Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Bills before congress

sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 2:13:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I believe no Bill before Congress should be allowed to exceed the number of words in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. There is no logical reason that they should other than to dole out tyranny and job killing worthless no cost benefit expenses to business. It is regulation for the sake of keeping people who write regulation writing regulation. The Federal govt's description and regulations regarding the handling and sale of broccoli is 4 times the number of words used in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Here is a summary, this is not all of it. There are numerous links to describe in detail.
http://www.ams.usda.gov...
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 3:21:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 2:13:28 PM, sadolite wrote:
I believe no Bill before Congress should be allowed to exceed the number of words in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. There is no logical reason that they should other than to dole out tyranny and job killing worthless no cost benefit expenses to business. It is regulation for the sake of keeping people who write regulation writing regulation. The Federal govt's description and regulations regarding the handling and sale of broccoli is 4 times the number of words used in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Here is a summary, this is not all of it. There are numerous links to describe in detail.
http://www.ams.usda.gov...

Wow, so you think our entire healthcare system and tax code should not exceed a certain number of pages because the longer something is, the more authoritarian it is?

Have you ever even LOOKED at our federal regulation codes?

That's just plain old stupid. If you want to talk about anti-rider rules, or anti-closure rules, or anything to do with the actual PROCESS of making a bill, then you might sound like more than a stoned freshman tea partier.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 3:29:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What a useless notion. This is borderline a troll thread.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 3:31:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Is this a joke?
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 4:12:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So it is logical for the handling and sale of broccoli to exceed the total number of words used to establish an entire society and country? Ok just checking.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 4:18:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I understand and agree with your sentiment on the issue. I think it's insane that our tax code is 70,000 pages long and the average guy cannot adequately do his own taxes. It's a scam for lawyers creating more work for more lawyers so the average person is dependent upon them. However, in practical terms such a limitations on something like the Wars Power act, or a treaty with the USSR, or some such detailed important document is just causing more trouble.

To be honest, some of my frustration with the constitution is in the ambiguity. But that's probably more with those who try to manipulate than understand.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 5:30:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree that some bills are too long but this is one of those conservative views that drives me crazy. There is no logic whatsoever to the conclusion that because a bill is long, it must be bad.

There may be certain situations where bills are needlessly long but that is another issue. Invoking a rule to limit the size of a bill is to limit the potential for that bill to be clear and thorough. There are many sections in any Bill that need thorough consideration and clarification, to prevent abuse and to prevent courts from retroactively deciding who wins on any given legality issue.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 8:14:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 3:21:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:13:28 PM, sadolite wrote:
I believe no Bill before Congress should be allowed to exceed the number of words in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. There is no logical reason that they should other than to dole out tyranny and job killing worthless no cost benefit expenses to business. It is regulation for the sake of keeping people who write regulation writing regulation. The Federal govt's description and regulations regarding the handling and sale of broccoli is 4 times the number of words used in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Here is a summary, this is not all of it. There are numerous links to describe in detail.
http://www.ams.usda.gov...

Wow, so you think our entire healthcare system and tax code should not exceed a certain number of pages because the longer something is, the more authoritarian it is?

Have you ever even LOOKED at our federal regulation codes?

That's just plain old stupid. If you want to talk about anti-rider rules, or anti-closure rules, or anything to do with the actual PROCESS of making a bill, then you might sound like more than a stoned freshman tea partier.

Have you ever even LOOKED at our federal regulation codes?

Um, ya that is my point.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 8:39:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 8:14:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/25/2011 3:21:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:13:28 PM, sadolite wrote:
I believe no Bill before Congress should be allowed to exceed the number of words in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. There is no logical reason that they should other than to dole out tyranny and job killing worthless no cost benefit expenses to business. It is regulation for the sake of keeping people who write regulation writing regulation. The Federal govt's description and regulations regarding the handling and sale of broccoli is 4 times the number of words used in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Here is a summary, this is not all of it. There are numerous links to describe in detail.
http://www.ams.usda.gov...

Wow, so you think our entire healthcare system and tax code should not exceed a certain number of pages because the longer something is, the more authoritarian it is?

Have you ever even LOOKED at our federal regulation codes?

That's just plain old stupid. If you want to talk about anti-rider rules, or anti-closure rules, or anything to do with the actual PROCESS of making a bill, then you might sound like more than a stoned freshman tea partier.


Have you ever even LOOKED at our federal regulation codes?

Um, ya that is my point.

And have you ever looked at the amount and variety of cases that the courts are forced to see?

We aren't dealing with an agrarian community of 100 people.

If you want totalitarianism, make sure bills are so short that they guarantee some form of over-generalization (one issue with the constitution). That just gives politicians more leverage over the people, not less.

Let's say you write a bill that says "the government controls trade." What kind of trade? Trade between countries? States? Individuals? Markets?

You'd have a situation like the interstate commerce clause, where underspecification lead to overgeneralizations and massive accruement of power.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 8:42:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 8:14:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/25/2011 3:21:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:13:28 PM, sadolite wrote:
I believe no Bill before Congress should be allowed to exceed the number of words in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. There is no logical reason that they should other than to dole out tyranny and job killing worthless no cost benefit expenses to business. It is regulation for the sake of keeping people who write regulation writing regulation. The Federal govt's description and regulations regarding the handling and sale of broccoli is 4 times the number of words used in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Here is a summary, this is not all of it. There are numerous links to describe in detail.
http://www.ams.usda.gov...

Wow, so you think our entire healthcare system and tax code should not exceed a certain number of pages because the longer something is, the more authoritarian it is?

Have you ever even LOOKED at our federal regulation codes?

That's just plain old stupid. If you want to talk about anti-rider rules, or anti-closure rules, or anything to do with the actual PROCESS of making a bill, then you might sound like more than a stoned freshman tea partier.


Have you ever even LOOKED at our federal regulation codes?

Um, ya that is my point.

Also, on a more theoretical level, if you limit the number of words a bill can have, it fundamentally changes how politicians interact since now you have created a NEW zero sum game to further deadlock. Any compromise for a bill that is as long as the constitution must include the elimination of previous clause or it will go over the deadline.

You think it's hard to get politicians to compromise on bills now?
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 8:07:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 8:42:22 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 8:14:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/25/2011 3:21:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:13:28 PM, sadolite wrote:
I believe no Bill before Congress should be allowed to exceed the number of words in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. There is no logical reason that they should other than to dole out tyranny and job killing worthless no cost benefit expenses to business. It is regulation for the sake of keeping people who write regulation writing regulation. The Federal govt's description and regulations regarding the handling and sale of broccoli is 4 times the number of words used in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Here is a summary, this is not all of it. There are numerous links to describe in detail.
http://www.ams.usda.gov...

Wow, so you think our entire healthcare system and tax code should not exceed a certain number of pages because the longer something is, the more authoritarian it is?

Have you ever even LOOKED at our federal regulation codes?

That's just plain old stupid. If you want to talk about anti-rider rules, or anti-closure rules, or anything to do with the actual PROCESS of making a bill, then you might sound like more than a stoned freshman tea partier.


Have you ever even LOOKED at our federal regulation codes?

Um, ya that is my point.

Also, on a more theoretical level, if you limit the number of words a bill can have, it fundamentally changes how politicians interact since now you have created a NEW zero sum game to further deadlock. Any compromise for a bill that is as long as the constitution must include the elimination of previous clause or it will go over the deadline.

You think it's hard to get politicians to compromise on bills now?

Less to consider less to argue about. Most bills contain unrelated irrelevant legislation. It would put an end to piggy backing legislation on to other bills
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 8:43:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 5:30:08 PM, Double_R wrote:
I agree that some bills are too long but this is one of those conservative views that drives me crazy. There is no logic whatsoever to the conclusion that because a bill is long, it must be bad.

There may be certain situations where bills are needlessly long but that is another issue. Invoking a rule to limit the size of a bill is to limit the potential for that bill to be clear and thorough. There are many sections in any Bill that need thorough consideration and clarification, to prevent abuse and to prevent courts from retroactively deciding who wins on any given legality issue.

Why is this necessarily a "conservative view", is it the liberal view to have needlessly long regulatory double speak in a bill? This is the result of lawyers who have permeated all of society. Do you think that the average liberal is okay with a tax code that's 70,000 pages long so that the average person cannot do his own taxes effectively? I don't understand why this would be something that liberals would be against in principle, that is having legislation that is readable and understandable to the average person. The idea of representative government depends on having a government of the people, so that the people should be able to comprehend the law. I agree that putting limitations on the number of words is a bit arbitrary, but having something in place that insures the bill's comprehendability by average people isn't bad.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 2:37:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 8:43:33 AM, innomen wrote:
There may be certain situations where bills are needlessly long but that is another issue. Invoking a rule to limit the size of a bill is to limit the potential for that bill to be clear and thorough. There are many sections in any Bill that need thorough consideration and clarification, to prevent abuse and to prevent courts from retroactively deciding who wins on any given legality issue.

Why is this necessarily a "conservative view", is it the liberal view to have needlessly long regulatory double speak in a bill? This is the result of lawyers who have permeated all of society. Do you think that the average liberal is okay with a tax code that's 70,000 pages long so that the average person cannot do his own taxes effectively? I don't understand why this would be something that liberals would be against in principle, that is having legislation that is readable and understandable to the average person. The idea of representative government depends on having a government of the people, so that the people should be able to comprehend the law. I agree that putting limitations on the number of words is a bit arbitrary, but having something in place that insures the bill's comprehendability by average people isn't bad.

I think its obvious that the majority of people who complain about bills by talking about its page count instead of its substance are conservatives, but you're right that it still doesn't quite justify me calling it a conservative view.

As far as the 70,000 page thing, that does sound pretty excessive but I wouldn't know cause I have never read it. It is easy for you or I to sit and criticize it but if neither of us are accountants then we wouldn't know. The average person will not understand complicated things, that is why we need professionals in every industry. I couldn't even get a job as a busboy without experience. Nothing is as simple as we would like it to be.

I disagree with the general concept that bills should be focused on being readable to the average person. I think bills should be focused on being clear and thorough which most of the time does require length. People complain that Bills are hard to understand because of the language. Industry lingo, and extensive vocabulary was invented to reduce the amount of words necessary to communicate ideas. Without it bills would be much longer, not shorter.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 4:07:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 8:07:28 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/25/2011 8:42:22 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 8:14:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/25/2011 3:21:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:13:28 PM, sadolite wrote:
I believe no Bill before Congress should be allowed to exceed the number of words in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. There is no logical reason that they should other than to dole out tyranny and job killing worthless no cost benefit expenses to business. It is regulation for the sake of keeping people who write regulation writing regulation. The Federal govt's description and regulations regarding the handling and sale of broccoli is 4 times the number of words used in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Here is a summary, this is not all of it. There are numerous links to describe in detail.
http://www.ams.usda.gov...

Wow, so you think our entire healthcare system and tax code should not exceed a certain number of pages because the longer something is, the more authoritarian it is?

Have you ever even LOOKED at our federal regulation codes?

That's just plain old stupid. If you want to talk about anti-rider rules, or anti-closure rules, or anything to do with the actual PROCESS of making a bill, then you might sound like more than a stoned freshman tea partier.


Have you ever even LOOKED at our federal regulation codes?

Um, ya that is my point.

Also, on a more theoretical level, if you limit the number of words a bill can have, it fundamentally changes how politicians interact since now you have created a NEW zero sum game to further deadlock. Any compromise for a bill that is as long as the constitution must include the elimination of previous clause or it will go over the deadline.

You think it's hard to get politicians to compromise on bills now?

Less to consider less to argue about. Most bills contain unrelated irrelevant legislation. It would put an end to piggy backing legislation on to other bills

No it wouldn't, it would just guarantee that substantive parts of the law will have to cut out and replaced with riders and amendments.

You aren't stopping the problem, you're only making it harder to pass bills. Just limiting the length won't stop the issues in the bill making process that lead to unrelated legal matters.

"Less to consider, less to argue about" is a silly way of thinking. I could write a bill that says "The government will not let women have abortions." There, the bill is done. Eight words. Compare that to a bill as long as the constitution and all about regulating carrots.

The former bill has NO prayer of passing if specifics can't be laid out. Those specifics will have to cover every contingency a politician can muster which would convince others to vote the bill down. At the moment, the bill could be read to mean "the police can burst into your home and forcibly stop your wife from going to planned parenthood." Guess what the Bill of Rights was? Just that, details which were meant to cover the bad contingencies the anti-feds used to dissuade voters. If you had said that no form of the bill of rights could be passed because the relevant document was too long, several states, among which New York, would not have ratified.

To repeat, you also guarantee overgeneralization which means MORE government power.

Also, you are showing very little consideration for the actual constitutional convention. There is NO WAY we would have a constitution today if you told the delegates there was a limited number of pages and words available to spell out the entire federal government. The number of pages was the least of their concerns.

Try reading the constitution sometime, you'll see just how dangerous overgeneralization can be (commerce clause, supremacy clause, welfare clause, etc).
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 4:09:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 2:13:28 PM, sadolite wrote:
I believe no Bill before Congress should be allowed to exceed the number of words in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. There is no logical reason that they should other than to dole out tyranny and job killing worthless no cost benefit expenses to business. It is regulation for the sake of keeping people who write regulation writing regulation. The Federal govt's description and regulations regarding the handling and sale of broccoli is 4 times the number of words used in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Here is a summary, this is not all of it. There are numerous links to describe in detail.
http://www.ams.usda.gov...

lol, Non Sequitur.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 4:11:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 4:18:50 PM, innomen wrote:
I understand and agree with your sentiment on the issue. I think it's insane that our tax code is 70,000 pages long and the average guy cannot adequately do his own taxes. It's a scam for lawyers creating more work for more lawyers so the average person is dependent upon them. However, in practical terms such a limitations on something like the Wars Power act, or a treaty with the USSR, or some such detailed important document is just causing more trouble.

To be honest, some of my frustration with the constitution is in the ambiguity. But that's probably more with those who try to manipulate than understand.

You do realize that you can buy TurboTax, and right the cost of turbotax off of your taxes, right?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 7:21:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Strangely the broccoli regulations specify that all broccoli must be both bright and dark.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 11:37:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 4:11:18 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/25/2011 4:18:50 PM, innomen wrote:
I understand and agree with your sentiment on the issue. I think it's insane that our tax code is 70,000 pages long and the average guy cannot adequately do his own taxes. It's a scam for lawyers creating more work for more lawyers so the average person is dependent upon them. However, in practical terms such a limitations on something like the Wars Power act, or a treaty with the USSR, or some such detailed important document is just causing more trouble.

To be honest, some of my frustration with the constitution is in the ambiguity. But that's probably more with those who try to manipulate than understand.

You do realize that you can buy TurboTax, and right the cost of turbotax off of your taxes, right?

You do realize that you have to have enough deductions to exceede your personal exemption in order to write anything off unless you own a business
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%