These types of quotes are interesting by ol' Mitch:

 

"Fast-tracking a major legislative overhaul such as health care reform or a new national energy tax without the benefit of a full and transparent debate does a disservice to the American people," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement.

"And it would make it absolutely clear they (Democrats) intend to carry out their plans on a purely partisan basis," McConnell said.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090424/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_congress

 

Is he saying that tax legislation that he voted for using "fast track" is NOT important?

 

You are a very intelligent person, Clyde, and you know very well that there is no meritorious defense to their actions here. Why do you persist?

 

The 2001 use by the Republicans, given the situation and timing, is not even in the same ballpark as this. The 2003 and 2005 use were merely extensions of prior legislation. Periodic tax cut legislation and a proposed plan to completely overhaul the nation's health care are not even remotely in the same league.

 

I invite you to join the credible side of this argument and lift your voice in criticism of their actions. The "he did it, too" defense is tired and hackneyed.

2001

2003

2005

 

The challenge current Rs will have is trying to focus on the "process" when it was used in 2001 to pass tax cuts known by some as "tax cuts for the rich."

 

They need to be careful on how they proceed here.

 

Thanks, I guess I wasn't paying attention.

 

But IMO, tax cuts and implementing a huge new entitlement program are 2 different things.

But I thought that tha Dems ran on a platform of bringing accountability and transparency to Washington? Surely Nancy and Harry and crew are above using tactics they condemned.

 

Nice dodge though trying to direct the thread away from the topic.

 

No dodging going on. Someone posted that they didn't think this strategy had been used. It obviously has.

You are a very intelligent person, Clyde, and you know very well that there is no meritorious defense to their actions here. Why do you persist?

 

The 2001 use by the Republicans, given the situation and timing, is not even in the same ballpark as this. The 2003 and 2005 use were merely extensions of prior legislation. Periodic tax cut legislation and a proposed plan to completely overhaul the nation's health care are not even remotely in the same league.

 

I invite you to join the credible side of this argument and lift your voice in criticism of their actions. The "he did it, too" defense is tired and hackneyed.

 

I guess I should always put some sort of disqualifier before any post that doesnt' bash the current President.

 

When someone posts that they don't believe its every been used or not used in a long time should I just let it go and let them believe that? Or should I point out that it has been used? Did you ignore the initial point saying "I don't fully grasp this strategy?"

It sounds like there is a possibility that this type of bill does not meet the requirements for budget reconciliation.

Y

 

The 2001 use by the Republicans, given the situation and timing, is not even in the same ballpark as this.

 

I guess its semantics but almost $1T in tax cuts seems fairly "major" to many. It seems like a dollar amount that would warrant actual debate and , as Mitch said about the current situation, you wouldn't want to make it look purely partisan.

OK, the Repubs did it, we get that. The Dems also blasted them for it. How about addressing the merits of just this case without the "they did it first" defense.

 

Personally I think that the Dems are showing extreme hypocrisy and I can't wait for the filibusters over Obama's judicial nominees.

2001

2003

2005

 

The challenge current Rs will have is trying to focus on the "process" when it was used in 2001 to pass tax cuts known by some as "tax cuts for the rich."

 

They need to be careful on how they proceed here.

 

Hey, as long as the health regulations have expiration dates in several years I'm ok with it. Something tells me this may be a little more permanent.

I had to quote this post again because I know I remember Nasty Nancy using words like openeess and transparancy when she talked about how this congress was going to be run. Surely after just 100 days that Obama supporters haven't already started the "Well they did it before us excuse have they"? I thought Obama brought change you can believe in. Sure looks alot to me like teh same old double talk that has always happened.

 

It does look awfully familiar.

I guess its semantics but almost $1T in tax cuts seems fairly "major" to many. It seems like a dollar amount that would warrant actual debate and , as Mitch said about the current situation, you wouldn't want to make it look purely partisan.

 

The real difference here is that with the tax cuts , the owners of the money get to make the decisions as what to do with the money they earned. Whereas with this health care bill the money will be spent by by countless bureaucrats and miles of wasted red tape. The decision of how to spend money is best left to the person who earned it. And before you talk about those who do not have health care, they are being taken care of. In all likely hood we probably could improve in that area, but not at the massive expense and waste of government bureaucracy.

If the Dems do this they had better be 120% sure that they get it right the first time. If they don't Nancy, Harry and Barry may well find themselves out of work.

The real difference here is that with the tax cuts , the owners of the money get to make the decisions as what to do with the money they earned. Whereas with this health care bill the money will be spent by by countless bureaucrats and miles of wasted red tape. The decision of how to spend money is best left to the person who earned it. And before you talk about those who do not have health care, they are being taken care of. In all likely hood we probably could improve in that area, but not at the massive expense and waste of government bureaucracy.

 

I wasn't against the tax cut. However, to brush it off or to rationalize it away as it being relatively insignificant or to say that "the owners of the money get to make....." overlooks the real debate at hand. Is this process acceptable?

The chief economic advisor to the President says he doesn't think this is the way to go for this type of legislation.

 

"I don't think [the president] took it off the table," said Jared Bernstein. "I think it has to stay on the table but something we'd rather avoid.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/22/vps-economist-budget-reco_n_177743.html

I wasn't against the tax cut. However, to brush it off or to rationalize it away as it being relatively insignificant or to say that "the owners of the money get to make....." overlooks the real debate at hand. Is this process acceptable?

 

Well is it? You seem to think that it is since you immediatly used the they did it first defense.

Well is it? You seem to think that it is since you immediatly used the they did it first defense.

 

Brother, you need to pay attention.

 

The first 4 or 5 responses were basically posters aghast that such a tactic would be used. I pointed out its been used in the recent past. So you either disagree with that point of you're reaching. Which one?