President Obama's Thinking On Sen. Reid's Threat Of Using The Nuclear Option

[Just Win]

Democrat Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada has threatend to employ the "Nuclear Option" in order to pass a Socialized Medicine bill in the senate. Below is a clip of President Obama and other prominent Democrat luminaries, including the aforementioned Sen. Reid, expressing their feelings on the legislative Nuclear Option being employed in the senate. I tend to agree with the President on this issue. I am impressed with his courage to stand up and state the true meaning of a bicameral form of government and his consideration for the intent of the founders. Bravo President Obama.  

Video Link = http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

[LTC]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_02/022561.php

Reconciliation is not the "nuclear option."

This is the nuclear option:

The gambit is about finding a way around Senate Rule 22, which says 60 votes are needed to end debate, and 67 votes are needed to change the rules of the chamber. The "nuclear option" is intended to change the rules with 50 votes instead of 67.

The first step in exercising the nuclear option, then, is for the president of the Senate (i.e., Vice President Joe Biden) to state, in effect, "Previous Congresses can't tell this Congress what to do. Senate Rule 22 has no force because it was never agreed to by the current Senate."

Biden would then state, "Under Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, this current Senate may 'determine the rules of its proceedings.' I say we change Rule 22 to eliminate the filibuster." Or modify it, if he wanted to opt for an intermediate reform such as a proposal by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, to subject filibusters to a series of cloture votes that begin with a 60-vote requirement and gradually work their way down to a 51-vote requirement. Biden would then put the new rule to a simple-majority vote.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_02/022340.php

[Just Win]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_02/022561.php



This is the nuclear option:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_02/022340.php

Look, I know it is an incredible response. Well don't blame me. You can take a horse to water but you can't make her drink.

Video Link = http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

[NCVol]

Doesn't it ever bother you guys to be part of a "movement" that lies as a daily part of doing business?  Seriously.  If a person lies to you regularly, do you respect him or her, believe them each time until they're proven liars, again?  Do you trust their judgment on anything?

The fact is there are two different options. 

1) The NUCLEAR option is what LTC outlined.  It's a naked power grab saying, the rules as the Senate has been following them for DECADES are null and void, we'll make up our own rules, and use a bare majority to do so, in the middle of the term.  No one but REPUBLICANS have EVER threatened this option. 

2) RECONCILIATION is how nearly every single budget bill is passed.  It requires no rule change at all since the use of reconciliation is common.  It's been used 21 times since 1980, most often by republicans, often to change rules for medical items, like SCHIP, Medicare Advantage, and COBRA.  Take a guess what the "R" in COBRA stands for?  I'll give you a hint, it begins with r, and sounds like conciliation.  That's right "RECONCILIATION" as in the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986

Now the liars on the right have purposely called using reconciliation the "nuclear option."  They are liars.  When will you notice that you are regularly lied to and begin thinking, "if my side has to lie to make a point, should I really trust them on their policy recommendations.  Can't their ideas stand an honest airing?" 

The answer is "no" of course, which is why they so often lie to you.  It's too bad.... 

[NCVol]

FWIW, the "reconciliation" process requires that the bill in question deal with receipts and outlays.  Obviously, the big budget bills qualify as a natural candidate for reconciliation and the budget bills are often passed that way.  Otherwise, it's conceivable that 40 Senators could literally shut down government. 

After a long series of abuses, Sen. Byrd instituted a rule that reconciliation must be principally affecting federal revenues - a tax cut or tax increase, for example.  If those type budget items are merely "incidental" you can't have reconciliation.  That determination - incidental or an integral part - is made by the Senate parliamentarian.  Guess what the GOP did to parliamentarians who told them bills they wanted to pass using reconciliation didn't qualify?  Yep, the lying liars telling you that the process is a "nuclear option" (!!!! OH MY GOSHHH!!!!! UNPRECEDENTED!!!!!!) FIRED two parliamentarians who didn't toe their line when they wanted to use reconciliation to pass non-budget type bills. 

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_fifty_vote_senate
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/long-strange-post-somebody-you-never-heard

Seriously, the GOP is the whiningest bunch of all time.  Whine, bitch and moan. Life is so unfair to the right white boy Senator club.  Boo fricking hoo.   

[Just Win]

FWIW, the "reconciliation" process requires that the bill in question deal with receipts and outlays.  Obviously, the big budget bills qualify as a natural candidate for reconciliation and the budget bills are often passed that way.  Otherwise, it's conceivable that 40 Senators could literally shut down government.  

After a long series of abuses, Sen. Byrd instituted a rule that reconciliation must be principally affecting federal revenues - a tax cut or tax increase, for example.  If those type budget items are merely "incidental" you can't have reconciliation.  That determination - incidental or an integral part - is made by the Senate parliamentarian.  Guess what the GOP did to parliamentarians who told them bills they wanted to pass using reconciliation didn't qualify?  Yep, the lying liars telling you that the process is a "nuclear option" (!!!! OH MY GOSHHH!!!!! UNPRECEDENTED!!!!!!) FIRED two parliamentarians who didn't toe their line when they wanted to use reconciliation to pass non-budget type bills.  

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_fifty_vote_senate
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/long-strange-post-somebody-you-never-heard

Seriously, the GOP is the whiningest bunch of all time.  Whine, bitch and moan. Life is so unfair to the right white boy Senator club.  Boo fricking hoo.  

Why would the lefties be against the nuclear option one day and then the next day they are for the nuclear option? BTW, nice Alinsky form in trying to confuse the terms and muddy the waters. That technique is straight out of the radicals handbook. Did you come up with that on your own or is part of an Orwellian talking point Twit er blast from Rhambo?

Video Link = http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

[LTC]

Are you really that dense?  The dems have not recommended the nuclear option....only you wingnuts under bush have done that...in fact that is where the term came from.  What is being considered is...TYPING REAL SLOW....r e c o n c i l i a t i o n.

Do you enjoy being stupid and un-informed?

[NCVol]

 He's a little

Really, JW, there are two concepts.  Try hard and you'll be able to understand both of them and why they are different.  Once you get the differences down, you can move on to reading an actual article that discusses the democrat's possible strategy of using "reconciliation" and not the "nuclear option."  

Here's one.  I've highlighted the relevant terms

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/conrad-health-care-dead-unless-house-passes-senate-bill-first.php

The Senate Democrats' top budget guy told reporters today that the Senate can't pass a reconciliation package tweaking a comprehensive health care bill unless the House passes the Senate bill first. And if the House won't do that, he says health care reform is "dead."

"The only way this works is for the House to pass the Senate bill and then, depending on what the package is, the reconciliation provision that moves first through the House and then comes here," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) outside the upper chamber this morning. "That's the only way that works."

Notice how there's no talk of rule changes, Biden, declaring the old rules void, etc.  They're discussing "reconciliation" as a known quantity because using reconciliation is common.  The "nuclear option" was only proposed by REPUBLICS.  

[Just Win]

Are you really that dense?  The dems have not recommended the nuclear option....only you wingnuts under bush have done that...in fact that is where the term came from.  What is being considered is...TYPING REAL SLOW....r e c o n c i l i a t i o n.

Do you enjoy being stupid and un-informed?

No. I just have this penchant for using logic when thinking. You can change the name and adopt an Orwellian euphemism inserted into the vocabulary by the Obama/Reid/Pelsoi cheerleaders at the NY Times or at NBC but the fact of the matter remains the same. Your side was against the Nuclear Option in 2005 and now you are for the Nuclear Option. Why is this the case?

Official Democrat Stance On The Nuclear Option = Video Link = http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/


 
Obama enthusiast and NBC reporter Chuck Todd

[LTC]

I guess that settles it....you enjoy being stupid! and un-informed!

[Flummoxed Lummox]

No. I just have this penchant for using logic when thinking.

  That is hysterical.

The next time you use logic on this forum will be the first. You're a mindless parrot who regurgitates whatever bilge you hear on Limbaugh or Beck.

LTC and NC Vol just explained, in terms a 12-year-old could understand, the difference between reconciliation and the nuclear option. Yet, you continue to make absurd statements about the nuclear option that have no basis in reality, proving what an uninformed ignoramus you are.

[LTC]

A little more about reconciliation....for jbw and his wingnut buddies to ignore..........

Let's clear up something really important here, because the political world seems to have forgotten.

No one's talking about passing health care reform through reconciliation. There's no need to pass health care reform through reconciliation -- health care reform has already passed.

You might remember December. The Senate had a very long debate, followed by a Republican filibuster. There was a vote to end that filibuster, which was successful. And on Christmas Eve, senators registered a vote, and health care reform passed, 60 to 39.

No tricks, no reconciliation, no abuses. Just a debate, followed by an unsuccessful filibuster, followed by a vote.

The next step isn't passing health care reform through reconciliation; the next step is passing a budget fix that improves the legislation that's already passed. That, of course, is why reconciliation exists.

The entire GOP talking point is based on a fallacy. If the Democratic plan proceeds, it would not be approving health care reform through reconciliation. That would be pointless -- health care reform already passed without reconciliation.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_02/022611.php