This is Tolstoy's "War and Peace". It is over 1,300 pages long. Would you write a book review on it without reading it? Of course not. (It took me months to read it.)
The "Stimulus Bill" is over 1,000 pages long. Considering the amount of money involved, would you vote on it without reading it? Of course not.
How many senators and representatives do you think have actually read it? If you answered "none", you would be correct.
Think about that the next time you hear someone (like President Obama) say the bill must be passed urgently.
6 comments:
You know, the USA PATRIOT Act was the EXACT same thing: super long, no one read it, the President said it needed to be passed urgently, etc. Thoughts?
Also, this goes both ways: how can the Republicans say it is bad if none of them actually read it?
Bryan,
After 9-11, something had to be done, such as eliminating the Wall that existed on the flow of info between the FBI and CIA and other intelligence agencies. That was a big part of the Patriot Act
As for this bill, if you consider almost a trillion dollars going to mostly pork, earmarks and money for govt., yeah, I think we need to slow down and read this thing. We are going to pay for it and our grandchildren are going to pay for it.
One day, you will realize that govt will never create wealth. What creates wealth is us-the American people, corporations (that are so demonized) and our own ingenuity.
Funny thing is, all the Republicans had to do is read a few of the items on the list to know that there was something vastly wrong with this.
No earmarks? Then just how did $8 billion for a railway in Nevada get added last night?
How about getting a bill at 11PM and it still having hand written notes in it?
I would argue the Patriot Act as well, if the same things were happening. If there was such objection to its contents, it could have been revised into two parts- one with the elimination of walls between FBI and CIA followed by the rest later.
As it is, the two are vastly different.
But Gary, with this financial crisis that we're facing, something has to be done! (Your logic, used against you.)
I'm sorry, but that sort of reasoning is absurd. Yeah, let's do "something". Never mind what it is, let's just make sure that it's "something". Next time there's a terrorist attack, let's all walk around flapping our arms in an attempt to fly so we can communicate with angels and get them to help us. After all, we have to do SOMETHING!
And Bryan doesn't seem to be defending those who passed the stimulus - and neither am I. The point is, you're engaging in some serious doublethink if you can defend people not reading the PATRIOT Act but somehow have a problem with them not reading the stimulus package.
Can't we just agree that if you're going to sign your name to ANYTHING, you should read the damn thing first?
Lance,
After 9-11, we did do something. We invaded Afghanistan and drove the Taliban from power. We set up gitmo. We started listening in on the terrorists phone calls when they called the us. We went after their finances. Of course, Bush never gets any creds for that.
Yes, we should agree that before signing anything, we should read it. (Like lending contracts for example)
After 9-11, we did do something. We invaded Afghanistan and drove the Taliban from power. We set up gitmo. We started listening in on the terrorists phone calls when they called the us. We went after their finances. Of course, Bush never gets any creds for that.
Taliban from power, eh? Sorta. That's hardly an accurate portrayal of what happened.
I'd be more impressed if instead of dragging us into Iraq, they would have focused on capturing Bin Laden.
But all that's besides the point. You can use the same logic of "doing something" for both situations - and in both cases, it doesn't work.
Post a Comment