• 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

  • To ban gay marriage

    Votes: 3 13.0%

  • To change domestic drilling and refining rules, including ANWR

    Votes: 4 17.4%

  • To create a fence across the southern border and start a massive deportation effort

    Votes: 2 8.7%

  • To remove Welfare

    Votes: 5 21.7%

  • To remove this Health Care Reform if it passes

    Votes: 9 39.1%

  • To create a school voucher system

    Votes: 4 17.4%

  • None of the Above

    Votes: 14 60.9%
  • Total voters
    23
Zyphlin

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,671
Reaction score
35,456
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simple question, based on the support of many on this forum for its use on a bill that's focus is first and foremost concerning Health Care Reform. Would you be fine, even if you didn't agree with the position, the use of reconciliation for any of the above measures. If not, why?
 
Last edited:
For the parts of welfare that touch on the yearly budget (so, I suppose, almost all of it) I would be willing to use budget reconciliation.

I love healthcare by loophole, by the way, just gives a fantastic message to the healthcare industry. Few people believe one of the healthcare industry's many flaws are a lack of squiffy accounting practices, but apparently Obama has different ideas.
 
Zyphlin said:
Simple question, based on the support of many on this forum for its use on a bill that's focus is first and foremost concerning Health Care Reform. Would you be fine, even if you didn't agree with the position, the use of reconciliation for any of the above measures. If not, why?
Click to expand...

I am not in favor of reconciliation for any bill.

The senate is a chamber that needs to be able to save us from the tyranny of the majority.

People should be careful what they sign up for. This will have large consequences on the future of our democracy.
 
washunut said:
I am not in favor of reconciliation for any bill.

The senate is a chamber that needs to be able to save us from the tyranny of the majority.

People should be careful what they sign up for. This will have large consequences on the future of our democracy.
Click to expand...

Reconciliation is to me, an invalid rule. Even for budgets it's used to bypass the process so no - I'm not in favor of it's use for any measure regardless of political party.
 
Ockham said:
Reconciliation is to me, an invalid rule. Even for budgets it's used to bypass the process so no - I'm not in favor of it's use for any measure regardless of political party.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's invalid or not, but I would much rather see our congresscritters on record as having voted for or against each measure.
 
Areopagitican said:
For the parts of welfare that touch on the yearly budget (so, I suppose, almost all of it) I would be willing to use budget reconciliation.
Click to expand...
As argued here by those that support using reconcillation to pass the bill, -anything- that requires federal spending touches on the yearly budget.
 
I voted To remove this Health Care Reform if it passes. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
 
I selected to ban gay marriage, create school voucher system, cut welfare, drilling in ANWR, and to remove the healthcare bill if it passes. None of these things put a dent in the federal budget, if anything they decrease because spending is cut.
 
rivrrat said:
It shouldn't even be an option, IMO
Click to expand...

Even though I would agree in the above circumstances I agree with you. Reconciliation should just be removed all together. Remove it as an option.
 
Since reconciliation is a practice that has been used by both political parties, it wouldn't be reasonable to object to it on the grounds it favors one side over the other. My only problem would be if it somehow jeopardized the structural integrity of our government and society.

When I was younger, I was a fervent populist and believed the "will of the people" was the only way to counteract the influence of corporations and special interests. Then I would have said too many aspects of reconciliation are inconsistent with the popular nature of democracy for the practice to be valid.

Now I don't believe the "will of the people" as such even exists, not in populist movements or anything else, and for as far as they can go, populist movements always play into the hands of the corporations and special interests; either the interests manipulate the populism or they are so far ahead of the populism they can position themselves in whatever position guarantees them the greatest profit. The structural integrity of our entire political system is questionable because every inch of the apparatus has been appropriated by commercial powers.

So, I have no real issue with whether reconciliation exists or not. If it does exist, anybody who can use it "deserves" to use it.
 
Last edited:
As long as the rules allow for it, it's going to get used when the majority want to pass something badly enough. I am a firm believer in the rules, so if the rule is in place, use it.
 
I want to say none of the above. But if Health care passes with reconciliation then it should be removed with reconciliation.
 
Goobieman said:
As argued here by those that support using reconcillation to pass the bill, -anything- that requires federal spending touches on the yearly budget.
Click to expand...

In other words......... anything is fair game. :twisted:
 
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.
 
Crunch said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Crunch said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
megaprogman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've seen you do this one before, and you've been called on it.

So what did Boooooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhh ram down anyones throat? Include links please.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes it could... that was the whole point of my post.
 
Crunch said:
I've seen you do this one before, and you've been called on it.

So what did Boooooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhh ram down anyones throat? Include links please.
Click to expand...

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.
 
megaprogman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Crunch
I've seen you do this one before, and you've been called on it.

So what did Boooooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhh ram down anyones throat? Include links please.
Click to expand...

megaprogman said:
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.
Click to expand...

So that was a false statement? Noted.
 
megaprogman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Let's start with this so I do not get incorrect blowback. I was ticked when the last administration used reconciliation and when the Republican congress wanted to use the " nuclear option" to get their judges approved.

If people think that things are screwed up in Washington now, wait till you have the fronges of either party passing legislation with a 51-49 vote in the senate. No individual piece of legislation is worth the destruction that will happen if this gets rammed through.

I put this together with the reckless spending of the last 20 years in this country. Immediate gratification is more important than the the long term health of the country. If the generation of WWII was the best generation, this period may go down as what took America off it's perch.
 
Crunch said:
So that was a false statement? Noted.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
washunut said:
Let's start with this so I do not get incorrect blowback. I was ticked when the last administration used reconciliation and when the Republican congress wanted to use the " nuclear option" to get their judges approved.

If people think that things are screwed up in Washington now, wait till you have the fronges of either party passing legislation with a 51-49 vote in the senate. No individual piece of legislation is worth the destruction that will happen if this gets rammed through.

I put this together with the reckless spending of the last 20 years in this country. Immediate gratification is more important than the the long term health of the country. If the generation of WWII was the best generation, this period may go down as what took America off it's perch.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom