So what happens if the Republicans gut the Senate version of the bill and don't filibuster...

[JeffreyWilliamson]

But then every single one votes against it. So now we have a watered down House and Senate version that goes to be reconciled. The changes they had us make in order to secure their votes can't just be totally undone then can they? We can't just put everything we want back in, can we?

I admit I don't know enough about the process that reconciles the bill to get to the final version that will go to Obama. Is it possible that the Republicans want the bill to pass in some form because they know they have to do something to save the economy, but are manipulating the system so that they get to make massive changes to the final result, while shoring up their base while opposing it in a final vote?

How realistic is this, and does it mean we've been had?

[valerief]

1. Firing squad for 'em! nt

[wryter2000]

2. Nope, we couldn't put things back in

I guess if the Dems discovered what had happened, they could vote against it and defeat it and try again.

In any case, I believe the House bill and the Senate bill have to be reconciled befoe it can become law. You can't have two versions of the new law. Things could be put back in at that point.

The best thing is to keep it from being gutted. One person's gutting might be another person's reasonable compromise. I was listening yesterday, and all the R amendments went down in defeat, so I'm not sure how successful they'll be at gutting it.

[onenote]

6. actually, we could put things back in during the conference

Presumably, if we did, the repubs would vote against the conference version. But if they vote en masse against the watered down version, that's not a big issue. THe bigger issue is whether moderate Democrats who voted for a watered down version would vote for an expanded version coming out of conference.

[leveymg]

3. They'll gut it only if Harry lets them. I'll give that 50/50 odds

[JeffreyWilliamson]

4. I give it 99/1 odds in favor of Harry letting them. n/t

[Dragonfli]

5. I don't think they want the bill to succeed

It seems they are more afraid that Obama will not fail than they are of the consequences of his failure.
I know they believe that if Obama succeeds they will be in the wilderness for another 50 years and as Rush says they want a failure to occur.

What I don't understand is that level of treasonous insensitivity towards the consequences of a failure that will cause such suffering to the majority of their fellow citizens.

They know you see that the only way to regain power is by the failure of our nation under the opposing party.
Pretty sick isn't it?

[AlinPA]

7. You are exactly right.

[Solomon]

10. That was extremely well said.

:thumbsup:

[Vincardog]

8. We can't just put everything we want back in, can we? YES WE CAN. Pull all the corporate benefits

increase all the jobs and infrastructure spending; Then go on the TEEVEE and ask the people to get n the phone and DEMAND an UP or DOWN vote.

[crimsonblue]

9. the bill has to be passed twice...

1. the initial senate bill

2. the bill that comes out of conference that has been reconciled by both Houses.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

11. I'm not liking what I'm finding about this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress_Conference_committee

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule28.php

I'm still trying to wrap my head around all sub-paragraphs, but I don't think we can just go back in after the bill has passed and strip out all their changes and add ours back in. We can make edits to some degree, but we can't just get a re-do. If we did, any of them could object when the bill goes back for the final approval.

Are they using the threat of a filibuster to manipulate the contents of the bill, knowing full well that they won't vote for it anyway? Or are they just trying to pull some of the wind out of Obama's sails and give him a hard time?

Either way, it's nice that they're so willing to throw the economy under the bus, isn't it?

[RC]

12. I thought we had control of both Houses?

So what is the problem? The repugnants are in the minority, out maneuver them, out vote them. May have to get rid of Reid first though. Nancy also.