• 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!

Would you be fine with reconciliation used for...

Which would you support its use for


  • Total voters
    23
Simply put, no.
 
You have no reading comprehension. Noted. I never said that reconciliation was ramming anything, I was merely pointing out that in someone's bias, they assume legislation they don't agree with is ramming something down someone's throats. Nice try though.

Personally I feel the fillabuster does more harm than good because the neither parties are interested in compromise. Now please look at what I am actually saying and not what you think I am.

I do not care what Bush did or didn't do. My point is that we are too far apart and legislation needs to pass so this country can address problems. If the fillabuster is getting in the way, than we should do away with it.

You were called on this:

Originally Posted by megaprogman
So the 8 years of Bush ramming crap down our throats don't count? If Karma existed, you would think it would work the other way.

I can see you are trying to change the subject, and well you should.... it was false and you know it. :2wave:
 
You were called on this:



I can see you are trying to change the subject, and well you should.... it was false and you know it. :2wave:

Nope wrong. I was pointing out that stuff can appear to be rammed down someone's throat when they don't agree with the policy. It was not about fillabuster. Keep trying.

I hated what Bush did. You hate what Obama does. Thats just politics.
 
Personally I think the increasing emphasis on fillabuster that has been growing, out of necessity, is harming out nation. I used to believe that it was a necessary check to allow moderation to take place but since neither side seems interested in that, than we should get rid of it to get least get some legislation passed or else our country will be hamstrung and be unable to address new problems. I think in an earlier post Crunch assumed I was referring to republicans doing something like the dems are doing, and they aren't. Honestly though, I now think we should get of the rule because its obvious it is doing more harm than good

I see where you are coming from. However the dems could have used the tactic against the republicans. I remember how mad I got when they tried to ram judges down our throats that way.

Also keep in mind that this is a tactic by republicans not a viable long term strategy. Once the filibuster is tossed out, there is no getting it back.

Then the country will be at the mercy of the fringes on both sides, who control congress.
 
I see where you are coming from. However the dems could have used the tactic against the republicans. I remember how mad I got when they tried to ram judges down our throats that way.

Also keep in mind that this is a tactic by republicans not a viable long term strategy. Once the filibuster is tossed out, there is no getting it back.

Then the country will be at the mercy of the fringes on both sides, who control congress.

I know and its unfortunate. It is because of the lack of compromise on both sides that I have come to this conclusion. Trust me, I would prefer it if liberals could work with conservatives and vice versa, but that is no longer the case. The country is in a lot of hot water right now and something must be done to solve it. Twiddling our thumbs because we cannot agree is worse than a policy that some will not agree with.

You are right it is bad for the long term, but if we don't solve our problems soon, that might be irrelevant. I hate it, but it seems to be a necessary evil.
 
I know and its unfortunate. It is because of the lack of compromise on both sides that I have come to this conclusion. Trust me, I would prefer it if liberals could work with conservatives and vice versa, but that is no longer the case. The country is in a lot of hot water right now and something must be done to solve it. Twiddling our thumbs because we cannot agree is worse than a policy that some will not agree with.

You are right it is bad for the long term, but if we don't solve our problems soon, that might be irrelevant. I hate it, but it seems to be a necessary evil.

It might be unrealistic but if we are going to be governed this way, I would hope that the majority took the concerns of the minority into consideration. Perhaps if one party looked reasonable the other party would have to recipricate.

If Obama was able to really get Washington to work together, I thought the Democrats would be in power for a generation. Maybe that is why the republicans are acting the way they are. There should have been a way to either shame them into working on solutions, or having the public be angry with them. For whatever reason Obama was not able to be as convincing as he was as a candidate.
 
It might be unrealistic but if we are going to be governed this way, I would hope that the majority took the concerns of the minority into consideration. Perhaps if one party looked reasonable the other party would have to recipricate.

If Obama was able to really get Washington to work together, I thought the Democrats would be in power for a generation. Maybe that is why the republicans are acting the way they are. There should have been a way to either shame them into working on solutions, or having the public be angry with them. For whatever reason Obama was not able to be as convincing as he was as a candidate.

The two parties can't cooperate because they are competing for seats in Congress, which comes with perks, money, and stature; power in general. There is only a limited market share and the Democrats and Republicans aren't about to split it up evenly. Ideology is important, especially to certain individual politicians, but as a collective each party focuses on marketing and advertising. If ideology is upheld, it is often because it is forced to coincide with electoral strategies.

The premise for each party's existence resides in being the moral and practical superior of the other one. Practical superiority is bad enough (basically the relationship between employees and the boss), but a holier-than-thou attitude does not make for an effective working relationship.
 
Last edited:
The two parties can't cooperate because they are competing for seats in Congress, which comes with perks, money, and stature; power in general. There is only a limited market share and the Democrats and Republicans aren't about to split it up evenly. Ideology is important, especially to certain individual politicians, but as a collective each party focuses on marketing and advertising. If ideology is upheld, it is often because it is forced to coincide with electoral strategies.

The premise for each party's existence resides in being the moral and practical superior of the other one. Practical superiority is bad enough (basically the relationship between employees and the boss), but a holier-than-thou attitude does not make for an effective working relationship.

Sounds like religions!
 
Sounds like religions!

I was thinking more like businesses: Democrats and Republicans working together to provide good governance to the American people is something like the Big Three (plus Toyota) working together to provide affordable, safe vehicles to the American people, or Wall-Street firms working together to make a secure credit industry. Sometimes it almost seems to happen, but most of the time they are too busy casting themselves as the only road to success to realize unsafe practices across the board are leading the whole industry to ruin. You can't shame political parties into cooperating because the inflated sense of legitimacy they have created for themselves deadens their consciences.

People seem to treat their political affiliation like a religious commitment though.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking more like businesses: Democrats and Republicans working together to provide good governance to the American people is something like the Big Three (plus Toyota) working together to provide affordable, safe vehicles to the American people, or Wall-Street firms working together to make a secure credit industry. Sometimes it almost seems to happen, but most of the time they are too busy casting themselves as the only road to success to realize unsafe practices across the board are leading the whole industry to ruin. You can't shame political parties into cooperating because the inflated sense of legitimacy they have created for themselves deadens their consciences.

People seem to treat their political affiliation like a religious commitment though.

I see the similarity. However people like to think that when someone chooses politics or the clergy as a profession it is for the greater good. Most people think that business people, want to turn out good products as it is good business. But people know corporation X builds a better widget so they can be more sucessful.
 
I see the similarity. However people like to think that when someone chooses politics or the clergy as a profession it is for the greater good. Most people think that business people, want to turn out good products as it is good business. But people know corporation X builds a better widget so they can be more sucessful.

The voters tend to think that their chosen party is for the greater good. It is the party insiders that are more cynical.
 
The voters tend to think that their chosen party is for the greater good. It is the party insiders that are more cynical.

Then things can only be fixed when the yolk of the party leaderships are tossed aside.
 
Then things can only be fixed when the yolk of the party leaderships are tossed aside.

The conservatives seem to have come to that conclusion. I think the Democrats are going to need their own Bush before that happens on their side.
 
The conservatives seem to have come to that conclusion. I think the Democrats are going to need their own Bush before that happens on their side.

Interesting point. I thought Bush would destroy the republican brand for a generation. It looks like they figured that out and are repackageing themselves through the tea party.
 
Interesting point. I thought Bush would destroy the republican brand for a generation. It looks like they figured that out and are repackageing themselves through the tea party.

Hatred for liberalism is sufficient to make conservatives unite under anything. They don't need another reason.
 
Last edited:
Interesting point. I thought Bush would destroy the republican brand for a generation. It looks like they figured that out and are repackageing themselves through the tea party.


The Tea party is real grass roots, the Republicans had nothing to do with it besides trying to jump on the band wagon.

Barry, Harry, and Nancy are single handedly, with no help from the Republicans or the Tea party, making people nostalgic for Bush (or as I always called him, Shrubya).

Don't try to blame Bush, or "the party of no", or Fox News, or your Great Aunt Ester......... The Dems have destroyed their party by their own greed, but what else is new?
 
The Tea party is real grass roots, the Republicans had nothing to do with it besides trying to jump on the band wagon.

Barry, Harry, and Nancy are single handedly, with no help from the Republicans or the Tea party, making people nostalgic for Bush (or as I always called him, Shrubya).

Don't try to blame Bush, or "the party of no", or Fox News, or your Great Aunt Ester......... The Dems have destroyed their party by their own greed, but what else is new?

You sincerely believe there is no relationship between the Tea Party and the Republicans? Okay.

Also, I have a hard time believing the Democrats won't perform well in another election ever again. So in what sense their party has been 'destroyed' eludes me.
 
Last edited:
Do what?

Government in action is government in action. If one group is in charge than another isn't going to be happy with it. That's how democracy works, and saying one side is ramming stuff down throats is ignoring that those people were lawfully elected. I agree with Redress, if the rules are there than use them.

I would argue with the Karma, but if the rules are in place, then it's not some crime to use those rules. That has to go both ways.

I'm eagerly awaiting your two votes then for all a number of the above things, as a number of them can be arguably cast as a "budgetary" measure as much as the Health Care Reform bill is.

Increased domestic jobs through less regulations on drilling and refining, coupled with less money being sent overseas, create a boon for the economy that increases revenues and reduces the deficit... theoretically.

Fencing off the boarder and mass deportation theoretically makes less illegals coming into the country and then utilizing public programs and avoiding income taxes while taking Americans jobs and sending that money over seas, thus increasing the economy and driving down the deficit...theoretically.

Same for pretty much all of them but Gay Marriage; all can be tied to budgetary things as much as this health care bill is.

I'm eager to see you vote to back up your statements.

Also eager to see the likes of nojingo, disney, adk, and others that are pushing hard for reconciliation to voice their opinions here but that's yet to be seen it seems.
 
I'm eagerly awaiting your two votes then for all a number of the above things, as a number of them can be arguably cast as a "budgetary" measure as much as the Health Care Reform bill is.

Increased domestic jobs through less regulations on drilling and refining, coupled with less money being sent overseas, create a boon for the economy that increases revenues and reduces the deficit... theoretically.

Fencing off the boarder and mass deportation theoretically makes less illegals coming into the country and then utilizing public programs and avoiding income taxes while taking Americans jobs and sending that money over seas, thus increasing the economy and driving down the deficit...theoretically.

Same for pretty much all of them but Gay Marriage; all can be tied to budgetary things as much as this health care bill is.

I'm eager to see you vote to back up your statements.

Also eager to see the likes of nojingo, disney, adk, and others that are pushing hard for reconciliation to voice their opinions here but that's yet to be seen it seems.

Can you link to the rules involved in reconciliation so I can make informed choices?

Edited to add: .8---Zyphlin knows what it means.
 
I'm eagerly awaiting your two votes then for all a number of the above things, as a number of them can be arguably cast as a "budgetary" measure as much as the Health Care Reform bill is.

Increased domestic jobs through less regulations on drilling and refining, coupled with less money being sent overseas, create a boon for the economy that increases revenues and reduces the deficit... theoretically.

Fencing off the boarder and mass deportation theoretically makes less illegals coming into the country and then utilizing public programs and avoiding income taxes while taking Americans jobs and sending that money over seas, thus increasing the economy and driving down the deficit...theoretically.

Same for pretty much all of them but Gay Marriage; all can be tied to budgetary things as much as this health care bill is.

I'm eager to see you vote to back up your statements.

Also eager to see the likes of nojingo, disney, adk, and others that are pushing hard for reconciliation to voice their opinions here but that's yet to be seen it seems.

Reading the wiki on it(something I probably should have done before now), this is a general outline of the rules as I understand them. Please check them for accuracy for me:

It is designed to allow passage of budgetary bills without needing 60 votes(oversimplification, but basically true).

A budgetary bill for this purpose is one that changes revenue and spending amounts.

The Byrd rule calls for it to be used only on bills that do not increase the deficit after 10 years.

I think that is the basics of it as I understand it. Based on that, it can be used, legally, on any bill that fits within those criteria(plus some parliamentary stuff involved). This is true whether I like the bill or not. I will wait for some one to confirm or correct my understanding before I vote in the poll, but as it is not, I would say any of those, assuming the bill itself fits the above criteria. The gay marriage one would be very hard to justify withing those criteria, the rest probably could be designed to fit within the rules as I understand it.
 
Last edited:
Come 2012 with the Republicans in control of both houses and the Presidency, look out Dems.... It will be our turn to repeal everything you did and ram our agenda down your throats.

Think you will like that? If not you had better get on the phone and let your Congress Critters know how you feel about it.

Karma:

It's not some mystical force that balances right and wrong.

It's what happens when you piss someone off bad enough so that they come after you.

If you think Republicans are going to overturn anything the Dems pass till they're in the majority, you're delusional.
 
If you think Republicans are going to overturn anything the Dems pass till they're in the majority, you're delusional.

If you think you can go through that door before you get to it, you're delusional.........

That made as much sense as what you wrote, so don't blame me. :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom