Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 109

Thread: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

  1. #71
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    if you can pass it, pass it

    the american people hate it

    but if you want to pass it, help yourself
    I'd gladly sacrifice 9 or 10 Democratic senators in the next election to pass health care reform. It remains to be seen if the Senate agrees.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #72
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    Be careful what you wish for. In a year, you could be complaining about Republican legislation passed by a 51 vote Republican majority.
    That's why we also have a House of Representatives, a President with veto power, and a Supreme Court with judicial review. I'm all for giving the minority ample time to debate the issue, but the filibuster was not intended as a tool of obstructionism; it was used as a tool to make sure everyone's opinion was heard. And even when it was used for obstruction back in the Mr. Smith Goes To Washington days, the senator had to ACTUALLY filibuster instead of just telling the parliamentarian that they WANTED to filibuster. That allowed the majority to eventually proceed with its business if it could survive the endurance match.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 02-22-10 at 03:51 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #73
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    That's why we also have a House of Representatives and a President with veto power. I'm all for giving the minority ample time to debate the issue, but the filibuster was not intended as a tool of obstructionism; it was used as a tool to make sure everyone's opinion was heard. And even when it was used for obstruction back in the Mr. Smith Goes To Washington days, the senator had to ACTUALLY filibuster instead of just telling the parliamentarian that they WANTED to filibuster. That allowed the majority to eventually proceed with its business if they could survive the endurance match.
    Obstructionism is exactly what the filibuster was intended for. It has been used for that purpose since the days of the Roman Empire.

    So, does that mean that if legislation is passed by a Republican majority in both the House and Senate, then vetoed by Obama you will accuse him of obstructionism?

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  4. #74
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I'd gladly sacrifice 9 or 10 Democratic senators in the next election to pass health care reform. It remains to be seen if the Senate agrees.
    Passing legislation that gets your party completely tossed by the people should be the BIG CLUE that the PEOPLE reject this idea. This is a Representative Republic, I guess to you, what the peopel want isn't as important as what you believe they need, they just don't realize it yet.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  5. #75
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    it only remains to be seen to the blind

    the party can't pass it

    sorry

    if it could, the libs wouldn't be carrying on so

    poor little party in power

    reality is just so UNFAIR

  6. #76
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I'd gladly sacrifice 9 or 10 Democratic senators in the next election to pass health care reform. It remains to be seen if the Senate agrees.
    If the bill passes, the Democratic Party will be in the political wilderness for the next few decades. Meanwhile, the GOP will take overwhelming majorities in both houses and eventually have the power to repeal the bill. There is only one precedent for this, in 1854.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I'm all for giving the minority ample time to debate the issue
    Here's the problem. In this case, the "minority" in Congress is representing the view of a majority of Americans.


    but the filibuster was not intended as a tool of obstructionism
    What? By definition, it was.

    If anything, this debate totally proves the need for a filibuster in the Senate. Congressmen for the most part wouldn't dare filibuster popular bills which they are only mildly against, but there has to be a check to make sure that unpopular bills which have the support of a slim majority in Congress don't pass so easily. Note that in the current case, filibusters only work when a party is in complete unity, which is rare. Snowe and Collins aren't exactly hyperpartisans.

  7. #77
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    Obstructionism is exactly what the filibuster was intended for. It has been used for that purpose since the days of the Roman Empire.
    Then why go through the whistles and bells of making congressmen stand up and speak until they drop (which, granted, we don't even do anymore. But originally we did), and have a cloture vote? Why not just mandate 60 votes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill
    So, does that mean that if legislation is passed by a Republican majority in both the House and Senate, then vetoed by Obama you will accuse him of obstructionism?
    No. The president is a separate branch of government, and specifically has veto power as authorized by the Constitution whereas the filibuster is just a Senate rule...and in it's current incarnation, a relatively new Senate rule. The president's election was every bit as legitimate as a (hypothetical) Republican congressional majority was. The key difference between the veto and the filibuster is that the president represents a majority of the people (or at least a majority of the electoral college), whereas the veto is used by the Senate MINORITY.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 02-22-10 at 04:57 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #78
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Passing legislation that gets your party completely tossed by the people should be the BIG CLUE that the PEOPLE reject this idea.
    Well, I don't think the Democrats will be tossed from power over passing health care reform anyway, although they might be tossed for other reasons...such as, well, failure to pass health care reform.

    But in any case, I'm saying *I* would be willing to sacrifice some Democratic seats in the next election to pass the most important legislation of my lifetime. Whether or not the actual Democrats sitting in Congress agree is a different matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio
    This is a Representative Republic, I guess to you, what the peopel want isn't as important as what you believe they need, they just don't realize it yet.
    The Democrats campaigned on health care in 2006 and 2008, and the people elected them. I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over them passing legislation that the people MIGHT oppose in the NEXT election.

    At what point in the election cycle is the democratically-elected majority allowed to enact its agenda? The first time a poll indicates less than 50% support for an issue, they should just abandon ship?
    Last edited by Kandahar; 02-22-10 at 04:58 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #79
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    If the bill passes, the Democratic Party will be in the political wilderness for the next few decades. Meanwhile, the GOP will take overwhelming majorities in both houses and eventually have the power to repeal the bill. There is only one precedent for this, in 1854.
    Which provisions of the bill, specifically, do you believe are so massively unpopular with the people? The American people, by and large, favor ending preexisting conditions. They favor subsidies for the poor to buy health insurance. They favor a public option to compete with private insurers. They favor pretty much every provision of health care reform, with the possible exception of the insurance mandate. And no one is going to vote the bums out just because of that.

    What I think the American people object to is the wheeling and dealing of the health insurance bill, and the length of time it has taken for Congress to (still not) do anything. This is caused - once again - by the supermajority requirement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav
    Here's the problem. In this case, the "minority" in Congress is representing the view of a majority of Americans.
    Then why didn't the majority of Americans pull the lever for the other guys?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav
    What? By definition, it was.
    The intent of the filibuster is to ensure that the issue is thoroughly debated and everyone's opinion is heard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav
    If anything, this debate totally proves the need for a filibuster in the Senate. Congressmen for the most part wouldn't dare filibuster popular bills which they are only mildly against,
    I'm not sure where you get this idea. Nearly EVERYTHING is filibustered...sometimes by the bill's own sponsors (e.g. the deficit commission). Sometimes when the bill later passes 98-0 (e.g. funding the troops last December).

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav
    but there has to be a check to make sure that unpopular bills which have the support of a slim majority in Congress don't pass so easily.
    There is. The presidential veto and judicial review. And a looming election in which a new congressional majority and/or new president could undo the possible damage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav
    Note that in the current case, filibusters only work when a party is in complete unity, which is rare. Snowe and Collins aren't exactly hyperpartisans.
    They have been acting more and more that way in the 111th session. There is absolutely no reason Olympia Snowe should not be on board with this bill. She got almost everything she wanted when she was negotiating last fall.

    Complete unity may have been rare in the past, but it is not rare now. The Senate minority has been moving in lockstep on almost everything in the last session. They even voted in lockstep against raising the debt ceiling, so it only passed 60-40. What if a single Democrat had voted no? The United States would have been in default on its debt, which I don't think is an exaggeration to say would be the most grossly fiscally irresponsible thing the US government has EVER done. And yet not a single Republican was willing to vote for the most basic fiscal obligation we have. This is frightening.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 02-22-10 at 05:01 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #80
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Then why go through the whistles and bells of making congressmen stand up and speak until they drop (which, granted, we don't even do anymore. But originally we did), and have a cloture vote? Why not just mandate 60 votes?
    Simple... they are too lazy to stay in their chairs for 4 days straight.

    No. The president is a separate branch of government, and specifically has veto power as authorized by the Constitution whereas the filibuster is just a Senate rule...and in it's current incarnation, a relatively new Senate rule. The president's election was every bit as legitimate as a (hypothetical) Republican congressional majority was. The key difference between the veto and the filibuster is that the president represents a majority of the people (or at least a majority of the electoral college), whereas the veto is used by the Senate MINORITY.
    Yeah, and the end result is the same isn't it??

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •