Posted on 03/03/2010 5:25:00 PM PST by blueyon
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that Republicans running in this fall's midterms will campaign on repealing the Democrats' healthcare reform bill should it pass.
McConnell held a press conference at the Capitol soon after President Barack Obama urged lawmakers to take a final "up-or-down vote" on the health bill, but did not use the word "reconciliation."
"I assure you that if somehow this bill is passed, it won't be behind our Democratic friends it will be ahead of them because every election this fall will be a referendum on this issue," McConnell said. "And there's an overwhelming likelihood that every Republican candidate will be campaigning to repeal it."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Some of the debates under S.2611 brought up the relationship between unemployment and immigration. The reprieve is temporary. The government craves an increase in population to feed the Social Security and similar beasts.
“And then, when it is done, the Republicans make their greatest of all threats: to Renounce the National Debt!”
The GOP would never do it, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t become an issue. If those lending the money thought that renunciation was a threat, they would divest themselves in a New York minute.
Divest to who? Right now, both the Chinese and the Japanese are stuck with far more than a trillion dollars of US debt, and would like nothing better than to dump it. Except doing so would find few if any buyers, and crash the value of their paper assets.
That statement simply doesn’t make any sense.
Yes it can . . . with a 2/3 vote in both houses. Don't hold your breath for that.
And again, the President can veto, and to override the veto, they’d need a 2/3 vote in both houses. You think that will be easy to do?
Ill take a wait and see approach. We havee seen the GOP/RNC cave in too many times.
The debate for each amendment is timed. However, there is no limit to the number of ‘relevent’ amendments that can be introduced.
Trey this. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, and it needs new marks in order to extend the life of the scheme. Demographics in this country bode ill for age-based entitlement programs. Immigration reform is all about increasing the population base in order to extend the Ponzi schemes.
That would only work if most illegals were making enough money to be paying much in taxes. Most Mexican illegals lowly educated, low skill folks, who are a drain on our resources, and will take far more than they put it, even if they were legalized.
I agree that there isn't a numerical limit, but the total time for debate (regardless of how many amendments come into view) is 20 hours, maybe a few more to account for the time of day or last minute bitchin'.
So, there is a practical limit, and that limit exists two ways. First, by the total time allotted to consider reconciliation; and second, by the limited power of any given Senator to call amendments up for debate under Senate rules.
When this "number of amendments is unlimited" meme surfaced, I looked at the rules cited for the proposition, and they are no different than Rule XXII which provides for 30 hours of post-cloture debate, or any number of other statutory time limits for considering certain types of legislation.
Heck, under normal rules, any single amendment is entitled to unlimited debate - which as a practical matter triggers the use of cloture to get over objection - so a string of new amendments spaced about 4 days apart would have the effect of blocking action, even if 60+ Senators object to the blocking. The way this "normal rule" is suspended is to say "20 hours of debate, total, do whatever you want with your 20 hours." Otherwise the 20 hour time limit would be without effect.
The government doesn't look at it that way. If each worker is a small contributor to FICA, then (under government logic), the country needs MORE of them.
Center for Governmental Studies "Immigration and immigration policy"
Thanks for the info.
As far as the direct proposition of passing health care under the reconciliation process, the only thing that can be done is to present a credible threat of hell to pay. The GOP can bring the Senate to a standstill on most anything - but there's no way to stop a reconciliation clock when 51 Senators are determined to run with it. Same was true of the GOP's planned undoing of the abuse of cloture in the context of judicial nominations (the nuclear option). The DEMs couldn't have stopped that, but enough Senators (GOP and DEM alike) scuttled the plan out of fear of retribution.
You missed my point. They can refuse to fund it at every appropriation juncture and other procedural steps along the way to 2012 none of which need POTUS signature.. This bill has a lot of steps to completion way beyond even Obama's second term should we be so unlucky ..though a second term would signal folks want what he has done..his far left goals.
It could be delayed and damaged demonstrably before 2012 when then possibly if we hold the white house repealed.
I see this bill as the strongest possiblity of repeal if it gets passed now than any bill I have seen in my life but in the meantime it can be stalled or wounded even is passed if we win back the House in November.
“Divest to who? Right now, both the Chinese and the Japanese are stuck with far more than a trillion dollars of US debt, and would like nothing better than to dump it. Except doing so would find few if any buyers, and crash the value of their paper assets.”
The Chinese and Japanese are pretty much trapped for the reasons you mentioned, but they sure aren’t forced to buy more. Smaller holders and investors aren’t trapped at all. The treasury is constantly selling new debt. To quote James Carville: “God****, whoever the bond market is, these b*****ds are powerful.”
Your idea is a very dangerous one.
Calm down, friend. I never called you a "liar", even if I did disagree with your estimate. Yours is the lowest crowd estimate that I've ever seen from any witness of the 9/12 DC march.
Lest you've forgotten, threads about the crowd size went on here (and all over the net) for weeks after the march. It became something of a raging controversy, with the leftstream media trying to give the impression that it wasn't all that large of a gathering, while actual participants on our side testified that that it was easily the largest public gathering in DC history.
Some people even used aerial photographs and mathematical models to estimate the true size of the crowd. In the end, it was proven by several researchers that the crowd was very likely 2 million strong.
You're entitled to your opinion, but it's at odds with most other observers'.
Well DAMN Windflier
I counted them myself .. one at a time!
LOL Just kidding!
We will probably never know the truth so .. until then .. Truce?
Using this generic crowd estimate map by USA Today you can see the front area alone (which was filled) equals 240,000. Most of the detailed analysis put the count at around 600,000 but sadly some (Like BOR) used a much lower count from a fire source.
No problem on this end. It's just an academic debate to me.
Bottom line is, no matter how many people actually showed up at the 9/12 DC march, it made an impact. A big one, even though the first thing the libs did was to ignore or discount it.
Heck, remember what Barry said right afterward? His first statement about the march was something along the lines of, "What march? There was a march? Who knew?"
Baloney.... He and all the rest of the cowardly Dems got the heck out of Dodge that weekend precisely to avoid the Tea Party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.