Posted by moy23 on 11/6/2014 11:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/6/2014 10:42:00 AM (view original):
Hoping to "stick it to Obama" isn't a worthy goal.   It's part of the problem. 

Agree... But WASTING 5 years working on some 380 bills that never get to Obamas desk for political gain is a bigger part of the problem. Time to make the man either stick up for what 'he' believes and veto or allow good laws, popular with 'the people', to pass.

The dream act is pretty popular with the people.

2/3 of the country wanted health care reform.

Student loan reform is pretty popular.

etc. etc. etc.

Posted by moy23 on 11/6/2014 12:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/6/2014 11:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/6/2014 11:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/6/2014 10:42:00 AM (view original):
Hoping to "stick it to Obama" isn't a worthy goal.   It's part of the problem. 

Agree... But WASTING 5 years working on some 380 bills that never get to Obamas desk for political gain is a bigger part of the problem. Time to make the man either stick up for what 'he' believes and veto or allow good laws, popular with 'the people', to pass.

The dream act is pretty popular with the people.

2/3 of the country wanted health care reform.

Student loan reform is pretty popular.

etc. etc. etc.

Good. If they can reduce the costs to government while helping Americans they should be on his desk ready for him to sign.

Since when is reducing costs a requirement?

I understand that, when done correctly, cutting costs is a good idea, but many good pieces of legislation, popular with 'the people' (again, what's up with the single quotation marks, you know those aren't being used correctly, right?) don't reduce costs.

Posted by moy23 on 11/6/2014 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/6/2014 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/6/2014 12:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/6/2014 11:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/6/2014 11:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/6/2014 10:42:00 AM (view original):
Hoping to "stick it to Obama" isn't a worthy goal.   It's part of the problem. 

Agree... But WASTING 5 years working on some 380 bills that never get to Obamas desk for political gain is a bigger part of the problem. Time to make the man either stick up for what 'he' believes and veto or allow good laws, popular with 'the people', to pass.

The dream act is pretty popular with the people.

2/3 of the country wanted health care reform.

Student loan reform is pretty popular.

etc. etc. etc.

Good. If they can reduce the costs to government while helping Americans they should be on his desk ready for him to sign.

Since when is reducing costs a requirement?

I understand that, when done correctly, cutting costs is a good idea, but many good pieces of legislation, popular with 'the people' (again, what's up with the single quotation marks, you know those aren't being used correctly, right?) don't reduce costs.

Since we are hemorrhaging debt it is probably prudent to keep an eye on costs, wouldn't you say so?

If its a costly bill then 'now' might not be the best time to put it in place. Why rush?

Like I said, cutting costs is a good idea when done correctly. But a lot of good laws, popular with the people, aren't designed to cut costs.

Sure, Mr. Guy-who-suggested-it-is-"time-to-make-the-man-...allow-good-laws-popular-with-the people-to-pass".

I guess there is no rush to stop wasting time and pass the laws that it is time to pass...???

Posted by moy23 on 11/6/2014 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/6/2014 2:02:00 PM (view original):
Sure, Mr. Guy-who-suggested-it-is-"time-to-make-the-man-...allow-good-laws-popular-with-the people-to-pass".

I guess there is no rush to stop wasting time and pass the laws that it is time to pass...???

I just provided a good example with the keystone bill which is popular (61% approve), creates 42,000 jobs, $20 billion in revenue, and cost $0 to US tax payers.

There are 350 house approved bills, most of those bipartisan (including some 50 initiated by democrats), that have not been voted on by a Harry Reid senate. I didn't say get them all passed.... But there are a lot of bipartisan bills, popular with the people, that make fiscal sense that should be on Obamas desk.

Fiscal sense doesn't always mean reduced costs. The stimulus package of 2009 made fiscal sense.

And, to be fair, 290 of those 350 are bills to repeal obamacare. And the ones initiated by Democrats were all filibustered in the Senate.

I don't know that "popular with the people" is a good reason to pass legislation.  "The people" are largely, in your words, "low information voters."   Pretty sure that means they're dumbasses. 

Posted by bad_luck on 11/6/2014 2:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/6/2014 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/6/2014 2:02:00 PM (view original):
Sure, Mr. Guy-who-suggested-it-is-"time-to-make-the-man-...allow-good-laws-popular-with-the people-to-pass".

I guess there is no rush to stop wasting time and pass the laws that it is time to pass...???

I just provided a good example with the keystone bill which is popular (61% approve), creates 42,000 jobs, $20 billion in revenue, and cost $0 to US tax payers.

There are 350 house approved bills, most of those bipartisan (including some 50 initiated by democrats), that have not been voted on by a Harry Reid senate. I didn't say get them all passed.... But there are a lot of bipartisan bills, popular with the people, that make fiscal sense that should be on Obamas desk.

Fiscal sense doesn't always mean reduced costs. The stimulus package of 2009 made fiscal sense.

And, to be fair, 290 of those 350 are bills to repeal obamacare. And the ones initiated by Democrats were all filibustered in the Senate.

  Why did the democrats filibuster their own bills?  Just curious.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/6/2014 2:49:00 PM (view original):
I don't know that "popular with the people" is a good reason to pass legislation.  "The people" are largely, in your words, "low information voters."   Pretty sure that means they're dumbasses. 

Tru dat.

"People," in general, are ******* idiots.

Are you one of the smart people?

"Free Ice Cream Thursdays" would be very popular with the people.   Not sure we need a law that doles out free ice cream on Thursdays.