Are the Republicans setting themselves up for failure post-November?

[woolfe9999]

You could, however, completely gut the MoFo through the budget reconcilliaton. And it would be a 'legal' use of the rec process.

Set the fines to -0-. Set the subsidies to -0-. Change every dollar amount and percentage to -0-. Etc, etc.

Fern

Yup, they could do that. However, it would then get vetoed by the POTUS. Reconciliation is an end around the fillibuster, not the requirement that the POTUS sign the bill.

- wolf

 

[GuitarDaddy]

permanent democratic majority!!!

lol 🙄

Never said it would be permanent, but it will take a complete rebirth of the party which ain't happening anytime soon

 

[Genx87]

Right, but would they have the votes to override a Presidential veto?

Are you understanding what Ferm said? They could just decide to not fund it at all. Which means it is on the books but doing nothing.

 

[her209]

Are you understanding what Ferm said? They could just decide to not fund it at all. Which means it is on the books but doing nothing.

And it'll get vetoed.

 

[dullard]

Are you understanding what Ferm said? They could just decide to not fund it at all. Which means it is on the books but doing nothing.

The president has to sign the budget, even if the budget is $0. Thus, Obama could keep vetoing the budget until the numbers are put back.

That, and the US government is spending very little in the first few years. If they set the numbers to $0 in 2011 this will happen:

* Doctors/surgeons will not get 10% bonuses through medicare.
* Small businesses will not get health care tax credits.
* Medicare patients will not get preventative plan service.
* Medicare patients who spend over $2700 on drugs will not get a $250 rebate.
* Large pharmaceutical companies will not pay fees.
* Tanning companies will not pay tax.

Do you honestly think republicans will stop the first four? I can't see Democrats or Republicans trying to stop those.

 

[her209]

The president has to sign the budget, even if the budget is $0. Thus, Obama could keep vetoing the budget until the numbers are put back.

That, and the US government is spending very little in the first few years. If they set the numbers to $0 in 2011 this will happen:

* Doctors/surgeons will not get 10% bonuses through medicare.
* Small businesses will not get health care tax credits.
* Medicare patients will not get preventative plan service.
* Large pharmaceutical companies will not pay fees.
* Tanning companies will not pay tax.

Do you honestly think republicans will stop the first three?

Good point.

 

[Fern]

So wouldn't it be politically smarter to campaign on changing/amending the bill instead of repealing altogether?

To anyone following politics, it should abundantly obvious that this is what they will do - amend. When the heck is the last time we saw something just plain repealed?

No, once they've maneuevered a ball into their court they just can't seem to toss it back out again, instead they'll 'play' with it for political points. To do otherwise would they give up some 'power', that doesn't happen.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

And it'll get vetoed.

You can't veto NOT funding something. He could only veto the bills that WOULD contain the funding. Since the Dems that are left are hardly going to help them, that would require either funding the government on continuing resolutions (i.e. last year's funding, or no change) or shutting it down. Since the vast majority gets its news from liberal news organizations (or worse, John Stewart) this is a battle the Republicans would lose badly. Having lost the same battle once before, I don't see that happening. I could maybe see some parts not funded, but IIRC the real government spending doesn't kick in until 2014, by which time this will be just more government bloat.

 

[her209]

To anyone following politics, it should abundantly obvious that this is what they will do - amend. When the heck is the last time we saw something just plain repealed?

No, once they've maneuevered a ball into their court they just can't seem to toss it back out again, instead they'll 'play' with it for political points. To do otherwise would they give up some 'power', that doesn't happen.

Fern

Well, somebody better tell the "Kill the bill" crowd.

 

[woolfe9999]

You can't veto NOT funding something. He could only veto the bills that WOULD contain the funding. Since the Dems that are left are hardly going to help them, that would require either funding the government on continuing resolutions (i.e. last year's funding, or no change) or shutting it down. Since the vast majority gets its news from liberal news organizations (or worse, John Stewart) this is a battle the Republicans would lose badly. Having lost the same battle once before, I don't see that happening. I could maybe see some parts not funded, but IIRC the real government spending doesn't kick in until 2014, by which time this will be just more government bloat.

Actually no, they'd have to pass a piece of legislation to defund the bill that was already passed. This bill requires no special or annual budget appropriations to fund - it's funding is already mandated in perpetuity unless or until an act of Congress defunds it. It is non-discretionary spending. Any such act to defund it could be vetoed.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

Actually no, they'd have to pass a piece of legislation to defund the bill that was already passed. This bill requires no special or annual budget appropriations to fund - it's funding is already mandated in perpetuity unless or until an act of Congress defunds it. It is non-discretionary spending. Any such act to defund it could be vetoed.

- wolf

LOL I should have known that any major government program the Dems passed would be non-discretionary spending in perpetuity! Silly me.

 

[HannibalX]

How about we get rid of all of them (Republicans and Democrats) and start over?

I won't be voting for any Democrat, Republican or any incumbent any time soon.

Lets kick them all out. Some of these people have been in office going on 30 years, that's enough FFS.

 

[ProfJohn]

I think we are stuck with the bill unless:

A court throws it out.
or
The Republicans take the White House in 2012 and can repeal it, but even then they will most likely only modify it a bit.

 

[UberNeuman]

I won't be voting for any Democrat, Republican or any incumbent any time soon.

Lets kick them all out. Some of these people have been in office going on 30 years, that's enough FFS.

.........and who do you think will replace them?

 

[Descartes]

Yep. As I said before, Rs and Ds snipe and attack each other in public, but once the doors close, they all kick back with a beer and laugh -- at us.

Probably the most sensible thing I've ever read on P&N.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'll agree with PJ for a change.

The fact that Righties somehow figure they can muster 2/3 of both houses to reverse the bill when they couldn't even muster a simple majority to vote it down speaks clearly of a willful and fundamental disconnect from reality.

 

[werepossum]

Anybody noticed that whilst the Republicans are being called partisan in the main stream media, support for the health care bill was actually the partisan side. Some Democrats voted with the Republicans against it, making bipartisan opposition.

 

[her209]

Anybody noticed that whilst the Republicans are being called partisan in the main stream media, support for the health care bill was actually the partisan side. Some Democrats voted with the Republicans against it, making bipartisan opposition.

And it still passed. Whoa! Amazing.

 

[heyheybooboo]

First things first. Republicans actually have to win in November. It is a long time for the propaganda machine on the left to deflect.

Here's some propaganda facts for you this morning:

More Americans now favor than oppose the health care overhaul

By 49%-40%, those polled say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms — as "enthusiastic" or "pleased" — while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."

The largest single group, 48%, calls the legislation "a good first step" that needs to be followed by more action.

--

 

[werepossum]

Here's some propaganda facts for you this morning:

More Americans now favor than oppose the health care overhaul

--

Interesting. I had thought the outrage would last, but in the end we're doomed to become a nanny state anyway.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Interesting. I had thought the outrage would last, but in the end we're doomed to become a nanny state anyway.

That's what happens when you build public opinion with propaganda and rhetoric instead of facts. The scary part is it would have worked if this bill hadn't have passed and instead just gone away. Reps would have been riding the outrage wave all the way to a big November. But now that the bill is law, and there is real substance for the news to report on instead of just partisan hackery, Reps are going to be on the wrong side of this issue in most folks minds come November. And the longer they keep throwing this tantrum they're on the worse it's going to be.

 

[Pens1566]

That's what happens when you build public opinion with propaganda and rhetoric instead of facts. The scary part is it would have worked if this bill hadn't have passed and instead just gone away. Reps would have been riding the outrage wave all the way to a big November. But now that the bill is law, and there is real substance for the news to report on instead of just partisan hackery, Reps are going to be on the wrong side of this issue in most folks minds come November. And the longer they keep throwing this tantrum they're on the worse it's going to be.

^ Yep. At this point I'd be shocked if they took either house or senate in november.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Interesting. I had thought the outrage would last, but in the end we're doomed to become a nanny state anyway.

I don't think you have a great deal to worry about.

The Cons are still poised for big gains in the mid-terms because their 'base' is still energized, and the Dims are pretty much worn out.

However, throwing up big opposition to banking reform is a big Fail, and most Cons have 'moderated' their comments since their initial outrage.

Those big gains will crumble if banking reform goes like health care. I think you may even see some Cons come out in support of the Volcker Rule.




--

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I'm just quietly waiting for the centrist leaning R's to say "Well, I always thought the HCR was a good idea, just not in it's present form. I was for it before I was told to be against it, but now it looks like a good idea"
Or something along those lines to cover the shit stain tracks they left behind them.

 

[werepossum]

I don't think you have a great deal to worry about.

The Cons are still poised for big gains in the mid-terms because their 'base' is still energized, and the Dims are pretty much worn out.

However, throwing up big opposition to banking reform is a big Fail, and most Cons have 'moderated' their comments since their initial outrage.

Those big gains will crumble if banking reform goes like health care. I think you may even see some Cons come out in support of the Volcker Rule.

--

Possibly. Although I find laughable the idea that people couldn't know what was in the bill until it became law, I can easily see the Pubbies ride this horse into the ground. And I certainly hope the Volker Rule is adopted and Glass-Steagall re-instated, as it is demonstrably better than its absence. Lack of effective regulation makes for great wealth production but with periodic severe crashes. Lack of effective regulation coupled with taxpayer-funded bail-outs is the worst of all possible worlds, combining (and even encouraging) crashes with rewards for taking stupid risks.

Yerbouti, that's what the Republicans have been saying all along.