There should be a law that Congress must know what’s in a bill before they vote!

[struth]

What’s bad about it?

It cost $1.7 trillion

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

How can you enforce it?

REQUIRE all legislation wait 7 days after submission before a vote is allowed

 

[sparky]

Government reps should prove themselves prior to being elected. It is not asking too much for voters to know whether or not a candidate has knowledge relative to the job. Once a state has enough of a citizen uproar about improving our political choices, other states will quickly follow suit. It will snowball quite quickly, but the delay is breaking the ice. It will happen one day, unless we continue to devolve under authoritarian leftist goals.

while i'll agree Claire, there would be a lot on us, the voters to 'vet' contestants. ~S~

 

[ClaireH]

while i'll agree Claire, there would be a lot on us, the voters to 'vet' contestants. ~S~

Of course, and I concur! It is a voter decision as it’s hard to imagine potential candidates promoting this change, and surely few existing politicians in office would do so without being prompted by constituent outcry. It can happen with voters uniting for better quality of candidates.

If only all of the complaints that go out by the minute on the internet and during face to face conversations, could instantly turn into voter actions. I don’t do enough although active in my local community and somewhat active on the state level. A good 2023 New Year’s resolution to do more.

 

[sparky]

A good 2023 New Year’s resolution to do more.

yes it is

which means we need to pay attention

~S~

 

[evenflow1969]

This is ridiculous. The Democrats, along with RHINOS, pass the monstrosity of an Omnibus bill without even knowing what was in it.

There should be a summary page listing ALL the spending, and Congresspeople should know it so they can debate - and voters should be able to see which elected officials are spending money to help other countries while refusing to help our own.

Why, for example, are hundreds of millions allocated to foreign countries to help with their border security - and not a penny for our OWN to stop the invasion at our Southern border?

Yep this one I agree on absolutely should know what you are voting on.

 

[Moonglow]

Unnecessary welfare spending is contributing to the labor shortage, which in turns contributes to Biden’s record-high inflation. So while welfare recipients shop at Whole Foods with their tax-free SNAP, retirees who worked and saved for 40 years at buying day-old bread at Safeway.

They closed Safeway in the 1980's during high inflation and high unemployment.

 

[Moonglow]

We don’t have to ask the DHS. They are part of the Biden Administration whose goal it is to get in as many foreigners as possible, and as quickly as possible, who can barely read, never finished high school, have no skills, and will quickly go on the government dole when the first of their four or five children are born.

Sounds like white southern meth heads.

 

[Foxfyre]

On this part I have to disagree to a point.

We are at a point where there is no way all the armies of the world combined could invade and hold territory in the USA. The people are better armed than the rest of the world. Just in TX alone we have 10's of thousands of people proficient with rifles at long ranges, and some of them are very well equipped with suppressors, night vision, GPS technology and communication equipment just for hunting.

Then you have the veterans and all the armed professionals.

Along with the non-bed wetter dominated states I don't believe the entire world even with our own military if it went rouge could contain our population, they couldn't control a small country full of sheep fucking rock farmers with shitty AK's.

We do need a strong military, and we should be spending a lot on new tech, but we do not need to maintain a world police force. We could easily cut the military budget in half, get rid of almost the entire officer corps especially since it's infested with leftist lunatics, and go back to drafting fit 18-20 year olds for two years of service so that we have a base population that has minimal combat training. The "standing army" should be exceptional trainers and well organized managers that can mobilize for war, without having thousands of troops and sailors deployed all over the world.

Our military has become a uniformed welfare program and it needs to be overhauled.

The omnibus spending bill includes mega millions for expansion of red flag laws providing anti-gun legislators with a back door into gun confiscation along with significant funding to facilitate Biden's pistol ban and other provisions. And while our armed citizenry could make life hellish for an invading army, a woke, politically correct, socially sensitized military might or might not put up a credible fight and the best marksmen with hunting rifles would not be able to put up much of a fight against attack helicopters, tanks, artillery, mortars and machine guns an invading army would almost certainly utilize. And, I'm pretty sure that invading army won't be the least bit 'woke' or socially conscious or have any reluctance to shell and kill civilians.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Government reps should prove themselves prior to being elected. It is not asking too much for voters to know whether or not a candidate has knowledge relative to the job. Once a state has enough of a citizen uproar about improving our political choices, other states will quickly follow suit. It will snowball quite quickly, but the delay is breaking the ice. It will happen one day, unless we continue to devolve under authoritarian leftist goals.

I don't care if a person has experience at being a rep. We all seen what the well experienced politicians do. Our founders wanted people to serve their country (like the military today) do their job, and then return home back to their farm or business. It was never supposed to be about experience or lifelong careers.

Trying to get people to take a stand against wasteful spending is like expecting all the drug addicts to just quit using. Look at all the leftists here defending it. It won't happen unless you give them a reason to be concerned, like my idea of a consumption tax to pay for all the overspending. If they spend more than the consumption tax can cover, we raise the consumption tax.

People take much more interest in spending when they actually have to pay for it right then and there.

 

[B. Kidd]

The law will read any bill presented must be done so 60 days before Congress leaves the session.

Pass an unenforceable new law trying to enforce what should be common sense (if you vote on it, it should be read!).

Our Country has been/already is FUCKED!!

 

[B. Kidd]

REQUIRE all legislation wait 7 days after submission before a vote is allowed

How is it verified?
What are the penalties?

It looks like poo-flinging monkey bullshit for muppets to take the bait to me!!

Goddamned, our masses have descended to barely educable retardedness.


HOLY SHIT!!!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Pass an unenforceable new law trying to enforce what should be common sense (if you vote on it, it should be read!).

Our Country has been/already is FUCKED!!

Sure it's enforceable if it's law. If you can't introduce it in 60 days or more, it can't be introduced until the next session again.

 

[B. Kidd]

Sure it's enforceable if it's law. If you can't introduce it in 60 days or more, it can't be introduced until the next session again.

Pass an unenforceable law on Congress!
Then it'll get much better.

Come on Ray, what you smokin'??

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Pass an unenforceable law on Congress!
Then it'll get much better.

Come on Ray, what you smokin'??

How would it not be enforceable if it's law? Can they pass a bill with a minority of votes? Of course not.

If somebody introduces legislation within 60 days of session ending, nobody votes on it. And if they decide to vote on it anyway, it's not law. If they insist it is, it goes to the courts where it will be overturned.

 

[task0778]

I think any congressperson who votes for a bill without knowing what's in it oughta be voted out of office in their next election. There was a time when Congress required 3 days before they voted on a bill so everyone would know what's in it. Has anybody come out and said they didn't know what was in a bill that they voted on?

IOW, it's on us to get better representation and if we don't do it then we'll get the gov't we deserve.

 

[B. Kidd]

How would it not be enforceable if it's law? Can they pass a bill with a minority of votes? Of course not.

If somebody introduces legislation within 60 days of session ending, nobody votes on it. And if they decide to vote on it anyway, it's not law. If they insist it is, it goes to the courts where it will be overturned.

Jaywalking's a law but people get smushed everyday.
Passing a law on Congress will be so much more effective!! (They may be sent to appear in front of an ethics committee of their peers.)

But don't let me stop you, boyo, you run with this!!!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think any congressperson who votes for a bill without knowing what's in it oughta be voted out of office in their next election. There was a time when Congress required 3 days before they voted on a bill so everyone would know what's in it. Has anybody come out and said they didn't know what was in a bill that they voted on?

IOW, it's on us to get better representation and if we don't do it then we'll get the gov't we deserve.

The problem is not many Americans care about spending because it doesn't directly affect us. When Dementia signs this bill, who's going to have to pay for it? Nobody. It will just end up as more debt is all, and who cares about that?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Jaywalking's a law but people get smushed everyday.
Passing a law on Congress will be so much more effective!! (They may be sent to appear in front of an ethics committee of their peers.)

But don't let me stop you, boyo, you run with this!!!

If it's law it's enforceable by the courts. That's what they do, decide if law was followed properly or if the Constitution was violated in any way. If we had that law now, this money couldn't be spent because this bill would be invalid since the law was not followed to pass it.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

This is ridiculous. The Democrats, along with RHINOS, pass the monstrosity of an Omnibus bill without even knowing what was in it.

There should be a summary page listing ALL the spending, and Congresspeople should know it so they can debate - and voters should be able to see which elected officials are spending money to help other countries while refusing to help our own.

Why, for example, are hundreds of millions allocated to foreign countries to help with their border security - and not a penny for our OWN to stop the invasion at our Southern border?

The law should be called the Anti Piglosi Law.