'll pass it without Brown's vote or with it by turning a "nay" into a "yea" which Democrats may be doing right now.

I don't think Brown will have any effect on the Health Care bill at all since there are so many options - but the fallout of any of those options may be worse if they are used for the majority party. Politically I think Democrats are in trouble not just in Mass. but everywhere and the use of something like reconciliation would not help and potentially hurt 2010 elections.
 
Ok, I didn't see the part edited out so appologies all around if that is indeed the case. However, discussion of the topic and ignoring such matters would provide a better debate on the substance of the article. There's genuine point there as well as a valid political position. Better to comment on that or just ignore the thread if Godwins law is violated right off the bat.
 
That which you edited out 4 minutes after my post, that's what I am talking about. Nice try, but still a fail.

Do you wish to discuss the topic about getting healthcare passed with 51 votes? What are your thoughts?
 
Do you wish to discuss the topic about getting healthcare passed with 51 votes? What are your thoughts?

I'd much rather that you first explain why it is that you said what you said, only to edit it out when Redress called you on it and then pretend you never said it.

Did you think that being so blatantly dishonest within your first couple of dozen posts was going to score you bonus points with the rest of us?
 
I'd much rather that you first explain why it is that you said what you said, only to edit it out when Redress called you on it and then pretend you never said it.

Did you think that being so blatantly dishonest within your first couple of dozen posts was going to score you bonus points with the rest of us?
What did I supposedly say?
 
If it occurred to me that your dishonesty would necessitate either rote memorization of your post or a screen snapshot, I would've done one or the other.

The fact is you are lying, and you can't be bothered to own up to it.

Must you hijack this? IF you have a problem with the OP or poster could you take it to PM instead?
 
Why are you trying to disrupt this thread about Healthcare?

Why did you refer to(paraphrasing here) congress and Nazi's and Obama as Hitler? Why did you say something like that if you want to talk seriously about a topic?
 
Why did you refer to(paraphrasing here) congress and Nazi's and Obama as Hitler? Why did you say something like that if you want to talk seriously about a topic?

That seems to be a fair assessment about Obama wouldn't you say? Pushing the Healthcare Bill down our throats is something the Nazi Party and Hitler would do and Obama is the modern day equivalent of Adolf Hitler. Their comparisons are uncanny.
 
Last edited:
That seems to be a fair assessment about Obama wouldn't you say? Pushing the Healthcare Bill down our throats is something the Nazi Party and Hitler would do and Obama is the modern day equivalent of Adolf Hitler. Their comparisons are uncanny.

So why couldn't you just own up to saying that? Why did you remove it from your post and then pretend you never said it?
 
Do you wish to discuss the topic about getting healthcare passed with 51 votes? What are your thoughts?

It the Dems were going to ram a bill down our throats with 51 votes it would have been done before this piece of s*** hit the table.

Something like Medicare for all, or at least something that contains a public option.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Enough about the OP's editted out Nazi comparison. It was there, it was talked about, he edited it, end of story. If you want to rail on him upstairs is not the place for it. Please return to the topic
 
Simply put, I'm no longer worried about this. Such a tactic will scare off a bunch of Dems, and I don't think they could get the 51, and if they did, November will might put the Democrats out to pasture for 30 years.
 
Back
Top Bottom