1,603-Page Bill - 5 Awful Things Congress Snuck Into the Omnibus Budget Deal

Until <i>Last Week</i> with John Oliver returns, I have no real political opinions. This guy bores me. Next.

 

Transcript:

 

Okay, let's apply the same standard to voters; heck let's just have them read the names of legislation during the incumbents' term of office and how people voted. Either one would be unrealistic and needlessly punitive. Incidentally we're not paying enough in taxes to complain about our money being laundered. We've got to stop looking for reasons to resent our institutions and start streamlining and simplifying our needs and wants.

 

Yes; let's excuse congress because we aren't held to the same standards.

So many of us already apply this same logic to the President; I don't see why not.

I do agree with your last statement.

 

You're pumping out excuses for our government lining their pockets. What difference does it make if we're paying enough are not when they are using the money in ways that benefit them the most and not us. And if they weren't passing our tax dollars from pocket to pocket _ who's to say we're not actually paying enough.

 

In my engineering company, we only do our job at the level of engineering expertise of our customer. If our customer doesn't know all the details about building a bridge, then we don't feel the need to evaluate those details in our designs either. It may sound ridiculous to you, but the truth is that holding our company to a higher standard than the people that employ us to do a job is ubsurd.

 

Maybe some of your customers don't care to know all the details of building a bridge and besides engineers who would know all the details of bridge building anyway... But does that mean your company is going to do a half azz job at building a bridge just because your customer don't know the details...??? It's not about being held to a higher standard it's about you building a bridge because that's what you're being paid to do because you said you could. I think your situation is completely different.

 

Well the part about letting the wealthy have more control of our politicians should make the libertarian and conservatives happy at least.

Also I suppose they will cheer the cuts in the Women Infant and Children program as it will help create more moral fiber in those mothers and children-- not to mention the plus for them of cutting the taxes of the wealthy.

 

I don't like omnibus bills in general. Vote on each thing separately.

 

#5 is the most upsetting to me. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that China just unveiled their own version of the F-35, except that it actually works.

 

It does not. It has to do with defense contractor lobbying and homestate politicians wanting to bring money into their states.

 

Time to double the number of reps and senators. The representation per capita is appealing. Some districts it's over one million. I think if a smaller student to teacher ratio is good for students why can't the same hold true for guvment.

 

Tell me what company you work for so I know what bridges not to drive over

 

One of the first things you've ever said that I'd agree with. Personally, I wouldn't double it, but would increase it to the point that it follows the "cube root" rule (not really a "rule," just a fact that most legislatures across the globe are comprised of roughly the cube root of the population of the country). For the US, that would be roughly 670.

There are a number of ways to implement this, I would leave the single member House districts and the Senate as they are, but add a proportional representation element. Basically, in addition to voting for your representatives and senators, you'd also vote for a party. The House would have seats added such that any party receiving over a certain percentage of the national vote would gain seats such that the proportion of the House ends up at roughly the same percentages of the party vote.

In this way, you could actually get representatives who are actually "TEA Party," "Libertarian Party," "Green Party," or others. This would also help to assure that the House accurately reflects the beliefs of the country as a whole rather than having everything dictated by the two major parties.

 

What the heck do you think a Congressional staff is for?

 

I think g1184's point is that sometimes building a bridge isn't as good as leaving a chasm.

 

Unless one of those guys is named Molotov I don't see that many commies and bigots agreeing on anything. It'd be a good way to end the culture wars as D's and R's will be too busy banding together swatting down flat taxes, open borders, abolition of compulsory education and all the other escapist nonsense third parties will be filibustering for.

 

This is not a horrible idea in theory but if legislatures actually worked like this, we'd have a trillion dollar space program, kicKass public stadiums, and a zero percent tax rate.

Legislation packages are how things get done in representative democracies. It keeps absurd results from happening. Look at the absurd official republican position on Obama care - that it should be repealed but all the popular provisions (basically everything except for the individual mandate, which is the cost control mechanism that makes the whole thing feasible) should stay/be reinstated.