>>358824
Not even they know at this point honestly. It's a cluster fuck of biblical proportions. Honestly if meant actaul reform you bet your ass the insurance companies would be running attack adds 24 7 if this actually hurt their bottom line. So draw your own conclusions matey. This bill does nothing. All it is a smoke screen to distract us from Wall Street and our own self-made doom.

bump

Yeah, they're voting on a senate bill that has a few things stripped away, and a few things (100 pages or so) that I think have been added through reconciliation. The parliamentarian has okayed it and its now getting scored at the CBO (Democrats are the real fiscally responsible party after all) Then it moves to the House, where Pelosi has given 72 hours for them to read on the fixes. Should get passed by Sunday. Couple more steps and the, then signed before the end of the month. Then in 90 days the rules we've heard about on "pre-existing condidtions" start up.

>>358846

I hate to say it, but THIS

they (democrat cocksuckers) dont want to even vote on it now they just want to "deem" it in because they passed it with the super majority back when but republicans think if they pass the bill this way they can sue in the supreme court for unconstitutionality which i completely agree with the government has no place telling me what the fuck to buy

Just remember, the bill doesn't actually insure anyone, it just outlaws not having insurance.

They'll vote on deeming that the Senate bill is all ready passed and then they make some changes and pass it through the House again without going to the Senate (Because Scott Brown can filibuster it) and then it goes to the president to sign.

>>358861
I have to say this, but, WRONG. It is weak, but it can be fixed. It can be really fixed if the democrats win more seats this fall. Hint hint

"Deeming" may or may not happen. FYI Republitards use it all the time, so screw them.

>>358855

Ok so the House is voting on the Senate bill as is? Then why does the Senate need to use reconciliation? Have they changed the bill and intent on passing it in the House and then revoting on it in the Senate with reconciliation?

>>358892

Never has such important and far reaching legislation of this magnitude ever been passed with a "deeming" vote or reconciliation. Also you are frankly out of your mind if you think Democrats are going to be gaining anything this November.

>>358904

I don't think either party will gain, I think it will be just about the same as it is now.

GOP sure screwed up an easy victory by playing the overly concerned soccer mom about everything.

>>358846
>>358846
>>358846
>>358846

>>Honestly if meant actaul reform you bet your ass the insurance companies would be running attack adds 24 7 if this actually hurt their bottom line.

>>Honestly if meant actaul reform you bet your ass the insurance companies would be running attack adds 24 7 if this actually hurt their bottom line.

>>Honestly if meant actaul reform you bet your ass the insurance companies would be running attack adds 24 7 if this actually hurt their bottom line.

This This This a thousand times this.

Insurance companies are some of the most greedy corporations on the planet. I worked for one of them for 2 years before I quit in utter disgust over their heartless policies. Anybody who thinks insurance giants would go down without kicking and screaming up one of the biggest smear campaigns in human history is clueless.

I think there has already been the reconciliation. Now the changes are being scored at the CBO. In the meantime, Pelosi, Clyburn and even the president are now drumming up support from the undecideds
Its moving man.

>>358892

How can they fix the bill with reconciliation, it can only be used to pass limited budgetary related items? I'll be surprised if the part about the healthcare mandates isn't striped out of the bil along with a ton of other measures.

>>358918
>>358918
Nigger, please.

http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains.html

>>358922

Wait reconciliation already passed!?!

>>358922

Wait, there was already reconciliation?

>>358931
>>358935

Fuck you, whoever posted the one that I didn't at the exact same time

>>358928
"the insurance industry isn't all that profitable to start with."

HAHAHAHAHAHA No no no.

>>358873
Exactly
Fucking people think Obama is a socialist, he isnt even close to being progressive. this bill scratches the backs of fat insurance companies

>>358928

That's not cherry picked at all.

>>358931
>>358935

Hivemind.

>>358948

Sorry dude, I was just surprised. I'm still not even sure that its true.

>>358957

It actually isn't. They don't actually have a huge profit.

But hey, liberals need something to blame in order to make government bigger.

Without a manufactured crisis- you'll get nothing changed.

Obama will just give insurance companies even more money while they continue to be bloodsucking parasites that feed on misery and suffering.

>>358931
>>358935
Yeah... I do believe the senate is done with it. I might have missed some bizzaro rule or other

>>358975

Can we get some confirmation on this guys?

>>358968
How the hell do you think they can spend all those thousands to try and buy votes?
Sure there are more profotable industries, but why would they be fighting this so tooth and nail if they're so damn broke? Fucking lies

>>358928

>>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=vXS&rls=org.
mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=health+insurance+payout+ratio&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&
;aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

1. Somebody please find out if reconciliation was used already because I'd be pissed if I heard constant bitching about it for a month without even seeing the lulz go down.

2. Health insurance isn't profitable....BUT BEING A DOCTOR IS. HMMMM!

>>358998

>> Somebody please find out if reconciliation was used already because I'd be pissed if I heard constant bitching about it for a month without even seeing the lulz go down

lol I'm feeling the same way right now

>>358972
No no. They'll be getting a big dose of cash sure, but they have to use it on actual sick people now [soon] It can be added to later. This isn't a bad bill.

I think the details will be made available soon

>>358998
im pretty sure they are skipping nuclear option and just deeming it into law since they cant get the votes

>>359026
That is not a "nuclear option" The termonolgy was misused by the media. GOP branding trick

So to be clear guys they made changing to the Senate bill and now are voting on the changes in the House( Without really voting on it) and then are going to send the bill back to the Senate to be approved via reconciliation? Is that it in a nutshell guys?

>>359026

How can they do that? I'm so tired of all this dirty parliamentarian tricks being used. I hope they take this to court if it passes, I'd be shocked if they don't.

>>They'll be getting a big dose of cash sure, but they have to use it on actual sick people now

the same way banks got a big dose of cash and were expected to use it to help people refinance and stop throwing people out of their houses, but they haven't done jackshit

>>358862
you, the retard that doesn't understand politics, kill yourself immediately
>>358968
and you, the one who thinks that the liberals manufactured the greed that has driven insurance companies to raise their Goddamn premiums at retardedly high rates, stop defending them because you are paying those rates as well r tard

now, in regards to OP's question, reconciliation is a way of limiting the debate on a budget bill to 20 hours, and the slaughter rule is what the republicans are calling reconciliation for spin reasons, like how it sounds worse to say OBAMA IS JAMMING DEATHPANNELS DOWN OUR THROATS, then you know, the truth

>>359039
NO NO RECONCILIATION THEY ARE JUST DEEMING IT INTO LAW BECAUSE THEY CANT GET THE VOTES

>>359035

Seems like a nuclear option to me. When Democrats were in the minority they were certainly singing a different tune about reconciliation and the filibuster.

>>359054

How can they Constitutionally do that?

>>359052
the slaughter rule is what the republicans are calling reconciliation for spin reasons
>>no the slaughter rule is deeming it into law its named after some chick in congress i think thats what shes in

>>359052

slaughter rule = reconciliation???

I thought the slaughter rule was a way to pass a bill via rule vote without having to vote on the actual bill? What does the House rules have to do with the Senate and reconciliation?

OP here. Well at least I'm not the only one who is getting confused by all this? If we have having a hard time understanding the process I wonder how most Americans feel.

>>359060
truth
>>359070
they cant progressives and liberals love to shit all over the constitution rupublicans plan on suing in the supreme court if they pass it and i agree it is completely unconsitutional who the hell does the government think they are to tell me what to buy with my hard earned money (yes i have health insurance because i am not useless and work for a living) but what will they tell me i have to buy next "for the good of America and little Timmy who was born without a nose"

For no one actually knowing what's going on.

>>359050
No. Not like that at all. Financial reform is next though. Lets just hope Obama and Co. have learned a lesson.

HAHAHA@ all the senate rules. Whatever gets that goddamn chamber moving faster! The House has passed so much up to them and they haven't even touched em.
Stepping out. I'm no expert.

>>359060

Oh please, republicans have abused both far worse than the dems have in this case. . . I don't particularly agree with the legislation they're passing, but to make it sound like they're not playing fair here is just crazy.

It's been a fucking year, republicans have had tons of chances to change this bill . . . and as a result it's pretty much been entirely neutered. . . it's health care reform in name only at this point and the only real reason you fags have left to complain about it is because you couldn't stop it from passing entirely.

>>359119

The House is the chamber that is supposed to move fast, the Senate's main role to slow things down and let people actually think about what they are passing.

>>359133
They all need to think.

>>359133
Do you actually believe that load of shit?

>>359093

truth, source: Glen Beck

>>359127

Democrats had a supermajority in Congress and other than a few token gestures they did not want or seek republican support. The reason the bill came out the way it did was due to moderates within the Democratic Party itself despite their whining to the contrary.

>>359153

The whole conceptual idea for the Senate was to be the chamber insulated from public option so as to be more deliberative and thoughtful.

>>359156

What are you trying to say?

>>359159

GOP really should have nailed that point home.

On the surface, most people do believe the GOP are the obstructionists.

But the moderate Dems really did screw the pooch just as hard.

>>359180

>>359106

Reconciliation is a tool meant to help pass budgets. If there are minor discrepencies (say funding for an agency) and time is limited, they will use reconciliation to accept a version and move it forward.

This has been used in the past, most notably the Bush tax cuts to bypass Democratic complaints (and some Republicans). Obama is using it to push the Senate version of healthcare through Congress. This is the first time reconsilation has been used for social policy. It does has budgetary impact, so technically it can be used (though it isn't a few billion dollars, but rather hundreds of billions of spending/yr)

The House must get majority to pass the Senate bill. There are two large opposition groups to this. First is the liberals who wanted government insurance plan, and the second are moderates opposed to the abortion funding. Obama has promised to close this loophole, but the odds of anything getting corrected after this are slim to none.

>>359159
Turd

>>359181
Because they were. The filibustered everything, even things they proposed (details of the mandate) and its not just healthcare. They simply don't want a recovery at this point, its not good for them for the America to recover

>>359175
Yes, that's why the requirement for a 60-vote supermajority to do any legislative business at all is enshrined in the Constitution.

Just shut up faggot.

>>359181

It seemed pretty clear to me. The battle lines on the both sides were palpable. It was the moderate Democrats that stopped the public option and nearly wrote the bill. Even now if 5 or 6 moderates vote against the bill in the House Obamacare will finally be dead.

>>359198

Let's get a bill that is a complete take over of private student loans...

Yay!

>>359192
you sir, are wise, almost, tooo wise

>>359181
>On the surface, most people do believe the GOP are the obstructionists.

Something that is scoring points for the Republican party in the polls with the independents and conservatives. The elections this years will tell us what people really thought about all of this.

>>359192
>and the second are moderates opposed to the abortion funding

Terrible excuse is terrible

Abortion/antiabortion exists solely to polarize the masses and make the discussion us vs them.

Seeing as how 75 percent of drivers in my state don't have auto insurance, I don't see how there will be enough people paying the bills to pay for freeloaders in the system. I see foresee increased prices and less doctors entering the health field. The tax increases will not cover the increased costs factored in or reduce the costs per payee (based on what it is now).

And all of the earmarks that have been created to get this bill through are sickening. Yes, it happens all of the time but actually admitting you are gonna be ok with this is stupid. Democrats are going to get hammered just like in 94.

>>359207

Doesn't make it any less of a reason why this bill is currently stalled.

>>359200

No that is why they have six year terms and originally were chosen by the state representatives. I'd prefer the old Mr.Smith goes to Washington rules myself, but they changed the rules and they seem entirely appropriate and in line with the principles and purpose of the Senate.

>>359192

So close, yet so wrong.

Reconciliation is the process used to pass COBRA and SCHIP. You can google those acronyms since you likely don't know what they are.

It was used to pass Bush's Medicare part D program. You can guess what that bill is related to.

Bush used reconciliation to pass his tax cuts for the rich. $1.3 trillion dollars was the total price tag. And they were unpaid for, so are still going onto the deficit as we speak.

Finally, the Senate bill already passed the Senate. It passed with 60 votes. You can youtube that and watch the vote for yourself. What is being passed through reconciliation is the amendments to that Senate bill.

Those amendments are all budget related.

>>359212
according to i think it was the new jersey medical thing of some sort 1/3 of doctors say they will quit/retire early if they pass nigger care

>>359207
I went to Church with my family a few weeks ago (they are Catholics), and during mass they seriously prayed for "health care reform" provided it "outlawed abortion". Afterwords they tried to get me to fill out a postcard complaining about "immigration reform". Not even sure what their stance was on that one.

It reminded me why I am no longer a Catholic. That Friday I grilled myself a big steak just to flip those fucks off.

>>359220

Those programs expanded already existing programs (though the expansion was quite large). It still doesn't hold a candle to the type of social change that this bill is occuring. Allowing for health insurance after losing your job is not a major social policy change.

>>359229
>That Friday I grilled myself a big steak just to flip those fucks off.
YOU SURE SHOWED THEM

>>359231

Exactly. So they were related to an issue that was already passed through regular order. Did you youtube the Senate health care vote yet?

And Bush's tax cuts were the biggest redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the rich in our nation's history. How was that not a major social change?

>>359223

>Is in college on public loans

I fucking hate the fact that I'm on public loans.

I feel dirty for using other people's tax payer money like that.

I plan to pay it off immediately and I hope to become so rich that I can buy everything private in my life.

>>359239

Protip: You won't ever be able to use the Postal Service.

:(

>>359220

Two wrongs make a right fallacy? Other than the points >>359231 maked it should be noted that the Democratic Senator Robert Byrd original author of reconciliation has disagreed with how Bush and Republcians used it and especially how Obama and Democrats are using it now.

I thought this whole issue was done months ago, I really thought after a year of Americans rallying against the legalization and the Republican victory in Mass. Democrats would have taken the hint.

>>359252

But the thing is, there are literally several polls out there that indicate opposite things.

One poll says the majority of Americans support the reform.

One poll says the majority oppose it.

In a poll that I took of me, I realized that 100% of the people surveyed had no fucking idea what was going on.

Kucinich is supporting the bill now. Something epic is brewing behind closed doors. Count on it.

>>359238

>>And Bush's tax cuts were the biggest redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the rich

Oh God.... You mean letting Americans keep their own money without the government stealing it? How does tax cuts and not spending increases lead to deficits, a tax cut does not cost anything.

>>359246

Actually, Byrd has come out in favor of its use for the amendments:
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/byrd-defends-use-of-reconciliation/

>>359257

We all knew the Liberals would turn out for the bill, the question is would the moderates? The last time this bill was voted on it only won by like what five votes?

>>359238

The usual process involves debating the differences in the two bills and making a compromise. The only reason why they are doing this now is because of Scott Brown's victory which in all honestly should tell you something about this bill.

There was no restribution of wealth with the tax cuts, just more deficit spending. The bill does redistribute wealth as those without health insurance will be required to pay a tax. Government will subsidize several million more people.

You can argue it was an major economic policy change, but tax cuts are not a social issue like government health care.

>>359254
yes people want reform but not this retarded reform with useless shit in it like how the hell does student loans have anything to do with health care reform???
>>359252
dems are retarded get it?

>>359234
Hey, you gotta pick your battles, you know?

>>359263

“I continue to support the budget reconciliation process for deficit reduction,” Mr. Byrd wrote. “The entire Senate- or House-passed health care bill could not and would not pass muster under the current reconciliation rules, which were established under my watch.”

Well he has said different things on the matter when quoted at different times in the recent debate. He certainly wasn't for it back in 93'

>>359258

I get this a lot from republicans. Many of you guys don't understand taxes or budgets, so I'll help you out.

Bush's tax cuts were unpaid for. That means that the tax cuts were not offset by matching cuts in spending. That means the tax cuts went onto the national debt. That's how budgets work.

If you owe $500 a month on living expenses, then suddenly decide you only want to pay $200 but not cut your living expenses, those bills are still do. You can put them onto your credit card, but you didn't really just gain $300 of extra spending cash. You are instead spending twice as much now: that on the debt and whatever amount of the $300 you spend.

Second, the tax cuts were paid for by the middle class and benefited the rich:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html
> The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.
>Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.

cont...

How are the Demcrats getting away with using reconciliation for this social legislation?

>>359277

http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/4862392C0AC24550852576CD0077FEA7?OpenDocument
>The incomes of the top 400 American households soared to a new record high in dollars and as a share of all income in 2007, while the income tax rates they paid fell to a record low, newly disclosed tax data show.
>In 2007 the top 400 taxpayers had an average income of $344.8 million, up 31 percent from their average $263.3 million income in 2006, according to figures in a report that the IRS posted to its Web site without announcement that were discovered February 16. (For the report, see Tax Analysts Doc 2010-3372 .)
>The figures came at the peak of the last economic cycle and show that widely published reports in major newspapers asserting that the richest Americans are losing relative ground and "becoming poorer" are not supported by the official income data.

Warren Buffet Will Give You $1 Million Dollars:
http://www.taxgirl.com/warren-buffet-will-give-you-1-million-dollars/
>Our tax policy is skewed to favor the wealthy – especially those who are dependent upon “unearned income” which is income from dividends and interest. The rates for unearned income now tend to hover around 15% which is also one of the lowest rates for the those with earned income (meaning those who make low wages). The rates for earned income for the middle class rise sharply.

>>359279

It involves the budget (which uses money), so it can technically be used. There is no cap on how the budget gap can be before having to go through the normal channels though.

One could argue that it is Constitutionally illegal, like affirmative action, but push hard enough and you can do whatever you want.

>>359267

I can tell you haven't done your research: >>359281, >>359277.

And you're still wrong about the bill. The bill passed the Senate already: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-ppYxZMdTU#t=7m25

It will soon pass the House. That will mean the bill is effectively law. Passed the Senate with a super majority and the House with a deeming rule.

The next step will be passing amendments to the now-passed Senate bill.

>>359276

He's actually being quite consistent. The Senate bill is not passing through reconciliation. It already passed through regular order. The amendments to the Senate bill will pass through reconciliation. They are budget related.

>>359291

I am not debating about how large it is or how it was aimed at the top taxpayers. $1 from one poor person is the same as $1 from another person.

Yes the Senate did pass a healthcare bill, but it isn't the same as the House bill. Either the House accepts the Senate bill, or the have to draft a compromise bill and revote. Since the latter isn't happening, they are trying to get House members to vote for it.

Again, I don't know what you are trying to disprove me on. I am agreeing with you except for the fact that this health care bill is a SOCIAL POLICY CHANGE and not an ECONOMIC POLICY CHANGE.

>>359305
>I am not debating about how large it is or how it was aimed at the top taxpayers. $1 from one poor person is the same as $1 from another person.
I don't understand what that means. The tax cuts themselves went onto the national debt. The poor simply got stuck with a higher share of the tax burden *on that debt*.

>Yes the Senate did pass a healthcare bill, but it isn't the same as the House bill.
True. The House will have passed *two* bills; theirs and the current Senate bill that already passed the Senate.

>Either the House accepts the Senate bill, or the have to draft a compromise bill and revote. Since the latter isn't happening, they are trying to get House members to vote for it.
Right. The House will now pass the current Senate bill, then pass the amendments to the current Senate bill. That means the Senate passed the current Senate bill and the House will have passed the current Senate bill. What the Senate will need to pass next is the amendments to the current Senate bill passed by the House.

>Again, I don't know what you are trying to disprove me on. I am agreeing with you except for the fact that this health care bill is a SOCIAL POLICY CHANGE and not an ECONOMIC POLICY CHANGE.
But COBRA and SCHIP and Medicare part D are all health care related bills. They all go/went through reconciliation. The amendments to the current Senate bill are all budget related. See the connection?

Besides, I'd say taxes are pretty darned social policy related.

>>359305
The reconciliation bill is an economic policy change to the Senate bill. It mostly tweaks subsidy levels and revenue streams.

>>359305
that depends on how narrow your view is on what 1$ taken from a poor person vs 1$ from another

>>359332

Ok so the House has to vote on the Senate bill, then votes on changes to the Senate bill which will then go back to the Senate to vote on also. The chnages to the bill will be voted on using reconciliation in the Senate then send to the President? So then the reconciliation vote has not been done yet?

>>358824
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011367936_walgreens18m.html

Oh look the government run program makes int impossible for pharmacy's to actually make money.

>>359332

Forcing coverage mandates seems like social policy to me.

>>359352

Correct.

>>359332

I can imagine the fantastic debates which were sparked when COBRA passed.

>>359348

In terms of paying for stuff, they are the same.

>>359281

ITT Liberals complain about Americans keeping more money that have worked for.

>>359356

Oh, I agree. And the bill that forces coverage mandates already passed the the Senate through regular order. That's what the youtube video I posted above was of. That bill already passed outside of reconciliation. The bill (set of amendments) the Senate will pass through reconciliation are all budget related.

Confusing, but read my posts above a couple times and it'll be a bit clearer.

>>359352

I think we have a winner!

>>359363

Nah, bro. We only complain about the rich getting huge tax cuts at the expense of the middle class and poor. We want you to keep as much money as possible as long as you don't make more than $250,000 a year :]

>>359360

Sadly, I wasn't tuned into politics back then, so I don't know.

>>359360
if only it were that simple

>>359376

You call the tax cuts only for the rich and you have no idea what was actually done, like most Liberals.

>>359367

Well it seems like House Democrats are putting alot of faith in Senate Democrats to fix the problems they have with the Senate bill. I'd be worried if I was them.

>>359384
lol, like you do

>>359384

I've actually studied what the tax cuts did, so I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.

I wrote out the debate as I imagined took place inside the White House:

>Lackey: Mr Pres, we can push these taxcuts through and claim we're cutting taxes for all Americans, and the tax burden will quietly shift off of our supporters: the rich
>Bush: How much will it cost?
>Lackey: A shit-ton. Around $2.4 Trillion and we can't pay for it, so it has to go on the National Debt
>Bush: Will the people buy it? That's a lot of debt.
>Lackey: Sure they will. We'll cut them a check and send it in the mail so they think their taxes were lowered, all the while the tax rate on the rich is slashed even further.
>Bush: Then let's make them permanent.
>Lackey: Can't do that. Then the National Debt will go even higher. But we can set the tax cuts to expire on the Dems' watch and force them to let those tax cuts expire. Then we can claim the Dems are raising taxes on the Middle Class, otherwise they'll reinstate the tax cuts and we get even richer at their expense.
>Bush: Hot damn we're good.

See how it works?

America is Fucked. Bottom line.

>>359386

The more I watch the Senate operate, the more enraged I get. Maybe if we got rid of the filibuster rule it would fix things, because right now they are so freaking inept it's laughable.

>>359367

Wait a sec. So Democrats are pushing for the bill that was voted on before Scott Brown was elected to be approved in the House? Isn't that kind of like a huge middle finger to the citizens in Massachusetts and most Americans who have said enough is enough? I feel bad for Democrats in November when every Republican runs on repealing this bill.

>>359393
thats suchs a bullshit argument

Taxes are not income, the national debt argument is BULLSHIT.

Drop the non working SS and medicare and the national debt goes away overnight.

>>359422
proof that education system is broken, math class seems to have been replaced with whatever is on the fox news

>>359417

To me I see it as our Constitutional Republic working! The Senate fulfilling its role slowing things down and giving Americans and Congress the time to actually read the bills. This entire process has shown me the dire need for the filibuster and what good it can do.

>>359419

Well, kind of. But that bill had already passed the Senate before his election. Maybe he tricked his supporters into thinking they were voting him in to kill the bill, but he was way too late for that.

Besides, the bill really isn't that bad.

/runs for cover knowing republicans are about to explode

>>359422

lolwut?

I've already explained above how budgets work and why the tax cuts went onto the national debt >>359277.

>>359432

Tax cuts don't need to be paid for, they're tax cuts, they don't "cost" anything. They return capital the people have earned rightfully back to them. You want to blame something blame his insane spending and the wars but it seems ridiculous focusing on tax cuts.

>>359449

Except the tax cuts themselves are what drove up the national debt. That's how it works. If you don't cut spending to match the cost of the tax cuts, then that bill is kicked onto the national debt.

I know it sounds incongruous, but that's how budgets work.

Before the tax cuts: no debt
After the tax cuts: serious debt

>>359437

>>The filibuster was only necessary because republicans refused to work with democrats.

More like Democrats refused to work with Republicans and then bitch when Republicans say "no" to their partisan legislation. If Democrats want to do this alone,
spit in the face of Americans and try to ram this bill through then more power to Republicans for defending freedom. If Democrats had their way they would have passed any healthcare bill regardless of what it did back in July.

i cannot wait for this bill to fail and ruin obama's presidency, not that he needs the help bringing himself down any more. this man is worse than carter

>>359455

No country should be able to spend more than it has, that is the true issue here.

>>359464

After this entire shady process Democrats don't even want a clear up or down vote on the bill. It's like they're trying to lose.

>>359461

I think you and I had this debate a while back. You proved me wrong about the original proposed deadline the President had given Congress.

But you're wrong about "going it alone."

The Senate bill that passed the Senate already was written in the Senate Finance Committee by 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats, from scratch, over three months.

That's bipartisan.

Over 150 republican amendments were adopted into the Senate bill during markups.

That's bipartisan.

The four major issues republicans claimed to support have all been included into the Senate bill: tort reform, pooling for businesses, exchanges, selling across state lines.

That's bipartisan.

The only thing that hasn't been bipartisan is republicans. They still refuse to vote for the bill.

That's partisan.

>>359461
Bullshit, Republicans started the "This bill kills grandma" talking point merely weeks into negotiation.
They burned down any hope of bi-partisanship from the start.

>>359467
Lol i love how Republicans are crying about "shady process" because of a couple kickbacks to Senators.
Like that shit wasn't done tenfold during the Bush administration. Hell, the guy that wrote Medicare part D was handed a multi-million dollar job from an insurer immediately after retiring.

>>359465

Couldn't agree more. And which party instituted that rule into the House and the Senate? Democrats. It's called Pay as you Go, PayGo. And republicans fought against it with all their might. Why? Because it means the end to tax cuts for the rich.

For every dollar in tax cuts for the rich, you have to match a cut in spending programs. Middle class Americans and the poor benefit most from those programs, so that would be a double-hit to them. Political suicide for republicans.

Democrats are the true fiscally conservative party.

>>359467

Actually, that's what reconciliation is: it forces an up or down vote in the Senate. It breaks through republican obstruction, and forces a vote on the bill.

>>359488

>>Democrats are the true fiscally conservative party

Tell that to Obama spending over 2 trillion within his first year and trying to pass a 2.5 trillion+ new healthcare bill. He has spent more in his first year than Bush in eight.

>>359488

>>
Actually, that's what reconciliation is: it forces an up or down vote in the Senate. It breaks through republican obstruction, and forces a vote on the bill

I was talking about the Slaughter rule in the House.

>>359437

i wouldn't work with them either. pelosi is batshit fucking crazy, and obomo can't answer a direct question to save his life

>>359497

You have to break down that spending to realize what is going on, though. You're counting stuff he did to rescue the economy against him as if he were spending it on a new spending program.

His spending on those things was justified. It prevented a depression.

And his bill will cost $900 billion and is deficit-neutral, so you can knock off the hysteria. It will save $1.2 trillion over the next two decades.

>>359502

Well, they're tied together, really. If republicans don't filibuster in the Senate, then this whole thing in the House wouldn't be necessary. The House and the Senate bills could simply be merged and voted on in the House and the Senate and passed. Republicans are refusing to allow a vote in the Senate, which forces the use of reconciliation.

>>359514

>>359514
Your posts should be stickied.

>>359514

>>You're counting stuff he did to rescue the economy

>>And his bill will cost $900 billion and is deficit-neutral, so you can knock off the hysteria. It will save $1.2 trillion over the next two decades.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.

>>359519

see

>>359497

>>359519

and you'll need longcat to put obama's contribution to the national debt on that graph, if this country manages to survive his faggotry

>>359514

What does that have to do about using the Slaughter rule in the House though? What is stopping the House from a simple up or down vote rather than a "deem it passed" vote?

>>359525

But what would I do with a bridge? I don't live in Alaska, you know.

Besides, I'll take CBO's numbers over republican paranoia any day.

>>359529

Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.

>>359530

It's really not that bad, bro. It only seems that way right now. Under normal circumstances, this much debt could be paid off within a decade of exceptional economic growth. What do you think happens to deficits and debts during a depression?

>>359535

Well, nothing, I guess. But it's all tied together with the Senate.

>>359542

Ok, well then at the very least then do you concede the fact that using the Slaughter rule in the House is purely politics then? I mean we all know why they're even thinking about it, and it has nothing to do with procedural necessity.

>>359529
clinton never has a surplus you retarted. even in his own words "it was a banlanced budget" and thats even the best you can really call it since he added the social security surplus in the that number.

as for the this health care cluster fuck. the dems plan is shit. no singer payer and tons of goodies for the insurance companys. all you retards are just too stupid to realize this is just one giant circle jerk that will take your money and make you less healthy.
in closing opening your ass cheeks wide and get ready to get raped by the governments giant cock filled with hot white aids ridden cum.

>>359548

Yes. I concede the point it's purely politics.

Just like the republican filibuster in the Senate is purely politics :D

>>359473

>>I think you and I had this debate a while back. You proved me wrong about the original proposed deadline the President had given Congress.

Yes it was me you talked with.

>>But you're wrong about "going it alone."

Well that is debatable.

>>The Senate bill that passed the Senate already was written in the Senate Finance Committee by 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats, from scratch, over three months.

First off there are 23 members on the Senate Finance Committee, 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans. Where are you getting this 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans made this bill? Even if that was true, the end result was only agreeable with one Republican out of the entire committee ( one of the most moderate I might add). 14-9 vote does not seem bipartisan to me. After all the amendments even Snow ended up voting against it.


>>Over 150 republican amendments were adopted into the Senate bill during markups.

You can put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig. I mean I'm not sure which amendments you're referring to specially, I'd like to see them, but a few postage notes on a chalkboard doesn't make it a bipartisan bill. A few dog biscuits to Republicans may look nice and all, but this bill is void of any significant GoP ideas.


>>The four major issues republicans claimed to support have all been included into the Senate bill: tort reform, pooling for businesses, exchanges, selling across state lines.

Citation needed.

>>The only thing that hasn't been bipartisan is republicans. They still refuse to vote for the bill.

Moderates like Snow tried to in committee, then Democrats had their way with the bill and that was that. When you offer fig leaf you really don't honestly expect much in return.

>>359551

Well Slaughter rule seems to be based in fear of the political repercussions of voting for the bill. Really just politics.

The use of the filibuster to slow the process down and give some transparency and clarity to the process is entirely legitimate, and what Americans are asking for. I remember years and years ago, way back in 2005, when Democrats said things like

" A change in the Senate rules that really, uh, I think would change the character of the Senate, uh, forever. [snip] Uhhh, and what I worry about would be th-th-that you essentially still have two chambers, the House and the Senate, but you have simply majoritarian, uhhh, absolute power on either side, and that's just not what the Founders intended."

or

Reid "Mr. President, the right to extended debate is never more important than the one party controls Congress and the White House. In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government."

>>359563
>Where are you getting this 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans made this bill?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/us/politics/28baucus.html?_r=1

>14-9 vote does not seem bipartisan to me. After all the amendments even Snow ended up voting against it.

Politics:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/audio-of-jim-demint-saying-health-care-will-be-oba
mas-waterloo/

>I'd like to see them

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/white-house-the-bill-wasnt-bipartisan-because-repub
licans-refused-to-take-part.php
>Contrary to what one Republican Senator said today, Democrats did not "do the HELP Committee bill completely Democrat" without "even ask[ing] one Republican opinion." In fact, they accepted more than 150 Republican amendments.

>In putting together the Finance Committee bill, Senator Baucus held months of bipartisan discussions. The Committee held a day-long bipartisan health care summit, convened three bipartisan roundtables, and even issued three bipartisan policy papers laying out the options from which the Committee chose to craft its bill.

>Once the bill hit the Senate floor, Republicans passed up the chance to offer constructive amendments. Instead they chose to obstruct votes and offer six separate motions to essentially start from scratch.

>Citation needed.

You'll have to google this one on your own. I've actually seen the legislative text in the bills themselves. You can find a copy online and crtl+f for each point.

>Moderates like Snow tried to in committee
She backed out because of the histrionics from the republican party. It became too politically risky to be seen working with democrats to pass a bill.

>>359579

You're confusing two points: filibustering the bill to kill it (what they're doing now) and filibustering the bill at every stage along the way to try to kill it before it passed.

The bill already passed the Senate. They're trying to prevent a vote on the amendments because they know it will pass. That's what the filibuster rule does; it prevents an up or down vote from taking place on the Senate floor.

i bet republicans would love to see the democrats use the Slaughter rule since it will be struck down in the courts. I dont really see how the democrats think this is even legal when in the Constitution its says
"Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approves, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it"

how can it be law if it has not passed the house? why cant the democrats just grow some balls and pass the damn bill and make it legal?

>>359589


>Where are you getting this 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans made this bill?

>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/us/politics/28baucus.html?_r=1

Ok so some republicans did work on the bill, in this one committee at least. If I remember correctly it had the public option in the final committee bill. What does that have to do with anything though? There were a number of different committees working on some form healthcare reform or the other. In the end they couldn't come to an agreement, and vote was 14-9. And afterwards the bill was totally changed by subsequent amendments anyway. My prior points still stand.

>>http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/audio-of-jim-demint-saying-health-care-wil
l-be-oba
mas-waterloo/

Once again, your point? It was an honest comment. If Obama rammed this healthcare disaster through against the will of the American public it would be his Waterloo, at this point it is looking bad for him and Democrats either way come Nov. I mean Demint hardly speaks for all Republicans or the leadership as it is.

>>http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/white-house-the-bill-wasnt-bipartisan-becau
se-repub
licans-refused-to-take-part.php

That link was pure White House talking points. Of course that is what they're going to say, I would really call their opinion on the matter objective though.

>>359497

Several things are wrong with that image:

1) Budgets are drafted for the year ahead. Obama's first year in office coincided with Bush's final budget. Bush's legacy of fail remained even after him and his cronies were kicked from office.

2) Those numbers also reflect the hidden costs associated with TWO wars that Bush initiated during his terms. His administration had cooked the federal budget to hide the true costs of both Afghanistan and Iraq invasions.

>>359685

All Presidents cook the books, I mean hell look at the Clinton Administration did.

>>359685

Obama sending 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, bombing Pakistan, and hiring private firms to Iraq is free? At this rate his spending is going to dwarf Bush's budget, by some counts it already has, but lets give him a free pass because he is a Democrat.

>>359589

I know you want the bill to pass, but do you honestly think it will?

>>359673

Yeah, I'm too tired to fall for your trolling or to humor your disingenuous attempts at debating facts. So I'll end it with this post.

>And afterwards the bill was totally changed by subsequent amendments anyway. My prior points still stand.

The base Senate bill came from the Senate Finance Committee. That's where the 3 repubs and 3 dems wrote the bill. The amendments to that bill were bipartisan. They did not rewrite the bill. Pretending it did is just ignorant and politically motivated.

The fact that republicans still didn't vote for it is of no consequence. It's the difference between wanting health care reform and pretending to want health care reform.

>It was an honest comment.

It was the first honest comment made by repubilcans. It proved they were dead set against any reform no matter what. That comment was from last year. It was during the negotiations. It proves your party was pretending to want reform, but were trying to kill it all along.

>I would really call their opinion on the matter objective though.

It's not a matter of being objective or subjective. It's a matter of record: were there or were there not 150 republican amendments to the bill? The answer is yes. It's right there in the greentext from the previous post.

Finally, I could really care less what republicans think about the bill. It was a mistake by Obama to give so much credence republican posturing around bipartisanship. You've proved my point for me. At every turn, you've assailed actual facts and said the outreach didn't happen, then that it did happen but wasn't enough, then that no outreach is real outreach.

/thread

>>359601

My point was that the use of the filibuster is completely legitimate considering the circumstances. Now that Democrats are on the other side of the filibuster it is the Spawn of Satan, just ignore their comments under Bush adamantly supporting it.

>>359706

>>359716

Maybe this picture will help you see what's going on.

250 bills are sitting at the Senate door. They have all passed the House. 200 of them passed the House with at least 50 republican votes in support. Why is this happening? The House does not have a filibuster rule.

Republicans have filibustered 80% of all legislative work in the Senate. The previous record was 40%. One is an attempt to stop the government from governing, the other is an attempt to extend debate.

Republicans are abusing the filibuster rule at an historic pace.

>>359714

>>The base Senate bill came from the Senate Finance Committee. That's where the 3 repubs and 3 dems wrote the bill. The amendments to that bill were bipartisan. They did not rewrite the bill. Pretending it did is just ignorant and politically motivated.

It is quite simple. Compare the original committee bill from the subcommittee before the committee amendments and then general Senate amendments to see the differences for yourself. Considering that Senate Finance Committee has more Democrats then Republicans it really didn't matter what the Republicans wanted, Democrats were always going to get their way and they did.

>>It was the first honest comment made by repubilcans. It proved they were dead set against any reform no matter what. That comment was from last year. It was during the negotiations. It proves your party was pretending to want reform, but were trying to kill it all along.

So one comment from a single Republican speaks for every Republican now? I'm sure you wish it were so easy. It isn't my party fyi. Republicans did and do want reform, but this bill is clearly not it, and the fact remains that Obama has invested much political captial into this process.

>>359714

>>It's not a matter of being objective or subjective.

Well I'm glad you feel that way because it certainly was a biased source.

>>It's a matter of record: were there or were there not 150 republican amendments to the bill? The answer is yes. It's right there in the greentext from the previous post.

I'm going to have to review the information more thoroughly before I'll comment, do excuse me for not taking you at your word. I mean your Speaker of the House called the House bill bipartisan due to one Republican vote, it does put into question what other facts and amendments you and others would call "bipartisan"!

>>It was a mistake by Obama to give so much credence republican posturing around bipartisanship

Right, it was some rhetorical theoretical bipartisanship that was his big failing, not sitting on his ass for a year.

>> At every turn, you've assailed actual facts

This from the man that cites White House talking points and opinions from Democrats as "facts".

>>and said the outreach didn't happen, then that it did happen but wasn't enough, then that no outreach is real outreach

While I haven't looked at the "merits" of the so called "bipartisan" amendments we all know the circumstances in which many amendments were passed. With a gun to the head of Republicans they did what they could with what they had, in the end their votes speak very clearly to the content of the bills more so then anything else.

>>359723

Republicans are doing what they have to do to hold off the barbarians at the gate. If Democrats don't want to listen to the American people and continue to ram and rush legislation through, I thank God for the filibuster. However I guess it's all a matter of perspective .

Men will have to pay over half the taxes related to healthcare and only enjoy less than a third of it. I'm not certain of any real numbers regarding race, but I'm certain white people will be paying more than black folks will and will receive less health care due to already being insured.

It's a very bad generation to be a white male. There's hardly a place in the world where you won't be punished for your race and sex.

>>359848

Isn't that the truth!

>>359848
Yeah, our golden age when white males ruled the world and stomped all over other races and women is over. Alas. I guess we'll just have to content ourselves with controlling most of the money and power.

>>359932
>Implying this generation should pay for something it didn't even do
>Implying that if white men of previous generations had voluntarily given control to blacks and women they wouldn't have used it to strip the humanity from every white male born thereafter
>Implying our new overlords won't drive this country into the ground
>Implying the little power we've given them hasn't resulted in grotesque mockeries of the constitution, such as men being jailed for not paying child-care for children that aren't even biologically theirs
>Yes, that happens
>Implying that either of these groups would settle for just "equality."

>TAXAN FOR ABORTAN
>SHORAN UP
>RAYNAN IN
>KEYWORDAN

21ST CENTURY POLITICS THREAD

>>360048

Wat?

>>358824
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBaSP31Be8&feature=player_embedded
Sums it up

>>359945
>Implying this generation should pay for something it didn't even do

You and our country wouldn't be where we are if they hadn't done that.

communists trying to take over the country with a massive health care bureaucracy that, because it's health care, can never be dismantled. much like how Britain's NHS is invincible, and Britons are slaves to it.

every american will probally get cancer smetime in their life but not every american has a job or healthcare.

you would have to be an idiot to be against universal health care

The health care bill is just by the dems to make people think they are actually doing something but the reality is they aren't helping at all.

>>360223
User: 1NationUnder1God3in1

>>360322
Who gives a fuck who posted it, faggot, the video just reads what is in the bill. Butthurt libfag burn in hellfire.