On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:22:57 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:51:04 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Stop blaming Clinton and the democrats for something that's obviously been
supported far longer and with more fervor by the right wing.

Why? You have seen the votes by now. It was 51 GOP representatives and
9 democrats that opposed the deregulation of CDOs.

it was actually gramm who wouldn't let the bill pass with the original
regulations of CDO's intact. he forced amendments that stripped govt
regulations out of the bill

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:33:32 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:22:57 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:51:04 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Stop blaming Clinton and the democrats for something that's obviously
been
supported far longer and with more fervor by the right wing.

Why? You have seen the votes by now. It was 51 GOP representatives and
9 democrats that opposed the deregulation of CDOs.

it was actually gramm who wouldn't let the bill pass with the original
regulations of CDO's intact. he forced amendments that stripped govt
regulations out of the bill

How does Gramm make 99 other senators go along? How does he keep the
president from vetoing the legislation. How does he make all but 9
democrats in the house go along, yet losing 51 republicans?
Somehow I have to believe he was just the point man on things that a
lot of other people wanted. (the bankers who buy congress and the
white house)


How does DeMint prevent 99 senators from confirming the TSA nominee?

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:03:05 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

How does DeMint prevent 99 senators from confirming the TSA nominee?

--
41 of them must not be convinced he is the right guy.


Nope. One. He quit because he didn't want to become a political football. He
was highly qualified. Read up on it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:11:06 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

How does DeMint prevent 99 senators from confirming the TSA nominee?

--
41 of them must not be convinced he is the right guy.


Nope. One. He quit because he didn't want to become a political football.
He
was highly qualified. Read up on it.

It takes more than one guy to play "football".
If 60 Senators wanted to shut Demint down he would have been shut
down. If you said they couldn't get 60, I would agree.
60 can force a vote on anything, remember what happened right before
Christmas?


You don't know the rules of the Senate. Check it out. Any senator can do
this.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:23:18 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:33:32 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:22:57 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:51:04 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Stop blaming Clinton and the democrats for something that's obviously been
supported far longer and with more fervor by the right wing.

Why? You have seen the votes by now. It was 51 GOP representatives and
9 democrats that opposed the deregulation of CDOs.

it was actually gramm who wouldn't let the bill pass with the original
regulations of CDO's intact. he forced amendments that stripped govt
regulations out of the bill

How does Gramm make 99 other senators go along?

the same way 40 republicans can hold up healthcare for 300M americans

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:44:47 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

How does Gramm make 99 other senators go along?

the same way 40 republicans can hold up healthcare for 300M americans

40 is not one. That was the assertion. I agree if 40 people oppose
something in the Senate it is probably not happening.

Wrong again. 60 is the magic number to stop a filibuster.

The health care bill they have is so flawed the majority of the people
oppose it too. (which brings back on topic, remember Brown's platform)
Basically it gives people who have no insurance the right to buy it
for $1000 a month. Most of these people don't have an extra $1000 a
month. It would also raise the price for people with insurance.
The bill does nothing to cut prices for medical care or drugs. It only
fattens the wallets of the insurance companies but that shouldn't
shock anyone. The insurance lobby wrote the bill.

Not sure which bill you're talking about... Senate or House. The House bill
was much better and more widely supported. I was never a big fan of the
final senate bill.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
news
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:18:10 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:44:47 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

How does Gramm make 99 other senators go along?

the same way 40 republicans can hold up healthcare for 300M americans

40 is not one. That was the assertion. I agree if 40 people oppose
something in the Senate it is probably not happening.

Wrong again. 60 is the magic number to stop a filibuster.

That is why I originally said it takes 41 to stop something

These are two different things. A single senator can block some things.

The health care bill they have is so flawed the majority of the people
oppose it too. (which brings back on topic, remember Brown's platform)
Basically it gives people who have no insurance the right to buy it
for $1000 a month. Most of these people don't have an extra $1000 a
month. It would also raise the price for people with insurance.
The bill does nothing to cut prices for medical care or drugs. It only
fattens the wallets of the insurance companies but that shouldn't
shock anyone. The insurance lobby wrote the bill.

Not sure which bill you're talking about... Senate or House. The House
bill
was much better and more widely supported. I was never a big fan of the
final senate bill.

The current Senate bill is the one they are stuck with since it is the
last filibuster proof one they will ever see. The GOP has their 41
now. They could try reconciliation but the polls are saying it would
be the kiss of death for all the blue dogs and as we saw in
Massachusetts, maybe even some "safe" seats,

For the current bill, sure. The public wants reform, and I believe that's
going to happen.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:43:26 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The public wants reform, and I believe that's
going to happen.

The public wants cheaper health care and the congress is not likely to
actually come up with it as long as they are in the pocket of the
lawyers, medical and insurance lobbies.


I don't think that's really accurate, except in the general sense of
everyone wanting to spend less money. I think people want affordable
coverage that actually does what people are led to believe it does.

I think there's a strong sense of expectation that reform will happen. If it
doesn't happen, I think the Democrats will lose seats, but I'm not sure the
Republicans will gain much, since they're mostly seen as obstructing change.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:16:55 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:44:47 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

How does Gramm make 99 other senators go along?

the same way 40 republicans can hold up healthcare for 300M americans

40 is not one. That was the assertion. I agree if 40 people oppose
something in the Senate it is probably not happening.

who's the GOP whip? he's a moron but he's 1 guy. and he stopped
heatlhcare just like gramm did


The health care bill they have is so flawed the majority of the people
oppose it too.

uh no. nate silver at 538.com did a survery. each individual point of
the healthcare package, except mandates, has majority support. a
majority opposed the package primarily because they don't know what's
in it.

in addition, the right is FAR better at marketing its lies. hell, the
minority whip in the senate the other day was defending WALL STREET
complaining of 'class warfare'. can you freakin' believe it? the GOP
is so out of control they're defending wall street

(which brings back on topic, remember Brown's platform)
Basically it gives people who have no insurance the right to buy it
for $1000 a month. Most of these people don't have an extra $1000 a
month. It would also raise the price for people with insurance.
The bill does nothing to cut prices for medical care or drugs.

the GOP already took are of that with one of the largest debt funded
packages in US history.