Should lawmakers read bills before voting on them?

[BengalBacker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svGDZOW-brA

[BengalBacker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

[sois]

Uh, yes know what's in it.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1360009070' post='1213016']
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU[/media]
[/quote]


Context is a hard thing on this one for you isnt it?

[sois]

I like Bengal Backer's first video

[BengalBacker]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1360029682' post='1213103']
Context is a hard thing on this one for you isnt it?
[/quote]

I know the context, that shit was rammed through on Christmas Eve by democrats who didn't want the people, or those who were voting on it to know what was in it.
[indent]
[quote]
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday that the health-care reform bill now pending in Congress would garner very few votes if lawmakers actually had to read the entire bill before voting on it.
“If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com at his regular weekly news conference.
Hoyer was responding to a question from CNSNews.com on whether he supported a pledge that asks members of the Congress to read the entire bill before voting on it and also make the full text of the bill available to the public for 72 hours before a vote.
In fact, Hoyer found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. “I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,” he said.[/quote][/indent]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuGXs2sm02M

Never fucking happened.
.

[Jamie_B]

Yeah it was "rammed through" despite the number of months it had been debated.

No, the context was that there were so many lies being told about it that nobody was getting the truth and that passing it and having people find out what is actually in it rather than the lies being told about it was the only way people were going to "find out what was in it"

But, hey, you know.... death panels.

[Vol_Bengal]

You would think this would go without saying... just offers a glimpse of how screwed up our governing body is.

Jamie - so... there were lies being spread about it - fine. Why couldn't it be released and let people see if for themselves... BEFORE it is voted on. The truth of the matter is that .000001% of the legislative branch has read more than about 100 pages of the bill, and to this date likely still haven't read it.

Pass a law or whatever that EVERY single piece of legislation stands on its own merit... and is essentially an up or down vote, ON ITS OWN. Not shoved into another bill as pork. Make senators and representatives vote on each individual piece.

Another good example was the original Hurricane Sandy relief bill Boehner wouldn't let get passed... something like 40% of the actual bill was going to Sandy relief while the others was crap for fisheries in Alabama and Alaska and other such nonsense.
I liked the discussion of a 1.84% (or whatever percentage it was) reduction across the board to fund the relief going forward. But even across the board cuts (you know like businesses and corporations do it) wasn't good enough for our government.

[Jamie_B]

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/

When all this was going on a recall having the death panel debate with folks elsewhere and went through the act trying to find it. What was not online?

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1360077621' post='1213158']
[url="http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/"]http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/[/url]

When all this was going on a recall having the death panel debate with folks elsewhere and went through the act trying to find it. What was not online?
[/quote]

It appears, based on the wording of the site, that was the text prior to it being passed... which is commendable.

That being the case, why wasn't it just made known where it was available at? Why were they telling people that it "needs to be passed so you can see whats in it"? Just seems ass backward if you are truly putting it out there in its entirety for public consumption / debate that you'd want to make sure the general public knew about it. I didn't know there was a venue housing the document... I think its funny Pelosi and other lawmakers apparently didn't know it was out there either. That, or they're just oblivious.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1360084687' post='1213166']
It appears, based on the wording of the site, that was the text prior to it being passed... which is commendable.

That being the case, why wasn't it just made known where it was available at? Why were they telling people that it "needs to be passed so you can see whats in it"? Just seems ass backward if you are truly putting it out there in its entirety for public consumption / debate that you'd want to make sure the general public knew about it. I didn't know there was a venue housing the document... I think its funny Pelosi and other lawmakers apparently didn't know it was out there either. That, or they're just oblivious.
[/quote]

I think alot has gotten mixed up in the facts of the matter. I've always been able to find and read it, hell I remember a Daily Show episode where the guest for the day (cant remember her name) and she pulled out the whole binder with it. Jon even quoted from it to explain to her where she was wrong.

Perhaps they needed better advertising of where to find it, perhaps citizens just dont know where to find these things, but it's always been availiable to read.

We should also keep in mind the timeline of events here. The debates were happening in public town halls and people were going nuts, with misinformation and "it's just like Germany in WW2" propaganda. Sarah Palin threw in the death pannel stuff and people lost their damned minds. Nobody could be told any different regarding the death pannel argument, and despite it even being Politifact's 2009 "lie of the year" Sarah Palin still keeps preaching it as if it were gospel.

Pelosi should have chosen her words better, but essentially what the context was was lets pass this thing so people will see what is really in it vs the propaganda against it.


Now dont get me wrong, I still think it's an unmitigated abortion and facisit to its core, but there are some things I do like in it, now we should fix the stuff that sucks.

[BengalBacker]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1360084687' post='1213166']
It appears, based on the wording of the site, that was the text prior to it being passed... which is commendable.
[/quote]

I'm not seeing where that was available before Christmas Eve 2009 when it was passed, am I missing it?

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1360134311' post='1213282']
I'm not seeing where that was available before Christmas Eve 2009 when it was passed, am I missing it?
[/quote]

I read this
[quote]The first link listed above contains the full text of the Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 in one document. It is not official and is provided for your convenience.[/quote]
and assumed it meant that it wasn't "official" because it hadn't been passed yet. In hindsight, it very well could have been posted after it'd been passed and this just wasn't an "official" copy of the finalized bill.

I assumed... that is my fault. I have nothing to verify it was there prior to it being passed other than Jamie recalling it was.

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1360099115' post='1213209']
Perhaps they needed better advertising of where to find it, perhaps citizens just dont know where to find these things, but it's always been availiable to read.

Pelosi should have chosen her words better, but essentially what the context was was lets pass this thing so people will see what is really in it vs the propaganda against it.


Now dont get me wrong, I still think it's an unmitigated abortion and facisit to its core, but there are some things I do like in it, now we should fix the stuff that sucks.
[/quote]
Ummm... yeah, you could say that. Kinda like our internal auditor here at work... keep it hidden see it fail. If you put it out there for public consumption, make sure the public knows there.

All I can think of in Pelosi's quote is the arrogant legislator pushing it through thinking "they'll forget about it after we get it passed and the screaming can stop"... you can tell them what's in it AFTER it's passed, but not before? That much top secret stuff in there, eh?

I agree with you for the largest part on this act... but I'm not talking about just this act. I'm talking across the board on all legislative bills. Make them single action bills for each expenditure. Otherwise, you get the Sandy Relief vote abomination and distortion. Those original bills had less than 50% relief aid to Sandy victims so it wasn't getting to a vote... and, in my mind, rightfully so. But you get Chris Christie, et al slamming Boehner for "upholding relief for the Sandy victims..." when he was ready to take a bill to the floor that ONLY contained the requested Sandy relief without the other crap and the white house wouldn't let it go... just make each expenditure an up/down vote so people could see what is actually happening and not be fed the bullcrap the media throws at them.

[Jamie_B]

Again though it was online to read.


Oh and Sandy Relief Bill was one page, two paragraps - [url="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-7-2013/c--k-block-you-on-the-hurricane"]http://www.thedailys...n-the-hurricane[/url]

"This was a simple down the middle black and white cut and dry warm cup of what would Jesus, or anyone who isn't an asshole, do..."

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1360157082' post='1213294']
Again though it was online to read.
[/quote]
And, again, why didn't anybody make that clear?

[quote]
Oh and Sandy Relief Bill was one page, two paragraps - [url="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-7-2013/c--k-block-you-on-the-hurricane"]http://www.thedailys...n-the-hurricane[/url]
[/quote]
The original one? That was attempted to be pushed through around Christmas time? Don't see how they spelled out all the unnecessary spending and pork in two paragraphs. I think you're referring to the one passed on January 15th... or maybe even the $9+ billion one that was passed the first part of January.

[quote]25 percent of the $10.8 billion in Federal Transit Administration funding won’t be spent until after fiscal year 2019! But it's Sandy Relief, right???
The President’s request for $32 million for Amtrak and added a zero plus some more to come up with $336 million. Much of this
is for a long-term project that has been in the works for year and has nothing to do with Sandy.
There’s also policy provision that could have long consequences like the blanket, unlimited project authorization authority
given to the Corps. This is an agency with a $60-70 billion backlog.

$58.8 million for forest restoration on private land.
$197 million “to… protect coastal ecosystems and habitat impacted by Hurricane Sandy.”
$10.78 billion for public transportation, most of which is allocated to future construction and improvements, not disaster relief.
$17 billion for wasteful Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), a program that has become notorious for its use as a backdoor earmark program.[/quote]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1360160250' post='1213300']
And, again, why didn't anybody make that clear?


The original one? That was attempted to be pushed through around Christmas time? Don't see how they spelled out all the unnecessary spending and pork in two paragraphs. I think you're referring to the one passed on January 15th... or maybe even the $9+ billion one that was passed the first part of January.
[/quote]

It was clear to me, I had found and debated the points of it with friends of mine elsewhere. Whether they needed to make it more clear to the average citizen or whether the average citizen needs to work on their google powers is certianly up for discussion.

Stewart's video was from Jan 7, no not the one passed on the 15th. Perhaps he is refering to the early Jan bill, perhaps the Dec he didnt make that clear, which is a fair point, but the notion that it was some huge pork bill is not completely clear, he pulled the bill that was a single page, 2 paragraphs, my google skills on this one arent honing anything and while I trust Stewart to be honest (even if bias), I'm not sure why I cant find the bill for this one. But the health care bill was completely online, the notion that it was shoved down the throats last minute with no debate, is flat out not the case.

[T-Dub]

A better question might be "Should citizens take a more active role in seeking to inform themselves instead of waiting for their preferred flavor of news spigot to tell them what to be mad/scared about this week?"

To which I would say "Yes, that might be nice."

[-GoBengals-]

[quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1360198679' post='1213374']
A better question might be "Should citizens take a more active role in seeking to inform themselves instead of waiting for their preferred flavor of news spigot to tell them what to be mad/scared about this week?"

To which I would say "Yes, that might be nice."
[/quote]

honestly i think people perefer to hide behind the mask of accusing the other side of lies rather than actually take responsability for their own lifes decisions. in this scenario religion and polotics work one and the same... what a preacher or fellow church goer or parent taught about "god" and what"god wants" is fact and everything else is devils work or lies... politics are the same. dems are lying fags and repubs are full time criminals...

i think the public should vote on things via a series of multiple choice questions instead of yes or no... the blind voting cause a party or friends or family member said so is a huge problem. having no understanding of laws or bills or policy is criminals.

such as: would you approve a tax break or series of tax breaks for families with children, the bill would result in an increase in the national debt of $x-x dollars over 4 years and $y-z over 8 years, giving more cash to familes to spend in the down economy but pushing the national debt by 400 billion over 10 years..

eliminate the lies and propaganda, list facts for all economic classes, etc..

currently people just side with whoever they think is lying the least...

[T-Dub]

I would agree that we need a viable 3rd (4th, 5th) party in a big way. The simplistic either/or method in which political choices are presented gets applied to everything else, too. It's a model that eliminates the possibility of compromise.

[|Bunghole|]

I also agree about the polarization of American politics and the fact that financially supported "other" parties whether it be Independent, Green, Labor or whatever the fuck they call themselves need to be instilled into our public discourse. We NEED it. This whole backbiting shit with Dems versus Repubs isn't working and as long as this detrimental obstructionism political game gets played by both sides, we aren't going to get anywhere. We need political aisle-crossers on both sides, and since I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon, we need a well-funded alternative to an either/or situation. Fuck both of those parties. And in passing, fuck anything Nancy Pelosi proposes, because she's a liberal cunt.

[|kennethmw|]

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1360297744' post='1213481']
I also agree about the polarization of American politics and the fact that financially supported "other" parties whether it be Independent, Green, Labor or whatever the fuck they call themselves need to be instilled into our public discourse. We NEED it. This whole backbiting shit with Dems versus Repubs isn't working and as long as this detrimental obstructionism political game gets played by both sides, we aren't going to get anywhere. We need political aisle-crossers on both sides, and since I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon, we need a well-funded alternative to an either/or situation. Fuck both of those parties. And in passing, fuck anything Nancy Pelosi proposes, because she's a liberal cunt.
[/quote]

A "Liberal Cunt" who knew how to run the house! Too bad Mr Whiney Crybaby Ass has no clue how to do that!

[Jamie_B]

I wonder why this notion of reading things was never posted a while back?

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/19/maddow-many-in-congress-never-read-iraq-intel-briefs-before-authorizing-war/

 

Maddow: Many in Congress never read Iraq intel briefs
before authorizing war

 

On Monday night, Rachel Maddow presented “Hubris: Selling the Iraq War,” a

documentary about the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, one of the biggest
military blunders in U.S. history. In one segment, she reported that members of
the Senate Intelligence Committee, who were charged with determining whether or
not the country should go to war, never read the pertinent briefs before giving
then-President George W. Bush the go-ahead to launch the Iraq War.

The segment began in September of 2002, when Congress returned from its
summer recess. Bush administration officials were lobbying heavily for an
invasion of Iraq, using a flawed intelligence brief, the National Intelligence
Estimate (NIE) on Iraq, which wildly oversold the case for Saddam Hussein having
a nuclear and biological weapons program.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee at the
time, told MSNBC that the main “shop” behind a large amount of slanted,
pro-invasion intelligence was the office of Doug Feith, undersecretary of
Defense from 2001 to 2005, who was key in positing that Iraq was working with
al-Qaeda, the terrorist group that attacked the U.S. on Sep. 11, 2001.

 

The NIE on Iraq was prepared by the CIA in less than a month, a rush job that
contained many thinly sourced claims, as well as outright distortions of the
facts on the ground in Iraq. In intent, it was a barely disguised PR document
for the Bush administration, hastily cobbled together by CIA Director George
Tenet, who was then all but acting as the administration’s spokesperson.

Even within the NIE, however, there were caveats about the whether Hussein’s
weapons programs were still active. Unfortunately, as Michael Isikoff, co-author
of the book Hubris, noted, “As far as we can tell, only about a half a
dozen Senators actually read it. If they’d done so, they would have seen that it
was filled with dissents.”

Thusly informed (or uniformed, as the case may be), the House and Senate
voted overwhelmingly in favor of the invasion of Iraq. While some Democrats
declined to support the invasion, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Sen. Tom Daschle
(D-SD) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) all voted in favor of the
invasion.

[Vol_Bengal]

I wonder why this notion of reading things was never posted a while back?

 

Maddow: Many in Congress never read Iraq intel briefs before authorizing war

 

No idea... but its just as irresponsible then as it is now.

 

When will people not toe the line and vote actual change... not Obama's version of "Change"...  next the Repubs will run Marco Rubio on a platform of "Change" and it'll be 8 more years of status quo.
 

[BengalBacker]

Eventually we do have a problem. That the population is getting older,
health care costs are rising... there is this question of how we're
going to pay for the programs. The year 2025, the year 2030, something
is going to have to give... We're going to need more revenue... Surely
it will require some sort of middle class taxes as well.. We won't be
able to pay for the kind of government the society we want without some
increase in taxes... on the middle class, maybe a value added tax... And
we're also going to have to make decisions about health care, doc pay
for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits. So the snarky
version... which I shouldn't even say because it will get me in
trouble, is death panels and sales taxes is how we do this.

 

 

http://youtu.be/kyeMnaAOQL8

 

 

 

 

^_^