http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/11/house-wont-honor-troops-killed-bin-laden/

Quote :

" The House will not hold a vote on a resolution honoring U.S. troops and the intelligence community on the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, the number-two House Republican said Tuesday. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said that House Republican leaders had been considering a symbolic resolution honoring the Navy SEALS and others involved in the bin Laden raid but that they had decided against one in an effort to keep in line with their new rules prohibiting commemorative measures. “We considered that last week, and we deal with the rules that we’ve put in place in the House, and we’ve said since we assumed the majority that we want to be substantive and meaningful,” Cantor told reporters at his weekly roundtable."

http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Bushes-names-added-to-Midland-federal-courthouse-1362444.php#ixzz1M0f0jV8O

Quote :

"MIDLAND, Texas (AP) — The U.S. House has voted to add the names of former presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush to the federal courthouse in Midland, where the Bushes once lived."

that's fucked up

5/11/2011 6:35:57 PM

Yes, let us put the names of the unnamed Navy SEALs on the courthouse.

5/11/2011 6:42:15 PM

that's not the point. The House is always issuing resolutions about stuff.

5/11/2011 6:45:07 PM

really? really... really?

5/11/2011 6:52:00 PM

Why is that? They're usually non-binding resolutions. We pay representatives over a hundred thousand dollars a year to sit around and vote on meaningless, feel good measures. This is symptomatic of a much larger problem: Parkinson's Law (nature abhors a vacuum, etc) means that the workload of government will expand to fill the time allotted to complete those tasks, especially since our current government has no real spending constraints.

[Edited on May 11, 2011 at 6:52 PM. Reason : ]

5/11/2011 6:52:11 PM

Time to lock up another prydouchy thread.

5/11/2011 7:43:01 PM

Why aren't they passing legislation that create jobs?

5/11/2011 7:58:40 PM

because, for the most part, legislation tends to kill jobs

5/11/2011 7:59:45 PM

except when it's legislation to rape our environment for resources

also this thread sucks

5/11/2011 8:07:07 PM

actually, I'd posit that even that kind of legislation would kill jobs, as it is probably lobbied for by business as a way to provide a barrier to entry to other firms

5/11/2011 8:11:54 PM

Quote :

"Why aren't they passing legislation that create jobs?"

Because we aren't a communist nation?

5/11/2011 8:34:11 PM

hahahahaha

thinking that politicians can create jobs.

I mean, maybe they have top secret magic wands that I didn't know about, but I doubt it.

5/11/2011 9:20:15 PM

I guess we should cancel all our military contracts and eliminate subsidies to oil companies.

5/12/2011 4:48:22 PM

So the armed forces dont count as jobs? Well then we can just cut all that since they don't count as jobs...

5/12/2011 8:41:22 PM

If you're going to be sarcastic following two people that made opposite posts, you need to let the rest of the group know which one you are replying to.

5/12/2011 9:33:05 PM

This turned into a decent thread.

5/13/2011 6:22:00 AM

The government builds roads, bridges and dams that foster economic growth and creates jobs.

Unemployment and welfare benefits generate $1.6 or economic activity for every $1 spent. That money goes to landlords and grocery stores and improves the local economy.

5/13/2011 2:06:16 PM

We should give everyone welfare then.

5/13/2011 3:45:58 PM

Quote :

"Unemployment and welfare benefits generate $1.6 or economic activity for every $1 spent"

No one disputes money flows through an economy.

What is not attached to that number is the fact that it could have been a higher or lower multiple had it been spent by a private citizen (of which the dollar was taken).

5/13/2011 3:50:58 PM