People on the Hill say lots of things they don't believe.

Post #312,779 by Another Scott 8/19/09 2:00:28 PM Reply	People on the Hill say lots of things they don't believe. You have people on the hill saying they won't read it because its too long...nice position for people working on what is being called the most important debate in the history of our government. Don't confuse what politicians say with what they actually believe. No, I don't think the bill is too big or too complex, compared even compared to big pieces of legislation - e.g. the legislation for Medicare Part D (PL 108Â173) is 416 pages. The committees have been working on it for months - interested members have had plenty of time to acquaint themselves with it. Most of it is boiler-plate. Important parts are handled by the respective committees and the member's staff's job is to keep track of whats in the various sections. You know all of this, I'm sure. Sure, legislators should read the bills the vote on. But they don't, by and large. That's not why the Republicans are against the bill, though. It's just a convenient talking point. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #312,782 by beepster 8/19/09 2:51:37 PM Reply	That's pretty basic And lets not focus on why Republicans are against the bill. If you want, lets focus on why DEMOCRATS are against the bill..or maybe on my point of why rational people are wary and possibly against current versions...so we can actually discuss something. Y'all are using this "bepatient quotes talking points" to dismiss valid issues and change it to a R v D issue. As I stated before...what Republicans do or say DOESN'T MATTER. They have no power here. Democrats can succeed without a single Republican vote. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #312,785 by drook 8/19/09 3:16:17 PM Reply	I'm having a vision ... Someone convinces Obama to strong-arm the Democratic Senators to pass ... something. A few months later primary season starts. Republicans point to the 60/40 passage of the health care bill and say, "After all their talk of change and bipartisanship, Democrats rammed through a proposal without listening to what Real Americans™ had to say." Democrats lose three seats in the Senate. Yeah, you're right. Republicans have no power here. -- Drew
Post #312,787 by boxley 8/19/09 4:13:09 PM Reply	you expected something different? If not in power you are the power of no
Post #312,788 by beepster 8/19/09 4:15:17 PM Reply	Your point being? If this is so good and necessary(and well done), then the democrats should be hailed as "visionary leaders" and will win even more seats. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #312,789 by boxley 8/19/09 4:29:54 PM Reply	naw, then he would have to admit that the huge democratic majority in this country isnt
Post #312,801 by drook 8/19/09 6:16:59 PM Reply	Republicans have mastered the Big Lie They will keep describing the evil intent, the poor execution, the failed initiatives of the Democrats, whether they exist or not. Since the beginning of this administration, they have been determined shoot down anything the Democrats want, no matter how popular it is. Then just keep lying about what it really was. And yes, the "death panel" bullshit is a perfect example. They supported the substance of it last year, now suddenly it's evidence of evil. -- Drew
Post #312,786 by Another Scott 8/19/09 4:00:08 PM Reply	Why? And lets not focus on why Republicans are against the bill. If you want, lets focus on why DEMOCRATS are against the bill..or maybe on my point of why rational people are wary and possibly against current versions...so we can actually discuss something. Most Democrats are in favor of a strong public option. Seniority and chairmanship rules in the Senate give a lot of power to those who, in this case, have more "conservative" views. In particular, those making up the Senate Finance Committee are not representative of the body as a whole. As Nate Silver of 538 pointed out, it's easier to find 50 on the floor than 12 in the Committee - http://www.fivethirt...-option-have.html. (I'm not as pessimistic as him, myself.) Why focus on the noisy outliers? Should we be talking about Sen. Sanders or Rep. Kucinich? If you want to talk about the substance, why cite an OpEd that talks about style? Why not start the thread with a quote from "rational people" who are against the bill(s)? Baum is an OpEd writer. Her job is to get people riled up and generate hits. You helped her earn her paycheck. ;-) HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #312,791 by beepster 8/19/09 4:31:21 PM Reply	Re: Why? see the response to Drew. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #312,954 by Another Scott 8/22/09 12:30:58 AM Reply	More on pages... http://www.slate.com/id/2225820/ [...] Over the last several decades, the number of bills passed by Congress has declined: In 1948, Congress passed 906 bills. In 2006, it passed only 482. At the same time, the total number of pages of legislation has gone up from slightly more than 2,000 pages in 1948 to more than 7,000 pages in 2006. (The average bill length increased over the same period from 2.5 pages to 15.2 pages.) Bills are getting longer because they're getting harder to pass. Increased partisanship over the years has meant that the minority party is willing to do anything it can to block legislationÂadding amendments, filibustering, or otherwise stalling the lawmaking process. As a result, the majority party feels the need to pack as much meat into a bill as it canÂotherwise, the provisions might never get through. Another factor is that the federal government keeps expanding. Federal spending was about $2.7 trillion in 2007. That's up from $92 billion 50 years ago. And as new legislation is introduced, past laws need to be updated. The result: more pages. Bonus Explainer: Do members of Congress actually read legislation? It depends. If a lawmaker is a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, say, chances are he'll read allÂor, at least, mostÂof a climate bill. But he probably would not read every last word of an education bill. Instead, he'd just read the parts that he considers importantÂperhaps because they're controversial. Furthermore, since bills often read like bureaucratic gibberish, lawmakers hire aides with various policy specialties to study the legislation in depth and summarize it. (The job of actually converting the policy ideas into legislative language goes to the nonpartisan Office of the Legislative Counsel.) So when a lawmaker "reads" a bill, it's usually a combination of glossing summaries of the less important stuff and, when necessary, poring over the actual text to understand the more crucial bits. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!