Quote:
Originally Posted by capinkevey  I'm staring at my computer not really sure how to respond to that. Do you know how reconciliation works? They wouldn't need Nelson, or Lieberman for that matter. That's the whole point of doing it. You actually think if Brown wins that Obama is going to say "Hey Harry, let's just forget about that whole Health Care thing". This is the biggest piece of domestic legislation of his Presidency, and not passing anything would be a humiliating failure for him, and the Democratic party as a whole. Something will get passed, regardless of Brown winning or loosing.
|
You missed my point entirely
I know what reconciliation is. It's how Bush passed his tax cuts. But if the Dems were ever going to use it, they'd have done so long ago. Instead we've bartered with ourselves for the better part of the year, and the sold out minions of the insurance corporations till we have a bill that's basically worthless anyway.
If we really were ever going to use 50 +1, we'd have a public option no question. We'd have been using it as a threat all along, "Keep the PO in the bill and keep it strong, or else we're going to do this without you"
The dems have no balls. They're impotent on the world stage, and it's embarrassing.
They *could* use reconciliation, but my point is they won't. And this might be our last best chance at getting anything at all.
Nothing would get passed. The dems don't care about a humiliating failure for Obama or themselves. They'd* never go along with reconciliation. They'll just move on and hope the public forgets, like they always do. They'd say "we got closer to a vote than ever before, that's a victory, and we're going to try this again soon" and then promptly shut up about it forever.
The only hope now is to get this crappy bill. Then we'll have agreed in principal on a bill to fix health care. Then when it doesn't work, we can fight with the argument "We did a bill, and it's not working because of X Y AND Z. Now to fix the bill we need to do those things". Instead of arguing for the exitance of a bill from scratch all over again
When you've got a bill, and can say it's wasting money in X Y and Z ways, that's a stronger argument. Because you can say that we're spending money that is a waste so why not change how we're spending it? If you're not spending money on reform at all to start with, they can argue just never to start at all
*I am not going to derail the thread, but I personally believe the solution is to eliminate the senate entirely. I know why it exists, and it's supposed purpose. I'm a student of American History. It was not even supposed to be a popularly elected office in the first place. And it no longer has a reason to exist. Sorry, Nebraka does not deserve a voice equal in power with that of California, regardless of what body of congress we're talking about.
.
