Slashdot Mirror
Senate Approves the ______Act Of____
An anonymous reader writes "Apparently the Senate was in such a rush to get out of town that it forgot to name an 'important' bill that it passed, so the bill goes to the House as The ______Act of____. That's how it appears in the Congressional Record, though the Library of Congress has it listed as The XXXXXXAct ofXXXX. As for what's in the bill, well that appears to be as mysterious as the name. It was officially announced as a bill to tax bonuses to execs who received TARP money. But then someone simply deleted the entire bill and replaced it with text about aviation security. And then it was deleted again, and replaced with something having to do with education. However, because of these constant changes, many of the services that track the bill have the old details listed. On top of that, Nancy Pelosi called the House back for an emergency vote on this unnamed bill, and anyone trying to find out what it's about might be misled into thinking its about aviation security or something entirely unrelated to the actual bill. And people wonder why no one trusts Congress." It appears that the government's new martial law plans are being passed after all.
At this point, why don't they just write (or print) these things with dissappearing ink? It's not like they look at it again once it gets voted on.
"Wait, we aren't supposed to do this...isn't this against the law since we passed ::insert random bill::"
"What the hell are you talking about?"
Living With a Nerd
We are blessed with the most incompetent congress I can remember.
When the system for legislation gets so confusing that not even the people passing the bills can keep it straight, I think it shows that there is some fundamental flaw in the system, or it didn't scale well or something.
Do we have to go back to Schoolhouse Rock?
But they keep voting for them.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Bah! I can't wait for the zombie hordes to attack so we don't have to worry about stuff like this anymore...BRAAAINZZZZZ!!!!!
At this stage are there any objections to simply unseating every single encumbent? Certainly a large influx of "freshmen" to the halls of congress couldn't make matters any worse.
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
More than likely an intern was getting the paperwork in, not trained, under paid, wanting to get out the to bar to meet the gang. Ah, government by the staff.
One step progress
Two steps congress
*DrugCheese rants*
That this isn't one bill with a conspiracy theory behind it, but perhaps that that code is used more like a placeholder and constantly overwritten when a new unnamed bill comes along?
today is spelling optional day.
And this surprises people how?
After decades (as in, starting from the 1950's forward) the seed of graft and corruption that was planted then has now grown into a monster.
People keep voting these jokers into office, and they keep bending people over their knee with a jar of lube. Then the same people wonder why their ASSets hurt.
Here's a clue:
Vote the fuckers out.
When spending is the primary objective, it hardly matters what you call it or even if you read it. What matters is that you get to control the flow of cash, which means (caution: big scary secret) that you get first dibs on exploiting that power for personal gain.
If you actually read the bill you'll realize that it contains $100 billion for spending on "education", clauses to let States governments go suck at the TARP nipple (shocking huh? Whatever happened to green jobs, etc that were promised?), new taxes for foreigners doing business in the US, foreign companies doing business in the US, and US citizens previously entitled to tax credits from living abroad, and well over $1 trillion worth of rescinded spending (presumably to get money to give to the State governments). There are other details, obviously.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Here is Free Billions for Haliburton.. Unfortunately, we can't call it that, so it's the Bill of _____ for _____ . Trust me, this bill is nothing more than Sentators and Congressmen giving themselves and some close friends big raises at our expense, and probably fucking up our lives in some small way.
After all, any bill that actually gets anything done is shot down by one side or the other, so clearly, this is a bill that just gives money away to big companies. Those are the only bills that get passed by both sides.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
A century or two from now, no one will remember how "Saturday" became "Caturday".
It's the "ultimate" bill. The final legislative solution, really.
It's the "Fill In The Blank Bill of 2010". It's like a pre-approved blank check. Just fill in the "payable to" and the "amount" parts, and the money is withdrawn from the taxypayer's account or, if that happens to be overdrawn, put on their credit card.
Don't complain. This is all in the noble effort to streamline government and cut back on the bureaucracy that would otherwise be necessary to accomplish essentially the same thing with dozens of individually approved bills.
Blame the thousands of lobbyists in Washington. They have many of the politicians in their pockets, both Republicans and Democrats. The lobbyists are their to protect the corporate exec's interests.
The Erosion of Freedom Act of 1984
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
It could save a lot of time if they would just pass the executive branch a few blank legislations to be filled in later.
There isn't anything in the constitution prohibiting it, is there? Of course, you could not apply it ex post facto to dates before the blanks were filled in and so on.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703748904575411713335505250.html
If it is a bill to tax executive bonuses from TARP-receiving companies, then the Constitution says that it must originate in the House, not the Senate, but I suppose that detail is ignored.
My plan to have Congress name me king and eternal diety has come to fruition and you're ruining it!
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
If Schoolhouse Rock had been written and produced today, no doubt that popular song would have been VERY different from the one we know today.
Seriously, guys. A clerk somewhere screwed up, and probably needs to be fired. However, it's a pretty far cry from martial law.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
The world is ending, someone made a clerical error!
But for a split second there I wax expecting the Python programming language to be mentioned somewhere in there.
Please, someone tell me this is a sick ill-timed April Fool's joke. You Have Got To Be Fucking Kidding Me.
you get lube?
Since the majority of us Americans can't be bothered to take an active role in our governing process, it should be no surprise that our representatives fail to do so as well.
"If...you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning" - Catherine Aird
I couldn't figure out until I RTFA if this was actually a joke or for real.. The Onion called it first: Proposed (Classified) Bill Will Defend Against Flesh-eating (Classified)
All bills should be written on a wiki-like system that is publicly viewable, along with all previous versions of the bill and which member of Congress made which changes.
Technoli
I think this could set a new precedent of how things are done in Congress. A far more efficient way. Our reps and senators could get together to vote for an unnamed and unspecified bill. Various congressmen could stand up and speak to the issues that are most important to their constituency and party. Republicans can argue about how the bill is a hand-out sponsored by the democrats and that we all just need to have some personal responsibility. The democrats could argue about how this is required to protect the children/poor/minorities. Once all the grand standing is completed and the various pork riders attached, it will be voted on. Once approved it can then be forwarded to the various lobbyists to fill in the blanks. It would be something like a blank check but a more democratic version. The details never mattered anyways.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
I think they were kidding about that.
Exactly. Your first clue is the Onion citation.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Doesn't it have something to do with martial law and an outbreak of flesh-eating classified something or other?
Seriously, this reads like an Onion story.
I was speaking with our congressional representative last Thursday, Denny Rehberg, and he said the reason for the 'emergency' was that the bill contained $20 million (or something) in "bailout" (his words, not mine) money for San Francisco - Pelosi's home district. I'm not sure if that's true or not, Denny plays A LOT of partisan politics and just likes to stir the pot whenever he can. About 50% of what comes out of his mouth is bullshit, so it's hard to say, but I do think Nancy Pelosi is complete c*nt and it's sickening she won't be voted out.
----- obSig
"I was just wondering what would happen!", cried the page as the men in black suits and mirrored sunglasses bundled him into the back of the black SUV.
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
What's probably happened is that Ms. Obama found this pair of really darling shoes in whatever town she's currently vacationing in, and needs sufficient funds channeled to her so she can make the purchase.
It requires an emergency session of congress, because she needs the funds before some other vacationing monarch buys them out from under her. That would be a political disaster, to see a foreign princess walking around in her shoes! They might even be seen wearing them on TV! With a matching haddbag, even!
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
How dare you suggest something so sensible! Don't you know this government prides itself on inefficiency!? Tracking who made the edits... are you MAD??? Accountability makes for all sorts of annoying problems, we don't want those people actually knowing what we suggest! Now get out of my office!
It works very much like public schools. People will bemoan the fact that schools are not doing well, except the school their child attends.
The same logic is used when voting for the incumbent. Congress is awful, but not my Congressman.
We won't get these guys out until our political process is open to everyone fairly. As it stands now it is near impossible to get a non Democratic or non Republican elected. They can redistrict that possibility out. If they cannot do that way they will make your source of campaign funding illegal, or you method of distributing your message.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
This is just beyond ridiculous. There is no limit to the "creativity" legislators will take when trying to get special favors passed through into law. The passing of the DMCA was pretty dirty as dirty tricks go, but at least it's easy enough to understand. But now this one can much more easily get written off as a mistake or misunderstanding. "But I thought I was voting yes to the 'don't step on puppy dog tails' bill!" Great. Even less accountability from our legislators.
We need a law outlawing this practice and fast. Now who will we get to sponsor this bill? And what shall we call it?
Ted "the internet is a series of Tubes" Stevens went down in a plane crash in Alaska. It appears he's dead.
Vote the fuckers out.
Sorry to undo all my mods to this topic, but when I saw this blurb of naivety I had to respond.
Votes no longer work in the USA. Votes quit working when JFK was assassinated. From that very moment onward, bullets are worth more than ballots.
The monster's claws/roots now run too deep in the system to be dethroned by simply being out-voted. I've labeled my government officials as tyrants, IMHO, rightfully so. I've told my friends and family my new mantra: "Bullets > Ballots". I am biding my time until I and my fellow Americans can bring arms against the tyrants and fight the GOOD fight.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
They don't even bother to read the title of the legislation anymore. This stinks to high-hell to me. For all anyone knows, this bill permanently suspends the Constitution, and eliminates the need for presidential elections.
-Oz
Legally, judges are allowed to use any text of a law to interpret the rest of it. Where I am a particularly nasty anti-tenant law came into effect making it really easy to evict tenant that didn't deserve it. The government called it the Tenant Protection Act. Judges across the province decided to interpret the title as having force over the entire act and basically re-interpreted the entire thing to actually be a Tenant Protection Act.
In this case, judges could decide that since this is a law about nothing, it is going to have that level of enforcement.
Is this the latest example of transparency in government? They just didn't get it quite right...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As one of the 27,000 recently fired teachers in Illinois, I know that this is Democrat backed bill was always about getting money to the States to stave off even more extreme failures in the education systems. There was no question or confusion in the Senate or the House. Even main stream (non-republican) news sources like the NY Times and NPR covered this bill. No thing to see here. Apparently a data entry issue/computer issue is being used as a tool by some one with Republican interests is trying to miss-represent a very good thing being done by our Democrat majority in government.
That the actual text of the legislation is missing is insignficant because, even if we had that, we could not understand it. Laws enacted by congress are incomprehensible, even to the congressmen who vote from them. As Nancy Pelosi said of Obamacare "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." What she means is that nobody could learn what was in the bill by reading it. Here, for example, is a randomly selected segment of the over 1000 page long ObamaCare act:
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Its the enabling legislation and funding for a DoD program called SkyNet.
Have gnu, will travel.
Bullets have ALWAYS been worth more than ballots. What, did the Revolutionary War teach you nothing at all? When you have no representation, or your supposed representation doesn't represent you at all, of course bullets are worth more than ballots.
Bullets, however, have the strange effect when they are used of resulting in bullets coming back at you, whereas ballots do not, at least perhaps unless you are a white Republican trying to vote in Philadelphia.
In any case, we are nowhere near yet to the point where the ballot is meaningless and your attitude that "it's all over for democracy" is the reason I modded you troll.
The USA PATRIOT Act was written prior to September 11 and lay in the shadows, its supporters waiting for the opportune moment to present it. It rushed through & was passed primarily on its name - what incumbent who wants to keep his seat will vote against something that sounds "patriotic"?
Maybe, just maybe, if there there was no title, people would at least skim through the bill before making a decision on it. I can dream, can't I?
One fucked country LOL bunch of retards.
It's the only way to be sure.
The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt.
...to complain about the Blank Act of Blank and what a bunch of blankety-blank-blank it is.
Which part of the unprecedented peace and prosperity of the 1990s would you qualify as "making matters much worse?"
The K Street Project, for one. Other parts of the story of the 1990's that really hurt were the free trade agreements such as NAFTA, which wrecked most of the remaining industry in the US.
As far as the "prosperity" part of the story, that's suspect, because the median incomes were mostly unchanged. And for the "peace" part, you only get peace if you ignore Somalia, the Balkans, Rwanda, occasional bombing raids into Iraq, the beginnings of fighting between the US and Al Qaeda, and the Oklahoma City Bombings.
I am officially gone from
They don't even bother to read the bills anymore.
The last time this happened it turned out to be the XXX passing a law to give their agents a licence to XXXX
Remember that fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself; I bring you...
The Law Which Must Not Be Named
And over there we have the labyrinth guards. One always lies, one always tells the truth, and one stabs people who ask t
the Democrats in the House, Senate, and White House have radically changed the landscape, and not for anyone's long-term benefit.
If you accept that the massive influx of government spending is the proper response to a dead economy (I do), and that it is temporary (god I hope so), what specifically are you referring to? The healthcare bill got watered down to the point where all it did was set up a competitive price exchange for healthcare... sort of the Amazon.com of getting sick. They changed student loans to be a bit more fair, and expanded Pell grants for needy students. They passed an act where if your landlord gets foreclosed upon but you have a lease, your lease survives. And if you don't have a lease, you have 3 months to find a new place. They passed a few credit-card acts counteracting some of the more egregious offences, and giving business owners some rights. They passed a toothless wall-street reform act.
What bills, specifically, are you referring to? I'm not asking facetiously. I know we tend to filter news through our own perceptions, and I wonder what I missed.
And saying this is as bad as Bush II is going too far. We're not stuck in any new intractable wars, we haven't lost all of our allies, and we haven't had any new worldwide economic collapses.
The ______ Agenda
Instead of just blabbing about the issues with Congress, we need to demand they represent us! We need to constantly hit them with letters, calls, etc., telling them how to do their job. It's as easy as filling out a form on the web. Eventually, they will listen, but not until enough people start telling them how to make decisions that benefit the whole country. DownSizeDC.org is a great organization that has many great ideas and suggestions for Congress. They even have a campaign for this topic: http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/urgent-a-bill-with-no-name
Congress may be a bunch of idiots, but they are _our_ idiots.
If I remember correctly, most of our setup for the present-day woes happened during this time-frame.
This is the same maneuver that was used to pass ObamaCare. They took a House bill regarding tax breaks for service members and replaced the entire text.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
Intelligent folk should be above it. Both parties are broken, neither party aligns with your beliefs. Government isn't a sports game - the only real winners or losers are the people. The people of the US are giving up their independence and freedom to numbing mountains of laws and bureaucracy. They are ignorant of government spending and its resultant inflation and debt. The almighty dollar is the foundation we all stand upon and if you don't recognize the need for concern, you need to start paying attention to what our own accountants are saying - your Congressmen are not.
Some enterprising group of hackers need to get a bill in that gives themselves a few million or billion dollors and then they would be set for life.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
The systemic greed and corruption started considerably before the 1950s. Some would put it dating as far back as the oldest attempts at human government. It was certainly established in the US considerably before the 1950s. Watch the movies Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, It's A Wonderful Life, and others. There were no contemporary movies of the post Civil War reconstruction era, but if there had been, they would have shown the problem rampant by then.
I will, however, agree that it has never been worse than the present.
The problem is indicative of a fundamental weakness of the design of the US representational system. Only a tiny percentage of voters would vote for an imaginary resolution that said "All incumbents are hereby deemed re-elected," but a huge percentage will vote to re-elect their own incumbent. What is productive on the small scale (more pork for MY district/state) is counterproductive on the large scale (more uncontrolled, disastrous pork for everybody). They are voting in what they perceive to be their own interest, and arguably they are not wrong if their own interest is self centered and not so much centered on the nation as a whole. And that cannot just be criticized as stupid. The only real proponent of self is always self, and family and friends come before all. We wouldn't be human if it were otherwise.
It is not an easy problem to solve. Term limits weed out experience and wisdom as well as arrogance and corruption, and as well, most proposals allow much too long a term of incumbency to do the slightest good. Nevertheless, I have the solution. It will of course require Constitutional amendment.
Part one. Limit membership in the House of Representatives to a SINGLE two year term. Leave the Senate unfettered by any limits. In fact, restore the method of choosing Senators to the original one of appointment by the governor (for 6 year terms just as now). Now you have the perfect Congress. The House is made over COMPLETELY fresh every two years; corruption never has a chance to take hold, no representative ever has to waste time and concentration on pursuing re-election rather than tending to governing, and you perpetually have that wonderful breath of fresh air that is the freshman class. On the other hand, the Senate fulfills what has always been its purpose: the repository of experience and wisdom. Senators likewise do not have to politic all the time, worrying about their re-election, since they are appointed.
You still have a democratic process, since no one can become a representative without being elected in the first place, and the governor in appointing the state's senators is answerable to the people, since he is popularly elected.
Part two: end the corrupt Congressional committee system which is at the root of corrupt legislation. Replace the committees by groups chosen from the general population including various appropriate professions. This mimics the proven jury system in the judicial branch. These groups will be freshly chosen every two years. No, it doesn't GUARANTEE that their fruits will be brilliant, but it does keep politics out of this critical process.
Part three: sunset EVERY bill. No exceptions.
The three part combination is the best possible solution. No hare brained bill can get passed without passing both houses, including the people's committees, and all bills die if not renewed. So-called "entitlements" cease unless they continually prove themselves and are constantly renewed. The system is self healing, since you can at any time get a fresh slate if everyone can't agree on the current system of laws, and they all sunset automatically. Of course, this extreme case will never happen, but it is the best guarantee against tyranny. The solution does not depend on the supposed adversarial relationship of the two parties, which has become illusory in the present general corruption. Rather, the solution is guaranteed by design.
You'd think there might be a political agenda.
Luckily this is old news and information is already out there.
Yes there appeared to be a last minute decision to replace the text of HR. 1586 with the contents of what will eventually become known as the "State Bailout Bill". Apparently there was a need to replace the contents of the "FAA Modernization Bill" with this emergency spending bill. Possibly the senators figured out that the fastest way to get this to the President's desk was to amend the last house passed bill to replace its contents, and then have the house reconvene to approve the change. No big conspiracy here, but some comical fodder about forgetting to put the final name of the bill into the text.
No one did such thing, That's amendment S.AMDT.3486 to HR. 1586 Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (introduced 3/11/2010)
See my explanation above, and this was not "deleted again". By the way the amendment is S.AMDT.4575 to HR. 1586 Sponsor: Sen Murray, Patty [WA] (submitted 8/2/2010) (proposed 8/2/2010)
With the summary so full of political hyperbole, I can see why the submitter remained anonymous. The fact that the article actually provides the PDF of the congressional record proves that the submitter is completely wrong with his assertions.
This supposed conspiracy doesn't rise to the level of the shenanigans that the Republicans performed when they passed the "Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999" that Clinton signed into law. It was that bill ultimately got us in the sad shape we are in now...
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
I mean simplification of the laws is badly needed and a noble goal, but you can go too far. Governing a nation is complex, and as such laws will be complex. If things get to the point of being too simple then you have one of two problems that results:
1) The executive branch gains massive amounts of power. If legislation is not specific, it usually then has to be administrative rules which means the executive branch. For example if all the law said on federal tax is "The government shall collect taxes as needed to pay for its expenses," well then the IRS would more or less make tax law administratively.
2) Laws would be unclear, and lead to lots of problems in the courts. You'd have a whole lot of things open to interpretation since there wouldn't be good law on it. You could very well think you were totally in the right, based on your interpretation, and find out a court disagreed and have no real way to contradict them.
So you've got to be careful about wanting things to get too simple. Simple is good for high level stuff, the Constitution is simple and in many cases deliberately vague but only because it is a high level framework. It is then presumed that lower level laws will fill in the details as needed.
To quote a modification of an Einstein quote: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”
~ George Orwell
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Now would be a good time to slip something in that outlawed political parties. Once they are out of the way we can get back to being a Democracy
Clinton called for making mortgages more readily available, and signed what, exactly? Let's at least be honest about what Clinton's changes to the Community Reinvestment Act actually did. From the wiki page:
In July 1993, President Bill Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden.[55] Robert Rubin, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, under President Clinton, explained that this was in line with President Clinton's strategy to "deal with the problems of the inner city and distressed rural communities". Discussing the reasons for the Clinton administration's proposal to strengthen the CRA and further reduce red-lining, Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury at that time, affirmed his belief that availability of credit should not depend on where a person lives, "The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".[36]
By early 1995, the proposed CRA regulations were substantially revised to address criticisms that the regulations, and the agencies' implementation of them through the examination process to date, were too process-oriented, burdensome, and not sufficiently focused on actual results.[56] The CRA examination process itself was reformed to incorporate the pending changes.[40] Information about banking institutions' CRA ratings was made available via web page for public review as well.[36] The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) also moved to revise its regulation structure allowing lenders subject to the CRA to claim community development loan credits for loans made to help finance the environmental cleanup or redevelopment of industrial sites when it was part of an effort to revitalize the low- and moderate-income community where the site was located.[57]
It should be noted that compliance with the CRA is entirely voluntary, if you don't want the tasty government tax credits, don't comply. The idea that Clinton somehow brought on the mortgage crisis by forcing banks to lend to poor people is simply ludicrous.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The U.S.S.A. Please leave your rights, money, and all possessions in the tray by the door before you go in.
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
The "peace and prosperity" of the 1990s was not the result of anything Clinton did. In fact, the assertions are actually false.
It wasn't unprecedentedly peaceful. During Clinton's term (not even the full 1990s), there were more military actions than there were from 2000-2010. If you're going by number of sanctioned actions, the 1930s were the most peaceful (only three - related - actions, in China).
From the start of Clinton's presidency in 1993 - right off the fucking bat - he starts throwing stones at the Balkans (making matters worse, as UN actions usually do). That's a collossal fuck-up, yet nobody even talks about it or acknowledges it as one - despite the troubles still going on today. Then there's Sudan, Liberia, repeated bombings in Iraq, Somolia actions (fail!), air strikes in Afghanistan, and of course repeat Balkan bombings. And of course there were the heightened War on Drugs efforts, and the "unprecedented" use of federal police for domestic military action against US citizens (Waco, Ruby Ridge).
This, despite the cease of conflict between Soviet states/interests and the West - ie, the Cold War being over. Granted, most of these were punitive actions so he could "look tough" and had little actual impact (aside from the Balkans). If there was peace, it was because threats were being ignored (such as, oh, Osama's buddy trying to assassinate Clinton in the Philipines). Calling it "unprecedented peace" is a pile of shit so deep you could call it a hill.
The economic prosperity, on the other hand, really did happen, but it was akin to not paying your power bill to buy a new TV. He did some things with regard to employment, but he was incredibly fortunate to arrive on the scene when he did: before the 2nd wave of substantial off-shoring occurred, and at the cusp of the so-called Information Revolution. Between opening up the national oil reserves (cheap oil/gas), increased off-shoring, and the explosion of the tech industry, he'd have had to try pretty hard to make things not grow like wild fire. (Likewise, the 1997-2000 bubble, and it's ultimate collapse around 2002, can be safely attributed to the same dotcom bubble).
I should note I'm not justifying any of the crap since or before Clinton, but calling Clinton a saint of a President is a bit shortsighted (to say the least!).
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Harry Buttle?
This kind of thing just infuriates me to no end and causes me to hope and pray that V for Vendetta will rise. Anyways, the other question is; why are former CEOs getting involved in politics? The only possible reasoning that I have developed is the money. Socially, these people are scum and sub-human, so it couldn't be to better anything socially. This question has really be fueling my fire for sometime now and maybe I am V...
"The laws of science be a harsh mistress." --Bender
It's went through several revisions as amendments were added and taken away. You're looking at a placeholder title that the house bill had at one point in time.
The final bill is called the "Aviation Safety and Investment Act of 2010"
It's not a secret. You can read the full text here: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1586/text
Well, the fact that they lied about what the bills were about... or rather, failed to say what was in the bill (trust us! you'll like it after we pass this $1 trillion monstrosity), is one long-term detriment.
It's is true, Bush got us into a couple of wars, but Obama's inaction in certain areas are going to bring us near a WW3 scenario. It's either that or Israel gets wiped off the map in a few days by Iran. (For Bible reading/believing types - see Revelations for a counter argument.)
It's all the Republicans' fault. It is /. after all, no other possibility exists.
Maybe we'll even get to hear Peter Jennings complain that middle class white men just threw a temper tantrum again.
Either this is a magnificent troll or someone's a complete jackass.
Granted, one can always find individual cases that demand outrage, but overall, the reporting on Congress is more alarmist than accurate. Put 600 people in a room and ask them to make a decision. Any 600 people, any decision. If you'd like, you can just put the people designing C++ or HTML in a room and ask them to come up with a spec. Now give reporters full access to everything they say and do. If, in one week's time, reporters can't make everyone on that random committee look like an idiot, then they aren't trying.
The point is that Congress is not supposed to look pretty. It never has been pretty. It never has been noble. It has always, regardless of who is in power, been preoccupied with petty squabbles and produced absurd compromises. It is, as many have pointed out, the worst system imaginable -- except for all the rest.
The right is now having fun shooting ducks in a barrel by making fun of Congress, just as the left has had fun maligning Congress when the right was in power. All this is very entertaining, but it is shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how government works. All this attention from the press just makes congressman grand stand, and promotes the silliest and most disruptive sound bites without promoting anything useful. The problem is not so much Congress, but the way Congress and the press interact.
The world as we know it is over. All hail the Chinese.
And the result of your prescriptions would be worse than the curse you wish to banish. It takes a lot of time to get to the forefront of any of the complicated issues confronting the U.S. Financial regulation is one. Your Part one would simply hand more power over the unelected bureaucracy and it would be tapped by every single term congress-critter. Also, who in their right mind would bother with a 2 year stint...yep, nutjobs, single-issue whackos. And there would be no learning for critters, no institutional memory. Nothing would ever get passed because the senators would still be writing fairly complicated bills with arcane language to counter the lawsuits they know will come from our over-legalled society. And appointment by governors solves nothing, they'd be accepting kickbacks to select the "right" senators.
Part two solves nothing and probably dooms any committee to only attempting short range solutions because that is all they can see....presuming you can even get the right people to serve. And how will these people get to serve? You want to vote on every committee every 2 years? Which committees should there be? Who chooses this?
Part three is simply too stupid for words. Just the tax code alone will swamp any review not to mention environmental laws, etc. There simply isn't enough time or people to accomplish this.
It is important to develop sense of proportion.
While I agree with your assessment of the situation I'm not sure I agree that it's best for the country to have it's government squabbling all the time. They often remind me of children the way they behave and that's people in both parties, I could say that one is louder and more obnoxious than the other but that's really just my point of view. What you advocate is the status quo though and that is where the real estate bubble and really any bubble forms. The 90's was the dot com bubble and as you may or may not know, bubbles are bad for economic stability. Many of the banking regulations that existed before Bush and Clinton were formed after the great depression which was the result of a bubble bursting as they always do. Both Bush and Clinton eased regulations when they should have been shoring them up. Uncontrolled growth is rarely, if ever, a good thing.
I like the idea that since we are stuck with two parties that one controls one house while the other controls the other but given the stupid things that I've seen republicans vote no against or use the filibuster on, the idea frankly scares me. Maybe they wouldn't have to resort to such childish tactics if they had power in one of the houses. I prefer to think that power is earned though through responsible behavior.
I like the idea of unseating incumbents as it would show that political figures actually are accountable for their actions. I don't see the will to do this, I hear a lot of people say it but the primaries showed that they were a vocal minority. I don't think things have changed enough since then for people to change their minds and vote our incumbents.
this is really a bill about porn - goes way beyond the normal X or XXX fair
the world could end, BECAUSE someone made a clerical error
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If I forgot to put my name or a title on a paper, I would not get credit on it. Or the teacher would put it in the lost and found box. Solution... With so many unemployed teachers out there, assign a group of them to proof read bills in congress.
I can't speak for the original poster. But I disagree with pretty much everything you said so strongly that I couldn't resist putting in my $0.02.
If you accept that the massive influx of government spending is the proper response to a dead economy (I do),
I don't. Massive government spending turned a minor little recession into the Great Depression. It's never helped, and it never will. Central planning the Keynesians love so much has failed time and again.
If something doesn't work, the answer is not to do more of the same thing. Get the government out of the way and let the free market work. (And, no, we have not had anything vaguely resembling a free market since the Depression).
Nothing except a free market economy will ever be able to cope with black swans.
and that it is temporary (god I hope so),
Social Security was a "temporary emergency measure." And it will end, when the Ponzi scheme (which it is) collapses under its own weight. Government never voluntarily gives up any of its power. But go on hoping for change you can believe in.
what specifically are you referring to? The healthcare bill got watered down to the point where all it did was set up a competitive price exchange for healthcare... sort of the Amazon.com of getting sick.
Actually, it got turned into a giant gimme to the insurance companies (who are crying all the way to the bank) and yet another giant bureaucracy that will destroy the quality of health care in this country. Along with tons of extra police-state tidbits like extra taxes on gold.
They passed a toothless wall-street reform act.
That's kind of the point. The people were screaming against the bailouts. The more we learned, the louder we screamed. So they passed this to placate us and promise "This will keep it from ever happening again." And people fell for it. Most Americans are still so brainwashed that they actually trust the "government" to protect them from the "evil corporations."
Regulations like that are just a security blanket. For all intents and purposes, those "evil corporations" have become "the government."
And saying this is as bad as Bush II is going too far. We're not stuck in any new intractable wars,
He's following Bush II's policies pretty much point for point. Along with his handling of accused "enemy combatants"...at least Bush II never sentenced an American citizen to death without any sort of trial. And the war machine's trying really hard to find an excuse to open up another front in Iran. Give it time.
we haven't lost all of our allies,
I suspect that's mainly because they're still buying into the belief that "absolutely anyone would have to be better than Bush" (which I thought, too, until I started to actually listen to what he was--and wasn't--actually saying.
He has managed to insult most of our allies and kiss most of our enemy's asses. Not quite as bad as Bush II, but I think he more than makes up for it elsewhere.
and we haven't had any new worldwide economic collapses.
Not really fair to blame that one totally on Bush (though he definitely deserves a share of the blame). The roots for this one go back to at least Carter's days. And we're pretty much still in the middle of it. (Throwing money at it makes it look like things are improving, but you have to fix the actual problems before you can expect them to go away).
Much as I despise Bush, this collapse is more the fault of the boom-bust cycle that's guaranteed by the Federal Reserve and government interference in the market (in this case, encouraging, and sometimes requiring, banks to take extra risks while promising to protect them when the risks backfire).
Mainstream economists are starting to admit that we're still in serious trouble, and won't be in the clear for a long time. I almost suspect they're finally coming around to the idea that the double-dip the Austrians are predicting just might be possible after all.
From Hermes: "Sweet something of someplace!"
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
While the 90s were undoubtably better than the situation today for many people, and I generally would agree that having a government makeup that requires compromise is a good thing, a lot of bad things happened in the 1990s that didn't become apparent until a lot later. The 90s was a time of lots of outsourcing and support for free trade, which is a big reason our economy is having trouble rebounding now. The 90s economy was making short term bucks by dropping production costs while sacrificing the US economy's long-term viability, though I suspect very few really thought this through to realize that. Globalization was the new mantra, but I don't think most people really understood its impact, nor did they realize how quickly technology would accelerate the ability for companies to 'globalize'.
When I read a lot of these comments, the reply I really want to give is "stop talking, go do some googling and get informed!" You don't get a good government by coming up with clever "voting tricks" you spent 10 mins thinking up that would "seem to work", like voting out incumbents and voting for one party for president and another party for Congress. These tricks, and lack of interest in political discourse in general, are largely why we're in this mess to begin with. The way to get a good government is to really get informed and make informed decisions based on the actual facts as you know them.
For example, the Republicans candidates this year are not the ones from 16 years ago, and in many cases they're not going to behave the same as those 16 years ago did if they get elected. I'm not so sure that they were working for the American people 16 years ago, either. The reality is that you probably are rather fuzzy on exactly what was so good about governance in the 90s that has gone so horribly wrong now. Mostly what you remember is that things weren't so bad then, and you feel like you'd like to return to that time, and so you think that by replicating the circumstances of the era, things will probably improve. It's natural to think that way, but that doesn't mean its correct.
Consider, for example, that Republican governments tend to create short-term prosperity after election, followed by recessions and bad times. This is actually a result of bad assumptions in their base economic policy, that lowering taxes will stimulate the economy and increase revenues. It tends to do the former (at least in the short term), but not the latter, and this trend has repeated itself during several cycles in which Republicans were in power (including Reagan!). However, unfettered by this, Republicans do deficit spending with the assumption that "the money will come in eventually as lowered taxes lead to increased revenues". Then, of course, those increased revenues never come in, and so we get further and further in debt, eventually to the point that the economy in general gets hit by it. Part of the "good thing" of the Clinton era was that Clinton would not let the Republicans do a ton of deficit spending. However, and this is a big point, he would not be able to do so in the current economic climate. (He has said this himself.)
Obama + a Republican congress would probably be a total mess, worse than what you're seeing now. Republicans would try to extend existing, and push through new, tax cuts for largely the wealthy (even Warren Buffett feels taxes are ridiculously low for the rich), and Obama would fight them. Republicans wouldn't cut spending to a major degree, except to dig into Democratic priorities just to irritate them and look like they're "walking the walk" of deficit reduction, which they strangely worried little about for the previous 8 years.
It'd be a game of chicken, and I'm quite certain that in the current political climate Republicans would be happy to just wait it out in the hopes that the American people will blame Obama for everything and elect a Republican president. Look at the recent brouhaha over the funding for 9/11 workers who got sick. The Republicans made Democrats choose between tr
Thank you for taking the time for your critique. The only objection I reject out of hand is your last. The very thing part three addresses is the absurd, towering, unmanageable structure of laws we have now. If the tax code will not bear renewal, I applaud loudly. This 44,000 page monstrosity is grotesquely and insultingly absurd and a pernicious evil on the face of it. It could all be replaced by about 10 pages of rational legislation. The true danger is that stuff would still get renewed too easily. All that would be required would be a resolution that 218 reps and 51 senators approve, which could be as simple as "the entire tax code stands." This resolution would take a minute and a half to draft and about 10 minutes to vote on. It only starts to take time if enough legislators insist on debate. And that would be a Good thing.
By the way, you should realize that the Senate cannot initiate revenue bills, and in practice also never initiates expenditure and appropriation bills. The Constitution enforces the former, and the House has the practical ability to enforce the latter. These are the most pernicious routes of corruption, and my single term House proposal addresses this.
As for the rest, you say "nothing would ever get passed" as if that's a bad thing :-) And when you ask, who would bother with a single term, my reply is "not the greedy power-hungry sort we end up with now."
Welcome, Comrades!
Welcome to our Glorious Union of Soviet Corporatist Republics!
Or should it be "Glorious Banana Republic?"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is the best post on Slashdot in quite some time. I cannot agree more on the point about government having no role in marriage. They should get out of the marriage business altogether and the whole issue would dissolve. Instead we waste all this time trying to overturn the will of the people.
On abortion I agree as well. Humans are humans and if we value that species over others then that value should extend throughout the life of the human and not just during certain parts of it.
On Stem cell research I agree as well. First of all the ban was on FEDERAL FUNDING of developing NEW LINES of EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS. To put it in another way, the ban said that federal money could not be used to harvest cells from zygotes which effectively ended their lives. Or in another way, don't use taxes to kill babies for you experimental research. It did NOT however ban research on existing ESCR or Adult Stem cell research.
This is pretty pathetic.
I do know that by Constitutional mandate, the Senate cannot create legislation, they can only amend it. However, the Constitution places no limit on how thoroughly they can amend it.
Frequently, the Senate will just strike the entire contents of a bill, fill it with something entirely different, which the gets sent to the House. This is something the House is understands and accepts, and frequently encourages, particularly in times when the Senate is the big hurdle to clear.
Obviously, they should at least name the friggin' bill.
I heard that right before the Senate recessed, the Senate passed the bill to get money to the states. Could this be it?
Who is RTFM and when will he help me with Unix?
When the system for legislation gets so confusing that not even the people passing the bills can keep it straight, I think it shows that there is some fundamental flaw in the system, or it didn't scale well or something.
Do we have to go back to Schoolhouse Rock?
I've been looking at the constitutions of other countries, past and present, and ironically, I think the best solution to this was actually included in the Confederate constitution during the Civil War. They banned the practice of sneaking in pet projects on the back of a bigger ones:
"Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."
Keeping legislation to one topic both simplifies the process and eliminates logrolling, at least outright. If we were to vote on a new round of amendments to the Constitution, this would be near the top of my list. I'm so tired of reading about a slew of pet projects on the back of a bill completely unrelated to the subject... things like grants for local agencies tucked into a defense bill.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Bullshit act of 2010
Geek Hillbilly
The U.S. government is VERY corrupt.
It's just a generic omnibus bill allowing the federal government to do anything it likes, at any time, without the need for further legislation.
I guess you missed the part where you can be personally FINED if you don't buy a qualified health insurance plan for yourself. I know it was only one line in the bill but it was the most important line and it stayed in there.
What do they collect it from and so on? While the tax might be fixed, with regards to the economy, the specifics would be highly fluid.
So Evil Fascist Republican A gets elected, puts his people in the IRS. He tells them "No taxing business at all, I want this all taken from income, and it has to be at a fixed rate." So the poorer people end up getting hit hard, they have a 20% tax, or whatever, same as everyone else. Businesses get hit with no taxes of any kind.
Then Loony Commie Democrat B gets elected and his people go in the IRS. He says "No taxes on the poor or middle class at all, everything has to be paid by the rich and business." So suddenly the rich's tax burden balloons to massive levels, 80% of their income gets taken. Businesses get hit with huge taxes they never had to pay in the past.
Because the only thing tax law specified was that you could collect not more than 20% (and of course the government would always collect the max) it means it is 100% up to the administrative law as to how that is done. That is of course determined by the agency responsible, and that agency is run by the executive branch.
So maybe you say "Ok, we need more checks in the law, to prevent that from happening, we'll specific more limits, more ways that taxes must be collected and so on." Good, but notice what you are now doing is making the law more complex.
Like I said, I'm not opposed to simplification of the law, but you have to be realistic about how simple it can be. The world is a complex place, you cannot expect an extremely simple set of laws to effectively govern it.
I will leave the forms blank too.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
It's a legislative virus. Fortunately, our country runs on Vista. No legislation can pass unless Congress clicks Allow when the UAC prompts. Unfortunately, like the rest of us, clicking 'Allow' has become a habit for Congress.
Well I can't speak for the poster you're replying to but, as for myself:(in a rough order of importance)
Expanding operations in Pakistan(continuing bad precedent IMO this is the biggest mistake)
Renewing the Patriot Act(continuing bad precedent)
Poor execution on the stimulus bill(I see tons of signs but very little actual work being done, where'd the money go?)
General lack of willingness to use "the Bully Pulpit" openly while continuing to expand/keep expanded executive powers "silently"(ie: FOIA denials)
For me it wasn't so much that the Democratic Party Powers changed things, but that they didn't change things back to where they were from before the Republican Party Powers changed things. And none of the things that I mentioned are "cat out of the bag" scenarios; Democrats certainly had the power to change them; Hell, Obama campaigned on most of those if not supported them indirectly.
When he assumed office you saw the big promises go out the window and you saw him quietly funding all of the smaller promises he can. This leads me to envision 3 scenarios of what could have happened:
1.) Democratic Party Leaders called in their favors, and are pressuring him to be moderate so they can keep control of the executive office.
2.) He never had any of the principles he campaigned on and is essentially as empty policy-wise as George W. Bush was.
3.) Everything's so FUBAR that there's really only one option for most policy when you learn everything there is to know at the "top".
I'm an optimist so I think 3 is out. Also I don't think Obama would be trying quiet as hard as he is to maintain a positive public image, he'd want to get out ASAP. I think '1' is far more likely than '2', but again, maybe that's because I'm an optimist(and also have seen the lengths entrenched powerful organizations will go to keep that power).
Actually, it was a change that forced the companies who bought gold to report it, so that profits on investments in physical gold, which were already taxed, to be more likely to be obeyed and easier (and cheaper) for the federal government to enforce.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
It wasn't unnamed, just classified. Here's a video of the voting procedure on the bill in question.
Fucking laws, how do they WORK?
This is the state jobs funding bill that passed the House but failed in the Senate. The Senate wanted to change it, so they picked up another already-passed House bill that would never end up getting passed this session (the aforementioned bonus taxing bill) and submitted an amendment to it that replaced the entire content with bills that the Senate wants to pass. They wanted to attempt the aviation security bill, and that was either a clerical error or another failure to concur. So, they are putting the House-amended bill into the body of the old bill. They'll pass it and then the House will just have to vote to concur, rather than go back through the entire bill review process from step 1 as if it were a new bill (even though it isn't). It's a symptom of adhering to the letter of the rules of the House/Senate in an era where the power in the Senate has changed since the rules of order were written, and the rules of order never caught up with the newly-granted responsibility.
It isn't a sinister plot. It seems like when Congress uses arcane rules to stop legislation, everyone bemoans it's inability to get anything done. When they use parliamentary techniques like this to pass a bill quickly that will pass the long way rather easily (a highly predictable outcome in a 100-member body), people bemoan their "trickery". When will you all be satisfied?
The health care bill was a big deal when you consider the new 1099 provision. Now, every business that buys anything $600 or more has to file a 1099 (which involves getting the EIN of everyone you do business with). That's an insane amount of overhead for any small business to deal with.
I also think it's a pretty big deal to start targeting American citizens for assassination. Even Bush didn't go that far and it does set the stage going forward.
Alright, I'll toss in my 0.02, as well.
I was under the impression that monetary contraction is widely regarded as one of the factors that contributed to the Great Depression, and that Roosevelt's New Deal (which certainly increased government spending), as the Wikipedia article on the Great Depression so neatly puts it, "either caused or accelerated the recovery".
Many current economists are saying that the currently biggest threat we face, economically, is deflation. So it would seem to me that if there is anything we should do to control economic development at this point, it is actually increasing the amount of money in circulation, and even printing more money is currently a viable way of doing that.
The good news is that it looks like we will all soon know how different policies work out: as far as I can tell, current US policy is to keep stimulating the economy by pumping money into it, whereas many countries in the European Union are introducing budget cuts to reduce government debt. We'll see how these opposite policies effect their respective economies.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
While the name of the bill is actually funny, haha, the rest of the submission makes a big deal out of nothing.
According to the Constitution only the House can originate a bill of revenue [1]
In order to comply with this clause, the Senate typically takes a revenue-raising bill that has already been passed in the House of Representatives and amends it (or replaces it entirely) with its own bill. [2]
For instance, TARP (Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008), was originally passed by the House as the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act. [3]
Somebody find a way to blame George Bush!
Maybe its federally subsidized porn.
Some government stimulus we can all enjoy!
Have gnu, will travel.
I was under the impression that monetary contraction is widely regarded as one of the factors that contributed to the Great Depression, and that Roosevelt's New Deal (which certainly increased government spending), as the Wikipedia article on the Great Depression so neatly puts it, "either caused or accelerated the recovery".
That's the general wisdom accepted by the mainstream economists who were telling us "don't worry, everything's fine!" right up until the world's economy collapsed.
The fed contracting the money supply (central control) was a huge mistake, and definitely a factor. But the main reason it was a problem was that shop keepers couldn't afford to immediately drop prices, and workers couldn't deal with the inevitable wage cuts. Not to mention that all those bank loans didn't magically deflate at the same time.
If you're really curious, check out Murray Rothbard. There's a link on that page to a PDF of _America's Great Depression_ (really, Slashdot? No <u> tags?). Mainstream economists don't have much respect for the Austrian school, but they're the ones who warned us what was coming. (Full Disclaimer: I haven't found the time to read it yet. It's just one on the subject that my friends keep telling me I absolutely must read Immediately...well, right after Hayek's _The Road to Serfdom_).
Many current economists are saying that the currently biggest threat we face, economically, is deflation.
Those are the mainstream economists again. The ones who are telling us heavy inflation (which they consider a good thing) isn't happening, when one of the biggest risks we're really running (according to the Austrians) is hyperinflation. The academic types who sit around on college campuses, pulling new formula out of thin air because, hey, that makes economics look like a hard science. The ones who don't suffer any real consequences when they inevitably blow it.
So it would seem to me that if there is anything we should do to control economic development at this point, it is actually increasing the amount of money in circulation,
As I understand it, we've pretty much doubled it in the past year. Admittedly, the different ways economists have of describing how much money's in circulation make my head spin.
and even printing more money is currently a viable way of doing that.
I think that probably depends on your definition of viable. From many points of view, that's pretty much the definition of "inflation."
The good news is that it looks like we will all soon know how different policies work out: as far as I can tell, current US policy is to keep stimulating the economy by pumping money into it, whereas many countries in the European Union are introducing budget cuts to reduce government debt. We'll see how these opposite policies effect their respective economies.
That really is the way to find out. Except that the EU's tied all their wagons together. Ours is the biggest one, leading the train. If any of us go off the cliff, we're pretty much all going.
Then again, economics really isn't a hard science (no matter what most economists try to pretend). So we should get analysts from all the different schools who'll look back after the dust settles and rationalize whatever happens in a way that "proves" they were right all along.
<shrug> (For anyone who's curious about other "alternative" economists who have a history of making correct predictions, check out Gary North. He's a bit of a religious nut, but he has an excellent track record).
1) The goverment taking out loans to send money to selected few is BAD. Cut taxes, why should the money go through DC to go back to those with connections? Just stop taking it from earners. 2) Healthcare - again putting DC in the middle between sick people and the doctor - ALL BAD. It is not Amazon when the federal government is you competition. They make the rules and own the ball. You cannot win against them 3) They took over the student loans, DC controls it so you there is less choice on where you can get the loans. 4) They added 2000 pages to the Wall Street forest to hide in. Some reform, but more rules that will go to court to be interpreted and argued while ripping us off. 5) We are still in Iraq and Afganistan, playing nice. 6) Google "Greece financial collapse" - Yes you missed something.
Wouldn't it be great if they passed a bill that somehow disbanded Congress?
Nothing except a free market economy will ever be able to cope with black swans.
Why is this exactly? What exact mechanism is there in an unregulated market that would prevent major boom-bust cycles?? It might be the case that government makes things worse at times, but the free market is fully capable of creating boom-bust cycles on its own. It is very simple: greed create booms, busts follow.
Uncontrolled growth is rarely, if ever, a good thing.
So true. In tissue it is called a cancer.
So the public would then endure constant political campaigning. I knew this would not end well.
I'm of the opinion that the government should spend when the economy is poor, and save when the economy is strong. The current administration has said that is their plan. It's a pipe dream, of course, that government handouts will be easy to reign in during good times. But that is the hope.
Also, I'm a lot more forgiving of domestic spending than the $2,500 per US citizen we poured into Iraq. The level of spending during the Bush administration was shocking. The economy was doing well (housing bubble, but whatever), paying off our country's debts was actually achievable. Instead we created a giant new government agency and threw cash at the phantom of terrorism and 2 wars (1, the Iraq war, has helped set up a further direct conflict with Iran).
The ______ Agenda
These criminal politicians now believe they can pass laws with impunity. The coming elections will either prove them right and that we the sheeple are just that, sheep,or they are going to face a really harsh reality
Don't ask me why it was top secret, or even restricted; our government has gotten the habit of classifying anything as secret which the all-wise statesmen and bureaucrats decide we are not big enough girls and boys to know, a Mother-Knows-Best-Dear policy. I've read that there used to be a time when a taxpayer could demand the facts on anything and get them. I don't know; it sounds Utopian - RAH
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
> During Clinton's term (not even the full 1990s), there were more military actions than there were from 2000-2010.
Are you insane? We've had more days-at-war in 2000-2010 than we've had days (two wars at the same time for most of that time). The Clinton stuff was all short and nearly bloodless in American lives.
A police metaphor for what you just did: you compared a dozen domestic violence calls, 1 death resulting, to a massive riot with cars and houses vandalized/robbed/torched and dozens of deaths... and claimed the house calls were worse.
I think it's a little more involved than that. The Federal Reserve drops interest rates to get banks to borrow more. Theoretically, they're supposed to turn around and invest it in loans so they can earn more than it's costing them. Then the greedy businessmen get their nefarious hands on it (probably through doing something unscrupulous like building something people want to buy and then selling it to them) and it winds up getting invested in some hot new stock/commodity/whatever.
Speculators jump on that trend and drive the price artificially higher, until the bubble bursts and we start blowing up another.
The problem isn't really that greed's just part of human nature. It's that the central planners are manipulating the system by injecting more money (aka inflation) at an interest rate so low that people can't resist.
As a side note, we'd probably be in the middle of hyper-inflation right now if the banks were holding up their end of the bargain. They're borrowing like hot cakes at the current ridiculously low interest rates. But then they're just sitting on that cash (i.e. losing money). Most people seem to think that's to bolster their cash reserve for some unfathomable reason. I suspect it's some sort of shady way for the Fed to keep juggling its smoke and mirrors.
Booms and busts have probably always been with us (not that pretty much anyone has ever tried true free market capitalism, so who knows? It might be the silver bullet for them too). They've just gotten much worse since the Federal Reserve kicked in and the Keynsians got prominent.
But I wasn't talking about booms and busts. I was talking about Black Swan Events (wikipedia has a pretty good explanation). The basic idea is that the market is just too complex for central planners to deal with. Sooner or later, something they can't possibly foresee will come along and collapse their house of cards.
Gary North explains Black Swan Events much better than I can.
You think a massive influx of government spending is a good thing? That's where massive deficits come from since the government always spends beyond its income/revenues and "stimulus" spending is always borrowed money on top of the normal budget. The problem is that we've created a culture where we think we can spend our way out of problems. We do it at a personal level thinking: well I can always declare bankruptcy if I rack up too much debt and don't get that promotion/new job/whatever. And we've now done it on governmental levels from the municipality up to the national stage.
What we are facing is a debt crisis that needs to be dealt with soon. We need to stop new spending, stabilize taxes for the time being and then start taking a hard look at the numbers and figure out how to reduce the national debt load. That may mean increases in taxes for everybody (not just those making over $250k), but a faster way would be to cut spending and allocate the difference to paying the people we owe the money to.
Both Republicans and Democrats have been part of the problem. We need to run all the idiots out on a rail and elect replacements who are fiscally conservative first and foremost and are willing to lay any other issues aside until we fix the problem our government has with borrowing way more than it can sustain.
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What? Don't you ever make important files called test.txt, and don't sometimes they make their way into version control?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
I totally agree that domestic money can be misspent, and can be spent in ways that drive up prices or reduce competitiveness, or in ways that lock us in to bad long-term contracts. At the end of the day, though, we might have roads that don't damage your rims every time you drive them, government systems converted from the archaic junk most of them still seem to use, and maybe some parks without broken glass in the deal. And, of course, the hope is we'll be spending enough that poverty doesn't get massively worse, the crime rates stay low, people don't slip from potential workers into completely unemployable, and we avoid the knock-on effects that bring economies down. We'll probably also get locked into a lot of bad long-term deals with shady bastards in the process. The Big Dig ran what, 10x over budget?
What mystifies me is that you recognize the current administration's "plan" for the pipe dream it is... but you still have hope. I can't decide whether that kind of faith is virtuous or not. :-/
The options are fight for what I believe to be wrong now but right later, or accept that what is right now is happening and pray that the administration isn't totally bonkers later. Honestly, if we successfully reigned in spending now, during any sort of economic recovery the people in Washington are likely to start shouting "Pork Pork Pork" anyway.
After years of campaigning for a balanced budget and limits on special-interest handouts, I'm going to sit this one out. I helped fight for years for budget reform in California, and look where those idiots are now. After the past ten years, and the failure of the Contract With America, I have no faith that the Republicans are the party to bring the fiscal house back in order. The options seem to be a party that can't balance the budget, and seems to spend most of its money at war, or a party that can't balance the budget, and seems to spend most of its money domestically. At least the latter seems to be the right direction for the moment.
The ______ Agenda
Its one thing I've never understood about US politics & bills in Congress.
They reuse bills and bolt extra unrelated stuff onto the end of other bills.
If you want to fund your bridge to nowhere, you shouldn't be allowed to bolt it onto a defence budget bill, a transport bill perhaps. but not defence or anything unrelated to road transport.
If you're not going to submit a bill then bin it - don't reuse it.
If you're going to table amendments then make sure they're related to the bill itself and you should only be able to amend the detail and not the substance of the bill. If you don't like the substance then reject the bill completely, bounce it back to the House with the Senates issues and get them to rewrite it.
Hey, it might even become more democratic that way :-)
Apparently the House passed it. The idiots there most likely did not read it. I wonder what happens when the president sees it. http://www.scribd.com/H-R-1586/d/35718607#fullscreen:on
While I know it's much more fun to comment on the more controversial posts here, not having a name for the bill really doesn't strike me as a big deal. The Senate wanted to get this bill through by August recess the name of the bill, quite reasonably, wasn't on the top of their priority list. There was a strong need for the $26.1 billion in state aid contained in the bill before August recess was over, and because spending bills must originate in the House, they basically had to take a House bill and amend it to get it to the President this month. As someone that follows legislation regularly, yes this is definitely not the norm, but this legislative maneuvering takes places regularly. If you look at Congressional Action on H.R. 1586 on Thomas - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.1586: you can see that the vote was really on an amendment to the bill. Long story short... the legislative process is rarely straight forward and while screwing up the name of a bill is unusual, there's nothing underhanded going on here.
Thank god they're also incompetent, or they could cause some real trouble.
Are you guys still pushing the lie that there is a vast international liberal media conspiracy against conservatives while the media is little more than a conveyor belt for Republican propaganda?
The Washington Post had to publish a long bullshit op-ed explaining why they refused to present proof to the American people that Bush lied us into the war (their excuse: everyone already knew... except that 1/3 of the population still doesn't know years later). The New York Times sat on the same information because they asked the Bush administration permission to print the information and the Bushies told them not to (they didn't publish the information until a year later when it came out in other sources).
Obama is no boy scout, but the things Bush did were worse by orders of magnitude, yet the press seems to make it sound like both were just as bad or that Obama is ever so slightly better. There very much is bias at work here, but the bias is the opposite of what you seem to think it is.