Althouse: It's over.

March 21, 2010

It's over.

"House Democrats who had withheld support of the health care legislation because of abortion concerns said Sunday afternoon that they would back the bill, all but assuring that Democrats would have the 216 votes needed for passage."

(And Wisconsin just lost too.)

ADDED: I'd meant to put a question mark after "It's over" — on the theory that there's still room for an upset. But I didn't, and that's the way it will stay. And WTF Wisconsin! Cornell!

245 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 245 of 245

ObamaNation said...: Lem, you filthy heteronormative sexist bastard. Sitting there drinking your Dos Equis, with your mustache, and your dated yet strangely attractive square glasses...You make me so mad I could just...ooo....

Great, now you made me soil myself. And with my genital wart situation, that's not good. Thanks a lot.; 3/21/10, 6:14 PM
Pastafarian said...: Jeremy, I remember the economy of the early 90s. I ran a business through them, a business tied to the semiconductor boom, which had -zero- to do with anything Bill Clinton did.

I'd imagine that the end of the Cold War, an event fought against tooth-and-nail by your side, also contributed to the 90s boom. As did Clinton's tax cuts, foisted upon him by a conservative congress.

Where were you in the early 90s? Grade school?; 3/21/10, 6:18 PM
Jeremy said...: damikesc - Once again; I have no idea what Obama's deficit will be.

He's been in office for about 14 months, and inherited a massive deficit...which includes an 800 billion dollar bailout.

Where were YOU when Bush signed that?

And are you including it in your dire predictions...which are nothing more than that.

And what makes you think the economy won't rebound, eliminating much of your predicted deficit?

How do you already know what the future will bring?

The DOW is UP from about 6,500 in March of 2009 to about 10,000 today.

Are you also bitching about that...because the DOW is tied to a vast majority of the mutual funds that support the pensions and retirement funds that most Americans are dependent upon.; 3/21/10, 6:19 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: .. this is a landmark legislation..

A foreclosure landmark.; 3/21/10, 6:20 PM
Pastafarian said...: How many times do we have to go back and rehash the same old things?

I'm curious, Jeremy. You're clearly not a complete moron. You're capable of constructing nearly complete sentences. What motivates you to defend socialism? It's been tried, and it's failed. Why do you want to give it another try?; 3/21/10, 6:21 PM
Joe said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/21/10, 6:21 PM
yashu said...: "Move." You don't get it. Unlike many on the left-- and many who supported this legislation-- I vastly prefer the American system, for all its flaws, to any other presently existing in the (actual, empirical) world. That's why I mourn today. What will be lost in this country, maybe irrevocably, is not something one could find or regain anywhere else.; 3/21/10, 6:22 PM
Jeremy said...: Pastafarian - Oh, I see.

Cinton had nothing to do with the economic boom.

Bush had nothing to do with the wars or the spending or the deficits.

Obama, on the other hand, after 14 months in office, is personally responsible for everything you and others here "think" will happen.

Have I got that right?; 3/21/10, 6:23 PM
Pastafarian said...: Jeremy, the Dow's gone up as the dollar's gone down. They're worth the same in Euros that they were months ago.

But you know that. We've been over these things. You'll throw out some specious argument, it will be shredded, you'll ignore the shredding and move on to something else that you can attack with another specious argument.

What is the point to all this?

Are you really just interested in your side winning, without regard to what exactly they just won?; 3/21/10, 6:24 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: I wish I could afford dos XXs; 3/21/10, 6:24 PM
Joe said...: So the eight years of economic growth that paid off the deficits and created the surplus, was just a "windfall?"

What the fuck are you talking about?

A budgetary deficit is merely the difference between income and expenditures in single year. You don't pay them off.

The increased revenues in the late 90s were due to reductions in welfare expenditures and increases in revenue due to increased free trade (for which Clinton is to be lauded and which I'm sure you opposed) AND to increased tax revenue resulting from the dot com speculative bubble. This latter did not involve structural changes and not only couldn't last, but when it crashed, would cause a minor recession. (The same thing happened recently with the housing boom and crash; a large portion of which was a result if highly misguided policies of Democrats.)

Furthermore, that change started in 1980 with Ronald Reagan.

Do note that regardless of how bad Bush was, Obama is running monthly budgetary deficits as high as Bush's highest yearly deficits. Even Keynes disagreed with this (he believed that deficit spending should not exceed the structural ability to quickly pay back than spending once an economic recovery happened.); 3/21/10, 6:25 PM
Jeremy said...: yashu "Unlike many on the left-- and many who supported this legislation-- I vastly prefer the American system, for all its flaws, to any other presently existing in the (actual, empirical) world."

Then accept the fact that this is being done via that exact "legislative" process you say you love.

The fact that you disapprove of the result is your right, but our elected officials are "voting" on the bill.; 3/21/10, 6:25 PM
MnMark said...: In case no one else has pointed this out:

now, Democrats totally own the health care system problems in this country. Any problem that happens in the future, any unhappiness with it, whether perceived or real, whether it was caused by this bill or would have happened anyway, will be blamed on Democrats. They forced a massive change that less than half the people wanted. If the bill doesn't actually fix the system - and it won't because it does nothing to address the actual causes and adds new complications - then the Democrats are 100% responsible for it in the eyes of the public.

Enjoy your 24 hours of victory (some victory - you had to have a super majority in the Senate, a huge majority in the House, and the most left-wing President in history to pass it, and you STILL barely got it passed) because from now on YOU OWN all the complaints from here on out.; 3/21/10, 6:29 PM
Joe said...: Then accept the fact that this is being done via that exact "legislative" process you say you love.

NO.IT.ISN'T.

It's being done through parliamentarian tricks. A bill of expenditure must originate in the House. In this case, only the bill number did. Were the Constitutional rules to be followed, the Senate would have to vote on the bill a second time. This isn't being done.

Moreover, the Constitution limits the power of government. Limits that are being disregarded.; 3/21/10, 6:30 PM
Jeremy said...: Joe - Speaking of "predictions...(BEFORE George W. Bush entered the fray):

December 28, 2000 / The White House:

Today, President Clinton will announce that The United States is on course to eliminate its public debt within the next decade. The Administration also announced that we are projected to pay down $237 billion in debt in 2001. Due in part to a strong economy and the President’s commitment to fiscal discipline, the federal fiscal condition has improved for an unprecedented nine consecutive years. Based upon today’s new economic and budget projections for the coming 10 years from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):

* The United States can be debt-free this decade. By dedicating the entire budget surplus to debt reduction, The United States can eliminate its publicly held debt by FY 2009.

#

# Record deficits have become record surpluses. This Administration has have moved the country from a deficit of $290 billion in FY 1992 to an expected surplus of $256 billion in FY 2001. Eight years ago, the Congressional Budget Office projected a $513 billion deficit in FY 2001. Thus, the fiscal picture is now projected to improve by $769 billion in FY 2001 alone.

# Nine consecutive years of fiscal improvement. FY 2001 will be the fourth year in a row of overall surpluses and the second year in a row of a surplus without counting Social Security or Medicare.; 3/21/10, 6:31 PM
DADvocate said...: Name a previous President who spent more than George W. Bush.

The words of dumb ass. We can't do much about Bush's spending since it's in the past, but an intelligent person easily sees that continuing and multiplying such spending is idiotic and only appeals to dumb asses.; 3/21/10, 6:31 PM
ObamaNation said...: Lem, maybe we should have subsidized Dos Equis insurance. We could structure it just like the health care bill, and it would be self-funding.; 3/21/10, 6:32 PM
yashu said...: "Then accept the fact that this is being done via that exact "legislative" process you say you love.

The fact that you disapprove of the result is your right, but our elected officials are "voting" on the bill."

I acknowledge that. Elections have consequences.; 3/21/10, 6:33 PM
ObamaNation said...: Yeah, Joe. What big earth-shattering event happened just after 2000 that made it so hard for Bush to fulfill Clinton's prediction of solvency?

It's not like we were attacked, like at Pearl Harbor.

Duh.; 3/21/10, 6:34 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: I would be for dos XXs insurance.

I don't like Cobra.; 3/21/10, 6:36 PM
Jeremy said...: Joe said..."NO.IT.ISN'T. It's being done through parliamentarian tricks."

Right now, it's being VOTED on, with 216 VOTES needed.

But, speaking of these "tricks" you mention...where were YOU when Bush used reconciliation...here:

– The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 1836, 3/26/01]
– The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 2, 3/23/03]
– Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 [HR 4297, 5/11/06]
– The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 [H. Con Res. 95, 12/21/05]; 3/21/10, 6:36 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: From the Senate..

Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Judd Gregg’s statement tonight.

“Immediately after receiving the final reconciliation bill language, Senate Republican staff was ready and willing to meet with Senate Democratic staff and the Senate Parliamentarian to discuss the fact that the House reconciliation bill may be brought down by the 310(g) point of order in the Senate. Senate Democrats are mysteriously unavailable until after the House votes on the health care bill tonight. The Senate Democrats appear to be pushing off this meeting so that House Democrats will remain in the dark about what is likely to happen to the reconciliation bill on which many have staked their careers in Congress. House Democrats should be alarmed by this latest development, since the survival of the reconciliation bill is clearly at risk in the Senate.”

If Republicans can get the parliamentarian to agree with them even once, whatever ultimately passes the Senate will have to go back to the House.
And Democrats in the House quietly admit that its very likely they will have to vote again on the reconciliation fixes at some point down the road.

link; 3/21/10, 6:38 PM
Jeremy said...: ObamaNation said..."Yeah, Joe. What big earth-shattering event happened just after 2000 that made it so hard for Bush to fulfill Clinton's prediction of solvency?"

It wasn't 9/11 if that's what you're implying.

It was the Iraqi invasion fiasco, Afghanistan, massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and uncontrolled spending.

My larger point is that "predicting" what will or will not happen is useless...and for the wing nuts to just assume Obama and his policies will fail is partisan bullshit.; 3/21/10, 6:39 PM
Joe said...: Jeremy, don't be a fool. Once the dot com bubble collapsed, Congress would have had to massively reduce expenditures to compensate. They didn't and I was very critical of that.

Moreover, the debt was $5.7 trillion in 2000. It would have taken 20 years of comparable budget surpluses to get rid of that.

Also note what you wrote; "without counting Social Security or Medicare"

Ah, you see the surpluses counted Social Security and Medicare income and ignored their obligations. (Frankly, I have no problem with this if everyone is honest about it--revenue is revenue, but don't ignore future obligations.); 3/21/10, 6:40 PM
dick said...: When did Bush use reconciliation to do anything except correct miswording in the legislation. He did not use it to force through major pieces of legislation that the country was not in favor of. Big difference.

In addition what Bush inherited in addition to a surplus was also a recession. The recession that you stuck on Bush actually started in 3rd quarter of 2000.; 3/21/10, 6:45 PM
Jeremy said...: Joe - Why not wait to see how things go?

What's the point of complaing about literally anything Obama says or does?

Tell me this: How is it possible that not one single Republican, regardless of situation in their areas of the country, can't support a single issue put forth by Obama?

But they sure have no problem accepting the stimulus money, even as they bitch about it.

Every single one votes NO...on everything.; 3/21/10, 6:47 PM
Jeremy said...: dick - Once again:

– The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 1836, 3/26/01]
– The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 2, 3/23/03]
– Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 [HR 4297, 5/11/06]
– The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 [H. Con Res. 95, 12/21/05]

And Reagan used it too.

So did Clinton.

And did you miss the news about that 800 Billion Dollar bailout Bush signed?

It's a little late to be defending George W. Bush...don't you think?; 3/21/10, 6:49 PM
Jeremy said...: Joe - Recognize this?

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
-- Ronald Reagan (1986)

Oh, and he raised taxes four time during his tenure.; 3/21/10, 6:51 PM
George said...: Those who believe that this will all be repealed in the next Congress after the Democrats are ousted in November haven't correctly calculated "Part II" of this "Kill America Bill"...namely, they will next pass "Immigration Reform" with the express intent of adding 20,000,000 new Democrat voters to rescue them from the wrath of the American people. It's a brilliant strategy...except for one minor flaw...that will be the proverbial "last straw".

American Revolution II is coming.; 3/21/10, 6:52 PM
Joe said...: Jeremy, you fail to understand. This has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with Congress violating the rules and limits as plainly set forth in the US Constitution.

Article One, Section 7, Clause 1:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Clause 2:

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...

(Nowhere will you see me defend the reconciliation bullshit, regardless of which CONGRESS did it.); 3/21/10, 6:53 PM
Joe said...: Jeremy, the Congresses during the Reagan, Bush and Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations did raise taxes and the president signed those raises into law.

I DIDN'T SUPPORT THOSE TAX RAISES.

Can I make that any more plain?

(Regardless, Reagan did lead the country out of a deep recession. The growth of the 90s wouldn't have happened without him.); 3/21/10, 6:57 PM
Unknown said...: Jeremy said...

yashu said..."It's a sad, sad, sad day. A legislative monstrosity, reckless, ruinous, inconceivably bad, is foisted upon our country."

It's being "foisted," it's being voted on using a legislative process that our country is founded upon...and that even includes nary a single vote from the GOP.

I must have been sleeping in History class the day they covered how bribery is a legislative process incorporated in the Constitution.

And if it bothers you so much, why not leave and see if things are better elsewhere?

Be careful for what you wish. Somebody may get the same idea about you.

And yours is the side without the guns.

And before you say the Feds will protect you, remember the backbone of the government is the military. You know, those war criminals you hate so much.

Ever hear of the battleship Potemkin?; 3/21/10, 7:01 PM
Jeremy said...: George - "American Revolution II is coming."

Sure, Jorge.

How's that tea bagging thing working out for you?; 3/21/10, 7:10 PM
Jeremy said...: educher - "And yours is the side without the guns."

How do you know?

Tea bagging fool.; 3/21/10, 7:12 PM
Jeremy said...: Joe - Yeah, that "trickle down" thing has really worked out well for the middle-class.

You need to read more.; 3/21/10, 7:13 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: I wish I could afford dos XXs

Drink Tecate.

It is much better and less expensive...at least here in Calif. Dos XX is a tourista manufactured beer.

We'll all need a lot of cerveza to make this disgusting health bill go down.

vw: ovene

where our collective goose has just been cooked; 3/21/10, 7:26 PM
josil said...: Repeal isn't possible until Obama leaves office as he would veto any legislation that could be passed. If the Dems lose control of the House, one possibility is to deny funding for the HEW portion of the budget that might fund Obamacare operations. Or, in a more perfect world, defund the Office of the President and, if possible, the Ninth Circuit court. Any other ideas for revenge and/or punishment?; 3/21/10, 7:43 PM
gk1 said...: I came on this thread just to see the liberal assholes gloat. Their sweet, sweet yummy tears this November will be all the sweeter. You own this turdbucket and everything in it, fools. No cover, no "Bush Did it too!" will save you or your sorry president. This will be worse than Christmas eve when I was 10 years old, waiting for November to come.; 3/21/10, 7:55 PM
avwh said...: Since throwing around trillions and billions is almost meaningless (the numbers are too large to relate to or understand), this does a nice job showing what Obama is PROJECTED to do with the deficit and budget (and note that 99% of the time it's WORSE in reality, not better), vs all previous modern POTUSes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc; 3/21/10, 8:29 PM
Pastafarian said...: danielle, just in case you're still monitoring this thread: I looked into it, and it appears as though our small business isn't eligible for any tax credits under this bill.

The small business has to have fewer than 25 employees, and we have about 43.

So I guess we could lay off about 18 people and replace them with contract employees and temps. Otherwise, we'll be at a competitive disadvantage to every smaller shop.

So, for us, these arbitrarily targeted tax credits are actually worse than none at all. They help our competitors, but not us.

I guess these sorts of social engineering meddlings in the market by the government have unintended consequences.

Who woulda thunkit.; 3/21/10, 9:07 PM
Big Mike said...: @Pastafarian, danielle and Jeremy are limousine liberals. I'm sure they'll be only too glad to dip into their pockets to pay for the 18 people you're going to have to lay off.; 3/21/10, 9:54 PM
RLB_IV said...: I have not heard a word about those poor souls that are in desperate need of psychotherapy. Is this serious need addressed in this wonderful insurance plan? I certainly hope so as there are several commenters who need help under this plan that they so adore.; 3/21/10, 10:06 PM
Scott M said...: WTF Wisconsin!

"Such obscene language from such a pristine young lady...tsk tsk...; 3/22/10, 12:09 AM
Revenant said...: The small business has to have fewer than 25 employees, and we have about 43. So I guess we could lay off about 18 people and replace them with contract employees and temps.

Sounds like the smart play. There will be a lot of that in the next year or two, I suspect.

The company I work for was planning to focus on outsourcing before this bill passed, so I expect a lot of my coworkers will be on the unemployment lines by the end of the year.; 3/22/10, 12:12 AM
Gahrie said...: What's Next?

http://gahrie.blogspot.com/2010/03/whats-next.html; 3/22/10, 1:58 AM