Sen. Inhofe (R) - Me no read bill - Me against bill

reply to post by schrodingers dog

Not only he doesn't need to read it, he doesn't even need to know WHAT"S IN IT to oppose it.

Health care debate aside, at what point does a Bill become unreadable? Not only is it 1,000 pages long but it is impossible to read in a linear fashion. In order to comprehend a particular section you must continually refer to other sections in the Bill.

i.e.

In the case of an employer who makes a 5 separate election described in section 4980H(a)(4)

one of the most significant pieces of legislation in US history

More significant then the Constitution, which provided the framework for the entire United States Government? It was only 6 pages.

I think we need to demand that our representatives oppose any Bill that the lay person cannot read. 1,000 pages is just ridiculous and unnecessary.

If I were in his shoes I wouldn't read it either, if my constituents were utterly opposed to it.

Doesn't matter if there IS something good in there, If my constituents don't want it, I wouldn't vote for it. Part of the freedom in America is to make a choice. Even if that choice is bad for you. It's NOT up to our lawmakers to decide whats best for us, its up to them to vote how WE want them to.

Secondly, this shouldn't even be an issue. This bill should have never seen the light of day, and ALL of Congress should vote no. It's not in their authority to make a national health care plan. Ever heard of the 10th amendment?

If Congress wants a national health care plan, because a majority of their constituents want one, then fine. Do it right. Vote to change the Constitution, THEN work on the plan.

That's half the problem we have these days, is that our government is circumventing the Constitution to get things done.

Originally posted by midnightbrigade
It's not in their authority to make a national health care plan. Ever heard of the 10th amendment?

Yup, sure have. One little phrase in the amendment is a bit of clunky wording, but once you "get it"....it illuminates the amendment in a slightly different light...

nor prohibited by it to the States

Mull that one over for a bit.

Tossing out Constitutional law is fine and dandy....when you actually understand what it says. Not when it's been latched onto as some slogan....because someone else included it in their rhetoric.

call him an idiot, call him what you will, atleast he is one of the few that is starting to listen to the american people. christ about time

Well if the politicians supporting this bill havent read it and politicians opposing this bill havent read it who the hell has read it? Better yet who the hell wrote it?

How a Bill becomes law:

"Okay everybody, it's Bill time so why dont you all write a five page essay on what you want. Doesnt have to have anything to do with anything just something you want. It can be Tort reform, insurance reform, single-payer, a new Ferrari, a nice bridge in your town that doesnt go anywhere, cell phones for bums, whatever. Hand them in and we'll staple them all together."

If I were senator I would not read most the bills. The entire federal code should be at most 2,000 pages so that it is readable by most Americans. There is no reason any bill should be 1,100 pages long and the vote should always be no. I'd advise people to take a look at legislation submitted by good people like Ron Paul. While there are a few he has submitted that are a few pages long, a lot of them are only a couple of paragraphs long. For example, he recently submitted a bill that states the federal government shall not force any individual to purchase health insurance. That one is maybe two short paragraphs. There are probably a lot of good reasons to vote no to a bill without reading it.

What concerns me is a vote of yes without having read to the bill. To vote yes on a bill they damned well better have read and understood the entire thing because otherwise they have basically written a blank check.

I would be willing to make an exception if a law-maker delegates authority to their constituents so that they will vote yes if the people of their jurisdiction want the law-maker to vote yes and vote no if the people of their jurisdiction want them to vote no. In fact that is the kind of law-maker I wouldn't mind having if they agreed to always do such a thing.

reply to post by schrodingers dog

'We're almost reaching a revolution in this country'...

well he is right about that

the politicos has lost their grip on reality to the point that the sheep are starting to have had enough

reply to post by schrodingers dog


SD, I have to agree with you, it is the politician's job to read a bill put in front of them.

No matter which party line they are on and no matter if the man or woman who wrote the bill is on the opposing party from Inhofe, it is his duty to read it, and then decide if he will vote yea or nay on it.

Anyone who cannot see that this is intelligent and mature decision making is missing the point entirely, and if it is regurgitated nonsense that was a part of a previous bill that got voted down, that's fine, but he made a detrimental comment which unfortunately became a very important sound byte for the media.

All politician's eventually do it, like Hillary did before Obama got elected :

Clinton Just Made The Most Politically Detrimental Statement About R.F.K., Assassination, and Obama?

For those who are sick of the politics as usual or this particular Administration, I suggest the thread below :

How To Overthrow Your Own Government, Legally and Without Violence, In Order To Survive

For those who would rather point fingers at the other side of the political aisle and be divisive, I suggest the thread below :

Political Blame Game Ideology : It's Your Fault

Really people, politics is about money and power, it always has been, and always will be.

Politician's have never given a crap about what their constituents want, ever.

Don't believe me? Read Bill's thread below :

"Damn The Country, Obama Must Fail"

We are taught as American's that a politician is voted into office based on what the constituents wants and which party supports that person, while in actuality it is a duplicitous game of two-faced double-speak where our politician's are bought and sold on a daily basis through legal bribery, called lobbying.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Call me crazy, but it's a hell of a lot different voting "no" to a Bill you didn't read, rather than voting "yes", especially one of such massive systemic significance.

Peace

For those of you claim he should be commended for adhering to what his constituents want; Is it really what they want or what they have been told they want?

I think it is a fairly safe bet that very few Americans that are opposed to this reform have even bothered to read the 1000 page document for themselves.

Rather, they have formed their opinions of it based upon the propaganda and misinformation that is spread via certain media conglomerates throughout the US.

Originally posted by Dr Love
Call me crazy, but it's a hell of a lot different voting "no" to a Bill you didn't read, rather than voting "yes", especially one of such massive systemic significance.

Peace

Don't Americans and for that matter humans throughout the world, deserve better than that? Or have we become so complacent and apathetic that as long as an elected official voted no on a bill they didn't even bother to read, it is good enough? These people are paid for by US taxpayers. If they are too lazy to read a document, then perhaps they should be seeking a different career choice.

Everyone else in the US gets up, goes to work and busts their asses just to put food on the table. So, too, should elected officials. Reading bills before they pass judgment shouldn't be too much to ask.

reply to post by astrij


I haven't been "told" to approve or disapprove of anything. As a matter of fact, it irritates me greatly when a politician tries to spoon feed me anything. I'm quite capable of dissimenating information on my own. I've read portions of this bill, and I can find no good in it.

If it makes any of you feel any better, our lone Democratic Rep., Dan Boren, has read it and he won't vote for it either.

Originally posted by astrij
I think it is a fairly safe bet that very few Americans that are opposed to this reform have even bothered to read the 1000 page document for themselves.

Its also a fairly safe bet that the overwhelming majority of Americans supporting this reform haven't bothered reading the full 1,000 page document for themselves, either. Not many people on either side are going to bother reading 1,000 pages of legislation.

That said, the standard is higher for the supporters. Those opposed merely need to point to one provision in the bill that is so outrageous to them that they could never support any of it, regardless of the remainder of the bill. At worst, their stance does not pile on new problems.

The supporters? Do you guys support every provision of a 1,000 page bill? You'd better, or else you're just creating another set of problems that could well turn out to be worse than what we already have.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by soldiermom

 

Because as Rockpuck said, I've unfortunately gotten used to all the idiots on the hill not doing their job. And a rep/sen not reading a bill is not unfortunately not news. We heard it from both parties during the bailout/tarp debacles. It's sad and it's cynical but there you have it.

But ...

I had never heard ANYONE say "I don't HAVE to read it" ... I never heard anyone show and proudly declare what I perceive as such contempt and arrogance towards those he is supposed to represent.

Like I said, if this guy Conyers or anyone else said such a thing he is equally incompetent and I'll say it. It really isn't a party thing with me.

So yes, I agree with you, such scrutiny should apply beyond party lines lest one IS a hypocrite.

Night soldier.

[edit on 28 Aug 2009 by schrodingers dog]

It is unfortunate that we've been forced to get used to the ineptitude that is Capitol Hill. But I still stand by my assertion that Sen. Inhofe knows what's in the bill. This isn't the first time it's been trotted out. Sure, there are probably a few new additions, but all in all, it's the same tired crud.

Give me health care reform that starts with tackling tort reform, and I'll be an Obama cheerleader. At least on that point.

Originally posted by soldiermom
reply to post by astrij

 

I haven't been "told" to approve or disapprove of anything. As a matter of fact, it irritates me greatly when a politician tries to spoon feed me anything. I'm quite capable of dissimenating information on my own. I've read portions of this bill, and I can find no good in it.

If it makes any of you feel any better, our lone Democratic Rep., Dan Boren, has read it and he won't vote for it either.

Then that is your right to argue against the bill and I can respect that. I have no intention of trying to turn this in to a left/right debate, either. I also respect the decision of Dan Boren to vote against the bill because he actually took the time to read it.

That is all I was really trying to say. These people are paid a lot of money and their salaries are paid for by American taxpayers. Whether they choose to vote nay on a bill or not, at least show some semblance of accountability to your constituents and read the bill before forming a decision.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Well after 8 months of consistent crap from the Obama Admin
maybe he just decided he could better use his time than to
read thru hundreds of pages of filler when he had pretty good
odds it was just more of the same.

I can't say I blame him at this point.

Also I am sure he spoke with other ppl that did read it that
he trusts enough to tell him what is in it.

And also as for reading bills, why don't you talk about how they
often offer bills at the last minute so they CANNOT read them.

Hypocrisy lives...on both sides of the debate.

I am not an Inhofe fan, but I'll take him over Barry Soetoro any day.

You just made my foes list dog.

You buy into the left - right paradigm, and I am done with that.



[edit on 28-8-2009 by Ex_MislTech]

"And also as for reading bills, why don't you talk about how they often offer bills at the last minute so they CANNOT read them."

This is a good point. They offer bills for senate perusal at the last minute which gives them very little time to form a legitimate decision.

Though we have also seen articles and videos on ATS showcasing elected representatives passing bills with hidden clauses and so forth without even bothering to sit down and read them first.

Perhaps those at the top know they can get away with this because very few senators are willing to look over what it is they are voting in favor of.




[edit on 28-8-2009 by astrij]

Originally posted by midnightbrigade
Doesn't matter if there IS something good in there, If my constituents don't want it, I wouldn't vote for it.

Exactly right. The job a politician faces, is being a voice for his/her constituents. Not necessarily what is best for him/herself.

It doesnt matter if he read it or not! he is there to SERVE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. As an elected official he can only suggest a vote in a certain direction but if he gets a majority of emails, calls or letters AGAINST it then the majority rules and he votes accordingly. Its OUR job to know whats in things and to push out congressmen to vote accordingly.

So yes if hes received a majority of feedback against it and plans to vote according to the will of the people, then bravo as well!

reply to post by j2000
I apologize that this is off topic, but....

J2000,

It is so refreshing and new to hear a good American such as yourself bad mouthing trial attorneys. You are so right, they are all evil and trying to destroy America!

If you have such a problem with lawyers and the legal system, get off your *ss, ahem, I mean computer, and go to law school. Blaming attorneys is a tried and true way of garnering support for your claims (ask Shakespeare), but is a very lazy way of thinking. The motto of this site is deny ignorance, but laying blame at the feet of entire profession is beyond ignorant. Especially when it is a fact that the vast majority of the founding father of this nation, that you are so quick to quote, practiced that very profession.

Your avatar holds a sign reading "Revolution," but if you were to better understand history, you would know that the overwhelming majority of modern revolutions were led by lawyers. The first thing a tyrant does is lock away the lawyers (Pakistan a couple years back may ring some bells), and without lawyers your right to free speech, which allows you to post nonsense propaganda on a daily basis, would be greatly infringed. Next time, just say thank you!

*edit for spelling*

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Artephius Abraxas Helios]