Sure, I agree that everyone is guilty in some systemic sense, and that there are also little guys who are also just as (personally) guilty as big guys (though not guilty of as much). It's a big mess, but some degree of accountability needs to be achieved as well as some degree of punishment where legal issues are concerned. Are there people who don't deserve any assistance to keep their houses? I'd say just as surely as their are businesses who don't deserve to continue in business.
But as difficult as that sort is going to be, there's the further sort of who needs to stay where in order for the economy to be functional and healthy again. And it may be that, for example (I'm not saying I know this personally, but it could be the case) that certain segments of the population need to keep their houses for the good of the economy, just as perhaps the US needs to still have a car industry, even if those companies don't deserve rewarding for their crummy behavior. And as keen as I am on justice, I'm guessing that we are going to have to let the latter trump the former in some cases for the greater good. What I wish someone would communicate convincingly is how we are to tell apart what needs to be helped and what needs to be let go for the economy to recover.
|
There is an article today on Yahoo asking how we will know if the stimulus worked. It reminded me of a statement that Claire McCaskill made on Sunday's Meet the Press about the beauty of the stimulus package being that if it works we will never know because it will go back to buisness as usual. It made me wonder if we really want to have government passing laws and creating programs that the success or failure cannot be measured? Does that really fit the measure of transparincy and accountability that President Obama pledged to the American people? Discuss.
Are there people who don't deserve any assistance to keep their houses? I'd say just as surely as their are businesses who don't deserve to continue in business.
If you run a business and it fails, you file bankrupcy, reoragnize and sell assets.
If you run up too many debts and fail, you file bankrupcy, reorganize and restablish yourself.
My problem with these 'bailouts' is that they are rewarding the very behavior that got us into this mess. Look where the TARP money has gone ...
...Oh that's right, no one can rightly say where it went. But it did just what it set out to do, right?
*coughs*
This trancends Republican vs. Democrat. This is survival time. We cannot keep everyone afloat who is in trouble. Not only that, but I posit that it is UNHEALTHY to keep everyone afloat that needs help. It is a dangerous precendent you set when you can make risky financial descisions (either as a homeowner or a business) and not suffer consequences. I know that if a bill goes forward to 'bailout' foreclosures, there will suddenly be a lot more foreclosures. Why? Because everyone will want a slice of the pie. Same thing that happened when the first bailout money came through: All those business like AMEX restructuring themselves so that they could qualify for the money. Not that they were in trouble, but just so they could ask for the coin.
Sometimes cauterizing the wound is better than letting it go septic. It might hurt for a while, but then the healing can begin.
Well, we will definitely know if nothing works. And we need to have highly probable (convincing) cases for what went wrong and what needs to be fixed to come up with approaches and solutions. What amazes me is how much of what we get is reiteration of ideologies instead of specifics that relate some analysis of problem and solution.
That's why I've taken to calling them all as a group 'Reporkucrats'. They are ALL shady, and the only change in Washington with an election is which party gets to steal the most.
Well, at risk of stirring the inevitable political pot, I've heard more specifics out of the president than I have out of Republican legislators, though I share your basic pessimism. For example, dropping education out of stimulus package. If it is not obvious how hiring more teachers, preparing future workers, and retraining former workers is basic to economic stimulus, well then, I'm pretty close to saying democracy is impossible because only an arcane few understand anything about how economies work at all. Calling it pork better come with a convincing argument showing the counter-intuitive is somehow true or it's just political ideology.
And as far the cauterizing approach goes, I'm happy when that is the best thing over all in any given case, but I'm doubtful that letting whole segments of the market and industries tank. National concerns in a global community, as well as long term economic possibilities, need to be taken into account.
Well, at risk of stirring the inevitable political pot, I've heard more specifics out of the president than I have out of Republican legislators, though I share your basic pessimism. For example, dropping education out of stimulus package. If it is not obvious how hiring more teachers, preparing future workers, and retraining former workers is basic to economic stimulus, well then, I'm pretty close to saying democracy is impossible because only an arcane few understand anything about how economies work at all. Calling it pork better come with a convincing argument showing the counter-intuitive is somehow true or it's just political ideology.
And as far the cauterizing approach goes, I'm happy when that is the best thing over all in any given case, but I'm doubtful that letting whole segments of the market and industries tank. National concerns in a global community, as well as long term economic possibilities, need to be taken into account.
Well, I have also heard a lot of the 'Let's pass this thing NOW or we are doomed!' talk coming out of the president as well. I don't think there is all that much rush. We need to make sure the moves we do are the right ones, else our children and their children will curse us and our spendthrifty ways. Moving a trillion dollars around takes some time to go over the project, no? And personally I wish they'd drop the updating the federal car fleet part before teachers. Both my parents were teachers, those folks get no love. Maybe if we axed the administrator's salaries? Everyone talks about capping CEOs, how about the superintendent of schools in my area who pockets $189K a year for his job?
As for cauterizing, having big sections 'tank' doesn't mean they will disappear. There might be a much stronger American car industry if we let Ford, Chevy and Chrysler go under. there might only be two new companies when the dust settles, but at least they will be fresh and healthy. Propping up the Big Three will only work as long as we keep pumping in more funds. When we stop, they tank anyway.
|
|
Well, at risk of stirring the inevitable political pot, I've heard more specifics out of the president than I have out of Republican legislators, though I share your basic pessimism.
I agree with you there, but the problem is that we have heard precious little out of the president. The thing to remember right now is that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, particularly Speaker Pelosi, haven't let the Republicans present their plan. The cuts that were made in the Senate were specifically to bring over three moderate Republicans and were done entirely without any consultation of the Republicans on what they would like to see done to improve the bill. Even Democrat partisans like Jack Cafferty are beginning to question Pelosi and her methods. Meanwhile even in the Senate bill education gets the second largest chunk of money, nearly four times as much as is actually going to buisness and commerce related spending.
Edit: Two years ago, Obama's chief economic advisor Larry Summers said that any spending that had a long term effect on the budget deficit would do more harm than good. What has changed?
|
Well, at risk of stirring the inevitable political pot, I've heard more specifics out of the president than I have out of Republican legislators, though I share your basic pessimism.I agree with you there, but the problem is that we have heard precious little out of the president. The thing to remember right now is that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, particularly Speaker Pelosi, haven't let the Republicans present their plan. The cuts that were made in the Senate were specifically to bring over three moderate Republicans and were done entirely without any consultation of the Republicans on what they would like to see done to improve the bill. Even Democrat partisans like Jack Cafferty are beginning to question Pelosi and her methods. Meanwhile even in the Senate bill education gets the second largest chunk of money, nearly four times as much as is actually going to buisness and commerce related spending.
Edit: Two years ago, Obama's chief economic advisor Larry Summers said that any spending that had a long term effect on the budget deficit would do more harm than good. What has changed?
The economy imploded. Now long term measures are all well and good but they don't mean much if I'm starving now,. Kind of the arguments people made against global warming once they'd accepted it was happening. ;-)
For international reference, the UK system has some consequences for failure. For one thing, these are loans and will need to be paid back (when isn't specified so it's not ideal). The interest rates on these loans are non-trivial, as at least one bank has refused them and taken up other finance.
Additionally, some of the banks have exchanged shares as collateral, so the government owns one outright and has a 70% stake in another. This is also non-trivial and means that unless the banks start behaving, their major shareholder is answerable to a lot of people who currently think hanging, drawing and quartering of bankers isn't enough. I know government ownership isn't something conservatives would support (and the government is trying to avoid actually inserting itself into the decision making process, but the pressure is getting greater as the 'we do actually own the banks so why shouldn't we tell them what to do' meme is gaining strength.)
EDIT: The last two pargraphs both refer to the UK experience.
This article in the WA Post by Steven Pearlstein might be of interest, re the move towards economic stimulus, its reception by Wall Street, and a bank that did business differently.
This article in the WA Post by Steven Pearlstein might be of interest, re the move towards economic stimulus, its reception by Wall Street, and a bank that did business differently.
I wouldn't take anything Pearlstein writes too seriously Mairkurion. He's an extreme partisan.
|
I don't need an evil genius in the comic book or conspiracy theory sense, but sure, there were evil geniuses. I have a bro-in-law who worked for FBR and he was screaming about this for at least two years before it happened. Saying "it just got out of hand" and then using the very real systemic issues and individual human foibles without analyzing the differences in degree of culpability is either morally myopic or a cop-out, in my opinion. Sure the market has cycles, but when you can trace effects to causes, you should do so. And a part of the cause analysis here has to include human intentions. And that some people intended evil will likely produce criminal sentences. I'd be hard pressed to be convinced that those folks are only scape goats to allow ourselves to blindly ignore warning signs and take incentives.
I don't know who or what FBR is, but if it was a bank I suspect he didn't do it too loudly. Look, I understand there have been some very, very serious breaches in governance of risk, because the incentives (huge piles of cash for the participants) pointed that way. Politicians and regulators connived with it. But people on the street enjoyed a boom and they liked it. Everyone was making money. Until they didn't.
If people broke the law, they should be punished. If people are demonstrated to be incompetent, they should be sacked. But saying "You are more to blame than him, or me" doesn't really get us too far. People screw up - it happens. Many people were acting in good faith. There seems to be some desire among some people to "root out the guilty" but since I think I, and you, and everyone posting here is at least partly responsible, that may not get us very far. Where do we stop? So let's give up this blame game. I don't mind fixing the problem - that's fine, though I question whether it can ever really be done given the nature of markets and human nature. But sanctimonious finger-pointing avails nothing when we are all tainted. The system led us here, and it will lead us here again.
Sorry, didn't mean to be obscure, just lazy I guess.
Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group, Inc. is a real estate investment trust (REIT) that invests in mortgage-related assets. FBR Group is also the majority owner of FBR Capital Markets Corporation (FBR Capital Markets; NASDAQ:FBCM), a top ten investment bank with an international franchise and one of the strongest equities distribution capabilities in the securities industry.
Long story there that I shouldn't say much about. Suffice it to say that they parted ways.
I don't know much about Pearlman, but I found the article interesting.
I don't consider myself attracted to sanctimonious finger waving, but if there is a moment for forceful pointing in righteous indignation, I'm there. Tainted or not, fine. But I don't find it credible that there aren't people who have perpetrated misdeeds that went beyond the proper profit motive, and who not only play larger into the outcomes as causes, but who bear greater moral culpability as agents as well.
|
|
Sorry, didn't mean to be obscure, just lazy I guess.
Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group, Inc. is a real estate investment trust (REIT) that invests in mortgage-related assets. FBR Group is also the majority owner of FBR Capital Markets Corporation (FBR Capital Markets; NASDAQ:FBCM), a top ten investment bank with an international franchise and one of the strongest equities distribution capabilities in the securities industry.
Long story there that I shouldn't say much about. Suffice it to say that they parted ways.
I don't know much about Pearlman, but I found the article interesting.
I don't consider myself attracted to sanctimonious finger waving, but if there is a moment for forceful pointing in righteous indignation, I'm there. Tainted or not, fine. But I don't find it credible that there aren't people who have perpetrated misdeeds that went beyond the proper profit motive, and who not only play larger into the outcomes as causes, but who bear greater moral culpability as agents as well.
To be honest, incompetence and greed are pretty likely for why no one realised what they were doing. As long as the market rises, there's no problem. No market has ever risen indefinitely. But they all thought, that just this once, this one would. People can easily blind themselves to this, as Aubrey mentioned, all the people who bought homes they couldn't possibly afford did the same thing.
|
|
I don't consider myself attracted to sanctimonious finger waving, but if there is a moment for forceful pointing in righteous indignation, I'm there. Tainted or not, fine. But I don't find it credible that there aren't people who have perpetrated misdeeds that went beyond the proper profit motive, and who not only play larger into the outcomes as causes, but who bear greater moral culpability as agents as well.
That may be true, but I suspect that no one woke up one morning and said, "I know, I'll enrich myself while destroying the financial system. Bwahahahahahaha!" The imbalances that are currently (and painfully) working their way through the system built up over years. Bonus got bigger and bigger, and leverage higher and higher, and asset prices more and more inflated, but only gradually. And it was fed in part by policies in countries like China, Japan and Germany which pumped money into the system even though, arguably, they were being pretty frugal and sensible individually. The warning signs were obvious - I've been waiting for a crash for years. But I suspect most people reckoned they would get out in time, or that the crash wouldn't be as bad as it was, or whatever. The reasons for the current outcome are actually quite complex, and the factors that let it happen are, to some extent, impersonal and amoral, and vary country by country to some extent (Japan is undergoing a deep recession, but didn't have the party first, which particularly annoys them). And most people have a vested interest in not rocking the boat when people are making money. It's a harsh truth. Everyone looks like a genius in a bull market (which is why I'm pretty cynical about the need to pay bonuses to the "talent" in the banks to retain them - what talent? it was mostly luck and inflated markets) and it is only when the party is over that you find out who really understands the market and who is just an arrogant poseur.
|
This article in the WA Post by Steven Pearlstein might be of interest, re the move towards economic stimulus, its reception by Wall Street, and a bank that did business differently.
That was an interesting article - especially later part which profiled Citizens South Bank. Seems like they were actually trying to do business in a responsible way. It's good to know there are some banks and financial folk out there doing that.
|
|
Retail sales increased in January. Does this mean that the economy is on the way back? It is the biggest gain in 14 monthes and many economists had predicted a v shaped recession where the economy quickly rebounded once we hit the bottom. Whether we have hit the bottom or not, this is still good news. So will it get buried because it doesn't fit the template, or perhaps will it be shouted from the rooftops to prove that Obama has brought us out of the recession just by showing up? Or will it be handled another way?
|
|
Retail sales increased in January. Does this mean that the economy is on the way back? It is the biggest gain in 14 monthes and many economists had predicted a v shaped recession where the economy quickly rebounded once we hit the bottom. Whether we have hit the bottom or not, this is still good news. So will it get buried because it doesn't fit the template, or perhaps will it be shouted from the rooftops to prove that Obama has brought us out of the recession just by showing up? Or will it be handled another way?
Or perhaps it is the result of aggressive discounting, and retailers are taking losses to reduce inventory. Basically, it is one month's figures and too much should not be read into it.
*Wanders around with a gas can and a torch*
Man, nothing flammable here! What kind of Politics thread is this???
*Reads thread title*
Meh...
*Puts gas back in gas tank and extinguishes torch*
I know what you mean. We need Gailbraithe back. He always made the political threads... interesting.
I know what you mean. We need Gailbraithe back. He always made the political threads... interesting.*Wanders around with a gas can and a torch*
Man, nothing flammable here! What kind of Politics thread is this???
*Reads thread title*
Meh...
*Puts gas back in gas tank and extinguishes torch*
I always prefer more of an actual discussion rather than partisan bickering. That last outburst Gail had after the election was truly outer limits.
|
|
So, Judd Gregg withdrew his nomination as commerce secretary. I almost feel sorry for the president. I think he's had it the hardest I've ever known trying to get his cabinet posts filled.
Yeah I just saw that. Not a lot of details, but I think he didn't want to get involved with the stimulus bill, it looks like.
|
|
So, Judd Gregg withdrew his nomination as commerce secretary. I almost feel sorry for the president. I think he's had it the hardest I've ever known trying to get his cabinet posts filled.
Well, the biggest problem is nominating all those "unpatriotic" (by Biden's definition) types. Do they have a qualified Democrat who has paid their taxes in the last five years? No wonder Democrat politicians don't care if they raise taxes, they aren't going to pay them anyway!
HD, I'm really disappointed in you. I thought you understood why we had cool, considerate political discussion here. I mean, look what happened to Aubrey under the old regime of fiery, inconsiderate political fighting. And if you think that's bad, you should have seen what happened to the other guy. Course, he can't come around anymore...
|
|
HD, I'm really disappointed in you. I thought you understood why we had cool, considerate political discussion here. I mean, look what happened to Aubrey under the old regime of fiery, inconsiderate political fighting. And if you think that's bad, you should have seen what happened to the other guy. Course, he can't come around anymore...
Why - what did happen to me? Other than being horribly mutilated?
|
|
HD, I'm really disappointed in you. I thought you understood why we had cool, considerate political discussion here. I mean, look what happened to Aubrey under the old regime of fiery, inconsiderate political fighting. And if you think that's bad, you should have seen what happened to the other guy. Course, he can't come around anymore...Why - what did happen to me? Other than being horribly mutilated?
I think the horrible mutilation was what he was getting at.
I was just trying to be sensitive, ya know...the whole "face melting" thing, Aubrey. But no, somebody had to throw sensitivity out the window and start pumping gas..
Sanctimoniously waves finger at HD.
|
|
So, Judd Gregg withdrew his nomination as commerce secretary. I almost feel sorry for the president. I think he's had it the hardest I've ever known trying to get his cabinet posts filled.
Well I think he realized after this last week that he was going to be just a figurehead, and that nobody would really be listening to him. Just last week, Charlie Rangel was berating some Republicans on Meet the Press and invoked the specter of Judd Gregg to show how fiscal conservatives were backing Obama's plan. Clearly this wasn't the case based on Sen. Gregg's statements. After a few such incidents, Gregg must have realized he was going to be trotted out when the Obama White House needed to "show" how conservative Republicans were on-board with Obama's policies, and then be shoved back into the closet when they were done.
One Obama statement in the article seemed a little hinkey to me though. According to President Obama, "It comes as something of a surprise, because the truth, you know, Mr. Gregg approached us with interest and seemed enthusiastic." Is the president in the habit of nominating anyone who walks in off the street and says, "hey, make me commerce secretary?" It doesn't really seem to ring true to me.
History Teach Us Nothing.
|
|
One Obama statement in the article seemed a little hinkey to me though. According to President Obama, "It comes as something of a surprise, because the truth, you know, Mr. Gregg approached us with interest and seemed enthusiastic." Is the president in the habit of nominating anyone who walks in off the street and says, "hey, make me commerce secretary?" It doesn't really seem to ring true to me.
Yeah. I emailed him, "Hey, make me Commerce Secretary. It's either that or I do the Deputy Chairman of the FSA job." I've heard nothing, so it's obviously not true.
Well, it looks as if the Stimulus package is going to be a reality. Next up: Forclosure help.
As a homeowner, I personally sympathyze with those who by no fault of their own have come into trouble keeping up their payments. HOWEVER, being a firm dweller in the Lower Middle Class I have seen the last eight years become a whirlwind of stupidity and greed among my peers. Refi after refi, taking whatever equity was available as home prices soared. Using the money to buy vacations and tony memberships to country clubs. Going out to eat at restaurants almost every night. Then it all came tumbling down. Now bereft and facing soaring credit rates, these same people are crying for relief from the govenment. Of course, these are not the only stories, but they are a depressingly large percentage of the people facing forclosure at the moment.
My opening point of political discussion: Can the US government truly help people in jeopardy of losing their homes? Or will it become another way for people to game the system? Is it sustainable, especially considering the staggering amounts of money that have been financed in the past year? Your thoughts?
|
|
Ultimately think that the government can provide help to people being foclosed on, if the program is structured right. I don't remember all of the details of th plan as Iheard it on CNN, but two things suck out to me as being steps in the right direction and that was allowing people to extend their fifteen year mortgages into twenty or thirty year mortgages and allowing bankrupcy corts to restructure mortgages so that they still have to be paid off ut are on a more affordable schedule to do so.
These are the types of things that are government should be doing. Ultimately they end up being revenue neutral and they help people in a time of need. I agree with the economists I have heard that we need to allow the system to reach equilibrium, but at the same time we don't want to have so much happen that we end up making things worse. Sure, letting people who took out risky loans and have mortgages on ten or fifteen different properties at once fail would ultimately be good for the economy, but if you dump too much fuel into the engine it will stall. We need to bring the plane down softly rather than letting it nose dive into a neighborhood.
We need to bring the plane down softly rather than letting it nose dive into a neighborhood.
That's about the best analogy I've heard yet in favor of at least some stimulus. Yeah, American auto makers deserve to go under -- it's a free market economy, and if their competitors over at Honda can sell better cars for less money, well, GM needs to step up to the plate, or go into a different line of business. People with loans for higher payments than they could possibly earn should absolutely reap the results of their stupidity. But in a rush to punish them properly, we don't need to shut down the economy in the process (akin to cutting off your face to spite your nose, to twist the old expression). If more and more companies (and thus more and more jobs) keep going down the toilet, without the time and the credit needed for replacements to come along... well, that's a depression, and we saw during that last one that it sucks for everyone, not just for the people who deserve it.
Ultimately think that the government can provide help to people being foclosed on, if the program is structured right. I don't remember all of the details of th plan as Iheard it on CNN, but two things suck out to me as being steps in the right direction and that was allowing people to extend their fifteen year mortgages into twenty or thirty year mortgages and allowing bankrupcy corts to restructure mortgages so that they still have to be paid off ut are on a more affordable schedule to do so.
These are the types of things that are government should be doing. Ultimately they end up being revenue neutral and they help people in a time of need. I agree with the economists I have heard that we need to allow the system to reach equilibrium, but at the same time we don't want to have so much happen that we end up making things worse. Sure, letting people who took out risky loans and have mortgages on ten or fifteen different properties at once fail would ultimately be good for the economy, but if you dump too much fuel into the engine it will stall. We need to bring the plane down softly rather than letting it nose dive into a neighborhood.
I think you are right David, and if this is the direction the government goes in I can get behind it, as long as their actions stay revenue-neutral. What I am worried about is if they overreact and attempt to keep people in their homes 'at all costs.' By all means, allow the mortgages to be redone. The terms were ludicrous most of them were contracted under anyway. BUT, don't use government funds to 'paydown' or 'refinance' these new mortgages. The banks should step up, they are as much at fault as anyone in this mess, but I am afraid that we will overstep in an attempt to keep everyone from foreclosure. That's my main worry. You can overfuel an engine with government funds as well, and I'd hate to see the Law of Unintended Consequences come up and bite us all.
|
|
Ultimately think that the government can provide help to people being foclosed on, if the program is structured right. I don't remember all of the details of th plan as Iheard it on CNN, but two things suck out to me as being steps in the right direction and that was allowing people to extend their fifteen year mortgages into twenty or thirty year mortgages and allowing bankrupcy corts to restructure mortgages so that they still have to be paid off ut are on a more affordable schedule to do so.
These are the types of things that are government should be doing. Ultimately they end up being revenue neutral and they help people in a time of need. I agree with the economists I have heard that we need to allow the system to reach equilibrium, but at the same time we don't want to have so much happen that we end up making things worse. Sure, letting people who took out risky loans and have mortgages on ten or fifteen different properties at once fail would ultimately be good for the economy, but if you dump too much fuel into the engine it will stall. We need to bring the plane down softly rather than letting it nose dive into a neighborhood.
Wow, this proves that I should never post while taking lortab. My grammer and spelling is atrocious.
|
|
Hillary Clinton told reporters today that the new administration would not let human rights violations by China get in the way of the United States working with China as partners. Here are the details. Considering that the president played up the fact that the United States needed to take the lead on human rights issues, and went so far as to accuse the previous administration of violating civil and human rights, does it make sense for them to then turn around and admit that they will be all talk and no action when it comes to China?
|
|
Hillary Clinton told reporters today that the new administration would not let human rights violations by China get in the way of the United States working with China as partners. Here are the details. Considering that the president played up the fact that the United States needed to take the lead on human rights issues, and went so far as to accuse the previous administration of violating civil and human rights, does it make sense for them to then turn around and admit that they will be all talk and no action when it comes to China?
Yes, it absolutely makes sense. China is now a major part of the world economy and a major source of cheap goods to the Western world. Barring an implosion, it will not go away. Cracking down hard on China over its numerous human rights abuses will not make them more likely to have better human rights policies and may spark up other tensions. A new Cold War we do not need.
It's still hypocritical, but I tend to expect foreign policy to be 99% pragmatism and 1% idealism, so I'm not too shocked.
There's also a difference between turning a blind eye to thew abuses of your neighbour and committing abuses yourself. Regardless of the accuracy, America is still thought of as a leader in freedom and rights. Obama was saying you can't turn your back on that and still be true to the American Way. You may disagree, or agree but consider the abuses necessary, but I think that's where he was coming from. Obviously, China isn't really associated with any sort of freedom or rights culture.
|
|
Okay, so a friend of mine asked me two political questions that I have no answers for. Maybe you guys can help me out.
1) Why is there such a rush to pass a helth treatment reform bill before the end of the year if it will not take affect until 2013 at the earliest?
2) Why is there such opposition in the House of Representatives to a bill that would require all non-emergency bills to be available on the web for public comment for at least 72 hours before any vote?
Like I said, I have no answers for her. Can you help me?
Okay, so a friend of mine asked me two political questions that I have no answers for. Maybe you guys can help me out.
1) Why is there such a rush to pass a helth treatment reform bill before the end of the year if it will not take affect until 2013 at the earliest?
2) Why is there such opposition in the House of Representatives to a bill that would require all non-emergency bills to be availible on the web for public comment for at least 72 hours before any vote?
Like I said, I have no answers for her. Can you help me?
1) The reasoning I'd heard is that if it doesn't get done this year, nobody will touch it next year (being a mid-term election with all the House and somee of the Senate fighting for their seats). And the Whitehouse wanted to get the ball rolling on healthcare (and several other key issues this year), so that in 3 to 3-1/2 years when Obama is seeking his second term, he has some results on his resume. And that generally, the PotUS approval rating was at a high, so it would be easier to get through now instead of later when his approval rating is lower because he didn't magically fix everything in his first two years.
2) My only guess is that there are things in there that they are afraid of being used against them (validly or not), but I'm a cynic.
{silently awaits Piscene Hammer upside the head}
|
|
2) My only guess is that there are things in there that they are afraid of being used against them (validly or not), but I'm a cynic.
Okay, you confused me with this one. From what I have heard it's a very simple and straight forward bill. The Democrat co-sponser of the bill said that it doesn't make sense to ask lawmakers to vote on telephone book sized bills with less than too hours to read them. I'm not sure what could be in such a bill that would be used against lawmakers. Unless they are afraid that they would have top be responsible for their votes if they had a chance to read the bills.
Oh and
Okay, you confused me with this one. From what I have heard it's a very simple and straight forward bill. The Democrat co-sponser of the bill said that it doesn't make sense to ask lawmakers to vote on telephone book sized bills with less than too hours to read them. I'm not sure what could be in such a bill that would be used against lawmakers. Unless they are afraid that they would have top be responsible for their votes if they had a chance to read the bills.
Yeah, on second read, my explanation doesn't make much sense to me either. OK, how about:
2) They are worried that if bills are open to everyone's review for at least 72 hours, then they can't say "Oh, it was 200+ pages and I didn't have time to read it." They are afraid of being accountable for the graft, pork, favoritism to lobbyests, and general dumb a** ideas in the bills.
Oh and ** spoiler omitted **
That's much nicer than a carp, but it isn't a deterent.
|
|
2) Why is there such opposition in the House of Representatives to a bill that would require all non-emergency bills to be availible on the web for public comment for at least 72 hours before any vote?
It would cut down on pork-barrel spending, mainly because guys like us would read the bills, find the oinkers, and tell everyone. It would be a serious PR and financial blow for the individual Representatives, and heaven forbid they do anything for anyone but themselves.
|
|
2) Why is there such opposition in the House of Representatives to a bill that would require all non-emergency bills to be availible on the web for public comment for at least 72 hours before any vote?It would cut down on pork-barrel spending, mainly because guys like us would read the bills, find the oinkers, and tell everyone. It would be a serious PR and financial blow for the individual Representatives, and heaven forbid they do anything for anyone but themselves.
Okay, but isn't that a good thing? I mean President Obama pledge not to sign any bill that had pork in it, and the House and Senate leadership were standing behind him nodding their heads. So shouldn't they be all for it?
|
|
Okay, but isn't that a good thing? I mean President Obama pledge not to sign any bill that had pork in it, and the House and Senate leadership were standing behind him nodding their heads. So shouldn't they be all for it?2) Why is there such opposition in the House of Representatives to a bill that would require all non-emergency bills to be availible on the web for public comment for at least 72 hours before any vote?It would cut down on pork-barrel spending, mainly because guys like us would read the bills, find the oinkers, and tell everyone. It would be a serious PR and financial blow for the individual Representatives, and heaven forbid they do anything for anyone but themselves.
They have to look good for the cameras, but in the end, they're still politicians. There may be a few honest ones in the bunch, but the majority are in it for the money.
So are you saying that my problem is that I expect politicians to do what they say they are going to?
With the correction in bold, I agree that's your problem here!