Comments on: Shhhh: Sneaky Dems create Obamacare reconciliation loophole

By: When Gridlock is a Good Thing « Chicagobluesgirl’s Blog

When Gridlock is a Good Thing « Chicagobluesgirl’s Blog — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 02:29:45 +0000

[...] The healthcare bill was crafted in secret and passed in fraud–through a reconciliation loophole. [...]

By: chapoutier

chapoutier — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:45:24 +0000

Wanna bet? Say, $1000?

Nope. Even if I HAD $1,000 to throw around.

By: On-my-soap-box

On-my-soap-box — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 03:42:50 +0000

Wanna bet? Say, $1000?

By: chapoutier

chapoutier — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 04:32:30 +0000

Don’t play stoopid. You said abortion would NOT be included in the Obama-care bill.

No. I said that even if the bill is totally silent on the issue the Hyde Amendment would prevent federal funding of abortion.

By: Ron

Ron — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 03:21:22 +0000

I think conservatives had better roll up their sleeves and start getting to work to defeat the statists from both parties so we can have a chance to take over the Congress and, hopefully, the White House by 2012. If we don’t, this country is finished, fiscally and constitutionally. I mean there needs to be an uprising at the polls like nobody has ever seen before. And when it comes to the radical left, we have got to start calling things by their proper name.

By: On-my-soap-box

On-my-soap-box — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:45:22 +0000

Chap,

Don’t play stoopid. You said abortion would NOT be included in the Obama-care bill. Obama said abortion would not be a part od the new health care reform. You flat told me abortion would NOT be included.

Time to put up or shut up.

$1000???

By: Republicanvet

Republicanvet — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:19:34 +0000

On October 16th, 2009 at 11:14 am, Red State Skeptic said:

Michelle Malkin’s abject failure to mention the use of reconciliation during the Bush years: dishonesty or amnesia?

See:
2001 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 1836, 3/26/01]
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]

Each of the bills you linked to were dealing with budget items….which is the purpose of reconciliation.

It is a process used to pass issues affecting the budget that could be contentious, and important enough that they should not be held up by the minority.

The process has NEVER been used to pass crap like the socialization of health care.

You could argue it might affect the budget considering the huge tax increases we will be seeing to fund this farce, but a majority of any bill passed will be a change in POLICY.

Wake the hell up.

By: denver republican

denver republican — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:18:57 +0000

I say go right ahead and use reconciliation. That way, when the GOP has a majority after the 2012 election, they can use reconciliation to undo these “reforms”, which President Palin will happily sign.

By: DBNinKY

DBNinKY — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:04:27 +0000

Also, which bill?

All of them, according to talk radio, contain this facet.

By: chapoutier

chapoutier — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:44:17 +0000

The part where the gov pays private insurers who include abortion as part of their coverage.

Also, which bill? There are how many floating around between the two bodies right now?

By: DBNinKY

DBNinKY — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:41:04 +0000

It is not illegal, or wrong, to strategize in private. It is not illegal, or wrong, for Judges to deliberate in private. It is not illegal, or wrong, for an Administration to discuss policy privately before they reveal it.

Where were you during the last eight years?

By: DBNinKY

DBNinKY — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:34:03 +0000

Define “part of the bill”?

The part where the gov pays private insurers who include abortion as part of their coverage.

By: REPUBLICAN REDEFINED

REPUBLICAN REDEFINED — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:20:11 +0000

Democrats Doing Their Thing With the Baucus Bill…

So, you may ask, how will Republicans buy into this? The short answer is they won’t and the long answer is they don’t have to. Dems can get a majority on most of this – they only have problems within their own ranks on two issues …..

By: Red State Skeptic

Red State Skeptic — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:14:06 +0000

Michelle Malkin's abject failure to mention the use of reconciliation during the Bush years: dishonesty or amnesia? See: 2001 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 1836, 3/26/01] 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]

By: zyzzyg

zyzzyg — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:58:34 +0000

On October 16th, 2009 at 9:38 am, MarcoPolo said: #824944

And

On October 16th, 2009 at 9:39 am, happyscrapper said: #824946

It is unfortunate that you are buying in to the mischaractrization of how things are done.

It is not illegal, or wrong, to strategize in private. It is not illegal, or wrong, for Judges to deliberate in private. It is not illegal, or wrong, for an Administration to discuss policy privately before they reveal it.

Conference committees that meld bills (any and all bills) from the House and the Senate are done behind closed doors, wait for it . . . until the bill is released publicly and is openly voted up, or down, in the respectives chambers.

There is no conspiracy, every one knows the rules, and yes everyone tries to use those rules to their advantage. It is called ‘sausage making.’ And, yes it has be going on for a very long while.

It is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to now describe the process as sneaky.

When the time comes, the melded bill will be openly discussed, straight up or in reconciliation. When the time comes the strategy of the Democrats will be revealed. When the time comes the counter strategy of the Republicans will be revealed.

For the record, the bill should be read, posted on line and not voted on in the wee hours of the day, like pay raises.