Yes you did... :thumb:

 

And there were those who made you out to be "Chicken Little" but they'll change their tune when they start getting hit on the head with chunks of sky. :lol:

 

Oh man, great line. :thumb:

 

"Chunks of Sky"

 

 

Sounds like a great name for a Rock Band!

As to the bolded, how can you denounce it (or not vote for it) when you don't even know what all's in it?

 

Whaaaat???!

 

 

 

"Well, gosh, golly, gee-whiz. I don't know what's in this-here bill, but I think I'll vote for it. I mean, if it's a bill sponsored by Obama, it MUST be good, right?............"

Whaaaat???!

 

 

 

"Well, gosh, golly, gee-whiz. I don't know what's in this-here bill, but I think I'll vote for it. I mean, if it's a bill sponsored by Obama, it MUST be good, right?............"

 

That can so easily get turned around, too...."If it's a bill sponsored by Obama, it must be bad, right?"

 

Surely no one is suggesting that those that voted against the bill read it in it's entirety, while those that voted for it did not?

That can so easily get turned around, too...."If it's a bill sponsored by Obama, it must be bad, right?"

 

Surely no one is suggesting that those that voted against the bill read it in it's entirety, while those that voted for it did not?

 

First let me say that I think we are the best country in the world and will probably remain as such. I haven't read the bill and I don't know anyone that has. BUT, based on the resent past ( the last 45 years or so) those people that are thinking for use really struggle with paying money back. I have heard much talk on the news about Oboma wanting to start to pay back this money within the next five years or so. That is a scary thought. Taxes will have to go up drastically. I'm not blaming either party, I think it's both.

You didn't answer my question. Don't worry, though. I have decided that it would be pointless to answer anyway. We'll just be told how wrong we are, by some.

 

As to the bolded, how can you denounce it (or not vote for it) when you don't even know what all's in it?

 

Because there is enough in what I know that's in it to override any potential good in it.

 

It's that simple to me.

That can so easily get turned around, too...."If it's a bill sponsored by Obama, it must be bad, right?"

 

Surely no one is suggesting that those that voted against the bill read it in it's entirety, while those that voted for it did not?

 

Not at all but don't you think it's more then a little irresponsible to vote for one of the biggest (if not the biggest) increases in domestic spending EVER without fully reading and understand exactly what's in the bill in it's entirety?

 

I would much rather my elected officials vote against something because they haven't had a chance to fully read an understand potential impacts of a piece of legislation then to just blindly and on faith follow what their leaders tell them they should do. As offensive as it may be to some on here that's exactly what the Democrats did with this piece of legislation.

Because there is enough in what I know that's in it to override any potential good in it.

 

It's that simple to me.

 

Conversely, AT, if some of us have actually read as much as they can find on it, and we find that there is enough in what we know that we feel the good outweighs the bad, isn't that as credible a conclusion as yours?

Conversely, AT, if some of us have actually read as much as they can find on it, and we find that there is enough in what we know that we feel the good outweighs the bad, isn't that as credible a conclusion as yours?

What parts would that be?

What parts would that be?

 

 

I listed them above.

Conversely, AT, if some of us have actually read as much as they can find on it, and we find that there is enough in what we know that we feel the good outweighs the bad, isn't that as credible a conclusion as yours?

 

Even so, wouldn't it have been more prudent to have this bill more closely examined before passing it?

 

What you've read makes you feel comfortable, well what if tomorrow you read something that changes your mind? Now that the votes have already been cast it's to late.

 

I would a whole lot rather my elected officials have demanded that we slow down and take the time to fully understand what was in this package rather then just blindly following what their leadership told them to do.

Even so, wouldn't it have been more prudent to have this bill more closely examined before passing it?

 

What you've read makes you feel comfortable, well what if tomorrow you read something that changes your mind? Now that the votes have already been cast it's to late.

 

I would a whole lot rather my elected officials have demanded that we slow down and take the time to fully understand what was in this package rather then just blindly following what their leadership told them to do.

 

 

Wasn't the bill broken down into committees, and analysis perfromed by those committees?

I listed them above.

Sorry, not sure how I missed that. And I agree with what you have. My problem with it is what you listed, IMO, will not be enough to over come the rest of the garbage in the bill. I think the bill in its entirity will be failure at stimulating anything. They shoved every pet project they knew would fail otherwise and stuck it in. That is one of my problems with it.

 

But my main issue with it the way it was pushed through. The Dems said they would allow 48 hours for the public to review what was in it before voting on it. They then turn around and vote it through less then 24 hours after reaching the final draft. I guess Pelois' trip to Rome was a little more important then the future of this country.

That can so easily get turned around, too...."If it's a bill sponsored by Obama, it must be bad, right?"

 

Surely no one is suggesting that those that voted against the bill read it in it's entirety, while those that voted for it did not?

 

So which in your mind is the more prudent path of action?

Wasn't the bill broken down into committees, and analysis perfromed by those committees?

 

Not that I'm aware of. As far as I was able to determine the bill got cursory examiination by 1 committee in each house before floor votes and there was no opposition representation on the house/senate conference committee.

 

There was also precious little time for constituants to voice concerns to their representatives and as far as I have been able to determine the more information that was made available about this bill the lower the approval of the public. COuld that have been part of the reason for the haste?

Not that I'm aware of. As far as I was able to determine the bill got cursory examiination by 1 committee in each house before floor votes and there was no opposition representation on the house/senate conference committee.

 

There was also precious little time for constituants to voice concerns to their representatives and as far as I have been able to determine the more information that was made available about this bill the lower the approval of the public. COuld that have been part of the reason for the haste?

That and Ms. Pelois had a plane to catch.