Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Fox]

This statement is both disgusting and refreshing:

[Fox]

And as a nice complement to that, here's Michael Steel, sounding confused as usual. I really don't think Steve Inskeep was being unfair to him at all; overall I find him to be fairly generous and unbiased in his interview methods.

Perhaps if Republicans didn't decide to adopt entirely self-contradictory stances (like being against government-run health care and being for medicare), they wouldn't have such a hard time with interviewers like Mr. Inskeep. In fact, I would dare say that the fact that Republicans feel the need to take such self-contradictory stances in order to remain politically viable says a lot.

[shifter2009]

[Fox]

[RufusW]

[ontheway]

Actually, you would find if you interviewed the entire US House, Senate and the President, that not one member has read or will read the entire 1000 page bill - let alone taken the time to contemplate what is actually written.

Some years ago there was a man who earned his 15 minutes of fame, appearing on numerous news shows and talk shows because he was the ONLY person to have read the entire US budget for a single year in at least 3 decades. And no one has done it since.


One reason for the perverse outcomes of the US Government is that it is humanly impossible for anyone to even read a thorough synopsis of the legislation that is passed each year and shoved down the peoples' throats.

Government of this size must always lead to chaos, disorder, perverse outcomes and eventual destruction. Chaos theory and probablility over time guarantees the failure of such massive institutions whether operated under a democratic system, a committee system, or an authoritarian system.

[RufusW]

Maybe size is a problem, but it's a lot easier - and logical - to ascribe the faults to corporate capture of the democratic system. Are Senators voting in the interest of their constituents, or in the interest of their donations? It's very simple really...

[ontheway]

[Fox]

It's not humanly impossible to read an 1100 page bill, especially if it's part of one's duty. It's not humanly impossible to read budgets either. Senators simply choose not to do it, because there's little incentive for them to spend time on it as opposed to other, more profitable things. Yeah, it would be hard to buckle down and read through all that legislation, and boring too.

This fellow's hardly the first senator to admit to not having read this bill (though he might be the first to admit he's never going to read it and that his vote is 100% unrelated to its contents). People need to demand better than this, even if it means the rate at which legislation occurs is slowed. I'd rather wait for quality than have quanitity shoved down our throats. If that means only the Federal Budget and a handful of other bills pass each year, so be it. Better than having Senators essentially just voting on the mystery box.