What the fuck is controversial about Reconciliation

[malaise]

GEM$NBC hacks.

[tekisui]

1. The timidity of Dems to use it?

[malaise]

5. Timidity or temerity?

:shrug:

[John N Morgan]

2. It's only controversial when the Democrats use it. Otherswise, it's normal.

[mod mom]

3. It upsets the corporate masters of course.

[liberal N proud]

4. The M$M and the GOP are making controversial

Just as they mad the word liberal a dirty word.

Perception generated by the propaganda machine we call free press.

[malaise]

6. Maybe we should send them video from Rachel on

Wednesday night when she called out the ReTHUGS for lying about reconciliation.
ReTHUGS have used it between 16 and 18 of 22 times since 1980.
Good to see Nora defending Obama on the facts. I have new respect for her these days.

[muffin1]

14. Agree about Nora.

Did you catch her appearance on Real Time With Bill Maher?

[terrell9584]

7. Mandatory Health Insurance

That's why. The public opposes mandatory health insurance. They're gonna ram it down our throats. Our costs will go up. We'll get fined. They'll claim they "covered everyone"


They can fuck off and if they procede with it they deserve the voter backlash that will accompany it. We elected these people to defend the middle class and now they're telling all of us to fuck off because its more important for them to serve the insurance companies.

[Tailormyst]

8. Was never contreversial when the pukes did it.

Our dems frankly have either no spine OR they don't really want to pass this. It's really one or the other. Obama looks pathetic, like the class weakling at recess begging the schoolyard bullies to like him. Sorry if that pisses people off but that is EXACTLY what dragging this shit out, begging for partisanship looks like to the public. Pukes look strong, Dems look to timid to make a fucking decision.

End result will be no real reform and a loss of seats in November.

[Igel]

13. What's controversial about using reconciliation for health-care reform?

Not the reconciliation part. That's mostly displacement, and some of that is for rhetorical purposes.

What's controversial is using it for health-care reform. Use it for reducing the deficit or something else that's not controversial and you'll see the controversy dissolve like a jellyfish in boiling lye.

And, yes, it was often controversial when the repubs and dems did it in the past--but in the absence of strong online communities driving a lot of the debate the controversy was contained; most Americans don't care about process stories. The less it was strictly a budget bill in strict compliance with the budget resolution or enjoying wide popular support, the more controversial. It's in our interests to ignore this now.

The controversy, for all that, still breaks down into two parts: That involving mostly budget bits and one involving mostly policy bits. Since a lot of people can't keep the distinction straight, and some even want to abolish the distinction, instead of having a single kind of reconciliation proposed for a controversial topic there are a variety of reconciliations proposed. Some of those varieties are controversial in their own right, and should be. Some of these varieties were proffered in the past and were controversial--and rejected. Some of the gambits are novel.

[Gman]

9. Nothing. Ask people what the B and R stand for in COBRA.

Budget Reconciliation.

[JaneQPublic]

10. The GOP made a controversy of Obama putting mustard on his burger.

They made a controversy of him using a teleprompter while using a teleprompter to blast him for it.

They make a controversy of using reconciliation when it is something they have done more often than Dems.

There is nothing too minute or hypocritical for the GOP to make a stink over.

And the MSM simply follow the GOP's lead.

[gratuitous]

21. They made a controversy about Obama having orange juice with breakfast

They'll gin up a controversy about anything.

The controversy-be-gone spray is "majority rules." If the Republican is obstinate, try "up or down vote." If they persist in their delusion that there's something underhanded going on, try "elections have consequences." And if they're still not convinced, quote Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky): "Tough shit."

[Quantess]

11. Republicans loved reconciliation when it was their turn.

That's what the records show.

[Abq_Sarah]

15. Yep

And we hated it and vehemently spoke out against it.

Shoe, meet other foot.

[Subdivisions]

12. That Dems might actually use it? n/t

[malaise]

16. LOL

:D

[Overseas]

17. Republicans removed the requirement that it be deficit neutral when they cut taxes for millionaires.

So Democrats could actually go all Democratic and expand Medicare to cover everyone.

[chowder66]

19. Not controversial at all. Please read.

The real story on health-care 'reconciliation'
Chuck Todd of NBC made a superb point on "Hardball" last night that everyone should pay attention to. He noted that absolutely no one is proposing to pass a health-care bill under the "reconciliation process," that is, with a majority rather than 60 votes in the Senate.

Does that surprise you? Chuck's point is that the health care bill already passed the Senate with 60 votes last December. Democrats would use reconciliation only for a series of rather modest amendments to the overall bill. And he pointed out that some of those amendments (notably broadening the "Nebraska deal" on Medicaid relief for all states) are actually things the Republicans have called for. My hunch, judging from some of the things Rep. George Miller (D) of California said at the summit, is that Democrats may consider adding a few other Republican ideas to the reconciliation package.

I do not expect what I will call the Todd Clarification to stop Republicans from condemning the Democrats if they get a bill through with the reconciliation amendments. But shouldn't all of us be referring to them just that way -- as "amendments" rather than as "a bill"? Todd’s point also brings home the fact that both houses have used a thoroughly conventional legislative process to get the bill this far. We might then begin to ask the obvious question: Why should we take it for granted that one election result in one state (Massachusetts) ought to be allowed to derail a year's worth of legislative work? In any event, my conservative friends have told me for years that my dear native state of Massachusetts is unrepresentative of the country. I don't hear them saying that now.

Kudos to Todd for stating a truth that just about all of us have missed.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/02/the_real_story_on_health-care.html

[Overseas]

23. I knew that. Was just wishing that we would reconcile basic compassion into American life

and use reconciliation to expand Medicare. Not a new bill. Just an adjustment to the most popular healthcare system we have in place, with the lowest overhead and highest patient satisfaction.

[backscatter712]

18. That it's being used to pass a bill the Republicans don't like... n/t

[old mark]

20. The 'publicans don't like it - when the Democrats use it.

The media will say anything if you pay them enough.

Hard to determine if the "news" media or the pols are the most disgusting...too close to call.
mark

[Uncle Joe]

22. Nothing except what the Republicans and the corporate media can manufacture out of it.

Thanks for thread, malaise.:thumbsup: