PDA

View Full Version : Obama may use 50-vote tactic on energy, healthcare



PoliCon
03-04-2009, 12:59 PM
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-considers-50-vote-strategy-on-energy-healthcare-2009-03-01.html

By Jim Snyder
Posted: 03/01/09 12:19 PM [ET]
President Obama’s budget director said the White House would consider using a Senate procedural tactic so that only 50 votes would be rquired to pass major healthcare and energy reforms.

Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the administration would prefer not to use the budget reconciliation process to push through its package.
But he added: "We have to keep everything on the table. We want to get these.... important things done this year." Orszag called healthcare in particular "the key to our fiscal future."

Orszag made the comments on ABC’s "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

Because they can not be filibustered, budget reconciliations only require 50 votes to pass the Senate. Democrats hold strong majorities in Congress, but still come up short of the 60 votes necessary in the Senate to end debate, which makes it easier for Republicans to block legislation. House rules in comparison make it harder for the minority party to stop bills.

REMEMBER - with the left - all that matters is power - specifically - THEIR power. :rolleyes:

lacarnut
03-04-2009, 01:16 PM
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-considers-50-vote-strategy-on-energy-healthcare-2009-03-01.html

By Jim Snyder
Posted: 03/01/09 12:19 PM [ET]
President Obama’s budget director said the White House would consider using a Senate procedural tactic so that only 50 votes would be rquired to pass major healthcare and energy reforms.

Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the administration would prefer not to use the budget reconciliation process to push through its package.
But he added: "We have to keep everything on the table. We want to get these.... important things done this year." Orszag called healthcare in particular "the key to our fiscal future."

Orszag made the comments on ABC’s "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

Because they can not be filibustered, budget reconciliations only require 50 votes to pass the Senate. Democrats hold strong majorities in Congress, but still come up short of the 60 votes necessary in the Senate to end debate, which makes it easier for Republicans to block legislation. House rules in comparison make it harder for the minority party to stop bills.

REMEMBER - with the left - all that matters is power - specifically - THEIR power. :rolleyes:

I wonder why dumb ass Bush did not push those types of programs like energy thru Congress when he had a majority in Congress. He could have slashed agencies and cut spending. My worst nightmare has come true. King Obama, Queen Pisslosi and dirty Harry can do anything they want. The Repubs are so impertinent, they could pack their bags and go home.

hazlnut
03-04-2009, 01:35 PM
If the budget vote goes down like that, it will really be bad for everyone. The more vindictiveness and overzealous partisanship that goes on, the less productive work gets done.

Although, the news media focuses on the disagreements and conflicts, if you go on the smaller committee websites or watch specific hearings on c-span, you'll see that individual committees really function as a team sharing research and report writing responsibilities along with constructive debate leading to solid recommendations.

Unfortunately, on the spending bills, solid research, debate, and smart committee recommendations are swallowed up by the bigger machine, chewed up in the majority agenda and spit out for a vote.

The procedural rules and traditions do favor the majority, however, that's the point, isn't it? We(Cons) had a tremendous opportunity to really take the US to great places. If the Bush tax cuts had been partnered with prudent market and banking regs, then who knows...

PoliCon
03-04-2009, 01:39 PM
If the Bush tax cuts had been partnered with prudent market and banking regs, then who knows... It was regs that cause the problem in the first place. Regs requiring banks to make subprime loans. :rolleyes:

hazlnut
03-04-2009, 03:45 PM
It was regs that cause the problem in the first place. Regs requiring banks to make subprime loans. :rolleyes:

Right, the devil made them do it... Fannie May has tried to blame the CRA but that argument falls apart when you understand that the act "encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation."

Every investigation of the subprime fiasco has found that it was almost exclusively the independent mortgage companies making the risky loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts, and that most CRA loans were responsibly made.

I'll repeat what I said in the post: Prudent Regulation. Flood the market with investment capitol by cutting or eliminating capital gains and corporate taxes, but... be mindful that bankers and brokers don't get too creative for the investors' own good...

PoliCon
03-04-2009, 04:00 PM
Right, the devil made them do it... Fannie May has tried to blame the CRA but that argument falls apart when you understand that the act "encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation."

Every investigation of the subprime fiasco has found that it was almost exclusively the independent mortgage companies making the risky loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts, and that most CRA loans were responsibly made.

I'll repeat what I said in the post: Prudent Regulation. Flood the market with investment capitol by cutting or eliminating capital gains and corporate taxes, but... be mindful that bankers and brokers don't get too creative for the investors' own good...
Fannie may and freddie mack are the perps here. They are the ones pushing the bad loans as dictated by the congress. :rolleyes: BTW- where are these investigations? You got links? Who conducted them? The MSM?? The government? Who?

hazlnut
03-04-2009, 05:09 PM
Fannie may and freddie mack are the perps here. They are the ones pushing the bad loans as dictated by the congress. :rolleyes: BTW- where are these investigations? You got links? Who conducted them? The MSM?? The government? Who?

Are you one of these people who is only comfortable knowing what you know, only hearing that which confirms your beliefs, unconsciously blocking everything else out. Do you resist even considering the counter argument for fear it might be right?

With the invention of the Internet there is an abundance of information available for getting better informed and general fact checking. I mention this because your statement reveals a total lack of understanding about Freddie, Fannie, secondary markets, pooling, GSE's, etc.

The investigations I mentioned were know as "Public Hearings" available to the public via another invention known as cable TV.

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=2252

More background on CRA (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-home-front/2008/12/17/sheila-bair-stop-blaming-the-community-reinvestment-act.html)
in case your interested...

PoliCon
03-04-2009, 05:13 PM
Are you one of these people who is only comfortable knowing what you know, only hearing that which confirms your beliefs, unconsciously blocking everything else out. Do you resist even considering the counter argument for fear it might be right?

With the invention of the Internet there is an abundance of information available for getting better informed and general fact checking. I mention this because your statement reveals a total lack of understanding about Freddie, Fannie, secondary markets, pooling, GSE's, etc.

The investigations I mentioned were know as "Public Hearings" available to the public via another invention known as cable TV.

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=2252

More background on CRA (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-home-front/2008/12/17/sheila-bair-stop-blaming-the-community-reinvestment-act.html)
in case your interested...

Wow you are smug aren't ya! How is the rarefied air up there in your ivory tower? I'm so glad to see that you have decided to attack me rather than to offer the evidence you claim supports your view. When you have some evidence and not just words - you come back and you let us know - K?

MrsSmith
03-04-2009, 06:36 PM
If the budget vote goes down like that, it will really be bad for everyone. The more vindictiveness and overzealous partisanship that goes on, the less productive work gets done.

Although, the news media focuses on the disagreements and conflicts, if you go on the smaller committee websites or watch specific hearings on c-span, you'll see that individual committees really function as a team sharing research and report writing responsibilities along with constructive debate leading to solid recommendations.

Unfortunately, on the spending bills, solid research, debate, and smart committee recommendations are swallowed up by the bigger machine, chewed up in the majority agenda and spit out for a vote.

The procedural rules and traditions do favor the majority, however, that's the point, isn't it? We(Cons) had a tremendous opportunity to really take the US to great places. If the Bush tax cuts had been partnered with prudent market and banking regs, then who knows...

We (Cons)? Spend a lot of time at the DUmp, do you?

As for the argument that the CRA didn't cause the housing bubble and meltdown of the economy, how then do you explain the stories coming out of the MSM about so many of the failed loans belonging to ... you'll never guess ... minorities and single mothers? The fact that the government nearly put quotas on loans to make sure that minorities and single mothers received the loans they wanted ... even if they couldn't really afford them ... was the foundation of the moronic "creative financing" that damaged our economy even more than 9/11.

hazlnut
03-04-2009, 08:07 PM
Wow you are smug aren't ya! How is the rarefied air up there in your ivory tower? I'm so glad to see that you have decided to attack me rather than to offer the evidence you claim supports your view. When you have some evidence and not just words - you come back and you let us know - K?


See that underlined part--that's called a link...when you click on it, it takes you to another website with the evidence you so desire...

be warned, going to the other website will require reading...

PoliCon
03-04-2009, 10:01 PM
See that underlined part--that's called a link...when you click on it, it takes you to another website with the evidence you so desire...

be warned, going to the other website will require reading...
Oh I saw it was a link. I saw it was a link to a political report. I'm waiting for EVIDENCE not political propaganda. Thanks! :wave:

lacarnut
03-04-2009, 10:40 PM
Oh I saw it was a link. I saw it was a link to a political report. I'm waiting for EVIDENCE not political propaganda. Thanks! :wave:

Correct!

Tell me it is not so that lenders were not encouraged to make loans to people that had no credit and no jobs. Tell me that the more they made, crooks like Raines made did not make off like a bandit. The more mortages he pushed, the more money his outfit made. Tell me that Barny Fag Frank did not browbeat the regulators when they testified before his committe. Tell me that Dodd did not get large campaign contributions from Exec. of Fanny and F. Clinton started this mess and Bush continued the bs about everyone should own a home. Not if you can not afford it. The propaganda is strong by some of these liberal idiots.

hazlnut
03-05-2009, 12:28 AM
Oh I saw it was a link. I saw it was a link to a political report. I'm waiting for EVIDENCE not political propaganda. Thanks! :wave:

So, let me get this straight... sworn testimony from banking officials, regulators, and economists
is propaganda. You prefer talking points from someone with no background in economics or financial markets...

The link was to the house oversight hearings on Fanny and Freddie. Clink and read, amigo, click and read... and learn...

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

PoliCon
03-05-2009, 12:48 AM
So, let me get this straight... sworn testimony from banking officials, regulators, and economists
is propaganda. You prefer talking points from someone with no background in economics or financial markets...

The link was to the house oversight hearings on Fanny and Freddie. Clink and read, amigo, click and read... and learn...

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

Congressional hearings are not about facts - they are about showboating and politics! Show me facts not propaganda.

hazlnut
03-05-2009, 03:14 PM
Congressional hearings are not about facts - they are about showboating and politics! Show me facts not propaganda.

Man, you are a thick one... You go through life dismissing anything that doesn't support your beliefs/point of view and what happens? You wake up one day and find yourself in the minority!

Oh, of course, it's the media's fault. They put the camera on you when you were acting like an idiot, how dare they do that.

So many people live on a steady diet of propaganda and are not even aware of it. Is that you? Can you tell the difference between news content and editorial content? I can't tell you how often I hear people quote an editorial piece as fact.

Here's some facts for you. On a certain day, a bunch of people gave testimony before congress. They said a lot of things. For instance, when the committee asked about the CRA providing the "fuel" for increasing sub-prime loans, Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines said that it might have been a catalyst encouraging bad behavior, but it was difficult to know. Raines also cited information that only a small percentage of risky loans originated as a result of the CRA.

Fact: While giving testimony Fannie CEO tried to put some of the blame onto the CRA, however once confronted with the actual numbers, he had to concede the point (partially).

Pundits will pull from that hearing whatever testimony best supports their point of view. Then their loyal viewers go about regurgitating the spin, thinking they got the facts, "cause my guy only tells it like it is. Straight talk. Yeah, baby!!" You hate propaganda, huh? Take a good look in the mirror, it's what you are, it's all you know.

You want straight talk. Go to the source. It takes a little extra effort, but when you do wake up and find yourself in the minority party, you have a better idea how you got there. Or just keep blaming the liberal media--it's all their fault. Not the Fair and Balanced friends...oh, no...say it ain't so. They would never mislead you. They're a billion dollar multi-national corp, and in no way biased like the rest.

Since you're fond of those little faces, I hope my rant hasn't made you feel like this guy...:(

I think we're on the same side, I just want us to think before we scream, be well...

AlmostThere
03-05-2009, 09:25 PM
Right, the devil made them do it... Fannie May has tried to blame the CRA but that argument falls apart when you understand that the act "encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation."

Every investigation of the subprime fiasco has found that it was almost exclusively the independent mortgage companies making the risky loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts, and that most CRA loans were responsibly made.

I'll repeat what I said in the post: Prudent Regulation. Flood the market with investment capitol by cutting or eliminating capital gains and corporate taxes, but... be mindful that bankers and brokers don't get too creative for the investors' own good...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCSZakjyVsI&feature=related

In this interview, Matt Lauer asks Clinton about a 1999 article in the NY Times that said Clinton's administration had pressured Fannie to lower their credit standards so that more lower income people could get homes. Lauer asked Clinton if this was true. This question and answer begins at about 3:20 into the interview. If I may summarize Clinton's answer, "Yea, it seemed like a good idea at the time." Safe and sound were thrown out the window as long as poor people got homes.

PoliCon
03-06-2009, 12:17 AM
Man, you are a thick one... You go through life dismissing anything that doesn't support your beliefs/point of view and what happens? You wake up one day and find yourself in the minority!Hardly. Or I would not be either a Christian or a conservative. Once upon a time I was diehard against both.


Oh, of course, it's the media's fault. They put the camera on you when you were acting like an idiot, how dare they do that. WTF are you on about?

You want straight talk. Go to the source. EXACTLY not the talking heads or the damage control teams sent to give testimony to the congress which ALWAYS result in loads of pontificating and absolutely no facts.


It takes a little extra effort, but when you do wake up and find yourself in the minority party, you have a better idea how you got there. You're new here so I'll clue you in. I'm not in the republican party. Have not been for years. I'm registered as a democrat. :wave:



Or just keep blaming the liberal media--it's all their fault. Media bias is as clear as the nose on your face. Just as Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania.



Not the Fair and Balanced friends...oh, no...say it ain't so. They would never mislead you. They're a billion dollar multi-national corp, and in no way biased like the rest.I don't have access to fox news. Nice try though! :wave: But I'll trust them before I'll trust the rest because they give both sides a chance to have their say. That's fair - and it's balanced. Ed Rendell Confirmed this.


Since you're fond of those little faces, I hope my rant hasn't made you feel like this guy...:(

I think we're on the same side, I just want us to think before we scream, be well... If you are for thinking - stop parrotting the leftist line that it's deregulation that is the cause of our current mess when it's regulations as well as political pressure that prompted lenders to go into the sub-prime markets in the first place. EITHER WAY - the way to fix it - is to let people be responsible for their own choices. If you took out a bad loan - your fault. If you didn't realize that it was a bad loan - again your fault for not doing your homework. People need to grow up and take responsiblity for their own actions - and government intervention in the process only makes things worse because it teaches people dependency and they will rely more and more on the enabler.