[danielwis]

Senator Byrd supports using HCR for THIS bill. It already passed the 60 vote threshold. This reconciliation is for budgetary aspects of the bill (throwing out the Nebraska kick back, changing some of the funding mechanisms of the Senate bill).

[danielwis]

Senator Byrd supports using HCR for THIS bill. It already passed the 60 vote threshold. This reconciliation is for budgetary aspects of the bill (throwing out the Nebraska kick back, changing some of the funding mechanisms of the Senate bill).

[danielwis]

Senator Byrd supports using HCR for THIS bill. It already passed the 60 vote threshold. This reconciliation is for budgetary aspects of the bill (throwing out the Nebraska kick back, changing some of the funding mechanisms of the Senate bill).

[danielwis]

Senator Byrd supports using HCR for THIS bill. It already passed the 60 vote threshold. This reconciliation is for budgetary aspects of the bill (throwing out the Nebraska kick back, changing some of the funding mechanisms of the Senate bill).

[danielwis]

Senator Byrd supports using HCR for THIS bill. It already passed the 60 vote threshold. This reconciliation is for budgetary aspects of the bill (throwing out the Nebraska kick back, changing some of the funding mechanisms of the Senate bill).

[danielwis]

The 60 vote threshold is ridiculous.

But for arguments sake, say you are a rules purist, as many Republicans now claim to be. Reconciliation is not a “trick” as Fox News is now calling it. It is a recognized Senate procedure: it is a “rule”, that has been used many many times, and mostly by Republicans.

Furthermore, when Republican’s have used it, they used as the initial means of passing a bill. They never “first” met the 60 vote threshold in the Senate, as this health care bill has. They went straight to reconciliation as option one. Now I have no argument with that approach. The Democrats should have done the same thing.

But they did not. The Democrats went the traditional way, and crafted a bill that met the 60 vote threshold. In all this “talk”, remember that we have a Senate Bill BECAUSE it met the 60 vote threshold. The process we are talking about NOW is not to pass a “new” health care bill via reconciliation (step one in the Republican model). It is to take the House bill, and the Senate bill, and reconcile the differences between the two. The Democrats used the “traditional” approach to passing a bill from step one, something the Republican’s did not do when they used reconciliation.

Hugely different than what the Republicans did.

[danielwis]

The 60 vote threshold is ridiculous.

But for arguments sake, say you are a rules purist, as many Republicans now claim to be. Reconciliation is not a “trick” as Fox News is now calling it. It is a recognized Senate procedure: it is a “rule”, that has been used many many times, and mostly by Republicans.

Furthermore, when Republican’s have used it, they used as the initial means of passing a bill. They never “first” met the 60 vote threshold in the Senate, as this health care bill has. They went straight to reconciliation as option one. Now I have no argument with that approach. The Democrats should have done the same thing.

But they did not. The Democrats went the traditional way, and crafted a bill that met the 60 vote threshold. In all this “talk”, remember that we have a Senate Bill BECAUSE it met the 60 vote threshold. The process we are talking about NOW is not to pass a “new” health care bill via reconciliation (step one in the Republican model). It is to take the House bill, and the Senate bill, and reconcile the differences between the two. The Democrats used the “traditional” approach to passing a bill from step one, something the Republican’s did not do when they used reconciliation.

Hugely different than what the Republicans did.

[danielwis]

The 60 vote threshold is ridiculous.

But for arguments sake, say you are a rules purist, as many Republicans now claim to be. Reconciliation is not a “trick” as Fox News is now calling it. It is a recognized Senate procedure: it is a “rule”, that has been used many many times, and mostly by Republicans.

Furthermore, when Republican’s have used it, they used as the initial means of passing a bill. They never “first” met the 60 vote threshold in the Senate, as this health care bill has. They went straight to reconciliation as option one. Now I have no argument with that approach. The Democrats should have done the same thing.

But they did not. The Democrats went the traditional way, and crafted a bill that met the 60 vote threshold. In all this “talk”, remember that we have a Senate Bill BECAUSE it met the 60 vote threshold. The process we are talking about NOW is not to pass a “new” health care bill via reconciliation (step one in the Republican model). It is to take the House bill, and the Senate bill, and reconcile the differences between the two. The Democrats used the “traditional” approach to passing a bill from step one, something the Republican’s did not do when they used reconciliation.

Hugely different than what the Republicans did.

[danielwis]

The 60 vote threshold is ridiculous.

But for arguments sake, say you are a rules purist, as many Republicans now claim to be. Reconciliation is not a “trick” as Fox News is now calling it. It is a recognized Senate procedure: it is a “rule”, that has been used many many times, and mostly by Republicans.

Furthermore, when Republican’s have used it, they used as the initial means of passing a bill. They never “first” met the 60 vote threshold in the Senate, as this health care bill has. They went straight to reconciliation as option one. Now I have no argument with that approach. The Democrats should have done the same thing.

But they did not. The Democrats went the traditional way, and crafted a bill that met the 60 vote threshold. In all this “talk”, remember that we have a Senate Bill BECAUSE it met the 60 vote threshold. The process we are talking about NOW is not to pass a “new” health care bill via reconciliation (step one in the Republican model). It is to take the House bill, and the Senate bill, and reconcile the differences between the two. The Democrats used the “traditional” approach to passing a bill from step one, something the Republican’s did not do when they used reconciliation.

Hugely different than what the Republicans did.

[danielwis]

The 60 vote threshold is ridiculous.

But for arguments sake, say you are a rules purist, as many Republicans now claim to be. Reconciliation is not a “trick” as Fox News is now calling it. It is a recognized Senate procedure: it is a “rule”, that has been used many many times, and mostly by Republicans.

Furthermore, when Republican’s have used it, they used as the initial means of passing a bill. They never “first” met the 60 vote threshold in the Senate, as this health care bill has. They went straight to reconciliation as option one. Now I have no argument with that approach. The Democrats should have done the same thing.

But they did not. The Democrats went the traditional way, and crafted a bill that met the 60 vote threshold. In all this “talk”, remember that we have a Senate Bill BECAUSE it met the 60 vote threshold. The process we are talking about NOW is not to pass a “new” health care bill via reconciliation (step one in the Republican model). It is to take the House bill, and the Senate bill, and reconcile the differences between the two. The Democrats used the “traditional” approach to passing a bill from step one, something the Republican’s did not do when they used reconciliation.

Hugely different than what the Republicans did.

[danielwis]

[quote=svelte][quote=Ms Pington] I want to back out of the deal. All this while I haven’t had any direct contact with the seller. Now he says that the seller won’t sign the cancellation of contract document unless I sign an exclusive representation agreement with him. Does that even make any kind of sense?
[/quote]

Wait…the seller won’t sign cancellation unless you sign an exclusive agreement with your agent?

I don’t believe that for a second!

Also…not unusual for agents to practically forbid contact between buyer and seller. There are probably several reasons for that, but my instinct tells me the overriding reason is that the agents lose some control of the situation – undesirable from their perspective.[/quote]

Absolutely. Why on earth would the seller care whether or not the buyers realtor enters an exclusive contract with the buyer, given that the sale of his house is falling through with said buyer? Either he is flat our lying, or the sellers realtor is his wife, business partner, friend, or associate.

Ridiculous. Run, don’t walk, and get the savvy friend or lawyer as suggested above, by your side, ASAP. This guy is a shyster.

And never refuse a home inspection, ever. And you hire the inspector, even if it means looking through the yellow pages, as opposed to going with your realtors “suggestion”. Lots of collusion going on out there, and this realtor sounds like the bottom of the barrel.

[danielwis]

[quote=svelte][quote=Ms Pington] I want to back out of the deal. All this while I haven’t had any direct contact with the seller. Now he says that the seller won’t sign the cancellation of contract document unless I sign an exclusive representation agreement with him. Does that even make any kind of sense?
[/quote]

Wait…the seller won’t sign cancellation unless you sign an exclusive agreement with your agent?

I don’t believe that for a second!

Also…not unusual for agents to practically forbid contact between buyer and seller. There are probably several reasons for that, but my instinct tells me the overriding reason is that the agents lose some control of the situation – undesirable from their perspective.[/quote]

Absolutely. Why on earth would the seller care whether or not the buyers realtor enters an exclusive contract with the buyer, given that the sale of his house is falling through with said buyer? Either he is flat our lying, or the sellers realtor is his wife, business partner, friend, or associate.

Ridiculous. Run, don’t walk, and get the savvy friend or lawyer as suggested above, by your side, ASAP. This guy is a shyster.

And never refuse a home inspection, ever. And you hire the inspector, even if it means looking through the yellow pages, as opposed to going with your realtors “suggestion”. Lots of collusion going on out there, and this realtor sounds like the bottom of the barrel.

[danielwis]

[quote=svelte][quote=Ms Pington] I want to back out of the deal. All this while I haven’t had any direct contact with the seller. Now he says that the seller won’t sign the cancellation of contract document unless I sign an exclusive representation agreement with him. Does that even make any kind of sense?
[/quote]

Wait…the seller won’t sign cancellation unless you sign an exclusive agreement with your agent?

I don’t believe that for a second!

Also…not unusual for agents to practically forbid contact between buyer and seller. There are probably several reasons for that, but my instinct tells me the overriding reason is that the agents lose some control of the situation – undesirable from their perspective.[/quote]

Absolutely. Why on earth would the seller care whether or not the buyers realtor enters an exclusive contract with the buyer, given that the sale of his house is falling through with said buyer? Either he is flat our lying, or the sellers realtor is his wife, business partner, friend, or associate.

Ridiculous. Run, don’t walk, and get the savvy friend or lawyer as suggested above, by your side, ASAP. This guy is a shyster.

And never refuse a home inspection, ever. And you hire the inspector, even if it means looking through the yellow pages, as opposed to going with your realtors “suggestion”. Lots of collusion going on out there, and this realtor sounds like the bottom of the barrel.

[danielwis]

[quote=svelte][quote=Ms Pington] I want to back out of the deal. All this while I haven’t had any direct contact with the seller. Now he says that the seller won’t sign the cancellation of contract document unless I sign an exclusive representation agreement with him. Does that even make any kind of sense?
[/quote]

Wait…the seller won’t sign cancellation unless you sign an exclusive agreement with your agent?

I don’t believe that for a second!

Also…not unusual for agents to practically forbid contact between buyer and seller. There are probably several reasons for that, but my instinct tells me the overriding reason is that the agents lose some control of the situation – undesirable from their perspective.[/quote]

Absolutely. Why on earth would the seller care whether or not the buyers realtor enters an exclusive contract with the buyer, given that the sale of his house is falling through with said buyer? Either he is flat our lying, or the sellers realtor is his wife, business partner, friend, or associate.

Ridiculous. Run, don’t walk, and get the savvy friend or lawyer as suggested above, by your side, ASAP. This guy is a shyster.

And never refuse a home inspection, ever. And you hire the inspector, even if it means looking through the yellow pages, as opposed to going with your realtors “suggestion”. Lots of collusion going on out there, and this realtor sounds like the bottom of the barrel.

[danielwis]

[quote=svelte][quote=Ms Pington] I want to back out of the deal. All this while I haven’t had any direct contact with the seller. Now he says that the seller won’t sign the cancellation of contract document unless I sign an exclusive representation agreement with him. Does that even make any kind of sense?
[/quote]

Wait…the seller won’t sign cancellation unless you sign an exclusive agreement with your agent?

I don’t believe that for a second!

Also…not unusual for agents to practically forbid contact between buyer and seller. There are probably several reasons for that, but my instinct tells me the overriding reason is that the agents lose some control of the situation – undesirable from their perspective.[/quote]

Absolutely. Why on earth would the seller care whether or not the buyers realtor enters an exclusive contract with the buyer, given that the sale of his house is falling through with said buyer? Either he is flat our lying, or the sellers realtor is his wife, business partner, friend, or associate.

Ridiculous. Run, don’t walk, and get the savvy friend or lawyer as suggested above, by your side, ASAP. This guy is a shyster.

And never refuse a home inspection, ever. And you hire the inspector, even if it means looking through the yellow pages, as opposed to going with your realtors “suggestion”. Lots of collusion going on out there, and this realtor sounds like the bottom of the barrel.

[Author]

Posts