Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(160,590 posts)
18. I think we are still saying the same thing
Thu Jul 29, 2021, 02:21 PM
Jul 2021

but I have been emphasizing that at some point, a reconciliation bill needs to happen because to get closer to what the House wants than what this current bill is probably going to evolve into, would never get 60.

And regarding the ACA (or anything that requires money) - they will take a House bill that has already been passed and sent their way (whether directly related to the desired legislation or close to it), and if they don't plan to do a simple up or down vote on it without any changes, they will use that bill to amend, including even amending their own version of the bill to the House one "as a substitute", and then vote on it, and finally send it back to the House.

When they are doing that type of finagling, to save time, they try to work the Rules (through the Rules Committee) so that they can limit amendments and debate on the modified bill once it gets back to the House so they can reduce (or even eliminate) the back and forth stuff (when possible).

And don't forget one of the biggest jackasses prancing around from our side watering stuff down as Chair of the Senate Finance Committee - Max Baucus.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Still hard to believe ColinC Jul 2021 #1
It's just step 1 BumRushDaShow Jul 2021 #3
I think 60 are needed to allow it come to a vote if that.procedural vote is not waved. karynnj Jul 2021 #6
The 60 was needed for one part (which they are doing now) BumRushDaShow Jul 2021 #8
In 2009, there was a cloture vote to proceed to debate the ACA and later a cloture vote before karynnj Jul 2021 #9
I watched the hearings, the markups, the amendments, the debates, and all the votes BumRushDaShow Jul 2021 #12
I also watched everything in 2009/2010 - probably more completely in the Senate than in the House karynnj Jul 2021 #17
I think we are still saying the same thing BumRushDaShow Jul 2021 #18
I completely agree karynnj Jul 2021 #21
WE should take this and come back later The Mouth Jul 2021 #15
I don't want this thing to pass. I don't think the reTHUGS want it either but they really don't abqtommy Jul 2021 #2
1 trillion for 8 years is tRump change, what a disgrace, especially after handing wall street $10T n yaesu Jul 2021 #4
Isn't this dead in The House, OneCrazyDiamond Jul 2021 #5
There are 2 parts for they want to do and this was one of them, which already passed the House BumRushDaShow Jul 2021 #7
I don't see Pelosi sitting on this bill for months after it passes the Senate. Calista241 Jul 2021 #10
if she get its passed we will never get sinema, manchin etc.. to sign on the reconciliation bill drray23 Jul 2021 #11
Reconciliation can only be done ONCE in a fiscal year BumRushDaShow Jul 2021 #13
Good insight. Lasher Jul 2021 #16
She sounded pretty serious. OneCrazyDiamond Jul 2021 #14
Has NewsMax suggested this is evidence of Biden's tyrannical rule yet? Sapient Donkey Jul 2021 #19
SnoozeFux can go pound sand BumRushDaShow Jul 2021 #20
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Bipartisan infrastructure...»Reply #18