TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Dishonest Democratic Politicians
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dishonest Democratic Politicians

post #1 of 134
3/16/10 at 1:18pm
Thread Starter 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...n_MIDDLESecond

Quote:
But it appears that Democrats are ignoring their own findings. Last week, President Obama backed away from his earlier demand that lawmakers' special deals be stripped out of the bill. Then there's Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who yesterday endorsed a parliamentary maneuver under which the House would "deem" the Senate's health care bill approved without the House voting on it.
I am so proud to say I am not a Democrat. It doesn't get much worse than this.

What can we expect, the American public elected a Chicago thug as POTUS, now we all suffer for it.
Reply
post #2 of 134
3/16/10 at 1:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...n_MIDDLESecond



I am so proud to say I am not a Democrat. It doesn't get much worse than this.

What can we expect, the American public elected a Chicago thug as POTUS, now we all suffer for it.
So, does this mean that any political party that has ever used this maneuver is nothing but dishonest thugs?
Reply
post #3 of 134
3/16/10 at 1:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
So, does this mean that any political party that has ever used this maneuver is nothing but dishonest thugs?
you can't possibly be insinuating that the Republican party has done this before???!!!!

*insert sarcasm here*
Reply
post #4 of 134
3/16/10 at 2:42pm
Thread Starter 
Do either one of you know what reconciliation is used for?

I can tell you what it is not used for, it is not used to nationalize 17% of the GDP. It is used to reconcile budget matters, period.

And Pelosi doesn't even want to have it go to a vote, let's just consider it passed already and take over 17% of the GDP.
Reply
post #5 of 134
3/16/10 at 2:45pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by katiemae1277 View Post
you can't possibly be insinuating that the Republican party has done this before???!!!!

*insert sarcasm here*
It is always good to study up on matters. (I won't throw that sarcasm back at you) as I know this entire boondoggle is a complicated mess and I didn't know the why and wherefores of Reconciliation myself until not to long ago. Most people just don't realize how big of a deal this really is. Good grief, yesterday the big news was the U.S. and the U.K. are in danger of losing their thriple AAA global credit rating. And Barack want to nationalize 17% of the GDP. This is stuff that will reverberate for generation for our kids, grandkids and greatgrandkids.

http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/bud_rec_proc.htm

Quote:
Created in a budget resolution in 1974 as part of the congressional budget process, the reconciliation process is utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution. First used in1980 this process was used at the end of a fiscal year to enact legislation to fine tune revenue and spending levels through legislation that could not be filibustered in the Senate. The policy changes brought about by this part of the budget process have served as constraints on the levels of mandatory spending and federal tax revenues which also has served since 1981 as a vehicle for deficit reduction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconci...tates_Congress)

Quote:
Byrd Rule
Further information: Sunset provision: The Budget Act and the Byrd Rule
Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:

1.if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
2.if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
3.if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
4.if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
5.if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and
6.if it recommends changes in Social Security
And last but not least, listen to Senator Bryd, a DEMOCRAT, in his own words.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBJCnY9phBM

Quote:
Senator Byrd Says Reconciliation Should Not be Used to Pass Controversial Legislation
It is a youtube video of, only 1:40 minutes, I challenge everyone who thinks the Democrats are not being dishonest to take one minute and forty seconds out of their busy life to listen to Senator Bryd, a Democrat.
Reply
post #6 of 134
3/16/10 at 2:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Do either one of you know what reconciliation is used for?

I can tell you what it is not used for, it is not used to nationalize 17% of the GDP. It is used to reconcile budget matters, period.

And Pelosi doesn't even want to have it go to a vote, let's just consider it passed already and take over 17% of the GDP.
Says who? What are the specific instructions for reconciliation, and where does it say it isn't used as such?
Reply
post #7 of 134
3/16/10 at 3:01pm
Thread Starter 
I gave links and even a youtube video above, please check it out.



When President Clinton wanted to use Reconciliation to pass Hillary's health care bill he called Senator Byrd on the telephone. In the youtube video Senator Bryd tells that story and tells what he told President Clinton and what Reconciliation is used for and if anyone should know it is Senator Bryd, good grief he is the author of:
Quote:
The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for
It doesn't get to much clearer than that.
Reply
post #8 of 134
3/16/10 at 3:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I gave links and even a youtube video above, please check it out.



When President Clinton wanted to use Reconciliation to pass Hillary's health care bill he called Senator Byrd on the telephone. In the youtube video Senator Bryd tells that story and tells what he told President Clinton and what Reconciliation is used for and if anyone should know it is Senator Bryd, good grief he is the author of:


It doesn't get to much clearer than that.
Hmm, it seems to be all "should's" and "should not's". I didn't hear a "can't" in there anywhere. It's big advantage appears to be avoiding filibusters, the threat of which "should not" be used in obstructionism, something that has been happening a lot lately.
Reply
post #9 of 134
3/16/10 at 3:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
What can we expect, the American public elected a Chicago thug as POTUS, now we all suffer for it.
You have no idea what a Chicago thug is. I take offense at this.

You're obviously against health care reform. Do you like to see thousands of people die each year because they don't have health insurance? Do you like to see hundreds of thousands of people lose their home through bankruptcy because they got sick and needed medical care?

I know, the democrats support it so it must be wrong.
Reply
post #10 of 134
3/16/10 at 3:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Byrd Rule
Further information: Sunset provision: The Budget Act and the Byrd Rule
Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:

1.if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
2.if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
3.if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
4.if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
5.if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and
6.if it recommends changes in Social Security
There it is.
Reply
post #11 of 134
3/16/10 at 3:34pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
You have no idea what a Chicago thug is. I take offense at this.

You're obviously against health care reform. Do you like to see thousands of people die each year because they don't have health insurance? Do you like to see hundreds of thousands of people lose their home through bankruptcy because they got sick and needed medical care?

I know, the democrats support it so it must be wrong.
Cite me some statistics of these thousands of people who die each year because of no health insurance. Where are your links?

I am for health care reform, I have said it about a thousand times on this board, I am not for the government taking over health care. The poorest of the poor are covered already by Medicaid.

Many people don't want to spend the money for health care because they would rather spend their money on other things.

There are MANY things they could do to bring down health care costs, they just won't do them. A government take over of health care is NOT the only way to obtain health care reform.

And health care will be rationed even more by Obamacare than by the health insurer's. Remember, "No surgery, take a pill instead" - Barack Obama
Reply
post #12 of 134
3/16/10 at 3:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
There it is.
So, which of those six do you think is the one that covers this specific instance? None of them quite appear to have it to me.
Reply
post #13 of 134
3/16/10 at 3:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Many people don't want to spend the money for health care because they would rather spend their money on other things.
Indeed that's us. I'd rather spend my money on silly things like mortgage, property taxes, food, fuel oil to heat the house (we've heated a LOT woth wood this year), gas to get to work, and electricity. At the $13000 / year that our health insurance company wanted to charge us (with a $5000 deductible) there isn't much room for luxuries.
Reply
post #14 of 134
3/16/10 at 3:48pm
They could legitimately use Reconciliation to pass parts of the bill.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/...ealthcare.html

Quote:
Things like subsidies to help low-income Americans buy health insurance are probably safe, because they clearly affect federal spending. But other big elements, like a government-run insurance plan or the insurance exchanges that would let Americans comparison shop for health plans, could be subject to debate because their direct impact on government spending is either minor or unclear.

The final decision, it turns out, rests with an obscure figure known as the Senate parliamentarian, who will basically give a thumbs up or thumbs down if Republicans claim that certain parts of the bill don't fall under the reconciliation rules, as they are almost certain to do. The current parliamentarian is Alan Frumin, who's served in both Republican- and Democratic-controlled Senates. For most duties, the Senate parliamentarian isn't viewed as a political figure. But if Democrats pursue reconciliation, Frumin could be one of the most politically influential figures of the year.
Reply
post #15 of 134
3/16/10 at 4:17pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
Indeed that's us. I'd rather spend my money on silly things like mortgage, property taxes, food, fuel oil to heat the house (we've heated a LOT woth wood this year), gas to get to work, and electricity. At the $13000 / year that our health insurance company wanted to charge us (with a $5000 deductible) there isn't much room for luxuries.
Then you aren't one of the "many".

But what makes you think you will be paying less under Obamacare?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health...verhaul_primer

Quote:
For example, a family of four making $44,000 would pay $2,763 in premiums _about 6 percent of its income_ for a policy worth $9,435.

But a similar family making $66,000 would have to pay $6,257 in premiums, close to 10 percent of its income. That may be less than a mortgage, but it's more than a car payment.

Once the exchanges open, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance or pay a fine. Medicaid would be expanded to cover childless adults living near poverty.
Reply
post #16 of 134
3/16/10 at 4:19pm
Thread Starter 
Did anyone take the time to view the 1:40 YouTube Video of Senator Byrd on Reconciliation as it pertained to Hillary Clinton's Health Care Bill back in the 1990's?
Reply
post #17 of 134
3/16/10 at 4:39pm
[quote=ckblv;2838936][color="Navy"][b]
Many people don't want to spend the money for health care because they would rather spend their money on other things.

There are MANY things they could do to bring down health care costs, they just won't do them. A government take over of health care is NOT the only way to obtain health care reform.

This is true. I know peole who say they can't afford health insurance. They take nice vacations. They have wide screen tvs, drive SUV's, own hunting dogs, boats, and other things that should be considered as luxuries compared to health insurance for children.
Reply
post #18 of 134
3/16/10 at 5:32pm
Interesting spot on one of the news channels last night.

Basically, they're telling people how to increase their dependents on their tax filings because there are states who do not have the money to pay them their refunds, or they may have to wait for 6 months to receive them. Make it so you owe them money. (Then figure a way to get out of paying it!)

And Social Security is beginning to call in their IOUs from the federal government, who doesn't have any money either.

If you have any money to invest, whether a bond is insured or not doesn't really make much difference. The insurer couldn't cover the losses anyway. And if you feel safe having those AAA rated government bonds, maybe you ought to think again.

And health care reform. IMO, they can't get it wrong this time. So shoving through another entitlement without popular support, or proof that it is actually going to solve the real problems without creating more, seems ill advised. Sure people said the sky was falling when Social Security and Medicare were created. Well, the sky may not have fallen yet, but you CAN reach up and touch it. If they won't start over now, we may get that opportunity in November. That could be a good thing.
Reply
post #19 of 134
3/16/10 at 6:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Then you aren't one of the "many".

But what makes you think you will be paying less under Obamacare?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health...verhaul_primer
The rock bottom honest answer is that I sincerely think that the current system whereby the health insurance companies can do as they please is so very rotten to the core, is that I can't see how it could get worse than it is.

The way I see it, if you have a roof with holes in it and the sun is always shining, you won't care. That is our health care system - full of holes. But now that the rain is falling and more and more people who are not covered by employer plans, Medicare or Medicaid are getting soaked, we're seeing how bad the system is. People who have employee benefits don't care, people who are on Medicare / Medicaid don't care. It's the rest of us who are out in the cold - and our numbers are growing, the ones who no longer have employee benefits and can't afford COBRA or who are getting it stuck to us by insurance companies because as individuals we have no clout who are mad as HE double toothpicks.

You want to read a good story please check this out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26664727/

And this too:
Quote:
About half of the bankruptcy filings in the United States are due to medical expenses. Source: Health Affairs Journal 2005
http://www.healthpaconline.net/healt...ted-states.htm
So basically I think things are so bad that they can't get any worse.
Reply
post #20 of 134
3/16/10 at 6:50pm
Thread Starter 
If you really think things can't get worse then I STRONGLY urge you to read up on The Great Depression. I assure you, things can get A LOT worse.

Here is the newest poll, dated TODAY, of Doctor's on the Health Care Bill.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/62812

Quote:
More than 29 percent (29.2) percent of the nearly 1,200 doctors who responded to the survey said they would quit the profession or retire early if health reform legislation becomes law. If a public option were included in the legislation, as several liberal Senators have indicated they would like, the number would jump to 45.7 percent
So, if this passed there is a more than even chance, while you may be covered, there won't be a doctor available if you need one.
Reply
post #21 of 134
3/16/10 at 6:56pm
Hey most doctors round here (the few that are here) aren't accepting new patients anyway. So the survey means nothing to those of us who are in unattractive rural areas. I get to see a nurse practitioner, period. Doctors? They prefer pricier regions.
And thanks to FDR, things are not likely to get as bad as they were before 1932. I'm talking about health care and the health insurance industry as it grew up following WW2. The system stinks and it wasn't obvious until times got tough. At least that's my view.
Reply
post #22 of 134
3/16/10 at 7:35pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
Hey most doctors round here (the few that are here) aren't accepting new patients anyway. So the survey means nothing to those of us who are in unattractive rural areas. I get to see a nurse practitioner, period. Doctors? They prefer pricier regions.
And thanks to FDR, things are not likely to get as bad as they were before 1932. I'm talking about health care and the health insurance industry as it grew up following WW2. The system stinks and it wasn't obvious until times got tough. At least that's my view.
Are you really saying that there is no way our economy could collapse? Really?

Take a gander at this

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...=a0a8xAghPS8I#

Quote:
March 15 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and the U.K. have moved “substantially†closer to losing their AAA credit ratings as the cost of servicing their debt rose, according to Moody’s Investors Service.

Under the ratings company’s so-called baseline scenario, the U.S. will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other top-rated country except the U.K., and will be the biggest spender from 2011 to 2013, Moody’s said today in a report.
Do you have any idea what that means? And Barack just continues to spend, spend, spend. What would happen if China finally gets sick of it and calls in their loans?

I read somewhere what this country pays just in INTEREST on all the loans it has out there and that is a bipartisan debt. But the figure was so flipping high it will boggle your mind.
Reply
post #23 of 134
3/16/10 at 7:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
If you really think things can't get worse then I STRONGLY urge you to read up on The Great Depression. I assure you, things can get A LOT worse.

Here is the newest poll, dated TODAY, of Doctor's on the Health Care Bill.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/62812



So, if this passed there is a more than even chance, while you may be covered, there won't be a doctor available if you need one.
Well gee whiz, of course a lot of doctors would quit. They wouldn't have the bottomless cash cow to bleed dry anymore. And if you can't hustle enough money for 3 BMW's and a super yacht, what's the point in even doing the job.
Reply
post #24 of 134
3/16/10 at 7:46pm
I would like to see them slow down even if it means starting over. It seems like they are just trying to ramrod something through just to say that they did something, which I never think is a good approach. If they really want to reform the health care system, then reform the entire system and not just insurance.

I have zero confidence in them passing legislation and then going back to fix what works and what doesn't. They aren't that trustworthy or competent.
Reply
post #25 of 134
3/16/10 at 7:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
I would like to see them slow down even if it means starting over. It seems like they are just trying to ramrod something through just to say that they did something, which I never think is a good approach. If they really want to reform the health care system, then reform the entire system and not just insurance.

I have zero confidence in them passing legislation and then going back to fix what works and what doesn't. They aren't that trustworthy or competent.
I agree on most of what you say, but: I think it's time to do something. Our choices are either do something, or continue the decades of doing nothing, for perhaps decades longer. It appears to me that if politicians would simply admit the truth, it would be that the entire roadblock to reform is both sides being afraid that the other side would get the credit (and brownie points) for getting it done, so they prevent anything from happening for no other reason that to prevent it from happening.
Reply
post #26 of 134
3/16/10 at 8:23pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Well gee whiz, of course a lot of doctors would quit. They wouldn't have the bottomless cash cow to bleed dry anymore. And if you can't hustle enough money for 3 BMW's and a super yacht, what's the point in even doing the job.
So, you don't think doctor's should be compensated well for what they do? Medical school costs lots of money, they have to pay back all their student loans, after all. lol

I don't think all doctor's have 3 Beemers and super yacht. I'm sure some do but I am thinking that is rare.

Reply
post #27 of 134
3/16/10 at 8:24pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
I agree on most of what you say, but: I think it's time to do something. Our choices are either do something, or continue the decades of doing nothing, for perhaps decades longer. It appears to me that if politicians would simply admit the truth, it would be that the entire roadblock to reform is both sides being afraid that the other side would get the credit (and brownie points) for getting it done, so they prevent anything from happening for no other reason that to prevent it from happening.
I agree with that and that it is so flipping pathetic it makes me grind my teeth.
Reply
post #28 of 134
3/16/10 at 8:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
So, you don't think doctor's should be compensated well for what they do? Medical school costs lots of money, they have to pay back all their student loans, after all. lol

I don't think all doctor's have 3 Beemers and super yacht. I'm sure some do but I am thinking that is rare.
Well, a lot of what I posted was an exaggeration. But, I do honestly think that a percentage (how much? I dunno) are saying they will leave the profession because they've been milking the system the whole time and would really, really rather not lose such a highly lucrative leaking bucket.
Reply
post #29 of 134
3/16/10 at 8:52pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Well, a lot of what I posted was an exaggeration. But, I do honestly think that a percentage (how much? I dunno) are saying they will leave the profession because they've been milking the system the whole time and would really, really rather not lose such a highly lucrative leaking bucket.
Now if what you mean by "milking the system" is medicare fraud I would say good riddance. I have to think that many doctors actually are in it to help people, at least I hope so.

Breaking News

http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/o...nt-very-happy/

Quote:
I was tipped off to a study done by the Beacon Hill Institute. I need to read the study to get a better understanding of it (it will be released tomorrow I am told) - but I was tipped off to the conclusion about jobs..and the conclusion is grim! Here is what I received:

"...This bill will cost jobs using non-partisan numbers from CBO. This is executive summary of the study from Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston.."
Sorry, I know you aren't a Greta fan.
Reply
post #30 of 134
3/16/10 at 9:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
I agree on most of what you say, but: I think it's time to do something. Our choices are either do something, or continue the decades of doing nothing, for perhaps decades longer. It appears to me that if politicians would simply admit the truth, it would be that the entire roadblock to reform is both sides being afraid that the other side would get the credit (and brownie points) for getting it done, so they prevent anything from happening for no other reason that to prevent it from happening.
I believe most people agree that our health care system is broken and needs fixing. But Obamacare isn't the answer. This bill in all its various Senate and House versions makes a bigger mess of an already messy situation. Most of us who are vehemently against this bill want reform, but not in one convoluted messy bill. Break it down into manageable bites like,
1. Allow all health insurance to be sold across state lines - this would increase competition and possibly lower rates.
2. Eliminate the pre-existing condition provision for new policies.
3. Pass tort reform - limit the amount juries could award for malpractice to realistic amounts. Obviously this would lower costs.

I think it is ridiculous to have bills that are larger than the LA phone book. There is no reason or justification for any bill to be larger and more complex that our Constitution written by the founding fathers 220+ years ago.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Dishonest Democratic Politicians