While you're all outraged about the bailout...
 

...Congress is weighing the merits of the "GIVE Act." Google it.

Then tell yourself that everything is going to be okay.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h2857/show

See if you can find the horrible badfun part. And no, I don't mean all the "priorities for leadership shall be given to disadvantaged youth" bits. No, there's something REALLY funny in there. Give it a read.

ACORN's got to get it's piece of the pie somehow.

I'm feeling lazy. Why not just point it out, so we can be immediately amused, as you say.

Screw you, hippie. If you want first rate horror/mirth, you're going to have to work for it. You know, actually READ the damn thing.

But what the hell. It's only your future.

TGRR, are you a medium height white guy, medium weight, with brown hair and hazel eyes? If so, I want you. Srsly, I am consumed with lust right now, no joke.

Naw. The whole bill isn't shown. Now take a look at the full text:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...sel=TOC_64232&

Are your annoyed by this... uh, these... bailout(s).
Then don't click on this link.
Seriously, don't do it.
Don't even think about reading this Rolling Stone article.
At least without taking your blood pressure and anti-depression meds.
You don't even want to know about;or Believe me, you don't want to know. :headshake

Well so much for Redux's trumpeting of transparency.

Transparency is relative, dont you think?

There is more transparency in the ERRA (Obama's stimulus bill) than the EESA (Bush's bank bail-out bill)

There is more transparency in Congress now as a result of the Democrats ethics/lobbying reform in 07 than previously existed.

There is more transparency in the executive branch now than existed in the Bush administration as a result of Obama's FOIA guidelines

My opinion would be:

Quite.

False. Not the way it was ram-rodded through the Congress.

False. There are just as many behind the closed door deals with Pelosi and Reid.

That remains to be seen.

I consider this provision in ARRA, among several provisions that require greater oversight and reporting on the use of stimulus funds, to provide some level of transparency and accountability:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus bill) included several provisions to strengthen executive compensation restrictions on recipients of financial assistance from the U.S. Treasury, such as:

* Restricting bonuses for executives that take excessive risks that threaten the company's value;

* Prohibiting any golden parachutes for up to the top 10 senior executives of a company;

* Prohibiting compensation practices that encourage earnings manipulation, or "cooking of the books";

* Restricting all bonuses for most senior executives, with the number of those covered varying on the basis of the amount of assistance received, certifying compliance with these requirements,

* Instituting a company-wide policy on luxury expenses; and

* Allowing for shareholders to vote on approval of executive compensation packages.

IMO, that, along with provisions requiring on oversight board and provisions requiring whistleblower protection provides some level of transparency and accountability.

Obviously, you dont agree but that doesnt make it false.

I consider the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 to provide greater transparency in the legislative process than previously existed.

Obviously, you dont agree and that doesnt make this one false either.

Yep....but there is no doubt that the Obama FOIA guidelines represents a reversal and far more transparent to start with than the Bush FOIA guidelines.

Attorney General Eric Holder issued comprehensive new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) guidelines today that direct all executive branch departments and agencies to apply a presumption of openness when administering the FOIA....
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-ag-253.html

As I said, none of these are perfect nor go far enough, IMO ...but its hard to make a case that there is not more transparency than existed under Bush and the Republican Congress.

BUt suit yourself.

Exactly how does one know what one isn't seeing? How can you determine the transparency if things are not known?

As I said, transparency is relative.

And, IMO, the examples I cited above provide some greater level of accountability that could or should result in more transparency.

Would you prefer that the compensation restrictions/oversight panel/whistleblower protection provisions cited NOt be included in the stimulus bill (as they werent in the banking bailout bill that Bush would not have signed if such provisions were included) or that new, more open FOIA guidelines NOT be issued, or new ethics/lobbying requirements NOT be adopted by Congress?

We can either continue under the old ways or adopted policies and include provisions in legislation that MAY make a difference.

And as I further said....none of these are perfect nor go far enough for me.....but IMO, are certainly better than the recent past.

none of these are perfect nor go far enough for me.....but MAY be better ... we'll see... maybe

But there is actually no proff that they will.

Nor does it really prove your point. There is no proof that this will change things. We already have numerous examples of Pelosi and Reid ramrodding legislation and keeping details of impending bills secret to the last minute before voting. That dog won't hunt.

To Do My Part - Read This:

First I was afraid
I was petrified
Kept thinking I could never live
without you by my side
But I spent so many nights
thinking how you did me wrong
I grew strong
I learned how to carry on
and so you're back
from outer space
I just walked in to find you here
with that sad look upon your face
I should have changed my stupid lock
I should have made you leave your key
If I had known for just one second
you'd be back to bother me

Go on now go walk out the door
just turn around now
'cause you're not welcome anymore
weren't you the one who tried to hurt me with goodbye
you think I'd crumble
you think I'd lay down and die
Oh no, not I
I will survive
as long as i know how to love
I know I will stay alive
I've got all my life to live
I've got all my love to give
and I'll survive
I will survive

It took all the strength I had
not to fall apart
kept trying hard to mend
the pieces of my broken heart
and I spent oh so many nights
just feeling sorry for myself
I used to cry
Now I hold my head up high
and you see me
somebody new
I'm not that chained up little person
still in love with you
and so you felt like dropping in
and just expect me to be free
now I'm saving all my loving
for someone who's loving me

We do? Some examples of secrecy, please?

If true, then Congress is still doing what did not happen until wacko extremists started doing some 12 years ago.

Whether these bills finally bring responsibility back to America has yet to be seen. But what we do know is the agenda is not to work for America - not for a wacko extremist agenda that - well George Jr signed more than twice as many secret findings as all other presidents combined. This was called transparency to wacko extremists. We now has the secrecy and extremist perversion that is slowly being eliminated. If Pelosi and Reid are ramrodding, then wacko extremist Republicans were raping. Finally, even science is being encouraged again. May we never again see another Terry Schiavo incident because wacko extremists had power.

While you're all outraged about the ball out ...
 

Balls.

Flint - you are looking oooollllllddddd brother - looks like you need a vacation :right:

Mommy, Billy did it - why can't I?? What kind of excuse it that?

Uh, I think you got a typo in there?!?!?! Freudian slip perhaps?

So that makes it ok? Uh, no.

I don't think it would be such a bad thing to require young adults to serve, in some capacity, for a couple of years. It might actually instill some good qualities, instead of laziness and greed.

The federal government is not empowered to compel any service beyond the military.

Does that apply to prisoners who are required to work in near-sweatshop conditions? Seems to me they are being compelled to do so by the government, or in the case of privately run prisons, by the government's proxy.

Mind you, I reckon it probably does 'em some good. Just askin, thats all.

Nope. Those citizens have been convicted in a court of law. Apples and oranges.

Why?

Because that's the only compulsory service the constitution authorizes, and amendment X forbids them from doing anything they are not specifically empowered to do.

Why?

:)

Pelosi to ramrod 634 billion dollar funding through House for funding for health care over 10 years.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=worldwide

Transparency. Not.

Amazing! Requiring only 51 votes to pass? It's like we're living ten years in the past!

You're right! With the even less tranparency than under Bush!

How do filibusters affect transparency?

What filibuster?

The filibuster that would have otherwise caused it to take 60 votes.

Laws are supposed to take 51 votes to pass. It's only the ridiculous overuse of the filibuster that has made 60 votes a de facto requirement.

Not for things that cost 600 billion dollars and radically change the way business is done in this country.

Your opinion.

There is no transparency issue.

Obama's 2010 budget proposal, which includes the health care reform initiative, has been on the WH website since he sent it to Congress several weeks ago.

The budget proposal is being debated in various committees in both the House and Senate and the Republicans are not excluded from the debate nor from offering amendments.

The Democrats are considering using a parliamentary procedure that was used by Republicans in the past to prevent the Senate from forcing a 60 vote threshold.

It may not represent "change" but the hypocrisy is the Republicans bitching about a procedure they used themselves (mostly notably to get Bush's tax cuts enacted)

Cite.

The budget proposal does not "ramrod 634 billion dollar funding through House for funding for health care over 10 years."

It proposes a $650b reserve fund over 10 years (half through anticipated savings in the outyears) and both the House and Senate have seen the proposal, will debate it and have opportunities to offer amendments.

So where is the ramrod?

It was termed "the nuclear option" and they used it on Republican judicial nominees, but not on the tax cuts.

Nope...its not the same thing as the so called "nuclear option"

The Republicans in 2003 used the "reconciliation" procedure to avoid the 60 vote threshold.

This appears to be true. What's the difference?

There is no doubt about it. This is how you ramrod legislation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031703798.html

"Reconciliation" is a parliamentary procedure in the House and Senate rules, primarily used to get quick passage of a budget when necessary to keep the govt running....its been used (abused?) by most recent Congresses at one point or another for other purposes.
The "nuclear option" is not a rule or procedure, but was a way to fudge the Senate rules by having a simple majority (51) agree to change the Senate rules regarding approval of judicial nominees.

If any of that makes sense...lol.

So you don't agree with Sen. Lincoln and you support the Democrats abuse of it in this care to pass legislation that "is likely to influence nearly every feature of the U.S. economy"?

In the same manner that the Bush tax cuts amounting to over $1.5 trillion were "ramrodded" through with this procedure?

In fact, I agree with Lincoln to some extent (I think even Robert Byrd opposes using the procedure) that it is not the best way to proceed.....but at the same time, the filibuster/cloture vote procedure should not be used (abused) as much as the Republicans have since 2007..far more often than the minority party in any time in recent history.

But over here you state:
When in fact there is a huge transparency issue when debate is stiffled and limited options are available for any elected official to influence what the US public will ultimately pay for. And yet you bitch that they are only doing what the Republicans did for tax breaks? Double Standard much?

The budget proposal has been publicly available for weeks...debate is not stifled....hearings are being held...amendments in committee and the floor of the Senate are allowed.... it is not done in secret.

The procedure just allows for a simple majority rather than a super majority.

There is no transparency issue.

I said I dont think it is the best way to proceed...but it may be the last way to proceed if the Repubs are not willing to negotiate.

The "double standard" applies both ways.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

If it's not transparent, how do you, and I, and every media outlet know about it?
If you don't like the way they're doing it just say so, but stop lying about transparency.

Why would you consider it "lying"? When the hell does my assessment of what they are doing become a lie to you? I think it is pretty obvious my feelings otherwise, so why do you call it a lie?

Because you're lying about the process not being transparent. You may not like it but it is transparent. Everybody and their fucking brother knows what is going on, and you can't get more transparent than that.

Your charaterization is bull shit.

I honestly just cant see how any objective person can characterize the threat of the Dems to use the "reconciliation" procedure as an issue of transparency.

The budget deliberation process since Obama sent his budget proposal to Congress two weeks ago has been completely transparent by any meaning of the word. To suggest otherwise is what is bullshit.

IMO, the Dems are using the procedure as a bargaining chip.

Its clear that the Dems intend is to begin the process of enacting serious health care reform in this session of Congress. If the Repubs want to play ball and participate in the process, they can.....much like the deliberations on the stimulus bill.

According to the latest report I read, the crafting of the legislative health care reform proposal will take place over the course of the next six months:
But if like the stimulus bill, all they want to do is bitch and whine and walk away from the table because they dont get everything or even most of what they want in a health care reform package, then the Dems are not going to let them block it with a Senate filibuster.

The Republicans are the minority....everyone understand what that means but them.

They had their chance to take the lead on health care reform for six years and did nothing.

No, your accusations are. If they weren't being transparent, they'd be covering this up. They aren't. They're just strong-arming the minority party. Don't like it? Win an election.

Get used to it. You have at least 20 more months of it.

Because it isn't true.

It's about time the damn dems figured it out. I thought those morons would NEVER catch on.

Now I'm gonna put some popcorn on and watch the GOP howl on CSPAN.