The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Gun Dog Broker
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 83

Thread: November

  1. #21
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    You lefties can't seem to get your stories straight. I thought Obama was being thwarted at every turn by the Party of No and that the rules of the Senate had to be completely rewritten to get around all that unprecedented obstructionism.
    And yet, as it turns out, the rules are being followed to the letter. All it took was an outrageously undemocratic decision to pass a bill already adopted by the Senate with a vote of 60-39 that will now be signed into law in 1-2 hours. Maybe Republicans will use that trick instead of rewriting the rules helter skelter the next time they are in the majority. Would you like to take bets on how long it will take the Republicans to use parliamentary tricks to overcome a Democratic filibuster after the Republicans once again have a majority in the Senate? I'll take the "under six months" option and even bet that you will be one of those cheering them on.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    And yet, as it turns out, the rules are being followed to the letter. All it took was an outrageously undemocratic decision to pass a bill already adopted by the Senate with a vote of 60-39 that will now be signed into law in 1-2 hours. Maybe Republicans will use that trick instead of rewriting the rules helter skelter the next time they are in the majority. Would you like to take bets on how long it will take the Republicans to use parliamentary tricks to overcome a Democratic filibuster after the Republicans once again have a majority in the Senate? I'll take the "under six months" option and even bet that you will be one of those cheering them on.
    Your partisan hackery is showing. It's "following the rules" when the Dems use Congressional procedure to their advantage and "parliamentary tricks" when the GOP does it. You like the rules when the Dems get to make them and detest the rules when the GOP uses them to their advantage. I'll take the "under six minutes" until you make your next partisan statement shillin' for your homies.
    I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.

  3. #23
    Senior Member badbullgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    somewhere between Boca Grande and Nova Scotia
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    You're welcome. But if I'm getting gov't wages, then I'm working gov't hours, and taking gov't holidays. I love what I do, and won't quit due to lower pay, but will work more "normal" hours and days.

    What we all need to worry about is the future crop of bright, intelligent, motivated doctors who are still in HS and college. We need to worry that this next generation of fine doctors will say, "F%#K it!" and go into some other, high paying job that will compensate them accordingly and not be sued in a free-lottery system for less than perfect outcomes.

    Haven't seen or heard any tort reform in this bill, but then again, I'm only on page 978 of 1800.
    You also have to worry about a lot of the 48-60 year olds that feel it is not worth it to continue. One of the groups I work with is made up of 4 doctors that are all 50-60 and all have told me that depending on the actual change that occurs they are more than willing to walk away and live life without the hassles. Fishing in the Keys all summer long vs working for 21+% less…. All of them love what they do, but all have been in the business long enough to be able to retire and not worry about much for the rest of their days. I am also sure there are a lot of docs in this age group that are burned out already and while they still are great doctors, they would have less than no problem walking away as they are holding on for a few more years of income rather than the love of the job (note that is not saying they are bad doctors or anything, but as with any profession there comes a point for many that it is about a few more years of income rather than “the love”). The loss of these docs also affects the future docs coming up because the good old experiences and best in their field will not be around to mentor and train the new kids.
    Views and opinions expressed herein by Badbullgator do not necessarily represent the policies or position of RTF. RTF and all of it's subsidiaries can not be held liable for the off centered humor and politically incorrect comments of the author.
    Corey Burke

  4. #24
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    Your partisan hackery is showing. It's "following the rules" when the Dems use Congressional procedure to their advantage and "parliamentary tricks" when the GOP does it. You like the rules when the Dems get to make them and detest the rules when the GOP uses them to their advantage. I'll take the "under six minutes" until you make your next partisan statement shillin' for your homies.
    The rules were the same. The shenanigans were different. Cases in point:

    • welfare reform -- which I supported -- was passed entirely through reconciliation. This was a massive rewrite of Federal laws that had been standing for 60 years. How was reconciliation appropriate as a tool?
    • 2001 tax cuts -- which I opposed -- were passed while PayGo rules were still in place. Those rules prohibited passage of programs that created significant deficits beyond a 10 years period. To overcome this limitation, all the tax cuts were structured to sunset after 10 years laying the framework for the largest tax increase in history.
    • 2003 tax cuts -- which I opposed -- were passed after PayGo rules were rescinded but using reconciliation and a vote of 50 Republicans plus the VP to pass. Reconciliation is not supposed to be used except for actions that reduce deficits. Hard to say about a program that increased the deficit by almost $400 billion (the administration had sought $750 billion but a couple of moderates held out).
    • Medicare Prescription program -- which I supported in concept but opposed because of the way it was structured -- was passed through reconciliation despite the fact that it represented a net increase in Medicare trust fund deficits of more than $500 billion with no offsetting source of revenues.
    Obviously, Republicans were outraged by the adoption of the Senate bill by a 60 vote majority. How undemocratic! Their one consolation was that they knew the House opposed the bill as adopted and were confident that it would never be ratified without amendments that would force a new vote in the Senate.

    In the interim, Brown was elected and the Dems lost their 60 vote edge. It looked like the Dems might use the period prior to searing in Brown to pass a modified bill, but Obama said that he would not support such passage until after Brown was sworn in. Unlike the situation in Minnesota, where Republican protests prevented Franken from being seated, Dems allowed Brown to take his seat even before the election had passed all hurdles for certification in Massachusetts. It could easily have been held up for as much as a couple of months, allowing a bill to pass. Would Bush and a Republican controlled Congress have taken advantage of that opportunity? I leave that answer to you.

    So what did the Democrats do? When they first decided to consider reconciliation, numerous Democratic member said that anything done had to conform with a strict interpretation of the rules since they did not want the types of distortions that had been supported in the past. They sat with the parliamentarians to determine the limits of those rules and then began to craft a deal based on acceptance of the Senate bill into law with fixes using reconciliation. Health reform is not being adopted through reconciliation. It has already been adopted. The reconciliation process was to be used for modifications that would change the timing and structure of revenue sources, eliminate some of the special deals, etc., with each change being measured against a rule requiring that it help reduce the deficit and that it be related to financing.

    Initially the fixes were to be passed as part of the same bill as the adoption of the Senate bill using "deem and pass." This "radical" procedural move had only been used to pass 20-30% of all rule changes when the House was under Republican control from Newt Gingrich on. The Senate parliamentarian said that the Senate bill had to actually become law before reconciliation could be used to change it and Republicans expressed outrage over efforts to link the bill and the changes together. Democrats backed down and adopted the Senate bill as is and then took a separate vote on the fixes.

    My question to you is where is the abuse of the process? From a personal perspective, my major complaint is that the Democrats are fighting with 12 ounce gloves while Republicans are using brass knuckles.

  5. #25
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    And yet, as it turns out, the rules are being followed to the letter. All it took was an outrageously undemocratic decision to pass a bill already adopted by the Senate with a vote of 60-39 that will now be signed into law in 1-2 hours. Maybe Republicans will use that trick instead of rewriting the rules helter skelter the next time they are in the majority. Would you like to take bets on how long it will take the Republicans to use parliamentary tricks to overcome a Democratic filibuster after the Republicans once again have a majority in the Senate? I'll take the "under six months" option and even bet that you will be one of those cheering them on.

    Really, so now you are an expert on congressional procedural law as well.

    I think time will tell if there were any illegalities, I will leave that to the people who KNOW and practice such.

    When the dust settles and the STINK subsides and we find out the extent of the backroom deals, shady tactics, arm twisting & coercion to force these votes there my be some questions.

    Let's see how it plays out.

    To make the assumption and assertion you made is absurd and unrealistic.
    No one knows all the facts yet, not even you, the sole possessor of the truth!!





    rk
    Stan b & Elvis

  6. #26
    Senior Member Goose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    McKinney, Texas
    Posts
    796

    Default

    "The public will have five days to look at every bill that lands on my desk." - Barack Milhous Obama

    Obama will go down in history as a bigger liar than Dick Nixon.

    We live in Cuba now.

  7. #27
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Goose View Post
    "The public will have five days to look at every bill that lands on my desk." - Barack Milhous Obama

    Obama will go down in history as a bigger liar than Dick Nixon.

    We live in Cuba now.
    Actually, the Senate bill as passed has been available for public inspection since before December 24, 2009. Obama's actual statement was that the public would have at least five days to review bills online before they were signed. He did not say that he would wait five days after they were passed before signing them. While today's signing is consistent with his campaign promise, others have not been. Personally, I thought it was a ridiculous thing to promise.

  8. #28
    Senior Member zeus3925's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Twin Cities Metro, MN
    Posts
    1,879

    Default

    I think I will follow the good advice of this thread in November. My congressman is a freshman conservative republican that voted against the health care bill. No matter, he sat in congress and didn't stop the bill. So, in accordance to the advice of the sages here, I should vote him out anyway, right?
    Sarge

    I don't want to feed an ugly dog!

  9. #29
    Senior Member Goose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    McKinney, Texas
    Posts
    796

    Default

    "I also have a healthcare plan that would save the average family $2,500 on their premiums" - Barack Milhous Obama

    I'll just sit back and wait for my premium reduction notice in the mail. I'm sure it will come in the mail next week like the President promised.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badbullgator View Post
    You also have to worry about a lot of the 48-60 year olds that feel it is not worth it to continue. One of the groups I work with is made up of 4 doctors that are all 50-60 and all have told me that depending on the actual change that occurs they are more than willing to walk away and live life without the hassles. Fishing in the Keys all summer long vs working for 21+% less…. All of them love what they do, but all have been in the business long enough to be able to retire and not worry about much for the rest of their days. I am also sure there are a lot of docs in this age group that are burned out already and while they still are great doctors, they would have less than no problem walking away as they are holding on for a few more years of income rather than the love of the job (note that is not saying they are bad doctors or anything, but as with any profession there comes a point for many that it is about a few more years of income rather than “the love”). The loss of these docs also affects the future docs coming up because the good old experiences and best in their field will not be around to mentor and train the new kids.
    Most of our doctors are coming from the middleeast and India. No matter how bad it will get here, here is still much better than there, for them! We will get to witness the destruction of the finest medical care in the world.
    The Libertarian Party believes that all persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. A call for the repeal of the income tax, abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes. LP.org

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •