RE: Queen Pelosi: "I deem this passed".

RE: Queen Pelosi: "I deem this passed". (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Moonhead -> RE: Queen Pelosi: "I deem this passed". (3/17/2010 2:52:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave I have said for some time that the real fight starts if/when this abomination passes. It's the repeal, stupid. Its too big a risk. Its a nightmare scenario if it passes, the economy turns around (as it inevitably will, despite the bumbling in Washington), Blowboy gets reelected. After that its a new third rail and repeal will be nearly impossible. So you are saying that you want the economy to continue to tank? Of course he does. We can't have the economy starting to recover until there's a Republican in the White House, can we?

Archer -> RE: Queen Pelosi: "I deem this passed". (3/17/2010 3:24:33 PM)
So you admit it has not stopped tanking thompson? (sorry you left that way too open to leave alone) I'm not too worried about the "nightmare scenario" because nobody gets to see any actual benefits from this till year 5. 4 years of taxes before they pay out anything on benefits, just to keep the CBO numbers on the budget at a level they think the american public can buy off on.

thompsonx -> RE: Queen Pelosi: "I deem this passed". (3/17/2010 4:30:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx So you are saying that you want the economy to continue to tank? Health care has nothing to do with the economy tanking, and the bill will do nothing to improve the economy. That was not the question. You stated : quote: Its too big a risk. Its a nightmare scenario if it passes, the economy turns around (as it inevitably will, despite the bumbling in Washington), Blowboy gets reelected. After that its a new third rail and repeal will be nearly impossible. What you are saying is you want the economy to continue in the tank so "Blowboy" wont get reelected. You are a real patriot. Maybe you could run on the platform of"I will fuck you all to death to get my party in power"

thompsonx -> RE: Queen Pelosi: "I deem this passed". (3/17/2010 4:32:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer So you admit it has not stopped tanking thompson? For fucks sake man anyone who does not know the economy is in the tank is livning in a cave some where....[:-]...oooppps well it is not exactly a cave. (sorry you left that way too open to leave alone) I'm not too worried about the "nightmare scenario" because nobody gets to see any actual benefits from this till year 5. 4 years of taxes before they pay out anything on benefits, just to keep the CBO numbers on the budget at a level they think the american public can buy off on.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Queen Pelosi: "I deem this passed". (3/17/2010 4:39:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx So you are saying that you want the economy to continue to tank? Health care has nothing to do with the economy tanking, and the bill will do nothing to improve the economy. That was not the question. You stated : quote: Its too big a risk. Its a nightmare scenario if it passes, the economy turns around (as it inevitably will, despite the bumbling in Washington), Blowboy gets reelected. After that its a new third rail and repeal will be nearly impossible. What you are saying is you want the economy to continue in the tank so "Blowboy" wont get reelected. You are a real patriot. Maybe you could run on the platform of"I will fuck you all to death to get my party in power" Youre logical ability fails you once again. The economy will turn around despite his past errors, but if he is credited for it and is reelected than he will have more time to damage the economy going forward. Nothing in there about "wanting the economy to continue in the tank". A good try for you, but still a fail.

thompsonx -> RE: Queen Pelosi: "I deem this passed". (3/17/2010 4:44:19 PM)
So you are hoping the economy takes an upturn which will naturally propell Obama into a seccond term not because you want him as president but because you want the economy to improve and you do not care who gets the credit for it only that the country returns to prosperity. I may have really misjudged you .

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Queen Pelosi: "I deem this passed". (3/17/2010 5:01:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx So you are hoping the economy takes an upturn which will naturally propell Obama into a seccond term not because you want him as president but because you want the economy to improve and you do not care who gets the credit for it only that the country returns to prosperity. I may have really misjudged you . Obviously you have despite your continued mangling of what people say in plain English. OTOH I had you pegged a long time ago.

thompsonx -> RE: Queen Pelosi: "I deem this passed". (3/17/2010 5:04:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx So you are hoping the economy takes an upturn which will naturally propell Obama into a seccond term not because you want him as president but because you want the economy to improve and you do not care who gets the credit for it only that the country returns to prosperity. I may have really misjudged you . Obviously you have despite your continued mangling of what people say in plain English. OTOH I had you pegged a long time ago. Good then you did not miss the sarcasm[;)]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Queen Pelosi: "I deem this passed". (3/17/2010 5:06:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx So you are hoping the economy takes an upturn which will naturally propell Obama into a seccond term not because you want him as president but because you want the economy to improve and you do not care who gets the credit for it only that the country returns to prosperity. I may have really misjudged you . Obviously you have despite your continued mangling of what people say in plain English. OTOH I had you pegged a long time ago. Good then you did not miss the sarcasm[;)] My comment was on your misjudging me, period.

thompsonx -> RE: Queen Pelosi: "I deem this passed". (3/17/2010 5:25:38 PM)
quote: My comment was on your misjudging me, period. pssssst.....that was the sarcasm...I guess you did not notice.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Queen Pelosi: "I deem this passed". (3/17/2010 5:32:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: My comment was on your misjudging me, period. pssssst.....that was the sarcasm...I guess you did not notice. It isnt sarcasm when its true.

KenDckey -> RE: Queen Pelosi: "I deem this passed". (3/17/2010 9:30:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy I am guilty of overestimating the man quite often, but I don't think Obama will allow this political suicide. First, passage of any bill in this manner is likely to be overturned by the SCOTUS. Second, if it somehow survives SCOTUS, all it does is get them to reconciliation where the bill will be neutered. Third, it would be the end of the Democrats majority in both houses, and ensure that Obama is a one term President. Claims that the procedure is somehow standard are bullshit. Like reconciliation, it has never been used for a bill of anything close to this magnitude, and always for bills that had bipartisan support, which is why it has never been challenged. I have to agree here. I think that within 10 minutes of passage and signing (if Obama dares) that someone will be sitting at the courthouse with an injunction to stop it's implementation. And I am sure that the ACLU would support the first person that didn't pay for his health insurance and they tried to jail him for it giving 2 probably supreme court cases.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Queen Pelosi: "I deem this passed". (3/17/2010 10:42:34 PM)
I don't think they're going to need it. Right now, pending the CBO's cost analysis, I think they've got the votes. It'll be close, but I believe they can close the deal when the CBO puts out the numbers.

housesub4you -> RE: Queen Pelosi: "I deem this passed". (3/18/2010 11:13:37 AM)
Really???? You believe that GOP BS line? here is a link with a few of the times they used it, if you get to the bottom, BI-partisan support was no where to be found when they used it 3 times in 1 bill, or when they used it for a bill spending over a trillion dollars they borrowed, http://wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1412&fuseaction=topics.publications&doc_id=190504&group_id=180829 A quote " The perils of forsaking bipartisanship and deliberation on such an important institutional issue forced the majority leadership to resort to procedural politics in hyper-drive."

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Queen Pelosi: "I deem this passed". (3/18/2010 11:34:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: housesub4you Really???? You believe that GOP BS line? here is a link with a few of the times they used it, if you get to the bottom, BI-partisan support was no where to be found when they used it 3 times in 1 bill, or when they used it for a bill spending over a trillion dollars they borrowed, http://wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1412&fuseaction=topics.publications&doc_id=190504&group_id=180829 A quote " The perils of forsaking bipartisanship and deliberation on such an important institutional issue forced the majority leadership to resort to procedural politics in hyper-drive." What were the bills, and what were the vote counts by party. Your link says nothing about the extent of minority party support for the bills.

tazzygirl -> RE: Queen Pelosi: "I deem this passed". (3/18/2010 11:35:32 AM)
The penalties dont start until 2014 as well. Health Cost Hijinks? I listened to a recent FactCheck Radio podcast, which stated that the health care plan would save money over a 10-year period. Is this the first 10 years or any 10 years? I believe taxing would start first for about 4 years before any benefits were paid. That means in the first 10 years there would be 10 years of income and only 6 years of service. I could make a plan like that work! Jim Bilger Arlington, Texas FactCheck.org responds: The CBO’s estimate is for 2010-2019. The small business tax credit would begin immediately, and fees on certain manufacturers and insurers would start bringing in revenues in 2010. The Senate bill’s excise tax on high-premium plans would start bringing in money in 2013, according to the CBO. The mandate for coverage would not begin until 2014, so tax penalty payments would not come in until that year. http://factcheck.org/2010/03/factcheck-mailbag-week-of-march-9-march-15/ Here is a great article i found, taking both sides of the debate over individual mandates into account. A good read. http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=14

Brain -> RE: Queen Pelosi: "I deem this passed". (3/18/2010 3:43:29 PM)
Deem and Pass Used 100 Times Under Hastert. And Newt Gingrich used Deem and Pass about 90 times. The Perils of Pelosi's 'Deem and Pass' Healthcare Strategy - Peter ... 17 Mar 2010 ... Deem and Pass Used 100 Times Under Hastert. Deem and Pass was used 100 times under Hastert, and 100 more times under Gingrich. ... www.usnews.com/blogs/...of...deem-and-pass.../comments/ - United States Explaining 'Deem and Pass' - First Read - msnbc.com 16 Mar 2010 ... It is my understanding that Newt Gingrich used Deem and Pass about 90 times; Dennis Hastert about 100. Whether or not it was for something ... firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/.../2229330.aspx - United States - Cached Wonk Room » Eric Cantor Agrees That 'Deem And Pass' Is Legitimate 17 Mar 2010 ... This is a procedure, by the way, that was used almost 100 times under Newt Gingrich and over 100 times by Speaker Hastert, which my friend ... wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/03/17/hoyer-cantor-deem/ - Cached The impeccable bipartisan pedigree of "deem and pass" - Joe ... 17 Mar 2010 ... Any veteran observer of Congress is used to the rampant hypocrisy over the use of ... rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of "deem and pass." ... Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, ... which he now denounces as a "twisted scheme" -- well over 100 times. ... www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2010/03/17/ornstein - Cached

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Queen Pelosi: "I deem this passed". (3/18/2010 3:51:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain Deem and Pass Used 100 Times Under Hastert. And Newt Gingrich used Deem and Pass about 90 times. The Perils of Pelosi's 'Deem and Pass' Healthcare Strategy - Peter ... 17 Mar 2010 ... Deem and Pass Used 100 Times Under Hastert. Deem and Pass was used 100 times under Hastert, and 100 more times under Gingrich. ... www.usnews.com/blogs/...of...deem-and-pass.../comments/ - United States Explaining 'Deem and Pass' - First Read - msnbc.com 16 Mar 2010 ... It is my understanding that Newt Gingrich used Deem and Pass about 90 times; Dennis Hastert about 100. Whether or not it was for something ... firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/.../2229330.aspx - United States - Cached Wonk Room » Eric Cantor Agrees That 'Deem And Pass' Is Legitimate 17 Mar 2010 ... This is a procedure, by the way, that was used almost 100 times under Newt Gingrich and over 100 times by Speaker Hastert, which my friend ... wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/03/17/hoyer-cantor-deem/ - Cached The impeccable bipartisan pedigree of "deem and pass" - Joe ... 17 Mar 2010 ... Any veteran observer of Congress is used to the rampant hypocrisy over the use of ... rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of "deem and pass." ... Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, ... which he now denounces as a "twisted scheme" -- well over 100 times. ... www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2010/03/17/ornstein - Cached And then we have House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. lmao

tazzygirl -> RE: Queen Pelosi: "I deem this passed". (3/18/2010 4:25:08 PM)
~FR They will be jailing people because their tax fine was not paid. Dont pay the IRS and see how long you sit out of jail. Anyone notice the first year flat fine is under $100? By 2013, i believe, it jumps to 750.

VideoAdminZeta -> RE: Queen Pelosi: "I deem this passed". (3/18/2010 6:22:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I can see no reason other than political disagreement that this thread was moved. I'd respectfully request some explanation of the reasoning. I apologize for the hijack of the discussion, but I wanted to respond to this, because I have the information now. The Mod who moved this thread judged the thread title and the content of the OP to be a rant, rather than an attempt to start discussion. There's been a long history, sitewide, of moving rants to P&RS. (The best known such rants are the ones about "fakes.") To address a concern I both saw on the boards and received in private mail, I don't think there was any "partisan" anything going on. There is currently a Politics thread on page one that is admittedly a rant. We have left that thread here, in part due to the negative response that occurred when we moved this thread out of Politics and Religion. As you may have seen, Alpha posted elsewhere that we're considering some additional (tighter) moderation guidelines. One of the things on the table is the question of when to move a thread into, or out of, P&R. End of hijack. Please don't let this post derail this thread. If you want to comment on this, or discuss it, please either start a separate thread or cmail me, Alpha, or another mod, privately. Thank you.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375