Is This REALLY How Government is Supposed to Work???

I still don't understand the problem. It is still just a PLAN, that has to be APPROVED by Congress. If it is a bad PLAN, it will not be APPROVED.

Originally posted by Major
The process is extremely important here. If you build a framework to start from, then everything Congress suggests are likely to be modifications to that framework. If the framework is fundamentally flawed (which its likely to be without good information), then the final proposal is going to be a bad idea with a bunch of bandaid solutions to improve it. You're supposed to get the best information at ALL levels, not only at the "fix it up" level.

So why can't someone else propose a BETTER plan? Is anyone stopping that from occurring? Are you saying Congress can't say "you didn't have enough input from other parties for this proposal, so we will not approve it, and we encourage anyone else to come up with a different one"? Are you saying that can't happen?

 

When that whistleblowers' memo came into the spotlight.... a sudden urgency came about to set a course of improvement.

Mountain out of a molehill.

 

I still don't understand the problem. It is still just a PLAN, that has to be APPROVED by Congress. If it is a bad PLAN, it will not be APPROVED.

Maybe, maybe not. Bad things get approved all the time if an adminstration pushes it enough. If they get Republicans on board just to look good, who knows what can happen.

So why can't someone else propose a BETTER plan? Is anyone stopping that from occurring? Are you saying Congress can't say "you didn't have enough input from other parties for this proposal, so we will not approve it, and we encourage anyone else to come up with a different one"? Are you saying that can't happen?

At least half of Congress is simply following the President. Republicans in Congress were virtually completely against a Dept of Homeland Security when Lieberman proposed it. Instantly, they all flipped to being pro-Dept when the same concept was proposed by Bush. Do you really think they are voting on what they think is best right now? With the elections so near, they are gonna vote the way that makes them look good.

The Administration *definitely* should be taking the lead on this. Ultimately, its their branch being reorganized to some extent. Bush just has gone about it a really stupid way.

I find it funny that the defense is simply that Congress will fix it. The point isn't even whether or not it passes. The point is that the Bush Administration thinks this is a good way to do things.

 

It's probably better than having your wife design a health care system for the country.

It sounds like you're basically opposed to the system in general. Any member of Congress is free to make a proposal....you seem to be giving Congress a free pass, admitting that they aren't voting for "what they think is right", but it's somehow Bush's fault for merely making a proposal, and not the fault of Congress. Any Congressman can be voted out if the people don't think he's voting on the right things.....but I'm sure you knew that.

 

The terrorists are getting part of what they want... we chip away at our civil liberties bit by bit and our enemies grin and rub their hands with glee. The more we lose our freedoms in "the defense of liberty" the better they like it. It's a long trend dramatically accelerated by 9/11. Now the FBI will vastly expand domestic surveillance. That means US, folks. This is all very depressing. I'm depressed by 9/11, and I'm depressed by this. And the politics of it all is rank.

I don't know what the answer is to defeating the terrorists. Somehow, I don't think this is it.

 

It's probably better than having your wife design a health care system for the country.

Not really. Both are quite stupid... The difference being (as I mentioned earlier in this thread) is that Hillary actually knew she wasn't an expert on the Health industry and got outside input from the people being affected. Bush's people did not, which is the whole point here. Hillary didn't write up the health proposal herself.

you seem to be giving Congress a free pass, admitting that they aren't voting for "what they think is right",

How am I giving Congress a free pass? They haven't done anything yet! If they do vote for a bad proposal, I'll say they are stupid too. The only point with Congress is that saying "they'll fix it" to somehow justify the Bush proposal is ridiculous and ignores reality.

but it's somehow Bush's fault for merely making a proposal

No. If you (again) read above, I never said it was bad for Bush to make a proposal. In fact, I clearly said he should be taking the lead in this. What he should ALSO be doing is making an educated proposal rather than having 3 people with no detailed experience developing the plan.

One of the best things Bush has done as President is getting experienced & bright people in the right places so he gets good advice. Here, he's doing the exact opposite by purposely avoiding that good advice & experience.

Any Congressman can be voted out if the people don't think he's voting on the right things.....but I'm sure you knew that.

Because, you know, people so often vote for their Congressmen/women based on their individual voting record.

 

I agree with both of you (Major and Jeff).....which is part of the reason why I choose not to vote!

 

Do you really think so? I seriously doubt that the terrorists have any idea of the subtleties of liberty that we enjoy. I have no fear of domestic surveillance because I have nothing to hide. They are going to be too busy to snoop into my pedestrian matters.

Our victory over the terrorists will come when we stop their assaults and vanquish the guilty. Their snickering up their sleeves at our temporary inconveniences and compromises is not sufficient to constitute a victory for them.

Our cessation of their terrorist activities and their pathetic lives, if necessary, is all the victory that I want-- and a genuine one at that!

 

I'm not sure I get the logic of NOT voting as some form of political protest. That only further ensures that the people you don't want in power stay in power.

 

Are you really talking about restrictions/fear or just plain prudence? Surely your reference to joke-telling is a casual scene and not an interview with authorities.

How long have we been restricted from cracking jokes about bombs, knives, guns, or hijacking when going through airports?

Shouting fire in a crowded movie theatre has been long-banned.

How funny was it to yell "Shark!" at the beach in the mid-70's?

Jeff, if this kind of cooperation was being requested/demanded for no good reason, I would be as concerned as you, but there is a very good reason for it and, at this point, I am comfortable with these limited measures in order to capture these terrorists and to preclude further acts of terrorism.

 

Who's protesting? I don't see a candidate I like, so I don't vote for someone I don't like. My body, my choice. How is that a protest?

 

If you don't like any of the candidates why don't you run?

Not voting in elections, and then complaining about the results of those elections on a BBS is a weak way to participate in our democracy.

But hell, I'm glad you don't vote because you'd most likely be giving one more vote to a side I don't want to see win anyway.

 

<b>Jeff</b>: Here's a good reason: War has been declared since 9/11 and not due to any of those other events. I know that the roll-out is always easier than the roll-back.

I would just encourage you to have more faith in your own government. As Mrs. JB suggests-- if you don't like the courses of action, run for office yourself!

 

I would just encourage you to have more faith in your own government.

Hmmm...

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34892

 

Major, he just didn't get to finish his statement -- what he meant was, "I would encourage you to have more faith in your government UNLESS THEY TRY TO TAKE YOUR GUN!!!"

Now it makes sense.

 

Why? Are you telling me you like all the candidates that run for office? Because I have no interest in running for office, I suppose that's as good an answer as I can provide.

So if I want to talk about the Rockets, that means I have to play in the NBA? I can't talk about movies now unless I'm an actor or a producer? I guess I better pick up an instrument if I want to keep talking about music as well.

Why do you say that? Because of remarks I make on a message board?

 

No, if you don't even bother to vote for someone, even if it is the lesser of two evils, you shouldn't b**** about it unless you've done something else to combat the lack of respectable candidates. She never said you had to be a politician to have an opinion like your analogy suggests.

And yes, it's pretty clear you lean more conservatively than Mrs. JB does, so why is it so hard to believe that you probably wouldn't vote for the same people?