Remember that quote from when the Affordable Care Act was up for vote, and they had (IIRC) less than 2 days to read the whole thing? "We'll find out what's in it, when we pass it." (or words to that effect)
Thank you for your reply Walt/m2c. Do YOU ever sign anything without reading it? Or would you sign on to it without reading it? What a pitiful thing that you would accept that. Whatever. They go partisan 24/7 and don't have to know how to read. They vote as they are instructed to vote. No biggie.
I either read it myself, or hire a professional (lawyer, real estate agent, etc) to read it for me and summarize / protect my interests.
I think it's unacceptable that they can't do the ONE THING they are hired to do. If they don't have time to read ALL the legislation, they should stop passing so many.
I heard that this recent bill was 6000 pages long or something? How is that even possible? What is hidden in them, snuck in, slipped in that no one knows about but the sneakers? How can they pass a bill they have not read Walt? Who reads 6000 pages (or 1000 unless it's a dam* good novel)? I bet it's on purpose. Geez what sleazeballs! Thank you for your reply and Happy Tuesday to thee and thine! :)
If they can't get a bill written out in 100 pages or less they are definitely hiding something. Methinks. Thank you for your reply Walt and Happy Wednesday to thee and thine.
You're right, most legislators don't bother to read them. They have others do it for them then fill them in on some of the details. It's reprehensible that politicians fail to do the job that they were voted into office to do. Whether bills are many pages long or only a few pages long, they should be read by the politicians and not the hired help.
So would I. The average American works 240 plus days a year just to make ends meet. Out of the money we make, we also pay, with taxes, the salaries of the politicians that don't even come close to working that many days as you pointed out. And people wonder why our politicians and politics, in general, are so ineffective.
Agreed. The sad part is that those who might do the best in office don't have either the name recognition or financial backing to get elected. We are constrained to voting for the people the party decides to put on the ballot.
You're right about the people being constrained to voting for who the party put's on the ballot. This is why I believe that's one of the reasons why the Founders had no use for a two-party system. They feared it would cause too much partisan politics. Pretty much like we have today.
I can't think of the last time I ever heard of an average American running for a high political office. I guess, that contrary to the idea of a government of, for, and by the people, research shows Americans are almost always governed by the very privileged. We, little people, are kind of lost in the shuffle. And are the ones who suffer the most for it.
I can't imagine the Founding Fathers ever meant for political officials to be in those offices for what seems to be a lifetime. I also can't imagine them thinking that they would advance party over country. I'm sure there are many ways we could improve our system, but most all of them require those changes to be made by the people we don't want governing us.
From what I gather in the research I've done, under the Articles of Confederation, term limits kept representatives to three terms in any six-year period. However, after considerable debate, the idea was abandoned during the construction of the Constitution because many Founders were skeptical of forced rotation’s usefulness—though there were certainly strong advocates in its favor.
The ones that were for time limits worried that without some sort of a mechanism to push national legislators out of office from time to time, lawmakers would become inattentive to the public good, callous, selfish, and corrupt. If you look around today, that seems to be exactly what has happened. To be fair though, not all politicians are inattentive to the public good, callous, selfish, and corrupt.
I agree that not all politicians are inattentive, etc., but I believe the majority of them are. Some actually try to do good, but find themselves in situations where if they don't vote for a bill they don't like, then bills they bring to the table will not be passed either. There are so many things wrong with politics today that I wouldn't even know where to begin to straighten things out.
I agree that there are many things wrong with politics today and I believe the Founders/Framers would roll over in their graves if they could see what's happening today. I also believe that they wouldn't have allowed it to happen in the first place.
I was in the 8th grade when John Kennedy was assassinated. That shook this country to the core. For me, that moment in time is when politics took its first turn for the worse. Even after Kennedy died the Democrats and Republicans could still put their differences aside and work together for the good of the country as a whole. However, in my opinion, for whatever it's worth, the political world was changed forever.
I was on my first job when JFK was assassinated. I'll never forget it. A co-worker of mine came into the ladies room and told me that he had been shot. I was stunned. Yes, there was a time when the two parties could compromise for the good of the country, but no longer. I can't recall where, but I remember reading that politicians, while on different sides of the aisles, were friends and via dinners and other social events, managed to discuss and work out their differences. I don't think most politicians actually like each other any longer. Quite honestly, that doesn't surprise me - I don't like most of them either!
my2cents 