PoliGAF 2010: Home Of "By The Time I Get To Arizona"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matt said:
All the "Slaughter Rule" will do is allow two entirely separate pieces of legislation to pass with one vote.
Click to expand...

Right here is where the crux lies. An up or down vote on two entirely separate pieces of legislation. Don't see a problem there? The slaughter rule introduces the problem that the house and senate passed legislation with different texts. The Senate passed their bill and the House passed the Senate/Reconciliation Bills. You can't combine the bills and then separate them out for signature because the reconciliation bill is clearly amending the Senate Bill.

So then, the House sends up the Senate Bill saying it passed on vote, when the truth would be it passed along with this other bill amending it. Again, its combining it into one vote because they might not pass on their own, then separating them out for Presidential approval. But that means the Senate Bill never got its own vote. Please go read by post above from a WSJ piece from Michael McConnell. It lays out the possible legal issues with this approach.
 
What I'm not understanding right now is how the House can get around not having Healthcare signed as law by the President before they can pass Reconciliation bill. How does the Slaughter Rule get around that?
 
JoeBoy101 said:
Right here is where the crux lies. An up or down vote on two entirely separate pieces of legislation. Don't see a problem there? The slaughter rule introduces the problem that the house and senate passed legislation with different texts. The Senate passed their bill and the House passed the Senate/Reconciliation Bills. You can't combine the bills and then separate them out for signature because the reconciliation bill is clearly amending the Senate Bill.

So then, the House sends up the Senate Bill saying it passed on vote, when the truth would be it passed along with this other bill amending it. Again, its combining it into one vote because they might not pass on their own, then separating them out for Presidential approval. But that means the Senate Bill never got its own vote. Please go read by post above from a WSJ piece from Michael McConnell. It lays out the possible legal issues with this approach.
Click to expand...
But, again, the House is NOT passing legislation with different texts. They are passing the exact same HC bill as the Senate did. The House vote will be a vote on the reconciliation bill, with THAT bill having text that says passage of this bill will deem the Senate HC bill also passe by the house. The Senate HC bill's text is not being altered in any way.

And, it's worth pointing out, that this will not be the first time the House has passed bills in such a manner.
 
Blergmeister said:
What I'm not understanding right now is how the House can get around not having Healthcare signed as law by the President before they can pass Reconciliation bill. How does the Slaughter Rule get around that?
Click to expand...
The House can do it, there is no rule against it. The Senate Parliamentarian says it is against Senate rules to pass the reconciliation bill without the original bill becoming law.
 
Matt said:
The House can do it, there is no rule against it. The Senate Parliamentarian says it is against Senate rules for the Senate to pass the reconciliation bill without the original bill becoming law.
Click to expand...

Corrected.
 
Interesting

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/03/14/military_figure_politicians/index.html

If Petraeus runs, history may not be on his side

If he does run, Petraeus would be joining a long line of military leaders who’ve sought to parlay their stature into high political office. Their track record, though, isn’t that impressive. Sure, several generals have served as president (starting with George Washington), but in more recent times, there just aren’t that many success stories.
Click to expand...
 
LovingSteam said:
Interesting

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/03/14/military_figure_politicians/index.html

If Petraeus runs, history may not be on his side
Click to expand...

"Probably because real life is about more than just guns and shit."

That's the prevailing attitude that he would have to overcome. Obviously, from his work in Iraq, we would have to assume that the man is versed beyond combat and war, but also in politics, culture, philosophy, history, and so on. But he would be up against a wall of questions about his capabilities in terms of managing domestic policy.

Would be interesting; he seems like a smart guy from all that I've read of him. But then again, his IQ may actually be a flaw, if you consider the voting pattern of the Conservatives.

Edit: What's his political leaning anyways? He doesn't seem like much of a Republican to me.
 
I'd love to see GOP candidates grill him in debates on being soft on terror - you know, for wanting to close Gitmo or letting gays in the military or all the other shit he agrees with Obama on.
 
Never mind the trouble he'd get in in the Republican primary(if he's even Republican) for the Israel stuff earlier.

Either way, he's never even hinted at public office, I think he realizes he can do more good with his expertise in the military.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus

In Mosul, a city of nearly two million people, Petraeus and the 101st employed classic counterinsurgency methods to build security and stability, including conducting targeted kinetic operations and using force judiciously, jump-starting the economy, building local security forces, staging elections for the city council within weeks of their arrival, overseeing a program of public works, reinvigorating the political process,[40][41][42] and launching 4,500 reconstruction projects.[43] This approach can be attributed to Petraeus, who had been steeped in nation-building during his previous tours in places like Bosnia and Haiti and thus approached nation-building as a central military mission and who was "prepared to act while the civilian authority in Baghdad was still getting organized," according to Michael Gordon of The New York Times.[44]

One of the General's major public works was the restoration and re-opening of the University of Mosul.[50][51][52] Petraeus strongly supported the use of commanders' discretionary funds for public works, telling Coalition Provisional Authority director L. Paul Bremer "Money is ammunition" during the director's first visit to Mosul.[53][54] Petraeus' often repeated[55][56][57][58] catchphrase[59] was later incorporated into official military briefings[60][61] and was also eventually incorporated into the U.S. Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual drafted with Petraeus's oversight.[62]​

If the Republicans Tea Baggers think Obama is a Socialist and a Facist... :lol

I know, I know, nation building and counter-insurgency isn't the same as domestic governance
 
JoeBoy101 said:
Right here is where the crux lies. An up or down vote on two entirely separate pieces of legislation. Don't see a problem there? The slaughter rule introduces the problem that the house and senate passed legislation with different texts. The Senate passed their bill and the House passed the Senate/Reconciliation Bills. You can't combine the bills and then separate them out for signature because the reconciliation bill is clearly amending the Senate Bill.

So then, the House sends up the Senate Bill saying it passed on vote, when the truth would be it passed along with this other bill amending it. Again, its combining it into one vote because they might not pass on their own, then separating them out for Presidential approval. But that means the Senate Bill never got its own vote. Please go read by post above from a WSJ piece from Michael McConnell. It lays out the possible legal issues with this approach.
Click to expand...


JoeBoy is starting to make me feel like he's right and it could be a Supreme Court nightmare in the years to come. I'd like to see more information on this Slaughter Rule and if it's constitutional.
 
mckmas8808 said:
JoeBoy is starting to make me feel like he's right and it could be a Supreme Court nightmare in the years to come. I'd like to see more information on this Slaughter Rule and if it's constitutional.
Click to expand...

This isn't the Bush White House, they're not going to pass legislation that's illegal.
 
Netanyahu says FUCK YOU to America, says building in Jerusalem will continue.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday said that Israel would continue to build in Jerusalem in the same way that it has over the last 42 years.

"The building in Jerusalem - and in all other places - will continue in the same way as has been customary over the last 42 years," said Netanyahu at a Likud party meeting.

Israel drew angry reactions from the U.S. and the Palestinians by announcing last week the construction of 1,600 new housing units in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo during a visit by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden last week.

"For the past 40 years, no Israeli government ever limited construction in the neighborhoods of Jerusalem," he said in a speech to the Knesset, citing areas in the West Bank that Israel captured during the 1967 Six-Day War and annexed to the city.
Click to expand...
This shit makes my blood boil with rage. What a deceitful, two-faced asshole who wants to appear friendly to US diplomats in front of cameras but behind their backs its business as usual. Take more Palestinian lands. Fuck you, Benjamin. Fucking criminal bastard.
 
Jason's Ultimatum said:
Eisenhower balanced the budget! Can't say that for any other republican president.
Click to expand...
HardingCoolidge.jpg
 
mckmas8808 said:
JoeBoy is starting to make me feel like he's right and it could be a Supreme Court nightmare in the years to come. I'd like to see more information on this Slaughter Rule and if it's constitutional.
Click to expand...
Again, the House has done this before. It's not new.
 
Speaking Klein's site:

nixonpsending1-thumb-454x342.jpg


You can see the impact in the graph atop this post. The earlier you start, the more you save. These days, we spend a bit more than 17 percent of our GDP on health care. That comes out to more than $2.5 trillion. If we'd reformed the system in 1995, and our spending had slowed by 1.5 percentage points then, health care would only be 14.2 percent of GDP right now. If we'd followed Carter's schedule and moved in 1980, we'd be down to 11.5 percent of GDP. And Nixon's plan in 1975? A mere 10.75 percent of GDP, which as you can see on the graph, isn't that far from what Europe spends. The lesson is simple: The earlier you start, the more you save. And with each opportunity you miss, you lose years of accumulated savings.
Click to expand...

Nixon pondered at universal healthcare, which is shocking considering his party ID.
 
Matt said:
Again, the House has done this before. It's not new.
Click to expand...
Even more specifically, Republicans have done this before, including some of the leading critics. It's the House equivalent of the GOP'ers in the Senate attacking reconciliation as an uncommon and unorthodox strategy.

In other news, the first (small) jobs bill that the Senate initially passed is back, after being added to by a couple billion to expand the funding for state and local bond programs by the House, and just broke the filibuster with 61 votes. The second one - with the year-long UI extensions, etc. - should come around next week.
 
Wyden-Gregg on tax reform:

The Wyden-Gregg plan takes the six income brackets currently on the books and compresses them into three (15 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent). It gets rid of the alternative minimum tax. It triples the standard deduction available to all taxpayers, which means that people don't need to spend as much time trying to itemize deductions and figuring out ways to game the system. It kills off the existing six corporate rates and eight corporate brackets, and replaces them with a flat corporate tax of 24 percent. And it reduces the task to a one-page form.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Not really sure about this if everything else is constant. =\


EDIT-Ghal, so the unemployment benefit extension will be voted on next week and it'll be a year long extension?
 
Jason's Ultimatum said:
Wyden-Gregg on tax reform:

Hmm. Not really sure about this if everything else is constant. =\
Click to expand...

1) Doesn't seem like tax preparation companies are going to like it.

2) The reduction of the number of brackets seems like a way to squeeze more money from the lower classes. In reality, having 6 brackets isn't much more complex than having 3 brackets.

3) The flat corporate rate is interesting, but I don't know enough about corporate taxes. Need to do some research. What they really need to do is to close the corporate tax loopholes.
 
I don't know much about corporate tax rates. All I know is that I read somewhere that corporate profits were something like at an all time high during the BushCo years, and the effective tax rate is lower than what most Republicans complain about the corporate tax rate being too high.

Isn't it 70% of the jobs created this country from small businesses?
 
Yeah, that flat 24% tax rate for corporations sounds pretty shitty if there aren't any other changes involved given the current brackets:

Code: 
Taxable Income ($) 		Tax Rate[8]
0 to 50,000 			15%
50,000 to 75,000 		25%
75,000 to 100,000 		34%
100,000 to 335,000 		39%
335,000 to 10,000,000 		34%
10,000,000 to 15,000,000 	35%
15,000,000 to 18,333,333 	38%
18,333,333 and up 		35%

The plan would seem to shift more of the tax burden to individuals and decrease the tax load on the larger corporations. A small business like, I dunno, let's say a country store or an independent handyman service or a cleaning service making less than $50k would see their tax burden increased while multi-billion dollar companies like Intel or Citibank or Boeing would see their tax burdens decreased by millions of dollars.

"Bu...bu...bu then these multi-billion dollar companies will have more money to invest and hire more people!"

I can hear the trickle down coming from a mile away. More likely, the executives will pocket the change in fat bonuses and golden parachutes.
 
Been reading old healthcare articles all day.

The only thing that's really changed in the discussion in the past 80 years is a sad lack of "bugaboo" in describing fears of socialism.

Every other argument is the same. Christ. Some of these articles could be used today and no one would notice the difference.
 
FlightOfHeaven said:
Been reading old healthcare articles all day.

The only thing that's really changed in the discussion in the past 80 years is a sad lack of "bugaboo" in describing fears of socialism.

Every other argument is the same. Christ. Some of these articles could be used today and no one would notice the difference.
Click to expand...
reagan-medicare-300x288.jpg
 
Matt said:
. The House vote will be a vote on the reconciliation bill, with THAT bill having text that says passage of this bill will deem the Senate HC bill also passe by the house.
Click to expand...
I have seen a lot of criticisms leveled at HCR, but it being "passé" is not one of them ;)

but then again I guess you could say the reconsiliation ammendments mak the senate version out of date :lol
 
RustyNails said:
Netanyahu says FUCK YOU to America, says building in Jerusalem will continue.

This shit makes my blood boil with rage. What a deceitful, two-faced asshole who wants to appear friendly to US diplomats in front of cameras but behind their backs its business as usual. Take more Palestinian lands. Fuck you, Benjamin. Fucking criminal bastard.
Click to expand...
Nety's coalition gov't is driven by a smattering of hard-rights who want to import apartheid to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Not that I doubt that Nety believes in the basic tenets of settlements, but he has little ability to do otherwise.

There's also a domestic US calculation here - Obama's absorbed by domestic issues and has been weakened by constant Republican opposition. Throwing a blatant middle finger at Biden et. all won't impel a change in the US-Israel relationship considering how entrenched the 'must support Israel' platitude is in our political discourse. To think, that in the years between the Bushes we've literally gone from a tough love stance with Israel to fondling their balls while they punch us in the face.

FlightOfHeaven said:
Petraus 2016?

I could go for that.
Click to expand...
You should go.

To Canada.
 
GhaleonEB said:
Even more specifically, Republicans have done this before, including some of the leading critics. It's the House equivalent of the GOP'ers in the Senate attacking reconciliation as an uncommon and unorthodox strategy.
Click to expand...

Yes, it has been done before. Here's some examples from a Congressional Research Report in 2006

On August 2, 1989, the House adopted a rule (H.Res. 221) that
automatically incorporated into the text of the bill made in order for
consideration a provision that prohibited smoking on domestic airline
flights of two hours or less duration.

On March 19, 1996, the House adopted a rule (H.Res. 384) that
incorporated a voluntary employee verification program — addressing
the employment of illegal immigrants — into a committee substitute
made in order as original text.

H.Res. 239, agreed to on September 24, 1997, automatically incorporated
into the base bill a provision to block the use of statistical sampling for
the 2000 census until federal courts had an opportunity to rule on its
constitutionality.

A closed rule (H.Res. 303) on an IRS reform bill provided for automatic
adoption of four amendments to the committee substitute made in order
as original text. The rule was adopted on November 5, 1997, with
bipartisan support.

On May 7, 1998, an intelligence authorization bill was made in order by
H.Res. 420. This self-executing rule dropped a section from the
intelligence measure that would have permitted the CIA to offer their
employees an early-out retirement program.

On February 20, 2005, the House adopted H.Res. 75, which provided that
a manager’s amendment dealing with immigration issues shall be
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole
and the bill (H.R. 418), as amended, shall be considered as the original
bill for purposes of amendment.
Click to expand...

Now, look at those examples. They were done to modify the bill in question, not to get the original bill passed to the President without the amendment that was included. Also from that report:

Originally, this type of rule was used to expedite House action
in disposing of Senate amendments to House-passed bills. As mentioned in the
precedents (House Practice by Wm. Holmes Brown and Charles W. Johnson), selfexecuting
rules for these purposes eliminate “the need for a motion to dispose of the
[Senate] amendment.” Brown and Johnson further state that such resolutions are
sometimes called “hereby” special orders “because the House, in adopting the resolution
as drafted, ‘hereby’ agrees to the disposition of the [Senate] amendment as proposed by
that resolution. If the House adopts a resolution, no further action by the House is
required. The [Senate] amendment is never before the House for separate consideration.”
“Hereby” or self-executing rules have also been used to adopt concurrent resolutions
correcting the enrollment of measures or to make other technical changes to legislation.
Click to expand...

See where they are talking about the Senate Amendment? The point was when the Senate sent a bill with an amendment to it, the House can vote on the whole thing as once. That is NOT what is being tried here. The House is trying to vote for the amendment and the original bill at the same time and then only send the original bill to the President.

Question for the group: Say the House passes it like this, the president signs the original bill, and then the Senate fails to pass the amendment. The House members voted on a bill with the legal understanding that the amendment was included, and then the law passed with it not included. Doesn't that de-legitimize the House members' votes?

Rusty Nails said:
Wow. Totally forgot Reagan had that douchebag look.
Click to expand...

Don't worry. John Edwards took up that mantle nicely.
 
FlightOfHeaven said:
: (

Why?
Click to expand...
:D

do you have any idea on where he stands on a variety of domestic and international issues?

my thoughts on Patreus is this - he's got a shrewd political calculus and was the primary reason why Obama felt the need to continue/extend/SURGE our presence in Afghanistan. the drumbeat of pressure to 'stay the course' there emanated from his office and was such that even skeptics in the Pentagon were overshadowed.
 
At the same time, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., among the bill's sharpest opponents, said he was "less confident" than before that it could be stopped.
Click to expand...
Wat?

"Waterloo" DeMint is throwing in the towel? This might actually happen.
 
worldrunover said:
Especially if he's
Obama's VP choice in 2012.

Not as crazy as you might think.
Click to expand...

I'm still holding out for Jon Huntsman. Why else would he take the China ambassadorship? It's high profile, but it basically nullifies his political presence in the US. My thinking is that he has a deal with Obama for the VP ticket in 2012, knowing that he won't make it out of the Republican primaries for being a moderate...well, that and being a Mormon.
 
I may kick myself for jynxing it later, but I'm gonna roll with it. Health care reform is gonna steamroll through, and then the GOP will then focus on the hell on earth that is immigration reform.
 
scorcho said:
There's also a domestic US calculation here - Obama's absorbed by domestic issues and has been weakened by constant Republican opposition. Throwing a blatant middle finger at Biden et. all won't impel a change in the US-Israel relationship considering how entrenched the 'must support Israel' platitude is in our political discourse. To think, that in the years between the Bushes we've literally gone from a tough love stance with Israel to fondling their balls while they punch us in the face.
Click to expand...
Eric Cantor is already one step ahead of you.

Eric Cantor, a leading Republican official in the U.S. House of Representatives, on Monday lashed out at the Obama administration's recent criticism of Israel over its announcement that it would construct 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem.

"In an effort to ingratiate our country with the Arab world, this administration has shown a troubling eagerness to undercut our allies and friends," Cantor said. "Israel has always been committed to the peace process, including advocating for direct talks between Israelis and Palestinians, in effort to bring this conflict to an end. Unfortunately, the Palestinian government continues to insist on indirect talks and slowing down the process."

He said, "Where is the outrage when top Fatah officials call for riots on the Temple Mount? Why does the Palestinian Authority get a pass when it holds a ceremony glorifying the woman responsible for one of the deadliest terror attack in Israel's history? Surely, the administration's double standard has set back the peace process."
Click to expand...

Where is the outrage when Fatah calls for riots on Temple Mount? More like outrage over Israel classifying two historic sites in occupied West Bank as national Israeli heritage sites. Eric Cantor can go get fucked too.
 
Jason's Ultimatum said:
Nixon pondered at universal healthcare, which is shocking considering his party ID.
Click to expand...

It's not shocking. Nixon's administration was more liberal than both Clinton's and (now) Obama's. It's not that Nixon, himself, was more liberal than either Clinton or Obama. It's because there was a mass movement on the left to which politicians--Democratic and Republican--had to respond. It's no different from what is going on now, except the other way. Obama and the Democrats are responding to the right, where the organized and vocal pressure lies. The left needs to reorganize, mobilize, and make demands, and it needs to do so in a way that drowns the tea party movement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
I don't get parasocial relationships.
6
610
reinking replied
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood 2 in the works at Netflix -- written by Quentin Tarantino, directed by David Fincher
2
58
2K
DKehoe replied
  • Locked
I think it's time we take off and nuke Reddit from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
3
676
Aesius replied
It seems like the older I get, the more conservative I get. Is it because young people are the worst?
2
91
4K
StreetsofBeige replied
How's Arizona Bros
37
2K
SpiceRacz replied
Top Bottom