A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I like the attestation that every member of congress actually read the legislation they're voting on.

I truly believe that Spanky reads every post he responds to.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I wish they would have listed the one about Al Gore leading a non-partisan panel as #1, so I could have stopped reading right then and there.

Albeit, that was the funniest thing I've read all day.

we have too many teachers for what it's worth. I know several recent grads that can't find squat. You have to move to south Carolina to get a job.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
. But other stuff is, I think, a good start. I like the attestation that every member of congress actually read the legislation they're voting on.

This list would make a lot more sense after a clean sweep of Congress and the Presidency, not in a two-year period with a Republican president.

Since I know Dems won't listen to me, I'll offer my advice, which is to pick 3-4 central issues and do something with them, or try. Leave the rest to 2008.

The obvious ones:

Iraq,
Minimum wage,
Immigration,
(and maybe border security).

Put foward your vision, get it passed or get it vetoed, and then run on it in 2008.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
This list would make a lot more sense after a clean sweep of Congress and the Presidency, not in a two-year period with a Republican president.

Since I know Dems won't listen to me, I'll offer my advice, which is to pick 3-4 central issues and do something with them, or try. Leave the rest to 2008.

The obvious ones:

Iraq,
Minimum wage,
Immigration,
(and maybe border security).

Put foward your vision, get it passed or get it vetoed, and then run on it in 2008.

I would suggest that House ethics reform is another obvious candidate.

I read that the current Congress has basically decided to leave town without resolving a whole host of budget issues. The government is funded by continuing resolution through early next year, but the next Congress is going to confront budget problems in a relatively quick fashion. Republicans evidently have decided to duck the hard choices and then attack the Democrats for whatever they choose to do. It's just another sign of the irresponsibility of the GOP, and of the reasons that conservatism works better as a way to get elected than as a way to run the country.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
It's just another sign of the irresponsibility of the GOP, and of the reasons that conservatism works better as a way to get elected than as a way to run the country.

What was the platform of the Democrat party again?

Forgive me if I missed it, since the only thing I heard proposed was "we aren't the GOP"

Well, that, reinstituting the draft, and putting an impeached, disgraced former judge as the head of the House Intelligence Committee.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
What was the platform of the Democrat party again?

Forgive me if I missed it, since the only thing I heard proposed was "we aren't the GOP"

Well, that, reinstituting the draft, and putting an impeached, disgraced former judge as the head of the House Intelligence Committee.

If you think Rangel wants to reintroduce the draft, you probably think Jonathan Swift supported cannabalism.

And Pelosi told Hastings today that he's not getting that chairmanship, so your timing is a little off. (Even K-Lo appreciated Hastings comments about it.)

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
If you think Rangel wants to reintroduce the draft, you probably think Jonathan Swift supported cannabalism.

He's now brought it up twice in 2 years. If he isn't serious about it, why doesn't he shut the fuck up? He's cannon fodder for the party

And Pelosi told Hastings today that he's not getting that chairmanship, so your timing is a little off. (Even K-Lo appreciated Hastings comments about it.)

The first thing she did was through her weight behind Mr. Abscam. Brilliant. Next, she tried - again unsuccessfully - to throw Harman under a bus in favor of Hastings (only one of 6 fed judges to ever get impeached. That's impressive!!!) Lucky for the Dems that she didn't get to get embarrassed on the floor. Again.

You're right about one thing though - ethics reform should be at the top of the agenda.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
He's now brought it up twice in 2 years. If he isn't serious about it, why doesn't he shut the fuck up? He's cannon fodder for the party.

If you follow that link, you'll see that he's serious about it, but not for the reason you seem to think.

The first thing she did was through her weight behind Mr. Abscam. Brilliant. Next, she tried - again unsuccessfully - to throw Harman under a bus in favor of Hastings (only one of 6 fed judges to ever get impeached. That's impressive!!!) Lucky for the Dems that she didn't get to get embarrassed on the floor. Again.

There was no announcement that Harman is getting the job, either.

You're right about one thing though - ethics reform should be at the top of the agenda.

Kumbayah, dude.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Kumbayah, dude.

Apparently, [someone] gave the cab driver a twenty, not a ten:

The government discriminates against blind people by printing money that all looks and feels the same, a federal judge said Tuesday in a ruling that could change the face of American currency.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson ordered the Treasury Department to come up with ways for the blind to tell bills apart. He said he wouldn't tell officials how to fix the problem, but he ordered them to begin working on it.

The American Council of the Blind has proposed several options, including printing bills of differing sizes, adding embossed dots or foil to the paper or using raised ink.

"Of the more than 180 countries that issue paper currency, only the United States prints bills that are identical in size and color in all their denominations," Robertson wrote. "More than 100 of the other issuers vary their bills in size according to denomination, and every other issuer includes at least some features that help the visually impaired."

Government attorneys argued that forcing the Treasury Department to change the size of the bills or add texture would make it harder to prevent counterfeiting. Robertson was not swayed.

"The fact that each of these features is currently used in other currencies suggests that, at least on the face of things, such accommodations are reasonable," he wrote.

He said the government was violating the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in government programs. The opinion came after a four-year legal fight.

Electronic devices are available to help blind people differentiate between bills, but many complain that they are slow, expensive and unreliable. Visually impaired shoppers frequently rely on store clerks to help them.

"It's just frankly unfair that blind people should have to rely on the good faith of people they have never met in knowing whether they've been given the correct change," said Jeffrey A. Lovitky, attorney for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Others have developed ways to cope with the similarly shaped bills. Melanie Brunson, a member of the American Council of the Blind, told the court that she folds her bills into different shapes: $1 bills stay straight, $5 bills are folded in half left to right, $10 bills in half top to bottom and $20 in quarters.

The Treasury Department had no comment on the ruling Tuesday. The government has 10 days to decide whether to appeal.

U.S. bills have not always been the same size. In 1929, the government standardized the size and shrank all bills by about 30 percent to lower manufacturing costs and help distinguish between genuine and counterfeit notes.

Since then, the Treasury Department has worked to stay ahead of counterfeiters. Security threads and microprinting were introduced in The portraits were enlarged in 1996, and an infrared feature was added to encourage the development of electronic readers for the blind.

The latest redesign is under way. New $10 bills, featuring splashes of orange, yellow and red, hit the market this year, following similar changes to the $20 bill in 2003 and the $50 bill in 2004. The $5 facelift is due in 2008.

In court documents, government attorneys said changing the way money feels would be expensive. Cost estimates ranged from $75 million in equipment upgrades and $9 million annual expenses for punching holes in bills to $178 million in one-time charges and $50 million annual expenses for printing bills of varying sizes.

Any change to the dollar's design could ripple into the vending machine industry, which participated in discussions regarding previous redesigns. The American Council of the Blind is not seeking changes to the $1 bill, according to court documents.

The Treasury Department spent $4.2 billion on printing over the past decade, Robertson said. Adding a raised number to the bills would have increased costs less than 5 percent over that period, he said.

"If additional savings could be gained by incorporating the new feature into a larger redesign, such as those that took place in 1996 or 2004, the total burden of adding such a feature would be even smaller," Robertson wrote.

RT was here.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
U.S. District Judge James Robertson

gosh. i wonder which President nominated him?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
gosh. i wonder which President nominated him?

I'm guessing one not on any of the current bills?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I read that the current Congress has basically decided to leave town without resolving a whole host of budget issues. The government is funded by continuing resolution through early next year, but the next Congress is going to confront budget problems in a relatively quick fashion. Republicans evidently have decided to duck the hard choices and then attack the Democrats for whatever they choose to do. It's just another sign of the irresponsibility of the GOP, and of the reasons that conservatism works better as a way to get elected than as a way to run the country.

What you read apparently failed to mention that a) continuing resolutions are a long tradition of both parties and b) it is also traditional that, when a CR is in effect, a lame duck Congress and/or President does not seek to finish budget work, but rather leaves it to the next Congress/President to set budget priorities. You think the Rs would have had a hard time passing the budget if the Ds didn't think they had a good chance of taking the election?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I would suggest that House ethics reform is another obvious candidate.

I agree.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I read that the current Congress has basically decided to leave town without resolving a whole host of budget issues. The government is funded by continuing resolution through early next year, but the next Congress is going to confront budget problems in a relatively quick fashion. Republicans evidently have decided to duck the hard choices and then attack the Democrats for whatever they choose to do. It's just another sign of the irresponsibility of the GOP, and of the reasons that conservatism works better as a way to get elected than as a way to run the country.

If they did anything they would be accused of bucking the will of the people because they were voted out. The people didn't want them to make the decisions so they are leaving it to the people that the voters chose to make the decisions. The Democrats wanted the power, now you are saying they don't want it?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What you read apparently failed to mention that a) continuing resolutions are a long tradition of both parties and b) it is also traditional that, when a CR is in effect, a lame duck Congress and/or President does not seek to finish budget work, but rather leaves it to the next Congress/President to set budget priorities. You think the Rs would have had a hard time passing the budget if the Ds didn't think they had a good chance of taking the election?

In the ordinary course, we would have had a 2007 budget (i.e., appropriations bills, and not just continuing resolutions) long before the November 2006 elections, no?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In the ordinary course, we would have had a 2007 budget (i.e., appropriations bills, and not just continuing resolutions) long before the November 2006 elections, no?

The "ordinary" course has been to have continuing resolutions in recent years.

ETA: Read up

It's rare not to have them.