|
Let's hear it for some reconciliation moral equivalence! (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I feel sorry for you. If they're so pointless, why do you even bother to respond to them? Do you have a life? Do you realize how silly you sound? Do you realize how obvious it is that I got under your skin and you're trying to come up with a witty, albeit witless dig at me? I could really care less. |
Oh yea, I'm crying in my panties because you "got under my skin".:rolleyes: I'm laughing at your descent into ad-hominems, great job there buddy. Just showing how hypocritical you yourself are being by "pointing out" hypocrisy in our government. I'd take you seriously if perhaps your criticisms weren't so blatantly one-sided. I'm just making the point that the party in power needs to exercise their power irrespective of what the opposition thinks. They're called "opposition" for a reason.
| quote: | | I didn't realize that public libraries were equivalent to schools, complete with qualified teachers. Is that the best come back you have? |
Every public school I went to also had its own library. So the kids not only have public libraries, they have school libraries to fill their hearts desire of books. No need for me to "come back" at you, as it's pretty clear how baseless your argument is/was. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
a) I assumed you were dead (much like this forum that I'm about to throw the towel in on). Long time no speak. I hope things are going well for you. |
So you're going to quit the forum because not everyone agrees with you?:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
So you're going to quit the forum because not everyone agrees with you?:rolleyes: |
No, I'm going to come here less and less because I've noticed a steadily declining trend in forum participation, particularly by some of the more respected minds in here. |
|
|
| Shakka |
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...?KEYWORDS=frist
| quote: |
A Historic and Dangerous Senate Mistake
Using 'reconciliation' to ram through health reform would only deepen partisan passions.
By BILL FRIST
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced that while Democrats have a number of options to complete health-care legislation, he may use the budget reconciliation process to do so. This would be an unprecedented, dangerous and historic mistake.
Budget reconciliation is an arcane Senate procedure whereby legislation can be passed using a lowered threshold of requisite votes (a simple majority) under fast-track rules that limit debate. This process was intended for incremental changes to the budget�not sweeping social legislation.
Using the budget reconciliation procedure to pass health-care reform would be unprecedented because Congress has never used it to adopt major, substantive policy change. The Senate's health bill is without question such a change: It would fundamentally alter one-fifth of our economy.
The first use of this special procedure was in the fall of 1980, as the Democratic majority in Congress moved to reduce entitlement programs in response to candidate Ronald Reagan's focus on the growing deficit. Throughout the 1980s and '90s, reconciliation was used to reduce deficit projections and to enact budget enforcement mechanisms. In early 2001, with projected surpluses well into the future, it was used to return a portion of that surplus to the public by changing tax rates.
Senators of both parties have assiduously avoided using budget reconciliation as a mechanism to pass expansive social legislation that lacks bipartisan support. In 1993, Democratic leaders�including the dean of Senate procedure and an author of the original Budget Act, Robert C. Byrd� appropriately prevailed on the Clinton administration not to use reconciliation to adopt its health-care agenda. It was used to pass welfare reform in 1996, an entitlement program, but the changes had substantial bipartisan support.
In 2003, while I was serving as majority leader, Republicans used the reconciliation process to enact tax cuts. I was approached by members of my own caucus to use reconciliation to extend prescription drug coverage to millions of Medicare recipients. I resisted. The Congress considered the legislation under regular order, and the Medicare Modernization Act passed through the normal legislative procedure in 2003.
The same concerns I expressed about using this procedure to fast-track prescription drug expansions with a simple majority vote were similarly expressed by Majority Leader Reid, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, and others last year when they chose not to use the procedure to enact their health-care legislation. Over the past several months, an additional 15 Democratic senators have expressed opposition to using this tool.
The concerns about using reconciliation to bypass Senate rules which do not limit debate reflect the late New York Democratic Sen. Pat Moynihan's admonishment�that significant policy changes impacting almost all Americans should be adopted with bipartisan support if the legislation is to survive and be supported in the public arena.
Applying the reconciliation process is dangerous because it would likely destroy its true purpose, which is to help enact fiscal policy consistent with an agreed-upon congressional budget blueprint. Worse, using reconciliation to amend a bill before it has become law in order to avoid the normal House and Senate conference procedure is a total affront to the legislative process.
Finally, enacting sweeping health-care reform through reconciliation is a mistake because of rapidly diminishing public support for the strictly partisan Senate and House health bills. The American people disdain the backroom deals that have been cut with the hospital and pharmaceutical industries, the unions, the public display of the "cornhusker kickback," etc. The public will likely�and in my opinion, rightly�rebel against the use of a procedural tactic to lower the standard threshold for passage because of a lack of sufficient support in the Senate.
Americans want bipartisan solutions for major social and economic issues; they don't want legislative gimmicks that force unpopular legislation through the Senate. Thomas Jefferson once referred to the Senate as "the cooling saucer" of the legislative process. Using budget reconciliation in this way would dramatically alter the founders' intent for the Senate, and transform it from cooling saucer to a boiling teapot of partisanship.
Mr. Reid was right to rule out this option when this saga began last year. He would be wise to abandon it today.
Mr. Frist served as U.S. Senate majority leader from 2003�2007. |
|
|
|
| Itarill� |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
So you're going to quit the forum because not everyone agrees with you?:rolleyes: |
It's not whether or not everyone agrees with you. This forum, from what I've remembered from the times I used to frequent it, was one where people discuss and debate about issues someone chooses to post here. That is why this forum is titled "Political Discussion/Debate"
People like yourself making such accusatory comments at the number of times you have made showed no promise of you being able to Discuss and or Debate in a manner that could carry any topic afloat. That is why a lot of the people I used to see frequent here post less.
Sorry to say, but don't flatter yourself here. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Itarill�
It's not whether or not everyone agrees with you. This forum, from what I've remembered from the times I used to frequent it, was one where people discuss and debate about issues someone chooses to post here. That is why this forum is titled "Political Discussion/Debate"
People like yourself making such accusatory comments at the number of times you have made showed no promise of you being able to Discuss and or Debate in a manner that could carry any topic afloat. That is why a lot of the people I used to see frequent here post less.
Sorry to say, but don't flatter yourself here. |
Sorry if I don't give pats on the head for merely having an opinion. That's hardly why a lot of regulars disappeared. |
|
|
| Itarill� |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
Sorry if I don't give pats on the head for merely having an opinion. That's hardly why a lot of regulars disappeared. |
You've missed my point here. As I've said, it's not about whether or not everyone agrees with you here. Expressing opinions is what matters, first and foremost. But if it cannot expressed in spirit of a good, constructive debate without having to throw in insults, it wears thin on the concept this forum was formed on. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Itarill�
You've missed my point here. As I've said, it's not about whether or not everyone agrees with you here. Expressing opinions is what matters, first and foremost. But if it cannot expressed in spirit of a good, constructive debate without having to throw in insults, it wears thin on the concept this forum was formed on. |
This forum has always been a place where insults were thrown around. It's been that way for years. That's just the nature of politics. Personally, I try to dish out only what I myself am given. I don't ad hominem just for the sake of it. I'd really rather call it out than respond in kind. I really don't think participation in this forum is down because a few got their feelings hurt. But I'm not saying you don't have a point. Sometimes, it seems hostile enough for some to not want to bother. But it's politics, that's just how it is. No one is going to pat anyone on the head just for having an opinion. I think it should be expected that for every opinion out there, there is going to be one diametrically the opposite, if not hostile, which makes for very interesting discussions/debates, which can get heated, but isn't that what makes this forum fun? |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
Participation in the forum is down because most of the discussions have already been had. Things have been moving so slowly in Washington that all we'd be doing is regurgitating the same talking points over and over.
Nothing old is getting done, nothing new is happening, so what's there to discuss? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Participation in the forum is down because most of the discussions have already been had. Things have been moving so slowly in Washington that all we'd be doing is regurgitating the same talking points over and over.
Nothing old is getting done, nothing new is happening, so what's there to discuss? |
There's plenty to discuss--the world is non stop news! People I am most familiar with just come here less. I can speculate reasons why several people in mind may have disengaged, but I suppose that is often the fate of many Internet forums.
Some topics for debate:
Are the Haitian and Chilean earthquakes signs of global warming? Or perhaps of man's continued impact on the environment?
Should hydraulic fracking of shale formations be outlawed if groundwater contamination cannot be contained?
Did the Canadian women's hockey team overreact/overcelebrate their olympic victory? Should they be punished for their behavior?
Is Hugo Chavez an ? |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| Nothing was more fun debating than the topic of the war in Iraq. And creationism. But all the war hawks and creationists ran away.:( |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
speaking of creationism..I've been wanting an excuse to share this video for a while. Hitchens' opening statement is one of the most devastating critique of Christianity I've ever heard. :) I highly recommend watching. It's 15 minutes, from 8:00-23:00.
|
|
|
|
|
