PDA

View Full Version : Should member of Congressional committees be required to meet certain criteria?


houghtam
05-04-2013, 10:07 PM
So we all know about Todd "the rape guy...no, not that one, the other one...no, not that one...HERE, JUST LET ME SHOW YOU!" Akin seved on the Committee for Science, Space and Technology.

As some of you may know, Paul Broun (R - Georgia) currently serves on this committee, despite professing that he believes “All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell.”

I'm sure there are Democrats who may not be qualified for their particular committee positions, as well...but that is not the point.

The point is simply this:

Should we as a nation require positions on committees to be filled by people who meet certain requirements? Why or why not? If so, what sort of requirements should there be? For example, should the Science, Space and Technology committee only be filled by people who believe the earth is more than 9000 years old? Should members of the Armed Services Committee be required to have served in the Armed Forces?

I'm most curious to hear the reasoning from anyone who believes that we should not have requirements...these are people that are a driving force in the creation of policy..IMO if policy is being determined from the wrong initial conclusions, bad policy is bound to come from that ignorance.

So what does everyone say...should we or should we not require members of congressional committees to meet certain obligations before being assigned? What should the requirements for those committees be? And of course, results will be public.

Arkie
05-05-2013, 06:43 AM
What politicians choose to believe in front of one audience could be the opposite of what they believe the next day. If they can alter their beliefs to get elected, then they can do whatever it takes to get on committees. Bad policy doesn't come from ignorance anyway. It comes from greed and corruption.

cutthemdown
05-05-2013, 11:41 AM
The term certain obligations is far to broad to give an answer. They do meet certain obligations to get elected. What you mean is to not include people who disagree with you.

Fedaykin
05-05-2013, 12:09 PM
What politicians choose to believe in front of one audience could be the opposite of what they believe the next day. If they can alter their beliefs to get elected, then they can do whatever it takes to get on committees. Bad policy doesn't come from ignorance anyway. It comes from greed and corruption.

Bad policy doesn't come from ignorance? Since when?

houghtam
05-05-2013, 12:46 PM
The term certain obligations is far to broad to give an answer. They do meet certain obligations to get elected. What you mean is to not include people who disagree with you.

No, I'm talking about legitimate experience in a relevant field. For example, why should we allow someone who believes that the female body can prevent pregnancy from a rape to serve one the science committee? Should we allow someone who believes the earth is 9000 years old on the science committee? If there is a Democrat serving on a committee who has no background in that subject, I want them out too...not out of public office, just out of committee.

Think about it, if you were to create an Orangemane Committee on Tailgate Planning, who would you want on it? Would you want someone who has never been to a football game before?

Dr. Broncenstein
05-05-2013, 12:59 PM
We could create a presidential task force on "gun safety" and "common sense reforms," and have it headed by a guy who recommends illegally brandishing and randomly discharging firearms when threatened.

houghtam
05-05-2013, 02:06 PM
Hey cut, can I be in your band?

I don't read music.
I don't play any instruments.
I don't sing.
I don't listen to music.
I have no rhythm.
I don't dance.
I have no background in music.

Requiem
05-05-2013, 04:50 PM
I've thought a lot about this too, especially at state level politics. I mean, who the **** puts someone who was born and raised in a city on the agriculture committee when they haven't even planed a ****ing seed in their life?

cutthemdown
05-05-2013, 05:29 PM
I think you should have to pass a test just to run for Congress or President. Just like a wonderlic test of some sort. If you thnk only stupid repubs make it in you haven't spent time listening to house democrats.

cutthemdown
05-05-2013, 05:34 PM
So Houghtam do you think the liberals on committees who passed healthcare law have enough experience in health care to sit on those panels?

cutthemdown
05-05-2013, 05:39 PM
Hey cut, can I be in your band?

I don't read music.
I don't play any instruments.
I don't sing.
I don't listen to music.
I have no rhythm.
I don't dance.
I have no background in music.

So in other words you are the same as about half the people who call themselves musicians? :)

But i can agree with you to some point. I just think you would not be happy with the result if you made it an intelligence test to be in govt. The only people qualified to be on the armed services committee would be serving in the military and probably being an officer? For finance committe only people with a degree in finance should sit right? For judiciary only lawyers and former judges, maybe cops? See where I am going with this. You want exclude people from science if they disagree with any science? That would be a slippery slope but one i would find interesting to say the least.

houghtam
05-05-2013, 05:40 PM
So Houghtam do you think the liberals on committees who passed healthcare law have enough experience in health care to sit on those panels?

No! And that's my point!

I am seriously not being partisan about this. I don't think you should have to pass a wonderlic or whatever to hold office, regardless of party. People should be able to elec whomever they want to public office. But to serve on a committee should be a merit-and-experience-based process. At the moment committee seats are used as rewards for loyalty and electoral success.

Like Req said, if you haven't planted a seed in your life, why should you be decided policy for agriculture?

cutthemdown
05-05-2013, 05:41 PM
To be on the energy and natural resources board what qualifications would you desire Houghtam? To not have any feelings that say went against what a geologist would say? Just curious.

houghtam
05-05-2013, 05:43 PM
To be on the energy and natural resources board what qualifications would you desire Houghtam? To not have any feelings that say went against what a geologist would say? Just curious.

I honestly don't know enough about energy to even venture a guess. But I would say thinking something as wholly absurd as the earth is 9000 years old would be an automatic disqualifier.

cutthemdown
05-05-2013, 05:44 PM
I can see why you would not want a wonderlic type test to run for office. About half the stupid liberals in Congress would fail it. Also we would all be shocked to see how utterly stupid half the politicians we like are. My dad was a great EE and sent things into space working for JPL, Corning, Perkin Elmer and others in a long career.

he always told me the smartest and best our country has to offer go into the private sector. The dumb ones who can't cut it in their field go into politics.

cutthemdown
05-05-2013, 05:47 PM
I honestly don't know enough about energy to even venture a guess. But I would say thinking something as wholly absurd as the earth is 9000 years old would be an automatic disqualifier.

See how you gravitate towards an issue that is partisan though? Under your theory anyone religious should be excluded if they believe god created us and not evolution right? That would be religious persecution in govt.

The best way to do it would be a wonderlic test. You don't run unless you are among the most intelligent among us.

DenverBrit
05-05-2013, 06:12 PM
One criteria should be that they actually read the bills they sign.

Every copy should come with an affidavit stating that the undersigned has read and fully understands the attached bill.

That should slow down the pork.

cutthemdown
05-05-2013, 06:50 PM
But then they couldn't pass it to see whats in it Denverbrit. Think about it they passed the single biggest piece of legislation since the new deal without reading and understanding it. How can Obama be a success like that? That bill is doomed to be picked apart and fail at so many levels. I hear already the money for making insurance cover pre existing conditions is going to make people go broke at the exchanges. Obamacare exemptions will be the new back room deal in DC moving forward.

Requiem
05-05-2013, 07:07 PM
To be on the energy and natural resources board what qualifications would you desire Houghtam? To not have any feelings that say went against what a geologist would say? Just curious.

Most people who work in natural resource management and deal with aspects regarding resources and sustainability for government have some sort of soil science degree that is highly similar to geology. In fact, most of them have to take a lot of geology coursework. I work with these guys every day and they are damn smart. (I do G.I.S. work, so my stuff is a little bit different, but a lot of them use the work that I do to go out and do theres.)

There are going to be people in the same field, who do the same job and have same backgrounds that disagree, especially on cost-benefit analysis regarding the work they do. I see it every day and it is amazing to see how different everyone is with their opinions on the issues we deal with. It is cool to that though, because those voices and wide ranges of input help us be successful.

With the conservation service, you have geologists, soil scientists, anthropologists, political scientists, engineers, economists, etc. to all make it run effectively. A lot of these guys destroyed it in the private sector, but the wages here are good, benefits are awesome and they get a lot of perks. It isn't what you had stated. It is one of the reasons why they have done so well being under budget and not having to go through furlough and get rid of workers because they realize what it takes to make things run efficiently. Easily one of the most efficient departments there is, IMHO -- the diversity there helps.

These are the people that should be having a voice on committees, but most of them never desire to get into politics because they see how corrupt things are on a first-level basis every time they step into the office or go out into the field. They just do their part at what they can do at an individual and local level, because one man ain't ever gonna change what is done at the top.


I can see why you would not want a wonderlic type test to run for office. About half the stupid liberals in Congress would fail it. Also we would all be shocked to see how utterly stupid half the politicians we like are. My dad was a great EE and sent things into space working for JPL, Corning, Perkin Elmer and others in a long career.

he always told me the smartest and best our country has to offer go into the private sector. The dumb ones who can't cut it in their field go into politics.

If there was a voter litmus test for Congress, I doubt that most of the liberals would fail. If you look at the degrees of the people in Congress, a majority of them are coming from backgrounds in law, political science and history. This is also true of professional legislatures (states like NY, etc.) as opposed to citizen-ran legislatures that you find in the Midwest. They know what politics is about and they understand the concepts regarding them. That doesn't mean they are smart in other areas, but when it comes to understanding civics from an educated standpoint, that isn't really an issue.

I think that having career politicians and people who strictly aspire to do that is a problem, but most average, run-of-the-mill people who have backgrounds in things like engineering, agriculture, etc. can't afford to pony up the dough and run for elected office. There are hardly, if any, middle-class people in Congress. There sure ain't **** any poor people. It takes money to get into that sort of thing, and unfortunately people don't have it.

I always thought my dad should have ran for something at some point in time. Over 30+ years as an engineer for the government, and five years prior in the private. Knows his stuff. Still haven't been able to replace him post-retirement. When Obama came into office, they had a suggestion to all federal workers on how they could improve things and make stuff more cost effective or efficient. If your suggestion was chosen, you'd get some sort of reward. My dad wrote an essay on energy-cost initiatives (with estimates based on SD offices alone) that would translate into millions in savings per year. It involved making it mandatory to have sensors in every federal building that monitored energy output and reduced levels and intake of electricity, etc. when buildings were either empty or vacant for the weekend. Also having **** in substations and generators that could reduce overall costs. Stuff my dad realized as an engineer that was being wasted every day and believed we could improve upon. That idea never got taken up, but they ended up giving it to some stupid person who wanted to improve communication and relation in the workplace. Kinda silly.

Hope my dad ends up writing a book on revamping the energy grid in America, because he did so much work with that **** the past three decades, I couldn't think of a better person to give policy ideas on it. He also knows a lot about wind turbines and renewable energy since he worked on installation and oversight with those too.

Requiem
05-05-2013, 07:07 PM
One criteria should be that they actually read the bills they sign.

Every copy should come with an affidavit stating that the undersigned has read and fully understands the attached bill.

That should slow down the pork.

Yeah, that would be a start. Passing it off to staffers, who in legislative years are usually juniors or seniors in college getting internship credit who don't understand half that **** is a really poor idea.

houghtam
05-05-2013, 07:37 PM
Yeah, that would be a start. Passing it off to staffers, who in legislative years are usually juniors or seniors in college getting internship credit who don't understand half that **** is a really poor idea.

The staffers and policy wonks are actually the ones writing the bills and know what's going on. The committee members are the ones with the least amount of knowledge on the issues.

But I agree with you, Brit, people should have to read the bill before signing it. The problem is that there is just so much crap that needs to be processed that the people who actually have to vote on the stuff have no idea what's in it. Even worse if they can't understand it, and even worse than that if they don't believe in it.

Requiem
05-05-2013, 08:03 PM
Staffers and interns are usually smart, but not always. I just think it is really poor to have them go over everything, give the cliff notes to the real deals who don't put any **** of it and just argue based off of charts, powerpoints and tidbits passed off to them. I agree with Brit on the read before sign thing. A lot of the bills are just retardedly long too.

Pony Boy
05-05-2013, 08:32 PM
I honestly don't know enough about energy to even venture a guess. But I would say thinking something as wholly absurd as the earth is 9000 years old would be an automatic disqualifier.

So what you are saying is that anyone who believes in the Bible should automatically be disqualified from serving in public office. I see where you are going with this but I think former president Carter would disagree.

errand
05-05-2013, 08:52 PM
We could create a presidential task force on "gun safety" and "common sense reforms," and have it headed by a guy who recommends illegally brandishing and randomly discharging firearms when threatened.

...and while we're at it, let's put Mr. Fox in charge of Hen House legislation.

errand
05-05-2013, 08:55 PM
If they required a "wonderlic" type test to make in onto a committee how fast do you think some liberal would point out it's racially, or gender biased?

Requiem
05-05-2013, 09:00 PM
Ah, Early Earth Creationists. Lol!

houghtam
05-05-2013, 09:06 PM
So what you are saying is that anyone who believes in the Bible should automatically be disqualified from serving in public office. I see where you are going with this but I think former president Carter would disagree.

Do you know the difference between serving in public office and holding a seat on a congressional committee? What is the difference?

Serious question. I'm not convinced you do.

But to reiterate, yes, I believe that if you have a literal interpretation of the Bible, you are not qualified to serve on the committee for science, space and technology.

cutthemdown
05-05-2013, 10:39 PM
Do you know the difference between serving in public office and holding a seat on a congressional committee? What is the difference?

Serious question. I'm not convinced you do.

But to reiterate, yes, I believe that if you have a literal interpretation of the Bible, you are not qualified to serve on the committee for science, space and technology.

In the Senate its Commerce, Science, Transportation. Are you saying we would have to change the committees or can religious people also not serve for transportation because they believe somehow, even though science says the earth is older, they believe in the bible?

The other is energy and natural resources. So if you think the oil youngers then others you are an idiot as to how it should be pumped or used? So you can't be on that one either.

See where I am going this is just an attack on religion not how smart someone is.

houghtam
05-05-2013, 11:00 PM
In the Senate its Commerce, Science, Transportation. Are you saying we would have to change the committees or can religious people also not serve for transportation because they believe somehow, even though science says the earth is older, they believe in the bible?

The other is energy and natural resources. So if you think the oil youngers then others you are an idiot as to how it should be pumped or used? So you can't be on that one either.

See where I am going this is just an attack on religion not how smart someone is.

This is not an attack on religion.

The committees are not written in the Constitution. How they are comprised should be revisited, as well, and can be altered easily. In fact, if you look into it, the names and scopes of most of the committees have changed several times over the years.

In looking at the different committees, there are several which (attempt to) encompass different topics that have very little to do with one another.

House Committees (with multiple platforms)

Education and the Workforce? Yeah okay I can see that...
Energy and Commerce? Hmmm, okay...we're getting a little more abstract in our relationships here...
Oversight and Government Reform? Sure!
Science, Space and Technology? Sounds good.
Transportation and Infrastructure? Checks out.

Senate Committees

Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry? I can see A and B, or B and C, or A and C, but not A, B and C. Too broad.
Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs? Banking and Housing okay...Urban Affairs and Housing okay...Maybe combine Banking and Housing with Finance, and Urban Affairs with....Jesus, WTF
Commerce, Science and Transportation? L0L WUT?
Energy and Natural Resources? Finally, some common sense in this MFer.
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions? Oops I spoke too soon.

The system needs to be changed. Congressional committees serve a very important purpose and should be positions reserved for people with expertise in that area. Furthermore, the committees themselves and their responsibilities need to be reevaluated. For the Senate, I understand there are only 100 members to go around, but I don't believe you would have to create any more committees than there currently are...just reorganize them so that they make sense, so we don't run into the problem where a New Earther who is perfectly qualified to be on the budget committee is on the Senate Budget, Indian Affairs, Science, Technology, Awesome 80's Movies and Bake Sale Committee.

Do you see what I'm saying?

cutthemdown
05-05-2013, 11:42 PM
So if someone believes somehow the Earth is only 9000 yrs old. They agree science disagrees but then maybe say somehow its true i have faith.

Does that mean they should not have a say in what we do in outer space. Wasn't Neil Armstrong a huge christian? What if someone had a doctors in astro physics or some crazy thing but still said somehow I have faith that whats in the bible is true. Is that person now too stupid to help plan how to spend money in outer space? Do you see what i am saying.

i do see where you are coming from. But what do you do when a housewife gets elected by the people. Do you exclude her from all the important committees? Also you won't be able to stop at just religion vs science. Once a can of worms open it opens all the way.

You focus on religion vs science only.

houghtam
05-05-2013, 11:54 PM
So if someone believes somehow the Earth is only 9000 yrs old. They agree science disagrees but then maybe say somehow its true i have faith.

Does that mean they should not have a say in what we do in outer space. Wasn't Neil Armstrong a huge christian? What if someone had a doctors in astro physics or some crazy thing but still said somehow I have faith that whats in the bible is true. Is that person now too stupid to help plan how to spend money in outer space? Do you see what i am saying.

i do see where you are coming from. But what do you do when a housewife gets elected by the people. Do you exclude her from all the important committees? Also you won't be able to stop at just religion vs science. Once a can of worms open it opens all the way.

You focus on religion vs science only.

So far I have, because that's what sparked the debate in my mind.

Diane Feinstein is on the Judiciary Committee. She has a BA in History. Now, I don't know what her focus was in History. I don't know what sort of experience she has picked up (not related to her education) being on the Hill for so long, so it's possible she's qualified. But looking at her history, it looks like the closest link to judicial process she has is having a daughter who is a judge.

But what I am saying, believe it or not, *GASP* is that regardless of party, if you do not have the experience, you should not be allowed on the committee. The Constitution says a lot about who, what, when and how people can get elected to positions. It says little to nothing about congressional committees. There is no constitutional protection that I know of which requires congress to allow anyone who has been elected to serve on a committee.

Being elected as a congressional public servant gives you the opportunity to vote on bills and debate policy. It does not, nor should not guarantee you a seat on a committee. A housewife who gets elected (with little to no relevant education) has no business serving on a committee. Hell, I'm a house husband at the moment. I have no background in energy. I would not expect anyone to appoint me to the energy committee, nor should anyone else.

If the background does not fit, you must sit.

cutthemdown
05-06-2013, 01:01 AM
who decides if the background fits houghtam? How would you manage that? They can't even agree on the presidents appointments.

cutthemdown
05-06-2013, 01:07 AM
People on Committee are like a jury where you know they don't know everything, but they are supposed to listen to expert testimoney and make rational decisions right?

I don't aree that just because i don't have a degree in science that I could not make a good decision on how to spend money in the space program. A rational man/woman of decent intelligence could listen to experts, then say I think the mars missions is the most important to the country etc etc. Committee members listen to experts more then they are the experts.

if thats the case then like i said before you need to kick out all the poli sci, history, liberal arts majors for engineers, scientists, doctors, former military, and on and on. What do we need history for? The what happened last decade committee? I'm not saying history not important just don't see that expertise good for anything but maybe stuff about foreign relations? war? Certainly not energy. But that doesn't mean fienstien not smart enough to get the people who know that stuff in front of the committee to hear the facts.

cutthemdown
05-06-2013, 01:08 AM
better would be just a wonderlic for politicians. Some history, some govt, some math, etc etc and see how they score. Unless the are above avg in IQ tell them you aren't smart enough for govt go work in a union somewhere. :)

elsid13
05-06-2013, 01:53 AM
It's not possible for all elected official to be in-depth experts on all of the field they are assigned to in committee, because of the number of committees and most of their past experience as lawyers. There are very individual that any other background then legal in today's Congress. What you hope for is good professional staffers and willingness to have an open mind with ability to ask the right questions.

Pony Boy
05-06-2013, 06:29 AM
But to reiterate, yes, I believe that if you have a literal interpretation of the Bible, you are not qualified to serve on the committee for science, space and technology.

Now we are getting somewhere, you need to rename this thread.

"If you have a literal interpretation of the Bible, you are not qualified to serve on a congressional committee".


For the record the only time I'm inside a church is for Marrying & Burying.

Pony Boy
05-06-2013, 07:54 AM
To be on the energy and natural resources board what qualifications would you desire Houghtam? To not have any feelings that say went against what a geologist would say? Just curious.

I would be willing to bet one of the qualifications would be a belief in global warming and certainly anyone with an "oil background" need not apply

houghtam
05-06-2013, 09:17 AM
For the record the only time I'm inside a church is for Marrying & Burying.

Sorry your command of the English language is so poor. I should have typed "If ONE has a literal interpretation of the Bible, ONE is not qualified to serve on the Science, Space and Tech Committee."

You know why?

Because the Bible isn't science.

Now, as far as cut's question about energy and natural resources, I don't see why you wouldn't want at least someone with a background in oil, coal or any of that stuff. As long as they're not taking money from those industries (which, who are we kidding, everyone takes money from everyone), you have valuable insight to provide.

I would say that yes, not believing global warming is occurring would automatically disqualify someone, because it IS occurring. If someone were to say that they didn't believe that humans were the only cause of it, however...while I disagree, that wouldn't be a disqualifier.

I like how you guys are asking questions trying to trap me into saying something you don't like, as if one person would be in charge of all of the qualifications of the committees. I would think that if they did this, they would have some sort of panel which decides on the qualifications based on common ground.

The unfortunate thing is that it will never happen in a million years, because you would have to get Congress to vote on it, and all of the congressman that just got appointed to the House Committees on the Flavors of Tang because they won re-election for their party would vote against it.

B-Large
05-06-2013, 09:49 AM
People on Committee are like a jury where you know they don't know everything, but they are supposed to listen to expert testimoney and make rational decisions right?

I don't aree that just because i don't have a degree in science that I could not make a good decision on how to spend money in the space program. A rational man/woman of decent intelligence could listen to experts, then say I think the mars missions is the most important to the country etc etc. Committee members listen to experts more then they are the experts.

if thats the case then like i said before you need to kick out all the poli sci, history, liberal arts majors for engineers, scientists, doctors, former military, and on and on. What do we need history for? The what happened last decade committee? I'm not saying history not important just don't see that expertise good for anything but maybe stuff about foreign relations? war? Certainly not energy. But that doesn't mean fienstien not smart enough to get the people who know that stuff in front of the committee to hear the facts.

I think the diversity of backgrounds and opinions on the committees is a good thing, and it works both ways. You don't was a group of like thinking environmental scientists or envronmental lawyers on the Energy Commitee, just like you don't want all ex energy compnay CEO's there either. Our government, IMO, by design is slow, lumbering and it is difficult to push pure idealogical policies or agenda items through- and that is a good thing. We are a nation whoe elected people to public service as they promise to do whats best for thier consituents, that often means the historian end up ont he Finance committee.... its the nature of the beast.

As for the Rep that believe in Creationism, can they be on the science committee and be productive... sure, why not?... just because they believe in the Bible, does not neccesarily mean they don't recognize that the future of good jobs globally are in the sciences and support funding for those endeavors is essential. Even if they do, the dissent in our system is welcome.

I see what you getting at OP is getting at, and in a strictly practical world you have groups of expertise, but in Government and other oversight/representative bodies like Corp Board of Governance that is not the case.

Arkie
05-06-2013, 10:50 AM
Bad policy doesn't come from ignorance? Since when?

Don't be gullible. They claim ignorance if they admit it's bad policy. They never admit to any corruption though.

Fedaykin
05-06-2013, 02:17 PM
Don't be gullible. They claim ignorance if they admit it's bad policy. They never admit to any corruption though.

It's gullible to understand that ignorance can lead to bad decisions? What are you smoking?

DenverBrit
05-07-2013, 07:23 AM
But then they couldn't pass it to see whats in it Denverbrit. Think about it they passed the single biggest piece of legislation since the new deal without reading and understanding it. How can Obama be a success like that? That bill is doomed to be picked apart and fail at so many levels. I hear already the money for making insurance cover pre existing conditions is going to make people go broke at the exchanges. Obamacare exemptions will be the new back room deal in DC moving forward.

That was my point.

I don't care which party they belong to, they need to read the ****ing bill before signing off.
Both parties are guilty, their priority is to pander to lobbyists and their clients, not to those who elect them.

DenverBrit
05-07-2013, 07:25 AM
Yeah, that would be a start. Passing it off to staffers, who in legislative years are usually juniors or seniors in college getting internship credit who don't understand half that **** is a really poor idea.

They would have to start working on our behalf and not just their self interest.

So it's not going to happen or even attempted.

DenverBrit
05-07-2013, 07:27 AM
The staffers and policy wonks are actually the ones writing the bills and know what's going on. The committee members are the ones with the least amount of knowledge on the issues.

But I agree with you, Brit, people should have to read the bill before signing it. The problem is that there is just so much crap that needs to be processed that the people who actually have to vote on the stuff have no idea what's in it. Even worse if they can't understand it, and even worse than that if they don't believe in it.

They really need to start with the tax code, we were better off with the tea tax. ;D

Requiem
05-07-2013, 09:39 AM
They would have to start working on our behalf and not just their self interest.

So it's not going to happen or even attempted.

Can US Citizen get refugee status other places? :)

DenverBrit
05-07-2013, 09:50 AM
Can US Citizen get refugee status other places? :)

Canada? They seem to be so understanding. :)

Pick Six
05-07-2013, 10:15 AM
Committee assignments are often handed out as repayment of favors. Congressperson Y voted for an important bill, so Congressperson Y is assigned to a powerful committee (like Ways and Means). It would NICE if committee assignments coincided with the person's interest and expertise...

Arkie
05-07-2013, 10:44 AM
It's gullible to understand that ignorance can lead to bad decisions? What are you smoking?

No, it's gullible to believe their failure to address the country's problems is due to their own ignorance. They make decisions based on what's best for their agenda not the country.

cutthemdown
05-07-2013, 12:12 PM
Committee assignments are often handed out as repayment of favors. Congressperson Y voted for an important bill, so Congressperson Y is assigned to a powerful committee (like Ways and Means). It would NICE if committee assignments coincided with the person's interest and expertise...

Nancy Pelosi could do what then? All she has is a poli sci degree big ****ing deal. Poli Sci degree is crap and only good for either trying to get into law school, being a grade school teacher, or going into politics.

I'm sure most of the repubs have crap degrees also. When I say crap i don't mean useless, i just mean nothing that makes you me want you on the House finance committee. Thats why we don't require them to have expertise to sit on a committee. If we did we would probably have a lot of empty seats on both sides.

Fedaykin
05-07-2013, 12:26 PM
No, it's gullible to believe their failure to address the country's problems is due to their own ignorance. They make decisions based on what's best for their agenda not the country.

Those with agendas always find ignorance to be quite the useful tool. People who are ignorant are far more likely to go along with an agenda.

For example, Mitt Romney is certainly not ignorant, but he's skilled at leveraging the ignorance of his party members and constituents to go along with his tax agenda.

cutthemdown
05-07-2013, 12:31 PM
Those with agendas always find ignorance to be quite the useful tool. People who are ignorant are far more likely to go along with an agenda.

For example, Mitt Romney is certainly not ignorant, but he's skilled at leveraging the ignorance of his party members and constituents to go along with his tax agenda.

Is Obama skilled at leveraging the ignorance of his party members?

houghtam
05-07-2013, 12:59 PM
Nancy Pelosi could do what then? All she has is a poli sci degree big ****ing deal. Poli Sci degree is crap and only good for either trying to get into law school, being a grade school teacher, or going into politics.

I'm sure most of the repubs have crap degrees also. When I say crap i don't mean useless, i just mean nothing that makes you me want you on the House finance committee. Thats why we don't require them to have expertise to sit on a committee. If we did we would probably have a lot of empty seats on both sides.

You don't think we could stand to have a few open seats on the House Committee on Financial Services?


Jeb Hensarling, Texas, Chairman[2]
Spencer Bachus, Alabama, Chairman Emeritus
Peter T. King, New York
Ed Royce, California
Frank Lucas, Oklahoma
Gary Miller, California
Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia
Scott Garrett, New Jersey
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Patrick McHenry, North Carolina
John Campbell, California
Michele Bachmann, Minnesota
Kevin McCarthy, California
Steve Pearce, New Mexico
Bill Posey, Florida
Mike Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania
Lynn Westmoreland, Georgia
Blaine Luetkemeyer, Missouri
Bill Huizenga, Michigan
Sean Duffy, Wisconsin
Jim Renacci, Ohio
Robert Hurt, Virginia
Michael Grimm, New York
Steve Stivers, Ohio
Stephen Fincher, Tennessee


New Republicans for the 113th:

Marlin Stutzman, Indiana
Mick Mulvaney, South Carolina
Randy Hultgren, Illinois
Dennis A. Ross, Florida
Robert Pittenger, North Carolina
Ann Wagner, Missouri
Andy Barr, Kentucky
Tom Cotton, Arkansas



Maxine Waters, California, Ranking Member
Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
Luis Gutierrez, Illinois
Nydia Velázquez, New York
Mel Watt, North Carolina
Brad Sherman, California
Gregory W. Meeks, New York
Michael Capuano, Massachusetts
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
William Clay, Jr., Missouri
Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts
David Scott, Georgia
Al Green, Texas
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri
Gwen Moore, Wisconsin
Keith Ellison, Minnesota
Ed Perlmutter, Colorado
Jim Himes, Connecticut
Gary Peters, Michigan
John Carney, Delaware


New Democrats as of the 113th:

Terri Sewell, Alabama
Bill Foster, Illinois
Dan Kildee, Michigan
Patrick Murphy, Florida
John Delaney, Maryland
Kyrsten Sinema, Arizona
Joyce Beatty, Ohio
Denny Heck of Washington

Or the Senate Committee on Finance?


Max Baucus, Montana Chairman
Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia
Ron Wyden, Oregon
Chuck Schumer, New York
Debbie Stabenow, Michigan
Maria Cantwell, Washington
Bill Nelson, Florida
Bob Menendez, New Jersey
Tom Carper, Delaware
Ben Cardin, Maryland
Sherrod Brown, Ohio
Michael Bennet, Colorado
Bob Casey, Pennsylvania



Orrin Hatch, Utah, Ranking Republican Member
Chuck Grassley, Iowa
Mike Crapo, Idaho
Pat Roberts, Kansas
Mike Enzi, Wyoming
John Cornyn, Texas
John Thune, South Dakota
Richard Burr, North Carolina
Johnny Isakson, Georgia
Rob Portman, Ohio
Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania

DenverBrit
05-07-2013, 01:45 PM
Is Obama skilled at leveraging the ignorance of his party members?

About the same as Boehner.

Pick Six
05-07-2013, 01:51 PM
Nancy Pelosi could do what then? All she has is a poli sci degree big ****ing deal. Poli Sci degree is crap and only good for either trying to get into law school, being a grade school teacher, or going into politics.

I'm sure most of the repubs have crap degrees also. When I say crap i don't mean useless, i just mean nothing that makes you me want you on the House finance committee. Thats why we don't require them to have expertise to sit on a committee. If we did we would probably have a lot of empty seats on both sides.

Having empty seats would be a bad thing? Ha!

Arkie
05-07-2013, 03:24 PM
Joint subcommittee meeting on the 50-yard line in 15 :puff: