So did anyone else listening to Imus hear Lieberman this morning?

[Insomniator]

Imus: "Did you read the bailout bill"
Lieberman: "I read most of it. The important parts"
Imus (and the rest of his crew.. I'm sure): :Q

I mean... come on here...

We don't who is overseeing the bailout money (its basically so much its impossible)
We don't know where some of the money has gone
Some of it has been going to more bonuses (1 tenth of 1 percent but still)
Some of it has been going overseas
We also have no idea if it will work and no real evidence or past examples that it can work

And of course, we have at least one example of the people voting for it not reading the damn bill. I don't care if its 900 pages and he only read the important parts.

Imus literally said something like don't you think you should have read it? Lieberman response was literally "all I know is that people are losing jobs and losing their houses so something had to be signed"

ARE YOU KIDDING

 

[MovingTarget]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Do they physically have the time to delve into every pile of legilsation that comes across the floor? Probably not. I suppose that they have their staffs dredge through all of it. If not, then they need to do one or the other. They shouldn't be voting blind...

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I'm not sure how I feel about this. Do they physically have the time to delve into every pile of legilsation that comes across the floor? Probably not. I suppose that they have their staffs dredge through all of it. If not, then they need to do one or the other. They shouldn't be voting blind...

Even the staff had at most 15hrs to read more than 1000 pages.

 

[chess9]

This is the single biggest problem with Congress-COMPETENCE. How can you be competent when you don't know what you are voting on?

This happened with the Iraq War authorization as well. Something like 24 Senators read the intelligence behind Bush's recommendation. Had they all read it, a lot more would have voted against the authorization.

There is no way they read TARP I. It was passed very quickly and was over 100 pages long. It provided no details, which is exactly what Paulson wanted. He wanted to be able to shovel money to his buddies as HE saw fit. So, Congress bent the American public over and shoved a hot poker up their collective ass.

This problem is getting much worse, and will continue to get worse as problems become more complex.

-Robert

 

[BoberFett]

Mentally deficient people cannot sign contracts, but apparently they are allowed to vote on bills.

"all I know is that people are losing jobs and losing their houses so something had to be signed"

Why am I picturing the old TV and movie gag where the document the person is actually signing is sticking out below another harmless document?

Son: Hey dad, you need to sign my report card.
Dad: Great grades son!
Son: Haha, gotcha, you just signed a 500 billion dollar bailout!

 

[Fear No Evil]

And Obama could have avoided all of this by refusing the sign it and letting the public, the congress, and news, etc... all review it for a week or two before putting it into law.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I'm not sure how I feel about this. Do they physically have the time to delve into every pile of legilsation that comes across the floor? Probably not. I suppose that they have their staffs dredge through all of it. If not, then they need to do one or the other. They shouldn't be voting blind...

Even the staff had at most 15hrs to read more than 1000 pages.

I could read 1000 pages in 15 hours easily.. plus they were only looking at revisions, as the base of the bill had been out for a long time, and there are multiple people pouring through the bill.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

You all missed the most important part of the OP's post, he was listening to Imus. Kinda like getting the news from a rabid junkyard dog.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
And Obama could have avoided all of this by refusing the sign it and letting the public, the congress, and news, etc... all review it for a week or two before putting it into law.

But if they didn't sign it IMMEDIATELY... our country would have imploded and the world would have ended. Everyone would have lost their house, job, car, family within a matter of days. If that bill wasn't signed RIGHT FUCKING THEN, we would all be FUCKED. That money needed to get out THE NEXT FUCKING DAY if our country was to survive.

So... how long till they start sending out checks?

 

[Insomniator]

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
You all missed the most important part of the OP's post, he was listening to Imus. Kinda like getting the news from a rabid junkyard dog.

:roll:

Bugs Bunny could have asked the question and the answer would be just as valid.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
You all missed the most important part of the OP's post, he was listening to Imus. Kinda like getting the news from a rabid junkyard dog.

:roll:

Bugs Bunny could have asked the question and the answer would be just as valid.

And the question!

-Robert

 

[Jaskalas]

Congress doesn?t read its own laws and this is supposed to surprise us?

This will only be resolved when our two incumbent parties and their elite ruling class are no longer in power. That is called accountably, and they have ZERO accountability as the nation currently stands. They could get away with murder because Americans vote along party lines.

 

[StepUp]

I hope to see a No Congressman Left Behind program.

That should help to fix the problem me thinks.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: StepUp
I hope to see a No Congressman Left Behind program.

That should help to fix the problem me thinks.

LMFAO!!

Yes, we need some standards for these idiots. But, it's like trying to measure love with a thermometer

-Robert

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: chess9
This is the single biggest problem with Congress-COMPETENCE. How can you be competent when you don't know what you are voting on?

This is not entirely the fault of those members of Congress - or at least not the minority's fault. It's well documented that starting in the late 70s, whichever party held power routinely puts together enormous bills and presents them for reading to the minority at the last possible second.

Your last stimulus bill was posted to everyone, including members of Congress, on the House Appropriations Committee website late Thursday. It was about 1000 pages in length. The House was expected to vote on the bill on Friday.

Competence isn't the issue.

 

[mooseracing]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
And Obama could have avoided all of this by refusing the sign it and letting the public, the congress, and news, etc... all review it for a week or two before putting it into law.

Yes, imagine that, the lord savior lied. He is record on tape stating he would give at least 5 days for himself and the public to read over any bill.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: chess9
This is the single biggest problem with Congress-COMPETENCE. How can you be competent when you don't know what you are voting on?

This is not entirely the fault of those members of Congress - or at least not the minority's fault. It's well documented that starting in the late 70s, whichever party held power routinely puts together enormous bills and presents them for reading to the minority at the last possible second.

Your last stimulus bill was posted to everyone, including members of Congress, on the House Appropriations Committee website late Thursday. It was about 1000 pages in length. The House was expected to vote on the bill on Friday.

Competence isn't the issue.

So, you think giving members less than 24 hours to review a 1,000 page bill is a sign of competence?

-Robert

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: StepUp
I hope to see a No Congressman Left Behind program.

That should help to fix the problem me thinks.

On MSNBC about an hour ago, Maxine Waters was on talking about about her comments today about President Obama needing to clarify what went on between Treasury and Dodd, then the host asked her something about how the Congress could have avoided all this. Her reply was that she hasn't read the fine print and that she wished she did.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: chess9
This is the single biggest problem with Congress-COMPETENCE. How can you be competent when you don't know what you are voting on?

This is not entirely the fault of those members of Congress - or at least not the minority's fault. It's well documented that starting in the late 70s, whichever party held power routinely puts together enormous bills and presents them for reading to the minority at the last possible second.

Your last stimulus bill was posted to everyone, including members of Congress, on the House Appropriations Committee website late Thursday. It was about 1000 pages in length. The House was expected to vote on the bill on Friday.

Competence isn't the issue.

So, you think giving members less than 24 hours to review a 1,000 page bill is a sign of competence?

-Robert

It would be incompetent if that timeframe was provided because Congress bumbled around and barely got things done in time. In reality, the timeframe for review is what it is because it's a mean-spirited but effective technique to minimize dissent.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: chess9
This is the single biggest problem with Congress-COMPETENCE. How can you be competent when you don't know what you are voting on?

This is not entirely the fault of those members of Congress - or at least not the minority's fault. It's well documented that starting in the late 70s, whichever party held power routinely puts together enormous bills and presents them for reading to the minority at the last possible second.

Your last stimulus bill was posted to everyone, including members of Congress, on the House Appropriations Committee website late Thursday. It was about 1000 pages in length. The House was expected to vote on the bill on Friday.

Competence isn't the issue.

So, you think giving members less than 24 hours to review a 1,000 page bill is a sign of competence?

-Robert

It would be incompetent if that timeframe was provided because Congress bumbled around and barely got things done in time. In reality, the timeframe for review is what it is because it's a mean-spirited but effective technique to minimize dissent.

Which destroys the competence of Congress when that tactic is employed. No member can give such important legislation his/her full input in such circumstances. These bills are crafted in committee, and often the members have no clue what is in them. Obviously, someone doesn't care if the bill is right or not, or someone has such a high opinion of himself or herself they think they are right.

Competence is a huge issue. If you are going to have Congress acting like juvenile delinquents, you can't expect competence.

Anyway, this is a question of semantics between us. We agree this is no way to run a country!

-Robert