Pro is the opposite of Con...

[Jonathold]

...but does that mean that Congress is the opposite of Progress? Discuss. I'd like to hear the mudpit's opinion on whether the American Congress is doing a good job, or whether it has failed in its purpose.

[MyNameIsGreat]

No comment, but I just want to congratulate you on your rather snazzy opening.

[Admiral Piett]

Yeah, good job, Jonathold.

I think that Congress is equally to blame for the mess we're in, not just the President.

[GeneralLee]

They just haven't done anything, too many of the new democrats were from the left wing of the party and don't seem to be capable of compromising effectively with the moderates and the right. So in effect nothing gets done. Although Im still curious how that surveillance bill made it through.

[Rhinosaur]

They just haven't done anything, too many of the new democrats were from the left wing of the party and don't seem to be capable of compromising effectively with the moderates and the right. So in effect nothing gets done. Although Im still curious how that surveillance bill made it through.

Actually, a large part of the new "majority" is conservative democrats in historically (post civil rights/Southern strategy) Republican districts. Essentially, the majority of the Country is to the left of what the Democrats are willing/able to do in Congress.


Also, old joke. like this one:

POLITICS; poly; as in many, Ticks; as in blood sucking parasites.

[HorseArcher]

I can almost guarantee that you won't see the same faces after the next rep/sen elections. I could only count a handful of people who actually tried to do their jobs, while the majority are counterproductive and pretty much useless.

By the way, why don't they give a limit of how many times a congress member can be re-elected? The law needs to be changed. Just like the president, they should not be allowed more than 2 terms. I'm just tired of seeing the same old s, who should be retired and away from politics instead of wasting a seat that could be used by someone with more balls and louder voice and more support to his/her people.

[Rhinosaur]

I can almost guarantee that you won't see the same faces after the next rep/sen elections. I could only count a handful of people who actually tried to do their jobs, while the majority are counterproductive and pretty much useless.

I agree. Many of the things that have come out of Congress in the past dozen or so years have seemed to clearly not benefit any average person in the USA.

By the way, why don't they give a limit of how many times a congress member can be re-elected? The law needs to be changed. Just like the president, they should not be allowed more than 2 terms. I'm just tired of seeing the same old s, who should be retired and away from politics.

Yeah, but Congresspersons only get 2 year terms, and Senators get 6 year terms. These are meant for us to be able to hold the lower house to more accountability for their decisions, and have the senate be the more deliberative body, without having to heed the whims of the "rabble" so much.

[HorseArcher]

Yeah, but Congresspersons only get 2 year terms, and Senators get 6 year terms. These are meant for us to be able to hold the lower house to more accountability for their decisions, and have the senate be the more deliberative body, without having toheed the whims of the "rabble" so much.

Yeah, but they can be re-elected endlessly, that's the problem. The next elections will be different though. People are more aware than ever due to the economic situation etc.. and I'm sure the voters will double,or triple in the near future. All the people who never voted before and didn't intend to do ever, suddenly will go to the polls, since they got hurt (or will get hurt) where it counts the most: Their Wallet. And they can trace back the problem since they are going to be asking "who voted for this ing tax/law/idea?" "What did my senator/congressman do about this? "

[Viking Prince]

Is Congress doing a good job? Congress has several functions:

1) Power of the purse -- authorize expenditure of funds

Since Congress cannot seem to control spending, grade F

2) Oversight of Executive Branch regarding spending of authorized funds

Again, Congress only puts on a show -- a serious assessment on programs would seem to require some ending and many changes to the existing programs. Nothing happens and nothing changes -- Grade F

3) Confirmation of key execuative appointments

Congress has never been capable of maintaining a smooth confirmation process for judges (both parties are poor at this -- election years stop the process completely) Congress cannot even deal with confirming appointments to the Federal Reserve. The board of governors is almost too small to have a quorum --- Grade F

So, what is Congress good at? Reining in Executive Branch excess? nope -- they do get good political theatre out of it. Just look at the recent surveilance bill. This has dragged on for months. The opposition has gotten great mileage out of this, but in the end Congress approves with minor rewording.

Getting reelected -- Grade A

That is it!. The only thing any politican is really good at -- winning elections!

[Kanaric]

Congess does not, will not, and seemingly refuses to use its powers. ESPECIALLY when it comes to executive oversight.

[RZZZA]

lets vote the bums out

[Viking Prince]

lets vote the bums out

But the only thing they are good at is getting elected. Now you want to break their only real skill. How can you be so mean?

[Calamari]

But the only thing they are good at is getting elected. Now you want to break their only real skill. How can you be so mean?

Um... diddums?

Maybe the politions themselves don't know exactly what their powers are or how to use them.

Making money to the detriment of others: B

[Serious J]

lets vote the bums out

Unfortunately, voting them out usually just results in someone with the same character, if not worse.

[MaximiIian]

...but does that mean that Congress is the opposite of Progress? Discuss. I'd like to hear the mudpit's opinion on whether the American Congress is doing a good job, or whether it has failed in its purpose.

Currently, they're just a meeting of old buggers who get nothing done, who are as much to blame for the mess we're in as Bush. They've dragged their feet through the mud and bungled any process of national coordination.

However, hopefully if the Democrats get a larger majority, and when Obama is elected President, we'll have a coordinated legislature and executive to get some progress done.

[Admiral Piett]

Currently, they're just a meeting of old buggers who get nothing done, who are as much to blame for the mess we're in as Bush. They've dragged their feet through the mud and bungled any process of national coordination.

However, hopefully if the Democrats get a larger majority, and when Obama is elected President, we'll have a coordinated legislature and executive to get some progress done.

Nothing will change if a different party gets in. The Democrats have refused to do anything to stand up to Bush other than oppose him on several bills, which he still got to pass anyway. They've done little to actually solve the problems that Bush fails to address.

[RZZZA]

Nothing will change if a different party gets in. The Democrats have refused to do anything to stand up to Bush other than oppose him on several bills, which he still got to pass anyway. They've done little to actually solve the problems that Bush fails to address.

maybe thats just because congress is inherently weak and powerless in comparison with the modern executive super-branch

[Admiral Piett]

maybe thats just because congress is inherently weak and powerless in comparison with the modern executive super-branch

Not exactly, rzza.

The way it has worked for a while now is that instead of checks & balances keeping one branch from getting too powerful, another branch will rise up to equal its power. Congress has also over-extended its authority. In example, a President wants to see a certain deed done, but it isn't Constitutional, so Congress opposes it by proposing an opposing law, equally unconstitutional. This is evident in legislation on gay-marriage and abortion. Whether you support the two or not, it is not Constitutional to ban them or to "legalize" them. The right to do both already lies in the first ten amendments.

Part of it has come from the cancer that is bi-partisan politics and our election systems.

[dwringer]

To the OP: is that a Gallagher joke? Heh, I swear I've heard it somewhere. Or maybe George Carlin, but I might be thinking of him just because of the news. *shrug*

[Jonathold]

I heard it somewhere, I'm just not sure where.. I probably saw it on the internet somewhere