Is this what it all comes down to in the end, something that we must struggle even to comprehend, let alone swallow? If it does, how will the members of Congress, when they go home to their constituents, even begin to explain what they have done? Citizens are already angry and resistant to the health care bill. Can you imagine the shouts of derision and outrage that will drown out any attempt to describe what the hell it means to deem and pass?
ADDED: Think of the legislative process as a long drive through the mountains and... Oh, no! Up ahead! It's Demon Pass!
AND: Let's start pronouncing the word "Democrats" with a long "e": Deemocrats. Alternatively: Demoncrats or DemonPassCrats.
१६ मार्च, २०१०
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२७० टिप्पण्या:
270 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Every time I think the Dems' obsession with passing Obamacare can't possibly get any more farcical, they fool me again.
WTF - now they're passing bills they actually never voted on? How 'bout we just fire the whole bunch and save, oh, several hundreds of billions a year just by stopping such nonsense, and downsizing the monster that keeps eating the entire federal budget?
Is this what it all comes down to in the end, something that we must struggle even to comprehend, let alone swallow?
"Vote in haste, repent at leisure."
Are they going through this-
deem and pass
just to circumnavigate their own Senate Parliamentarian?
Can citizens challenge this bill if it becomes law? ie. refuse to buy health care, get jailed, appeal all the way up to SCOTUS if necessary?
OR are the states going to take the lead?
I don't think it'll be shouts of derision if the lawmakers do this deem-to-pass thing. I think it'll be pitchforks.
There's a tea party going on outside my office window at this moment with signs opposing Obamacare, and at least half the passing cars are honking in support.
I'm getting that from this paragraph from Ezra Klein today:
Here's how that will work: Rather than passing the Senate bill and then passing the fixes, the House will pass the fixes under a rule that says the House "deems" the Senate bill passed after the House passes the fixes.
The virtue of this, for Pelosi's members, is that they don't actually vote on the Senate bill. They only vote on the reconciliation package. But their vote on the reconciliation package functions as a vote on the Senate bill. The difference is semantic, but the bottom line is this: When the House votes on the reconciliation fixes, the Senate bill is passed, even if the Senate hasn't voted on the reconciliation fixes, and even though the House never specifically voted on the Senate bill.
Neato, ey?
[honestly-wv:poker]
Professor- In your understanding of the 1998 SCOTUS ruling Clinton vs. City of New York that the President cannot constitutionally sign a bill that is not exactly the same in both House and Senate versions?
This whole thing is absurd.
There will soon be blood. One thing is guaranteed: the best and the brightest will not save us from these thugs because for the best and the brightest nothing is worth dying for, they're too sophisticated for that. No. It will be up to ordinary people to risk their lives for liberty.
If they do try these shenanigans to pull off this legislative fiasco, the protests this summer will make the Vietnam era protests look like tea parties!
Only by passing this bill, through not directly voting on it, can we find out what sort of things are in it which keeps anyone from wanting to directly vote for it.
The logic is irrefutable.
Hoyer claims they have the votes. If that were true, why this farce?
Only by passing this bill, through not directly voting on it, can we find out what sort of things are in it which keeps anyone from wanting to directly vote for it.
This reminds me of my old Catholic school cafeteria-on Fridays they would put all the leftovers together in one dish and call it-
Mystery Meat.
You never really knew what you were going to get til you got it.
There's a tea party going on outside my office window at this moment with signs opposing Obamacare, and at least half the passing cars are honking in support.
Rasmussen: GOP Now Up By +10 Over Democrats on Generic Congressional Ballot; Biggest Lead in Almost Three Years
November is going to be bloodier, electorally speaking, than a Basque separatist rave party with free amphetamine Slurpees handed out at the door.
Obama said he wouldn't campaign for any Democrat who voted against the healthcare bill. However, since voting for or against this bill isn't really voting for or against healthcare reform, does that mean Obama will still campaign for Democrats who vote against this bill.
Hoyer claims they have the votes. If that were true, why this farce?
Because they deemed so?
I dunno they have the deem votes but not the up votes?
This is great. Now anyone who votes against the bill can say they didn't vote against health care reform, they just voted against deeming it passed!
This kind of trick only works if people don’t know about it. Those who vote for it will be lambasted and ridiculed from now until November.
How out of touch they are to think the voters will accept this lawyerly gimmick.
Jason-
The real question is-
after New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts do the House members really want Obama to campaign for them?
ripic just said a mouthful. The Smartest conive a way not to fight in wars themselves. This may end the government by educated aristocrats we have known for 70 years and replace it with a temporary government by a Military Junta. It is very sad that Obama ever got his hands onto the power to destroy us.
Talk about draining the swamp! This level of corruption is delusional.
deem rhymes with ream-I'm just sayin'.
Is this what it all comes down to in the end, something that we must struggle even to comprehend, let alone swallow?
Have you tried? Start here: Republicans have filibustered for a full year in the Senate, not allowing a simple majority vote!
garage-
Do you know which version of the bill passed?
Was it the House version
or
the Senate version?
I don't think it'll be shouts of derision if the lawmakers do this deem-to-pass thing. I think it'll be pitchforks.
It wont matter.
If the bill passes, Democrats enslave another voting bloc to government dependency, ensuring Dem control of both Houses for generations.
Its an exmaple of losing the battle [in Nov] but winning the war [every Nov after that].
This is like the $25,000 Pyramid game show.
If they have the votes they are for the doctored up version of Senate Bill, not the Senate Bill per se.
They can not pass both the Senate Bill and the reconcillation package on individual votes.
The current fiction seems to be that somehow the 'deem and pass' (demon pass? is that where you find demon sheep?) will enable Pelosi to avoid enrolling the Senate Bill after the House passes the rule, thus avoid the need to present the Bill to Obama for signature prior to the Senate voting on the reconcillation package.
My best guess is that this is mostly sleight of hand, and that when reconcilliation dies the death of a thousand GOP points of order in the Senate, Pelosi and Reid are going to pull out HR3950 and attest that it passed both Houses as per Article I Sect 7.
vw : secente .. the secente of this procedure ain't rosey...
Whatever your postion might be on the healthcare bill, the concept of "deem and pass" is something the average ninth grader could comprehend.
It may not be a good idea, but let's not pretend this is too difficult for the most Americans to understand.
Have you tried? Start here: Republicans FOLLOWED THE RULES THAT EVERYONE AGREED ON AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SESSION.
1) Now that Demon Pass is becoming public knowledge - and certainly will become such if it's actually used - the entire purpose of it is lost.
a) No reconciliation bill is going to be passed. Period. The Senate has ZERO motivation. Any argument to the contrary is either a bunch of lies or a passel of ignorance - and should be given the appropriate amount of attention.
b) Therefore, the Senate bill will be the law of the land.
c) Ergo, any House Democrat who voted for the rule will have voted for the Senate bill and will look like John "I was for it before I was against it" Kerry if s/he tries to claim otherwise.
2) I have no doubt that any number of parties: from the Republicans, to independent think tanks, to private citizens, to state attorneys general, are or have been preparing constitutional challenges to various aspects of ObamaCare already. The Democrats are bound and determined to provoke a full-on Constitutional crisis - and I don't believe this is accidental.
3) Someone's going to get hurt. I guarantee it. There's a limit to how far people can be pushed. The only thing which prevents violence in this country is the perception that - while there may be disappointments from time to time - overall "the system works." The Democrats are in the process of proving to the citizenry that they can - AND WILL - break "the system" any time they want. That's not going to end well.
(And before any of the Leftists here decide to get snarky about that, remember which side of that divide has voluntarily disarmed itself.)
This is really pretty straight forward. Look at the Democratic Congress like you would a Toyota Prius that can't be stopped. Later it will be claimed that it was a ghost problem that cannot be duplicated but which nevertheless occurred. Things like this happen all the time, without explanation. Get used to it.
Here's what the politicians can say:
"I fully support healthcare reform and the bill endorsed by President Obama. Yes, I did not vote in favor of deeming the bill passed, however that is not the same as voting against it. I only wish the Democratic leadership had decided to present the bill for a vote on the floor of the House, which I gladly would have assented to."
Floridan-
If it's so easy why don't you help Ezra Klein to write it simpler.
Or you know what would be even easier if you Democrats had the votes of your OWN Democrats.
You had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and the majority of the House.
Or is that too complicated to remember?
We may have prematurely banned dueling in this country. It would at least discourage some public dishonorable acts such as this.
Have you tried? Start here: Republicans FOLLOWED THE RULES THAT EVERYONE AGREED ON AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SESSION.
Correct. Democrats aren't proposing anything outside the rules. So what's the big whup now? Why aren't you asking Republicans why they won't allow a simple up or down vote in the Senate?
They get to go home and explain to their constituents that they passed health care reform and did the heavy lifting of fixing a broken system while the Republicans obstructed every step of the way.
The other half of the people who wouldn't vote for them anyway get to scream and cry with their pitchforks while benefiting from the reforms like everyone else.
Here's what the politicians can say:
Senator Lincoln is running re-election ads saying she didn’t vote for the “public option” that would harm Arkansans or something. I think she’s trying to trick people into thinking she didn’t vote for the bill, but nobody is fooled.
If the Republicans don't take back both chambers of congress this fall, it will be a catastrophic defeat for them. Right? Can we agree on this now?
Montagne: The problem for the Dems, I fear, is that the half that is against the bill is the half that funds campaigns, i.e., the half with the money.
Montagne: One more thing, they get to explain that the benefits begin in four years the taxes right away. No problem, people are notoriously patient about these things.
Garage- At the end of the day, the legislation will be a failure if a large majority of the citizenry is against it. By pulling these legislative shenanigans, the citizenry will become even more against the bill. Large scale protests by patients, doctors refusing to see medicare, medicaid patients, uninsured young people refusing to buy insurance: it cannot work.
If a bill can garner at least 20% of the opposition, people accept it. When it cannot get even one opposition vote, and the citizenry opposes the particular bill by a 2 to 1 margin you are no longer living in reality. What good is a law that nobody respects?
Is this really a whole lot harder to explain than "cloture?"
I'm beyond thrilled somebody stopped Bush from shredding the Constitution and just ignoring the whims of those who oppose them.
Man, dodged the bullet there.
As for hopes of a SCOTUS overturn, I doubt that will be happening. I don't think the Constitution actually lists requirements for voting for anything but impeachment and courts will defer to an increasingly imperialistic Congress.
"What good is a law that nobody respects?"
Good point - it will be as porous and violated as our immigration laws.
Even people who want the bill to pass are getting embarrassed by the Dems they voted for. Right and left agree much more on the importance of a valid process than most other things. This is losing support for the Dems that even the mess of a bill itself did not. They are absolutely heroic in their determination to save us. God bless their big hearts and the explosives they keep strapping on.
A question for those more knowledgeable than I.
From Article I, Section 7: "But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively."
Does this not apply?
For those calling for pitchforks if this deem and pass occurs, I would advise you to remember the last time a massive demonstration occurred around the Capitol General MacArthur and Major Patton attacked with cavalry, bayonets, and adamsite gas.
The federal government has only increased in its willingness to use violence against its citizens. Pitchforks will never be enough. It's either the ballot box or a much more violent method. Let's try the ballot box first.
Bago:
Obama could score some points by strongly saying he opposes using gimmicks to pass the bill.
wv = wimin = that is how Dems are acting
Since this is a concern trolling post, I would like to give Republicans some advice. Just like in the 08 election, Obama benefits from the criticism directed toward him being vastly out of proportion with reality. I.e., when it turned out he wasn't the devil, he looked better and his opponents looked more foolish.
This health care reform bill has been made out to be a lethal, nuclear cataclysm of destruction. If it turns out not to be as bad as Republicans have been on record saying, then the whole strategy of scorched earth opposition is going to blow up in their faces pretty badly.
Why cant we just "deem" our taxes to be payed?
"Deem" and pass through the stop sign, the speed not exceeded and a yield completed.
"Deem" and not serve on juries, where criminals will be "deemed" guilty until "deemed" innocent.
"Deem" unsalted the french fries, where we "deemed" not enough flavor to forget our troubles at home.
"Dam" the Obama health to kingdom come. "Deem" thy will be done, "deem" unemployment extended and employment outlawed.
"Deem" the sexless for they shall be redeemed, hopefully sooner rather than later ;)
Garage,
Really? The Repos have Filibustered? When did this happen, I must have been napping.
I'm not even sure they have explicitly threatened to filibuster, though I suppose they might have.
If the Dems had any balls, they would call the vote and let the Repos filibuster, then override it with a cloture vote.
But they don't have any balls and won't take a chance on a filibuster actually happening.
In fairness, neither would the Repos when they had the majority in the Senate.
John Henry
www.changeover.com
Democrats aren't proposing anything outside the rules.
I should have known better than to respond to a maroon.
Garage- At the end of the day, the legislation will be a failure if a large majority of the citizenry is against it.
I don't think a large majority are against it You can call them shenanigans, or tricks, or whatever you want. But it's been done countless times by Republicans. The Parliamentarian calls the shots on what is permissible or not, anyhow.
Perhaps we can deem the Democrats unelected? How's that work, Nancy?
Obama said he wouldn't campaign for any Democrat who voted against the healthcare bill.
Is that supposed to convince the fencesitters to vote for or against the bill?
Mahal:
Correct. Democrats aren't proposing anything outside the rules.
Wrong. The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that the Senate cannot take up a reconciliation unless the House passes the underlying bill. Nancy and the House Dems can try this, but it's meaningless if the Senate can't proceed.
Have you tried? Start here: Republicans have filibustered for a full year in the Senate, not allowing a simple majority vote!
Wrong again. The Republicans have threatened to filibuster, and that has been enough for Dems to stand down. And can you blame the Republicans anymore? The Democrats have become conditioned to capitulate at the first hint of a threat to filibuster--What should the Republicans do, drop their opposition out of pity for the spinelessness of their opponents?
I thought "such cases" were for situations such as impeachment and not for all votes.
Not saying I like it, but Dems can legally do it. However, them whining about the excesses of Bush are utter BS now.
My fucking Congressman better not fucking come home he tries this shit.
This is dictatorship, plain and simple.
This is them declaring war on us.
Heck, I deem that all of Congress has just resigned an we'll fill all Congressional seats with 535 new people in about 2-months!
Governors: Set your dates for these special elections!
"I don't think it'll be shouts of derision if the lawmakers do this deem-to-pass thing. I think it'll be pitchforks."
They'll be lucky if it's pitchforks and not cocktails, or worse.
Tim McVeigh didn't carry a pitchfork.
As Constitutional lawyer Mark Levin said: "They're deliberately bringing us to the brink. To the brink."
Re: Garage
Correct. Democrats aren't proposing anything outside the rules.
While literally true, this is only because they're proposing to change the rules first to allow this bizarre kludge. And in some sense, it is outside the rules anyway, given that it's apparently of dubious constitutionality, given that the House and the Senate will not actually have been voting on an identical text -- the House just "deems" the identical text passed, in connection with a vote on a different bill.
All that said, the whole farce begs the question: how stupid do they think we are?
"The GOP should demand a CBO rescoring.
Fuck that shit.
GOP Congressmen should resign from the Congress - en masse - if our Congress sends this corrupt bribe-filled bill to the President's desk by "deemed to pass."
It's time to pick a side, folks.
You're either with us, or a'gin us.
Monty -
1) Actually Obama's opponents were dismissed and have been able to spend the last year plus being able to tell everyone "I TOLD YOU SO." Turns out they (we) were right all along, and his apologists (YOU) were either willfully blind or lying all along. Which are you?
2) I'm absolutely sure that people will absolutely ADORE paying all those taxes that kick in immediately - especially in a down economy. Exactly how many people who will have to pay all those new taxes do you think are going to be THANKFUL to the Democrats for the privilege of losing their jobs, having their employer drop their insurance, being driven into bankruptcy or have their house foreclosed upon? I'd like an estimate rounded to the nearest million or two.
3) Based on your response to #2, I'd like a percentage of those who will be absolutely GIDDY to go show their appreciation for this act of economic homicide by going to the polls and pulling the lever for someone who voted FOR this abomination?
4) And here's a control question: exactly what color is the sky in your world?
You are, as always, a delusional fool.
I just had a surgery yesterday that once again saved my life. Just after leaving the hospital, I wrote a short, honest, first-hand summary of my 9 year long fight with cancer and the state of the health care and insurance industry that handled it. I suspect it is an often experienced, but rarely expressed perspective. It's just a few paragraphs if you're interested.
Gratitude
Thanks
Re: Montagne
This health care reform bill has been made out to be a lethal, nuclear cataclysm of destruction. If it turns out not to be as bad as Republicans have been on record saying, then the whole strategy of scorched earth opposition is going to blow up in their faces pretty badly.
The wonderful thing -- both for supporters and for opponents of the bill -- is that because of the silly tricks Democrats used to game the CBO scoring, the bill doesn't really begin until years down the road, after Obama is either safely defeated or re-elected. The talking points on both sides will remain live until at least 2013, and probably a year or two beyond, since systems and institutions won't all react to the shock immediately (though they'll probably begin bracing for impact immediately).
On the negative side, for Democrats, the first thing that does come into play is pure pain -- don't the taxes start almost immediately, with the subsidies backloaded? The taxes aren't going to break the health care system, sure, but they will piss voters off.
Let's try the ballot box first.
voting is for chumps. the new deal is deeming. deem congress guilty of treason and pass sentence.
While literally true, this is only because they're proposing to change the rules first to allow this bizarre kludge.
If Republicans would allow a simple up or down vote on the fix bill, there would be no need for reconciliation, and the self executing rule. They can't of course, because they would lose.
"Democrats aren't proposing anything outside the rules."
Yes, they are.
The Democrats can't pass a rule says we don't have to vote on laws ... we can just deem them passed.
It's unconstitutional and a violation of everything it means to be an American. And it will not go unchallenged.
You got me?
It is the Congress declaring war against the People and the Congress isn't going to leave the people much of a choice except to find new guards for our common defense. And that's going to happen.
I swore an oath to protect and defend this country from all enemies foreign and domestic.
I intend to keep that oath.
The day my Congress starts deeming laws passed instead of holding votes is the day I got no further fucking use for it.
It's ok Jim, you don't have to rely on my clouded view of the world. There's a simple metric.
If Republicans don't take back both houses of Congress this fall, it will be a spectacular defeat for them.
If everything that's been bloviated about this thing is true, then there will not be a democrat elected anywhere. It will be a total bloodbath.
So if you are right Republicans should easily take back the majority in both chambers.
I want palladian.
"If Republicans would allow a simple up or down vote on the fix bill, there would be no need for reconciliation, and the self executing rule. They can't of course, because they would lose."
The fix bill? What the fuck are you talking about you fucking moron.
A bill passed the house. A different bill passed the Senate. Neither chamber can pass the other's bill.
Therefore ... no law exists to fix. That's how our country works.
The minority has rights and we're going to exercise them.
And if you motherfuckers think you can get around us with this by deeming bills pass that haven't been passed - then the flaming debris that is going to rain down on you from the sky is your own fucking fault.
Remember that when you go up in flames.
You chose the course.
On the negative side, for Democrats, the first thing that does come into play is pure pain -- don't the taxes start almost immediately, with the subsidies backloaded? The taxes aren't going to break the health care system, sure, but they will piss voters off.
Democrats can go back home and say they fought (and won) to end pre-existing conditions, the end of rescission, beginning of the end of the donut hole by reducing by $500 and institutes a 50% discount on brand-name drugs, allowing people to continue COBRA until the exchanges are formed, all of which would begin effective immediately. And they will ask their Republican counterpart for a response what they accomplished.
So if you are right Republicans should easily take back the majority in both chambers.
Not a realistic expectation. Only 1/3 of the Senators are up for reelection, and six months or so ago, the pollsters were expecting the Republicans to struggle to keep from losing another seat. This is because they have more vulnerable seats at stake this time around. In order for the Republicans to take the Senate this election, they are going to have to take several Democratic seats that were considered safe six months ago. Possible, but not probable, even now.
Let's deem it "the Obama Putsch".
"titus said...
I want palladian."
After your expressed fears about his weight?
He'd squash you like a bug.
Wouldn't you prefer a smooth-skinned, fair, boy student from his harem, instead?
Another point is that voting for the "Slaughter Rule" is voting FOR the Senate's HCR bill.
Pelosi's simple minded view that they'll only be voting for a rule will not fly for most voters; fls and garage won't know the difference!
Bruce, the Demonrats are about to pass a bill that executes seniors, mandates abortion, and sells the United States military to Communist China! How could the Republicans not retake the Senate?
Nancy Pelosi: "It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know," the speaker said in a roundtable discussion with bloggers Monday. "But I like it," she said, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."
This fucking out of control cunt needs to be removed from the floor of the House of Representatives by fucking force if necessary.
Nancy Pelosi is trying to take over our country in a fucking bloodless coup.
Someone in the Democrat Party had better step up and end this charade before there is blood in the fucking streets.
If Republicans would allow a simple up or down vote on the fix bill, there would be no need for reconciliation, and the self executing rule.
The Senate parliamentarian has already ruled that the Senate bill has to become law as is before reconciliation can be passed. And the whole reconciliation or "fix" bill charade is entirely beside the point from the moment Obama signs the Senate bill. The Senate bill is law at that point. Sure, you can do a bit of reconciliation at the edges afterwards, if the Senate feels like it. But the real business is already done.
What on earth do House members think this bizarre bit of play-acting will get them?
Democrats are counting on the idea that Americans are not going to care about "process".
That's a big gamble in the heels of New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts.
A 'deem and pass' commercial against the democrats (should this thing make it into law) will be as easy as making a Hitler video.
@Montagne:
The bill will death panel but not outright execute seniors, mandates abortion funding, and introduced a mechanism that turned the Constitution into confetti.
You're in pig heaven. Gloat, roll in the mud. The US is over and done. Hurrah for you and your socialist friends.
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
Whittaker Chambers and Jean-François Revel were right, after all.
I'd tell you to go to hell, but that's pointless.
Après cela, le déluge.
"Republicans have filibustered for a full year in the Senate, not allowing a simple majority vote!"
That's how our country works you fucking moron.
The majority cannot force tyranny on the minority. Just because you get 51 votes doesn't mean you can pass a law suspending the Constitution you fucking quisling.
You fuckers are lighting the fuse. That's all you're doing.
You motherfuckers won't get away with this shit.
You got that?
If you pass this, you're done for.
Skyler, since I was the first person to mention pitchforks, let me be clear (ack, now I'm quoting Obama!) that I was predicting pitchforks, not by any means recommending them. I am in complete agreement with you that the ballot box would be a better place to begin -- but I have to say that the problem with this whole deem-and-pass idea is the damage it does to the whole idea of voting as a fundamental premise of democracy. If these bozos can deem a bill passed without voting for it, what's to stop them from deeming themselves re-elected even if nobody votes for them?
This health care reform bill has been made out to be a lethal, nuclear cataclysm of destruction. If it turns out not to be as bad as Republicans have been on record saying, then the whole strategy of scorched earth opposition is going to blow up in their faces pretty badly.
Do you know what's in it?
How about the fact that Dems slipped language into it to take over higher education?
How about the fact that the bill prohibits doctors from sending the patients to specialists?
How about how it will immediately put private insurers out of business by requiring them to insure people with pre-existing conditions, starting a chain of events which will ends in socialized medicine?
Because it is delaying the "benefits" for four years, it may not do those things between now and the November elections. But it will do them.
I will be shocked if even the Dems stoop so low and use this trick.
By making this post on Althouse, I have deemed that Nancy Pelosi has been removed from her office as speaker of the house.
"Democrats are counting on the idea that Americans are not going to care about "process".
This isn't about process. This is a bloodless coup.
Nancy Pelosi is specifically calling for the implementation of a law that has not been passed by both houses of Congress.
That's a coup.
It's illegal and immoral and we are not required to fucking stand still for it. Our Constitution does not require that we allow Nancy Pelosi to deem laws passed and we have to just sit here and take it.
She is, by her actions, justifying her removal from the House of Representatives by any means and that force necessary to secure the liberty of all Americans.
Your country is being taken over by force.
You can either take it ... or not. It's up to you.
"..how will the members of Congress, when they go home to their constituents, even begin to explain what they have done?"
Democrats sure as Hell aren't going back home and declare they "won" anything.
Democrats will be hiding out at some remote island location, in the sun, until it's time to turn from Easter recess.
And anyone who thinks the Republicans have filibustered anything, please document that political act.
I'll wait...
Balfegor:
I agree - it is so stupid yet they think they are being super-clever.
I'd still love to see Peolsi's SAT scores.
I will be shocked if even the Dems stoop so low and use this trick.
They write the laws AJ.
Nothing towards that end should really be shocking.
We are the ones tasked with shocking them at the ballot box.
@ Monty; I lurk here (mostly) and usually know what you and Garage are going to say before you say it (which is boring). However, assuming you still have some shred of intellectual integrity, what you're supporting here is bad process, bad government, and probably unconstitutional. In the real world process matters and empathy is not the only value of significance in our society.
I'm a pretty low key guy and work in medical device. This thing stinks and I think you and your fellow travelers are sowing the wind. Maybe you're right and they'll be no whirlwind when the public comes to see your enlightened wisdom; but, you and your party's real goals now stand naked and I will have no sympathy for whatever befalls the self righteous fools who believe process, public hesitation, and minority rights in developing legislation could simply be ignored in pursuit of their dogmatic beliefs.
Lem said:
"Shock them at the ballot box".
Lem, are you taking your Taser to vote? Heh. That is a great idea!
ha ha .. got me there AJ.
dont tase me bro!
Is there any right-wing idiocy Ann Althouse will not parrot?
This is no an unusual legislative action. It's just combining two bills into one and there will be a vote.
What is unusual is the unprecedented level of filibusters and obstructionism by Senate Republicans.
Althouse has devolved to become a Republican hack.
The only ones who are angry are the teabagger contingent. You know, the dead enders.
@ MM "...while benefiting from the reforms like everyone else."
MM is smoking serious weed here.
Just got back from some time over the pond. The NHS is all over the papers in London. It's a screwed up mess.
France, the country with the best health care system in the world (cough), let Princess Diana lie in an ambulance for 90 minutes and die *outside* a hospital in urban Paree.
Canada couldn't afford a medivac helicopter for a world famous ski area and Natasha Richardson didn't have a snowball's chance in hell.
And we get to pay for four years before we get to experience these wonderful reforms which MM presciently nows all about.
And your real identity is ... who, exactly?
You know, it is not going to be enough to vote these people out. Something needs to be done to make an example of them so that future Congresses will not be tempted to go down the same path. I don't think we will be able to get them on charges of treason... though they have certainly committed it in spirit if not in law. But I see no reason not to threaten them with it.
Hopefully, there are people here with better ideas of how to accomplish the same result.
BTW, the tell for how far Obama and his minions would be willing to go was Honduras.
I typically disagree with this fellow. But to his credit he is not following the herd of sheep. His comments apply to this vote as well as to reconciliation:
Any veteran observer of Congress is used to the rampant hypocrisy over the use of parliamentary procedures that shifts totally from one side to the other as a majority moves to minority status, and vice versa. But I can’t recall a level of feigned indignation nearly as great as what we are seeing now from congressional Republicans and their acolytes at the Wall Street Journal, and on blogs, talk radio, and cable news. It reached a ridiculous level of misinformation and disinformation over the use of reconciliation, and now threatens to top that level over the projected use of a self-executing rule by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of “deem and pass.”
- Norman J. Ornstein
Hypocrisy: A Parliamentary Procedure
Competitive Enterprise Institute
"Shock them at the ballot box".
Lem, shocking them at the ballot box isn't going to work when they're putting armed Black Panther enforcers with billy clubs in front of the polling places to intimidate elder voters and doing it with protection from the Attorney General of the United States.
The ballot box is broken. Nancy Pelosi, in a bloodless coup, is rigging things to "deem" laws passed that have not been voted on by the representatives we sent to the Congress to vote in our stead.
They're not leaving us much choice but to restock the ammo box.
The only ones who are angry are the teabagger contingent. You know, the dead enders.
I am sure that this description of that movement is going to win you a lot of fans here.
But, I think that most here know that when such a blatant personal attacks are made against a group of people like this, that the perpetrator of such has run out of valid arguments.
Republicans who now complain about tactics have very little to stand on given this history… This is a legitimate mechanism and Democrats have the right to use it. They also have precedent, including what Republicans did when they were in power, on their side… .
Julian E. Zelizer
Professor of History and Public Affairs, Princeton
From
Will House Dems use parliamentary tricks to pass health care?
Is this any different from how House Republicans conducted business when they were in charge?
AL: You piece of pig shit! Go fuck yourself and the Teabag you swallowed. Stay away from Minnesota for you'll be directed to the nearest pile of manure and told to eat it.
You and Anderson Cooper, two pieces of total pig crap.
The “deeming” procedure that the Democrats may use was in fact routinely used by House Republicans to conduct business when they were in the majority… Insuring 30 million uninsured Americans is far more important than the procedural rule that is followed in getting it done. It is time to finish this up and get on with the business of the country. .
Timothy Stoltzfus Jost – Law Professor at the Washington and Lee University
"I typically disagree with this fellow."
AlphaLiberal you are such a transparent, hollow idiot.
You can't seriously believe anyone is falling for your AstroTurf talking points, do you? Norman Ornstein is going to get a lot of Jews killed is all he's going to do. Somebody should yank his fucking leash.
You people are going to reap the wind and it's going to be one hell of a show.
See, real law professors don't spread partisan falsehoods and ignorance. They know what the hell they're talking about.
Then there's Ann Althouse.
Anyone else get Johnny Cash's
God's Gonna Cut You Down running through their head whenever we start discussing health care and the Democrat's future?
The article said this is not a new way of passing laws. I'd be interested in what circumstances obtained during earlier uses, if they were controversial. The problem with institutionalizing these marginal techniques is that the next party in power can more easily use them. Paybacks and all that.
NewHam I don't understand your comment that Ornstein will "get a lot of Jews killed." Please elaborate.
"I typically disagree with this fellow."
AlphaLiberal you are such a transparent, hollow idiot.
You can't seriously believe anyone is falling for your AstroTurf talking points, do you? Norman Ornstein is going to get a lot of Jews killed is all he's going to do. Somebody should yank his fucking leash.
You people are going to reap the wind and it's going to be one hell of a show. .
Is this guy a typical conservative?
Wow! The conservatives sure are getting desperate, angry and uncivil:
AL: You piece of pig shit! Go fuck yourself and the Teabag you swallowed. Stay away from Minnesota for you'll be directed to the nearest pile of manure and told to eat it.
You and Anderson Cooper, two pieces of total pig crap. .
By Doug Wright-OldGrouchy
What's my offense that merits such childish name-calling Doug? Bringing facts to a debate?
"This is no an unusual legislative action."
The fact that Congress has, in the past, tried to pass unconstitutional laws in unconstitutional ways, has no bearing on whether it is legal or moral to do so.
The Congress has frequently attempted to usurp the people. Frequency of attempt is not a legitimate argument.
"Deem and Pass" is a Pelosi coup attempt that the country is not morally bound to accept. Nancy Pelosi is attempting an illegal coup against the United States of America.
Our armed services have sworn an oath to prevent such an act by foreign or domestic agents.
You'd do well to remember that.
Bruce Hayden:
But, I think that most here know that when such a blatant personal attacks are made against a group of people like this, that the perpetrator of such has run out of valid arguments. .
What are you talking about, man? Are you saying the teabaggers are not angry?Deny much reality?
As far as the name "teabaggers," they took it for themselves.
And the con's here are a vicious and nasty bunch anyway who I do not come to please.
Can you imagine the outrage should something like 'to hell with process' could have been deemed to have been said by the Bush administration?
Oh wait.. I seem to remember something about hope and change..
I just didn't realize the "change" would be a subversion of the constitution.
The point remains that this is another Republican-manufactured controversy. And the rubes and dupes are swallowing it up.
"Bringing facts to a debate?"
You're not bringing anything except a bunch of manufactured quotes from fellow travelers claiming "Rethugs did it before ... Rethugs did it before" as a way of trying to tamp down the violence that you will precipitate with your coup attempt.
Fuck off you troll.
NewHam:
The fact that Congress has, in the past, tried to pass unconstitutional laws in unconstitutional ways, has no bearing on whether it is legal or moral to do so. .
What part of the Constitution do allege is being violated? Get specific.
AL you remain an insulting piece of pig shit. You don't even understand that your insulting use of "teabagging" is a gross insult, do you even understand what that term means? Aren't you supposed to be tolerant of others?
You're an extremely biased and ignorant, typical Socialist.
"Just like in the 08 election, Obama benefits from the criticism directed toward him being vastly out of proportion with reality. I.e., when it turned out he wasn't the devil, he looked better and his opponents looked more foolish."
Well that didn't last long did it? And that was before anyone knew who they were talking about. Now we know all too well and neither side likes what it sees in this man. Even those without the courage to be honest about it.
Manufactured quotes????
Do you know how to click on a link? I provided links to each quote.
And, the Competitive Enterprise Institute is a conservative organization.
Prediction: You will duck the challenge to back up your argument that this action is un-Constitutional. You will likely swear at me instead.
"The point remains that this is another Republican-manufactured controversy."
No Republican suggested "deeming" laws passed without voting on them.
Listen here you little motherfucker:
Nancy Pelosi will not be allowed to execute a coup against the United States of America by deeming laws passed that have not passed.
She should be removed from the floor of the House of Representatives with all that force necessary to secure the liberty of the American people.
She has forfeited her right to stand in the people's house.
And none of your Astro-Turf is going to change that, but thankfully, we now have your IP address on file.
Thanks for commenting and revealing your location.
AL: go home little boy! Your Mommy wants to wash your mouth out with her "special" brand of soapy stuff!
Careful now, or the Village People will spank your big fat tush.
Doug, the conservatives made up the term "Teabaggers" and wore it proudly. There's a famous picture that of a guy with a sign that says "Teabag liberal Dems before they teabag you."
Your choice!!
Hey, I didn't even know it was slang, either.
"You will duck the challenge to back up your argument that this action is un-Constitutional."
Fuck off.
The time for debate is over. Your President said so.
Fucking vote already - so we can get to the next part - which is the annihilation of your Party and the arrest of your leadership motherfucker.
You think this coup attempt is going to stand?
You got another fucking think coming.
I'm not here to try to convince you asshole.
I'm almost hoping that Pelosi and crew do this. Rather than a wave of discontent, it's going to be a tsunami, a veritable tidal wave of anger that will make 1994 look like a gentle spanking.
And then I will laugh as the Republicans repeal this bill/law in 2011, hopefully using some of the same legislative gimmicks.
Classy conservatives here at Althousiania. What does all the profanity accomplish?
The linked article has the Republicans making a big keruffle over this. NewHam, please, come back to reality.
Whoa, calm down peeps. This is an election year. Remember? The ballot box and soap box are plenty powerful--no need to start pulling out the ammunition boxes.
It's becoming increasingly clear that the Dems are either going to lose by a large margin or an even larger margin. Empirical results are due this November.
"Classy conservatives here at Althousiania."
Fuck off troll.
We're purposely being rude to you because you're an Astro-Turf troll. So piss off.
Nobody cares what you think.
"Have you tried? Start here: Republicans have filibustered for a full year in the Senate, not allowing a simple majority vote!"
That's because it's not subject to a simple majority vote. Duh. It's subject to the rules of the Senate. If you don't understand the historical importance of those rules and procedures, and the protections they provide us, I suggest you check here and educate yourself.
AL: Know your facts, idiotic F'Head. Anderson Cooper, your sweetheart first used that term of insult. Tea Partiers never used that term until your types began it. Hell, most people didn't understand what that term meant until your types throw out as an insult.
I forgot, you wouldn't know a fact if it hit you in the head. In your case, maybe your sweety Anderson or maybe fls might know what a fact it.
NewHam, I've been posting here on and off for years. That's not a troll.
Just because I'm bringing facts and logic to the discussion instead of the profanity and insults that you and so many modern conservatives demonstrate does not make me a troll.
WHat's you icon there, Doug? A pussy?
"The ballot box and soap box are plenty powerful--no need to start pulling out the ammunition boxes. It's becoming increasingly clear that the Dems are either going to lose by a large margin or an even larger margin. Empirical results are due this November."
If Nancy Pelosi completes her coup - Americans should absolutely not wait until the next election to act.
Look folks ... Nancy Pelosi is attempting to place onto the President's desk a bill the exact language of which has not been voted on by both houses of Congress. They intend to "deem" this a law.
That is outside the Constitution it represents a coup against the United States of America. We are not bound to accept it.
This requires every American who has ever said the Pledge of Allegiance to stand up and do what is necessary to secure the liberty of your fellow citizens.
We simply cannot sit idly by while the Speaker of the House executes a coup against the people we sent there to vote for us in our stead.
These are times that try men's souls, but we have been brought to this brink by people acting outside their Constitutional authority.
Wait until November?
Not. A. Fucking. Chance.
Jeremy why are you calling yourself-
NewHam.
I mean NewHam-gawd.
What's the spin on that?
Is New Ham an Alpha sock puppet troll? Gotta be. Only the true blue far left have that much hate in their souls. And he just epitomizes the straw man with which Alpha always contends.
Hey Guys, give Alpha some love. He's had to make up someone to argue with.
kcom, the Republicans are abusing the filibuster. They are using it at a level far beyond historical norms or beyond anything Democrats have done.
They are thwarting the will of the voters as demonstrated in November, 2008. They are irresponsibly abusing the minority rights of the Senate.
And that is why Speaker Pelosi needs to take these actions. House Dems cannot trust the Senate to do anything.
AL,
You're right to point out hypocrisy by Republicans.
But this is a pretty controversial, very expensive bill. I don't recall Republicans using this manuever on such grand legislation.
I'm all for Dems voting for it, and Republicans running against it in the fall and Obama in 2012, should he decide to run for re-election and win the nomination.
I just don't think Norman Ornstein and the other professors you cite are going to be much help for the Dems.
A lot of people want health care reform. I hope like hell we get the ball rolling with this, warts and all.
What if it works and we do spend less on healthcare?
That would be good.
If it doesnt "work" for the American people-everyone gets voted out. Looks like the system is working.
THat's pretty idiotic, Christy. I think NewHam and Dougie reflect modern conservatism, Glen Beck style.
"I've been posting here on and off for years. That's not a troll."
You're Astro-Turfing Democrat Party talking points. You're a fucking troll.
Fuck off and die. Go copy/paste your talking points elsewhere.
Please, just fuck off. Nobody cares about manufactured quotes excusing a coup attempt.
Domain Name (Unknown)
IP Address 173.63.101.152 ? (Unknown Organization)
ISP Unknown ISP
Location
Continent : Unknown
Country : Unknown
Lat/Long : unknown
Language English (U.S.)
en-us
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 7.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; GTB6.4)
Javascript version 1.3
Monitor
Resolution : 1280 x 1024
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit Mar 16 2010 4:59:16 pm
Last Page View Mar 16 2010 6:24:08 pm
Visit Length 1 hour 24 minutes 52 seconds
Page Views 9
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page http://althouse.blogspot.com/
Visit Exit Page http://althouse.blogspot.com/
Out Click 135 comments
https://www.blogger....=8125069107063975140
Time Zone UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time Mar 16 2010 5:59:16 pm
Visit Number 27,409,200
[<<] [>>]
Visitor Path Duration (s)
(1) http://althouse.blogspot.com/ 1156
Out Click 66 comments
https://www.blogger.com/comment....29595&postID=8125069107063975140 0
(2) http://althouse.blogspot.com/ 451
(3) http://althouse.blogspot.com/ 1078
Out Click 88 comments
https://www.blogger.com/comment....29595&postID=8125069107063975140 0
(4) http://althouse.blogspot.com/ 1436
Out Click 97 comments
https://www.blogger.com/comment....29595&postID=8125069107063975140 0
(5) http://althouse.blogspot.com/ 286
Out Click 119 comments
https://www.blogger.com/comment....29595&postID=8125069107063975140 0
(6) http://althouse.blogspot.com/ 77
Out Click toast
http://images.google.com/images?...t&aq=f&aqi=g-m1&aql=&oq=&start=0 0
(7) http://althouse.blogspot.com/ 61
(8) http://althouse.blogspot.com/ 523
Out Click 126 comments
https://www.blogger.com/comment....29595&postID=8125069107063975140 0
(9) http://althouse.blogspot.com/ 24
Out Click 135 comments
https://www.blogger.com/comment....29595&postID=8125069107063975140 0
The anonymizer-again.
People on all sides of the 'health care reform' bill realize that in the bigger sense it is about much more than the government taking over 1/6th of the economy.
It is really the Left - in Pelosi's words - "kicking in the door" to bring about far, far more "change" to America.
I see a nation that is getting redder by the day. It is not Republican red however, it is the hot, crimson red of anger directed at politicians.
I think the health care bill itself, the way it is being handled, and the Left's increasingly clearer goals are moving our nation toward an unprecedented crisis.
mccullough, thank you for the rare rational discussion here.
I posted a link to cold hard data showing why these unusual means are needed. I think that addresses your point.
And, no, I don't think Ornstein will help Dems at all. He's just trying to a little principled here.
"... think NewHam and Dougie reflect modern conservatism, Glen Beck style."
You represent Goebbels and Hitler and other noted Democrat luminaries such as Ku Klux Klanner Robert Byrd.
Fuck off and die hater.
This place has really gone down the tubes.
Good riddance.
ne of you is always using it.
From the frequency pattern looks like the new white meat...
which was/is the the same modus operandi as Jeremy.
Re: Alphaliberal:
What part of the Constitution do allege is being violated? Get specific.
Without affirming that I necessarily agree with this analysis -- I haven't made up my mind -- the argument would be that it violates Section 7, the requirement that both houses pass the legislation:
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law . . . . But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.
Two problems arise:
(1) The bills voted on by the two Houses aren't identical, so it's not a valid law.
(2) The Representatives aren't actually voting "for and against the Bill," as required by the Constitution. They're voting that the Bill should be "deemed" to have been passed.
The Supreme Court has indicated that the text voted on by both the House and the Senate needs to be identical:
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became "Public Law 105-33" after three procedural steps were taken: (1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may "become a law." Art. I, Sec. 7. If one paragraph of that text had been omitted at any one of those three stages, Public Law 105-33 would not have been validly enacted.
And in fact, that identity between the text voted on by the House and the Senate is kind of crucial -- that's the whole reason there's a House-Senate conference, and a second round of voting. Otherwise, you could just have the House pass one bill, the Senate pass a slightly different bill, and the components that happened to match up are what ends up being the law -- effectively the same as the line-item veto.
And that's more or less what the Slaughter solution, as I understand it, is doing. The Slaughter Solution, while it attempts to hide the vote in the guise of a rule change, is -- if we're being charitable -- a vote on a bill that is not identical to the Senate bill. Instead, it just incorporates the Senate bill by reference, together with other stuff about rules. Bills aren't identical, so it can't become a law.
If we're not being charitable, the House isn't even voting on the Senate Bill, as required under the Constitution, so it can't become a law.
Alpha, I wouldn't really know, not a Beck watcher. What I do know is that he is a caricature who so perfectly fits those you rail against that he cannot be taken seriously by anyone hoping to engage in serious conversation. Yet, you do.
"Without affirming that I necessarily agree with this analysis -- I haven't made up my mind -- the argument would be that it violates Section 7, the requirement that both houses pass the legislation:"
What is the point Balfeagor?
They'll just deny that you're analyzing the Constitution correctly and they'll still act extra-Constitutionally knowing it will take 8 years before this ever gets to the Supreme Court and by then it's a fait accompli.
The time for debating these fucking assholes is over. It's time to beat them down.
They've been defeated in the debate, and they've been defeated by a vote count. Neither side of the Hill can get the other side to agree to its legislation and so now Nancy Pelosi has announced that she is going to deem a Senate-passed bill passed in the House.
That's a fucking coup.
You think they're open to reasoned argument? They aren't.
The time for debating these fucking pricks is over.
Sorry, I misunderstood the Slaughter Solution -- reading a little more, it sounds even worse for its Constitutionality. If it's that they're going to implement a rule that says that when the "fix" bill is passed, the Senate Bill is deemed passed, then the text voted on by the two houses seems even more clearly different. It's two different bills, after all. And the problem with the bill being passed by Yeas and Nays and those votes being recorded in the Hansard remains.
AL: Your Mommy calling you little boy! Waddle home quickly, little baby!
FYI: that is an image of an atomic bomb cloud and represents Turkish American friendship. Don't you wish you could understand English and finished Kindergarten?
AL: Your Mommy shouting out again for you. Better hurray home before she gets mad and takes away your bowl of crap, little baby wimp.
Christy,
You state that you're not a Beck watcher, but you do know that he's a caricature.
That's magic. How do you do it?
I want to try. I've never been to the Taj Mahal, but I do know it's made of salami.
That's cool. Thanks for showing me how!
I think Florida moved to New Ham shire wink wink.
"I think Florida moved to New Ham shire wink wink."
Don't fucking tread on me.
Think I'll head for DC next.
I think you mean to "deem" that AJ.
NewHam is right this time. Usurpation of the Government is not going to happen paecefully.
Don't have to read it, don't have to vote for it. It's the return of the Know-Nothings!
Old Dad, you caught my sloppy writing of which ashamed I am. My "he" of caricature should have been written "New Ham." Apologies. And thanks for pointing it out so I could correct. And thanks for confirming that I need not watch Beck.
The Libs trying to pass along the lie that this is nothing unusual are beclowned every second that Nancy and Co. are trying to figure out how to pull it off. It's called the "Slaughter Rule" for a reason, and the stupid crone just came up with it a couple weeks ago. If it'd been done before, it'd be done by now.
The only thing routine about this is the level of arrogance and contempt for American principles being displayed by the Dem leadership.
Lem:
"Deem" will become the new joke word. SNL,etc will get the ball rolling soon. In fact, I will start here:
Althouse, I deem you my new beeyatch! Get me a beer!
All I can say is if the Democrats pursue this then Republicans have no obligation to follow the strictures of the Constitution when they take over in November. Never did like that pesky fourth amendment anyhow.
The so-called “Slaughter solution” for enacting health care reform without a conventional House vote on an identically worded Senate bill would be vulnerable to credible constitutional challenge, experts say.
No lawyer interviewed by POLITICO thought the constitutionality of the “deem and pass” approach being considered by House Democrats was an open-and-shut case either way. But most agreed that it could raise constitutional issues sufficiently credible that the Supreme Court might get interested, as it has in the past.
“If I were advising somebody," on whether deem and pass would run into constitutional trouble, "I would say to them, ‘Don’t do it,’” said Alan Morrison, a professor at the George Washington University Law School who has litigated similar issues before the Supreme Court on behalf of the watchdog organization Public Citizen. “What does ‘deem’ mean? In class I always say it means ‘let's pretend.’ 'Deems' means it's not true.”
Any challenge likely would be based on two Supreme Court rulings, one in 1983 and the other in 1998, in which the court held that there is only one way to enact a law under the Constitution: it must be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.
Read more: Politico.com
Politically I think it would backfire, however.
Honestly they've turned the Supreme Court into the enemy.
They have idiot college kids protesting Justice John Roberts as too controversial to be their commencement speaker.
Citizens are already angry and resistant to the health care bill.
Angry citizens? In Madison?
Which citizens? Where? I wonder what the typical Madisonian on the street thinks about health care reform.
Citizens were justifiably angry and resistant to the invasion of Iraq -- how did that work out for them?
"All I can say is if the Democrats pursue this then Republicans have no obligation to follow the strictures of the Constitution when they take over in November."
Now this I disagree with. Listen up Eric:
First, if Nancy Pelosi executes this coup, and deems the Senate bill passed by the House, the entire Republican Party should resign from the Congress en masse as a protest and refuse to serve out their terms in a government that no longer represents the people.
This coup attempt cannot be allowed to stand.
Nancy Pelosi needs to be removed from the floor of the House of Representatives, by that due force necessary to secure the liberty of the people of the United States.
When (if) Republicans take back control of the House and Senate in November, they goddamned well better follow the Constitution.
Just because the Democrat Party is acting illegally and extra-Constitutionally oesn't give license for the Republicans to do so.
Arrest Nancy Pelosi for treason. Give her a fair trial. Then fucking hang her.
But do it legal.
AJ-
Too funny.
I deem you'll get beeeyatch slapped soon.
The “deeming” procedure that the Democrats may use was in fact routinely used by House Republicans to conduct business when they were in the majority… Insuring 30 million uninsured Americans is far more important than the procedural rule that is followed in getting it done. It is time to finish this up and get on with the business of the country.
Except that it doesn't really do that, and if and when it does, it will be 4 or so years down the road. Remember that the Senate bill got scored by comparing ten years of revenue/taxes to six years of benefits.
Besides the 30 million figure is bogus anyway. For one thing, it includes a huge number of voluntarily uninsured, in particular, the late teens through twenties, mostly males, who think themselves bullet-proof. They would rather spend their money on parties than health insurance. Of course, they will no longer be able to do this, with mandated coverage. And, many of them will be priced out of the work market due to higher costs of employing workers due to the mandate of covering all employees. So, they will now be unemployed, but insured (in four years). Great work there.
They do not care. History must be made- just like Social Security and Medicare. They are not crafting legislation. They are making history. Just ask Nancy Pelosi. That is all that senile old bat can repeat over and over again.
She is living proof we need term limits.
they get to explain that the benefits begin in four years the taxes right away. No problem, people are notoriously patient about these things.
Yes, when I started working it was explained to me that my Medicare benefits would begin in 50 years, although I was being taxed right away. Four years ain't shit.
Christy,
No thanks necessary, and please watch Glen Beck if you'd like. I'm agnostic on the subject, but I wouldn't presume to confirm or deny anyone's gulity pleasures.
Which citizens? Where? I wonder what the typical Madisonian on the street thinks about health care reform.
As with all issues, the typical citizen -- and the typical Madisonian -- probably doesn't think much about health care reform one way or the other. Better things to do with their time. A minority of citizens is fired up in favour of the Senate Bill. And a rather larger minority of citizens is fired up against the Senate Bill. The plurality doesn't care.
The bottom line- Pelosi does not have the votes or this battle royal would be over with.
wv:ganif= female gonif
Does this not apply?
Although Art. I Section 7 doesn't use the exact word, it covers procedure in case a bill is vetoed. Determining a two-thirds majority requires exact tabulation.
Deeming anything with respect to law is in essence despotism and tyranny. Thanks for finally showing your true colors democrats and leftists. The gloves are off. I officially hate not only the ideology, but the people who practice it. It isn't even about loving the sinner and hating the sin. Now I hate the sinners as well. I'm done getting you to see how truly foolish your beliefs are. Now it's time to wipe you out and eliminate you if possible. Political genocide if necessary. You are a danger to society and a danger to this country. You have shit on everything this country stands for and I won't let you do it anymore. You are an ideological menace. Words have failed.
Yes, when I started working it was explained to me that my Medicare benefits would begin in 50 years, although I was being taxed right away. Four years ain't shit.
Hahaha, you really think there's going to be any benefits left for us in 50 years? Zero that junk out in your investment planning. I know I always do.
How about how it will immediately put private insurers out of business by requiring them to insure people with pre-existing conditions,
Why don't we simply let the sick die, and "decrease the surplus population," as Dickens so beautifully put it?
I deem the Red Sox 2010 world champions.. and the Yankees the new decade cellar dwellers.
I think I could used to this..
I don't think you can deem anything without a wand.
Now this I disagree with. Listen up Eric:...
Uh, sure, Newham. That's gonna happen.
If you're in a banana republic you gotta play by plantain rules. Picking up your marbles and going home just gives the other side a default win.
"Why don't we simply let the sick die, and "decrease the surplus population," as Dickens so beautifully put it?
Hey asshole, do you think you can stop the sick dying? This isn't about people dying and you know it so stop tossing up red herrings.
It's about the Speaker of the House, unable to garner enough votes to pass the Senate's abortion bill just "deeming" it have passed and moving it to the President for his signature.
That's a fucking coup.
This isn't about health reform.
It's about high treason and the death penalty.
We've moved beyond a discussion about health insurance. You guys lost that debate and you lost that vote. The Congress was unable to agree on legislation. That's over with.
Now, we're talking about what we're going to do to you when Nancy Pelosi tries to execute her coup attempt.
The time for debating health care is over - or hadn't you heard?
AND: Let's start pronouncing the word "Democrats" with a long "e": Deemocrats. Alternatively: Demoncrats or DemonPassCrats.
How about no . . . is there anything more irritating than the cutesey names people use to denigrate the other side? Well yes (giant papier-mache protest puppets), but it's still awfully annoying. "Repuglicans." "Dhimmicrats," etc. etc. Children, please!
This isn't about people dying
It's about denying health insurance to sick people. That leaves many sick people the choice between bankruptcy or premature death.
The time for debating health care is over - or hadn't you heard?
Well, that's what the President said a year ago, but then we had a debate anyway, and he lost. I'm not sure you want to be the one trying to shut down public debate this time. It tends to backfire.
is there anything more irritating than the cutesey names people use to denigrate the other side?
I'm really tempted to blame Meade for the professor's stridency.
"We've traced the conservative influence; it's coming from inside the house!" When a Conservative Calls Columbia Pictures 1979.
By the way: Direct government loans to college students started during Ike's administration, to help us keep up with the Russkies. They were even called "National Defense Student Loans." Later the name was changed to "National Direct Student Loans."
My suspicion with Pelosi is that she has deemed her own seat a practical nuke shelter.. to hell with the rest he caucus.
If we are going to go down we are going down with a big bang.
Its admirable.. in a Hitler unbending will kind of way..
Pelosi should have been a general.
Lookit what I found. If you cock your head, you can almost hear Sputnik beeping overhead.
(b)(1) The Federal Perkins Loan Program, authorized by title IV-E of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, and previously named the
National Direct Student Loan (NDSL) Program, is a continuation of the
National Defense Loan Program authorized by title II of the National
Defense
[[Page 561]]
Education Act of 1958. All rights, privileges, duties, functions, and
obligations existing under title II before the enactment of title IV-E
continue to exist.
It's about denying health insurance to sick people. That leaves many sick people the choice between bankruptcy or premature death.
Pre-existing conditions and sick people aren't the same thing. My mother, for exampe, has a pre-existing condition, but she's not "sick" in any meaningful sense -- it just means that she's uninsurable for certain problems, because they're predictable outgrowths of her current condition. If anything like that comes up, we'll pay for it, or go without.
Of course, the abusive type of pre-existing condition is the one where the sick person waits until he gets sick (with an ordinary illness, not a long-term thing), and then demands that the insurance company pay for his health care. And that's what the bill is promising people, because everyone likes to think they have the option of pushing their costs onto someone else (to wit, the fools who've been paying for insurance all this time).
If someone has a pre-existing condition and did not insure against it before it developed, I wouldn't be averse to some sort of high-cost reinsurance pool that helps ameliorate the cost of treatment (though treatment, of course, won't always heal). But it has to be priced to deter abuse, which means as much of the cost of treatment needs to be pushed onto the individual as he can bear. For some conditions, this isn't going to be very much, since the condition may be debilitating, and prevent him from working, etc. But for others, it's a pre-existing condition, but you can still work, and still earn income, etc. There are some people who are genuinely un-insurable, and it would be reasonable to put together legislation to address that problem.
That's not what the Senate bill does -- it just has a blanket ban. Because that's what's popular.
How about no . . . is there anything more irritating than the cutesey names people use to denigrate the other side? Well yes (giant papier-mache protest puppets), but it's still awfully annoying.
Whaaaat? I love those puppets.
To recap:
1) A group of elected representatives have assembled a proposal and passed various forms of it that that affects the governed in ways they do not support.
2) Contained in the proposals are measures questionable to those enamored of liberty and rights - specifically mandates requiring private citizens to purchase a service; requiring insurers to modify both existing and new contracts; and requiring businesses to alter employment terms. For those of us who find big state to be a threat to individual enterprise the proposals also create new entitlements and substantially modify existing entitlements. These seem principled objections, not merely obstruction.
3) The public, the opposition party, and voters have each expressed their disapproval of the bill to the maximum extent possible using the methods permitted in our system.
4) The current majority of elected representatives now seek to bypass regular procedure to pass these proposals - against their own rules (using reconciliation) and against the written procedures upon which we base their very authority.
Under what rationale do we "reconcile" that now they are not representative of our (over 50% of the populace’s) desires, and now not following their own rules, and now not following constitutional protocols under which we have granted them the authority to pass laws? Moreover, we are to respect this law (if passed) as legitimate? In addition, their right to govern as legitimate?
Puzzling.
I depart a little from the conventional wisdom here, but only to say that the "deem and pass" scheme is so transparently stupid, its effect will be worse than if House members from reddish districts actually voted for the Senate bill openly in their underwear on the Capitol Mall.
Not only will some of them have gone back on their word and/or voted in a way that's contrary to their district's sentiments -- which is clearly why this scheme was concocted, the spare them from such a vote -- but they'll be blamed for having participated in a lame attempt to defraud the voters on exactly what they did.
Especially if the Senate can't pass reconciliation and, after shedding the requisite number of crocodile tears, Obama signs the Senate Bill that the House deemed to be passed. The "deemers" still have to vote, and their vote will be recorded as in favor of the Senate bill.
The first House member who answers the charge that he or she voted for the Cornhusker Kickback, or the excise tax on Cadillac plans by saying, "No, I never voted for the Senate bill, just for reconciliation," will hear nothing but rude noises for the rest of their campaign, and will be doomed. It makes "I voted for the bill before I voted against it" sound like courage under fire.
This has to be a strategy that was suggested by Karl Rove. It is politically pathetic, transparently so, a poison pill for deluded Democrats.
giant papier-mache protest puppets
Holy syncronicity! This week is the fiesta of Las Fallas in Valencia Spain. Giant papier mache protest puppets will be on display until they are ceremoniously burned on the Feast of St. Joseph:
http://www.valencia-cityguide.com/tourist-information/leisure/festivals/the-fallas.html
mandates requiring private citizens to purchase a service
If you see a way I can get out of buying auto liability insurance, please let me know.
fls,
You are permitted to drive, if you are insured.
I am permitted to live - with or without purchasing insurance.
Don't buy a car.
I don't think you can deem anything without a wand.
I'm a Full Metal Alchemist.. ever heard of it?
I don't need no stinking wand.
It's about denying health insurance to sick people. That leaves many sick people the choice between bankruptcy or premature death.
Well, no. Both are false choices. Convenient to your argument, but false. The study with the medical bankruptcies assumed that every bankruptcy that had some medical debt was a medical care caused bankruptcy.
And, the lower life expectancy of those without health insurance was assumed to be a result of the lack of health insurance. But it turns out that they are just less healthy. Why? One suggestion is that people who don't carry health insurance are more likely to engage in riskier behavior, such as smoking.
I am repeating a story that I told several times when this debate got started, way back when, maybe a year ago: Several years ago, I worked for awhile part time at a ski area with a number of late teens and esp. early to mid 20 year old males. One of the guys tried to flip on his board on his day off, and landed on his head/neck. Hauled him off the mountain on a backboard (embarrassing, since we worked for the ski patrol). He was checked out at the bottom, including an X-ray. But he couldn't be released to work (on skis/board) without a CAT scan. No money, no CAT scan, so he spent the rest of the season as our dispatcher, riding up the lift in the morning, and down at night. No fun.
A bunch of us got to talking one day over lunch, and it turns out that the ski area (part of Vail Resorts) provided accident insurance for $10 a month, and that would have covered the CAT scan. And I think that they could have gotten regular medical for under $100 a month. But none of these guys had signed up for either. They were all totally uninsured. The $10 was less than three beers a month, but they preferred the beers to the accident insurance.
I should note that pretty much every one of them routinely engaged in what most of us would consider high risk activities, including smoking, drinking, drugs, as well as skiing or riding at excessive speeds, jumping, flips, etc.
If you see a way I can get out of buying auto liability insurance, please let me know.
That is a totally false argument. The reason for mandatory auto insurance- which I am against- is so someone can get paid. It does nothing to increase safe roads. In Illinois, you do not even need a license to get it. You are not insured, the car is. Driving is deemed a privilege not a right. Just ask the SCOTUS.
Mandatory health insurance forces people to purchase an intangible consumer financial product for no reason other than to allegedly keep rates low. If you do not buy this you will be penalized financially and criminally- if you do not pay the penalty.
There is no state benefit to mandatory insurance. None. The government is forcing you to buy a consumer product. What next, mandatory savings accounts, checking accounts, credit cards, TVs, autos, soap and deodorant?
"It's about denying health insurance to sick people. That leaves many sick people the choice between bankruptcy or premature death."
If Obama wanted to help sick people, he'd be spending $1 trillion not on insurance, but on fucking hospitals you moron.
This isn't about sick people.
It's about a coup attempt by Nancy Pelosi to funnel my tax dollars to Democrat Party donors and to fund the genocide of black babies through federally-paid abortions.
This. Will. Not. Stand.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा