112th Congress decalred the worst

[Warforger]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/13 /13-reasons-why-this-is-the-worst-congress-ever/

So apparently now that the Republicans have captured a majority in Congress things seem to be getting even worse. The only issue that seems to register to this congress is the Healthcare bill, not say the more pressing issues like say the budget or unemployment. Repealing the healthcare bill by the way would increase the deficit by 200 Billion.

Good god, what the hell happened? Why are both parties so unwilling to work together?

[BoredLooney]

At 7/13/12 07:01 PM, Warforger wrote: Repealing the healthcare bill by the way would increase the deficit by 200 Billion.

Really? Where did you hear that from?

[Light]

At 7/13/12 09:09 PM, BoredLooney wrote:

At 7/13/12 07:01 PM, Warforger wrote: Repealing the healthcare bill by the way would increase the deficit by 200 Billion.

Really? Where did you hear that from?

Most likely the Congressional Budget Office, as I've heard them say something along those lines.

Anyway, it's no surprise that this Congress sucks complete ass, but you can only blame the Republicans for this state of affairs. They've openly shunned compromise and have expressed their intent to make things as difficult as they can for the president. It's extremely juvenile and not in the best interest of the nation in a time when there are many problems that need to be addressed and resolved.

I'm not saying that the Democrats have been saints the past two years, but they were and are open to compromise. The Republicans are not. It doesn't help that conservative talk show hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin wield inordinate influence over the Republican Party and command them not to back down from their principles, as if compromise is and should be inconceivable.

[adrshepard]

At 7/13/12 09:23 PM, Light wrote: Anyway, it's no surprise that this Congress sucks complete ass, but you can only blame the Republicans for this state of affairs. They've openly shunned compromise and have expressed their intent to make things as difficult as they can for the president.

That's because they disagree with his priorities and goals. It's not the same as creating problems where none exist in order to make him look bad.
It's not true to say that the republicans have not tried to compromise. Deficit reduction is the greatest example. Democrats have derailed numerous potential budget agreements not because they disagreed with the cuts themselves, but because they did not increase taxes on the wealthy. That is a purely poltiical gesture.

Also, compromise for its own sake is not a good idea. Negotiating a $800 billion stimulus bill down to $400 billion is not a good agreement if the money is just going to be spent inefficiently and slowly while the long-run debt costs increase. Bad legislation should be killed, not mitigated for the sake of compromise.

Republicans have compromised on truly pressing items. Take the student loan rate increase that was averted due to an agreement in the legislature. Don't forget the payroll tax holiday that Republicans begrudingly accepted back in December 2011 or so, even though the about-face was embarrassing.

Public approval of Congress is a lot like public approval of the President. It's high when things are going well, and low when times are tough. It shouldn't be read as an objective rating of how the legislature has functioned.

[gumOnShoe]

Republicans don't believe in government. They cut programs and they cut spending. Why would you expect them to do anything remotely like governing?

[Tony-DarkGrave]

Its because the Congressman are Protecting the interest of their corporate and special interest sponsors, lose them and they dont have funding to campaign to stay in their cushy chair in congress.

thats the problem complacency

[Iron-Hampster]

At 7/14/12 05:48 PM, GoodFish wrote:

At 7/14/12 04:57 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Republicans don't believe in government. They cut programs and they cut spending. Why would you expect them to do anything remotely like governing?

That's a blatant lie. Many Republicans believe in small "perfect" Federal governments.

your both wrong. they only talk about small government but love to implement extensive nanny state and big brother laws to the point where the government expands anyway.

[Light]

At 7/14/12 02:57 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 7/13/12 09:23 PM, Light wrote: Anyway, it's no surprise that this Congress sucks complete ass, but you can only blame the Republicans for this state of affairs. They've openly shunned compromise and have expressed their intent to make things as difficult as they can for the president.

That's because they disagree with his priorities and goals.

In that case. They should still be inclined to compromise.

Oh wait. They're not.

It's not the same as creating problems where none exist in order to make him look bad.

I never said it was. But I still contend that they are creating such problems.

It's not true to say that the republicans have not tried to compromise. Deficit reduction is the greatest example. Democrats have derailed numerous potential budget agreements not because they disagreed with the cuts themselves, but because they did not increase taxes on the wealthy. That is a purely poltiical gesture.

In that case, the Republicans are just as guilty for refusing to compromise on this retarded mantra of refusing to raise taxes on anyone no matter what.

Also, compromise for its own sake is not a good idea. Negotiating a $800 billion stimulus bill down to $400 billion is not a good agreement if the money is just going to be spent inefficiently and slowly while the long-run debt costs increase. Bad legislation should be killed, not mitigated for the sake of compromise.

Of course, Republicans seem to think all legislation proposed by the Democrats and the president is bad legislation. It seems like the perfect way to avoid compromise at all costs.

Republicans have compromised on truly pressing items. Take the student loan rate increase that was averted due to an agreement in the legislature.

The opposing party has to do its damned best to persuade the Republicans to compromise.

It's disingenuous to say that the Republicans of this Congress are even somewhat inclined to working with the president and the Democrats when they've made no secret of their intent to engage in political theatrics and juvenile opposition to to just about all legislation that has been proposed by the opposing party.

Don't forget the payroll tax holiday that Republicans begrudingly accepted back in December 2011 or so, even though the about-face was embarrassing.

Which required more arm-twisting.

[lilfozzy]

At 7/14/12 04:57 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Republicans don't believe in government. They cut programs and they cut spending. Why would you expect them to do anything remotely like governing?

I guess if you just throw money into a bunch of programs it's going to make everything better right, not like we need to bulk up to lower our national debt, and to stop spending where no money needs to be spent.

[Warforger]

At 7/14/12 04:57 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Republicans don't believe in government. They cut programs and they cut spending. Why would you expect them to do anything remotely like governing?

Judging by Scott Walker there are people among their ranks who can actually do something and actually fix a budget. I wouldn't constantly blame the Republicans for everything, I would however blame them for treating politics as more of a competition than say a job. Not saying it shouldn't be a competition, but when you take it so seriously you're not even doing your job anymore that's when it's out of hand. The only time Republicans will actually try to do something would be when they have control of the whole government, President Congress and Courts, that way they don't have any 2nd party to blame when they fuck up and if they succeed they can take all the credit.

[adrshepard]

At 7/15/12 03:31 AM, Light wrote:

At 7/14/12 02:57 PM, adrshepard wrote: It's not the same as creating problems where none exist in order to make him look bad.

I never said it was. But I still contend that they are creating such problems.

Which problems are those?

In that case, the Republicans are just as guilty for refusing to compromise on this retarded mantra of refusing to raise taxes on anyone no matter what.

Not at all. Paul Ryan and other leading republicans in budget talks have repeatedly mentioned eliminating certain tax deductions that benefit the wealthy over any other group. He's even expressed support for granting exemptions to middle-class income earners.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/296545/paul-ryan-s-gr and-compromise-nash-keune

Of course, Republicans seem to think all legislation proposed by the Democrats and the president is bad legislation. It seems like the perfect way to avoid compromise at all costs.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/29/politics/congress-highway-bill /index.html

Also, according to govtrack.us, of the 136 bills so far enacted into law during the 112th Congress, 43 were sponsored by democrats. And before you say something stupid like, "sure, but that only shows how republicans pushed through their own partisan legislation and ignored that from the democrats," of the 366 bills enacted through the 111th Congress, only 53 had republican sponsorship.

Republicans have compromised on truly pressing items. Take the student loan rate increase that was averted due to an agreement in the legislature.

The opposing party has to do its damned best to persuade the Republicans to compromise.

And Republicans have to haggle any less? It's representative government. Negotiations are supposed to be difficult.

It's disingenuous to say that the Republicans of this Congress are even somewhat inclined to working with the president and the Democrats when they've made no secret of their intent to engage in political theatrics and juvenile opposition to to just about all legislation that has been proposed by the opposing party.

Oh really? All of the republicans? Just certain ones? Do they speak for every member of their party?
You have to move past all of these generalizations.

[Light]

At 7/15/12 05:40 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 7/15/12 03:31 AM, Light wrote:

At 7/14/12 02:57 PM, adrshepard wrote: It's not the same as creating problems where none exist in order to make him look bad.

I never said it was. But I still contend that they are creating such problems.

Which problems are those?

The supposed existence of "death panels" in the Affordable Care Act that the Republicans oddly didn't try very hard to refute and the whole birther thing that come to mind off the top of my head.

Oh, and all that fearmongering probably counts.

In that case, the Republicans are just as guilty for refusing to compromise on this retarded mantra of refusing to raise taxes on anyone no matter what.

Not at all. Paul Ryan and other leading republicans in budget talks have repeatedly mentioned eliminating certain tax deductions that benefit the wealthy over any other group. He's even expressed support for granting exemptions to middle-class income earners.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/296545/paul-ryan-s-gr and-compromise-nash-keune

I was always certain that both parties opposed tax loopholes and certain deductions, but I was talking about explicit tax raises that the Republicans strongly oppose at all cost, which I believe to be necessary.

Of course, Republicans seem to think all legislation proposed by the Democrats and the president is bad legislation. It seems like the perfect way to avoid compromise at all costs.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/29/politics/congress-highway-bill /index.html

Interesting.

The article said, "Both issues are priorities of President Barack Obama's, and the legislation demonstrated rare bipartisan agreement in the deeply divided Congress."

That seems pretty consistent with what I've been claiming.

Also, according to govtrack.us, of the 136 bills so far enacted into law during the 112th Congress, 43 were sponsored by democrats. And before you say something stupid like, "sure, but that only shows how republicans pushed through their own partisan legislation and ignored that from the democrats," of the 366 bills enacted through the 111th Congress, only 53 had republican sponsorship.

That indicates extreme Republican partisanship to me.

Republicans have compromised on truly pressing items. Take the student loan rate increase that was averted due to an agreement in the legislature.

The opposing party has to do its damned best to persuade the Republicans to compromise.

And Republicans have to haggle any less? It's representative government. Negotiations are supposed to be difficult.

They've been extraordinarily difficult in this Congress. Hell, there's a reason why our credit rating declined for the first time in U.S. history last year.

It's disingenuous to say that the Republicans of this Congress are even somewhat inclined to working with the president and the Democrats when they've made no secret of their intent to engage in political theatrics and juvenile opposition to to just about all legislation that has been proposed by the opposing party.

Oh really? All of the republicans?

Many, if not most.

Do they speak for every member of their party?

No, but to be fair, Republicans are more unified than democrats are.

You have to move past all of these generalizations.

I don't know, they seem to be accurate.

[adrshepard]

At 7/16/12 05:01 AM, Light wrote: The supposed existence of "death panels" in the Affordable Care Act that the Republicans oddly didn't try very hard to refute and the whole birther thing that come to mind off the top of my head.

The term "death panels" was coined by Sarah Palin, who does not serve in Congress and does not have the admiration or respect of most republicans, as far as I can tell. I can only find two republican legislators who even mentioned death panels, and they were talking about Medicaid funding for end-of-life counseling, a provision that was ultimately stricken from the healthcare bill. What pundits talk about has nothing to do with how Congress operates.

Oh, and all that fearmongering probably counts.

Fearmongering about what?

The article said, "Both issues are priorities of President Barack Obama's, and the legislation demonstrated rare bipartisan agreement in the deeply divided Congress."
That seems pretty consistent with what I've been claiming.

No, you've been claiming that republicans don't compromise and refuse to endorse anything promoted by Obama. This directly contradicts your argument.
Also, the quote said that Congress is deeply divided. It makes no claim on the intransigence of either party.

Also, according to govtrack.us, of the 136 bills so far enacted into law during the 112th Congress, 43 were sponsored by democrats. And before you say something stupid like, "sure, but that only shows how republicans pushed through their own partisan legislation and ignored that from the democrats," of the 366 bills enacted through the 111th Congress, only 53 had republican sponsorship.

That indicates extreme Republican partisanship to me.

How did you come to that conclusion? You do know that the 111th Congress had Democratic majorities in both houses, right?

They've been extraordinarily difficult in this Congress. Hell, there's a reason why our credit rating declined for the first time in U.S. history last year.

There is a reason, and it is not because of the republicans. S&P, the first rating agency to make the downgrade, cited the unwillingness of Congress to make serious deficit reduction. Regarding the eventual agreement in 2011, the agency said,
"In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability."

Medicare and Social Security reform are major Republican policy points, specifically because of their huge impact on the deficit.
Ending the Bush-era tax cuts on people making 250k+ will help reduce the deficit, yes, but not enough to fix the credit rating.

Oh really? All of the republicans?

Many, if not most.

You've just made another unfounded generalization.

Do they speak for every member of their party?

No, but to be fair, Republicans are more unified than democrats are.

You have to move past all of these generalizations.

I don't know, they seem to be accurate.

Accuracy implies precision. All you've done is make broad-based statements about republicans which are impossible to verify because you don't identify anyone.

[Light]

At 7/16/12 10:36 AM, adrshepard wrote:

At 7/16/12 05:01 AM, Light wrote: The supposed existence of "death panels" in the Affordable Care Act that the Republicans oddly didn't try very hard to refute and the whole birther thing that come to mind off the top of my head.

The term "death panels" was coined by Sarah Palin, who does not serve in Congress

Knew that, but I never said she did.

and does not have the admiration or respect of most republicans, as far as I can tell. I can only find two republican legislators who even mentioned death panels, and they were talking about Medicaid funding for end-of-life counseling, a provision that was ultimately stricken from the healthcare bill. What pundits talk about has nothing to do with how Congress operates.

I'm just going to reiterate that the Republicans oddly didn't try very hard to refute this claim. I didn't contend that all of these Republicans asserted such a thing.

And the conservative pundits clearly have the Republican Party by its balls.

Oh, and all that fearmongering probably counts.

Fearmongering about what?

About everything that Obama supposedly believes in from what it seems.

The article said, "Both issues are priorities of President Barack Obama's, and the legislation demonstrated rare bipartisan agreement in the deeply divided Congress."
That seems pretty consistent with what I've been claiming.

No, you've been claiming that republicans don't compromise and refuse to endorse anything promoted by Obama. This directly contradicts your argument.

I claimed that for the most part, Republicans in Congress reject compromise and many of the bills proposed by Obama.

I didn't say that bipartisanship never occurred in the 112th Congress.

Also, the quote said that Congress is deeply divided. It makes no claim on the intransigence of either party.

Given that a large number of political scientists and the less controversial pundits attribute this current state of affairs to the partisanship of the Republican Party these past two years, I think we can safely conclude that the quote implies a conclusion consistent with those made by the aforementioned experts.

Also, according to govtrack.us, of the 136 bills so far enacted into law during the 112th Congress, 43 were sponsored by democrats. And before you say something stupid like, "sure, but that only shows how republicans pushed through their own partisan legislation and ignored that from the democrats," of the 366 bills enacted through the 111th Congress, only 53 had republican sponsorship.

That indicates extreme Republican partisanship to me.

How did you come to that conclusion?

In relation to the number of bills being proposed in both Congresses, the Republicans sponsored fewer bills than the Democrats did.

That indicates stronger Republican partisanship to me.

You do know that the 111th Congress had Democratic majorities in both houses, right?

Yes.

They've been extraordinarily difficult in this Congress. Hell, there's a reason why our credit rating declined for the first time in U.S. history last year.

There is a reason, and it is not because of the republicans.

The president offered to sign into law huge spending cuts in exchange for a small tax hike on the wealthy.

The Republicans refused.

S&P, the first rating agency to make the downgrade, cited the unwillingness of Congress to make serious deficit reduction. Regarding the eventual agreement in 2011, the agency said,
"In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability."

As I said before, the Democrats haven't been saints.

Medicare and Social Security reform are major Republican policy points, specifically because of their huge impact on the deficit.
Ending the Bush-era tax cuts on people making 250k+ will help reduce the deficit, yes, but not enough to fix the credit rating.

I don't think anyone in Congress stated that the expiration of those tax cuts for the wealthy would single-handedly solve our deficit problem.

Oh really? All of the republicans?

Many, if not most.

You've just made another unfounded generalization.

The votes on many Democratic policy proposals substantiate this generalization.

Do they speak for every member of their party?

No, but to be fair, Republicans are more unified than democrats are.

You have to move past all of these generalizations.

I don't know, they seem to be accurate.

Accuracy implies precision.

Actually, it doesn't. It just means "the state of being correct."

All you've done is make broad-based statements about republicans which are impossible to verify because you don't identify anyone.

Do I have to name anyone when it's evident that many, if not most of these Republicans consistently reject policy proposals by the Democrats?

I'm sure you've seen the numbers in the Senate and the House that vote no on bills proposed by the White House and the Democrats. Most of those "nos" come from Republicans.

[adrshepard]

At 7/17/12 02:13 AM, Light wrote: stuff

Look at your post. Look at how much dark text there is in relation to white text. I'm asking your for specifics, asking you to make your argument with facts and reasoning, and you just reply with one sentence answers that are little more than "it's obvious," or "these people say its the case," or "the numbers show I'm right," or "I was referring to just about everything." Are you that lazy?

In relation to the number of bills being proposed in both Congresses, the Republicans sponsored fewer bills than the Democrats did.
That indicates stronger Republican partisanship to me.

You obviously have no clue how Congress works, otherwise you wouldn't make such a retarded statement.
Most of the bills passed in both Congresses and signed into law originated in the House. Even though republicans control the House in the 112th Congress, a greater percentage of democrat-sponsored (bills introduced by democrats, in case you didn't know what "sponsored" meant) made it through Congress and were enacted into law than was the case for republican-sponsored bills in the democratic-controlled house in the 111th Congress. That suggests republicans were more likely than democrats to support legislation originating from a rival party.

The president offered to sign into law huge spending cuts in exchange for a small tax hike on the wealthy.
The Republicans refused.

And which party's negotiators do you think refused to reduce the "huge" spending cuts by the "small" amount of the tax hike?

Ending the Bush-era tax cuts on people making 250k+ will help reduce the deficit, yes, but not enough to fix the credit rating.

I don't think anyone in Congress stated that the expiration of those tax cuts for the wealthy would single-handedly solve our deficit problem.

Nope, but you did. You blamed republican stubborness about taxing the wealthy for the credit downgrade, when the agencies themselves said the failure to reform Medicaid and Social Security, two major republican priorities, was the critical factor.

[homor]

When i saw this thread title, i thought it was declared the worst by a majority of people or by some historical group.

But no, it's from some blog, which you're mindlessly repeating.

[Davoo]

"Why are both parties so unwilling to work together?"
Because doing what the other guy wants means doing the opposite of what they ran for public office to do.

"Good god, what the hell happened?"
People didn't like the government that they had, so they elected a different one.

"The only issue that seems to register to this congress is the Healthcare bill, not say the more pressing issues like say the budget or unemployment"
No budgets were passed even when the Democrats had the majority in both houses.

Also, what do you think congress SHOULD do about unemployment? You can act like a moderate-centrist if you want, but if you talk as though the government should "get involved" with economic turmoil, rather than "getting out of the way" of it, then you're revealing yourself to be a fiscal big-government type.

"Repealing the healthcare bill by the way would increase the deficit by 200 Billion."
Sorry, but that has been proven untrue in recent months.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/health-care-l aw-will-add-340-billion-to-deficit-new-study-finds/2012/04/0 9/gIQAti1o6S_story.html

Now I would like to address each of the issues brought up by the article.

This was the 33rd time they voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
This is a distortion of the truth. This dude will explain it:
http://youtu.be/IHGmR8UTi14

1. TheyâEUTMre not passing laws.
Laws? So, more laws = better government? Making more things illegal, and giving the American people more requirements on how to live their lives means a better government?

2. TheyâEUTMre hideously unpopular.
Low poll numbers = bad congress. Well, the incumbent president is at 38% among independents. So we have a pretty bad president too. In fact, Romney is leading him in a few of the election polls. So that means he's a better choice for president, sometimes.

3. TheyâEUTMre incredibly polarized.
In the last three years...
There were marches and protests on the streets in front of big businesses and stock markets demanding we eat the rich, initiate class warfare, implement purer democracy, and distribute wealth.
There were marches and protests in city halls and in front of government buildings demanding we make the government get away from providing for the people, that we cut taxes, lower regulation, and decrease the size of government.

These two groups are as different as can be. The people of this country are polarized. Congress is elected by the people--their polarization simply reflects the divide among the American people.

4. TheyâEUTMve set back the recovery.
The Republicans did lose that debt ceiling debate, didn't they? We raised the debt ceiling, didn't we? And now look where our jobs numbers are.

This article is just like the OP; tries to act all centrist, moderate and 'above the chatter of political discussion', then totally reveals them self as only REALLY wanting to blame the Republicans on everything.

5. They lost our credit rating.
See above.

6. TheyâEUTMre terrible even when theyâEUTMre âEUoesuper.âEU
Yep. Not much disagreement there.
Here's a budget idea: don't promise people tons of money to live on.

Already dealt with point 7.

8. The budget shenanigans of Senate Democrats
Oh well look at that. Now the weird blame-pinning back in point 4 doesn't make any sense. I guess some moderates really go the extra mile to make themselves sound balanced and fair.

9. They canâEUTMt get appropriations done on time.
Don't see any distortions there either.

Okay, that's as far as I can go. I gotta eat, bye!

[Camarohusky]

At 7/21/12 11:18 AM, Davoo wrote: Because doing what the other guy wants means doing the opposite of what they ran for public office to do.

That's true when you run on a platform solely based upon opposin the other guy. Guess what? That's what they did, and this is what we get.

People didn't like the government that they had, so they elected a different one.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

No budgets were passed even when the Democrats had the majority in both houses.

Actualy 2 were, because the budgets are annual.

Also, what do you think congress SHOULD do about unemployment? You can act like a moderate-centrist if you want, but if you talk as though the government should "get involved" with economic turmoil, rather than "getting out of the way" of it, then you're revealing yourself to be a fiscal big-government type.

I know seriously. The best way to stop unemployment is to let the economy completely fail. That way while the corporations bleed money due to stupid consumers, corporate negligence, Wall Street fraud, and many other factors, the jobs numbers will shoot through the roof. Oh, and the Federal government doesn't employanybody, directly or indirectly, AT ALL, EVER.

Laws? So, more laws = better government? Making more things illegal, and giving the American people more requirements on how to live their lives means a better government?

You clearly don't know what law means.

Low poll numbers = bad congress. Well, the incumbent president is at 38% among independents. So we have a pretty bad president too. In fact, Romney is leading him in a few of the election polls. So that means he's a better choice for president, sometimes.

What makes Congress bad is that they have done almost nothing. They have let numerous opportunities to fix or ameliorate problems slip by because they're too busy infighting. The low poll numbers are a result of how bad Congress is, it's not the other way around.

[Davoo]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Kind of like the government trying to provide a good life to the American people with someone else's money.

I know seriously. The best way to stop unemployment is to let the economy completely fail. That way while the corporations bleed money due to stupid consumers, corporate negligence, Wall Street fraud, and many other factors, the jobs numbers will shoot through the roof.

A private company, most any given instance, is only given an unfair advantage: the power to coerce or take advantage of people when the government gives that unfair advantage to them. This is the reason for advocating a 'small' government that is unable to grant too many favors or special deals for private interests.

Oh, and the Federal government doesn't employanybody, directly or indirectly, AT ALL, EVER.

If you want to play straw man, then I'm game.

Liberals and libertarians want to cut military spending. I can't imagine why someone would want absolutely no military whatsoever. They're kind of short-sighted, aren't they? Don't they realize that, without any soldiers or planes or surveillance out there, that a foreign power could easily invade this country and take it over? Quite the horrendous policy if you ask me.

You clearly don't know what law means.

*looks up definition*

The system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties

Making a law = making something that someone cannot do. A piece of legislation that directly creates more freedom is an exception that proves the rule.

[DoctorStrongbad]

Who cares what some blog thinks about the 112th Congress?

[Warforger]

At 7/21/12 11:18 AM, Davoo wrote: "Why are both parties so unwilling to work together?"
Because doing what the other guy wants means doing the opposite of what they ran for public office to do.

You mean like fixing the budget and cutting down on our debt. This doesn't explain why it's been the same parties since 1864 and yet the ones in the past were much more willing to actually do their job. The problem is that they HAVE to work together and if you feel that refusing to actually do your job because you disagree with your coworker is the ideal way to do your job then great you'll make a good employee.

"Good god, what the hell happened?"
People didn't like the government that they had, so they elected a different one.

That doesn't explain why we have so many problems and our government is getting worse and yet they're not doing anything. I mean seriously this is like the worst time to not do anything.

"The only issue that seems to register to this congress is the Healthcare bill, not say the more pressing issues like say the budget or unemployment"
No budgets were passed even when the Democrats had the majority in both houses.

Which just proves my point exactly what the hell happened?

Also, what do you think congress SHOULD do about unemployment? You can act like a moderate-centrist if you want, but if you talk as though the government should "get involved" with economic turmoil, rather than "getting out of the way" of it, then you're revealing yourself to be a fiscal big-government type.

No you're revealing yourself to be sane because that's what Economists say to do, just like how you reveal yourself to be insane if you try to argue Global Warming isn't happening. It just absolutely baffles me how people think that things like say welfare contributes to a recession, how exactly?

Anyway you might want to look at Presidents who did nothing and got out of the way so that the economy can crash like Coolidge, Hoover, Cleveland or Van Buren, only Cleveland is considered decent in that bunch everyone else is considered by historians and economists to have been horrible presidents.

"Repealing the healthcare bill by the way would increase the deficit by 200 Billion."
Sorry, but that has been proven untrue in recent months.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/health-care-l aw-will-add-340-billion-to-deficit-new-study-finds/2012/04/0 9/gIQAti1o6S_story.html

Yah that's by a Republican committee designed for that so it's nothing conclusive, whereas my estimate came from the CBO which is more inclined to be apolitical.

Now I would like to address each of the issues brought up by the article.

This was the 33rd time they voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
This is a distortion of the truth. This dude will explain it:
http://youtu.be/IHGmR8UTi14

Hardly any better.

1. TheyâEUTMre not passing laws.
Laws? So, more laws = better government? Making more things illegal, and giving the American people more requirements on how to live their lives means a better government?

Yes, especially in a time where we're in a crisis they kind of need to reform the government. I think you're misreading, he meant "bills" so it could've been anything from building roads to you know a new budget.

2. TheyâEUTMre hideously unpopular.
Low poll numbers = bad congress. Well, the incumbent president is at 38% among independents. So we have a pretty bad president too. In fact, Romney is leading him in a few of the election polls. So that means he's a better choice for president, sometimes.

Not just that, but our credit rating was lowered to AA+, the main reason being the government hasn't done anything to fix its problems. Doesn't seem to be much simpler than that.

3. TheyâEUTMre incredibly polarized.
In the last three years...
There were marches and protests on the streets in front of big businesses and stock markets demanding we eat the rich, initiate class warfare, implement purer democracy, and distribute wealth.
There were marches and protests in city halls and in front of government buildings demanding we make the government get away from providing for the people, that we cut taxes, lower regulation, and decrease the size of government.

These two groups are as different as can be. The people of this country are polarized. Congress is elected by the people--their polarization simply reflects the divide among the American people.

Occupy Wall Street and the Tea party do not constitute a big portion of the voter base, they're fringe movements that are pretty vocal but do not represent the average American. I mean after all in 1968 there were a huge number of left wing protests and riots, and yet Richard Nixon won the election that year. 4 years later when 18 year olds were granted the ability to vote Nixon won in a landslide winning every single state except Massachusetts.

If there's one thing people keep electing people for it's to fix the budget, it's Congress's job to do that and they have yet to do that.

4. TheyâEUTMve set back the recovery.
The Republicans did lose that debt ceiling debate, didn't they? We raised the debt ceiling, didn't we? And now look where our jobs numbers are.

Ok? First off this is Congress, not just Republicans, secondly how does this effect job numbers?

This article is just like the OP; tries to act all centrist, moderate and 'above the chatter of political discussion', then totally reveals them self as only REALLY wanting to blame the Republicans on everything.

No you're just talking out of your ass now.

5. They lost our credit rating.
See above.

Uh what? The Debt Ceiling was raised because Congress hadn't done anything to fix its budget so it had to do it at the last minute. The Republicans lost because they couldn't come up with an alternative (hence why they lose the Healthcare fight) and it wasn't necessarily something the Democrats wanted.

6. TheyâEUTMre terrible even when theyâEUTMre âEUoesuper.âEU
Yep. Not much disagreement there.
Here's a budget idea: don't promise people tons of money to live on.

That's only Medicare, otherwise Social Security, Welfare, medicaid etc. were all working pretty well. The SSA though has bene fucked up because the government decided to pull money out of it to invade Iraq putting the whole system in jeopardy, otherwise welfare and medicaid take up an insignificant portion of the budget.

8. The budget shenanigans of Senate Democrats
Oh well look at that. Now the weird blame-pinning back in point 4 doesn't make any sense. I guess some moderates really go the extra mile to make themselves sound balanced and fair.

I don't get it, this article is about Congress, not just Republicans. Why do you act like it's just targeting Republicans? Of course it's attacking Republicans, it's also attacking Democrats, that's normal and sane. You seem to think any attack on Republicans is unfair.

[Artman40]

"Not passing laws" reason is not valid until they explain what kind of laws they weren't passing. Consequently, passing laws can also be terrible depending on the legislation in question.

[Jmayer20]

Things that both democrats and republicans seem to have in common in this congress are, screw the American people and what is good for the country. Lets do everything to hurt the other side even if that risks destroying our nation. This bill is a great idea its....oh wait the other side purposed it, this bill is evil it must be stopped. Lets not compromise or even consider what the other side has to say, it must be MY way or no way at all.

This is why are congress has been so ineffective. They behave less like leaders of are nation and more like spoiled 4 year old brats.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

At 8/7/12 07:00 PM, Artman40 wrote: "Not passing laws" reason is not valid until they explain what kind of laws they weren't passing. Consequently, passing laws can also be terrible depending on the legislation in question.

Our government was designed to be inefficient. That way laws aren't passed in the dead of night, or passed without deliberation. Plus this sort of thing happened during the Clinton years in the 90s, with a Republican majority in both houses. Clinton vetoed many things they put forth.

Bottom line gridlock = good