There was something flip in the Bush Administration proferring a mere three-page bill for its $700 billion bailout plan that would give the Secretary of the Treasury unprecedented authority over a budget larger than the one Congress passed for Ronald Reagan's first year of office. It is no corrective to the insulting brevity of that initial bill that the billl passed by the Senate totals 451 pages. The former is a slap in the face in its flimsiness; the latter, a practice of deception in its unweildiness. What both bills have in common is that their size obfuscates any clear understanding among average taxpayers of precisely what the Secretary of the Treasury will do with their money.

I don’t remember casting a vote for Henry Paulson. But our leaders are going to give him omnipotent control to do with what he wishes with $700 billion of our money?

In the guts of this act is written: “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

Huh?!

"What both bills have in common is that their size obfuscates any clear understanding among average taxpayers"

There could be a one sentence bill that is over the heads of the average taxpayers because remember, we are just idiots with uneducated opinions, thanks to republicans keeping their foots on our throats.

If you're an idiot with uneducated opinions Horsesa$$, maybe it's because the Democratic house organ liberal mainstream media has not accurately or honestly explained it to you.

republicans keeping their foots on our throats.

Not only are you whining, Horse, you're not even accurate. Foots on our throats?? How? What are you talking about? This is a free country and you may act as you wish. Just don't expect me to pay for whatever you wish.

"maybe it's because the Democratic house organ liberal mainstream media has not accurately or honestly explained it to you."

sense. make some. I am referring to the previous thread of education.

Democrats= Want sufficent education for all.
Republicans= Want kids to educate themselves, keeping minorities down with their FOOT.

"Foots on our throats?? How? What are you talking about?"

Ummmm, constantly underfunding public education and redrawing district lines to keep all the black kids together. Providing textbooks that are 10+ years old, to some districts but not to others.

One dirty example: Governor Jeb Bush and fellow Republicans are trying to get rid of the class size amendment.

http://pushingrope.blogspot.com/2006/03/florida-republicans-hate-public.html

Only, it is happening EVERYWHERE.

You are uninformed and you demonstrate inexperience to boot. The National average cost per public school student is almost $10,000. I'm sure that figure didn't explode because those saintly Democrats had to fight against those evil Republicans for that money.

Ultimately, you may or may not agree that 10 grand per is more than enough to educate kids. But it is.

"Democrats= Want sufficent education for all.
Republicans= Want kids to educate themselves, keeping
minorities down with their FOOT."

Sorry, can't take anybody seriously who makes irresponsible and foolish statements like that.

ok... so the average is 10,000.

What kind of standard deviation does that carry smartty pants. Your average means nothing. It is just one form of frequency an@lysis, lets look at the mode too.

So theoretically, some kids could get 30,000 and some only get 3K. And no, 3k is not enough.