Obama compromises with the GOP for extending the tax cuts

[WhoWee]

I don't know how long it should take, but I would hope a few months ought to do. Of course, I don't insist that every Congressperson actually read every paragraph of legislation that goes through them. I imagine legislative aides make that process a lot more streamlined.

The initial versions of the bill were written up in July 2009. Nearly four months later, the House passed its version of the bill. And another two months later, the Senate passed their version. The final version (very similar the the Senate version) passed the House three months after that, in the end of March 2010.

Here's where I tend to stray from the pack. I'd prefer that legislation be broken into smaller Bills - with great focus - and votes cast daily (if necessary). This would cast a bright light on Pork and quite possibly eliminate ear marks.

 

[turbo]

Here's where I tend to stray from the pack. I'd prefer that legislation be broken into smaller Bills - with great focus - and votes cast daily (if necessary). This would cast a bright light on Pork and quite possibly eliminate ear marks.

And here is where you and I are are in 100% agreement. Omnibus bills and bundles are a really sweet way for our elected kleptos to hide their pork. Keep bills separate, and forbid non-germaine amendments. Maybe we can get our government back under control.

 

[Hepth]

I agree too, but there has to be SOME combination in order to allow for compromise, right? When one party holding the senate, the other the house., no single line items would ever get through given how the parties tend to vote. Only if you can bundle what both want together is there a chance.

But maybe that's the point. If you can't get everyone to agree it might not be such a good idea.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What? Obama wants to kill grandma?:uhh:

I'll give you credit for trying - but when legislation is rammed through the way Obama, Reid, and Pelosi did it - I don't think anyone's going to be sympathetic to his 1 or 2 votes challenge.

We've been waiting since Teddy Roosevelt first tried. Hillary tried but the effort was killed. No Republicans since I think Nixon have tried. Health care is in crisis and will bankrupt the country if costs are not checked. When disaster strikes, families without insurance are in crisis; the underinsured are in crisis. And in spite of the right-wing media hype, Obama care is expected to reduce costs by about 100 billion a year, for the next ten years. This is according to the CBO.

What Reid and Pelosi did was simply pass a bill retroactively when they knew they couldn't get the one they wanted. Nothing was slipped through without a vote. The only difference was the procedure, which was perfectly legal.

All of this business about earmarks is smoke and mirrors. Sure, we should clean things up, but that constitutes a very small part of our spending. It doesn't address the real problems. Like the flag burning nonsense that has been coming up periodically my entire life, it is used as a distraction.

 

[WhoWee]

Health care is in crisis and will bankrupt the country if costs are not checked. When disaster strikes, families without insurance are in crisis; the underinsured are in crisis. And in spite of the right-wing media hype, Obama care is expected to reduce costs by about 100 billion a year, for the next ten years. This is according to the CBO.

What Reid and Pelosi did was simply pass a bill retroactively when they knew they couldn't get the one they wanted. Nothing was slipped through without a vote. The only difference was the procedure, which was perfectly legal.

The massive health care legislation that passed is not perfect - we all agree on that - right?

I think we also agree that health care costs are a problem and that pre-existing conditions are a problem - we just don't all agree on how to solve the problem.

I've disclosed this before - I'm very close to this issue professionally. I study the issues (in depth) on a daily basis. Accordingly, I believe there is a better way to insure more people and reduce costs.

One major problem is that every state has it's own insurance regulations. If the regulations were standardized - even to the highest standards mandated across the states - it would open the market to smaller carriers and greatly reduce legal and administrative costs for both providers and insurance companies. Next, people with pre-existing conditions could be underwritten if the Government formed a high risk pool to assist carriers - the carriers could also contribute a few dollars per month from every premium (perhaps use some of the savings from standardized regulation).

As for your claim that the CBO projecvts a $100Billion per year savings - please support with current information.

This CBO link demonstrates the uncertainty of what to expect - that is unintended consequences.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11544/Presentation5-26-10.pdf

 

[CRGreathouse]

All of this business about earmarks is smoke and mirrors. Sure, we should clean things up, but that constitutes a very small part of our spending. It doesn't address the real problems.

I agree that it's an insignificant amount of money. But I do think it's a real problem: even if it's a small amount of the US budget it accounts for a significant amount of political patronage/corruption. Cleaning that up is a worthy task.

 

[turbo]

I agree that it's an insignificant amount of money. But I do think it's a real problem: even if it's a small amount of the US budget it accounts for a significant amount of political patronage/corruption. Cleaning that up is a worthy task.

Thank you!