• 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!

Democrats move toward grouping health reform with student-aid bill

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
washingtonpost.com

Democratic leaders said Thursday that they were increasingly inclined to release a final health-care bill that could accomplish two of President Obama's top domestic priorities: guaranteeing coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans and vastly expanding federal aid for college students

...

Key Senate Democrats initially balked at combining the health-reform bill with a measure that overhauls the nation's student-loan program, but on Thursday they had warmed to the idea.

The NYT has more details:

The deal would bundle the bill into an expedited budget package along with the Democratic health care legislation, which would allow for both measures to be passed by the Senate on a simple majority vote. Without the deal, the student loan bill would have been unlikely to pass because it lacked the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

...

House Democrats predicted that packaging the two proposals in an expedited budget reconciliation bill would help them secure the needed votes on health care because the financial aid bill is popular. In September, the House adopted that bill, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, by a vote of 253 to 171.

What the **** is this bull****? Not only is the idea facially absurd, they're even contradicting themselves about the rationale. First they say that without lumping the student loans in with health care, the student loans wouldn't get past the filibuster, but then they say that lumping them together will help health care because the student loan bill is popular.

Can anyone offer a reasonable explanation for why these two bills need to be lumped together and shoved through as one reconciliation project?
 
Last edited:
So basically what are great leaders are telling us is that they cant get enough people to agree to vote for thier bill so instead of making a better bill or deciding that this is not something the PEOPLE want they will just find a way to pass thier bill with less votes. This sure seems very dishonest and underhanded. It sure dosent give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the future of this country. Our leaders want something that they cant get the votes for. No problem they will just slip it in the back door. Why not
 
Let them, women and blacks will be hurt the most. I hope these two groups vote every Democrat out of office, so we have only Republicans left. :mrgreen:
 
washingtonpost.com



The NYT has more details:



What the **** is this bull****? Not only is the idea facially absurd, they're even contradicting themselves about the rationale. First they say that without lumping the student loans in with health care, the student loans wouldn't get past the filibuster, but then they say that lumping them together will help health care because the student loan bill is popular.

Can anyone offer a reasonable explanation for why these two bills need to be lumped together and shoved through as one reconciliation project?

Lame Senate tactics from the Democrats used to get past lame Senate tactics used by the Republicans.

This is an outrage.
 
Lame Senate tactics from the Democrats used to get past lame Senate tactics used by the Republicans.

This is an outrage.
You're equating this tactic to a filibuster? :roll:
 
Hell, throw cap and trade in there. Amnesty, too. Gun control. Outlaw conservatism.

These communist dirtbags are flat pissing me off.
 
Hell, throw cap and trade in there. Amnesty, too. Gun control. Outlaw conservatism.

These communist dirtbags are flat pissing me off.

This sort of attitude is why we can't even discuss things anymore. "Communist dirtbags."

A mandate to buy health insurance from private companies is not communism.

Conservatives are impossible to talk to because they don't live in the real world anymore.
 
What the Democrats want to do simply disgusts me. These morons want to dishonestly sneak in their unpopular healthcare bill into another bill. This just shows their all about pushing their own ideology and not what is best for the country. To my knowledge the Republicans haven't done anything as shallow or disturbing as this, and regardless we need to live in the present and not look to the past to excuse bad behavior. I hope 2010 gives the Democrat party a thrashing. Congress is in the greatest need for healthcare reform, it is way over do for a democratically decided moronectomy.
 
What the Democrats want to do simply disgusts me. These morons want to dishonestly sneak in their unpopular healthcare bill into another bill. This just shows their all about pushing their own ideology and not what is best for the country. To my knowledge the Republicans haven't done anything as shallow or disturbing as this, and regardless we need to live in the present and not look to the past to excuse bad behavior. I hope 2010 gives the Democrat party a thrashing. Congress is in the greatest need for healthcare reform, it is way over do for a democratically decided moronectomy.

You don't think the bold line there has anything to do with your own personal slant, maybe?


Unpopular does not make something inherently bad. Hypothetical: You have a bill you believe will help your constituents, but they are dead set against it. Is your duty to enact it, or NOT enact it?
 
I posted about this attempt on differnt HC threads. This is typical WO BS. So if anyone votes no because of the rider, watch they will be labeled as not wanting HC reform.

time to vote for a change. that is vote them all out.
 
You don't think the bold line there has anything to do with your own personal slant, maybe?


Unpopular does not make something inherently bad. Hypothetical: You have a bill you believe will help your constituents, but they are dead set against it. Is your duty to enact it, or NOT enact it?

All I'm saying is I don't claim to know of all the bad things Republican's have done (I am not denying anything bad they have done). What I am saying is that to my knowledge the Republicans haven't dishonestly snuck in major legislation to another bill, especially when the majority of America doesn't want it. My main point was this comment and regardless we need to live in the present and not look to the past to excuse bad behavior. What the Democrats are doing is shady, Dishonest, and very wrong, no one else's behavior excuses this or makes it any less dastardly.

And being unpopular doesn't make something bad, you are correct on that. However, senators are elected to represent their constituents in congress. If senators break away from this they are typically not elected again. People vote for the one that shares most of their beliefs. It's arrogant to look at constituents and say "I'm right, your wrong" and not listen to their arguments or voice. It's also wrong to vote on bribes (like LA and NE) and to only allow like minded individuals to shape legislation (like how the Dems have isolated the Republicans and only allowed a select few Dems to write legislation behind closed doors).
 
All I'm saying is I don't claim to know of all the bad things Republican's have done (I am not denying anything bad they have done). What I am saying is that to my knowledge the Republicans haven't dishonestly snuck in major legislation to another bill, especially when the majority of America doesn't want it. My main point was this comment and regardless we need to live in the present and not look to the past to excuse bad behavior. What the Democrats are doing is shady, Dishonest, and very wrong, no one else's behavior excuses this or makes it any less dastardly.

And being unpopular doesn't make something bad, you are correct on that. However, senators are elected to represent their constituents in congress. If senators break away from this they are typically not elected again. People vote for the one that shares most of their beliefs. It's arrogant to look at constituents and say "I'm right, your wrong" and not listen to their arguments or voice. It's also wrong to vote on bribes (like LA and NE) and to only allow like minded individuals to shape legislation (like how the Dems have isolated the Republicans and only allowed a select few Dems to write legislation behind closed doors).

It's only arrogant to not listen to them at all, it's not arrogant when you do listen to them, determine that their concerns are based on falsehoods told by the opposing party, and ignore their concerns based on that.

Democrats isolated Republicans? That's a laugh. They've reached out for over a year and have incorporated many of their ideas. The public option is out, abortion language getting strengthened possibly, strengthening language against illegal immigrants being provided care (despite that having been spelled out VERY clearly to begin with) the across-state lines deal, etc etc.

Half the bill is conforming to GOP ideas or concerns. Even the crazy ones that didn't make any sense. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

(edit: Or just believes Fox News when they tell people Republicans have been shut out)
 
Last edited:
It's only arrogant to not listen to them at all, it's not arrogant when you do listen to them, determine that their concerns are based on falsehoods told by the opposing party, and ignore their concerns based on that.

And it doesn't pass the laugh test to claim that republicans are lying their teeth off while democrats are innocent little lambs. Your side has the bully pulpit, the majority of both houses, much of industry consent bought and paid for, and initially had public support. The idea that Republicans were able to swamp all of that simply by telling some lies is pure naivete.

Democrats isolated Republicans? That's a laugh. They've reached out for over a year and have incorporated many of their ideas. The public option is out, abortion language getting strengthened possibly, strengthening language against illegal immigrants being provided care (despite that having been spelled out VERY clearly to begin with) the across-state lines deal, etc etc.

That's democrat compromise to bring in Republicans? Funny, because I thought that the vast majority of what you're mentioning was done because Democrats didn't have enough support from their own caucus.

Half the bill is conforming to GOP ideas or concerns. Even the crazy ones that didn't make any sense. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

I don't think you're not paying attention, I think you're just hearing what you want to hear. Obama agrees to implement a few tiny and inconsequential GOP proposals, claims that he's being bipartisan, and you accept that as truth. That's just not what's happening.
 
You seem to think "bipartisan" means "Republicans get equal say."

You're the minority party because more people voted Team Blue. It's going to be lopsided in favor of the majority, that's how it works.

Besides, Democrats could have pushed a bill dropping all federal gun bans, and Republicans would still vote against it because it's Democrats doing it.
 
You seem to think "bipartisan" means "Republicans get equal say."

No, you seem to think "including a few token inconsequential Republican proposals" = "half the bill is GOP ideas." You're the one who made that absurd claim, not me.

You're the minority party because more people voted Team Blue. It's going to be lopsided in favor of the majority, that's how it works.

And that's perfectly fine. If they want to ram a bill through, they're free to do so. What they don't get to do is ram a bill through and then lie about how they made every possible effort to be inclusive.

Besides, Democrats could have pushed a bill dropping all federal gun bans, and Republicans would still vote against it because it's Democrats doing it.

It's almost like they're politicians! Fortunately, your party has never been responsible for such hypocrisy.
 
And that's perfectly fine. If they want to ram a bill through, they're free to do so. What they don't get to do is ram a bill through and then lie about how they made every possible effort to be inclusive.

"Ram the bill through." Favorite GOP catchphrase these days. I call it "pass a bill with your house and senate majority."

It's almost like they're politicians! Fortunately, your party has never been responsible for such hypocrisy.

Oh they most certainly have. I've criticized the Democrats plenty. They're a bunch of utterly inept ******s. They're continuing the Bush era attacks on our civil liberties without so much as missing a step. They continue to spend utterly absurd amounts of money on this generation's biggest military fiasco. They're completely in the grips of corporate lobbyists just like the Republicans are. I mean, jesus, we're getting a bill that forces us to buy insurance from private companies and it doesn't do any sort of significant cost controls.

I oppose the current form of the bill, for the record.
 
"Ram the bill through." Favorite GOP catchphrase these days. I call it "pass a bill with your house and senate majority."

However you want to term it, my point remains - they're going about getting the bill enacted in a method that will require no Republican support whatsoever. They don't get to do that and then pretend that they're being inclusive.
 
However you want to term it, my point remains - they're going about getting the bill enacted in a method that will require no Republican support whatsoever. They don't get to do that and then pretend that they're being inclusive.

They're doing it that way because they've finally come to understand that there literally is no bill the GOP would vote for right now.
 
They're doing it that way because they've finally come to understand that there literally is no bill the GOP would vote for right now.

I think you're wildly underestimating the Dems. Both sides are quite good at politics - the idea that the Dems are somehow surprised by the Reps actions or that they're being unwillingly forced to resort to this last-ditch effort doesn't really give them much credit.

Again, if you think that the dems spent the past year making every effort in good faith to bring the Reps in, only to be burned repeatedly and finally forced into taking this drastic action, then I think you're far more trusting in imagery than I am.
 
I think you're wildly underestimating the Dems. Both sides are quite good at politics - the idea that the Dems are somehow surprised by the Reps actions or that they're being unwillingly forced to resort to this last-ditch effort doesn't really give them much credit.

Again, if you think that the dems spent the past year making every effort in good faith to bring the Reps in, only to be burned repeatedly and finally forced into taking this drastic action, then I think you're far more trusting in imagery than I am.

It's likely that they suspected this would happen. But you have to try... or at least pretend to try.
 
You don't think the bold line there has anything to do with your own personal slant, maybe?


Unpopular does not make something inherently bad. Hypothetical: You have a bill you believe will help your constituents, but they are dead set against it. Is your duty to enact it, or NOT enact it?

Beings these Congress Critters are our employees, they are obligated to do what we want them to do, not what, in their infinite wisdom they want to do..... or be fired.

I think we need a recall process for Congress.
 
It's likely that they suspected this would happen. But you have to try... or at least pretend to try.

You got that right........ pretend to try.....

Of course you completely over look the fact that for the last year the Dems could have passed this without one Republican voting for it. Ever wonder why they didn't? Or I should say, couldn't.
 
Beings these Congress Critters are our employees, they are obligated to do what we want them to do, not what, in their infinite wisdom they want to do..... or be fired.

I think we need a recall process for Congress.

I guess you and I disagree on the fundamental concept of representation. If the founding fathers wanted the system you describe, they would have set up a direct democracy. Why have Senators when you can just have the people vote for bills directly?

Sometimes unpopular things are necessary.
 
I think you're wildly underestimating the Dems. Both sides are quite good at politics - the idea that the Dems are somehow surprised by the Reps actions or that they're being unwillingly forced to resort to this last-ditch effort doesn't really give them much credit.

Again, if you think that the dems spent the past year making every effort in good faith to bring the Reps in, only to be burned repeatedly and finally forced into taking this drastic action, then I think you're far more trusting in imagery than I am.

And yet the Democrats had everything to gain from including Republicans and Republicans had everything to lose from being included.

If the Democrats (more specifically Obama) include Republicans, then they are the charismatic heroes who ended America's partisanship, just as promised. Pleases the moderates and independents to no end, making Obama and the Democrats look good to whoever they can possibly look good to.

If the Republicans join Democrats, they upset a base already angry over Republicans "not being conservative enough", perceptually speaking. George Bush might not have been a conservative favorite, but it wasn't that he was confrontational and generally non-partisan that was the right's issue with his presidency; no significant conservative figure argued George Bush didn't do enough to please the liberals.

The only way the Republicans would have joined the Democrats is if the bill more or less conformed to Republican specifications, allowing the party to argue they brought down the majority party's "evil plans" from within while at the same time saving America's health care system in a "fiscally responsible" and "properly conservative" manner. The Democrats wouldn't go that far, enabling the Republican Party to comfortably and unequivocally reject any overture.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom