Filibusters and Reconciliation

[JoeTheJuggler]

So you finally admit that this idea is the Republicans' idea? Good.

Try again.

That amendment was merely another attempt to prevent passage of the Democratic bill. Republicans in Congress tried all sorts of things with that aim.

 

[AvalonXQ]

And again, the Republicans didn't address any of this until it was forced onto the national stage by the Democrats following Obama's election.

I agree with this statement.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's a Republican proposal of an amendment to the Democratic bill in an attempt to obstruct passage of the Democratic bill.

Or it's an attempt to improve the bill. How to distinguish? By mind-reading, of course. Sorry, that game doesn't work. Republicans proposed opening up competition across state lines by lowering the regulatory barriers. It's right there in the text I gave you. Calling the proposal dishonest doesn't change the fact that they put forward the proposal. And democrats did not propose anything similar.

 

[AvalonXQ]

That amendment was merely another attempt to prevent passage of the Democratic bill.

It was the Republicans who put forward and defended the idea of removing barriers to inter-state competition. This was part of their counter-proposal to the Democrats' proposals.

 

[Ziggurat]

You can't get increased interstate competition as long as you allow the antitrust exemptions to remain in place.

Sure you can. As I already pointed out from an earlier link, many of the things they were exempted from were STILL covered by other laws. Furthermore, antitrust regulations do not protect competition in general, they protect competition in the case of monopolies. It's frequently quite easy to get competition even in the absence of any antitrust regulation.

States are free to pass their own laws that set up effective monopolies (and bar purchasing insurance across state lines).

Not they aren't. This is so nonsensical I can't even tell why you thought it.

So, it seems you're ceding the point that repeal of the antitrust exemption was a "Democratic idea".

Pay attention, Joe. I stated that many posts ago.

What did the Republicans propose to do to increase interstate competition while allowing states the right to pass monopolistic laws?

That is, if these are two distinct issues, how can you tackle the one you say is the "Republican idea" without first doing what you seem to be ceding is a "Democratic idea"?

Since when have the absence of laws preventing monopolies been equivalent to the presence of laws establishing monopolies? Since never. And states don't have the constitutional authority to do anything of the sort in this case, since it's regulating interstate trade. And even if they tried, the proposal I linked to would make any such attempted state laws irrelevant. And lastly, of course, it's absurd to claim that Republicans weren't addressing the problem because their proposal didn't adequately address a hypothetical response to the proposal which makes no sense and which nobody is advocating.

And again, the Republicans didn't address any of this until it was forced onto the national stage by the Democrats following Obama's election.

See post 80, Joe. Again.

 

[The Painter]

I've been away. No it's the same thing. Just like a Kiwi and a Chinese Goose Berry.