CaliforniaPeggy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-27-09 07:17 PM
Original message |
The topic will be Reconciliation... |
|
And my feeling is that, somehow, we will all know more than we ever wanted to know about it, by the time that process is over...
I can hardly wait.
|
NYC_SKP
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-27-09 07:25 PM
Response to Original message |
1. And, if we don't use some common sense while we read, we'll be getting more bs than we wanted, too! |
|
We are, after all, what we "eat"!
Merry Season, CaliforniaPeg!
:hug:
|
Mz Pip
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-27-09 07:27 PM
Response to Original message |
|
more about the process of Impeachment than I thought possible watching those damn hearings.
Maybe it's a good thing. We all need a history lessson once in a while. This time it should be one that works in our favor.
|
babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-27-09 07:52 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I'm a tad confused; I've heard merging of the House and Senate for |
|
the conference is called reconciliation, but then there's another reconciliation that some have advocated being used during the Senate negotiations. I've also read that that would have been a very bad idea. (and pardon the source) http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=96510C09-18FE-70B2-A83BD834F2173931
|
Clio the Leo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-27-09 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. Yep, I'd call it "reconciliation" (small "r") NT |
CaliforniaPeggy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-27-09 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. Your first definition is the one I meant... |
|
I had not heard about the second, the one you quoted.
And yes, that is confusing!
I was just having a random thought, and thought I'd make a thread out of it...how's that for confusing?
|
babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-27-09 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
depakid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-27-09 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. The Byrd rule's exception to the filibuster is for deficit reduction |
|
which has been a HUGE focus of the bill (as seen with the obsession with CBO estimates, etc).
No reason whatsoever that the process shouldn't have been used (and the extortionists removed from the equation). All that was lacking was political will and fortitude on the administration's and Senate "leadership's" part.
Believe you me- if the shoe was on the other foot- Republicans would have (and on various matters did).
|
babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-27-09 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. And had reconciliation been used, every last nit could have been |
|
picked, or discarded. I believe that's what I read. So no, it doesn't sound like it would have been effective in the end.
|
depakid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-28-09 05:32 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. Suffice it to say, you read wrong. |
Teaser
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-28-09 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
depakid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-28-09 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
11. Yep- but no need to argue- neither Congress nor the admionistration has will or fortitude |
|
to do what it takes to put effective legislation through.
You can apologize and make excuses for their repeated failures all you like- but in the end, what the public sees is won't fight and "can't get 'er done right" -no matter how popular the policies are.
And that's going to cost them- and you in 2010 and beyond.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 12:38 PM
Response to Original message |