Worse Congress in History?
 

Seemingly, yes. By a long shot.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...congress-ever/

There are not only grievous errors of omission, but plenty of commission. To wit:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rolls-2011.png
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...bt-ceiling.png

It seems pretty obvious that Congress (and the House, in particular) is willing to sell the country down the tubes if they believes it may help them in the future. With numbers like these, we can only hope that the country reacts and throws these silly, selfish bums out. Consider for a moment that the House Majority makes a lot of hay talking about freeloaders and soci@lism. Just what exactly are they then?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...tybennett.jpeg

That was a good article. The upside of the 112th is that they have not passed a lot of legislation.

Forgive me for saying that I saw that one coming. :cool: It's kind of like me saying that the upside of the Supreme Court's declining productivity is that they decide fewer cases.

Regards,

D-Ray

There's something to be said for fewer laws. They should focus on fewer, more important issues and refrain from renaming Post Offices and voting to repeal PPACA 33 times. It's like they're only willing to undertake the meaningless.

True but I can't help thinking that our Libertarian friends would have it that, if less is better, none is best.

John

With my current feelings about this Congress, I can sympathize with those sentiments.

Yeah, like killing two small business bills in the Senate yesterday that would give a 10% tax credit to small business' that hired new employees or gave employees raises. It also allowed for full depreciation of large equipment purchases like trucks, vans, backhoes, etc...

It is a tax cut bill. The problem is it was predicted to create a million plus jobs real fast. Mitch McConnell can't have that happen for obvious reasons. Even some Republicans crossed over to the dark side and voted for it. But, it did not hit the magic imaginary "majority" number of votes of 60% to even get cloture.

BTW, I heard today that the Congress' approval rating is closer to 5%.

"It's worse than it looks." Nice title. This type of performance would land anyone else in a bread line and/or prison.

How about buying two copies of the book and mailing one to your representative. Inscribed "Some summer reading for you from a concerned constituent". Take it around your district and have as many of your neighbors sign it too before mailing it.

What would you give to be a fly on the wall when they get back together after their grand vacations masquerading as fact finding junkets and start asking each other, "So, what did you do this summer, read any good books?"

I suspect the problem resides with Harry Reid and his refusal to allow amendments to the bill. Politics by Harry as usual, but none the less they'll claim it was only the GOPs fault.

I'm not smitten by either side and would prefer their heads on pikes decorating the Reflecting Pool and an entire new group in office.

I suspect the problem resides within the amendments themselves. The Republicans in both Houses have been doing nothing but offering "Bill Killing" amendments ever since Obama was sworn in, things like trying to insert a ban on abortion into a jobs bill.

John

.....so they can evolve into the very same thing within a few short years, or months even.:rolleyes:

This is what happens when the parties are so polarized and unable to negotiate compromises. When one side of the isle thinks any Government is bad and the other gets tired of extending a hand in hopes of common ground only to have it slap back.

Our system of Government was set up so "Great Compromises" can and will be worked out. But that assumed adults would be working in the best interests of the Citizens not the Parties.


Barney

True, but nevertheless new faces would be nice.

Traditionally, didn't the executive turn to the people to get things churning against a stuck Congress? Of course, my thought is that Obama lost that option by not leading on PPACA and getting a compromise, rather than letting Pelosi and Reid run the show.

My take on this is he (Obama) was under fire being accused of all sorts of things from not being born in the US to branding him a soc....ialist at the time! So he thought staying background and letting others work would accomplish more.

You can't believe a coordinated effort by the Left was implemented?


Barney

How high were his approval ratings at the time? The only President with a higher initial rating post WWII is Kennedy at 72%. Obama's initial 69% means he had capital to use. BTW, Reagan arrived with a mere 51% approval rating, but still managed to move his agenda forth.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113968/ob...l-context.aspx

Ah, but I would have to say that he should have worried about the personal attacks less and stayed on point with the more serious issues. To my mind, that was his biggest mistake, pretty much throughout 2009.....He let them keep him distracted with their silly BS. Sometimes, paying attention to a jackass, (Or a party of jackasses.), only encourages them. He shouldn't have let them get under his skin.

Dave

bhunter
Traditionally, didn't the executive turn to the people to get things churning against a stuck Congress? Of course, my thought is that Obama lost that option by not leading on PPACA and getting a compromise, rather than letting Pelosi and Reid run the show.

BlueStreak
Ah, but I would have to say that he should have worried about the personal attacks less and stayed on point with the more serious issues. To my mind, that was his biggest mistake, pretty much throughout 2009.....He let them keep him distracted with their silly BS. Sometimes, paying attention to a jackass, (Or a party of jackasses.), only encourages them. He shouldn't have let them get under his skin.

I would offer that these two posts differ only in their perspective of essentially the same set of circumstances. Obama himself has acknowledged that not getting out to the American people as well and as often as he might was a shortcoming in his first four years.

From my perspective I felt that Obama should have been more active in leading the charge on PPACA.

Our system of government was setup on the assumption we would elect honest fair minded men and women to office. Unfortunately they are in damn short supply these days.:rolleyes:

What the hell ever happened to compromise? E-friggin-gad!!!!

The same thing that happened to business ethics: the "me" generation followed up by the "I" generation getting their hands on the carnival controls.

Especially now the pretense of big money not influencing campaigns is gone.




Barney

The problem is that Congress is an institution and we need members that know the ropes to teach newly elected members the ins and outs of legislating. If we term limit members of Congress we will no longer have a strong Congress with a somewhat permanent presence in Washington.

Guess who does have a strong permanent presence in Washington; lobbyist. They would swoop in on all the freshmen members of Congress like blow flies attracted to a dead animal. They would have the power to mold the new members of Congress and get them to do anything they want without worrying about senior members of Congress getting in the way. Wouldn't that really improve things.

I am all for voting the bums out.

I am totally opposed to term limits. Hell the only reason Presidents are limited to two terms is the Republican Congress had to find a way to get back at Roosevelt even though he was already dead.

We got lots of new faces with those idiot Tea Party freshmen. The result has been an unqualified disaster.

John

I have no problem with new faces even if some of them have extremist views on either side. It is when those extremist views have sufficient weight to place the country in extremis (I give you the debt ceiling) that they become a threat to the nation.

There is a very simple answer to that question.

Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, Dan Lungren, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan and Pete Sessions. From the Senate were Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, Jim DeMint, John Ensign and Jon Kyl. Others present were former House Speaker and future – and failed – presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and the Republican strategist Frank Luntz

The day of Obama's inauguration these asshat Republicans met at the Caucus Room a DC steakhouse and hatched a plan to oppose and obstruct everything Obama proposed. Notice any obviously missing Republicans like Mitch McConnel and John Bhoener.

This to me is very unethical because once voted into office they represent all their constituents not just the ones that agree with them. Those constituents watched as the big banks were bailed out. Then they watched as the Republicans in Congress obstructed almost all the bills designed to help the people. They started losing their homes, jobs, unemployment insurance, etc... That is why Congress' approval rating is lower than Hugo Chavez.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...obstruct-obama

They were in damn short supply then, as well. Think about it, even among the founders we admire most, there's what? Maybe a half dozen?

Dave

Well put Wgrr. I concur wholeheartedly. I vote against Dana Rohrbacher every election, little good that it seems to do but I keep doing it. Tradition, eh. Maybe I would get that book for him if it were available in a cliff note edition as I have some serious doubts about his ability to read.

Yep. When someone believes they are appointed to rule by the Almighty himself, you don't dare beat them once let alone FOUR TIMES....:rolleyes:

Dave

Don't you love those Mammonite Christians, eh?:D