Hummm ... isgk .... I stand corrected. You are right. I don't believe Medicare Part D was passed by reconciliation. However, reconciliation has been used to pass nearly all major health reforms over the last thirty years. Here is a link to an NPR article that nicely lists all the major legislation passed by reconciliation, as well as some of the minor things also passed by the same process:<a class="user" href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124009985" rel="nofollow">http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...</a>P.S.: It was me who was ignorant ... At least until I was forced to look this information up.
Missed that part about "a vote for cloture is not a fillibuster".From the article you cite... "The frequency of filibusters — plus threats to use them — are measured by the number of times the upper chamber votes on cloture".There have been many threats to have a filibuster, however, I can find no source claiming that one has actually occurred.
"The GOP blew it months ago. They should have been at the table, eating humble pie and hoping for Obama to be nice enough to tell the House to include some GOP ideas. Now he's going to include the GOP ideas, but with HIS branding, HIS definition."Hahaha... Dems will be eating humble pie in about six months. Heaping helpings of it.
hblask: I want some proof that specifically shows Bush, "increased regulations at a record rate" and furthermore I want to know what KIND of regulations. Even if you supplied that I would be skeptical that he pushed many of them himself, but it would give you something to stand on.
hblask: That graph is essentially useless without context provided. Furthermore it doesn't even say what you claim it does. It is for regulatory spending, you said he increased "regulations at a record rate" and your graph simply doesn't do anything to prove that.The study it is linked to gives a lot more clues on what makes up that increase and it sure isn't regulation like I was talking about, or like what most people think of. It was the DHS.Reading over the report, they separate out regulatory spending into several different categories. One of these, homeland security (DHS, TSA, etc.) has experienced by far the largest growth in spending from 7,874 in 2000 to 16,562 in 2007 (in millions of dollars). Finance and banking (i.e. what actually might have helped) by comparison went up all the way from 1,965 in 2000 to 2,065 in 2007 (in millions of dollars). Lets compare that to 1990 to 2000, where even with some of Clinton's misguided deregulation we saw it go from 1,598 in 1990 to 1,965 in 2000. That is all in constant 2000 dollars.Oh and whats that, the number of employees in regulatory agencies involving finance and banking DROPPED from 2000 to 2007 from 13,310 to 11,637 (-1,673)? Meanwhile the number of employees in Homeland Security jumped by 60,881 and the total number of employees by...62,751. So going by your own study there were all of 1,871 more employees in all regulatory agencies other than DHS in 2007 than when George Bush came into office. Brilliant.Sauce: <a class="user" href="http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/1-regulatoryagency20080807_wc-regulators_budget_09.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publicatio ...</a>Next time you try to argue something, make sure you actually know what the f**k you're talking about hblask. Buried.
I don't think you really understand what reconciliation means in the context of how it will be used or the process it represents.You did a good job on using a straight definition of what the 'word' reconciliation means, but the process itself is quite different than what you are expecting.You can't pass mandates via reconciliation.Bottom-line, Democrats had 60 votes 4-5 months ago in which to pass it. So, uh, yeah. It's quite apparent that this is either:a) a way to pass a massive bill that the public does NOT want (otherwise it would have passed 4 months ago with the supermajorities)or b) Democrats (Obama) does not expect Healthcare to pass, they are simply extending a period of time for the Republicans to muddy the waters and therefore reduce their effect in the 2010 election cycle.
Unless Republicans can figure out a way to repeal the whole bill through reconciliation which is INCREDIBLY unlikely to pass muster, then they won't be able to do that. So consider me unconcerned.I'm also pretty unconcerned about Republicans taking back over the House or Senate this November, but that is another topic.
olivestreetMar 4, 2010
Hummm ... isgk .... I stand corrected. You are right. I don't believe Medicare Part D was passed by reconciliation. However, reconciliation has been used to pass nearly all major health reforms over the last thirty years. Here is a link to an NPR article that nicely lists all the major legislation passed by reconciliation, as well as some of the minor things also passed by the same process:<a class="user" href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124009985" rel="nofollow">http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...</a>P.S.: It was me who was ignorant ... At least until I was forced to look this information up.
evilnecroMar 5, 2010
Missed that part about "a vote for cloture is not a fillibuster".From the article you cite... "The frequency of filibusters — plus threats to use them — are measured by the number of times the upper chamber votes on cloture".There have been many threats to have a filibuster, however, I can find no source claiming that one has actually occurred.
atomheartmotherMar 5, 2010
"The GOP blew it months ago. They should have been at the table, eating humble pie and hoping for Obama to be nice enough to tell the House to include some GOP ideas. Now he's going to include the GOP ideas, but with HIS branding, HIS definition."Hahaha... Dems will be eating humble pie in about six months. Heaping helpings of it.
runningflame570Mar 5, 2010
hblask: I want some proof that specifically shows Bush, "increased regulations at a record rate" and furthermore I want to know what KIND of regulations. Even if you supplied that I would be skeptical that he pushed many of them himself, but it would give you something to stand on.
royishMar 5, 2010
It is clearly a coordinated effort.
runningflame570Mar 6, 2010
hblask: That graph is essentially useless without context provided. Furthermore it doesn't even say what you claim it does. It is for regulatory spending, you said he increased "regulations at a record rate" and your graph simply doesn't do anything to prove that.The study it is linked to gives a lot more clues on what makes up that increase and it sure isn't regulation like I was talking about, or like what most people think of. It was the DHS.Reading over the report, they separate out regulatory spending into several different categories. One of these, homeland security (DHS, TSA, etc.) has experienced by far the largest growth in spending from 7,874 in 2000 to 16,562 in 2007 (in millions of dollars). Finance and banking (i.e. what actually might have helped) by comparison went up all the way from 1,965 in 2000 to 2,065 in 2007 (in millions of dollars). Lets compare that to 1990 to 2000, where even with some of Clinton's misguided deregulation we saw it go from 1,598 in 1990 to 1,965 in 2000. That is all in constant 2000 dollars.Oh and whats that, the number of employees in regulatory agencies involving finance and banking DROPPED from 2000 to 2007 from 13,310 to 11,637 (-1,673)? Meanwhile the number of employees in Homeland Security jumped by 60,881 and the total number of employees by...62,751. So going by your own study there were all of 1,871 more employees in all regulatory agencies other than DHS in 2007 than when George Bush came into office. Brilliant.Sauce: <a class="user" href="http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/1-regulatoryagency20080807_wc-regulators_budget_09.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publicatio ...</a>Next time you try to argue something, make sure you actually know what the f**k you're talking about hblask. Buried.
tedlw30101Mar 6, 2010
I don't think you really understand what reconciliation means in the context of how it will be used or the process it represents.You did a good job on using a straight definition of what the 'word' reconciliation means, but the process itself is quite different than what you are expecting.You can't pass mandates via reconciliation.Bottom-line, Democrats had 60 votes 4-5 months ago in which to pass it. So, uh, yeah. It's quite apparent that this is either:a) a way to pass a massive bill that the public does NOT want (otherwise it would have passed 4 months ago with the supermajorities)or b) Democrats (Obama) does not expect Healthcare to pass, they are simply extending a period of time for the Republicans to muddy the waters and therefore reduce their effect in the 2010 election cycle.
runningflame570Mar 6, 2010
Unless Republicans can figure out a way to repeal the whole bill through reconciliation which is INCREDIBLY unlikely to pass muster, then they won't be able to do that. So consider me unconcerned.I'm also pretty unconcerned about Republicans taking back over the House or Senate this November, but that is another topic.