Democratic Leader Laughs at Idea That House Members Would Actually Read Health-Care B

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Well, as Watermark noted, it's not that no one reads the bills. It's just that not everyone reads all of every bill. Nor should they. In fact, it is probably preferable to not read the entirety of bills and instead just get a description of what the various sections of the bills do and to only read those portions that you may have a question about.

Moreover, pork is generally not included in bills so you wouldn't locate most pork by simply reading a bill. You'd have to look elsewhere. Of course, some pork is contained in the text of bills but not the vast majority of it. In fact, reading the text of bills would probably be one of the least efficient methods of rooting out pork spending.

your last paragraph contradicts itself and makes no sense....

where else should we look?

 

[maineman]

Does anyone out of their teen years really think legislators read every word of every bill, or of any bill?

Have any of you seen these documents? Believe it or not, this is NOT what legislators are elected to do. It is why they have a staff.

I can't believe how naive some of the posters here are...

case in point:

sure there is...bring it to the attention of others....but oh no, every politician, dem, pub, libert....all love the pork...

to those that claim that no politician reads it, nor should they be expected to....would you like your appellate case handled like that? your life is on the line, death penalty case and a law clerk reads the case and gives the judge his opinion....are you going to be fair and say it ok there...or is the only difference that it is a death penalty case....what about civil?

i don't expect anyone to read every boilerplate word out there, but are you actually suggesting that it is ok to ignore more than half the bill and leave it up to some clerk? is that what they are elected for? really...............

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

case in point:

you are of course a liar....i never said every word....

do you ever stop lying? moderate democrat.....

pathetic

 

[Onceler]

sure there is...bring it to the attention of others....but oh no, every politician, dem, pub, libert....all love the pork...

to those that claim that no politician reads it, nor should they be expected to....would you like your appellate case handled like that? your life is on the line, death penalty case and a law clerk reads the case and gives the judge his opinion....are you going to be fair and say it ok there...or is the only difference that it is a death penalty case....what about civil?

i don't expect anyone to read every boilerplate word out there, but are you actually suggesting that it is ok to ignore more than half the bill and leave it up to some clerk? is that what they are elected for? really...............

That's a stupid analogy.

Again, it's just naive. No one is saying they "ignore" more than "half" of the bill. They SHOULD know and understand every aspect of the bill, but that is dependent on having a good staff.

The whole premise of this thread, as well as the initial reactions, is absurd. This just isn't how Washington works, nor should it be.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

That's a stupid analogy.

Again, it's just naive. No one is saying they "ignore" more than "half" of the bill. They SHOULD know and understand every aspect of the bill, but that is dependent on having a good staff.

The whole premise of this thread, as well as the initial reactions, is absurd. This just isn't how Washington works, nor should it be.

so what percentage is ok with you onceler? 51%.......what....and it is a great analogy, that you simply called it stupid only makes me feel it was spot on....you always do that when you can't debate

 

[Onceler]

so what percentage is ok with you onceler? 51%.......what....

I don't even accept the analogy, because it's idiotic.

As I said, they should understand 100% of the bill. That is NOT dependent on reading every page.

You look silly trying to talk about this. You don't know how a legislative office works.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I don't even accept the analogy, because it's idiotic.

As I said, they should understand 100% of the bill. That is NOT dependent on reading every page.

You look silly trying to talk about this. You don't know how a legislative office works.

i suggest you go back and read what i said

you look like a moron and a liar for claiming i said every word....

and what percent onceler....why are you so uncomfortable answering that?

 

[Onceler]

i suggest you go back and read what i said

you look like a moron and a liar for claiming i said every word....

No - you are clearly equating words/pages with percentages. If not, then what? I already said that they should understand all of it. Either you didn't read that, you have a reading comprehension problem, or you have no idea how to spin that you asked again about an exact %.

It's really tiresome trying to "debate" with you. You have no knowledge on this topic, have no idea what a legislative office does, and you're shooting from the hip....spinning what you are trying to ask me all the while.

You're a real fool.

 

[maineman]

i suggest you go back and read what i said

you look like a moron and a liar for claiming i said every word....

and what percent onceler....why are you so uncomfortable answering that?

I personally am fine with non-committee members reading only the bill summary and attending the caucus briefing on the bill by the party's committee members and staffers.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No - you are clearly equating words/pages with percentages. If not, then what? I already said that they should understand all of it. Either you didn't read that, you have a reading comprehension problem, or you have no idea how to spin that you asked again about an exact %.

It's really tiresome trying to "debate" with you. You have no knowledge on this topic, have no idea what a legislative office does, and you're shooting from the hip....spinning what you are trying to ask me all the while.

You're a real fool.

you're not debating so much as ad hom.....this is your MO....insult and claim victory....

if it is dependent solely on staff....then you have no idea whether it be 50% or not...so why did you even argue that point? the bill then is simply an entire "case" that is summed up, exactly as i said about judges and law clerks......of course it is the way it is done, however, i expect judges/justices to know the case, the major issues, not every single fact of every large case.....and i expect them to read the case and the law

i aske again, what percent do you feel comfortable with? 10% and the rest summed up by clerks? why are you so uncomfortable answering this question?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

to those that claim that no politician reads it, nor should they be expected to....would you like your appellate case handled like that?

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cert_pool[/ame]

Each year, the Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions for certiorari; in 2001 the number stood at c.7500, [1] and had risen to 8,241 by October Term 2007.[2] The Court will ultimately grant approximately 80 to 100 of these petitions,[3] in accordance with the rule of four. The workload of the court would make it difficult for each Justice to read each petition; instead, in days gone by, each Justice's law clerks would read the petitions and surrounding materials, and provide a short summary of the case, including a recommendation as to whether the Justice should vote to hear the case.

This situation changed in the early 1970s, at the instigation of Chief Justice Warren E. Burger (possibly at the suggestion of Justice Lewis Powell[citation needed]). In Powell's and Burger's view, particularly in light of the increasing caseload, it was redundant to have nine separate memoranda prepared for each petition and thus (over objections from Justice William Brennan) Burger and Associate Justices Byron White, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, and William Rehnquist created the cert pool.[4]

 

[ib1yysguy]

Epic pwnage.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

i didn't ask the way it is....i asked if YOU would LIKE it....

apparently waterbong and ibnothing don't know the difference....in fact, i'm sure waterbong is embarrassed by ib1's pwnage comment and wishes ib1 would shut up

further....at least one justice in your example read the case, vs just law clerks

see the difference? you guys claim NO legislature reads the bill

 

[ib1yysguy]

There is zero practical way any legislator can read every bill that comes in front of him. It's STUPID to expect them to.

Ergo, Yurt is fucking stupid.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

There is zero practical way any legislator can read every bill that comes in front of him. It's STUPID to expect them to.

one would THINK that this would be a damn good reason to tell legislators to stop submitting dozens of crap pieces of legislation and deal with one issue at a time, but NOOOOOO, the stupid ass majority sheeples can't have any of that shit, can they?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

one would THINK that this would be a damn good reason to tell legislators to stop submitting dozens of crap pieces of legislation and deal with one issue at a time, but NOOOOOO, the stupid ass majority sheeples can't have any of that shit, can they?

what did ib1 say....

epic pwnage?

yeah....

ib1 only proves he doesn't really read what people say....i didn't say all the boilerplate....yet ib1 conveniently ignores that and throws meadowmuffins all over the board claiming i said this or that....

complete logical fallacies if not outright lies

 

[maineman]

not all the boilerplate, but you really want each and every congressman to read some percentage of the boilerplate in each and every piece of legislation before you will say they are doing their job?

What percent of each and every bill do YOU think that each and every congressman needs to read?

Are you suggesting that you are NOT comfortable with the system whereby committee chairs and ranking members along with their committee staffs brief non-committee members of congrsss on legislation that has been voted out of their committee?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

not all the boilerplate, but you really want each and every congressman to read some percentage of the boilerplate in each and every piece of legislation before you will say they are doing their job?

What percent of each and every bill do YOU think that each and every congressman needs to read?

Are you suggesting that you are NOT comfortable with the system whereby committee chairs and ranking members along with their committee staffs brief non-committee members of congrsss on legislation that has been voted out of their committee?

If my representative casts a vote to implement a piece of legislation that's going to have an effect on my life, the bastard or bitch damn well better fucking read it and then have a damned good explanation of why he put some restraint on my life when I call up and bitch at him/her.

 

[meme]

If my representative casts a vote to implement a piece of legislation that's going to have an effect on my life, the bastard or bitch damn well better fucking read it and then have a damned good explanation of why he put some restraint on my life when I call up and bitch at him/her.

I like that one myself..these friggen idiots are voting on bills that are 1000's of pages and then act like they KNOW all that's in it???
it a joke..

 

[maineman]

If my representative casts a vote to implement a piece of legislation that's going to have an effect on my life, the bastard or bitch damn well better fucking read it and then have a damned good explanation of why he put some restraint on my life when I call up and bitch at him/her.

that's simply impossible to do... legislators can be led to fully understand the legislation which they vote upon by the appropriate legislative committee members, and have been for a long long time, whether you were aware of it or not.