There should be a law that Congress must know what’s in a bill before they vote!

[buckeye45_73]

They do have them, they are called elections.

Yeah, but we used to have elections with educated and propertied people. Not mindless idiots that live in crack houses......the founders set it up like that for a reason.

 

[hjmick]

Fuck that. There should be a law that says the American people should know what's in a bill and what it will cost them before THEY tell their Congress critter how to vote on it...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

America isn’t on welfare. How old are you that you even call it welfare as that program ended in the 90’s and was replaced with far stricter programs? You don’t know what youre talking about is what I’m reading. Sad.

Fascinating Welfare Statistics and Facts​

• The number of people on welfare in the US is 59 million.
• There are 6 major welfare programs in the US.
• Four out of ten people in the US have been part of a welfare program for over 3 years.
• Nearly 50% of Americans believe government spending on social security needs to be increased.
• US taxpayers have paid more than $22 trillion for welfare programs over the course of 50 years.
• An estimated 20% of people in the US are supported by Medicaid.
• In 2019, for every 100 families in poverty, only 23 received cash assistance from TANF.
• Almost 73% of TANF recipients in the US are children.
• USDA tapped $5 million from federal funds to investigate SNAP fraud.

25+ Vital US Welfare Statistics to Know in 2025

We found amazing stats about the US Welfare. Check all these incredible statistics we've prepared for you!

review42.com

 

[citygator]

Fascinating Welfare Statistics and Facts​

• The number of people on welfare in the US is 59 million.
• There are 6 major welfare programs in the US.
• Four out of ten people in the US have been part of a welfare program for over 3 years.
• Nearly 50% of Americans believe government spending on social security needs to be increased.
• US taxpayers have paid more than $22 trillion for welfare programs over the course of 50 years.
• An estimated 20% of people in the US are supported by Medicaid.
• In 2019, for every 100 families in poverty, only 23 received cash assistance from TANF.
• Almost 73% of TANF recipients in the US are children.
• USDA tapped $5 million from federal funds to investigate SNAP fraud.

25+ Vital US Welfare Statistics to Know in 2025

We found amazing stats about the US Welfare. Check all these incredible statistics we've prepared for you!

review42.com

The specific callout was that people were getting free money so they weren’t working. That’s bullshit. Children don’t work so food stamps for children isn’t welfare keeping people from working. Neither is Medicaid. Health insurance doesn’t keep you from working.

The number of people getting money not to work is specifically limited to unemployment which is about 6M people which has a time limit and 2.2M on TANF which are mostly 53% children and almost all the rest are single moms - very tiny number of people. There isn’t enough help for the poor. Not too much.

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ofa/fy2020_characteristics_data_final.pdf

 

[ColonelAngus]

The specific callout was that people were getting free money so they weren’t working. That’s bullshit. Children don’t work so food stamps for children isn’t welfare keeping people from working. Neither is Medicaid. Health insurance doesn’t keep you from working.

The number of people getting money not to work is specifically limited to unemployment which is about 6M people which has a time limit and 2.2M on TANF which are mostly 53% children and almost all the rest are single moms - very tiny number of people. There isn’t enough help for the poor. Not too much.

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ofa/fy2020_characteristics_data_final.pdf

Can you list things you disagree with Democrats on?

Top 5 things you say the Democrats got wrong:

What are they IN YOUR OPINION?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The specific callout was that people were getting free money so they weren’t working. That’s bullshit. Children don’t work so food stamps for children isn’t welfare keeping people from working. Neither is Medicaid. Health insurance doesn’t keep you from working.

The number of people getting money not to work is specifically limited to unemployment which is about 6M people which has a time limit and 2.2M on TANF which are mostly 53% children and almost all the rest are single moms - very tiny number of people. There isn’t enough help for the poor. Not too much.

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ofa/fy2020_characteristics_data_final.pdf

Your claim was America is not on welfare. The point of my link is that yes, America is on welfare; at least 60 million are.

Of course there is help for the poor. Don't have children you could never afford in the first place. Our government encourages people to have children they can't afford because taxpayers will end up paying for them. According to Mike Rowe, at least 7 million men alone of working age are not working any longer. I would say that has quite a bit to do with our labor and supply shortage.

'The most chilling metric of all': Mike Rowe warns that 7 million American men are 'done' looking for work and have 'punched out' — why that's a serious problem

It’s taking a toll on multiple industries.

www.yahoo.com

 

[ClaireH]

I don't think it would be authoritarian to test voters before voting. What's authoritarian is when they can vote money out of the pockets of other people to give to themselves.

I'm not talking about anything partisan or very difficult in having voters take the test. It could be multiple choice. Questions like who is the speaker of the House? What party do they belong to? Who is the VP? What party do they belong to. Is the US in debt? If so, by how much: 100 billion, 1 trillion, 15 trillion, 31 trillion? What party leads the Senate? Just questions like that. The problem we have is Obama Phone ladies voting for Presidents.

Or let me use an analogy here: Let's say MLB decided that people of the city a team represents be allowed to pick their own players instead of the managers. In my city, they allow anybody to pick them. They could pick by race, by how cute they are, their accent or heritage, anything. In your city, people wanting to pick baseball players had to demonstrate an acute knowledge of the game and players. Now, which one of us will have the much better baseball team?

Donald Trump was an outstanding President by all measures, but he was rough around the edges. Now we have a dementia patient in charge of this country because Trump was crude, insulting at times, and posted abrasive Tweets. Forget how great the country was doing before covid. But that's how people voted; on personality instead of ability. That's the problem.

I follow your train of thought to expect voters to know the basics, and I agree that on the surface it doesn’t sound like too much to ask. But let’s consider where that could, and most likely would, lead.

Let’s say, all adults with low IQ’s can’t vote because they can’t pass the generic civics test. Are all low IQ voters dumb about politics? Not always, and depends upon exposure to knowledge which could go either way.

Is an 80 IQ (lower end of the 80-120 US average range) high enough to make rational decisions, without absorbing the biases of lying media sources and able to compare/contrast reports? How about a voter with 138 IQ and easily passes the test. Will passing the test mean that that voter is free of internal garbage for motives? Do all “book smart” voters make ethical decisions? Too many variables.

In the future, automated AI’s might scan every voter’s brainwaves prior to voting, who knows, stranger things are happening currently. Whoever programs AI’s will be in full control.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I follow your train of thought to expect voters to know the basics, and I agree that on the surface it doesn’t sound like too much to ask. But let’s consider where that could, and most likely would, lead.

Let’s say, all adults with low IQ’s can’t vote because they can’t pass the generic civics test. Are all low IQ voters dumb about politics? Not always, and depends upon exposure to knowledge which could go either way.

Is an 80 IQ (lower end of the 80-120 US average range) high enough to make rational decisions, without absorbing the biases of lying media sources and able to compare/contrast reports? How about a voter with 138 IQ and easily passes the test. Will passing the test mean that that voter is free of internal garbage for motives? Do all “book smart” voters make ethical decisions? Too many variables.

In the future, automated AI’s might scan every voter’s brainwaves prior to voting, who knows, stranger things are happening currently. Whoever programs AI’s will be in full control.

I'm not talking about IQ, I'm talking about having a clue as to how this country works, familiarity with current government status and people running the show. Even a lower IQ person should know who the VP is in our country. I think such a test could eliminate normal and even high IQ people as well who simply have no interest in politics, but vote because they've been told it was their patriotic duty.

This is why the Democrats are pushing mail-in ballots so much. People who don't really care much about voting won't take the trip to the polls to vote. Only people who really care will. With mail-in, it will attract more people to vote who know nothing about politics and issues, and those people generally vote Democrat. Democrat sounds like democracy, and democracy is a good thing, isn't it????

 

[Jarlaxle]

term limits are something the overwhelming majority of 'we da small folk' have wanted for quite some time Frank

~S~

But that does not matter, because the Supreme Court has already ruled (almost thirty years ago) that term limits on Congress would require a constitutional amendment. Dead issue.

 

[sparky]

But that does not matter, because the Supreme Court has already ruled (almost thirty years ago) that term limits on Congress would require a constitutional amendment. Dead issue.

Extending the 22nd to include Congresscritters shouldn't be a big deal Jar

~S~

 

[Leviticus]

I doubt many people in either party actually read the bills. I doubt MTG can even read at all.

 

[Leviticus]

The issue with term limits is that part of Congresses job is acting as an overwatch on the executive branch through heatings and committees. Enacting term limits would mean that there would be cases where you would have an entire congress filled with people who have literally no idea how to do this.

Instead, I would suggest enacting a direct mechanism for the people to remove members of congress.

A federal recall election law, requiring states to hold recall election if a certain percentage of voters demand it.

 

[miketx]

Congress needs term limits.

20 years in sing sing sounds good.

 

[miketx]

I doubt MTG can even read at all.

You are an imbecile.

 

[Leviticus]

You are an imbecile.

Sarah Palin is smarter than that bitch, and that's saying alot.


I mean, claiming she knew about foreign affairs with Russia because he state was right next to it was bad.....

But claiming that wildfires were caused by weaponized mirriors on Israeli satellites was even dumber.

 

[miketx]

Sarah Palin is smarter than that bitch, and that's saying alot.


I mean, claiming she knew about foreign affairs with Russia because he state was right next to it was bad.....

But claiming that wildfires were caused by weaponized mirriors on Israeli satellites was even dumber.

You proved my.point so you can go now, imbecile.

 

[ClaireH]

I'm not talking about IQ, I'm talking about having a clue as to how this country works, familiarity with current government status and people running the show. Even a lower IQ person should know who the VP is in our country. I think such a test could eliminate normal and even high IQ people as well who simply have no interest in politics, but vote because they've been told it was their patriotic duty.

This is why the Democrats are pushing mail-in ballots so much. People who don't really care much about voting won't take the trip to the polls to vote. Only people who really care will. With mail-in, it will attract more people to vote who know nothing about politics and issues, and those people generally vote Democrat. Democrat sounds like democracy, and democracy is a good thing, isn't it????

I couldn’t agree more with your take on mail-in ballots. What a scam that should be reserved for only voters with disabilities, elderly folks unable get out, and police/hospital employees working 12 hour shifts during poll times. All other “reasons” out the window.

 

[ClaireH]

It doesn't take 4 million dollars to "maintain" any trail. They are talking about starting from scratch and building a whole new one in honor of the wife of a Communist. In comparison that's like your household being in debt $25,000 that you can't pay and getting a in ground pool. It would be the dumbest thing you could do.

That’s the progressive way- tear it all down, start from scratch and triple your expenses in the process, while most conservatives know that many things can be rebuilt without a total tear down . Huge difference in cost and mindset. Money grows on trees, ask any full blown Leftist.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I couldn’t agree more with your take on mail-in ballots. What a scam that should be reserved for only voters with disabilities, elderly folks unable get out, and police/hospital employees working 12 hour shifts during poll times. All other “reasons” out the window.

Many people cannot vote on election day. Airline pilots, military, embassy/consulate staff, OTR truckers, oil field workers, anyone working abroad-anyone who can be forced to work a double shift, including police, fire, corrections officers, and utility workers.