When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
46 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
bill-tb
13 years ago
We need Florida’s sunshine law for the federal government. Our house of corruption has gotten way out of hand.
BRob
13 years ago
Yeah, Mike . . . about the fall of the Empire . . . I tracked way back through the daisy chain of links and you know what I found? Louise Slaughter is gaming the rules so that . . . get this . . .
THERE WILL ONLY BE ONE MAJORITY RULES UP OR DOWN VOTE ON HEALTH CARE, NOT TWO!
The outrage! The horror!
Yeah, that will have ’em marching with pitchforks and torches.
By the way, how’d you like that CBO scoring?
“Senate-passed health care bill would cut deficit”
@BRob: As usual your comment is irrelevant. Don’t bother trying to clarify it as you are overquota for spreading your bile today and I don’t intent to permit you to filibuster on this thread.
Louise Slaughter is gaming the rules so that . . . get this . . .
THERE WILL ONLY BE ONE MAJORITY RULES UP OR DOWN VOTE ON HEALTH CARE, NOT TWO!
The outrage! The horror!
Pssssstt…. Mr. ParaLegal Man….
Have you read the US Constitution lately?
No?
Here’s what it says has to happen in order for a bill to become law. Article I, Section 7:
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall 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. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
There’s the problem in black and white, so simple and direct even you can understand it.
The Senate bill has not passed the House and the yeas and nays have NOT been recorded in the second chamber.
You sad, silly little man. What a stupendous disgrace you are to the Ohio state bar.
Mer
13 years ago
from an NRO post:
Today’s CBO score should not be very reassuring to the Democrats on a number of fronts:
1. More Costs — CBO states that we should expect as much as $70 billion in additional discretionary costs that they did not score. This includes $5 to $10 billion for the IRS, “at least” an additional $5 to $10 billion for HHS, and “at least $50 billion in specified and estimated authorizations of future discretionary spending for a number of grant programs and other provisions of the legislation.” That $5 to $10 billion to the IRS, in particular, should worry lawmakers and citizens alike.
2. Continued Access Problems — At great cost, the bill will cover 31 million people by 2019, but that will still leave 24 million people uncovered. In addition, over half — 16 million — of the newly covered people will be covered through Medicaid, and not through private coverage. This is both a fiscal challenge, as Medicaid’s long-term finances are extremely shaky, but also a political challenge, as many doctors refuse to take Medicaid patients. Putting more people on Medicaid will not solve the access problem if doctors refuse to see them.
3. Unlikely Cuts — The bill assumes that Congress will cut doctor payments via the sustainable growth rate, and CBO expresses some understandably healthy skepticism that those cuts will actually take place. As CBO put it, “the sustainable growth rate (SGR) mechanism governing Medicare’s payments to physicians has frequently been modified (either through legislation or administrative action) to avoid reductions in those payments, and legislation to do so again is currently under consideration in the Congress.” Basically, Congress calls for but does not let those cuts go through, and it would be foolish to assume that this kabuki dance of fake cuts built into the baseline budget will change in the future.
4. Higher Premiums — Perhaps most importantly, CBO continues to assume that insurance premiums will increase as a result of the bill, noting that “although CBO and JCT have not updated their estimates of the likely impact of the legislation on health-insurance premiums, that impact would probably be quite similar to the one estimated for an earlier version of the legislation.” It’s interesting to note that CBO does not repeat the findings of that earlier estimate, which found a likely pre-subsidy rate increase of 10–13 percent in the non-group market.
And if you believe ‘The Slauter Rule’ is anything BUT a bait and switch to get the Senate version of the bill passed in the House without a straight forward up or down vote, well there is a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell ya cheap…
I doubt too many people really think this monstrosity will lower costs or the deficit. After all, we have the past experience of other big government programs to guide us:
And let’s not forget the promises that Obama made regarding the stimulus:
No one with any sense trusts the numbers coming from Obama or the CBO.
Mer
13 years ago
Mike,
You are welcome, glad I could contribute. BTW I have sent my congressman an email and plan to follow up with a phone call, and I have sent emails to my like minded friends & family asking them to do the same. I will Not go gentle into that dark night….
What have you done other than suggest a strike which is usually the tactic of the Marxists?
Ivan
13 years ago
Hell yes, I’ve called them, but they continue to vote against my wishes.
And why are you opposed to a strike? Don’t want to hurt the government, which is run by a Marxist mind you, where it hurts, in their tax revenue?
I take it you were against the 9/12 protests also.
Hell yes I’m for a strike! The country is being run in the interests of the Banks and Wall Street, not the average citizen.
OLDPUPPYMAX
13 years ago
We now know what is is to live in a dictatorship. And the overwhelming majority of actual Americans do not like it one bit.
Patvann
13 years ago
Let me get this straight.
In a previous thread, (less that 24hrs ago) Blob accuses me of maing this “Slaughter” thing up. Now he defends it, and actually thinks it will save money.
It’s crossed a line into insanity Mike. I and not being hyperbolic. There is something seriously wrong with him.
BRob does indeed have something wrong with him. It’s ignorance. Ignorance of the Constitution, ignorance of reality, ignorance of history, and just plain ol’ ignorance of life in general. To expect a spoon-fed existence from the government, like he cheers on, and to ignore the constraints placed on individual citizens by that same government(even to the point of denial in his case), is ignorance, and that is no excuse when it comes time to pay up.
Tom N
13 years ago
I think the LIbs, Dems, ect. are playing with fire if they keep trying to cut corners with our constitutional process.
savage24
13 years ago
When are the democrats going to adopt the song “Behind Closed Doors” for their theme song? As Nancy says “this is the most open and ethical government in history” I wonder why they stoop to such low underhanded, slimy tricks to pass legislation the American people do not want. The Slaughter Solution may be the straw that broke the jackass’s back and end up “slaughtering” them.
@Aye Chihuahua, ya beat me to it. Nothing like Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution to prove that no House Rules changes have the meat to beat the original document. If they can create “rules” to avoid votes, and get away with it, we’re all in deep sheeeeeeet…. progressives and conservatives alike. It would be no more acceptable for a future GOP majority to shred Constitutional requirements for enactment of laws than it is for this desperate, corrupt leadership to attempt the same.
@Patvann, I’ve been pretty busy of late, and away from all things personal and political. So I had to go back and find what the heck you were talking about with billy bob. So allow me to post a few links as to what you’re discussing.
Did you note the complete lack of any sourcing on that restate post? Seems to me that someone pulled that out their hindquarters to rile up the increasingly dejected cons!
Obviously, billy bob owes PatVann an apology for prematurely retorting and chortling from his own “hindquarters” to PatVann’s breaking news. But I’m sure you know not to hold your breath, Patvann. LOL
Instead Mr. 2nd rate Paralegal – who’s well proven his embarrassing lack of Constitutional knowledge ever since he decided to be our token progressive racist here at FA – decided to follow up his immature verbal ejaculations with the following:
Ok . . . you found a 2001 commentary about a 1994 bill that was NEVER PRESENTED TO THE SENATE . . . and you use that to prove . . . what? That an entirely different bill 9 years later that has ALREADY PASSED THE SENATE BY A 60-40 VOTE should not be tweaked by a simple majority vote? Why do you cons insist on ignoring the 60-40 vote that passed the damn bill? As if a supermajority vote means “nothing” because GOPers decided to sit that one out! How nutty!
….snip…
If the reconciliation bill fails, the Senate bill (which passed 60-40) will still be in place. So Obama wins no matter what. And the GOPers? Have to suffer the fact that 30 million people will get health insurance over your objection . . . boo hoo! Delicious!
billy bob… we know we have to slow down for you, and allow you time to remove your shoes when it comes to issues involving simple math… but even you state an inherent belief that a “vote” should be required above.
But since there’s few bones of consistency in your body, save for your unmitigated and perpetual hatred for anyone who believes differently than you, you then contradict yourself when you state above:
THERE WILL ONLY BE ONE MAJORITY RULES UP OR DOWN VOTE ON HEALTH CARE, NOT TWO!
Perhaps we should remind you that the Senate amended the tar out of the House bill, and they are not the same bill. Therefore the House has not Constitutionally “spoken” via vote on that bill AT ALL…. not even once. And last time I looked, both House and Senate have to pass/reconcile legislation prior to enactment by a POTUS signature. Civics 101… you were probably busy in mandated anger management and “tolerance” classes … neither of which it appears you passed.
As far as your comment and Satanic glee that a failure of a reconciliation leaves us with the Senate bill as law…. truth, if you’re a pie in the sky kind of guy. The House has no intentions of passing the Senate bill as is. If they did, this subterfuge to usurp the Constitution wouldn’t be taking place. Your naivety displayed by your comment on the other thread…“She will not “have the votes” until the vote is actually taken.” is actually humorous. Pelosi won’t be allowing the vote until she KNOWS the outcome. There’s no “do it over, I don’t like the result” here. Therefore, she doesn’t proceed without counting noses and getting advance promises in blood.
The notion that Slaughter attempts to find ways to rewrite the Constitution should give even you – billy bob of amoeba mentality – the clue that the desperation lies purely on your side. The more outlandish stabs in the dark for a solution to bypass the Democrats in the House undeniable dissent, the worse you appear in America’s eyes. These dictatorial attempts are not lost on the public at large. Even the most uninformed of Americans would notice that “no vote” does not resemble “an up or down” vote.
Or perhaps, it can be better said that finally you O’faithful have lifted your veils, and allowed the ugly interior to shine forth. Congrats… now the easily fooled will not be so easily fooled. And the taste left in the mouth from your efforts is as foul as the air permeating the chambers.
On the subject of the proposed “Slaughter” of our Constitution, I doubt it will come to pass. And I’m sure this would end up quick as a bunny before SCOTUS, and not pass Constitutional muster. And, according a report in the COngressional Daily yesterday, they say Slaughter hadn’t formally taken the plan to Pelosi yet. Nor is she likely to until they get the CBO scoring on the secret bill that no one has seen save the chosen few disciples.
Hard Right
13 years ago
BROB is a tremendous asset to the Conservative cause.
Something special for the comprehension challenged ParaLegal wannabe.
(Feel free to take notes, or sing along if you like…your cubicle mates won’t think any less of you than they already do.)
A bill cannot even possibly become law until BOTH houses of Congress vote on and approve it.
Basic civics.
Basic US history.
Once again, members of The Great UnwashedTM are runnin’ circles ’round and ’round and ’round the sad, silly little man who claims to be a highly edumakated, skilled attorney.
No surprise on the UPDATE to this post from me. Apparently the Senate Parliamentarian can read the Constitution…. even if House Rules, Louise Slaughter, cannot.
Davey
13 years ago
Aye– Thanks for the refresher on Basic Civics. Boy, it sure torments them when you bite their ankles like that.
Patvann
13 years ago
It is now time for all of the FA faithful to bow in humble homage to our Mata.
In a word: Wow.
I can’t even pull out a quote to show why. It must simply be read, and re-read in it’s entirety.
Blob will never apologize, nor ever accept his culpability. He can’t. Insane people can not see this of themselves. He is not ignorant, because that implies a lack of factual information. He is not stupid, because although the Illinois bar is the second easiest to pass (NY is first) it is still not a simple matter to accomplish.
This is an emotional issue to him, and as we all know, emotion will supersede all logic when the mind is not prepared or able to process the input that runs counter to what has now become “hardwired”. No matter what, he can’t be wrong.
If he witnessed Obama beating a child, Brob would find a way to blame the child.
He is the perfected result of a concerted effort.
His parents became infected, then he became infected. He was further infected by media, the school system, the entertainment industry and the legal system. Because he was never given the “tools” to think objectively, and because his entire way of thinking has been programmed to react emotionally to all issues, he is not prepared to react logically when evidence and reality runs counter to what has been “pre-thought” for him…So he will (and does) lash out with increasingly bizarre posits, excuses, and accusations.
He is a broken human being. Along with about 15% of the populous. He is a symptom of the Progressive effort.
Should we pity him? Shall we treat him with kid-gloves as we would a child?
Naaaa. Becouse logic and the utterly fantastic responses some of us give in counter-point to him only bounce off his grey-matter like water on a ducks ass.
Which is why I will not discuss with him, nor provide any sort of logic in response to him any longer.
I will only treat him as a clown, and the only “pain” I feel, is what others may read of my basal words and think: “Gee, he seems smarter than that, why doesn’t he intellectually smite him as I’ve seen him do to so many others who run in object fear and embarassment, or actually end up agreeing with him?” (One or two of you know, my intellect, background, education and insight, through more than just this site.)
…It’s because him and his ilk need to die off as Darwin implied in his posit, and I will not waste my time and effort with his sort any longer. The fact that many of the rest of you do is appreciated by me (and I’m sure many of us) because it educates US, not him. So I thank you all for that.
The second part is his overt masochism.
Why in the hell would someone with a 2% correct rate continue to hang out here? He is constantly bashed, proven wrong, personally attacted, and has been exposed as a liar, a bigot, and an idealogue IN EVERY TOPIC BROUGHT FORTH. Yet he persists. He does not post at other sites, nor has he published any sort of position paper as many up-and-coming lawyers do to further their views and their careers…He dwells and thrives in this, and that isn’t normal. He has deluded himself into thinking he’s actually teaching us!
This leads me to think that he is suffering from something only a highly trained person can truly diagnose, but my assumption (as a mere holder of an AA in psychology) says he freakin nuts, and he supplies the evidence for me with every post.
I only wish he was funny, and had less time on his hands.
@Patvann: Should we pity him? Shall we treat him with kid-gloves as we would a child?
Naaaa. Becouse logic and the utterly fantastic responses some of us give in counter-point to him only bounce off his grey-matter like water on a ducks ass.
Oh you “heartless conservative”, not giving the “victims of education” like billy bob a pass. LOL
So sorry you think you won’t “respond” to billy bob’s banal talking points in the future. It is a great source of education, as you have pointed out… and I have in the past ( billy bob is a great FA tool…. heh). But what I shall miss is your pointed valuable counters. Despite your kind words and praise, I am hardly a one woman band, ya know. It is the combination of voices that results in the best cyber education. Witness Aye Chi and I, who many confuse us to be the same at times because we both pounce from the same perspective simultaneously. But then, we communicate our perspectives in different ways, which offers increased enlightenment to a wider audience.
I’m assuming your aver’ed intent to ignore billy bob is a temporary and momentary emotional decision, and not a pact in cyber blood? For truly, I would miss your imput, Patvann! Hang, we can’t even go a few weeks around here before behind the scenes FA author emails are running around saying… “where is Patvann???”. I guess we have learned our lesson when it comes to noticing the absence of regular voices after our own ChrisG.
Despite my desire to make this post a BLOB free zone you guys just keep fanning the flames!
Would someone mind terribly if we stayed on topic here and not allowed the distractor to distract us even in his absence?
P.S. I have not been bouncing his comments. He must have run for the hills again after being exposed as a fool once again.
Anyway, BACK TO TOPIC!!!
I’m starting to think through what is happening here. Did they float the Slaughter House rule out just to distract us from something else? Was it a trial balloon they were trying to float? Will the Senate Parliamentarian make an official ruling on this? Would Biden dare to overrule him? We would be looking at a legislative coup if that happened.
The scuttlebutt at the moment is that chances are running against Democrats passing the bill. I think I’ll put up a poll so folks can stake out their territory on the possibility that this monster finally dies.
Now Mike, as much as I will honor your OT demands, I doth have to protest that my post INRE billy bob’s backtracking on the Slaughter wannabe rule as entirely OT, guy.
But if you wish to analyze the “Slaughter House” non-rule, I will offer this in both criticism and kudos…
The only “slaughterhouse” rules I’ve seen reported and discussed have been floated by GOP sources. This means they are doing one of two things:
1: Playing the political game to cast the Dems in a bad light prior to their efforts, or..
2: They are ahead of the game and thwarting their genuine efforts to usurp the Constitution. Slaughter, herself, does not discount this.
The former is proactive political strategy. The latter is smart political strategy. Both, however, are political strategy.
I do not think slo’ Joe Biden would dare to override the Parliamentarian. It is clear, on the surface, that such a rule is in obvious conflict with the Constitution and would never stand up to a SCOTUS challenge. THerefore I never placed even an iota of credibility in the initial report report release that I saw via GOP sources.
As far as the “scuttlebutt” goes… I will again repeat my same convictions. O’healthcare is dead…. unless they can convince House Dems to “trust” the Senate for a reconciliation bill they have never seen in an election year. Go where you want, but if I were in a betting pool, O’ healthcare, along will billy bob’s convictions, are dead in the water. And all of this being definite fits into Obama’s mid term election strategy.
Now it just remains as to how he plans to blame it’s failure on the minority GOP, who don’t have enough votes to stop your grandam from eating MickeyD big macs on a sunny day.
Patvann
13 years ago
I’m assuming your aver’ed intent to ignore billy bob is a temporary…
Oh yes ma’am!
As long as he’s here, (and I’m not in the midst of a suspiciously timed 3-way audit after establishing a new family trust, or visiting my favorite Marine down in San Diego), I intend to spank him as often as the amusement holds! 🙂
Hell, he likes getting it, and my emotional level toward him barely rises above that of watching pigeons screw. I just don’t want to have to work very hard at it!
When the time presents itself, and I’m bored, and he spews forth, I might even take the effort to use his esoteric verbosity as an opportunity to present something “heftier”…
But you guys are so quick to the draw, I usually find myself only giggling at him. 🙂
(edit/added)-OK…Mike is right…let’s roll.
Skookum
13 years ago
If the Illinois Bar is so easy to pass, why didn’t the Zero pass it? Oh wait, did I phrase that question wrong?
If I were as smart as Mata, I could rule the world! Zero doesn’t have a chance.
Now Mike, you know that when Mr. ParaLegal2 posts his nonsense our duty as responsible denizens of the FA Saloon is to shoot his arguments full of holes and leave the remnants swingin’ in the wind…regardless of the original topic.
Speaking of the original topic though, I see the SlaughterHouse Rules change attempt as nothing more than another involuntary twitch in a long, uncomfortable, and difficult to watch death throe process.
The Dims finally had the prize, the many-jeweled TriFecta of American politics: The White House, The coveted Senate super majority, The House majority.
They finally had it all….everything except the golden ring: Socialized medicine.
Just as they got everyone on board the carousel goin’ round and ’round…Uncle Teddy, “The Swimmer” as I fondly remember him, kicked the can releasing the first marble in the Rube Goldberg machine we currently see operating before us.
If only Teddy had resigned six months earlier, a Dim would likely have replaced him…and Scott Brown would still be in MA. Instead, he wanted to die with his boots on. All the better for us.
As I predicted, the Dims overreached. They always do. They have boxed themselves in and the futility of their position is finally sinking in hence the flailing attempts at self-rescue.
Notice how all of the strutting, crowing Leftists of 2008 and early 2009 have disappeared? They realize that, like sand that is gripped too tightly, the dream has slipped through their fingers.
The Dims are now ruling against the consent of the governed and will pay mightily for that error in November 2010 and perhaps for a generation.
If they had just held still, and started over from the beginning, perhaps there would be some hope of getting out of the quicksand.
Over the course of the last year I have been repeatedly reminded of a quote attributed to John Adams:
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in the people’s minds.”
On those days when I’ve had just about enough of this whole pail’o’crap I think about what that quote says…and the promise that it contains.
I don’t want to get ahead of events here, but have you rethought your rather tepid endorsement of the Senate GOP strategy?
Patvann
13 years ago
@Skooks
Hate to do this to ya bud, But Bamster did pass it. He ended up giving up his license later…2003, but I’m not 100% on that date. His wife gave up her license as well in the early 90’s.
It is VERY rare to “voluntarily” give up ones license, because it’s so cheap and easy to keep it valid. Many suspect that they BOTH were threatened with “something” because of some un-said action on their part.
Time alone will expose the true reasons for their forfeiture.
@Aye Chihuahua: You bet we have to respond to that loon. Just not let him hijack the thread.
In the balance of your comment you demonstrate why it is important not to be diverted from the topic. Your comment, along with all those from the other participants here have shown extraordinary depth and acumen on a complex political issue.
How about passing our own Slaughter House Rule: 10% BLOB Beating, 90% On Topic?
Anyway, new poll is up folks….
Skookum
13 years ago
PV, I will use a masterful recovery like Brob, “I suppose it is easy to pass.”
I’d rather be corrected than sail under an illusion, thanks PV. Interesting about surrendering their law Licenses, sets the imagination aflame and to boiling.
By the way, I was reading your quote this morning and said to myself while I was working, not exactly a period of the day when my gray matter is taxed, “Oh my goodness, PV has written the most profound passage in English Literature”, and then I noticed it was written by Cicero, over two thousand years ago: you could get in serious trouble for doing things like that.
Patvann
13 years ago
@Skooks
LOL!
Cicero is my favorite thinker of the Ancients. Oh to be mistaken for him.
In my studies, I have found that because of the time passed, there is some discussion on whether or not he actually said the words attributed to him…Most think he did, because of how well it matches up to his other writings (style/impact/verb-use when translated into Latin) but in any case, it’s indeed profound, and prescient.
I did write a poem in your honor within that thread, though!
Skookum
13 years ago
PV, I don’t think we will hijack the post: I think there are those among us who find the ancients and the older writers to be so good that they defy reason. Their technology was minimal: while we have advantages that were the subject of science fiction thirty years ago.
Even Shakespeare, who wrote a mere four hundred years ago is discredited by many, partially, because he was so good that no one could believe that one man was able to produce such material. Of course spelling his name six different ways fueled the debate.
If our own Founding Fathers were not so well documented there would surely be debate about their work’s authenticity. I like to think of Jefferson’s ‘Gun Men’, Lewis and Clark, With writing and artist materials that were made on the trail, they had the most beautiful hand writing and drawings that you can imagine and when you think of the conditions, they are even more amazing.
Many of us refuse to accept the brilliance of the Titans of history, not me, I admire them and envy their greatness and talent. Thank goodness there are sites like FA recording the opinions of the common man, (namely people like us) so that Obama wont be able to receive the benefit of a legacy pumped up by the Government Directed Propaganda Media. He will be skewered and reviled for all time, that is our advantage with this technology, much to the chagrin of the Marxists. Ha Ha!
Patvann
13 years ago
The abandonment of the lessons-learned that our Fore-Fathers had, is the exact reason we are looking at the headline of this thread.
They went out of their way to incorporate the lessons of the Ancient thinkers into the foundation of this country, along with their own observations. They weighed history and the balance is what they wrote for us.
That is a threat to the Progressive, and why the Classics where abandoned by the school system as soon as they took charge, and why we must take it back.
I do what I call “counter-teaching” in my home. I help them put into context what is being shoved down their throats, and fill in the blanks that they don’t get at school.
There are pitifully few politicians who truly understand what sort of thinking went into the Constitution, and WHY it went in.
Ivan
13 years ago
Many of us refuse to accept the brilliance of the Titans of history, not me, I admire them and envy their greatness and talent. Thank goodness there are sites like FA recording the opinions of the common man, (namely people like us) so that Obama wont be able to receive the benefit of a legacy pumped up by the Government Directed Propaganda Media. He will be skewered and reviled for all time, that is our advantage with this technology, much to the chagrin of the Marxists. Ha Ha!
@Mike’s America: what “masterful strategy” would that be? I reread your older post. Even now you wish to give a inconsequential minority far too much credit merely because they have remained steadfast and united in the nay voting column. That they didn’t fall to peer pressure is good, Mike. But in all honesty, their presence in the legislative birthing room was never a requirement.
How did you put it from that post?
Let’s not forget that the Dems original plan was to have a health bill on Obama’s desk this fall with a bill passed in both Houses by the August recess. That didn’t happen in large part because House and Senate Republicans were able to slow down the process and give the public a chance to have their voices heard in Town Hall protests.
Pray tell, how does the minority “slow down the process” of a supermajority?
Quite simply, they don’t. Members of both sides of the aisle offered over 500 amendments on the health care bills, Mike. Even that “strategy” is not to be gifted solely to the GOP.
Point is, had the Blue Dogs been on board with this at the onset, no amount of media talking points like “jobs killer” would mean squat. In fact, were the Blue Dogs on board even as of today, Obama would be scheduling his victory signing.
Therefore the “slow down” credit goes to every elected member (regardless of party affiliation) who didn’t just blindly sign on, and had the audacity to disagree with some part of the bills.
Were I to give credit for the rising public dissatisfaction with O’healthcare as currently proposed, it goes to a very due diligent media, blog world and talking heads circuit. There was impressive dissecting of this legislation spread around various MSM, including vocal opponents who enjoyed vast audiences. From medical blogs to financial blogs, just about every aspect of the thousands of pages were analyzed and discussed.
In short, the credit goes to the effective spreading of information via the new media, a constituency quick enough to grasp that something is very wrong with this legislation and willing to take that to the streets. But the tea party movement was not borne just out of health care. Instead, health care was the last straw after the original TARP, the GM/Chrysler buy out/take over, the ARRA/Stimulus, the monstrous Omnibus, increasing unemployment, a federal subsidized housing bubble, and the fed reserve printing presses running 24/7.
Was all this somehow a manifestation of a “masterful” GOP strategy? Nope. This is all the result of an overreaching Dem supermajority and obvious badly conceived and written legislation. Let’s just say the GOP gets credit for staying “herded”, and for not messing up the works for themselves (as they usually do…) LOL.
The Dems will blame the GOP for O’healthcare failure, Mike. Whether or not that is a wise campaign talking point remains to be seen. After all, since a very hefty amount of the public also do not want O’healthcare, as it’s designed, such fingerpointing may be met with little more than a shrug of the shoulders by the voting public. That alone will put the Dems into culture shock… they remain certain the public is behind them on universal health care to this moment. Can you say “seriously in denial”??
Up until the infamous health care “summit”, the Dems were on the quest to paint the GOP not only as the party of “no”, but the party of “no ideas”. The GOP’s crowning moment was their preparedness for that public battle… you know, the one many of you thought they should not attend? I said they had no choice, but they’d better get their act together. Wasn’t sure they could, but they came thru with flying colors.
It was, to date, the most positive media coverage of the GOP approach. I will give them five stars for their performance there.
The Dems will blame the GOP for O’healthcare failure, Mike. Whether or not that is a wise campaign talking point remains to be seen. After all, since a very hefty amount of the public also do not want O’healthcare, as it’s designed, such fingerpointing may be met with little more than a shrug of the shoulders by the voting public.
The GOP would be wise to give credit where credit is due, mantra style, repeating it over and over so the MSM has no choice but to report it that way. Power to the public….. independents, real democrats, conservatives, even non-political people have had their fill of the tin-earred current leadership. They said no, they rose up, called, wrote, marched and have made their voices heard to all but the leadership. A gracious GOP would be very attractive after what we’ve all been through, we have all had it with the arrogance, a dash of humility is the way to go.
And, keep putting Paul Ryan out there as well as some of the other GOP attendees of the summit. Slaughter…..Ryan, contrast, compare. Lamar Alexander vs “poor baby, poor baby” Pelosi. Get going GOP!
Forgot to add, good work on this thread Mata and the FA team, authors and commentors! I enjoyed reading this thread!
@MataHarley: So even on the cusp of success you still can’t praise GOP leadership in the House and Senate?
Tsk, tsk, tsk!
If GOP leaders had rolled over long ago and accepted the inevitability of this bill passing it would be law by now. You’re correct when you suggest that there were many heroes in this fight outside of Congress but let’s give our folks the credit they deserve. God knows I intend to bash them when they are wrong (Lindsey Graham on immigration and cap and tax).
Never before has there been a united GOP in both the House and Senate. That isn’t something that just happened. It had to be led and it was led by people like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.
We’ve also got folks like Jon Kyl of Arizona and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and a host of others who have done a “masterful job” of leading in Congress and leading in public opinion.
I almost forgot my favorite homestate Senator Jim DeMint who along with Tom Coburn of Oklahoma had the guts to demand Dems read the bill out loud on the Senate floor.
This fight isn’t done yet and we may still lose. But from what I see happening in the Congress with the conduct of our team in the face of this legislative coup we have already won in so many ways.
Give our guys the credit they are due or don’t expect them to stand with you in the future.
Mike, I gave the GOP credit exactly where it was due… their stellar performance at the “summit” (as well as ignoring calls from many not to attend), and remaining united. I will not lavish them with praise for acts and actions for which they were not responsible.
Were Congressional GOP members responsible for driving public opinion? Far from it. Those kudos belong to radio and TV talking heads, political bloggers and media analysts who dissected the bill and it’s fiscal impact, etc.
Additionally, it was not the Congressional members who have been informing the public of the true problems we face… the rise of overhead costs to the medical service providers.
I’m standing with @Missy here. The GOP would do well for *them* to give credit where credit is due. A little humility is in order.
And INRE your comment, “…. or don’t expect them to stand with you in the future.” These bozos work for us, Mike. If you’re looking around carefully, you’ll see there is no partisan nepotism going on with disgruntled Congressional members who decide that he or she knows better what is good for the nation at large.
If, in the future, they don’t “stand” with the public, they’ll find themselves kicked to the curb for someone else. There is a rising lack of tolerance for arrogance, and none of us are in the mood to feed career politicians’ egos.
Greg
13 years ago
Were I to give credit for the rising public dissatisfaction with O’healthcare as currently proposed, it goes to a very due diligent media, blog world and talking heads circuit.
To my own way of thinking, desperately needed health care reform measures are once again being derailed by profit-oriented special interests, who are becoming increasingly skillful at countering reasoned argument with media-driven, fear-provoking disinformation blitzes. (Death panels, anyone? Rationing? How about the Socialist Menace that lurks behind every democratic reform measure?) This approach will be even more effective in the near future, now that the SCOTUS has effectively removed limits on how much money may be spent to mold and shape public perception and opinion.
The current package is undoubtedly far from perfect, but it is an effective means of breaking the log jam. With passage we would be forced to undertake a long-term and long overdue overhaul of the entire health care system. Without passage, we’ll most likely do nothing of any real consequence. We’ll simply apply a series of meaningless, politically innocuous bandaids, until we eventually find ourselves with a grossly disfunctional, financially unsustainable system. Of course, vast sums of money will have been extracted by special interests along the way.
I suppose that’s why a lot of frustrated democrats are willing to push the damn plunger–even at the risk of being hit by falling logs come November.
@MataHarley: Again, there should be no confusion here. I NEVER suggested that GOP leadership were responsible for the outpouring of public protest against Obama Care.
But they have done a “masterful” job of playing their part which is a KEY ROLE in stopping and slowing down this monstrosity.
I think they deserve a real pat on the back and our support for doing so. I don’t understand why you come to that same conclusion grudgingly.
Patvann
13 years ago
Article 1, Section 7, 2nd Clause:
2. Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the president of the United States; if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that house in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration, two thirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that house, it shall 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. If any bill shall not be returned by the president within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
Impeachment proceedings must be filed against every member of our government that goes along with this “Slaughter” of our laws.
THIS is tyranny. THIS is the work of the enemy within. THIS is Facism.
Greg
13 years ago
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.
I believe that entire clause simply lays out the procedure whereby a presidental objection to legislation can overridden by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress. “All such cases” refers to legislation that the president has objected to and refused to sign.
Patvann
13 years ago
@ Greg.
You are very wrong about that sir. Please study the Article, and ALL it’s sections and clauses. There are no other entries detailing how Bills are approved.
The reason for this, is the fact that it’s bloody OBVIOUS that all Bills must be seen and adjudicated by all representatives BEFORE it’s sent for the president’s signature, and there is no need to further define what’s proscribed.
The very first sentence of that section is the key:
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate
Furthermore, the formal recording of the votes into the ledgers of each of the chambers has been the procedure that has always been followed since the signing of the Constitution.
Saying that the particular clause in question refers only to occasions when a veto is being overridden is, of course, a convenient interpretation because it fits the argument you are trying to make. History and precedent, however, disagree with you.
Article I, Section 5 lays out the requirement for a recorded vote if 1/5 of those present want it:
Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.
The simple fact that the Dims are trying to “deem” a bill as having passed the House without a vote is a clear cut violation of the Constitution which should send a chill through every American.
If Congress can just “deem” things to be the way that they want them to be then where does that authority end? How far can they go when they just make up their mind they can do whatever the hell they want to do?
Where is the “in writing” record of a particular CongressCritter when We the People want to know how they are voting? That was, after all, the intent of the Founders. They wanted the citizens to be able to know how their representatives were voting on the issues.
We need Florida’s sunshine law for the federal government. Our house of corruption has gotten way out of hand.
Yeah, Mike . . . about the fall of the Empire . . . I tracked way back through the daisy chain of links and you know what I found? Louise Slaughter is gaming the rules so that . . . get this . . .
THERE WILL ONLY BE ONE MAJORITY RULES UP OR DOWN VOTE ON HEALTH CARE, NOT TWO!
The outrage! The horror!
Yeah, that will have ’em marching with pitchforks and torches.
By the way, how’d you like that CBO scoring?
“Senate-passed health care bill would cut deficit”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031102042.html?hpid=topnews
@BRob: As usual your comment is irrelevant. Don’t bother trying to clarify it as you are overquota for spreading your bile today and I don’t intent to permit you to filibuster on this thread.
@BRob:
Pssssstt…. Mr. ParaLegal Man….
Have you read the US Constitution lately?
No?
Here’s what it says has to happen in order for a bill to become law. Article I, Section 7:
There’s the problem in black and white, so simple and direct even you can understand it.
The Senate bill has not passed the House and the yeas and nays have NOT been recorded in the second chamber.
You sad, silly little man. What a stupendous disgrace you are to the Ohio state bar.
from an NRO post:
Today’s CBO score should not be very reassuring to the Democrats on a number of fronts:
1. More Costs — CBO states that we should expect as much as $70 billion in additional discretionary costs that they did not score. This includes $5 to $10 billion for the IRS, “at least” an additional $5 to $10 billion for HHS, and “at least $50 billion in specified and estimated authorizations of future discretionary spending for a number of grant programs and other provisions of the legislation.” That $5 to $10 billion to the IRS, in particular, should worry lawmakers and citizens alike.
2. Continued Access Problems — At great cost, the bill will cover 31 million people by 2019, but that will still leave 24 million people uncovered. In addition, over half — 16 million — of the newly covered people will be covered through Medicaid, and not through private coverage. This is both a fiscal challenge, as Medicaid’s long-term finances are extremely shaky, but also a political challenge, as many doctors refuse to take Medicaid patients. Putting more people on Medicaid will not solve the access problem if doctors refuse to see them.
3. Unlikely Cuts — The bill assumes that Congress will cut doctor payments via the sustainable growth rate, and CBO expresses some understandably healthy skepticism that those cuts will actually take place. As CBO put it, “the sustainable growth rate (SGR) mechanism governing Medicare’s payments to physicians has frequently been modified (either through legislation or administrative action) to avoid reductions in those payments, and legislation to do so again is currently under consideration in the Congress.” Basically, Congress calls for but does not let those cuts go through, and it would be foolish to assume that this kabuki dance of fake cuts built into the baseline budget will change in the future.
4. Higher Premiums — Perhaps most importantly, CBO continues to assume that insurance premiums will increase as a result of the bill, noting that “although CBO and JCT have not updated their estimates of the likely impact of the legislation on health-insurance premiums, that impact would probably be quite similar to the one estimated for an earlier version of the legislation.” It’s interesting to note that CBO does not repeat the findings of that earlier estimate, which found a likely pre-subsidy rate increase of 10–13 percent in the non-group market.
And if you believe ‘The Slauter Rule’ is anything BUT a bait and switch to get the Senate version of the bill passed in the House without a straight forward up or down vote, well there is a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell ya cheap…
@Mer: Thanks for the update regarding CBO.
I doubt too many people really think this monstrosity will lower costs or the deficit. After all, we have the past experience of other big government programs to guide us:
And let’s not forget the promises that Obama made regarding the stimulus:
No one with any sense trusts the numbers coming from Obama or the CBO.
Mike,
You are welcome, glad I could contribute. BTW I have sent my congressman an email and plan to follow up with a phone call, and I have sent emails to my like minded friends & family asking them to do the same. I will Not go gentle into that dark night….
@Mer: Glad you made your voice heard. Is your Congressman one of those on the fence?
Vote roll for first House Bill last November:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml
If this pig-in-a-poke passes the American public has itself to blame.
And if it passes, Americans need to move beyond the “Call your congressman” rubbish that obviously didn’t stop this bill in the first place.
We’ll need to take the the streets in a massive national strike on April 19th.
Time to turn up the heat and hit these guys in the pocketbooks, where it really hurts.
@Ivan: So, you have not called your congressman?
What have you done other than suggest a strike which is usually the tactic of the Marxists?
Hell yes, I’ve called them, but they continue to vote against my wishes.
And why are you opposed to a strike? Don’t want to hurt the government, which is run by a Marxist mind you, where it hurts, in their tax revenue?
I take it you were against the 9/12 protests also.
Hell yes I’m for a strike! The country is being run in the interests of the Banks and Wall Street, not the average citizen.
We now know what is is to live in a dictatorship. And the overwhelming majority of actual Americans do not like it one bit.
Let me get this straight.
In a previous thread, (less that 24hrs ago) Blob accuses me of maing this “Slaughter” thing up. Now he defends it, and actually thinks it will save money.
It’s crossed a line into insanity Mike. I and not being hyperbolic. There is something seriously wrong with him.
Patvann
BRob does indeed have something wrong with him. It’s ignorance. Ignorance of the Constitution, ignorance of reality, ignorance of history, and just plain ol’ ignorance of life in general. To expect a spoon-fed existence from the government, like he cheers on, and to ignore the constraints placed on individual citizens by that same government(even to the point of denial in his case), is ignorance, and that is no excuse when it comes time to pay up.
I think the LIbs, Dems, ect. are playing with fire if they keep trying to cut corners with our constitutional process.
When are the democrats going to adopt the song “Behind Closed Doors” for their theme song? As Nancy says “this is the most open and ethical government in history” I wonder why they stoop to such low underhanded, slimy tricks to pass legislation the American people do not want. The Slaughter Solution may be the straw that broke the jackass’s back and end up “slaughtering” them.
@Aye Chihuahua, ya beat me to it. Nothing like Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution to prove that no House Rules changes have the meat to beat the original document. If they can create “rules” to avoid votes, and get away with it, we’re all in deep sheeeeeeet…. progressives and conservatives alike. It would be no more acceptable for a future GOP majority to shred Constitutional requirements for enactment of laws than it is for this desperate, corrupt leadership to attempt the same.
@Patvann, I’ve been pretty busy of late, and away from all things personal and political. So I had to go back and find what the heck you were talking about with billy bob. So allow me to post a few links as to what you’re discussing.
PatVann posted a link to a RedState post about this blatantly anti-Constitutional act of desperation… to which billy bob replied:
Obviously, billy bob owes PatVann an apology for prematurely retorting and chortling from his own “hindquarters” to PatVann’s breaking news. But I’m sure you know not to hold your breath, Patvann. LOL
Instead Mr. 2nd rate Paralegal – who’s well proven his embarrassing lack of Constitutional knowledge ever since he decided to be our token progressive racist here at FA – decided to follow up his immature verbal ejaculations with the following:
billy bob… we know we have to slow down for you, and allow you time to remove your shoes when it comes to issues involving simple math… but even you state an inherent belief that a “vote” should be required above.
But since there’s few bones of consistency in your body, save for your unmitigated and perpetual hatred for anyone who believes differently than you, you then contradict yourself when you state above:
Perhaps we should remind you that the Senate amended the tar out of the House bill, and they are not the same bill. Therefore the House has not Constitutionally “spoken” via vote on that bill AT ALL…. not even once. And last time I looked, both House and Senate have to pass/reconcile legislation prior to enactment by a POTUS signature. Civics 101… you were probably busy in mandated anger management and “tolerance” classes … neither of which it appears you passed.
As far as your comment and Satanic glee that a failure of a reconciliation leaves us with the Senate bill as law…. truth, if you’re a pie in the sky kind of guy. The House has no intentions of passing the Senate bill as is. If they did, this subterfuge to usurp the Constitution wouldn’t be taking place. Your naivety displayed by your comment on the other thread…“She will not “have the votes” until the vote is actually taken.” is actually humorous. Pelosi won’t be allowing the vote until she KNOWS the outcome. There’s no “do it over, I don’t like the result” here. Therefore, she doesn’t proceed without counting noses and getting advance promises in blood.
The notion that Slaughter attempts to find ways to rewrite the Constitution should give even you – billy bob of amoeba mentality – the clue that the desperation lies purely on your side. The more outlandish stabs in the dark for a solution to bypass the Democrats in the House undeniable dissent, the worse you appear in America’s eyes. These dictatorial attempts are not lost on the public at large. Even the most uninformed of Americans would notice that “no vote” does not resemble “an up or down” vote.
Or perhaps, it can be better said that finally you O’faithful have lifted your veils, and allowed the ugly interior to shine forth. Congrats… now the easily fooled will not be so easily fooled. And the taste left in the mouth from your efforts is as foul as the air permeating the chambers.
On the subject of the proposed “Slaughter” of our Constitution, I doubt it will come to pass. And I’m sure this would end up quick as a bunny before SCOTUS, and not pass Constitutional muster. And, according a report in the COngressional Daily yesterday, they say Slaughter hadn’t formally taken the plan to Pelosi yet. Nor is she likely to until they get the CBO scoring on the secret bill that no one has seen save the chosen few disciples.
BROB is a tremendous asset to the Conservative cause.
Something special for the comprehension challenged ParaLegal wannabe.
(Feel free to take notes, or sing along if you like…your cubicle mates won’t think any less of you than they already do.)
A bill cannot even possibly become law until BOTH houses of Congress vote on and approve it.
Basic civics.
Basic US history.
Once again, members of The Great UnwashedTM are runnin’ circles ’round and ’round and ’round the sad, silly little man who claims to be a highly edumakated, skilled attorney.
[snicker]
No surprise on the UPDATE to this post from me. Apparently the Senate Parliamentarian can read the Constitution…. even if House Rules, Louise Slaughter, cannot.
Aye– Thanks for the refresher on Basic Civics. Boy, it sure torments them when you bite their ankles like that.
It is now time for all of the FA faithful to bow in humble homage to our Mata.
In a word: Wow.
I can’t even pull out a quote to show why. It must simply be read, and re-read in it’s entirety.
Blob will never apologize, nor ever accept his culpability. He can’t. Insane people can not see this of themselves. He is not ignorant, because that implies a lack of factual information. He is not stupid, because although the Illinois bar is the second easiest to pass (NY is first) it is still not a simple matter to accomplish.
This is an emotional issue to him, and as we all know, emotion will supersede all logic when the mind is not prepared or able to process the input that runs counter to what has now become “hardwired”. No matter what, he can’t be wrong.
If he witnessed Obama beating a child, Brob would find a way to blame the child.
He is the perfected result of a concerted effort.
His parents became infected, then he became infected. He was further infected by media, the school system, the entertainment industry and the legal system. Because he was never given the “tools” to think objectively, and because his entire way of thinking has been programmed to react emotionally to all issues, he is not prepared to react logically when evidence and reality runs counter to what has been “pre-thought” for him…So he will (and does) lash out with increasingly bizarre posits, excuses, and accusations.
He is a broken human being. Along with about 15% of the populous. He is a symptom of the Progressive effort.
Should we pity him? Shall we treat him with kid-gloves as we would a child?
Naaaa. Becouse logic and the utterly fantastic responses some of us give in counter-point to him only bounce off his grey-matter like water on a ducks ass.
Which is why I will not discuss with him, nor provide any sort of logic in response to him any longer.
I will only treat him as a clown, and the only “pain” I feel, is what others may read of my basal words and think: “Gee, he seems smarter than that, why doesn’t he intellectually smite him as I’ve seen him do to so many others who run in object fear and embarassment, or actually end up agreeing with him?” (One or two of you know, my intellect, background, education and insight, through more than just this site.)
…It’s because him and his ilk need to die off as Darwin implied in his posit, and I will not waste my time and effort with his sort any longer. The fact that many of the rest of you do is appreciated by me (and I’m sure many of us) because it educates US, not him. So I thank you all for that.
The second part is his overt masochism.
Why in the hell would someone with a 2% correct rate continue to hang out here? He is constantly bashed, proven wrong, personally attacted, and has been exposed as a liar, a bigot, and an idealogue IN EVERY TOPIC BROUGHT FORTH. Yet he persists. He does not post at other sites, nor has he published any sort of position paper as many up-and-coming lawyers do to further their views and their careers…He dwells and thrives in this, and that isn’t normal. He has deluded himself into thinking he’s actually teaching us!
This leads me to think that he is suffering from something only a highly trained person can truly diagnose, but my assumption (as a mere holder of an AA in psychology) says he freakin nuts, and he supplies the evidence for me with every post.
I only wish he was funny, and had less time on his hands.
Oh you “heartless conservative”, not giving the “victims of education” like billy bob a pass. LOL
So sorry you think you won’t “respond” to billy bob’s banal talking points in the future. It is a great source of education, as you have pointed out… and I have in the past ( billy bob is a great FA tool…. heh). But what I shall miss is your pointed valuable counters. Despite your kind words and praise, I am hardly a one woman band, ya know. It is the combination of voices that results in the best cyber education. Witness Aye Chi and I, who many confuse us to be the same at times because we both pounce from the same perspective simultaneously. But then, we communicate our perspectives in different ways, which offers increased enlightenment to a wider audience.
I’m assuming your aver’ed intent to ignore billy bob is a temporary and momentary emotional decision, and not a pact in cyber blood? For truly, I would miss your imput, Patvann! Hang, we can’t even go a few weeks around here before behind the scenes FA author emails are running around saying… “where is Patvann???”. I guess we have learned our lesson when it comes to noticing the absence of regular voices after our own ChrisG.
@MataHarley:
@Patvann:
@Aye Chihuahua:
Despite my desire to make this post a BLOB free zone you guys just keep fanning the flames!
Would someone mind terribly if we stayed on topic here and not allowed the distractor to distract us even in his absence?
P.S. I have not been bouncing his comments. He must have run for the hills again after being exposed as a fool once again.
Anyway, BACK TO TOPIC!!!
I’m starting to think through what is happening here. Did they float the Slaughter House rule out just to distract us from something else? Was it a trial balloon they were trying to float? Will the Senate Parliamentarian make an official ruling on this? Would Biden dare to overrule him? We would be looking at a legislative coup if that happened.
The scuttlebutt at the moment is that chances are running against Democrats passing the bill. I think I’ll put up a poll so folks can stake out their territory on the possibility that this monster finally dies.
Now Mike, as much as I will honor your OT demands, I doth have to protest that my post INRE billy bob’s backtracking on the Slaughter wannabe rule as entirely OT, guy.
But if you wish to analyze the “Slaughter House” non-rule, I will offer this in both criticism and kudos…
The only “slaughterhouse” rules I’ve seen reported and discussed have been floated by GOP sources. This means they are doing one of two things:
1: Playing the political game to cast the Dems in a bad light prior to their efforts, or..
2: They are ahead of the game and thwarting their genuine efforts to usurp the Constitution. Slaughter, herself, does not discount this.
The former is proactive political strategy. The latter is smart political strategy. Both, however, are political strategy.
I do not think slo’ Joe Biden would dare to override the Parliamentarian. It is clear, on the surface, that such a rule is in obvious conflict with the Constitution and would never stand up to a SCOTUS challenge. THerefore I never placed even an iota of credibility in the initial report report release that I saw via GOP sources.
As far as the “scuttlebutt” goes… I will again repeat my same convictions. O’healthcare is dead…. unless they can convince House Dems to “trust” the Senate for a reconciliation bill they have never seen in an election year. Go where you want, but if I were in a betting pool, O’ healthcare, along will billy bob’s convictions, are dead in the water. And all of this being definite fits into Obama’s mid term election strategy.
Now it just remains as to how he plans to blame it’s failure on the minority GOP, who don’t have enough votes to stop your grandam from eating MickeyD big macs on a sunny day.
Oh yes ma’am!
As long as he’s here, (and I’m not in the midst of a suspiciously timed 3-way audit after establishing a new family trust, or visiting my favorite Marine down in San Diego), I intend to spank him as often as the amusement holds! 🙂
Hell, he likes getting it, and my emotional level toward him barely rises above that of watching pigeons screw. I just don’t want to have to work very hard at it!
When the time presents itself, and I’m bored, and he spews forth, I might even take the effort to use his esoteric verbosity as an opportunity to present something “heftier”…
But you guys are so quick to the draw, I usually find myself only giggling at him. 🙂
(edit/added)-OK…Mike is right…let’s roll.
If the Illinois Bar is so easy to pass, why didn’t the Zero pass it? Oh wait, did I phrase that question wrong?
If I were as smart as Mata, I could rule the world! Zero doesn’t have a chance.
@Mike’s America:
Now Mike, you know that when Mr. ParaLegal2 posts his nonsense our duty as responsible denizens of the FA Saloon is to shoot his arguments full of holes and leave the remnants swingin’ in the wind…regardless of the original topic.
Speaking of the original topic though, I see the SlaughterHouse Rules change attempt as nothing more than another involuntary twitch in a long, uncomfortable, and difficult to watch death throe process.
The Dims finally had the prize, the many-jeweled TriFecta of American politics: The White House, The coveted Senate super majority, The House majority.
They finally had it all….everything except the golden ring: Socialized medicine.
Just as they got everyone on board the carousel goin’ round and ’round…Uncle Teddy, “The Swimmer” as I fondly remember him, kicked the can releasing the first marble in the Rube Goldberg machine we currently see operating before us.
If only Teddy had resigned six months earlier, a Dim would likely have replaced him…and Scott Brown would still be in MA. Instead, he wanted to die with his boots on. All the better for us.
As I predicted, the Dims overreached. They always do. They have boxed themselves in and the futility of their position is finally sinking in hence the flailing attempts at self-rescue.
Notice how all of the strutting, crowing Leftists of 2008 and early 2009 have disappeared? They realize that, like sand that is gripped too tightly, the dream has slipped through their fingers.
The Dims are now ruling against the consent of the governed and will pay mightily for that error in November 2010 and perhaps for a generation.
If they had just held still, and started over from the beginning, perhaps there would be some hope of getting out of the quicksand.
Over the course of the last year I have been repeatedly reminded of a quote attributed to John Adams:
On those days when I’ve had just about enough of this whole pail’o’crap I think about what that quote says…and the promise that it contains.
I’ve put the poll up on the main page.
@MataHarley: I’m recording you as voting that health care is dying it’s last gasp. Correct?
You once said it was too early to thank the GOP in the Senate for what I called a “masterful” effort to stall Obama Care:
I don’t want to get ahead of events here, but have you rethought your rather tepid endorsement of the Senate GOP strategy?
@Skooks
Hate to do this to ya bud, But Bamster did pass it. He ended up giving up his license later…2003, but I’m not 100% on that date. His wife gave up her license as well in the early 90’s.
It is VERY rare to “voluntarily” give up ones license, because it’s so cheap and easy to keep it valid. Many suspect that they BOTH were threatened with “something” because of some un-said action on their part.
Time alone will expose the true reasons for their forfeiture.
@Aye Chihuahua: You bet we have to respond to that loon. Just not let him hijack the thread.
In the balance of your comment you demonstrate why it is important not to be diverted from the topic. Your comment, along with all those from the other participants here have shown extraordinary depth and acumen on a complex political issue.
How about passing our own Slaughter House Rule: 10% BLOB Beating, 90% On Topic?
Anyway, new poll is up folks….
PV, I will use a masterful recovery like Brob, “I suppose it is easy to pass.”
I’d rather be corrected than sail under an illusion, thanks PV. Interesting about surrendering their law Licenses, sets the imagination aflame and to boiling.
By the way, I was reading your quote this morning and said to myself while I was working, not exactly a period of the day when my gray matter is taxed, “Oh my goodness, PV has written the most profound passage in English Literature”, and then I noticed it was written by Cicero, over two thousand years ago: you could get in serious trouble for doing things like that.
@Skooks
LOL!
Cicero is my favorite thinker of the Ancients. Oh to be mistaken for him.
In my studies, I have found that because of the time passed, there is some discussion on whether or not he actually said the words attributed to him…Most think he did, because of how well it matches up to his other writings (style/impact/verb-use when translated into Latin) but in any case, it’s indeed profound, and prescient.
I did write a poem in your honor within that thread, though!
PV, I don’t think we will hijack the post: I think there are those among us who find the ancients and the older writers to be so good that they defy reason. Their technology was minimal: while we have advantages that were the subject of science fiction thirty years ago.
Even Shakespeare, who wrote a mere four hundred years ago is discredited by many, partially, because he was so good that no one could believe that one man was able to produce such material. Of course spelling his name six different ways fueled the debate.
If our own Founding Fathers were not so well documented there would surely be debate about their work’s authenticity. I like to think of Jefferson’s ‘Gun Men’, Lewis and Clark, With writing and artist materials that were made on the trail, they had the most beautiful hand writing and drawings that you can imagine and when you think of the conditions, they are even more amazing.
Many of us refuse to accept the brilliance of the Titans of history, not me, I admire them and envy their greatness and talent. Thank goodness there are sites like FA recording the opinions of the common man, (namely people like us) so that Obama wont be able to receive the benefit of a legacy pumped up by the Government Directed Propaganda Media. He will be skewered and reviled for all time, that is our advantage with this technology, much to the chagrin of the Marxists. Ha Ha!
The abandonment of the lessons-learned that our Fore-Fathers had, is the exact reason we are looking at the headline of this thread.
They went out of their way to incorporate the lessons of the Ancient thinkers into the foundation of this country, along with their own observations. They weighed history and the balance is what they wrote for us.
That is a threat to the Progressive, and why the Classics where abandoned by the school system as soon as they took charge, and why we must take it back.
I do what I call “counter-teaching” in my home. I help them put into context what is being shoved down their throats, and fill in the blanks that they don’t get at school.
There are pitifully few politicians who truly understand what sort of thinking went into the Constitution, and WHY it went in.
Many of us refuse to accept the brilliance of the Titans of history, not me, I admire them and envy their greatness and talent. Thank goodness there are sites like FA recording the opinions of the common man, (namely people like us) so that Obama wont be able to receive the benefit of a legacy pumped up by the Government Directed Propaganda Media. He will be skewered and reviled for all time, that is our advantage with this technology, much to the chagrin of the Marxists. Ha Ha!
Well said Skookum!
@Mike’s America: what “masterful strategy” would that be? I reread your older post. Even now you wish to give a inconsequential minority far too much credit merely because they have remained steadfast and united in the nay voting column. That they didn’t fall to peer pressure is good, Mike. But in all honesty, their presence in the legislative birthing room was never a requirement.
How did you put it from that post?
Pray tell, how does the minority “slow down the process” of a supermajority?
Quite simply, they don’t. Members of both sides of the aisle offered over 500 amendments on the health care bills, Mike. Even that “strategy” is not to be gifted solely to the GOP.
Point is, had the Blue Dogs been on board with this at the onset, no amount of media talking points like “jobs killer” would mean squat. In fact, were the Blue Dogs on board even as of today, Obama would be scheduling his victory signing.
Therefore the “slow down” credit goes to every elected member (regardless of party affiliation) who didn’t just blindly sign on, and had the audacity to disagree with some part of the bills.
Were I to give credit for the rising public dissatisfaction with O’healthcare as currently proposed, it goes to a very due diligent media, blog world and talking heads circuit. There was impressive dissecting of this legislation spread around various MSM, including vocal opponents who enjoyed vast audiences. From medical blogs to financial blogs, just about every aspect of the thousands of pages were analyzed and discussed.
In short, the credit goes to the effective spreading of information via the new media, a constituency quick enough to grasp that something is very wrong with this legislation and willing to take that to the streets. But the tea party movement was not borne just out of health care. Instead, health care was the last straw after the original TARP, the GM/Chrysler buy out/take over, the ARRA/Stimulus, the monstrous Omnibus, increasing unemployment, a federal subsidized housing bubble, and the fed reserve printing presses running 24/7.
Was all this somehow a manifestation of a “masterful” GOP strategy? Nope. This is all the result of an overreaching Dem supermajority and obvious badly conceived and written legislation. Let’s just say the GOP gets credit for staying “herded”, and for not messing up the works for themselves (as they usually do…) LOL.
The Dems will blame the GOP for O’healthcare failure, Mike. Whether or not that is a wise campaign talking point remains to be seen. After all, since a very hefty amount of the public also do not want O’healthcare, as it’s designed, such fingerpointing may be met with little more than a shrug of the shoulders by the voting public. That alone will put the Dems into culture shock… they remain certain the public is behind them on universal health care to this moment. Can you say “seriously in denial”??
Up until the infamous health care “summit”, the Dems were on the quest to paint the GOP not only as the party of “no”, but the party of “no ideas”. The GOP’s crowning moment was their preparedness for that public battle… you know, the one many of you thought they should not attend? I said they had no choice, but they’d better get their act together. Wasn’t sure they could, but they came thru with flying colors.
It was, to date, the most positive media coverage of the GOP approach. I will give them five stars for their performance there.
@MataHarley:
The GOP would be wise to give credit where credit is due, mantra style, repeating it over and over so the MSM has no choice but to report it that way. Power to the public….. independents, real democrats, conservatives, even non-political people have had their fill of the tin-earred current leadership. They said no, they rose up, called, wrote, marched and have made their voices heard to all but the leadership. A gracious GOP would be very attractive after what we’ve all been through, we have all had it with the arrogance, a dash of humility is the way to go.
And, keep putting Paul Ryan out there as well as some of the other GOP attendees of the summit. Slaughter…..Ryan, contrast, compare. Lamar Alexander vs “poor baby, poor baby” Pelosi. Get going GOP!
Forgot to add, good work on this thread Mata and the FA team, authors and commentors! I enjoyed reading this thread!
@MataHarley: So even on the cusp of success you still can’t praise GOP leadership in the House and Senate?
Tsk, tsk, tsk!
If GOP leaders had rolled over long ago and accepted the inevitability of this bill passing it would be law by now. You’re correct when you suggest that there were many heroes in this fight outside of Congress but let’s give our folks the credit they deserve. God knows I intend to bash them when they are wrong (Lindsey Graham on immigration and cap and tax).
Never before has there been a united GOP in both the House and Senate. That isn’t something that just happened. It had to be led and it was led by people like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.
We’ve also got folks like Jon Kyl of Arizona and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and a host of others who have done a “masterful job” of leading in Congress and leading in public opinion.
I almost forgot my favorite homestate Senator Jim DeMint who along with Tom Coburn of Oklahoma had the guts to demand Dems read the bill out loud on the Senate floor.
This fight isn’t done yet and we may still lose. But from what I see happening in the Congress with the conduct of our team in the face of this legislative coup we have already won in so many ways.
Give our guys the credit they are due or don’t expect them to stand with you in the future.
Mike, I gave the GOP credit exactly where it was due… their stellar performance at the “summit” (as well as ignoring calls from many not to attend), and remaining united. I will not lavish them with praise for acts and actions for which they were not responsible.
Were Congressional GOP members responsible for driving public opinion? Far from it. Those kudos belong to radio and TV talking heads, political bloggers and media analysts who dissected the bill and it’s fiscal impact, etc.
Additionally, it was not the Congressional members who have been informing the public of the true problems we face… the rise of overhead costs to the medical service providers.
I’m standing with @Missy here. The GOP would do well for *them* to give credit where credit is due. A little humility is in order.
And INRE your comment, “…. or don’t expect them to stand with you in the future.” These bozos work for us, Mike. If you’re looking around carefully, you’ll see there is no partisan nepotism going on with disgruntled Congressional members who decide that he or she knows better what is good for the nation at large.
If, in the future, they don’t “stand” with the public, they’ll find themselves kicked to the curb for someone else. There is a rising lack of tolerance for arrogance, and none of us are in the mood to feed career politicians’ egos.
To my own way of thinking, desperately needed health care reform measures are once again being derailed by profit-oriented special interests, who are becoming increasingly skillful at countering reasoned argument with media-driven, fear-provoking disinformation blitzes. (Death panels, anyone? Rationing? How about the Socialist Menace that lurks behind every democratic reform measure?) This approach will be even more effective in the near future, now that the SCOTUS has effectively removed limits on how much money may be spent to mold and shape public perception and opinion.
The current package is undoubtedly far from perfect, but it is an effective means of breaking the log jam. With passage we would be forced to undertake a long-term and long overdue overhaul of the entire health care system. Without passage, we’ll most likely do nothing of any real consequence. We’ll simply apply a series of meaningless, politically innocuous bandaids, until we eventually find ourselves with a grossly disfunctional, financially unsustainable system. Of course, vast sums of money will have been extracted by special interests along the way.
I suppose that’s why a lot of frustrated democrats are willing to push the damn plunger–even at the risk of being hit by falling logs come November.
@MataHarley: Again, there should be no confusion here. I NEVER suggested that GOP leadership were responsible for the outpouring of public protest against Obama Care.
But they have done a “masterful” job of playing their part which is a KEY ROLE in stopping and slowing down this monstrosity.
I think they deserve a real pat on the back and our support for doing so. I don’t understand why you come to that same conclusion grudgingly.
Article 1, Section 7, 2nd Clause:
Impeachment proceedings must be filed against every member of our government that goes along with this “Slaughter” of our laws.
THIS is tyranny. THIS is the work of the enemy within. THIS is Facism.
I believe that entire clause simply lays out the procedure whereby a presidental objection to legislation can overridden by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress. “All such cases” refers to legislation that the president has objected to and refused to sign.
@ Greg.
You are very wrong about that sir. Please study the Article, and ALL it’s sections and clauses. There are no other entries detailing how Bills are approved.
The reason for this, is the fact that it’s bloody OBVIOUS that all Bills must be seen and adjudicated by all representatives BEFORE it’s sent for the president’s signature, and there is no need to further define what’s proscribed.
@Greg:
The very first sentence of that section is the key:
Furthermore, the formal recording of the votes into the ledgers of each of the chambers has been the procedure that has always been followed since the signing of the Constitution.
Saying that the particular clause in question refers only to occasions when a veto is being overridden is, of course, a convenient interpretation because it fits the argument you are trying to make. History and precedent, however, disagree with you.
Article I, Section 5 lays out the requirement for a recorded vote if 1/5 of those present want it:
The simple fact that the Dims are trying to “deem” a bill as having passed the House without a vote is a clear cut violation of the Constitution which should send a chill through every American.
If Congress can just “deem” things to be the way that they want them to be then where does that authority end? How far can they go when they just make up their mind they can do whatever the hell they want to do?
Where is the “in writing” record of a particular CongressCritter when We the People want to know how they are voting? That was, after all, the intent of the Founders. They wanted the citizens to be able to know how their representatives were voting on the issues.
Each and every member of Congress takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The President takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
This blatant attempt to sidestep what is a basic requirement is an abrogation of those oaths.
For the Dims to simply set aside what is clearly a requirement of the Constitution is, indeed, grounds for impeachment.