Pelosi/Obama health care and transparency

[eqgumby]

Asked about that promise, Pelosi remarked, without elaboration, "There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail."

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said Wednesday it was not a slap at the president. "It was a quip," Daly said.

I really hate that she would say something like that. I wish these damn politicians would at least TRY to live up to their promises!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100106/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

[Mr Honeybadger]

Big Lie #1 Straight from Obummer's mouth

It's time to fundamentally change the way that we do business in Washington. To help build a new foundation for the 21st century, we need to reform our government so that it is more efficient, more transparent, and more creative. That will demand new thinking and a new sense of responsibility for every dollar that is spent.

Big Lie #2 Straight from San Fran Nan's big yapper ( Even bigger than Lie #1 )

The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.

Post-election comments, 2006-11-7. [1]

[+DieChecker]

Fron the link in the OP.

President Barack Obama is prodding House and Senate Democrats to get him a final health care bill as soon as possible, encouraging them to bypass the usual negotiations between the two chambers in the interest of speed.

Wow! That is the way to legislate, with speed and no thought. By all means let's push through some laws that are still controversial, so we can disaffect even more of the US Voting Public.

I guess trying to use the Senate version as a base is the best idea if that is what is going to happen.

Won't a lot of House Dems be p1ssed off? Does Pelosi have such a stranglehold on the House Dems that she can just off the cuff speak for all of them?

Edited January 6, 2010 by DieChecker

[Startraveler]

Transparency in the legislative process isn't all it's cracked up to be, particularly in an age where out of context soundbites and accusations in 30-second TV spots are staples of any election.

From the 6th edition of a classic, Congress and its Members:

Secret conference meetings were the norm for most of Congress's history. In 1975 both houses adopted rules requiring open meetings unless the conferees from each chamber voted in public to close the sessions. Two years later the House went further, requiring open conference meetings unless the full House agreed to secret sessions. Sometimes the Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network (C-Span) will televise conference proceedings.

The open conference is yet another instance of the individual-institutional cleavage. Under the watchful eye of lobbyists, conferees fight harder for provisions they might have dropped quietly in the interest of bicameral agreement. Needless to say, private bargaining sessions still permeate conference negotiations. As one senator noted:

When we started the openness thing we found it more and more difficult to get something agreed to in the conferences; it seemed to take forever. So what did we do? We would break up into smaller groups and then we would ask our [conference] chairman...to see if he could find his opposite number on the House side and discuss this matter and come back and tell us what the chances would be of working out various and sundry possibilities.

Senators and representatives can expect certain bills to go to conference and plan their strategy accordingly. For example, whether to have a recorded vote on amendments can influence conference bargaining. In the absence of a recorded vote, amendments may be easier to drop in conference.

[+DieChecker]

So, is there going to be transparency? Or, are they heading back to the 19th century and Secret Meetings?

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Well when the Founders held meetings to create our Constitution they then went on to publish it first and to send it to all of the states for debate and ratification. The debates themselves were even published across the land.

But now one party alone will hold secret meetings to bring forth massive legislation that will impose itself upon all of the people with finanacial and medical mandates and control about 1/6th of our economy and all of our health.

This power play by Obama and the democrats is pure fascism.

[Startraveler]

So, is there going to be transparency? Or, are they heading back to the 19th century and Secret Meetings?

In the absence of an informed and engaged populace, what good is transparency? You can tell a baldfaced lie about a document that has been available in its entirety on the Internet for months and a very large chunk of the population will reflexively believe it. We live in an age where you literally don't need to get out of your chair to fact check any assertion you like and people are still just as clueless as they were a century or two ago. Granted, the proliferation of information sources on the Internet has been accompanied by a proliferation of misinformation sources but that's a pretty lousy excuse.

Transparency in this climate is synonymous with theater.

Well when the Founders held meetings to create our Constitution they then went on to publish it first and to send it to all of the states for debate and ratification. The debates themselves were even published across the land.

What distinction are you making here? First of all, I have to point out the fundamental irony here: the Founders met in complete secret and orchestrated the ultimate backroom deal (actually, a series of backroom deals now charitably called "compromises" in the history books). They then used superior organization and savvy usage of sympathetic press sources to overwhelm their outmatched adversaries. It's funny how run of the mill (but exceptionally orchestrated) politics becomes so very noble a few centuries down the line.

The public debates (again, the transparency of the process renders them as little more than theater) over health care reform are all available. Every draft of every bill to date is easily accessible online. You can watch videos of the committee markups, you can read pages of CBO analysis of every major provision, you can watch the floor debates if you feel like wasting your time. Did you watch any of the debates or markups? Have you read either of the bills that passed out of the respective chambers of Congress? If not then why on earth would you be complaining about transparency and "secret meetings"? You want additional video on the C-SPAN website that you won't watch?

control about 1/6th of our economy and all of our health.

This is a nonsensical statement, you realize.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

In the absence of an informed and engaged populace, what good is transparency? You can tell a baldfaced lie about a document that has been available in its entirety on the Internet for months and a very large chunk of the population will reflexively believe it. We live in an age where you literally don't need to get out of your chair to fact check any assertion you like and people are still just as clueless as they were a century or two ago. Granted, the proliferation of information sources on the Internet has been accompanied by a proliferation of misinformation sources but that's a pretty lousy excuse.

Transparency in this climate is synonymous with theater.

What distinction are you making here? First of all, I have to point out the fundamental irony here: the Founders met in complete secret and orchestrated the ultimate backroom deal (actually, a series of backroom deals now charitably called "compromises" in the history books). They then used superior organization and savvy usage of sympathetic press sources to overwhelm their outmatched adversaries. It's funny how run of the mill (but exceptionally orchestrated) politics becomes so very noble a few centuries down the line.

The public debates (again, the transparency of the process renders them as little more than theater) over health care reform are all available. Every draft of every bill to date is easily accessible online. You can watch videos of the committee markups, you can read pages of CBO analysis of every major provision, you can watch the floor debates if you feel like wasting your time. Did you watch any of the debates or markups? Have you read either of the bills that passed out of the respective chambers of Congress? If not then why on earth would you be complaining about transparency and "secret meetings"? You want additional video on the C-SPAN website that you won't watch?

This is a nonsensical statement, you realize.

So you think the Founders of this nation "orchestrated the ultimate backroom deal" even though they published and released their work for all to see and allowed debate and representation for all of the states? They manipulated the people?

And you believe that a transparent government is no good because we are too ignorant of a people? (uniformed and unengaged) so in your mind it is good to manipulate the people this way? Having transparent government is little more then theater for you?

And do you support increasing the size of government while at the same time you want to decrease the transparency of government as well? Unreal to me. It is the opposite of what I want.

You are very well spoken and seem to be a very intelligent person (All the Best!) but you have some really radical views that I would never support.

Edited January 7, 2010 by TRUEYOUTRUEME

[Startraveler]

So you think the Founders of this nation "orchestrated the ultimate backroom deal" even though they published and released their work for all to see and allowed debate and representation for all of the states?

We're talking about people who met in completely closed meetings (to the point that they actually nailed the windows shut in the middle of the summer). Is that an open process? Of course not. That's not a criticism--arguably the process worked so well because it was done in secret. Which is exactly the point I was making above by pointing out that too much transparency often harms the legislative process. Lawmakers have to be free to speak candidly and to retain the flexibility to compromise. You can't do this under television lights and the Founders certainly understood this principle well.

If the criteria for an open process is that the product of the secret negotiations is shown to everyone once it's finished, then I don't understand what fault you're finding in the "backroom" deals over the final health care bill. It'll be freely available for viewing by everyone once it's done.

They manipulated the people?

That's what politics is. I'm not sure why this should be surprising. But "the people" of 1788 and "the people of 2010" are very different. We've amended the constitution to expand voting rights five times since then. The Founders were very much elites.

And you believe that a transparent government is no good because we are too ignorant of a people? (uniformed and unengaged) so in your mind it is good to manipulate the people this way? Having transparent government is little more then theater for you?

Yes. You repeated an absurd talking point in this thread already ("control about 1/6th of our economy and all of our health") that doesn't make sense and doesn't reflect the content of these bills. Congratulations, you've been manipulated! You haven't answered my question, by the way: how much of the floor debate and markup process did you watch? And how much of the House and Senate bills have you read? Or have you gotten all of your information through an intermediary who may or may not have an agenda (and--wait for it--may have actively manipulated your opinions and reactions to these bills)?

When these Republican Congressmen showboat and waste time instead of amending the bills to reflect policies they allegedly support, they're doing it for people like you. They score brownie points by wasting time and killing their own amendments instead of inserting additional cost controls or malpractice reforms into these bills. That's bad. But the incentives in a fully transparent process are for them to make meaningless, talking point-riddled floor speeches that cater to people of your ideological persuasion instead of rolling up their sleeves and actually making decent policy. The same is true of many Dems who are forced by the omnipresent cameras to swing further left than is desirable for a solid bill to be crafted. Campaigning has gradually been replacing governing altogether and that's not a particularly good thing. And a major reason is unprecedented transparency, even in areas that are better left a bit obscured.

Had the Constitution been written in a room full of C-Span cameras, it would be a real piece of ****.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

You seem to base your views upon faulty premises like whether or not every single person watched every minute of debate as to whether or not transparency is good or not. There are millions of people to watch and then exchange opinions on the work of government. But not when it is not allowed which is what is happening here. There are people from both sides of the aisle claiming the same thing and there has been a costant rush to push this agenda through by the extreme partisans of the democrat party.

[preacherman76]

Transparency in the legislative process isn't all it's cracked up to be, particularly in an age where out of context soundbites and accusations in 30-second TV spots are staples of any election.

From the 6th edition of a classic, Congress and its Members:

WOW. This statement is so profoundly evil and wrong, I just dont know how to respond. I pitty you.

[Startraveler]

WOW. This statement is so profoundly evil and wrong, I just dont know how to respond.

An actual response would be a good start.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Startraveler

[Fluffybunny]

When the bulk of the population cant be bothered to be pulled away from reality TV long enough to read the actual details of a bill(a law/a discussion/ an argument- whatever) rather than the argument as put forth by their favorite mouthpieces from MSNBC or Fox news as can be verified by the same targeted keywords and phrases that get spewed out time and time again without any obvious understanding of the fundamentals of the situation. Nothing more impressive than letting another person do all your thinking for you huh? I see it daily here, and it saddens me to no end. There is nothing more embarrassing than hearing some catchphrase pop up on fox/msnbc in regards to a topic and then have it work its way into a thread that very day...god knows how many "cut and run" or "Stay the course" little quips people here had to depend on as they couldn't evaluate information for themselves so they end up sounding like a political bumper sticker factory on overdrive just regurgitating the days news from Rush or Matthews.

Transparency is pointless without the effort to learn the facts of what is made transparent. Based on what I see, at no point in history have we had more access to information, yet people have become more and more ignorant and apathetic to the workings of our government as we can see right here in these threads.

[preacherman76]

An actual response would be a good start.

I wanted to. I just couldnt. I was litteraly speechless. I mean Im talking to a man who thinks its a good thing that the government of a free republic hide its agenda, and pass laws out of the view of its people. And why do you feel that way? Cause you think we are to dumb to get it. I bet you wouldnt feel this way if they were passing laws YOU disagreed with.

[Fluffybunny]

I Think Star just proved the point...

Just a few sentences of material and preacher lost the posts goal...throw a few hundred more pages of "transparency" in there and I wonder what you may walk away with?

[preacherman76]

When the bulk of the population cant be bothered to be pulled away from reality TV long enough to read the actual details of a bill(a law/a discussion/ an argument- whatever) rather than the argument as put forth by their favorite mouthpieces from MSNBC or Fox news as can be verified by the same targeted keywords and phrases that get spewed out time and time again without any obvious understanding of the fundamentals of the situation. Nothing more impressive than letting another person do all your thinking for you huh? I see it daily here, and it saddens me to no end. There is nothing more embarrassing than hearing some catchphrase pop up on fox/msnbc in regards to a topic and then have it work its way into a thread that very day...god knows how many "cut and run" or "Stay the course" little quips people here had to depend on as they couldn't evaluate information for themselves so they end up sounding like a political bumper sticker factory on overdrive just regurgitating the days news from Rush or Matthews.

Transparency is pointless without the effort to learn the facts of what is made transparent. Based on what I see, at no point in history have we had more access to information, yet people have become more and more ignorant and apathetic to the workings of our government as we can see right here in these threads.

Is that not EXACTLY what you want this government to do for YOU, when you endorce a hidden agenda? I dont watch reality TV. I dont watch any major media outlet. I have a right to know what my government is up to. And there are many who feel the same as I. What the American people choose to do with the information they get isnt up to you, and thats what p***es you off the most about it.

These people have stolen right in the light of day, trillions from the American people. These same people have stripped us of our liberties one by one till the bill of rights and the constitution appear to no longer be relevent. You want us to sit by with our hands folded, as the powers that be decide our destiny behind closed doors?? People do things in darkness for one reason and one reason only, so the light wont expose thier evil BEFORE they have a chance to inflick us with it.

[preacherman76]

I Think Star just proved the point...

Just a few sentences of material and preacher lost the posts goal...throw a few hundred more pages of "transparency" in there and I wonder what you may walk away with?

Yea, this coming from a enemy of the republic for which it stands. Who wants her government to hide its evil, cause she cant stand the fact that not everyone thinks like her. Forget you lady.

[Fluffybunny]

You cant even be bothered to read the gender in a box 2 inches two the left of the screen of which you are reading currently, you are a prime example...

An enemy? hahaha....you are so awesome...so lost, so confused, absolutely misunderstanding everything that is being said and angrily lashing out assuming everyone is saying something they are not...you have no idea what people stand for, but you are angry anyway.

Awesome!!!

I wish I had an award for you.

[preacherman76]

You cant even be bothered to read the gender in a box 2 inches two the left of the screen of which you are reading currently, you are a prime example...

An enemy? hahaha....you are so awesome...so lost, so confused, absolutely misunderstanding everything that is being said and angrily lashing out assuming everyone is saying something they are not...you have no idea what people stand for, but you are angry anyway.

Awesome!!!

I wish I had an award for you.

I couldnt picture any man calling themselfs fluffy bunny. But then, you have already proven your no man at all. I misunderstood nothing. And the fact that all you can do is try and smear me testifies to that fact. And you damn well know it.

Edited January 7, 2010 by preacherman76

[Fluffybunny]

Hahaha...wow, getting a tad angry there huh? can't understand a thread and now you want to lash out at me? I don't know why anyone would want to call themselves a preacher, but I don't bug you about that do I? I am quite a man actually...served my country proudly in the Army, I am a firefighter...foster parent,...what do you do aside from misinterpret threads???

[preacherman76]

Hahaha...wow, getting a tad angry there huh? can't understand a thread and now you want to lash out at me? I don't know why anyone would want to call themselves a preacher, but I don't bug you about that do I? I am quite a man actually...served my country proudly in the Army, I am a firefighter...foster parent,...what do you do aside from misinterpret threads???

Damn right Im angry. You spit right in my face when you told me transparency is wasted on me, and the American people. I know you'd love to make this thread all about me, so no one notices how you spit in thier face, but Im not going to let you off that easy. Let me ask you, a vet no less (if thats in fact true) please justify to all us dumbed down reality TV watching idiots, how it is you feel the government should make enormous life changing laws, without us even hearing a debate on the subject. Please tell us all, how ever hard it might be for us to grasp, just how you've come to this conclution?

Edited January 7, 2010 by preacherman76

[eqgumby]

*snip*

Had the Constitution been written in a room full of C-Span cameras, it would be a real piece of ****.

THAT is funny as hell, mostly because it's probably closer to the truth than it should be!

Well said, bad-word-filter aside. It could be a bumper sticker!

[Fluffybunny]

When you take the time to read my post and stop over reacting to the pointing of making yourself look ridiculous, I will gladly respond to you. So far as I can tell you have absolutely proven my point by not being able to grasp the focus a few paragraphs without wandering off topic, so I can only imagine what thousands of pages of legalese would do for you on even your best day. You ever actually read those documents? Really? It doesn't show so far as I can tell. Every thread I have seen you contribute content in seems to be awash of uninformed hysteria or media slanted BS, far removed from facts. Facts seems to evade you long after they are made evident to many around the forum...

You can only reply with silly retorts about me spitting in Americans faces; absolute bunk and your only attempt at a reply(aside from a veiled shot at my manhood- so classy!) You still miss the point and you are just so frustrated that you cannot even be civil enough to ask what the point might be that anyone is getting at; so you would rather crack wise like a 9 year old kid in a school yard scuffle...with the same level of success I might add...

I have had enough of your trademark perpetual rudeness. I am done with you. You are obviously missing the point of what I am saying more often than not, and really don't value your opinion anyway, so really it just doesn't matter enough to me to continue this silliness. There are a lot of people here that I do care about what their opinion of me is, and I would be bothered if they were mad at me... You? not one of them. Not even close.

Go argue with someone else who values your opinion and cares about what you think.

[danielost]

I really hate that she would say something like that. I wish these damn politicians would at least TRY to live up to their promises!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100106/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

they are they promised themselves they would get elected/reelected no matter what it took/takes. not just talking about the dems. on this one either.

[Ignus Fatuus]

they are they promised themselves they would get elected/reelected no matter what it took/takes. not just talking about the dems. on this one either.

I believe that times .. the U.S is changing in connection with who is in power. I do not believe that many of the democrats could give a hoot about being re-elected. With the way things are going why should they ... they will have all the power they want. In office or out.

As seen with near past "I will not seek re-elections" ... really?? Seems to me that you know you would not be re-elected. We the people need to do something fast or we are in some deep doodie!!!