Talk:100-Hour Plan

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-01. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

How long

How many days is this likely to last? Assuming a 10 hour working day that would be 10 days or until the ~~17th~~ 22nd assuming a 5 day working week but I have no idea if either of these assumptions are likelyt to be correct Nil Einne 15:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tax subsidies?

Does the US really subsidise oil companies? Or does this refer to subsidies supposedly for renewable energy and the likely that oil companies are taking advantage of? Nil Einne 15:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

surprised

i am surprised someone tried to nominate this for deletion. an obvious since of politcal ignorance jk jk71.62.10.130 04:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk about this

Behun, I've taken great care to address your concerns. The sourcing in the Washington Post is as solid as depleted uranium. Take care to read both pages of the article. Jane Harman isn't mentioned until the second page. I do not say that she served as chair. I only said that she was blocked from serving as chair, which is completely, 100% accurate. Dino 03:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't even the ranking member on the committee. If you picked the member who was ranking then it would have been Alcee Hastings. But she didn't pick him and picked the third in line. Also, term limits don't apply to chairman/woman of the committee so it wouldn't have applied to the reason why she wasn't picked. Also, the whole article was biased (anti-democrat article and a non-biased article should have been chosen) and with that incorrect fact, I am feel more references are needed for the other sections of this paragraph. Plus, how can you be 100% accurate about an article? Behun 12:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alcee Hastings has had serious ethical problems. He was impeached and removed from the federal bench for perjury. He is only present in the House because there is no federal law prohibiting his election and service there under these circumstances. Next in line was Harman. Pelosi rejected her, and according to the Washington Post, Pelosi explicitly invoked term limits when she did so. This repudiated one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which suggested the abandonment of term limits in Congressional oversight of intelligence agencies, in favor of experience and continuity. The paragraph is 100% accurate, according to this reliable source, and I stand behind it.

If you can find a reliable source that contradicts the Washington Post and is equally reliable, I would support including that version in the article as well. Thanks for participating in this discussion, please continue to do so, and if you can find another reliable source, I look forward to seeing it. Dino 15:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we using an article from 11/30/2006 that dates to a time PRIOR to Pelosi being sworn in and the start of the "100 Hour Clock" to report on what happened AFTER? Yes, the Washington Post is a reputable source, but it cannot predict the future. It's a bit like saying that Wikipedia should state that Thomas E. Dewey was the 34th President because it says right there in the Chicago Tribune: "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN".

The 9/11 Commission recommended (on p420) that Congress either have ONE joint committee with responsibility for intelligence oversight or TWO (one in each house) "combining authorizing and appropriating authorities". To the best of my knowledge, the House Select Committee on Intelligence (http://intelligence.house.gov/) now has that power. It also recommends that each house have a permanent Committee on Homeland Security (http://homeland.house.gov/), which was done in the House in January 2005. It could be argued that Pelosi and her team cannot take credit for this, but I don't think they have tried to. The purpose of HR 1 was to implement the unimplemented Commission recommendations. Flycandler 15:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://democraticleader.house.gov/docUploads/100hourscalendar.pdf
- In 100-Hour Plan on 2011-05-23 01:56:23, 404 Not Found
- In 100-Hour Plan on 2011-05-31 21:09:00, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 100-Hour Plan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]