Posted February 13, 200916 yr http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30697 Dems Break Promise To Post Stimulus Bill Online For 48-Hour Public Airing... SURPRISE! Dems Break Promise: Stimulus Bill to Floor Friday by Connie Hair 02/12/2009 In a press conference Thursday, the House Republican leadership spoke candidly about being kept out of the House-Senate conference on the Obama-Pelosi-Reid so-called ?economic stimulus? bill. They confirmed they had not yet seen the text of the bill as of 4 p.m. Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he was unsure how many Democrats would vote with Republicans again on this bill but that he thought Republicans ?may get a few? Democrats to side with them. The fact that the Demos have now broken their promise to have the public able to see the bill for 48 hours may drive more Dems into the Republican camp. ? don?t know, ?cause they haven?t seen the bill either,? Boehner said. ?The American people have a right to know what?s in this bill,? Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind) told HUMAN EVENTS after the press conference. ?Every member of Congress -- Republicans and Democrats -- voted to post this bill on the internet for 48 hours, 48 hours ago. We?ll see if the Democrats keep their word.? Actually -- as of 5:15 pm, the Democrats had broken their word. The stimulus bill -- which we still haven?t seen -- will be released late tonight and will be brought up on the House floor at 9 am tomorrow. The following statement was released by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer at 4:57 p.m.: "The House is scheduled to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow and is expected to proceed directly to consideration of the American Recovery and Reinvestment conference report. The conference report text will be filed this evening, giving members enough time to review the conference report before voting on it tomorrow afternoon." Meanwhile, at an earlier presser Thursday, Pelosi -- while talking about legislation regarding school construction funds -- said it was vital to see the language of a bill before making decisions. ReadtheStimulus.org had the following quote: ?With all of this you have to see the language. You said this --- I said that --- I understood it to be this way --- you know, we wanted to see it in writing and when we did that then we were able to go forward." "Around here language means a lot. Words weigh a ton and one person's understanding of a spoken description might vary from another's. We wanted to see it. And not only just I had to see it, I had to show it to my colleagues and my caucus. We wanted to take all the time that was necessary to make sure it was right." Congressional members are also exchanging barbs via the popular social network Twitter. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) twittered, "Don't know when we're going to vote. Will the no votes delay vote just because they can? Speed is important. They know that." House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) twittered back, ?Those in favor of speed over commonsense may just be afraid of letting the People know what they are ramming through.? Transparency
February 13, 200916 yr Author Seems to me it is a reasonable position to actually have the opportunity to look at the bill before voting on it .
February 13, 200916 yr Clearly this can't be biased reporting, I mean, Human Events' website subtitle is 'Headquarters of the Conservative Underground' after all... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: And you go and call Media Matters partisan? Alright....
February 13, 200916 yr part of my first broken promise topic, he isn't posting stuff he is getting passed.
February 13, 200916 yr part of my first broken promise topic, he isn't posting stuff he is getting passed. no, this isn't part of the same thing. this is the democrats in congress doin this. this bill has not reached the president's desk, yet. when it does, it still won't break any promises, because this is considered an emergency measure, therefore it does not apply.
February 13, 200916 yr Lobbyists had Obama's bill but members of Congress did not. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whi...bbyists-do.html Congressional Offices Don't Have the Stimulus Bill, Lobbyists Do February 12, 2009 04:14 PM ET | Paul Bedard | Permanent Link | Print By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers We're receiving E-mails from Capitol Hill staffers expressing frustration that they can't get a copy of the stimulus bill agreed to last night at a price of $789 billion. What's more, staffers are complaining about who does have a copy: K Street lobbyists. E-mails one key Democratic staffer: "K Street has the bill, or chunks of it, already, and the congressional offices don't. So, the Hill is getting calls from the press (because it's leaking out) asking us to confirm or talk about what we know?but we can't do that because we haven't seen the bill. Anyway, peeps up here are sort of a combo of confused and like, 'Is this really happening?'" Reporters pressing for details, meanwhile, are getting different numbers from different offices, especially when seeking the details of specific programs. Worse, there seem to be several different versions of what was agreed upon, with some officials circulating older versions of the package that seems to still be developing. Leadership aides said that it will work out later today and promised that lawmakers will get time to review the bill before Friday's vote.
February 14, 200916 yr Lobbyists had Obama's bill but members of Congress did not. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whi...bbyists-do.html Congressional Offices Don't Have the Stimulus Bill, Lobbyists Do February 12, 2009 04:14 PM ET | Paul Bedard | Permanent Link | Print By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers We're receiving E-mails from Capitol Hill staffers expressing frustration that they can't get a copy of the stimulus bill agreed to last night at a price of $789 billion. What's more, staffers are complaining about who does have a copy: K Street lobbyists. E-mails one key Democratic staffer: "K Street has the bill, or chunks of it, already, and the congressional offices don't. So, the Hill is getting calls from the press (because it's leaking out) asking us to confirm or talk about what we know?but we can't do that because we haven't seen the bill. Anyway, peeps up here are sort of a combo of confused and like, 'Is this really happening?'" Reporters pressing for details, meanwhile, are getting different numbers from different offices, especially when seeking the details of specific programs. Worse, there seem to be several different versions of what was agreed upon, with some officials circulating older versions of the package that seems to still be developing. Leadership aides said that it will work out later today and promised that lawmakers will get time to review the bill before Friday's vote. So, I guess this means that if you get to post blogs from conservative sources, now I get to start posting Huffington Post articles all the time? Let's get real. I have purposely not posted anything from a really liberal source like The Nation, The Huffington Post, etc. because I would like there to be a level playing field around here. I would also be the one losing credibility if I was doing that. Yet, it seems to me like more than half of the people posting on here are trying to pass off really slanted blogs or opinions from various sources as a fact of something. We're getting close to needing a sticky at the top of the forum with some new rules around here.
February 14, 200916 yr BS. 95 percent of that bill is identical to the one they passed a few weeks ago. And this is available online at www.house.gov/appropriations. Such BS lying Republicans.
February 14, 200916 yr BS. 95 percent of that bill is identical to the one they passed a few weeks ago. And this is available online at www.house.gov/appropriations. Such BS lying Republicans. US News and World Report is known to be much more conservative than similar magazines like Time and Newsweek. Now it also seems like Newsweek is going to the right, especially if you have noticed their last several covers this year.
February 14, 200916 yr If any of you are arguing that the articles cited are misrepresenting the truth, I, as someone who detests both the Republicans and the Democrats, ask that do so by actually contradicting the facts rather than saying those guys are "partisan". I for one think we need a 1000 times more partisanship.
February 15, 200916 yr Author Please. This bill is online for members of congress. The final bill was not online for anyone for 48hrs . http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/polit...mulus.html?_r=1 At some points on Thursday, there was confusion among top White House and Congressional officials over whether certain provisions were in the bill — a bit discomfiting for House Democrats, who had promised at least 48 hours of public review before a vote. At 10:45 p.m., the final text was posted to a House Web site.
February 16, 200916 yr The sad thing is that probably no one will be talking about this during the next election cycle, how all these people vote to pass a bill they haven't even read. I can't think of anything more irresponisble in that position. At a bare minimum, I would think that any elected official should vote nay on any bill that they have not been allowed to read entirely. I can't think of a more reckless approach to government than to do what these people have done, no matter what your politics are. This is sickening.
February 16, 200916 yr The sad thing is that probably no one will be talking about this during the next election cycle, how all these people vote to pass a bill they haven't even read. I can't think of anything more irresponisble in that position. At a bare minimum, I would think that any elected official should vote nay on any bill that they have not been allowed to read entirely. I can't think of a more reckless approach to government than to do what these people have done, no matter what your politics are. This is sickening. The GOP majority did it with the first Patriot Act. Unfortunately on both sides, half the time these House and Senate members only get excerpts from each bill, and don't read the whole thing. Even though this is their job, they get a staffer to do it.
February 16, 200916 yr The sad thing is that probably no one will be talking about this during the next election cycle, how all these people vote to pass a bill they haven't even read. I can't think of anything more irresponisble in that position. At a bare minimum, I would think that any elected official should vote nay on any bill that they have not been allowed to read entirely. I can't think of a more reckless approach to government than to do what these people have done, no matter what your politics are. This is sickening. The GOP majority did it with the first Patriot Act. Unfortunately on both sides, half the time these House and Senate members only get excerpts from each bill, and don't read the whole thing. Even though this is their job, they get a staffer to do it. And many GOP members lost their seats in Congress as a result of how they did business. If I actually believed there was any substantive difference between Republicans and Democrats then I would have expected them to learn from it. And if I still believed they were different I would say that 2 wrongs don't make a right, and that I thought the Dems were elected to correct rather than repeat the Republicans' mistakes. And no human being alive, elected official or hired staffer was capable of reading that bill in the time it was made available. Here's a challenge - can you justify this style of governing by saying something other than "The Republicans did it first!" It sounds awfully childish, and not at all substantive.
February 16, 200916 yr To respond by saying "The GOP did it!" is nothing more than a red herring and reduces your argument into mindless fallacy. Most of the liberal posters here have been slipping into this bad habit lately. as opposed to just saying everyone here has a 3rd grade education? which is what 99% of your arguments include
February 16, 200916 yr The sad thing is that probably no one will be talking about this during the next election cycle, how all these people vote to pass a bill they haven't even read. I can't think of anything more irresponisble in that position. At a bare minimum, I would think that any elected official should vote nay on any bill that they have not been allowed to read entirely. I can't think of a more reckless approach to government than to do what these people have done, no matter what your politics are. This is sickening. The GOP majority did it with the first Patriot Act. Unfortunately on both sides, half the time these House and Senate members only get excerpts from each bill, and don't read the whole thing. Even though this is their job, they get a staffer to do it. And many GOP members lost their seats in Congress as a result of how they did business. If I actually believed there was any substantive difference between Republicans and Democrats then I would have expected them to learn from it. And if I still believed they were different I would say that 2 wrongs don't make a right, and that I thought the Dems were elected to correct rather than repeat the Republicans' mistakes. And no human being alive, elected official or hired staffer was capable of reading that bill in the time it was made available. Here's a challenge - can you justify this style of governing by saying something other than "The Republicans did it first!" It sounds awfully childish, and not at all substantive. but this is how faults of the opposite party are dealt with...there isnt much changing it
February 16, 200916 yr The sad thing is that probably no one will be talking about this during the next election cycle, how all these people vote to pass a bill they haven't even read. I can't think of anything more irresponisble in that position. At a bare minimum, I would think that any elected official should vote nay on any bill that they have not been allowed to read entirely. I can't think of a more reckless approach to government than to do what these people have done, no matter what your politics are. This is sickening. The GOP majority did it with the first Patriot Act. Unfortunately on both sides, half the time these House and Senate members only get excerpts from each bill, and don't read the whole thing. Even though this is their job, they get a staffer to do it. And many GOP members lost their seats in Congress as a result of how they did business. If I actually believed there was any substantive difference between Republicans and Democrats then I would have expected them to learn from it. And if I still believed they were different I would say that 2 wrongs don't make a right, and that I thought the Dems were elected to correct rather than repeat the Republicans' mistakes. And no human being alive, elected official or hired staffer was capable of reading that bill in the time it was made available. Here's a challenge - can you justify this style of governing by saying something other than "The Republicans did it first!" It sounds awfully childish, and not at all substantive. but this is how faults of the opposite party are dealt with...there isnt much changing it The thing is that there is no opposite party. Believing that the Republicans and Democrats actually oppose one another is no less delusional than believing in the tooth fairy.
February 17, 200916 yr Clearly this can't be biased reporting, I mean, Human Events' website subtitle is 'Headquarters of the Conservative Underground' after all... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: And you go and call Media Matters partisan? Alright.... It's being reported everywhere. Saying this is "right bias" is a red herring. The fact is, very few people actually read this bill before it was passed. Most of the people who voted for it don't even know what's in it. As for the Patriot Act, virtually everybody voted on it. Not quite the same thing.
February 17, 200915 yr Clearly this can't be biased reporting, I mean, Human Events' website subtitle is 'Headquarters of the Conservative Underground' after all... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: And you go and call Media Matters partisan? Alright.... It's being reported everywhere. Saying this is "right bias" is a red herring. The fact is, very few people actually read this bill before it was passed. Most of the people who voted for it don't even know what's in it. As for the Patriot Act, virtually everybody voted on it. Not quite the same thing. Well, it is still kinda the same thing because nobody read the Patriot Act before passing that either. I suppose one can try to make an argument to where at least the GOP defended that process, but I still think that was horrible too. Besides that, this issue to me is how ridiculous the President Obama & co. sound everytime they talk about the failures of the last 8 years when they are doing things the exact same way, if not worse (like with his cabinet picks).
February 19, 200915 yr The sad thing is that probably no one will be talking about this during the next election cycle, how all these people vote to pass a bill they haven't even read. I can't think of anything more irresponisble in that position. At a bare minimum, I would think that any elected official should vote nay on any bill that they have not been allowed to read entirely. I can't think of a more reckless approach to government than to do what these people have done, no matter what your politics are. This is sickening. The GOP majority did it with the first Patriot Act. Unfortunately on both sides, half the time these House and Senate members only get excerpts from each bill, and don't read the whole thing. Even though this is their job, they get a staffer to do it. And many GOP members lost their seats in Congress as a result of how they did business. If I actually believed there was any substantive difference between Republicans and Democrats then I would have expected them to learn from it. And if I still believed they were different I would say that 2 wrongs don't make a right, and that I thought the Dems were elected to correct rather than repeat the Republicans' mistakes. And no human being alive, elected official or hired staffer was capable of reading that bill in the time it was made available. Here's a challenge - can you justify this style of governing by saying something other than "The Republicans did it first!" It sounds awfully childish, and not at all substantive. but this is how faults of the opposite party are dealt with...there isnt much changing it The thing is that there is no opposite party. Believing that the Republicans and Democrats actually oppose one another is no less delusional than believing in the tooth fairy. i agree whole heartedly...they may stand on opposite sides of the line...but they will be damned if anyone else or any party gets near that line...which is the problem...the solution...i have zero idea whatsoever...
February 19, 200915 yr Clearly this can't be biased reporting, I mean, Human Events' website subtitle is 'Headquarters of the Conservative Underground' after all... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: And you go and call Media Matters partisan? Alright.... It's being reported everywhere. Saying this is "right bias" is a red herring. The fact is, very few people actually read this bill before it was passed. Most of the people who voted for it don't even know what's in it. As for the Patriot Act, virtually everybody voted on it. Not quite the same thing. Well, it is still kinda the same thing because nobody read the Patriot Act before passing that either. I suppose one can try to make an argument to where at least the GOP defended that process, but I still think that was horrible too. Besides that, this issue to me is how ridiculous the President Obama & co. sound everytime they talk about the failures of the last 8 years when they are doing things the exact same way, if not worse (like with his cabinet picks). again i agree with you here...but isnt it a bit early to be knocking obama and co. for every little thing(not you, but you know what i mean) when he has had just a month in office? if anyone expected that the presidentS following ol W' werent going to get their hands dirty while cleaning up his mess is very dislusional and advise they seek help...in order to change washington, you have to play the game a bit too and keep the oldies happy to a certain extent ...there is no mr. smith goes to washington and the sooner some except that, the sooner we can figure out some of these problems rather than name calling on each and every step of the way
February 20, 200915 yr Give it a rest. He's been very bipartisan. He's reached out to Republicans. Specifically what has he done? Are you trying to say that the vast majority of those that did not support his spending bill were merely being hardheaded? Please tell me how he is upholding his vow to be transparent when this bill was forced through in the middle of the night and few hard copies were in circulation. How is he being transparent by twice bombing Pakistan and refusing to comment? He put in the tax cuts in the first place to get Republican votes. Then he went over to the House and Senate to meet with the Republicans. Then he managed to get several moderate Republicans in the Senate to go along with his plan after making some concessions. The House Republicans are more extremists, therefore they really have no interest in compromising. The Republicans' tactic going forward will be to say "no". You act like these guys aren't politicians. 90 percent of the bill never changed in the two weeks it was debated. Having worked in Congress previously, I can tell you for a fact that Congressmen never read these things. Their staff reads everything. And they have multiple people reviewing it. The day I see a Congressman/Senator perusing a 1000 page bill is the day I will give you all my assets. In other words, never. He's not an idiot... why would he talk about our bombing Pakistan. That's how things are with military strikes. Don't act so naive... I know you just don't like the guy and there is nothing he can do to change your mind.
February 20, 200915 yr Author Give it a rest. He's been very bipartisan. He's reached out to Republicans. Specifically what has he done? Are you trying to say that the vast majority of those that did not support his spending bill were merely being hardheaded? Please tell me how he is upholding his vow to be transparent when this bill was forced through in the middle of the night and few hard copies were in circulation. How is he being transparent by twice bombing Pakistan and refusing to comment? What has he done are you serious? Obama invited one or two Republicans to his Superbowl Party . How dare you question his commitment to working with Republicans . Remember he won ! Obama says he is bipartisan so he must be ... simple as that . Bipartisanship and working cross the aisle is Obama giving a few Republicans the golden opportunity (not to change his position, not to compromise or seek meaningful input into a bill) to support Obama . Obama is a living God who has not made one mistake and is no way the equivalent of a socially liberal George Bush :whistle the sooner you get on board and quit questioning anything Obama does the better the country will be . I have looked forward to the day when hope and change would come to America thank God I mean Obama it finally has !!! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multi...60_1121795c.jpg
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.