They Didn't Even Read It!

I'm not sure any of those nutballs on the hill read anything anymore.

 

Not unless it's written in a bathroom stall.......

 

AMEN to that Brother... :thumbsup:

One raises the deficit by spending more money.
The other raises the deficit by cutting taxes.

Each opposes the others views with, "you're going to raise the deficit and our grandchildren will have to pay for it." What hypocrites...

Now when Bush was on his spending spree Congress enjoyed the ride.
Now we have a new spender and suddenly we're concerned about the deficit.

Cutting taxes raises the deficit also...

 

Huh? Who are "they?" Who wrote it, and who didn't read it?

 

The only real solution is to cut spending and reduce the size of government! I believe in tax cuts, but they must be backed by spending cuts. The government is much too big and the economic problems are caused by too much government manipulation of the market.

 

I can buy that... :thumbsup:

 

This is no where close to the first bill that fits this description and it won't be the last. Why a new standard when the Democrats are in charge?

 

It's not impossible to get a pretty decent idea of what it says. I'm sure that if my half-uneducated self can make some sense of it, people with great educations and experience in these topics can do an even better job.

Go ahead and give it a shot...it's not as bad as you think if you just start reading over it. Don't be intimidated by the terminology...just get a dictionary if you don't understand them. It makes a lot more sense that way, and concepts you don't get are easily looked up online.

Here's the link: http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/Recovery_Bill_Div_A.pdf

The professional, cleaned up version should be up on open bills again soon.

 

I am sure you are right on this, BUT I do not remember any bills that went through unread that it was made this public. (The fact no one read the bill) Even the media seems to be crying foul on this.

Before anyone post on this do not give me the "Bush did this or Bush did that" Give me the bill that went through so I can look it up for myself.

I am curious though where are all the Obama supporters on this. Do they think it is fine and dandy to spend over 700 Billion dollars on a bill that no one has read through?

 

I'm still not getting where this "fact" comes from.

Where did EVERYONE say they hadn't read it? Where did 50% of those voting on it say they hadn't read it? I've looked online, and the only places I found anything to that effect were soap opera drama type news watches and a few posts on the internet.

Are there any reliable sources out there that show this is a fact?

 

Let me give you an example of the problem here.

Obama previously issued an executive order instructing federal agencies to have construction contractors enter project labor agreements. Those agreements require contractors to negotiate with union officials, recognize union wages and benefits and abide by collective bargaining agreements.

Now we have this big spending bill which includes billions and billions and billions of dollars for construction projects.

The two together amount to a huge gift to the unions and a big kick in the behind to non-union contractors.

I have no doubt that there individual parts in the spending bill which when combined with another indvidual part in the bill will have meanings which a plain reading of the bill will not make obvious to the average reader.

The lobbyists that were able to give their input into the bill and then also received copies of the bill before even Congress will no doubt enjoy many such happy co-incidences as the above example.

 

I know it was discovered that Paulson shortchanged taxpayers by paying $87B more fore bank assets than they are currently worth.

It amazes me how hypocritical people are when they thrash this legislation and somehow forget that the republicans passed a bill of almost the same size just a few months ago. What has happened to all that TARP funding? Did it do anything. I particularly wonder about the $150B given to AIG. What did they do with it that helped our economy?

 

Neither should have been passed at all.

 

That's not what I was responding to, he said...

I personally don't believe this bill was as unread as we are being made to believe. I think the GOP is snow balling us again.

We know the original bill was read by the GOP which is how they know it gave money for condoms etc... Same with the bill that originally went before the Senate. They waved it in the air and told us about all the junk that was in it. So this leaves the few changes that were made in the back room deal and when both houses reconciled.

So the basic or 95% of the bill was the same since only education and Septars entries were made in the back room deal (not much reading there) and the Senate bill was basically the reconciled deal since they needed the 3 Republican's votes to get it to pass.

Also, these bills are done on computers which means everyone in both houses has access to see it as it's being drafted. The only part that wasn't on the computer were the two hand written entries on a couple of pages. I'm sure it didn't take much time to read a couple of hand written entries.

I don't buy this thing that no one read this bill. Someone wrote it so I know they knew what was in it. I thin this is more GOP fear mongering...

 

You have a source for that?