The topic will be Reconciliation...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

And my feeling is that, somehow, we will all know more than we ever wanted to know about it, by the time that process is over...

I can hardly wait.

[NYC_SKP]

1. And, if we don't use some common sense while we read, we'll be getting more bs than we wanted, too!

We are, after all, what we "eat"!

Merry Season, CaliforniaPeg!

:hug:

[Mz Pip]

2. Yeah, I learned

more about the process of Impeachment than I thought possible watching those damn hearings.

Maybe it's a good thing. We all need a history lessson once in a while. This time it should be one that works in our favor.

[babylonsister]

3. I'm a tad confused; I've heard merging of the House and Senate for

the conference is called reconciliation, but then there's another reconciliation that some have advocated being used during the Senate negotiations. I've also read that that would have been a very bad idea.

(and pardon the source)

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=96510C09-18FE-70B2-A83BD834F2173931

[Clio the Leo]

4. Yep, I'd call it "reconciliation" (small "r") NT

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. Your first definition is the one I meant...

I had not heard about the second, the one you quoted.

And yes, that is confusing!

I was just having a random thought, and thought I'd make a thread out of it...how's that for confusing?

[babylonsister]

7. :) Confusion reigns!

:hi:, Peggy!

[depakid]

6. The Byrd rule's exception to the filibuster is for deficit reduction

which has been a HUGE focus of the bill (as seen with the obsession with CBO estimates, etc).

No reason whatsoever that the process shouldn't have been used (and the extortionists removed from the equation). All that was lacking was political will and fortitude on the administration's and Senate "leadership's" part.

Believe you me- if the shoe was on the other foot- Republicans would have (and on various matters did).

[babylonsister]

8. And had reconciliation been used, every last nit could have been

picked, or discarded. I believe that's what I read. So no, it doesn't sound like it would have been effective in the end.

[depakid]

9. Suffice it to say, you read wrong.

[Teaser]

10. nope.

.

[depakid]

11. Yep- but no need to argue- neither Congress nor the admionistration has will or fortitude

to do what it takes to put effective legislation through.

You can apologize and make excuses for their repeated failures all you like- but in the end, what the public sees is won't fight and "can't get 'er done right" -no matter how popular the policies are.

And that's going to cost them- and you in 2010 and beyond.