If it is good for America, why isn't it good for Congress and the president?

Since passing a budget is one of the few things Constitutionally required of Congress, it makes sense that they have to take an up or down vote on it.

Passing this bill is not required.

I also like how it never referred to as, "the nuclear option" like it was when Republicans considered giving judges an up or down vote.

Oh, and confirming judges is another thing required of the Senate.

 

Yeah, that's assuming they don't steal the election or disenfranchise voters or "lose" people ballots, or . . . etc.

 

And yet most of them won't. Everyone can't be wealthy, because if everyone was wealthy, no one would be wealthy.

They're free to believe they'll all make money some day, and I don't want to call them idiots for believing that ... but it's a belief that lacks credibility, let's say that. That they don't see it as voting against their self-interest doesn't mean it isn't.

 

Seems like some were held accountable in the past two full elections, and others more recently.

 

I know. You're right. But the idea that they vote against their economic self-interest because they are blinded by God, gays and guns isn't 100 percent accurate is what I'm saying. They also don't believe they are voting against their economic self-interest. And I guess a person better with economics than we would argue that they aren't even voting against their self-interest because the free market works, etc., etc. And then a Paul Krugman follower would argue otherwise. And away we would/will go ...

 

And like the Civil Rights bills, the people who demonstrate the courage and resolve to pass health care will soon be seen as heroes while those who seek to undermine it will become as extinct as Dixiecrats. The leaders of the GOP are just putting another nail in the coffin of their marginalized, regional party.

 

Maybe they want their kids to have the opportunity to grow up and be successful.

When you tax the life out of people, its hard to save any money to start a business.

And there's not much upside to it if all you have is risk, and get to look forward to the government taxing all of your profits if you re successful and become "rich".

This health care bill is going to drive a lot of wealth successful doctors into early retirement.

Then we'll have less supply of healthcare just as demand is ratcheted up.

How is that going to lower costs?

 

Bzzzt. Wrong. The Senate must advise and consent. It certainly doesn't have to confirm. Regardless, however, that is NOT a road you want to go down, given the persistent Republican obstruction of even mid-tier level federal appointees. Where's the devotion to the fair up-or-down vote there?

Also, the Bush tax cuts weren't a budget. They were financial legislation, but they weren't a budget.

 

And some would say there was accountability in previous elections as well.

Depending on your own individual political point of view, of course.

But my point remains: elections don't always work as an opportunity to hold the government accountable.

 

Prove it.

 

What kind of health plan does the Knesset have?

 

Certainly. But while they don't always, they have served that purpose in the past, and will again in the future, meaning there is accountability.