The GOP has gone insane

Quote from: Lorddave on October 14, 2013, 08:12:02 AM

Quote from: garygreen on October 14, 2013, 07:58:56 AM

Here is the resolution itself, passed with virtually no bipartisan support on Oct 1.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hres368

"Sec. 2. Any motion pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII relating to House Joint Resolution 59 may be offered only by the Majority Leader or his designee."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/house-republicans-rules-change_n_4095129.html

Virtually?  What democrat voted for it?

Apparently 7 of them did, with 9 republicans voting against.  I was pretty surprised by that, too.  Not really sure what they were thinking on that one.

Probably got bribed.

Why are you whining about a rule which was fairly passed?

The House has decided that the President must be forced to negotiate with Congress on the debt limit and shutdown, and are forcing the matter.

The intention of the debt limit is to occasionally force Congress and the President to wrangle and negotiate over federal spending. The President cannot simply spend wrecklessly and take out new loans with a blank check year after year. The debt ceiling is a part of our system's checks and balances which demands that the President negotiates with Congress before the debt ceiling is breached.

For Obama to refuse to negotiate on the debt ceiling is a slap in the face to our system of government. Rants about "holding the government hostage" are childish. No modern president has refused to negotiate with Congress over the debt ceiling. The purpose of the debt ceiling is to force negoatiations between the branches.

The country isn't going to default if the debt ceiling is not raised. The doom and gloom is liberal hype. Every month the federal government brings in $250 bn in taxes, and interest payment on the debt is $23 bn. By cutting spending the crisis could be averted.

See: Mr. Obama, if our government can’t borrow more money, it still need not default

The only person who can cause the country to default is the president himself.

No, that's clever on the dem's part. This makes the GOP look bad. Really, I want to know what idiot in the GOP decided to do this. It's not going to end well for them in the next election.

No, that's clever on the dem's part. This makes the GOP look bad. Really, I want to know what idiot in the GOP decided to do this. It's not going to end well for them in the next election.

I see a rule which was fairly passed, got bipartisan support, and was passed by the majority of the majority. The majority rules the House, and if they say that failed bills cannot be brought up over and over and over again on the floor until they pass, then they can't.

Obama must go to conference on the debt ceiling. It is not "automatically raised" for any president.

Quote from: garygreen on October 14, 2013, 08:20:33 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on October 14, 2013, 08:12:02 AM

Quote from: garygreen on October 14, 2013, 07:58:56 AM

Here is the resolution itself, passed with virtually no bipartisan support on Oct 1.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hres368

"Sec. 2. Any motion pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII relating to House Joint Resolution 59 may be offered only by the Majority Leader or his designee."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/house-republicans-rules-change_n_4095129.html

Virtually?  What democrat voted for it?

Apparently 7 of them did, with 9 republicans voting against.  I was pretty surprised by that, too.  Not really sure what they were thinking on that one.

Probably got bribed.

Blue dog democrats.

Quote from: Tausami on October 14, 2013, 11:01:50 AM

No, that's clever on the dem's part. This makes the GOP look bad. Really, I want to know what idiot in the GOP decided to do this. It's not going to end well for them in the next election.

I see a rule which was fairly passed, got bipartisan support, and was passed by the majority of the majority. The majority rules the House, and if they say that failed bills cannot be brought up over and over and over again on the floor until they pass, then they can't.

Obama must go to conference on the debt ceiling. It is not "automatically raised" for any president.

Actually the rule now says that only 1 person can put bills us.  So if he wants to put up the same bill 42 times, knowing it won't pass, he can.


Tom, question:
If the house puts up a bill that says only Republicans can put bills up for Vote and it passes, is that ok?

Actually the rule now says that only 1 person can put bills us.  So if he wants to put up the same bill 42 times, knowing it won't pass, he can.

The rule change only affects failed bills, bills which are in disagreement.

House Resolution 368
 Sep 30, 2013

Sec. 2. Any motion pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII relating to House Joint Resolution 59 may be offered only by the Majority Leader or his designee.

Clause 4 of Rule XXII reads

When the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill or resolution with House or Senate amendments, a motion to dispose of any amendment shall be privileged.

Tom, question:
If the house puts up a bill that says only Republicans can put bills up for Vote and it passes, is that ok?

It's their House and their rules.

What the Republicans are doing is no different than when Harry Reid refuses to put up the House's bill up for a vote at the Senate, which reopens the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) federal assistance program, or when he refuses to put up one of the many bills the House has passed to fund the government. Majority also rules at the Senate.

I don't see all the news articles from the liberal media accusing the Senate of refusing to put up House bills up for a vote, of which there have been many.

Obama and the Senate are demanding to take out new debt on the American public without the need to go to conference. This is absurd in every way. It is not how the government works. The GOP is doing what they are doing because they believe that they are in the right on this. The debt limit is not to be "automatically raised."

I often find it amusing and frustrating when I see people blindly support a party because that's 'their' party no matter what.


The Republicans are really screwing themselves over here. There's no other way to look at it. The underhand tactics are becoming apparent. They aren't interested in the democratic process.

I'd just like to point out that I have absolutely no affiliation with either party.

The Republicans are really screwing themselves over here. There's no other way to look at it. The underhand tactics are becoming apparent. They aren't interested in the democratic process.

The democratic process also says that the majority rules. A failed presidential candidate does not get to be president of the 45% of Americans who voted for him. Nor does he get to call a presidental vote over and over and over until he wins. Now, since it is apparent that this bill was passed by the majority in the House, it is clear that YOU are not interested in the democratic process.

The House Republicans simply passed this bill to be on equal footing with the Senate, where majority rules absolutely. It was necessary to force the President to go into conference.

The House Republicans simply passed this bill to be on equal footing with the Senate, where majority rules absolutely. It was necessary to force the President to go into conference.

No they passed a bill and changed the rules underhandedly. They've changed your system so that a single official can dictate what gets voted on and what doesn't.

Surely you can see how that could be wrong?

Also, didn't a majority of the house want to call a vote on the government shutdown. You should be clamoring for that shouldn't you?

No they passed a bill and changed the rules underhandedly. They've changed your system so that a single official can dictate what gets voted on and what doesn't.

Surely you can see how that could be wrong?

They've changed their rules of procedure, not the "law," not the "consitution".

They changed their rules to be more democratic, where the majority rules.

Also, didn't a majority of the house want to call a vote on the government shutdown. You should be clamoring for that shouldn't you?

They didn't.

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on October 14, 2013, 11:56:15 AM

No they passed a bill and changed the rules underhandedly. They've changed your system so that a single official can dictate what gets voted on and what doesn't.

Surely you can see how that could be wrong?

They've changed their rules of procedure, not the "law," not the "consitution".

They changed their rules to be more democratic, where the majority rules.

Yes, just before the shutdown too. Coincidence?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 14, 2013, 12:02:10 PM

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on October 14, 2013, 11:56:15 AM

No they passed a bill and changed the rules underhandedly. They've changed your system so that a single official can dictate what gets voted on and what doesn't.

Surely you can see how that could be wrong?

They've changed their rules of procedure, not the "law," not the "consitution".

They changed their rules to be more democratic, where the majority rules.

Yes, just before the shutdown too. Coincidence?

No, it's not a coincidence. This measure of making the House more democratic was implemented to force Obama and the Senate into confrence. The House majoirity is not content with signing the blank check they've asked for.

Why are you whining about a rule which was fairly passed?

Same reason you are with a fairly passed bill.

The House has decided that the President must be forced to negotiate with Congress on the debt limit and shutdown, and are forcing the matter.

The intention of the debt limit is to occasionally force Congress and the President to wrangle and negotiate over federal spending. The President cannot simply spend wrecklessly and take out new loans with a blank check year after year. The debt ceiling is a part of our system's checks and balances which demands that the President negotiates with Congress before the debt ceiling is breached.

Do you think the President makes the budget?  That's entirely Congress.  The most the President can do is suggest a budget, which is then subject to any modifications by Congress and many other committees, and can even be thrown out entirely.  On top of that, whatever budget is passed, the President must go through with.  If the budget says there's x more spending than the tax income, he has to borrow to make it work, because that's the budget and he has to follow it.

For Obama to refuse to negotiate on the debt ceiling is a slap in the face to our system of government. Rants about "holding the government hostage" are childish. No modern president has refused to negotiate with Congress over the debt ceiling. The purpose of the debt ceiling is to force negoatiations between the branches.

For Boehner to refuse to negotiate on the budget crisis is a slap in the face to our system of government.  Rants about "refusal to negotiate the debt ceiling" are childish.  No modern speaker has refused to allow a budget to pass simply because he and his constituents disagree with a legally passed program it funds.

As for the purpose of the debt ceiling, citation?  It seems to me the likely purpose of the debt ceiling is to keep sure that we're not accruing large amounts of debt without notice.

The country isn't going to default if the debt ceiling is not raised. The doom and gloom is liberal hype. Every month the federal government brings in $250 bn in taxes, and interest payment on the debt is $23 bn. By cutting spending the crisis could be averted.

Excellent!  Now we just need to pass a budget so we can get everything up and running, and find the extraneous spending - like the military, soldiers have been found complaining of oversupplying and paying eight to ten thousand times the manufacturing cost of an item due to military contracts.  This, as well as things like shooting at brand new military vehicles for training, wasting excessive amounts of ammunition, and end of the year splurging to spend the entire allotted budget, should be eliminated.  Agreed?

See: Mr. Obama, if our government can’t borrow more money, it still need not default

The only person who can cause the country to default is the president himself.

Correct.  And the only people willing to play the game that would put the President in this situation are the Republican Congress members themselves, the Speaker of the House specifically.  If Boehner would simply put the budget up for a vote, the President wouldn't have to choose between conceding to ludicrous demands and letting the country's economy go to hell.

The democratic process also says that the majority rules. A failed presidential candidate does not get to be president of the 45% of Americans who voted for him. Nor does he get to call a presidental vote over and over and over until he wins. Now, since it is apparent that this bill was passed by the majority in the House, it is clear that YOU are not interested in the democratic process.

You realize you're siding with the party that is calling for a repeal of the ACA over and over again, and is attempting to effectively gut a law passed by the majority of the House?  They're not doing it in the interest of cutting spending, they'd actually be making spending cuts in other areas if that were the case.

The House Republicans simply passed this bill to be on equal footing with the Senate, where majority rules absolutely. It was necessary to force the President to go into conference.
[/quote]

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on October 14, 2013, 11:56:15 AM

No they passed a bill and changed the rules underhandedly. They've changed your system so that a single official can dictate what gets voted on and what doesn't.

Surely you can see how that could be wrong?

They've changed their rules of procedure, not the "law," not the "consitution".

They changed their rules to be more democratic, where the majority rules.

Sorry friend, the idea of democracy is that everyone gets a say, not that majority rules.  It often results in majority rules, but that's not democracy in a nutshell.

Quote from: rottingroom on October 14, 2013, 12:03:20 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 14, 2013, 12:02:10 PM

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on October 14, 2013, 11:56:15 AM

No they passed a bill and changed the rules underhandedly. They've changed your system so that a single official can dictate what gets voted on and what doesn't.

Surely you can see how that could be wrong?

They've changed their rules of procedure, not the "law," not the "consitution".

They changed their rules to be more democratic, where the majority rules.

Yes, just before the shutdown too. Coincidence?

No, it's not a coincidence. This measure of making the House more democratic was implemented to force Obama and the Senate into confrence. The House majoirity is not content with signing the blank check they've asked for.

How is it democratic if one man can stop something being voted on? It might be forcing the democrats to make consensus but it's under one mans terms. That is not democratic.

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on October 14, 2013, 11:56:15 AM

No they passed a bill and changed the rules underhandedly. They've changed your system so that a single official can dictate what gets voted on and what doesn't.

Surely you can see how that could be wrong?

They've changed their rules of procedure, not the "law," not the "consitution".

They changed their rules to be more democratic, where the majority rules.

Quote from: rottingroom on October 14, 2013, 11:57:42 AM

Also, didn't a majority of the house want to call a vote on the government shutdown. You should be clamoring for that shouldn't you?

They didn't.

Yes they did. Please provide a source saying a majority did not want to vote to end the shutdown.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 14, 2013, 12:02:10 PM

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on October 14, 2013, 11:56:15 AM

No they passed a bill and changed the rules underhandedly. They've changed your system so that a single official can dictate what gets voted on and what doesn't.

Surely you can see how that could be wrong?

They've changed their rules of procedure, not the "law," not the "consitution".

They changed their rules to be more democratic, where the majority rules.

Sorry friend, the idea of democracy is that everyone gets a say, not that majority rules.  It often results in majority rules, but that's not democracy in a nutshell.

Tom thinks this country is a democracy when in fact it's a republic.

If this were the other way around and the Democrats were using these tactics etc... I can guarantee Tom would be arguing against the Democrats.

He's blindly following 'his' party line.

Get a new government.

Do you think the President makes the budget?  That's entirely Congress.  The most the President can do is suggest a budget, which is then subject to any modifications by Congress and many other committees, and can even be thrown out entirely.  On top of that, whatever budget is passed, the President must go through with.  If the budget says there's x more spending than the tax income, he has to borrow to make it work, because that's the budget and he has to follow it.

Hold up right there. You need to do your research. Obama has not passed a budget throught Congress in the entire time he's been in office. The government is being operated WITHOUT A BUDGET.

Quote from: Pyrolizard

Do you think the President makes the budget?  That's entirely Congress.  The most the President can do is suggest a budget, which is then subject to any modifications by Congress and many other committees, and can even be thrown out entirely.  On top of that, whatever budget is passed, the President must go through with.  If the budget says there's x more spending than the tax income, he has to borrow to make it work, because that's the budget and he has to follow it.

Hold up right there. You need to do your research. Obama has not passed a budget through Congress in years. The government is being operated WITHOUT A BUDGET.

Did I say a word about how the government has been functioning?  Nope.  I've said that the President has no say on the budget, other than his initial suggestion which is subject to as much change as those in the process feel necessary. 

Although that said I can show you Obama's budget proposals for at least back to 2011, possibly further although I haven't checked, and while his proposals may have been late as was the case with his 2014 proposal, he has submitted them.  I also can't say they've passed, but that's not his job to do, and if not he isn't at fault.

I love that it's apparently unethical for the Democrats to use the totally legal and legitimate process of reconciliation (a process that has been successfully used in the past by both parties) to further their interests in passing health care reform; but, it's totally legitimate for the GOP to change the rules to prevent the government from being funded until the Democrats meet their demands.

Why are you whining about a rule which was fairly passed?

Why are you whining about reconciliation?  Why are you whining about the President's unwillingness to 'negotiate'?  Those things are also perfectly legal, and yet to them you apply a double standard.  By the way, did you ever figure out what the GOP negotiating position is?  As in, what's the compromise they're willing to accept?

The House has decided that the President must be forced to negotiate with Congress on the debt limit and shutdown, and are forcing the matter.

Welcome to the conversation.  This is the criticism of the GOP.  Half of the house ought not be able to force the government to shut down until their political demands are met.

That the GOP would go so far as to prevent the House from even voting on the issue is even worse.  They've manipulated the rules of order such that literally one person in now in charge of the decision to fund our government or not, and only until his political demands are met.

It's despotism.  It's disgusting.

I love that it's apparently unethical for the Democrats to use the totally legal and legitimate process of reconciliation (a process that has been successfully used in the past by both parties) to further their interests in passing health care reform; but, it's totally legitimate for the GOP to change the rules to prevent the government from being funded until the Democrats meet their demands.

Not 'the rules', their rules. It's their house. It's their rules. I see a fair vote on the issue, in which the majorty of the house decided to institute a rule preventing failed bills to be brought up for a vote again and again until they got the result desired.

Majority rules is the heart of democracy. Mitt Romney did not get to hold votes on his presidency again and again until he won. He did not get to be president for the percentage of americans who voted for him. Majority rules. That's democracy.

This controversy is in stark contrast to sinister method in which the Senate took a Military Housing bill in mid-legislation and gutted it to use as Obamacare. They are pretending that Obamacare was started in and passed by the House. This is unconstitutional. As per the constitution, all revenue generating bills must originate in the House, and go through its procedures and comities. The bill that passed the House was not Obamacare.

The method used to finalize the bill into law, the reconciliation process you say is "legal and legitimate," is neither. Using it to pass Obamacare flies in the face of the Byrd rule, which is part of the Congressional Budget law.

Sen Kent Conrad: Reconciliation Won't Work

"...reconciliation cannot be used to pass comprehensive health care reform. It won't work. It won't work because it was never designed for that kind of significant legislation. It was designed for deficit reduction... The major package of health care reform cannot move through the reconciliation process. It will not work... It will not work because of the Byrd rule which says anything that doesn't score for budget purposes has to be eliminated. That would eliminate all the delivery system reform, all the insurance market reform, all of those things the experts tell us are really the most important parts of this bill. The only possible role that I can see for reconciliation would be make modest changes in the major package to improve affordability, to deal with what share of Medicaid expansion the federal government pays, those kinds of issues, which is the traditional role for reconciliation in health care."

As we can see, this is a matter of the House legally changing its own informal rules of procedure vs. an unconstitutional act and an illegal action.

Yes they did. Please provide a source saying a majority did not want to vote to end the shutdown.

I will correct myself. The House did vote to end the Shutdown. They've passed numerous bills which would reopen the government and sent the bills to the Senate, where they were rejected or not put up for a vote.

The majority of the House do not want to pass a "clean" continuing resolution bill which allows Obama to continue spending wrecklessly, without concessions or the need of passing a budget.

The House Democrats need to get a majority of representative signatures to force a vote in the House for their Clean CR and they have not yet gotten the signatures.

Ignoring me again, Tom?  You seem good at that, just run away when confronted.  You're a bit of a democrat like that, aren't you?

Quote from: garygreen on October 14, 2013, 01:42:27 PM

I love that it's apparently unethical for the Democrats to use the totally legal and legitimate process of reconciliation (a process that has been successfully used in the past by both parties) to further their interests in passing health care reform; but, it's totally legitimate for the GOP to change the rules to prevent the government from being funded until the Democrats meet their demands.

Not 'the rules', their rules. It's their house. It's their rules. I see a fair vote on the issue, in which the majorty of the house decided to institute a rule preventing failed bills to be brought up for a vote again and again until they got the result desired.

Majority rules is the heart of democracy. Mitt Romney did not get to hold votes on his presidency again and again until he won. He did not get to be president for the percentage of americans who voted for him. Majority rules. That's democracy.

This controversy is in stark contrast to sinister method in which the Senate took a Military Housing bill in mid-legislation and gutted it to use as Obamacare. They are pretending that Obamacare was started in and passed by the House. This is unconstitutional. As per the constitution, all revenue generating bills must originate in the House, and go through its procedures and comities. The bill that passed the House was not Obamacare.

The method used to finalize the bill into law, the reconciliation process you say is "legal and legitimate," is neither. Using it to pass Obamacare flies in the face of the Byrd rule, which is part of the Congressional Budget law.

Sen Kent Conrad: Reconciliation Won't Work

"...reconciliation cannot be used to pass comprehensive health care reform. It won't work. It won't work because it was never designed for that kind of significant legislation. It was designed for deficit reduction... The major package of health care reform cannot move through the reconciliation process. It will not work... It will not work because of the Byrd rule which says anything that doesn't score for budget purposes has to be eliminated. That would eliminate all the delivery system reform, all the insurance market reform, all of those things the experts tell us are really the most important parts of this bill. The only possible role that I can see for reconciliation would be make modest changes in the major package to improve affordability, to deal with what share of Medicaid expansion the federal government pays, those kinds of issues, which is the traditional role for reconciliation in health care."

As we can see, this is a matter of the House legally changing its own informal rules of procedure vs. an unconstitutional act and an illegal action.

Now, are we still going on about how Obamacare was passed by reconciliation?  It was heavily amended by reconciliation, true, but not passed by such.  Unless you care to cite a source specifically saying House Resolution 3590 was passed by reconciliation?  Official records as well, if you would, since the only record you've given so far is that of HR 3590 and it's reconciliation bill being voted on in the House at the same time.

Remember, Tom, if you can show that HR 3590 was a reconciliation bill, it's violated the law that allows reconciliation twice by not amending an existing law and by being one of two reconciliation bills passed in a year, and should have had no legal ground to stand on.  Show this to Boehner, or more appropriately his people.  They'll get it to the Supreme Court faster than we can say 'Finally'.

I provided evidence that Obamacare was passed via reconciliation two pages ago. Obamacare was consolidated and combined with a bill H.R. 4872, the "Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act"

Pyrolizard, here is evidence that the original bill was passed via reconciliation. First, we bring up the  Obamacare H.R. 3590 bill on govtrack.us.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590#overview

Quote

Introduced - Sep 17, 2009
Passed House - Oct 08, 2009
Passed Senate with Changes    - Dec 24, 2009
House Agreed to Changes - Mar 21, 2010
Signed by the President - Mar 23, 2010

Look at the dates for the key passings.

Firstly, it is alleged that the House first passed the Obamacare on October 8, 2010. This is factually incorrect. On October 8, 2010 the H.R. 3590 bill was a Military Housing Bill. Here is the PDF of the original bill with October 8,2010 clearly stamped at the top. The House was passing an entirely different bill, which was then gutted and used by the Senate as a carcass for its platform. This is wrong.

Next, lets look at the second time the House passed Obamacare. Lets search on the house.gov website for that date, Mar 21, 2010, where the "House Agreed to Changes".

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=flooraction/floor-action-on-hr-4872-the-health-care-and-education-reconciliation-act

Quote

Floor Action on H.R. 4872, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act

The nation’s historic health reform legislation, commonly referred to as the Affordable Care Act, is the consolidation of H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by H.R. 4872, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act.

On March 21, 2010, the House took up H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as passed by the U.S. Senate.  The House debated and passed H.R. 3590 by a roll call vote of 219 - 212, clearing the measure for the White House.  At the same time, the House considered H.R. 4872, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which amended financing and revenue provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  The House debated and passed H.R. 4872 on March 21, 2010, by a roll call vote of 220 – 211.

We see that during this vote Obamacare was packaged with a reconciliation bill and passed under reconciliation rules.

I provided evidence that Obamacare was passed via reconciliation two pages ago. Obamacare was consolidated and combined with a bill H.R. 4872, the "Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act"

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2013, 04:10:09 PM

Pyrolizard, here is evidence that the original bill was passed via reconciliation. First, we bring up the  Obamacare H.R. 3590 bill on govtrack.us.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590#overview

Quote

Introduced - Sep 17, 2009
Passed House - Oct 08, 2009
Passed Senate with Changes    - Dec 24, 2009
House Agreed to Changes - Mar 21, 2010
Signed by the President - Mar 23, 2010

Look at the dates for the key passings.

Firstly, it is alleged that the House first passed the Obamacare on October 8, 2010. This is factually incorrect. On October 8, 2010 the H.R. 3590 bill was a Military Housing Bill. Here is the PDF of the original bill with October 8,2010 clearly stamped at the top. The House was passing an entirely different bill, which was then gutted and used by the Senate as a carcass for its platform. This is wrong.

Next, lets look at the second time the House passed Obamacare. Lets search on the house.gov website for that date, Mar 21, 2010, where the "House Agreed to Changes".

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=flooraction/floor-action-on-hr-4872-the-health-care-and-education-reconciliation-act

Quote

Floor Action on H.R. 4872, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act

The nation’s historic health reform legislation, commonly referred to as the Affordable Care Act, is the consolidation of H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by H.R. 4872, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act.

On March 21, 2010, the House took up H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as passed by the U.S. Senate.  The House debated and passed H.R. 3590 by a roll call vote of 219 - 212, clearing the measure for the White House.  At the same time, the House considered H.R. 4872, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which amended financing and revenue provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  The House debated and passed H.R. 4872 on March 21, 2010, by a roll call vote of 220 – 211.

We see that during this vote Obamacare was packaged with a reconciliation bill and passed under reconciliation rules.

And I rebutted with, this does not say Obamacare was a reconciliation bill, only that it was reliant on the reconciliation passing.  I also reminded that there are no special rules for reconciliation in the House.  HR 3590 did not return to the Senate because no modifications were made in the House, so what reconciliation rules exactly were these?

And I rebutted with, this does not say Obamacare was a reconciliation bill, only that it was reliant on the reconciliation passing.  I also reminded that there are no special rules for reconciliation in the House.  HR 3590 did not return to the Senate because no modifications were made in the House, so what reconciliation rules exactly were these?

If it wasn't passed under reconciliation rules, then why does the link say that the ACA was consolidated and passed in tandem with a reconciliation bill?

It says right at the top of the page that it was a "Floor Action on H.R. 4872, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act" and then in the first sentence that the ACA was consolidated with it.