The circle of life...

not commie.

It was wrong when they did it. It's just as wrong when the other party is doing it now.

Just as the Dems screamed rape when the GOP did it. So the point is?

Ah - obviously subby wanted to point out how hypocritioal all politicians are, especially when they can get away with it.

Yes, but it was different when the Republicans did it, see? Republicans were supposed to have a permanent majority. Tom DeLay say so, and Republicans took him on faith because that's what you do when you're Godly and American and Love Your Country. You take things on faith. And they played a big old fun game of steamroller on Washington. You remember steamroller, right? That game at summer camp where you'd zip yourself up into your sleeping bag and yell STEAMROLLER and then roll over everybody else who was sleeping out on the parachute with you? Except that Republicans didn't even have the courtesy to yell STEAMROLLER, they were like that dork Ronnie Blankenship who steamrolled before announcing and broke your glasses and then tried to say it was your fault for being in your sleeping bag with glasses on. What an ass he was. But they were like Ronnie, and they just went on steamrolling and steamrolling and then they hit that one fat kid that, seriously, you just can't steamroll. I mean, he's like a freakin' mountain in his bag, you'd need to be going like 30 miles an hour to just get over his shoulder. So they hit that fat kid, who's name, incidentally, was Obama, and they're just sitting there rolling and rolling and rolling in their sleeping bag and not going anywhere and then fat ol' Obama grins up at the stars and rolls sideways and OOOF. Crushed. Steamroller's not that fun a game when the fattest kid on camp is lying on top of you and grinding his hips against your sternum.

Whiny Republicans can suck my salty balls.

Is the obvious tag malfunctioning again? Come on the old "It's different when we do it!" line is as old as partisan politics itself.

Pocket Ninja - what you said.

Never pictured the President as Fat Albert, but what the hey, it's your revenge fantasy. It's too bad that the country gets flattened at the same time. 9 Trillion! The pity is no one will ever be held responsible for the bankruptcy of the USA. The Republicans don't own it and the Democrats will pretend they didn't know what was happening. They meant well of course.

Pocket Ninja: Yes, but it was different when the Republicans did it, see? Republicans were supposed to have a permanent majority. Tom DeLay say so, and Republicans took him on faith because that's what you do when you're Godly and American and Love Your Country. You take things on faith. And they played a big old fun game of steamroller on Washington. You remember steamroller, right? That game at summer camp where you'd zip yourself up into your sleeping bag and yell STEAMROLLER and then roll over everybody else who was sleeping out on the parachute with you? Except that Republicans didn't even have the courtesy to yell STEAMROLLER, they were like that dork Ronnie Blankenship who steamrolled before announcing and broke your glasses and then tried to say it was your fault for being in your sleeping bag with glasses on. What an ass he was. But they were like Ronnie, and they just went on steamrolling and steamrolling and then they hit that one fat kid that, seriously, you just can't steamroll. I mean, he's like a freakin' mountain in his bag, you'd need to be going like 30 miles an hour to just get over his shoulder. So they hit that fat kid, who's name, incidentally, was Obama, and they're just sitting there rolling and rolling and rolling in their sleeping bag and not going anywhere and then fat ol' Obama grins up at the stars and rolls sideways and OOOF. Crushed. Steamroller's not that fun a game when the fattest kid on camp is lying on top of you and grinding his hips against your sternum.

Funny, but does that make it okay?

Pocket Ninja: Steamroller's not that fun a game when the fattest kid on camp is lying on top of you and grinding his hips against your sternum.

Speak for yourself, champ.

Soooooo hawwwwt

TiltedKilt: Whiny Republicans can suck my salty balls.

/As if anyone here on fark.com cares about how you like to get off.

Nabb1: Funny, but does that make it okay?

No. Congress made it okay a long time ago by writing it into the law. It doesn't really matter who or when, it's the law now and both sides have used it (dare I say it) liberally.

The only thing that stinks here is the all the stone throwing coming from the neighborhood with all the glass houses.

Nabb1: Funny, but does that make it okay?

I don't think that really matters. This is how it works. I think Dems would be more likely to actually listen to the other side if Republicans weren't trying so hard to be against whatever the other side is for just for the sake of being contrary.

Xerxes99: TiltedKilt: Whiny Republicans can suck my salty balls.

/As if anyone here on fark.com cares about how you like to get off.

you cared enough to comment

Wouldn't it be nice if just once a politician didn't fulfill our most cynical expectations?

Every time they pound their fists on the table and scream about the other sides tactics and dirty tricks, and they promise that if we elect them they will change the system. They will bring a higher standard. They will be the uncorrectable force that finally brings accountability and honesty to the process. So we elect them with hope and optimism for the future.

Then, little by little, like death from a thousand cuts they whittle away at our hope, our faith, our optimism, they act just the same or worst than their predecessors and we, as the foolish and predictable sheep, devolve into petty bickering about which side is worse when we should be focusing on demanding that all of them live up to their promises and platitudes.

"legislative maneuver that Republicans used"

Oh good, is this another thread where we biatch that they did it so we can too? Because we need a few more of those.

Meh.

*insert crying democrat baby pic here*

Nabb1: It was wrong when they did it. It's just as wrong when the other party is doing it now.

Is it wrong?

Is it wrong to use a legal legislative maneuver to get legislation passed with a majority of votes?

I mean, all we are talking about here is a rule that allows the senate to side-step one of its own rules in specific circumstances--a rule that was originally intended to give the minority the ability to hold up legislation in rare and extreme circumstances, but has in the past few years been applied to nearly every significant vote.

What exactly is 'wrong' or 'unethical'? Can you describe the offense?

"we will have the most open, honest and ethical congress in the history of our country.."

Nabb1: Funny, but does that make it okay?

I don't really have an opinion on whether or not it's "okay," just like I don't have an opinion on whether it's "okay" to kill judicial nominees in committee or via filibuster. What I do have an opinion on is whether it's hypocritical for one to decry a tactic and then employ it oneself.

Amazing.. the democrats control the presidency and both houses of the congress and are currently running this country and what's left of its economy and Constitution into the ground and 90% of the greenlit political articles are against the GOP.

Since the republicans are the party of gawd, their tactics are blessed by him and whatever measures they take to battle ebil are holy and good, as the ends justify the means. Democrats on the other hand, are the party of the debil and they must be shouted down with whatever whargarbll one can think of at the time.

How is using a majority to pass a budget so immoral when either side does it? That's the definition of voting for something: the side with more votes wins.

kronicfeld: it's hypocritical for one to decry a tactic and then employ it oneself.

or vice versa

Satan_Sunburn: "legislative maneuver that Republicans used"

Oh good, is this another thread where we biatch that they did it so we can too? Because we need a few more of those.

Meh.

*insert crying democrat baby pic here*

1. The Democrats haven't used it, yet. So crying 'hypocrisy' on their part, if it even is applicable, is a bit premature.

2. I am still waiting for an explanation of what is 'wrong' about this.

Nabb1: Funny, but does that make it okay?

Maybe so, maybe not. Either way, Republicans gave up their right to cry about it.

Lumpmoose: a budget so immoral

LOL

Triaxis: Amazing.. the democrats control the presidency and both houses of the congress and are currently running this country and what's left of its economy and Constitution into the ground and 90% of the greenlit political articles are against the GOP.

Maybe because what you are imagining isn't happening. We are not running into the ground

Skleenar: 2. I am still waiting for an explanation of what is 'wrong' about this.

Well hell, if this isn't wrong then I guess that implies that everything done during the last administration is ok now. So it must've been ok then, too. Fine by me!

From Nancy Pelosi's blog:

When Has Congress Used Budget Reconciliation?

The budget reconciliation process has been used most years since it was first used in 1980, including in recent years when Republicans controlled Congress and considered the following legislation:

2005 - Legislation That Reduced Spending on Medicaid and Raised Premiums on Upper-Income Medicare Beneficiaries

2003 - President Bush's 2003 Tax Cuts

2001 - President Bush's Signature $1.35 Trillion Tax Cut

2000 - $292 Billion "Marriage Penalty" Tax Cut (VETOED)

1997 - Balanced Budget Act

1996 - Legislation to Enact Welfare Reform

1995 - "Contract With America" Agenda

Who Supports the Budget Reconciliation Process?

Rep. John A. Boehner"The House Budget Committee yesterday combined the major elements of the Republicans' legislative revolution into a massive, far-reaching bill intended to balance the budget over seven years, cut taxes for American families and dramatically change the face of the federal government... 'What we're seeing is great unanimity on the big picture, which is the need to pass a reconciliation bill,' said Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Republican Conference." [Washington Post, 10/13/95]

Sen. Judd Gregg"The ANWR language has been a source of controversy all year, and along with Medicaid savings, was one of two principal reason for attempting to pass a reconciliation bill this year, according to Senate Budget Chairman Judd Gregg, RN.H. Either provision on its own could not have survived a Democratic filibuster without the protection of budget reconciliation, Gregg said." [CQ Today, 12/19/05]

Sen. Charles E. Grassley"The result is an energy bill much like the one lawmakers sought to finish in the final weeks of the 107th Congress that is composed largely of energy-related tax credits...But if a broader energy measure lags, [Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa] said, the tax package could be accelerated by also attaching it to reconciliation. 'If we weren't going to move an energy bill, then I would want to do that,' he said." [CQ Weekly, 1/17/03]

heh

Satan_Sunburn: Well hell, if this isn't wrong then I guess that implies that everything done during the last administration is ok now. So it must've been ok then, too. Fine by me!

Logic.

Try it some time.

Nabb1: It was wrong when they did it. It's just as wrong when the other party is doing it now.

Rohnbo: Just as the Dems screamed rape when the GOP did it. So the point is?

Ah - obviously subby wanted to point out how hypocritioal all politicians are, especially when they can get away with it.

Okay, that's one perspective, here's another...

Based on the last eight years, the Democrats are faced with a difficult challenge where they have basically two years (not even any more, more like 18 months) to get the economy back on track as well as fix any number of other issues that they believe must be dealt with.

The initial attempt to work with the Republicans lead to meetings (while the pundits screamed about anything they could drum up in the background) which then culminated in the Republicans voting straight party against the bill - and then to add insult to injury, went back home and bragged about how they got pork included for their constituents.

Sorry, you want to play that game, we'll, I think the Democrats are more than justified in saying, SCREW YOU.

This has nothing to do with what the Republicans did, this has everything to do with that the Democrats are trying to accomplish - and they are justified in employing any legal and ethical maneuver they can utilize to get the job done that the American people put them in place to do.

In other words, take a flying leap off of the cliff you tried to drive us all over, if you don't like it.
Or, better still, work with the Democrats and get something done for our country.
Do it or the American people are going to come down on you guys like a ton of bricks in 2010 and again in 2012.

Repubs make for lousy back seat drivers? Maybe they just need more fiber in their diets.

Muted trumpet:

Wah
Wah
Waaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh.

Skleenar: Logic.

Try it some time.

I think you need to dial up your sarcasm sensor, moron.

chipspastic: Nabb1: Funny, but does that make it okay?

No. Congress made it okay a long time ago by writing it into the law. It doesn't really matter who or when, it's the law now and both sides have used it (dare I say it) liberally.

It's a Senate rule (Number 22, passed 3/18/1917) and not a law. The senate can change the rule if they want, as they did in 1975.

Skleenar: heh

Can anyone find any evidence of Democratic Congress-critters complaining about the use of Budget Reconciliation when the GOP controlled Congress? I couldn't, but I didn't try too hard.

Satan_Sunburn: I think you need to dial up your sarcasm sensor, moron.

I think you really need to get laid.
Do it and you might actually start to make sense.
Because all you represent is screaming about losing.
And you should, after what you all did to this country.

Satan_Sunburn: I think you need to dial up your sarcasm sensor, moron.

You seem a little sensitive. You might need this:

Triaxis: Amazing.. the democrats control the presidency and both houses of the congress and are currently running this country and what's left of its economy and Constitution into the ground and 90% of the greenlit political articles are against the GOP.

NOT ACCORDING TO THE FARKMOMETER!

/and we're not driving it into the ground, we're digging it back out.

simplicimus: chipspastic: Nabb1: Funny, but does that make it okay?

No. Congress made it okay a long time ago by writing it into the law. It doesn't really matter who or when, it's the law now and both sides have used it (dare I say it) liberally.

It's a Senate rule (Number 22, passed 3/18/1917) and not a law. The senate can change the rule if they want, as they did in 1975.

OK - it's a Senate rule. Still needs to be obeyed until/unless it is changed, and nobody's seen fit to do that since 1975. That says more than all the butthurt GOP whining.

chipspastic: Can anyone find any evidence of Democratic Congress-critters complaining about the use of Budget Reconciliation when the GOP controlled Congress? I couldn't, but I didn't try too hard.

I looked, too. I didn't find anything, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I did find this, however, delivered by St. Reagan:

Address to the Nation on Federal Tax and Budget Reconciliation Legislation

August 16, 1982

Not terribly clear how that applies, but it certainly seems like he asked for the budget reconciliation.

Lumpmoose: How is using a majority to pass a budget so immoral when either side does it? That's the definition of voting for something: the side with more votes wins.

To alot of them, if it's not their idea then it is immoral. It's realy as simple as that.

MorseCodeNowInHiDef: Repubs make for lousy back seat drivers? Maybe they just need more fiber in their diets deities.

That's honestly what I first read.

We should all be outraged at the colossal spending spree they are going on.


Many of you ideologues are too drunk with smugness to notice.

Meet the new Congress, same as the old one.


I voted for Obama, but Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Democrats in charge are really pissing me off.

Phil Herup: We should all be outraged at the colossal spending spree they are going on.


Many of you ideologues are too drunk with smugness to notice.

Read the headline, Phil. This thread is about the outrage over Budget Reconciliation. If you want to complain about the budget itself, that's another thread. (new window)

Thorndyke Barnhard: Considering the majority of Repubs are religious nutjobs; I could see how that would be apropriate.

Nabb1: It was wrong when they did it. It's just as wrong when the other party is doing it now.

What's so wrong about it? Maybe it wasn't wrong in either case. Remember, this is a Senate rule, not a constitutional issue.