Actually, Cologal, I was talking about recounts done after the fact. One in particular was done by the Miama Hearald and USA Today, both liberal papers, and it showed that Bush won, Other news organizations, also, conducted recounts. Their results were the same.
As for exit polls. The polls always seem to show Democrats winning. Makes you wonder who they ask. Surely, the main stream media wouldn't be trying to sway people who haven't voted yet!!

Originally Posted by Sally Jo

Actually, Cologal, I was talking about recounts done after the fact. One in particular was done by the Miama Hearald and USA Today, both liberal papers, and it showed that Bush won, Other news organizations, also, conducted recounts. Their results were the same.
As for exit polls. The polls always seem to show Democrats winning. Makes you wonder who they ask. Surely, the main stream media wouldn't be trying to sway people who haven't voted yet!!

I don't have the same opinion of the main stream media that you do. And I know when both Nixon and Regan ran the exit polls clearly didn't indicate that the Dem's were winning.

But I know what you mean as I have lived in Colorado for 40 years...many times it wasn't even worth going to the polls after work.

Take care.

Originally Posted by cologal

I don't have the same opinion of the main stream media that you do. And I know when both Nixon and Regan ran the exit polls clearly didn't indicate that the Dem's were winning.

But I know what you mean as I have lived in Colorado for 40 years...many times it wasn't even worth going to the polls after work.

Take care.

Nixon and Reagan ran the exit polls? Really. Could you please expand on that?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

If that's all that was done in some extra time taken before voting, I'd agree. But if Congress is given more time, not only does the "debate" become stone-throwing, but too many self-serving legislators and their moneyed lobbyist backers start adding amendments or changing the language, often to something 180 degrees from what was intended.

Juat as Bucco doesn't trust the President, I have at least an equal amount of distrust for the U.S. Congress. Given the choice, I'll side with the "benevolent dictator".

I too have little trust in many congressfolk, but they are part of the process, and all there is for check-and-balance, and unless they vote for something, it doesn't happen. Better they know what they are voting to spend our money on, than throw up their hands and say, "what the heck, it's only money!"

Will there be grandstanding? You bet there will. But there already has been grandstanding from the White House, so a little more won't hurt.

I thought one of the goals of this administration was "full disclosure" because of Democratic accusations during the last administration of back-room actions. So, now this administration (and Congress) can do what they said they would, and not do what they complained about the last few years.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

...I thought one of the goals of this administration was "full disclosure" because of Democratic accusations during the last administration of back-room actions...

We keep referring to HR 3200 which, if I understand correctly, is for the most part the healthcare reform plan put forward by the White House, all 1,017 pages of it. I guess there are a couple of other less inclusive bills batting around the House, but this is supposed to be the one that embraces the administration's plan for reform.

The Senate has apparently not responded with a bill from that body. I guess that might mean that they don't want to put forth the effort to actually draft a bill, choosing rather to simply negotiate whatever bill comes out of the House in joint committee.

But as far as "full disclosure" and "transparency" is concerned, I don't know what more the administration could do beyond this. Maybe read it for us? Nah, we can do that. Here it is...

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...3200ih.txt.pdf

Originally Posted by Keedy

Nixon and Reagan ran the exit polls? Really. Could you please expand on that?

Let me help you with this....Sally Jo said the Democrats always are winning in the exit polls....

I replied that when Nixon ran, 1972, he wasn't losing in the exit polls...same thing when Reagan ran.

Hope that helps.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

We keep referring to HR 3200 which, if I understand correctly, is for the most part the healthcare reform plan put forward by the White House, all 1,017 pages of it. I guess there are a couple of other less inclusive bills batting around the House, but this is supposed to be the one that embraces the administration's plan for reform.

The Senate has apparently not responded with a bill from that body. I guess that might mean that they don't want to put forth the effort to actually draft a bill, choosing rather to simply negotiate whatever bill comes out of the House in joint committee.

But as far as "full disclosure" and "transparency" is concerned, I don't know what more the administration could do beyond this. Maybe read it for us? Nah, we can do that. Here it is...

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...3200ih.txt.pdf

As the Administration has ghost-written the legislation sponsored by Rep. Dingell (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.03200:), and the fact that the "thomas" URL has all the bill's content, that is all that is necessary to make it available. Now, I'm not sure how sharp everyone on this board is, but I know that the 800+ pages, many of which link into other statutes which also have to be researched, took me quite a bit of time to go through in a cursory manner. There's a lot of technical content meshed with a lot of vague "will do later" items that I still don't understand.

My point is, this bill is a lulu, and is as intense to go through as any document I have seen in quite a while. As my knowledge of medical systems is minimal, there's a lot of questions I have, and that's with a cursory review.

This is more than a "trust me" exercise. Shouldn't it get the full attention of Congress before committing $1Trillion and initiating 4 years of utter confusion?

Originally Posted by SteveZ

...I know that the 800+ pages, many of which link into other statutes which also have to be researched, took me quite a bit of time to go through in a cursory manner. There's a lot of technical content....this bill is a lulu, and is as intense to go through as any document I have seen in quite a while....

I had the same reaction you did, Steve. While not a lawyer, I read many, many loan and legal documents as a banker. In a whole lot of cases, I needed the assistance of our lawyers to explain the meaning of terms, the inter-relationship between sections or how existing law impacts on the content of the document I was reviewing. In many instances, about the best I could do alone is prepare a list of questions that I needed help with.

In reading thru HR 3200, in a cursory manner as you did, I find this bill in the same category, except that I don't have a lawyer to lean on. That being the case, I found it interesting that some posters here in the Political Forum listed the meaning of various sections and various pages with such absolute certainty. I went back and read several of the pages they cited and came away with either a question or with an altogether different interpretation.

A whole bunch of people were also aghast that Representative John Dingell said that he saw little benefit for him to read the entire bill. I know that his role was just to introduce the bill that someone else actually wrote and that he was probably being honest. But I found his statement ill-timed and unwise in that he still was listed as the principal sponsor of the bill. One really needs a lawyer to spend the time explaining the bill, it's terms, definitions and interrelationships. Is Dingell a lawyer? Even if he isn't, he's been making laws for a long, long time.

And VK, the fact that we read the same page and come away with different views or different questions should tell us all that this bill needs a lot more review and reading before it is passed into law. I would like you to read the page that says the government has electronic access to your bank account and see what your interpretation of that is. Being a banker could you better explain it. Maybe I just don't understand electronic funds transfer from my account to the government.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I had the same reaction you did, Steve. While not a lawyer, I read many, many loan and legal documents as a banker. In a whole lot of cases, I needed the assistance of our lawyers to explain the meaning of terms, the inter-relationship between sections or how existing law impacts on the content of the document I was reviewing. In many instances, about the best I could do alone is prepare a list of questions that I needed help with.

In reading thru HR 3200, in a cursory manner as you did, I find this bill in the same category, except that I don't have a lawyer to lean on. That being the case, I found it interesting that some posters here in the Political Forum listed the meaning of various sections and various pages with such absolute certainty. I went back and read several of the pages they cited and came away with either a question or with an altogether different interpretation.

A whole bunch of people were also aghast that Representative John Dingell said that he saw little benefit for him to read the entire bill. I know that his role was just to introduce the bill that someone else actually wrote and that he was probably being honest. But I found his statement ill-timed and unwise in that he still was listed as the principal sponsor of the bill. One really needs a lawyer to spend the time explaining the bill, it's terms, definitions and interrelationships. Is Dingell a lawyer? Even if he isn't, he's been making laws for a long, long time.

A little over a third of the congressfolk have law degrees. Most who have passed the bar are on "inactive" status at their bars.

If there's that much confusion in understanding the statute, writing the supporting (interpretive) regulations afterwards will be abominable. Once regulations have been put in place, the courts tend to leave them be as agency-expertise documents and give them a lot of deference if challenged. Another good reason to make sure everyone agrees with what the statute's language really means.

Originally Posted by l2ridehd

And VK,...I would like you to read the page that says the government has electronic access to your bank account and see what your interpretation of that is. Being a banker could you better explain it. Maybe I just don't understand electronic funds transfer from my account to the government.

Where is the language describing ETF by the government? I'll re-read it.

I'm not too really excited about the government having ETF authority to charge your checking account. For one thing, they have all the authority they need to seize, freeze or take your accounts as it is, without ETF. I would expect that when I read the proposed bill that the ETF's authorized will almost certainly be by specific government agencies and for very specific and narrow purposes. I'd be surprised if it were otherwise. Being able to obtain payments via ETF is only one step removed from them being able to deduct what they say you owe them from "your money" in the form of Social Security payments, tax refunds, charges to your SSA payments because you made too m much money, etc., etc.

But I will read the language and try to figure out what they're asking for that authority when they never had it before.

Bucco and rtc you are not able to agree because you have different mind sets.

Rtc the left winger comes from the hate bush and hate republicans mind set.

Bucco comes from the mind set that obama is a socialist and capitalists have no possibility of agreeing with the socialist thinkers.

Bucco you are wasting your time trying to convince a hate mind set liberal.

You two are in a hopeless debate.

One of you has a mind set that bush was a liar which is a lie.

The other is a capitalist who will never ever become or ever respect a socialist like obama.

You two cannot find a happy ground when one is filled with hate for bush and republicans while the other with major scorn for socialism.

That's why being a moderate and/or independent is the way to go! Take the best from each side.

Reminds me of the motto, "Lead, follow or get the heck out of the way." A moderate reminds me of a gambler who wants to place his bets in the last quarter of the football game when he thinks he will have a sure thing.