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

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

There should be a law that no military spending can be equal to, or surpass domestic spending.

The law should also state that no tax cuts can be passed without the ability to replace the revenue, without cutting domestic spending, or borrowing the money.

For the millionth time when taxes are cut the federal government gets more tax revenue. Just because congress pisses it away doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

 

[B. Kidd]

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?

THERE OUGHT'A BE A LAW!!

 

[B. Kidd]

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.

I didn't think you were gullible.
It's okay, everyone is, at times.
Even me!
Carry on....

 

[B. Kidd]

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.

We already have had this for too long.

And, no one has been adequately able to answer my questions in post #112, except for DUHH, a Judge will enforce it!

This is some bullshit!!

 

[ClaireH]

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.

Now hold up here Ray, I believe you’ve misread my post or maybe I wasn’t clear. I am not talking about any type of governmental experience regarding “knowledge for the job”. An appropriate representative should know the basics: separation of powers, chain of governmental command, with particular emphasis on ethical decision making that helps the country, not his or her investments. Ethics can be revealed, although tests not easily tricked would be needed. Their psychological approach to negotiating, etc. So many things can be revealed with a battery of tests. No biggie imo. But since it’s never been done people from all political persuasions would be slow to accept it as a needed change. I’m convinced it would help voters decide which candidates are better than others, it has little to do with experience, but many voters look for that in a candidate. One can have decades of bad experience- Biden is a prime example.

I couldn’t agree more about ousting ALL career politicians. Some of our civil servants on the hill act like royalty, depicted by their actions and inactions. Anytime something comes to light, these lifers on the hill conduct back door deals but don’t want the public to know so they come out in the press making harsh statements against the other side followed by zero action. More than one layer of political deception, the duopoly.

Let me ask you this, why would it be a bad idea to give potential employees a battery of tests, if the tests were compiled by a neutral group of non-political types? Hard to believe but there are many bright people who have no interest in the political circus. I have a nephew who fits that bill, a real go-getter all around compared to most, and a very smart guy with zero interest in anything political. Many more just like him.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Now hold up here Ray, I believe you’ve misread my post or maybe I wasn’t clear. I am not talking about any type of governmental experience regarding “knowledge for the job”. An appropriate representative should know the basics: separation of powers, chain of governmental command, with particular emphasis on ethical decision making that helps the country, not his or her investments. Ethics can be revealed, although tests not easily tricked would be needed. Their psychological approach to negotiating, etc. So many things can be revealed with a battery of tests. No biggie imo. But since it’s never been done people from all political persuasions would be slow to accept it as a needed change. I’m convinced it would help voters decide which candidates are better than others, it has little to do with experience, but many voters look for that in a candidate. One can have decades of bad experience- Biden is a prime example.

I couldn’t agree more about ousting ALL career politicians. Some of our civil servants on the hill act like royalty, depicted by their actions and inactions. Anytime something comes to light, these lifers on the hill conduct back door deals but don’t want the public to know so they come out in the press making harsh statements against the other side followed by zero action. More than one layer of political deception, the duopoly.

Let me ask you this, why would it be a bad idea to give potential employees a battery of tests, if the tests were compiled by a neutral group of non-political types? Hard to believe but there are many bright people who have no interest in the political circus. I have a nephew who fits that bill, a real go-getter all around compared to most, and a very smart guy with zero interest in anything political. Many more just like him.

If you're going to change the criteria to be a rep of any kind in the federal government it would require a constitutional amendment which will never happen. But even if we could, do you think it would do any good? Look at NYC. They reelected the most embarrassing Congresswoman of modern times once again. And what about Festerman in PA? The guy can't understand what's being said to him unless somebody types it out on a computer screen, and he beat a Doctor.

If it were up to me, to hell with the reps. We need to test voters before being allowed to vote. But again, it would require a constitutional amendment and no Democrat in the country would go for it because their leadership depends on politically ignorant and stupid voters.

 

[ClaireH]

If you're going to change the criteria to be a rep of any kind in the federal government it would require a constitutional amendment which will never happen. But even if we could, do you think it would do any good? Look at NYC. They reelected the most embarrassing Congresswoman of modern times once again. And what about Festerman in PA? The guy can't understand what's being said to him unless somebody types it out on a computer screen, and he beat a Doctor.

If it were up to me, to hell with the reps. We need to test voters before being allowed to vote. But again, it would require a constitutional amendment and no Democrat in the country would go for it because their leadership depends on politically ignorant and stupid voters.

Testing voters, after a lot of thought sounds like an authoritarian move. Testing the civil servants applying for the job, is reasonable.

You make a good point that even if tests were required by law, various states would still come up with lowly candidates. I don’t get the motive myself. Why settle for these characters next time around after seeing this time around? Bribes and legal bribes by PAC are major factors. It should not require access to major wealth to run for president, yet it does and goes unchallenged. It shouldn’t require a person to be a billionaire or have billionaires support to run for president, yet it does. That alone goes against a fair representation of anyone other than fellow millionaires/billionaires.

 

[billyerock123]

Absolutely! As we head into a recession and jobs dry up, people will be crying that they need help because there are no jobs. But what is their excuse NOW, when jobs are going begging at twice the minimum wage?

For example, I was working with a woman with four children. Her food stamp budget is $1000 a month and her TANF is $1400 a month - all non-taxable, of course. That is equivalent to $3000 a month in earnings, or around $18 an hour. Naturally, she doesn’t want to work and give up her “government pay,” as she calls it, and end up with the same money.

What we should do is peg “government pay” to actual earned income. You have no earnings, you get no government pay. Anything you earn is matched by the government, up to the maximum. So, in order for the woman with four children (each child has a different father, and not a one is paying support) to get her $1400 in TANF, she would have to earn $1400 with a job.

First of a the national budget allocates .008 % of its budge for welfare … 1,7 billion dollars from a 1 . 8 trillion dollar budget … so your attempt to make welfare a issue is showing us how unformed you and your dad is … you’re trying to put controls into the welfare system … the controls they have are fine… they don’t need you foolish idea …

When you have a woman with 6 kids from the ages of 5 to 15 some in school some at home who is going to watch those children … you republicans voted against the child credit tax where they could afford day care … which you also vote down adorable day care … you come up with those ideas that you feel because they aren’t Doing a work job … that they are aren’t working … have you ever taken care of 6 kids … your thinking is trpucal Republican thinking … I remember my brother doing the same with my dad … he would just agree with my brother, then when he left he would say raised a idiot … who going to take care if these welfare kids, the streets … how’s that been working for us …idiot !!!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

First of a the national budget allocates .008 % of its budge for welfare … 1,7 billion dollars from a 1 . 8 trillion dollar budget … so your attempt to make welfare a issue is showing us how unformed you and your dad is … you’re trying to put controls into the welfare system … the controls they have are fine… they don’t need you foolish idea …

When you have a woman with 6 kids from the ages of 5 to 15 some in school some at home who is going to watch those children … you republicans voted against the child credit tax where they could afford day care … which you also vote down adorable day care … you come up with those ideas that you feel because they aren’t Doing a work job … that they are aren’t working … have you ever taken care of 6 kids … your thinking is trpucal Republican thinking … I remember my brother doing the same with my dad … he would just agree with my brother, then when he left he would say raised a idiot … who going to take care if these welfare kids, the streets … how’s that been working for us …idiot !!!

Why is somebody having six kids they could never afford? Why would somebody have one kid they can't afford? The answer is because they know taxpayers will take care of them. The more kids, the bigger the welfare check, the larger the SNAP's card, the bigger the Section 8 house in the suburbs.

Earning an income is a job. Taking care of children is a responsibility.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Testing voters, after a lot of thought sounds like an authoritarian move. Testing the civil servants applying for the job, is reasonable.

You make a good point that even if tests were required by law, various states would still come up with lowly candidates. I don’t get the motive myself. Why settle for these characters next time around after seeing this time around? Bribes and legal bribes by PAC are major factors. It should not require access to major wealth to run for president, yet it does and goes unchallenged. It shouldn’t require a person to be a billionaire or have billionaires support to run for president, yet it does. That alone goes against a fair representation of anyone other than fellow millionaires/billionaires.

I don't think it would be authoritarian to test voters before voting. What's authoritarian is when they can vote money out of the pockets of other people to give to themselves.

I'm not talking about anything partisan or very difficult in having voters take the test. It could be multiple choice. Questions like who is the speaker of the House? What party do they belong to? Who is the VP? What party do they belong to. Is the US in debt? If so, by how much: 100 billion, 1 trillion, 15 trillion, 31 trillion? What party leads the Senate? Just questions like that. The problem we have is Obama Phone ladies voting for Presidents.

Or let me use an analogy here: Let's say MLB decided that people of the city a team represents be allowed to pick their own players instead of the managers. In my city, they allow anybody to pick them. They could pick by race, by how cute they are, their accent or heritage, anything. In your city, people wanting to pick baseball players had to demonstrate an acute knowledge of the game and players. Now, which one of us will have the much better baseball team?

Donald Trump was an outstanding President by all measures, but he was rough around the edges. Now we have a dementia patient in charge of this country because Trump was crude, insulting at times, and posted abrasive Tweets. Forget how great the country was doing before covid. But that's how people voted; on personality instead of ability. That's the problem.

 

[candycorn]

The OP is lying. As always.

 

[Pete7469]

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.

Having been in the military my impression is that 1/3 would actively resist with the population should the feds go full rouge and attempt to exterminate gun owners who refused to comply with confiscation. Another 1/3 would likely just steal what they could get their hands on and go home. Less than 1/3 I think would be happy to do what we never did before, which even the Bolsheviks didn't do, and that is wage a full out total war against their own country.

Also consider the fact that we are not defenseless peasants. If the entire western world spent 20 years in Afghanistan only to leave it better armed than ever, I'm sort of looking forward to having an MRAP of my very own.


.

 

[Pete7469]

We never created the position of world police. It kind of formed on it's own. If we don't want to be the world police, somebody else will take our place. Now think of the countries that are large and powerful enough to take that position.

If we are "The World Police", we're less effective than The Detroit PD. NO COUNTRY is big enough for that role. I would assert that we could have all of NATO, The Warsaw Pact countries, China, Austrailia and Japan agree to be "good guys" and work to stop slavery, piracy, illicit drugs, genocide, despotic tyrants who brutally oppress their people, territorial,/tribal wars, illegal weapons trafficking and totally fail. In fact the problems would probably get worse because corrupt people would exploit weaknesses and enrich themselves like never before.



.

 

[citygator]

It cost $1.7 trillion

What’s the right number?

 

[struth]

What’s the right number?

huh? did you not read the bill? that’s how much it’s for

 

[j-mac]

Ask DHS.

Myorkas? Don’t be silly….that man is saying the border is secure….joke.

 

[citygator]

huh? did you not read the bill? that’s how much it’s for

If $1.7T isn’t right what is?

 

[struth]

If $1.7T isn’t right what is?

far less

 

[citygator]

far less

How much less?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How much less?

How about this: Take all the Democrat pork and wasted spending out of it. That's how much less.