ReconciliationFollow

Obama is the most arrogant childish president i've every seen. It continues to amaze me that the Democrats elected such a whiny spoiled brat.

Democrat speaking time in this facade of bipartisanship 74 minutes GOP 37 minutes.

I thought this was supposed to be a forum where the GOP could lay out there plans for fixing healthcare? We've already had to stomach 400+ Obama speeches on healthcare are they really that afraid of letting the other side be heard; nevermind, of course they are.

Does anyone know if reconciliation has ever been used in this way before?

Does this mean the next time the GOP has control of congress and the Presidency they can use reconciliation anytime they feel like it?

Also does the process not matter anymore?



We can't have a equitable debate if speaking time favors the Dems 2 to 1.

They had there chance to push this garbage through and get the american people behind it; THEY FAILED. Then again the last thing the Dems want is the american people hearing workable alternatives.

Democrats are going to be trounced this November so they know they had better get this piece of sh*t through now, without public support.

I did? Can you find that thread, please? Cause I don't remember that.

Also:



What Joph said.

Reconciliation is the R in COBRA insurance.

Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

Passed in 1986.

Actually, if communism had existed, I expect that Ben Franklin et al would have looked at it and said, "What a fascinating philosophy, in theory. But it could be abused rampantly in practice. We could take some of these concepts and incorporate them into our new form of government, however."

And they probably would have, and it would have been good.

No, I'm that @#%^ing smart. The Founding Fathers were Deists, men of the Enlightenment. They believed that there were good ideas everywhere. They were pissed off that England wouldn't seat the colonies in Parliament. Communism as we know it didn't exist when the US was founded; Karl Marx wasn't even born until 1818.

Ben Franklin was a polymath. He was not only a brilliant politician and scholar, he was also an inventor. He was interested in everything. He also felt that there was a lot of good in the government of England still; that's why a lot of our Constitution was built around the Magna Carta and English common law.

He would have been interested in what Karl Marx had to say. He wouldn't have agreed with it all. Even true followers of Communism argue over Marx. But hell, he didn't agree with Jesus being divine either. Nor did Thomas Jefferson.

They were men of letters. They loved books. They loved ideas, and would take the best of them, and leave the rest behind. That's why the Constitution is so strong - it's all the good ideas from government that had been created in the last 2000 years, going back to BC Greek and Roman times - with all the sh*t that didn't work so well (like kings) cut out.

Edit: Ben Franklin cited his largest actual influence as a series of sermons by the Puritan preacher Cotton Mather. The book preached the importance of forming voluntary associations to benefit society. He believed very firmly that the best way to show devotion to God was to help your fellow man.

Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington also all owned copies of the Koran. The Jefferson copy is still in the Library of Congress today; it was what Rep. Keith Ellison was sworn in on.


Edited, Feb 26th 2010 2:04am by catwho

And what part of this can't you understand? Ben Franklin would have never gone on a personal responsibility screed, saying that those who were poor or in trouble were in that state because of their own personal failings, and as such, they deserved no assistance from anyone successful. I think he would have liked the idea of workers collectively owning a business together, for example. (By the by, such communistic undertakings do occur in the US, for that matter. Bob of Bob's Red Mill Farms just bequeathed the business to the workers to celebrate his 70th birthday. He figured that no one else would have a better reason to keep the business alive than the people who were already employed by it.)

You've picked a pretty weak argument, Cat. Franklin believed in self reliance and hard work. Jefferson advocated for work houses for the poor and for beggars. Neither of them had a lot to say about the role of government in setting that up, as far as I know (and I freely admit this is not my area).

Possibly. You won't make any headway with an argument that can't be supported, though.

Okay, evidence.

Someone go get me a time machine.