FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Should legislators read the bills they vote on?






Legislators should read bills before voting on them.
Yes
62%
 62%  [ 5 ]
No
37%
 37%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 8

Voodoocat
The Stimulus bill was just passed with 100% Democrat support and three Republicans voting for it. The bill was published Thursday at midnight and voting started at 9:00 Friday. The bill was over 1100 pages long. There is no way that anyone could have read the entire bill and understood the ramifications in only nine hours. I don't care what party the legislator is from, they have a responsibility to read and understand the laws that they are voting on.

Do you agree, or do you think that legislators should just vote the way the President tells them to? In that case, why have a legislator?
liljp617
Obviously they should read it.

It's the President, not the dictator.
deanhills
Voodoocat wrote:
The Stimulus bill was just passed with 100% Democrat support and three Republicans voting for it. The bill was published Thursday at midnight and voting started at 9:00 Friday. The bill was over 1100 pages long. There is no way that anyone could have read the entire bill and understood the ramifications in only nine hours. I don't care what party the legislator is from, they have a responsibility to read and understand the laws that they are voting on.

Do you agree, or do you think that legislators should just vote the way the President tells them to? In that case, why have a legislator?


I absolutely agree!!!!!!! ESPECIALLY since it has so many ramifications for all individuals in the US. This Bill is going to allow so many backdoors to be open, it is going to revisit the US citizens for the next century! Why is everyone taking it like this? Are Americans really that passive? The same with Bush. For how long were people unhappy with Bush, however they did not impeach him. Now something much worse is happening, and I hear very little protest. This is the worst situation to be in for a capitalist country when its Government is taking control of the purse strings, IN CAHOOTS with the Banks. And the more they say things like, it is for the protection of everyone, the more I get worried.
ocalhoun
Of course they should read it! That it passed with most if not all of them not even knowing what they were voting for is a travesty.

If Obama wanted a bill rushed through, the right way to do it would be to make sure the bill was short and simple, or to separate the parts of it into many short, simple bills that could be individually scrutinized. He may be popular, but to use that popularity to circumvent the long established checks and balances of the government could lead down a dangerous road.

(Just remember the words of Lincoln's assassin: "Thus always to tyrants.")


... Kind of wondering why there was no Republican filibustering going on though... The obvious thing to do would be to read the entire bill, thus delaying the vote until the whole senate had heard the whole thing.
Voodoocat
I wish the Republicans could have forced the Democrats to read the entire bill out loud! That would have been a hoot Smile Unfortunatly, I think that when three Republican senators voted for the bill the Republicans lost the votes to filibuster.

Its a shame that the three Republican senators had to bend to Obama's will. There is no shame in having a bill read in its entirety.
deanhills
Voodoocat wrote:
I wish the Republicans could have forced the Democrats to read the entire bill out loud! That would have been a hoot Smile Unfortunatly, I think that when three Republican senators voted for the bill the Republicans lost the votes to filibuster.

Its a shame that the three Republican senators had to bend to Obama's will. There is no shame in having a bill read in its entirety.


I wonder what those three Republican senators got in exchange for their votes Twisted Evil
liljp617
The bigger picture to this is that for years, probably decades, this is how bills have been passed. And we see over and over how numerous legislative bills have had terribly negative effects/unintended negative consequences...and yet, there's no learning from mistakes.

And we have the arrogance to brag about our system.
Xanatos
^^we also had the arrogance to say that this president was going to do things differently.
deanhills
Xanatos wrote:
^^we also had the arrogance to say that this president was going to do things differently.


Good way of putting it. Never trust a politician, especially during an election campaign ... Twisted Evil
liljp617
Xanatos wrote:
^^we also had the arrogance to say that this president was going to do things differently.


Sure.

This also involves more than the President. It's the legislative system as a whole.




I would like to know who voted "No" on this though...must not be a fan of literacy!
deanhills
It's such an ENORMOUS country. 50 states! Europe has much less, and granted they have to contend with different languages, but governing 50 states, much be a miracle in its own right! Still, when something like this happens, maybe the Federal States need to take greater care and responsibility for what is happening in DC. More now than every before.
bigsarg7
I don't know how you can vote for something when you haven't read it. It is a democracy so you can disagree with isues within the party so I don't agree with voting yes because the President says to
Stubru Freak
I don't think you can expect a politician to spend a whole day to read every detail of a bill. That's just a waste of time. It's enough if they read a summary made by their assistants.
deanhills
Stubru Freak wrote:
I don't think you can expect a politician to spend a whole day to read every detail of a bill. That's just a waste of time. It's enough if they read a summary made by their assistants.


Well, if it were a BIG Bill like this one, maybe it would be worth reading? Would be nice for people in the street to understand what is going on. Especially when it went through so fast.
Stubru Freak
deanhills wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:
I don't think you can expect a politician to spend a whole day to read every detail of a bill. That's just a waste of time. It's enough if they read a summary made by their assistants.


Well, if it were a BIG Bill like this one, maybe it would be worth reading? Would be nice for people in the street to understand what is going on. Especially when it went through so fast.


Well yes, maybe this time because it's big, but still, what's the use of reading all of it? Most of it can be easily summarised I think.
jmi256
Stubru Freak wrote:
I don't think you can expect a politician to spend a whole day to read every detail of a bill. That's just a waste of time.

Why not? When a bill represents trillions of dollars in increased taxes/fees and/or service cuts in the future for the taxpayer who is on the hook, why shouldn't we expect that they read the bill before voting on it? Proper legislating is what they were elected to do. If it's a waste of their time then they should find another line of "work." That's like someone telling their boss that they shouldn't have to spend their day "working" and that doing their job is a waste of time. They wouldn't last very long (unless the liberals have a say of course).

Stubru Freak wrote:
It's enough if they read a summary made by their assistants.

From a logistical standpoint, however they get it accomplished is fine with me. If they want assistants to read it and prepare summaries, that's fine if they can make it work. With a bill of this size and importance, however, I find that unlikely. The government isn’t really known for efficiency. Regardless, the lawmaker should still be accountable. They shouldn't later claim that they failed to understand what they voted for (like some Democrats did after they voted in favor of the Iraq War) or that it was an error (like the Obama nominees who claimed they made slight "errors" on their taxes when they tried to cheat everyone out of hundreds of thousands of dollars). The assistants should not get blamed when those who failed to read what they vote on get burned because of what is contained in the bill.

Also, some of these assistants are usually college students who are interning at the politician's office and many get these positions because of their families' connections to the politician rather than merit (not all but many). I don't know about you, but I don't want these people in charge of trillions of dollars of our taxes. Some are professionals, but not all.

Finally, even if they had highly qualified assistants to summarize the bill, it would be an enormous undertaking. Summarizing a 1,100+-page bill that is filled with vague and legalistic language would take quite a while, much less than what was allowed. And the result would still be a sizable document that would not be able to be read, let along fully understood, within the time allotted. There are also a lot of interrelated parts that require a full read rather than a piecemeal approach.

I guess the other question is: If there was a real justification to rush this legislation through, why then sit on it for four days before signing it? Couldn't those four days be spent digesting the bill and having an informed debate and vote?
Stubru Freak
jmi256 wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:
I don't think you can expect a politician to spend a whole day to read every detail of a bill. That's just a waste of time.

Why not? When a bill represents trillions of dollars in increased taxes/fees and/or service cuts in the future for the taxpayer who is on the hook, why shouldn't we expect that they read the bill before voting on it? Proper legislating is what they were elected to do. If it's a waste of their time then they should find another line of "work." That's like someone telling their boss that they shouldn't have to spend their day "working" and that doing their job is a waste of time. They wouldn't last very long (unless the liberals have a say of course).

Stubru Freak wrote:
It's enough if they read a summary made by their assistants.

From a logistical standpoint, however they get it accomplished is fine with me. If they want assistants to read it and prepare summaries, that's fine if they can make it work. With a bill of this size and importance, however, I find that unlikely. The government isn’t really known for efficiency. Regardless, the lawmaker should still be accountable. They shouldn't later claim that they failed to understand what they voted for (like some Democrats did after they voted in favor of the Iraq War) or that it was an error (like the Obama nominees who claimed they made slight "errors" on their taxes when they tried to cheat everyone out of hundreds of thousands of dollars). The assistants should not get blamed when those who failed to read what they vote on get burned because of what is contained in the bill.

Also, some of these assistants are usually college students who are interning at the politician's office and many get these positions because of their families' connections to the politician rather than merit (not all but many). I don't know about you, but I don't want these people in charge of trillions of dollars of our taxes. Some are professionals, but not all.

Finally, even if they had highly qualified assistants to summarize the bill, it would be an enormous undertaking. Summarizing a 1,100+-page bill that is filled with vague and legalistic language would take quite a while, much less than what was allowed. And the result would still be a sizable document that would not be able to be read, let along fully understood, within the time allotted. There are also a lot of interrelated parts that require a full read rather than a piecemeal approach.

I guess the other question is: If there was a real justification to rush this legislation through, why then sit on it for four days before signing it? Couldn't those four days be spent digesting the bill and having an informed debate and vote?


I agree on most of what you're saying. The main point I was trying to make is that reading each and every bill would probably be a waste of time. Not a waste of the person's time, but a waste of time for the country, as making laws would take a lot longer if everybody read every proposal.
But of course politicians can be held personally accountable when they vote for the wrong law. If a company sells a broken product, they too shouldn't blame the employee who made it. They can fire him, or whatever they want, but to the customer they should assume responsibility.
handfleisch
Stubru Freak wrote:
I don't think you can expect a politician to spend a whole day to read every detail of a bill. That's just a waste of time. It's enough if they read a summary made by their assistants.


Well said. A 1000 pages is only 100 pages per person for a staff of ten. Also, Congress wrote this stimulus bill. Kind of silly to claim they don't know what's in it.

Also, all these whiners who are complaining now were quite happy when Congress signed the Constitution-threatening Patriot Act without time to read it, and which Congress didn't write, in the middle of national hysteria and during the anthrax attack on Congress.
liljp617
Stubru Freak wrote:
I don't think you can expect a politician to spend a whole day to read every detail of a bill. That's just a waste of time. It's enough if they read a summary made by their assistants.


No, a waste of time is Congressional hearings on how much and why Jason Giambi's (or any of the other MLB player's) genitals are shrinking.

A bill that is going to effect 300 million people (and millions or billions more if we assume the US economy does play a determining factor in the state of the world economy) cannot be summarized.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:

Well said. A 1000 pages is only 100 pages per person for a staff of ten.

Please see my comments above.


handfleisch wrote:

Also, Congress wrote this stimulus bill. Kind of silly to claim they don't know what's in it.


A select few had a hand in writing the bill, but all had to vote on it. Seems pretty non-transparent and backroom-ish to me.


handfleisch wrote:

Also, all these whiners who are complaining now were quite happy when Congress signed the Constitution-threatening Patriot Act without time to read it, and which Congress didn't write, in the middle of national hysteria and during the anthrax attack on Congress.


Once again you're trying to muddy the waters. I guess your position is that the Congressional Democrats should use that as an appropriate model. If you claim that the Patriot Act had detrimental effect, it seems counterintuitive to use the same model.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:

Once again you're trying to muddy the waters. I guess your position is that the Congressional Democrats should use that as an appropriate model. If you claim that the Patriot Act had detrimental effect, it seems counterintuitive to use the same model.


Let me make it simple: When the right wing applauded the passage of a bill that hadn't been read during the time of national hysteria (and Congress was in the middle of the Anthrax scare), they forfeited the right to complain about such things. Without appearing hypocritical and stupid, I mean.
Dark_Jedi06
This one is a no-brainer.

OF COURSE.

Why even bother with electing the legislator if they're not going to be educated on what they're voting on? Seems a lot easier and cheaper to just become a fascist state at that point...
Xanatos
Dark_Jedi06 wrote:
This one is a no-brainer.

OF COURSE.

Why even bother with electing the legislator if they're not going to be educated on what they're voting on? Seems a lot easier and cheaper to just become a fascist state at that point...


Don't start giving them ideas now...
liljp617
Stubru Freak wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:
I don't think you can expect a politician to spend a whole day to read every detail of a bill. That's just a waste of time.

Why not? When a bill represents trillions of dollars in increased taxes/fees and/or service cuts in the future for the taxpayer who is on the hook, why shouldn't we expect that they read the bill before voting on it? Proper legislating is what they were elected to do. If it's a waste of their time then they should find another line of "work." That's like someone telling their boss that they shouldn't have to spend their day "working" and that doing their job is a waste of time. They wouldn't last very long (unless the liberals have a say of course).

Stubru Freak wrote:
It's enough if they read a summary made by their assistants.

From a logistical standpoint, however they get it accomplished is fine with me. If they want assistants to read it and prepare summaries, that's fine if they can make it work. With a bill of this size and importance, however, I find that unlikely. The government isn’t really known for efficiency. Regardless, the lawmaker should still be accountable. They shouldn't later claim that they failed to understand what they voted for (like some Democrats did after they voted in favor of the Iraq War) or that it was an error (like the Obama nominees who claimed they made slight "errors" on their taxes when they tried to cheat everyone out of hundreds of thousands of dollars). The assistants should not get blamed when those who failed to read what they vote on get burned because of what is contained in the bill.

Also, some of these assistants are usually college students who are interning at the politician's office and many get these positions because of their families' connections to the politician rather than merit (not all but many). I don't know about you, but I don't want these people in charge of trillions of dollars of our taxes. Some are professionals, but not all.

Finally, even if they had highly qualified assistants to summarize the bill, it would be an enormous undertaking. Summarizing a 1,100+-page bill that is filled with vague and legalistic language would take quite a while, much less than what was allowed. And the result would still be a sizable document that would not be able to be read, let along fully understood, within the time allotted. There are also a lot of interrelated parts that require a full read rather than a piecemeal approach.

I guess the other question is: If there was a real justification to rush this legislation through, why then sit on it for four days before signing it? Couldn't those four days be spent digesting the bill and having an informed debate and vote?


I agree on most of what you're saying. The main point I was trying to make is that reading each and every bill would probably be a waste of time. Not a waste of the person's time, but a waste of time for the country, as making laws would take a lot longer if everybody read every proposal.
But of course politicians can be held personally accountable when they vote for the wrong law. If a company sells a broken product, they too shouldn't blame the employee who made it. They can fire him, or whatever they want, but to the customer they should assume responsibility.


I could be wrong, but I imagine most bills aren't this long.
deanhills
Dark_Jedi06 wrote:
This one is a no-brainer.

OF COURSE.

Why even bother with electing the legislator if they're not going to be educated on what they're voting on? Seems a lot easier and cheaper to just become a fascist state at that point...


Good point! Sort of doing a Hitler exercise. Lots of propaganda of the masses. Plenty of posters. And the pretense of democracy ... Wink
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:

Once again you're trying to muddy the waters. I guess your position is that the Congressional Democrats should use that as an appropriate model. If you claim that the Patriot Act had detrimental effect, it seems counterintuitive to use the same model.


Let me make it simple: When the right wing applauded the passage of a bill that hadn't been read during the time of national hysteria (and Congress was in the middle of the Anthrax scare), they forfeited the right to complain about such things. Without appearing hypocritical and stupid, I mean.

So, basically, we're comparing this bill to the patriot act now? "Bush did it too!" Isn't a very good way to change things for the better now, is it?
Stubru Freak wrote:
I don't think you can expect a politician to spend a whole day to read every detail of a bill. That's just a waste of time. It's enough if they read a summary made by their assistants.

I do expect them to spend all day reading it! What do we pay them their generous salaries for if not that?
cr3ativ3
Well Yes if and only if they can read the bills in a efficient amount of time, if not then definitely a no.

Very Happy
liljp617
cr3ativ3 wrote:
Well Yes if and only if they can read the bills in a efficient amount of time, if not then definitely a no.

Very Happy


Isn't that precisely what it is now?

The question (and argument) is how would a person casting a vote legitimately read and fully comprehend a 1000+ page document as wide ranging as this bill in less than a day?

If they can't read it, the vote should be pushed back until they're finished...especially with bills that are going to truly effect every individual in this country and every nation the US is involved with.

Just because they can't finish it before voting time (I suppose this is what you mean by "efficient time"), they should be allowed to just throw their hands up and make some random, ill-informed vote? I don't care for that and I don't see many citizens who would support such an idea. This is their career, this is what they were voted in office to do. If they're incapable of doing it, they're incapable of representing me and everyone else. They're unfit to be at the head of a representative government.
Bikerman
Well, the question as posed is a no-brainer. Of course they should. Would you, as a 'normal' person sign something you had not read? I hope not.
Now, how much more serious for an elected representative to sign something, on behalf of his/her constituents, without reading it?
Any politician who signs or votes for something without considering/reading it is guilty of professional misconduct and should be held to account. The fact that many of them do so is no excuse.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:

Any politician who signs or votes for something without considering/reading it is guilty of professional misconduct and should be held to account. The fact that many of them do so is no excuse.


And what if they are forced into it, being required to give their vote despite not having had time to examine it yet? Who should be held accountable then?
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

Any politician who signs or votes for something without considering/reading it is guilty of professional misconduct and should be held to account. The fact that many of them do so is no excuse.


And what if they are forced into it, being required to give their vote despite not having had time to examine it yet? Who should be held accountable then?
They cannot be forced. They can be coerced but if they have any integrity they will refuse that coercion. Nobody can force a politician to vote. They can apply pressure, threats or whatever, but it is up to the politician to display personal intergrity - even at the risk of career enhancement. The fact that many politicians do not do so is one major reason that politicians, as a class of people, are held in contempt by many, even most, people.
Xanatos
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

Any politician who signs or votes for something without considering/reading it is guilty of professional misconduct and should be held to account. The fact that many of them do so is no excuse.


And what if they are forced into it, being required to give their vote despite not having had time to examine it yet? Who should be held accountable then?


The one who forced them to do so. In this case the President.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

Any politician who signs or votes for something without considering/reading it is guilty of professional misconduct and should be held to account. The fact that many of them do so is no excuse.


And what if they are forced into it, being required to give their vote despite not having had time to examine it yet? Who should be held accountable then?
They cannot be forced. They can be coerced but if they have any integrity they will refuse that coercion. Nobody can force a politician to vote. They can apply pressure, threats or whatever, but it is up to the politician to display personal intergrity - even at the risk of career enhancement. The fact that many politicians do not do so is one major reason that politicians, as a class of people, are held in contempt by many, even most, people.

True... That problem is caused by a system that tends to either corrupt or destroy integrity in the rare cases that it is found.

But can they be forced? They can refuse to vote, but that choice itself could be construed as a decision to do nothing, which may or may not be their real choice if given enough time to understand the bill.

This is one time that I really wish that I was a senator... If I were there, and if I managed to get the floor, I would read the entire bill out loud (along with commentary about parts of it), delaying the vote until I was done.
cr3ativ3
liljp617 wrote:
cr3ativ3 wrote:
Well Yes if and only if they can read the bills in a efficient amount of time, if not then definitely a no.

Very Happy


Isn't that precisely what it is now?

The question (and argument) is how would a person casting a vote legitimately read and fully comprehend a 1000+ page document as wide ranging as this bill in less than a day?

If they can't read it, the vote should be pushed back until they're finished...especially with bills that are going to truly effect every individual in this country and every nation the US is involved with.

Just because they can't finish it before voting time (I suppose this is what you mean by "efficient time"), they should be allowed to just throw their hands up and make some random, ill-informed vote? I don't care for that and I don't see many citizens who would support such an idea. This is their career, this is what they were voted in office to do. If they're incapable of doing it, they're incapable of representing me and everyone else. They're unfit to be at the head of a representative government.


I was half joking when I said that, sorry. The problem is that they cant read the documents in time to vote, and if they push the vote back, then thing wont get done. Take the Economic situation, if we waited on all the senators and house members to read these bills there would be no relief. No support to the business or public. We would see these bills being in place weeks if not months after they are needed.

If we could cut out all the small things in these bills, the stuff that makes people vote on them (little projects). And have senators and house members actually vote on these things. Then we might get somewhere, but until senators look at the bill and see that they should vote on it for all of america instead of voting on it because theirs small things in it they want, then were screwed.

BTW, I'm Canadian.
ocalhoun
cr3ativ3 wrote:

I was half joking when I said that, sorry. The problem is that they cant read the documents in time to vote, and if they push the vote back, then thing wont get done. Take the Economic situation, if we waited on all the senators and house members to read these bills there would be no relief. No support to the business or public. We would see these bills being in place weeks if not months after they are needed.


Being overwhelmed by the urgency of the situation and blindly taking actions without fully considering them?
That sounds an awful lot like panic.
jmi256
ocalhoun wrote:
cr3ativ3 wrote:

I was half joking when I said that, sorry. The problem is that they cant read the documents in time to vote, and if they push the vote back, then thing wont get done. Take the Economic situation, if we waited on all the senators and house members to read these bills there would be no relief. No support to the business or public. We would see these bills being in place weeks if not months after they are needed.


Being overwhelmed by the urgency of the situation and blindly taking actions without fully considering them?
That sounds an awful lot like panic.


The whole sense of urgency was manufactured as well. The Democrats rushed the bill through to then have it sit for four days before being signed. They could have used those four days to actually read what they were voting on.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
They cannot be forced. They can be coerced but if they have any integrity they will refuse that coercion. Nobody can force a politician to vote. They can apply pressure, threats or whatever, but it is up to the politician to display personal intergrity - even at the risk of career enhancement. The fact that many politicians do not do so is one major reason that politicians, as a class of people, are held in contempt by many, even most, people.


Agreed. But could it be that all of this had been agreed to while the election campaign was going on? And those months after the election campaign? Deals had been struck? And perhaps this is symbolic of the sickness in the banks. Perhaps those politicians do not even know how sick those banks are, and exactly what the dilemma consists off. Which I think is probably even more important to define BEFORE any bail-out package was considered. So with that PANIC that the President was dishing up, during and after his election, people did not really act responsibly. Did not ask the right questions, and are still not asking the right questions. They are basically acting like sheep!
Bikerman
Well, I don't want to get into the specifics of this case - largely because I am not well informed on it. My point was a general one - no politician (or anyone else for that matter) should cast a vote without knowing what they are voting for. In the case of a private individual you could say that they are only potentially hurting themselves. In the case of a politician the chances are that they represent thousands of voters, and there is NO excuse - it is grossly negligent and I would call it professional misconduct.

PS - the politician has a duty to ensure they make every effort to read the bill. I don't know in this case whether that was actually impossible - if so then the vote should not have been taken. I know that I have frequently had to vote in meetings on last minute agenda items and I also know that I would make damn sure that I read the motion - if that meant staying up all night then that was what I did.
lagoon
deanhills wrote:
Voodoocat wrote:
I wish the Republicans could have forced the Democrats to read the entire bill out loud! That would have been a hoot Smile Unfortunatly, I think that when three Republican senators voted for the bill the Republicans lost the votes to filibuster.

Its a shame that the three Republican senators had to bend to Obama's will. There is no shame in having a bill read in its entirety.


I wonder what those three Republican senators got in exchange for their votes Twisted Evil


A place in a future Democrat cabinet, probably...
liljp617
cr3ativ3 wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
cr3ativ3 wrote:
Well Yes if and only if they can read the bills in a efficient amount of time, if not then definitely a no.

Very Happy


Isn't that precisely what it is now?

The question (and argument) is how would a person casting a vote legitimately read and fully comprehend a 1000+ page document as wide ranging as this bill in less than a day?

If they can't read it, the vote should be pushed back until they're finished...especially with bills that are going to truly effect every individual in this country and every nation the US is involved with.

Just because they can't finish it before voting time (I suppose this is what you mean by "efficient time"), they should be allowed to just throw their hands up and make some random, ill-informed vote? I don't care for that and I don't see many citizens who would support such an idea. This is their career, this is what they were voted in office to do. If they're incapable of doing it, they're incapable of representing me and everyone else. They're unfit to be at the head of a representative government.


I was half joking when I said that, sorry. The problem is that they cant read the documents in time to vote, and if they push the vote back, then thing wont get done. Take the Economic situation, if we waited on all the senators and house members to read these bills there would be no relief. No support to the business or public. We would see these bills being in place weeks if not months after they are needed.

If we could cut out all the small things in these bills, the stuff that makes people vote on them (little projects). And have senators and house members actually vote on these things. Then we might get somewhere, but until senators look at the bill and see that they should vote on it for all of america instead of voting on it because theirs small things in it they want, then were screwed.

BTW, I'm Canadian.


How can we say a bill is needed if nobody takes the time to analyze the situation and the bills? Regardless, I would think most people would rather something be done correctly the first time (especially when it involves things like bailouts with tax money) than be done quickly and incorrectly.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
How can we say a bill is needed if nobody takes the time to analyze the situation and the bills? Regardless, I would think most people would rather something be done correctly the first time (especially when it involves things like bailouts with tax money) than be done quickly and incorrectly.

Perhaps they should make it a requirement of appointment to the Congress and Senate of any Government posting to test whether the person can read English? As well as their comprehension abilities? A spell test would probably also be good while they are at it and a general knowledge quizz about the Government of the US Wink

Seriously though, perhaps not all representatives of the people of the US can read and comprehend what they read to the standard required in order to look after the interests of their constituents when new legilslation or decisions are voted on? Maybe there should be a higher standard of election rather than by popular vote? Perhaps there should be a formal training course for people and their aids before they are elected/appointed to their positions?
Related topics
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
china russia brazil or india ?
e-books vs. hardcopy
Pirate Party - would you vote for them?
Vote for the best Air France Photo Edit (6 entries)
Are Americans stupid?
Ireland's no vote to the Lisbon Treaty
Would you run for office?
Are you a really good reader? i mean can read perfectly!
Things only a Republican could believe
Obama's speech to students Kindergarten through 12
Dem's Global Warming Debacle
Yay! Loosing the super-majority has made liberals reasonable
Michigan Republicans seek to dis-incorporate city official
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.