Senate rules are in place prevent a tyrannical majority from abusing power...

[Craig234]

Do not bring political common sense/logic into the argument.

You have little reason to worry about his doing that.

Note that the Civil Rights acts was passed with over 70% in favor

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

Apparently for a good bill, there is no problems with the Republicans coming on board. And the Democrats also has a super majority at that time.

What misleading claptrap. I refer you back to my post that in the 60's, Republicans used the filibuster or its threat for 8% of legislation - since 2006, Republicans use it for 70% of legislation.

You are trying to equate 'the Republican' like the party's behavior hasn't changed, when as the facts show, it clearly has. You did not see the Republicans in the 60's happy to shut down the government.

In fact notice that the Dems percentage was twice as much more against the bill than the Republicans.

Are you that much of a liar to drag out that old lie yet again? As has been explained in this forum countless times, the racist south was part of the Democratic party at the time.

When you break out the Democrats by Southern and non-Southern, the non-Southern Democrats voted for the bill more than the Republicans - the opposition was almost entirely from the racist south.

It was about REGION and RACISM, not party. Stop trying to lie by combinig all the Democrats and pretending it was a *party* issue - the Democratic party was the only reason there WAS a bill.

The leadership goes to Democratic Presidents Kennedy and Johnson.

And the Civil Rights bill was reworked to satisfy objections of Republicans and Democrats.

One sentence that's finally ok.

AGAIN, why are the current Democratic leaders so fearful to allow this bill to full scrutiny and ensure that was is best for the country to be implemented; instead of that the leadership feels is best for their political ambitions.

Translation: the Democrats set a goal of passing a bill *within a YEAR* and Republicans set out for partisan reasons to oppose it no matter what ir said to hurt the Democrats, and you misrepresent that as simply wanting 'adequate scrutiny' as if the Republican just need the time to look at it carefullly, after which they might well say 'sure, looks good', and the Democrats' motives can only be put in some empty attack phrase you cough up - you can't even get it right to attack them on the legitimate reason of corporate sellout.

I was going to go on and debunk the rest of your nonsense but I'm disgusted by your post.

 

[boomerang]

Do not bring political common sense/logic into the argument.

Note that the Civil Rights acts was passed with over 70% in favor

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

Apparently for a good bill, there is no problems with the Republicans coming on board. And the Democrats also has a super majority at that time.

In fact notice that the Dems percentage was twice as much more against the bill than the Republicans.

And the Civil Rights bill was reworked to satisfy objections of Republicans and Democrats.

AGAIN, why are the current Democratic leaders so fearful to allow this bill to full scrutiny and ensure that was is best for the country to be implemented; instead of that the leadership feels is best for their political ambitions.

Hopefully the joint session in January will affect the bill so much that either the House or the Senate will reject it and a proper bill that actually address Health Care Reform will be created vs a bill that shifts/forces costs on others.

And why should this bill only apply to legal citizens/US Residents?
Why are the illegals getting a free pass?

I predict this bill will sail through so fast it will make our heads spin. The House is back on the 12th and the Senate on the 21st (iirc). Pelosi rules with an iron fist. She will not allow dissent. She will forego any changes to this bill to hasten its signing. Reid will bring the Senate back early. They will ping pong this bill and have it on Obama's desk to be signed before his one year anniversary. They'll strut like proud peacocks.

This bill ceased to be about health care a long time back. It's about winning now.

 

[boomerang]

So I can haz free healthcare now?

If you're a member of Congress or an illegal, yes. All others must pay.

Somewhere, George Soros is grinning.

 

[Craig234]

If you're a member of Congress or an illegal, yes. All others must pay.

Somewhere, George Soros is grinning.

You are an idiot.

 

[Darwin333]

First, my post was about a bad rape analogy, so you did not address it whatsoever with your post.

But on to your post now. Filled with the confusion so frequent.

First, let's again clarify the word 'bribe' you abuse. Since your attack includes something very common by both parites in the normal legislative process, let's be clear a bribe is something else - an illegal payment for PERSONAL gain. Pretty much every bill someone votes for has some gain for the members. Why do you think military contractors build parts in so many states? TO give the congressmen jobs benefits. When you note that if the weapon systrem is justifed for the good of the natrion, it shouldn't matter where the jobs are, you are starting to get it. But that's ot usually called a "bribe". it benefits their state.

The word bribe is just misleading hyperbole by you - shock - when you pretend this isn't the norm.

Come on Craig, can't we call a spade a spade? I know that some people are saying things simply to hurt the other team or help their own team. Both sides are doing it both here and in Washington, and as sleazy as I think it is, thats how our politics currently work. Most intelligent people can see through both sides of the bullshit but personal bias usually has them speaking out only when the other team is doing it. I understand all that.

A bribe is a bribe. Those bastards rarely do a thing that isn't for personal gain and I guarantee that both Nelso and Landrieu cut the deals they did for pure personal gain. Whatever gains their states get are secondary considerations or are intended to help them get reelected which is once again a personal gain.

Come on Craig, can't we at least agree that paying $300,000,000 for a vote is bribery? Can we also agree that both sides do it and it is wrong. This is one of the major reasons I think our politicians have the ability to get away with these types of sleazy, borderline illegal, and extremely unethical actions. We will defend the actions when our team is using such tactics to forward an agenda we agree with. We will excuse our sides sleazy actions because the other side did it first even going as far as to encourage unethical activity. The only time we condemn unethical actions is when its insanely over the top (Dollar Bill Jefferson) or if it is the other team doing it (then we think its REALLY wrong).

Can't we at least agree that bribery is wrong and that neither party should stand for it? If neither party is willing to stand up and say the actions of their own members is unethical then it will never change.

Or is not considering bribery business as usual really too much to ask for from our politicians?

 

[EagleKeeper]

If you're a member of Congress or an illegal, yes. All others must pay.

Somewhere, George Soros is grinning.

You are an idiot.

Standard macro when you are faced with the facts

 

[fskimospy]

Standard macro when you are faced with the facts

If you actually believe those are the facts, then you're lumped in with boomerang on this one too, sorry.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Standard macro when you are faced with the facts

If you actually believe those are the facts, then you're lumped in with boomerang on this one too, sorry.

1) That is par for the course w/ respect to Craig
2) Did Congress exempt itself from the bill?
3) Did Congress write an implied exemption for illegals by stating all LEGAL must be covered/obtain insurance?
4) They could have worded the bill that all people residing in the US & territories... That would have covered all US citizens, legal and illegal residents.

#2 & 3 are what boomerang posted and Craig attempted to sidetracked

 

[fskimospy]

1) That is par for the course w/ respect to Craig
2) Did Congress exempt itself from the bill?
3) Did Congress write an implied exemption for illegals by stating all LEGAL must be covered/obtain insurance?
4) They could have worded the bill that all people residing in the US & territories... That would have covered all US citizens, legal and illegal residents.

#2 & 3 are what boomerang posted and Craig attempted to sidetracked

2.) Congress is not exempted from the bill.
3.) That doesn't make health care free for illegal immigrants in any way, shape, or form.

In addition, your post about the civil rights act is wildly inaccurate and misleading. This exact same statistic has been posted on here many times before and the dishonest framing removed many times before. As I have posted in the past here is a far more telling vote breakdown taken from Wiki.

The original House version:[9]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[10]

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version:[9]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

As you can see the legislation had everything to do with region, and nothing to do with party. It was about racists vs. non-racists, and guess what party all those jilted Southern Democrats joined.

 

[boomerang]

I had a long post typed out to you both Craig and eskimospy. It got lost as seems to happen too often when I am on the laptop. Probably for the best as I had stooped down to the level you both dwell at responding to your juvenile name calling.

You both take everything too ... fucking ... serious. The post that riled you up was based in sarcasm. Perhaps based in truth, but with the bill not in its final form, who knows?

Also, I've got to fess up. I've got you both on my ignore list. I had a long vicious explanation typed out that evaporated, but in a nutshell, my forum life is much more pleasant when I don't have to read your posts. For me personally, you add nothing to the discussions. When people quote you though, I've sometimes read your one liners before I realize it.

I want to close by wishing you both a very sincere and genuine Merry Christmas! Although an atheist myself, I don't begrudge other people their feelings and beliefs. I suspect reading the word 'Christmas' here has probably got you both running to the can to throw up or to the phone to call the ACLU, but hey, I'm just caught up in the season!

 

[taisingera]

They'll strut like proud peacocks.

And then march like asses out in November, I hope.

 

[EagleKeeper]

2.) Congress is not exempted from the bill.
3.) That doesn't make health care free for illegal immigrants in any way, shape, or form.

In addition, your post about the civil rights act is wildly inaccurate and misleading. This exact same statistic has been posted on here many times before and the dishonest framing removed many times before. As I have posted in the past here is a far more telling vote breakdown taken from Wiki.

The original House version:[9]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[10]

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version:[9]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

As you can see the legislation had everything to do with region, and nothing to do with party. It was about racists vs. non-racists, and guess what party all those jilted Southern Democrats joined.

I posted the Senate stats - how can they be misleading when they are the same that you posted

Where the Senators came from should not matter as to the party and their vote. The Republicans now are Republican not Democrats. The overall vote shows that less SENATORS support the Health Care Reform(Shaft) bill compared to the Civil Rights. So taking into account geographical excuses for being against the bill;it shows that there is even less support for this monstrosity.

Congress has exempted itself.
From a Congressional Representative website

Under the current draft of the Democrat health care legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating.

Video of Senator Tsongas defending why



Why is there language inserted that does specifically not include ILLEGALS
CNN FAQ HealthCare Reform/URL]

Will illegal immigrants be covered?

The House bill mandates insurance coverage for illegal immigrants and allows illegal immigrants to enroll in the public option and to buy private coverage in the national insurance exchange, but prohibits government subsidies for such private coverage.

The Senate plan exempts illegal immigrants from the health coverage mandate, and prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in the insurance exchanges.

We will see what the final outcome is in the joint bill - however, there are indications that Pelosi is not going to force major changes from the Senate version

 

[fskimospy]

I posted the Senate stats - how can they be misleading when they are the same that you posted

Where the Senators came from should not matter as to the party and their vote. The Republicans now are Republican not Democrats. The overall vote shows that less SENATORS support the Health Care Reform(Shaft) bill compared to the Civil Rights. So taking into account geographical excuses for being against the bill;it shows that there is even less support for this monstrosity.

Congress has exempted itself.
From a Congressional Representative website

Video of Senator Tsongas defending why

Why is there language inserted that does specifically not include ILLEGALS

Uhmm, your stats are most certainly NOT the same ones I posted, and region absolutely matters. You were looking at a regional divide and trying to draw partisan conclusions from it. That's why it was misleading. In addition, I have no idea why it would matter if there is less support for this bill in the Senate for this bill than for the Civil Rights Act. Not only is the partisan makeup of the Senate much different now than before, but it's a dumb comparison to begin with. Should we add in an extra super filibuster that says 'support must equal the civil rights act'? (it could be helpful as it would lead to the instant repeal of the Bush tax cuts, the Protect America Act, etc... etc. Let me know if you're down for this.)

As for your ideas on what Congress is doing, not only is your quote nonsensical and wrong but it isn't even current. That quote is in reference to the public option, something that isn't even in the Senate version and won't be a part of the final bill. Secondly it was a dishonest statement anyway as there was no EXEMPTION from the bill for Congress, that quote is in reference to an amendment added that would have transferred Congress' insurance plans specifically over to the government run entity. If anything Congress would have been getting an exemption from the income rules, etc, to be IN the plan, not getting an exemption by not being in it.

So other than old quotes wrongly attributed to legislation that isn't even present, what exemption are you talking about?

As for your question about including illegals, it's a non sequitur. Not only would I love to see you levy an income tax penalty against someone who doesn't file income taxes, but you somehow think that because illegal immigrants are not subject to the insurance mandate that this has somehow equaled free health care for them. One does not follow the other, and your conclusion from this is simply illogical.

You're clearly blinded by partisan rage at this bill, but I guess that was to be expected. Every attempt to reform health care throughout the history of the US has met with similar opposition. When Teddy Roosevelt tried it, when Woodrow Wilson tried it, etc... etc. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not impressed by the screeching and flailing.

EDIT: And the bills do not mandate insurance coverage for illegals, that is simply incorrect (shame on you CNN). What it does keep in place is the mandate for hospitals to treat the sick regardless of their ability to pay, something that I would hope all decent human beings support.

 

[Craig234]

Come on Craig, can't we call a spade a spade? I know that some people are saying things simply to hurt the other team or help their own team. Both sides are doing it both here and in Washington, and as sleazy as I think it is, thats how our politics currently work. Most intelligent people can see through both sides of the bullshit but personal bias usually has them speaking out only when the other team is doing it. I understand all that.

A bribe is a bribe. Those bastards rarely do a thing that isn't for personal gain and I guarantee that both Nelso and Landrieu cut the deals they did for pure personal gain. Whatever gains their states get are secondary considerations or are intended to help them get reelected which is once again a personal gain.

Come on Craig, can't we at least agree that paying $300,000,000 for a vote is bribery? Can we also agree that both sides do it and it is wrong. This is one of the major reasons I think our politicians have the ability to get away with these types of sleazy, borderline illegal, and extremely unethical actions. We will defend the actions when our team is using such tactics to forward an agenda we agree with. We will excuse our sides sleazy actions because the other side did it first even going as far as to encourage unethical activity. The only time we condemn unethical actions is when its insanely over the top (Dollar Bill Jefferson) or if it is the other team doing it (then we think its REALLY wrong).

Can't we at least agree that bribery is wrong and that neither party should stand for it? If neither party is willing to stand up and say the actions of their own members is unethical then it will never change.

Or is not considering bribery business as usual really too much to ask for from our politicians?

I've discussed this previously, and you are not seeming to get the point.

I'll repeat.

There is a literal and a figurative issue here.

In the figurative sense of bribery, the use of giving someone something of value to get them to change their position for that reason, this and the normal way of legislatures making deals on all kinds of bills is 'bribery'.

If it's a condemnation of that practice in general, fine, that can be discussed.

But it's wrong to single this out - to say that the figurative bribery that happens all the time in Congress when a legislator asks for some money for his state to make a bill acceptable, is THE SAME as the literal bribery of when he takes a $100,000 cash payment for his own bank account to get him to vote against the public interest he represents - is wrong. To single this out as if it's some bizarre corrupt exception to the way things are usually done is wrong.

I'm not protesting the first use of the word bribery, I am when the people push it too far and try to pretend this case is such an unusual outrage comparable to taking cash for his own benefit.

If yhou can understand the distinction, great. I don't know hwo else to explain it to you. But my point has zero to do with any partisanship you allege.

 

[Craig234]

Common Courtesy, you have sunk to the level I need to say you are an idiot.

Facing the correction of your misleading statements to point out the role of southern racists in the civil rights bill vote, you simply deny that there is any regional concentration of racism:

Where the Senators came from should not matter as to the party and their vote.

So the history from the civil war when thast region fought in part to preserve slavery, the history of that region continuing slavery for decades after the civil war as documented in a recent Pulitzer-prize winning book, the historu of that region with lynching and Jim Crow laws and that region's states being singled out for special federal requirements to prevent voter rights violations, and coultless more evidence of the racism concentrated in that region, you deny.

Yes, it was just a *coincidence* that the votes against the civil rights bill were concentrated almost entirely in that region.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Craig234]

Standard macro when you are faced with an idiot.

Fixed. See post above about you, Mister denier of the regional racism role on civil rights voted, 'region shouldn't matter', when you are caught out trying to slander Democrats by hiding the regional pattern.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Look at the percentages of votes.

There is a greater percentage of votes for the Civil rights act than for this Health Care Shaft bill.

Why is such a good bill generating such luke warm support?
Becuase it is a bad bill, being rushed through, stiffiling debate for political purposes and required to bribe people of the controlling party to support it.

If it is such a good bill for America, why does the leadership not want America to know what is in it?

 

[Craig234]

Look at the percentages of votes.

There is a greater percentage of votes for the Civil rights act than for this Health Care Shaft bill.

Why is such a good bill generating such luke warm support?
Becuase it is a bad bill, being rushed through, stiffiling debate for political purposes and required to bribe people of the controlling party to support it.

If it is such a good bill for America, why does the leadership not want America to know what is in it?

So, you are taking the position that the merit of every bill can be measured by how many votres it gets?

Any bill I can find with a lot of votes, you will say is a great bill, and any bill with few, you willl condemn?

Or did you just say that because it was convenient for THIS bill, to compare it to one of the best bills passed by Congress in the last century, and not pay any attention to the piss poor argument you made?

 

[EagleKeeper]

The arguement is

• Lack of bipartismship support;
• Attempt to stiffle discussion
• The lack of time to allow public input
• The back room deals that have to be cut to get the bill through

What is the leadership afraid of? :\
Why did it have to be rushed through before Xmass? - An extra week or two for the Senators and public to review it would not hurt a solidly written bill

If it looks like a skunk, acts like a skunk, smells like a skunk; it probably is a skunk.:thumbsdown:

 

[mav451]

Lol so what happened to the "quacks like a duck" expression? Unless "skunk" is used b/c this "stinks" - oOooo.

 

[Ozoned]

.

Still, why would this have been written in the bill if they aren't trying to make it permanent?

It's bait. This is what (they) want the media focus to be on for the next couple of weeks.

 

[fskimospy]

The arguement is

• Lack of bipartismship support;
• Attempt to stiffle discussion
• The lack of time to allow public input
• The back room deals that have to be cut to get the bill through

What is the leadership afraid of? :\
Why did it have to be rushed through before Xmass? - An extra week or two for the Senators and public to review it would not hurt a solidly written bill

If it looks like a skunk, acts like a skunk, smells like a skunk; it probably is a skunk.:thumbsdown:

An extra week or to for WHAT? The vast majority of the bill has been available for ALMOST SEVEN MONTHS. As I said way back when, you ask for delay for the sake of delay.

Bipartisanship is not a virtue in and of itself.

There has been reams of discussion about this bill.

Every bill that is even slightly contentious always involves back room dealing to get it passed. This should be obvious to you.

EDIT: An interesting note, particularly for the 'attempt to stifle discussion' bit. Politico reports that this bill had the second longest debate in the history of the United States at 25 consecutive days. The only bill to be considered for more time was the US entry into WW1.

 

[EagleKeeper]

An extra week or to for WHAT? The vast majority of the bill has been available for ALMOST SEVEN MONTHS. As I said way back when, you ask for delay for the sake of delay.

Bipartisanship is not a virtue in and of itself.

There has been reams of discussion about this bill.

Every bill that is even slightly contentious always involves back room dealing to get it passed. This should be obvious to you.

EDIT: An interesting note, particularly for the 'attempt to stifle discussion' bit. Politico reports that this bill had the second longest debate in the history of the United States at 25 consecutive days. The only bill to be considered for more time was the US entry into WW1.

What debate there has been on the bill has been on multiple versions.
You claim the vast majority is the same - yet the Dems complained for 7 months that the public should not be looking at all the different bills because they all had to be reconciled. that the media, sound bites and public were distorting the issues and jumping to conclusions because it is not finalized.

so if the majority is the same; then the majority of the concerns must still exist. - Why not address to the concerns by showing in detail whythey are not an issue, have been corrected and/or have been removed.

Now, lock the reconciled bill down and let it be reviewed properly!

How many people knew of the back room deal for Nebraska, Vermont and Conn.

Apparently, not all the Democratic senators - some have complained and want to cut similar deals.

Why did Reid push for cloture immediately after that final deal was cut to get him the needed 60?
I have not heard of any backroom deals with the Republicans - only with the Democrats.
Was any republican concerns addressed or suggestions included?


What is wrong with allowing a couple of weeks for all little loopholes and gotchas to be exposed.

Or does the leadership not want such to be known in advance for fear of public outcry?

 

[Craig234]

An extra week or to for WHAT? The vast majority of the bill has been available for ALMOST SEVEN MONTHS. As I said way back when, you ask for delay for the sake of delay.

Bipartisanship is not a virtue in and of itself.

There has been reams of discussion about this bill.

Every bill that is even slightly contentious always involves back room dealing to get it passed. This should be obvious to you.

EDIT: An interesting note, particularly for the 'attempt to stifle discussion' bit. Politico reports that this bill had the second longest debate in the history of the United States at 25 consecutive days. The only bill to be considered for more time was the US entry into WW1.

You gave him enough credit to respond to his nonsense. I didn't. But you did just fine. You do have to wonder if he'sd disinbgenous or just that gullible.

 

[fskimospy]

What debate there has been on the bill has been on multiple versions.
You claim the vast majority is the same - yet the Dems complained for 7 months that the public should not be looking at all the different bills because they all had to be reconciled. that the media, sound bites and public were distorting the issues and jumping to conclusions because it is not finalized.

so if the majority is the same; then the majority of the concerns must still exist. - Why not address to the concerns by showing in detail whythey are not an issue, have been corrected and/or have been removed.

Now, lock the reconciled bill down and let it be reviewed properly!

How many people knew of the back room deal for Nebraska, Vermont and Conn.

Apparently, not all the Democratic senators - some have complained and want to cut similar deals.

Why did Reid push for cloture immediately after that final deal was cut to get him the needed 60?
I have not heard of any backroom deals with the Republicans - only with the Democrats.
Was any republican concerns addressed or suggestions included?


What is wrong with allowing a couple of weeks for all little loopholes and gotchas to be exposed.

Or does the leadership not want such to be known in advance for fear of public outcry?

Most of what you wrote doesn't even make any sense. People were saying that attacking overall reform on individual provisions was pointless as we didn't know if they would be in the final bill, that has nothing to do with whether or not people had time to examine what those provisions said. (they had seven months)

The majority of the bill being the same does not in any way mean that the majority of the concerns must still be there. Regardless of that, what concerns do you mean? Who should they be proving this to?

Why did Reid push for cloture when he got enough votes for cloture? He did it for the same reason that every Senate Majority leader does this on every single bill that has ever passed in the entire history of the US Senate. When you have the votes to pass your agenda, you pass it. This is a no-brainer.

Republican suggestions were included and Republican concerns addressed. As I said before however, bipartisanship is not a virtue in and of itself. The Republicans have suffered catastrophic losses in the last several elections, and that means that the few of them that are left in Congress have correspondingly small influence. America chose for it to be this way.

A couple weeks for what? This bill and every provision in it has been under intense scrutiny for SEVEN MONTHS. That is an insanely long period of time for any bill. It has been debated longer than every bill the US has ever passed in its entire history except for one.

I'm sorry but it would appear that your knowledge level of what is in the bill is not high, as evidenced by your accusation of Congress exempting itself from something that doesn't even exist. I think it's pretty likely that after your 'few more weeks' of looking at the bill you would find another problem and request just a few more weeks after that... and a few more after that. That's because your primary interest is in preventing this bill from being passed at all, not that you believe that we need an extra week or two added on to the better part of a year that we've already spent looking at it.