Rep. Mia Love wants to limit congressional bills to one subject at a time

[tyroneweaver]

"Rep. Mia Love wants to limit congressional bills to one subject at a time"

How typical of the naive TPM right - a truly childish, ridiculous, and inane proposal.

You racist prick.

 

[Rustic]

Good idea from Ms. Love.

I'd be happy to hear the rationale against it.

She is a career politician, no such thing as rationale on their part.

Dumbest post of the day.

Hit a nerve...
Lol

No...

You Mis-read the question and provided an idiotic response.

Tender nerves. Huh??

 

[9aces]

This would be the one bill Democrats and Republicans would band together to ensure it never gets voted on.

They'd have to argue their pet projects in the light of day and basically show who owns them. Can't have that.

 

[Montrovant]

"Rep. Mia Love wants to limit congressional bills to one subject at a time"

How typical of the naive TPM right - a truly childish, ridiculous, and inane proposal.

We note how deftly you explained why it was such a bad idea. Wait! Oh. never mind! You didn't!

I'm with you on this: What is the downside to having such a law as to where "one subject" is the limit for bills?

I think maybe the only downside would be if you get into micromanagement such as Congressional approval for every expenditure but I would think she means each department; not each box of paper clips or new office copier the DVA wants to purchase....

Outside of scale, I'd be interested to hear reasoned opposition to Ms. Love's idea.

That's probably a real danger, Congress being the bureaucracy it is.

*On a side note, does anyone else find that the spelling of the word bureaucracy never sticks in their head? I have to look it up almost every time I write or type it.

 

[candycorn]

"Rep. Mia Love wants to limit congressional bills to one subject at a time"

How typical of the naive TPM right - a truly childish, ridiculous, and inane proposal.

We note how deftly you explained why it was such a bad idea. Wait! Oh. never mind! You didn't!

I'm with you on this: What is the downside to having such a law as to where "one subject" is the limit for bills?

I think maybe the only downside would be if you get into micromanagement such as Congressional approval for every expenditure but I would think she means each department; not each box of paper clips or new office copier the DVA wants to purchase....

Outside of scale, I'd be interested to hear reasoned opposition to Ms. Love's idea.

That's probably a real danger, Congress being the bureaucracy it is.

*On a side note, does anyone else find that the spelling of the word bureaucracy never sticks in their head? I have to look it up almost every time I write or type it.

I have to look it up all the time too.

Maybe do a study to see what the averge PO was over the last 5 years for that department (obviously if you're buying planes and tanks, you're average PO will be higher than the Parks Departement buying peat moss) and any PO over that average amount by 25% or so must get approval. That would take into account price increases in most cases.

Ms. Love's idea seems to have a lot of good to it seeing as how the only opposition is to call her names and make idiotic comments.

 

[Rustic]

"Rep. Mia Love wants to limit congressional bills to one subject at a time"

How typical of the naive TPM right - a truly childish, ridiculous, and inane proposal.

We note how deftly you explained why it was such a bad idea. Wait! Oh. never mind! You didn't!

I'm with you on this: What is the downside to having such a law as to where "one subject" is the limit for bills?

I think maybe the only downside would be if you get into micromanagement such as Congressional approval for every expenditure but I would think she means each department; not each box of paper clips or new office copier the DVA wants to purchase....

Outside of scale, I'd be interested to hear reasoned opposition to Ms. Love's idea.

That's probably a real danger, Congress being the bureaucracy it is.

*On a side note, does anyone else find that the spelling of the word bureaucracy never sticks in their head? I have to look it up almost every time I write or type it.

I have to look it up all the time too.

Maybe do a study to see what the averge PO was over the last 5 years for that department (obviously if you're buying planes and tanks, you're average PO will be higher than the Parks Departement buying peat moss) and any PO over that average amount by 25% or so must get approval. That would take into account price increases in most cases.

Ms. Love's idea seems to have a lot of good to it seeing as how the only opposition is to call her names and make idiotic comments.

Her ideas are unoriginal, and Rino like...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Of course it's ridiculous – in theory and in practice.

The 'proposal' is just more whining from the childish, sophomoric, reactionary right upset about omnibus legislation; it would be impossible, for example, to pass spending measures funding all the required departments and agencies 'one subject at at time.'

It's just another example of the ridiculous right's contempt for sound, responsible governance.

So, you not only support corruption in government, you demand it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's just never going to happen.

democrats love corruption too much.

Obama would veto, honest government goes against everything he stands for.