USA Politics

Guantanamo should have been closed a long time ago. It does the USA a disservice to treat people that way, even if they are dangerous. Americans should be willing to accept a little extra risk to ensure that rights are disseminated equally.
 
From another site, this doesn't sound very good either:

This is outrageous. If you don't know what this means, please inform yourself about it. A backroom deal was just made while people were focused on gay marriage. This needs to be exposed. Clarence Thomas used to be an attorney for Mansanto as did Obama-appointed Michael Taylor, Deputy Commissioner for the FDA (http://1.usa.gov/16KsalV). They are both involved in the decision-making processes in our government. Our trustworthy president signed this into law, supposedly for 6 months. This is affecting your food supply people. It is a BIG, HUGE deal.

See story here: http://bit.ly/100cHdx
See video here:
 
Can any science minds on here make me feel more comfortable about Monsanto, its policies and its backroom power?
 
I saw that on C-Span yesterday! I was in shock! apparently a witness accusation is enough to search a house without a warrant... or a drug dog sniffing your house. *sigh*
 
Eh. Depends on if you think GM foods are good or not.

Myself? GM foods are just safe, and I see little problem with them. Monsanto has tried to protect themselves, but I think that would fail. Judges would toss this shit out in a heartbeat if they had to. It wouldn't get as far as the SCOTUS either.

As for their backroom power...this is 100% normal. Has nothing to do with Obama either, Travis. He can't write legislation, only sign it, and the rest of the bill likely looked good to him. This is the power of lobbyists.
 
I am not sure he would have used it in this case, but in general it is another good advertisement for the line item veto.

I am not quite sure how I feel about GM foods, I see a potential for risk, but also for benefit. Which I guess sums up pretty much every scientific advancement.
 
I thoroughly oppose a line item veto. I think it really breaks what the founders wanted. A law that restricts a bill from being too large or having too many riders would be nice, though.
 
I never would have thought you for being an originalist :) But I agree that the riders are a massive source of special influence/general corruption and help bloat the budget with useless crap and breaks for various groups/companies.

A line item veto would have to be passed by an amendment, which is unlikely to happen and would have to have some type of component where the veto could be overridden like a regular veto

Revamping how laws are passed, putting an automatic sunset on laws, etc would be other valid solutions.
 
Eh, automatic sunsets are extremely dangerous. If you get a do-nothing congress like this one and the previous 2, then you get fucked.

I think that Congressional rules are a lot faster to pass, and I think the Founders picked a pretty clear line for executive power...going past that when the executive is already too strong seems foolish to me.

Congressional term limits would help.
 
Sunsets if anything would spur some compromise IMO and/or encourage programs/laws to be updated for the times. For example, DOMA would have a hard time being reauthorized, things like Medicare would, but would be reformed periodically.

Congressional rules do not move all that quickly, especially in the Senate.

I am fine with term limits, but would also like to see terms extended in the House to something similar to the Senate so every Congressman is not running for re-election 10 seconds after their last election, then limit them to 2 full terms.
 
I'm not sure that you could go to a 6 year thing in the house...you might be able to, I'm really not sure. Hmm.
 
Again, it would have to be an amendment, which is unlikely to every pass. Like you said, changing Congressional rules is in theory the simplest thing to do, but in practice I hold out little hope for it
 
well, yeah. Especially when congress is the one that is being paid off to do the riders. I think it's pretty despicable no matter how you look at it...I don't think earmarks are that bad financially (they really aren't) but the laws that pass just feel very dishonest.
 
I think the financial cost is underestimated when you factor in that it is borrowed money and the interest on that money accrues over time, but for the most part they are just as dishonest as some of these laws. Some special interest earmarks and laws are certainly good enough to stand on their own, but many would never pass if it were up and down votes on each one
 
I really don't think that even with interest earmarks are that expensive. What are they, $64b a year, and a lot of them do the things they're intended to do. That doesn't mean I think they should not get an up and down vote - I think they should, and I think a lot of them stand on their own merits. A lot does not equal all, of course.
 
It is a sad state when billions are treated like chump change, which it is when compared to the entire budget. However if Congress/the President is not willing to take any action on these smaller amounts, I have little hope they will ever tackle larger spending issues.
 
They are chump change - like I said, I think they deserve up-down votes. Of course, that won't ever happen...though most of them would pass. And a good deal of them are military earmarks, which...well, you can't cut the military, amirite?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top