It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Limiting the length of new bills in congress to 10 pages or less in 10 point font or larger.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
A bill should be short and to the point.
They hide so much pork in those bills that none of the congress read them anymore than you read the terms and conditions before you click 'agree'.

Obamacare was over 2000 pages long and we know that nightmare that was.

We could make it an object lesson, create a lengthy bill and hide in it that all politicians and government workers will allow themselves to be tracked and recorded 24/7 on websites that can be accessed 24/7 by any taxpayer.

This was just an example but if we put something into a lengthy bill that the politicians truely hate we can pass the 10 page or less bill




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by VforVendettea
A bill should be short and to the point.
They hide so much pork in those bills that none of the congress read them anymore than you read the terms and conditions before you click 'agree'.

Obamacare was over 2000 pages long and we know that nightmare that was.

We could make it an object lesson, create a lengthy bill and hide in it that all politicians and government workers will allow themselves to be tracked and recorded 24/7 on websites that can be accessed 24/7 by any taxpayer.

This was just an example but if we put something into a lengthy bill that the politicians truely hate we can pass the 10 page or less bill


A bill should be, straight to the point.... the length really doesn't matter. Sure, it might suck to read a 2000 page bill. Yet, this is their job!

It's a complex world, with many implications set forth when a bill is passed. There are seemingly an infinite amount of interpretations, contrary to any efforts to avoid this. If the length of a bill must be 1000+ pages, it usually reflects the complexity of what is being addressed. If it takes a 1000+ page bill to get the job done, then that's what it takes. There's no playing some escapist card, suggesting that... "Oh, it's just too much to read!"... get outta here! Do your job!



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I agree. I also think that there should be a monetary limit on any pork attached to a bill.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017

Originally posted by VforVendettea
A bill should be short and to the point.
They hide so much pork in those bills that none of the congress read them anymore than you read the terms and conditions before you click 'agree'.

Obamacare was over 2000 pages long and we know that nightmare that was.

We could make it an object lesson, create a lengthy bill and hide in it that all politicians and government workers will allow themselves to be tracked and recorded 24/7 on websites that can be accessed 24/7 by any taxpayer.

This was just an example but if we put something into a lengthy bill that the politicians truely hate we can pass the 10 page or less bill


A bill should be, straight to the point.... the length really doesn't matter. Sure, it might suck to read a 2000 page bill. Yet, this is their job!

It's a complex world, with many implications set forth when a bill is passed. There are seemingly an infinite amount of interpretations, contrary to any efforts to avoid this. If the length of a bill must be 1000+ pages, it usually reflects the complexity of what is being addressed. If it takes a 1000+ page bill to get the job done, then that's what it takes. There's no playing some escapist card, suggesting that... "Oh, it's just too much to read!"... get outta here! Do your job!


I totally agree! You might get the abstract in few words, but usually a bill, especially something complex like "obamacare" can't fit on 10 pages.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by VforVendettea
 


I don't understand why people are afraid of details...why would people rather have short bills with no specifics???

2000 pages isn't a lot to read when your entire job is to read bills...2000 pages isn't a lot to read for anyone who is interested in it.

I really don't understand why people have this fear of long bills.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Because of all the,loopholes, pork and pet projects they sontinue to slip in them.
Short bill, get it passed add on the other junk later bit by bit.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by VforVendettea
 


Wait, wait, wait.........How are they supposed to hide stuff in a bill if they are this limited??

How can you hide a point on page 9,452??

Maybe they have to ACTUALLY read them now!! Wow would that be nice!!

I still think each bill should be published to each citizen and voted upon by the people!!

This would make the stupid bills they come up with either denied or agreed upon by their boss!! WE THE PEOPLE!!!

I pay their salary, I pay their vacations, I pay their benefits, I pay the price for the stupid bills passed.....SO.....

I WANT A SAY IN IT!!!!



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by VforVendettea
A bill should be short and to the point.
They hide so much pork in those bills that none of the congress read them anymore than you read the terms and conditions before you click 'agree'.

Obamacare was over 2000 pages long and we know that nightmare that was.

We could make it an object lesson, create a lengthy bill and hide in it that all politicians and government workers will allow themselves to be tracked and recorded 24/7 on websites that can be accessed 24/7 by any taxpayer.

This was just an example but if we put something into a lengthy bill that the politicians truely hate we can pass the 10 page or less bill


Each bill should only address one outstanding issue. The problem I have is they're purposefully laden with issues not even tangentially related to the thrust of the bill. They're buried within and never see the light of day unless they're game changers for the other side. In which case, a rep needs to either vote against his conscience or vote against an issue they know needs to be addressed. Then one side points a finger stating that the other side is against something, when the truth of the matter is they were against something within the bill that wasn't the thrust of the bill. It's a rotten game and both sides play it.

We pay these people enough to require them to be there and vote. If they want to keep the system the same, they need to be able to vote on each and every outstanding issue in a bill and then reconstitute it with the changes, eliminating the items that were voted down. This is why nothing gets done or we get stuck with garbage.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I don't believe it is the length of the bill that should matter. I do however think that there should be restrictions on the things that get amended onto them. All amendments to a bill should be directly related to the topic the bill itself covers. No more of this adding stuff that wouldn't stand a chance of passing on it's own.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Line item voting and line item veto power. It is the only way to eliminate the pork and hidden agendas.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
The reason bills are so long is they are written by lawyers. We have to stop electing lawyers and start electing men who have sweat on their brow and calluses on their hands.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
The reason bills are so long is they are written by lawyers. We have to stop electing lawyers and start electing men who have sweat on their brow and calluses on their hands.


There was the first 13th ammendment that addressed this very thing, then the Civil war happened, (TPTB) destroyed all copies of it that they could find and slipped in a different 13th.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 


Lawyers are the only ones interested in laws, they're perfect for the job of politician. Sure, many an American can yell and scream and accuse and rebut on any number of political topics but when it comes down to writing laws there's very little they can do. Especially when that law is going to affect 310+ million people and the trillions of dollars in the economy.

The PPACA was long because it had to be. It was never meant to be short and simple and do one or two things, it was meant to effect the country in a very specific manner with specific goals laid out. It's not so simple to say, "everyone gets health care." You have to determine who needs it, who it will affect, how's it going to be paid for, which government agency will be in charge, which new executive positions will have to be created, what the reporting to congress will be like, how it will affect existing laws, and on and on and on.

You want simplicity in a complicated world.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by VforVendettea
 


I don't understand why people are afraid of details...why would people rather have short bills with no specifics???

2000 pages isn't a lot to read when your entire job is to read bills...2000 pages isn't a lot to read for anyone who is interested in it.

I really don't understand why people have this fear of long bills.


It wouldn't be a problem if those in DC actually read the bills in their entirety before voting on them. Far too often, however, we see a "No Child Left Behind Act" or an "Affordable Health Care Act" which ends up becoming entirely a partisan debate without either side ever bothering to fully read the bill and understand what they are arguing over. I think the fear isn't of long bills, but rather the past performance knowledge that our representatives won't "waste" their time reading anything longer than a Dick & Jane book.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by groingrinder
 


You want simplicity in a complicated world.


I am saying that 500 lawyers in the Capitol over complicates even a simple bill. If we wanted to make health care more affordable, we do not need to throw more govt. money at doctors and hospitals. All we need to do is put price caps on procedures and stop the fraud that doctors are perpetuating against the Medicare/Medicaid system.


edit on 8-20-2012 by groingrinder because: Edited for grammar and spelling.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 


That fraud is getting worse, tests that aren't being needed are being done to support the medical industry. It is what the doctor writes and his interpretation of what is written down on their paperwork that is important to them. There is no evidence of your symptoms other than the doctors writings and the nurses original BP and Heartrate testing. Is what they record what you tell them or what they are perceiving you are saying. People think they screw up when at the doctor office because they are sick and rarely challenge the tests prescribed thinking they are necessary and pertinant. Sometimes they are but other times they are not. Many times they are done to support the workers in the health care system. We have got too dependant on the jobs created in the healthcare system to sustain our economy, that's wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join