[mvpel]

I guess the silver lining is that if they change the rules to pass it, we’ll only need 50 votes to repeal it in 2010.

[Puppage]

I guess the silver lining is that if they change the rules to pass it, we’ll only need 50 votes to repeal it in 2010

Good luck with that. Once they give this massive freebee out to millions of "gimmees", it's there to stay.

[Jim Noble]

we’ll only need 50 votes to repeal it in 2010.

True, but if repeal is vetoed by the President (guaranteed), you need 290 votes in the House and 67 in the Senate to override.

THAT rule they can't change.

[Achilles Heel]

Yes—my thoughts too. If it takes only 50 votes to push through, it will just need 50 votes to nullify. I hope all Repubbies in office understand this.

[upchuck]

I guess the silver lining is that if they change the rules to pass it, we’ll only need 50 votes to repeal it in 2010.

Which -12nobama will then veto and we won't have the 3/4 majority to override the veto.

I really, really hate to admit this, but it appears that if this is passed, we are screwed.

However, we can mightily express our dissatisfaction by voting out the RATS and all the RINOS in 2010.

[FR_addict]

“I guess the silver lining is that if they change the rules to pass it, we’ll only need 50 votes to repeal it in 2010.”

But the President will veto anything passed by Republicans in 2010.

[Muzzle_em]

IF that were possible, considering any Republicans do not have the spine (or gnads) to do that, even if they have the majority, you know the Dems will simply change the rules BACK to suit their agenda (like they did in Mass regarding the governor being able to appoint a Senator to replace Kennedy).

They DISGUST me!

I wonder, IF we ever saw 60 Republican senators in the congress, if they would become aggressive activists and do what needs to be done!

I think we know the answer to that.