Dysfunctional Congress Worse Than Ever?

[ugonow]

And the fun is just starting---www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58076_Page2.html

[ugonow]

And the sad part is many think gridlock is good.

[cme1201]

Again I say it goes back to an issue with the leadership in the Democraticaly controlled Senate,

from article:

On the Senate side, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is pursuing a strategy of nonengagement. He hasn’t passed, or even offered, a 2012 budget, has given no indication that he intends to consider annual spending bills and has made sure that no legislation of consequence hits the Senate floor. The Senate has voted only 17 times so far in June, with nearly half of those being nominations or cloture motions.

Reid’s imperative is clear: Avoid the tough votes that could cost his party seats, and the majority, in the 2012 election.

[Bluerobin]

Both sides are to blame. One thing for sure, the best and brightest are no longer attracted to politics! Neither party has a clue as to what the mainstream public wants and needs.

[cme1201]

Jul 1, 2011 6:37:06 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

Both sides are to blame. One thing for sure, the best and brightest are no longer attracted to politics! Neither party has a clue as to what the mainstream public wants and needs.

I agree Blue both sides are to blame.

When looking at the full picture, Republicans have control of the house, they have had control for 6 months 11 days, they have offered up 2 budgets the first one in February asking for 61b in cuts, a compromise budget was then passed again in April asking for 38b in cuts, a compromise of 23b from the original.

Now we are 788 days since the Senate has passed or offered a budget, even the President's budget proposal couldn't get 1 yes vote from the Senate.

Again all I am doing is calling into question the effectiveness of the Majority Leader.

[deziloooooo]

Possible a bit like my favorite baseball team, the marlins..some real good potential great ball players..but so few veterans on the team..ones who play every day to lead the team..thus they lose[finally broke the string last night} of something like losing 15 or so one run games in a row..experience needed to get the little things done..hit for the open side of the field, a fly ball when you have one out and a man on third..home run not needed..

in a way here too.. the leaders of the past, granted all not great but many knew the system and with all their fiery oratory on their pet projuects..when needed, knew how to go behind closed doors and work it out..I am thinking Kennedy, I am a middle to the left remember, and I know you more conservative ones can come up with your own vets who would have been in there getting a solution..something that all can live by..veteran leadership is hurting right now..and we are paying for it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

“This is the first time that I can remember being confronted by members of the Congress, my colleagues, who say, ‘I don’t care if I get reelected or not, I want to cut the budget by $100 billion or whatever,’” said a bewildered Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), who was first elected to Congress in 1964. “I’ve never seen that kind of a member before. … It’s a dangerous point of view from my perspective.”

No, what's dangerous is a member of Congress that's been in office for 46 years.

[jkapp]

Jul 1, 2011 8:22:07 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

“This is the first time that I can remember being confronted by members of the Congress, my colleagues, who say, ‘I don’t care if I get reelected or not, I want to cut the budget by $100 billion or whatever,’” said a bewildered Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), who was first elected to Congress in 1964. “I’ve never seen that kind of a member before. … It’s a dangerous point of view from my perspective.”

No, what's dangerous is a member of Congress that's been in office for 46 years.

[billisonboard]

Jul 1, 2011 6:47:15 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Jul 1, 2011 6:37:06 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

Both sides are to blame. One thing for sure, the best and brightest are no longer attracted to politics! Neither party has a clue as to what the mainstream public wants and needs.

I agree Blue both sides are to blame.

When looking at the full picture, Republicans have control of the house, they have had control for 6 months 11 days, they have offered up 2 budgets the first one in February asking for 61b in cuts, a compromise budget was then passed again in April asking for 38b in cuts, a compromise of 23b from the original.

...

Yes, the House played some great politics with their budget cut proposals. They first voted to cut from programs the Democrats value, keeping everything Republicans value. They then voted to cut less from those programs. Compromise?

[jkapp]

Jul 1, 2011 9:03:56 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 1, 2011 6:47:15 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

I agree Blue both sides are to blame.

When looking at the full picture, Republicans have control of the house, they have had control for 6 months 11 days, they have offered up 2 budgets the first one in February asking for 61b in cuts, a compromise budget was then passed again in April asking for 38b in cuts, a compromise of 23b from the original.

...

Yes, the House played some great politics with their budget cut proposals. They first voted to cut from programs the Democrats value, keeping everything Republicans value. They then voted to cut less from those programs. Compromise?

I believe the Dems have had even more time to propose whatever budget they want...and for over two years have sat on their asses with a big middle finger to the American people while writing bigger and bigger checks with our tax dollars.

[formerexpat]

Yes, the House played some great politics with their budget cut proposals. They first voted to cut from programs the Democrats value, keeping everything Republicans value. They then voted to cut less from those programs. Compromise?

Where most of the country's money is flushed to begin with; yeah, that sounds like a good place to start.

blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/02/09/house-gop-spending-cuts-the-list/

We either make the tough decisions now or we pay for it Greek style.

Most this shit should be taken care of at the state and local level. I don't think people would argue some of these causes aren't important. Let them be reflected in the respective states property and income taxes instead of a large, federal mess.

[privateinvestor]

Your congress claims they are NOT dysfunctional but merely partisan, and republicans have one major goal according to their leaders..."do everything possible to ensure Obama is a one term president", and I applaud them for their effort even though I am NOT a republican....not intelligent enough or rich enough to be a Republican;... sadly...

[billisonboard]

Jul 1, 2011 9:23:31 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jul 1, 2011 9:03:56 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Yes, the House played some great politics with their budget cut proposals. They first voted to cut from programs the Democrats value, keeping everything Republicans value. They then voted to cut less from those programs. Compromise?

I believe the Dems have had even more time to propose whatever budget they want...

That they have and the President, as the lead Democrat at this point in time, has done so each year. They have simply not passed meaningless, go nowhere budgets. They have not played politics with the budget as well as the House Republicans.

[privateinvestor]

Then how do you account for the fact we still don't have a budget for fiscal year 2011 let alone 2012?? And did you know the dems are not all in step with Pelosi and Reid over the spending cuts proposed or the tax increases proposed...check it out if you have not already done so..

Pelosi is still blaming the repubs for trying to make Obama look bad and Reid wants Obama to take over the negotiations on the debt reductions talks and McConnell & Boehner are enjoying the hell out of this stalemate again...

And don't ask me what am I talking about again because I am just winging it again... ;D

[Mkitty is pro kitty]

"do everything possible to ensure Obama is a one term president", and I applaud them for their effort

And throw America under the bus while doing so? Okay...

And remember Republicans are willing to compromise: just don't raise taxes or cut defense or subsidies, but they're more than willing to compromise on social spending.

[wyouser]

Give em a time out ,then send them to their rooms, NO television and NO toys untill they agree to play nice with one another.

[wyouser]

hey...that sometimes works with 4 year olds....

[billisonboard]

Jul 1, 2011 9:56:11 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

Then how do you account for the fact we still don't have a budget for fiscal year 2011 let alone 2012?? ...

I account for it by stating that Congress is not doing its job. I realize that there are little letters after the names of those elected to represent us. I realize that the people elected turn around and elect people to be "leaders". All irrelevant in the end. Congress is not doing its job.
And don't ask me what am I talking about again because I am just winging it again... ;D

Aren't we all.

[privateinvestor]

Fox News just had an alert that said their inside sources are telling them Obama may just bypass congress and raise the debt ceiling on his own....now the so called Constitutional experts are checking into this news story...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 1, 2011 10:52:04 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

Fox News just had an alert that said their inside sources are telling them Obama may just bypass congress and raise the debt ceiling on his own....now the so called Constitutional experts are checking into this news story...

Might as well. He doesn't obey any of the rest of our laws.

[wyouser]

That is an intersting twist. Congess is supposed to have the power of the purse....Can the executive branch do that? That will be another one for the SCOTUS if he does.

[privateinvestor]

Jul 1, 2011 11:45:41 GMT -5 wyouser said:

That is an intersting twist. Congess is supposed to have the power of the purse....Can the executive branch do that? That will be another one for the SCOTUS if he does.

Obama told the AP without doubt: "We will raise the debt limit. We always have. We will do it again."

Ok and if congress doesn't act to raise the debt ceiling then possibly(?) Obama could step in by an executive order to raise it and prevent a financial meltdown....now if this is unconstitutional or not, I don't have a clue..

[deziloooooo]

" raise the debt ceiling on his own...." he has that authority?..whew, POTUS really have clout?..

To me, kind of drastic but then again, to allow what is said to happen if we don't , as the POTUS, his job is to defend the country any way he can..and in this one, just another defense of..it will bite him in the but or not during the election..but it seems that is not his concern..what ever one feels , the man does take action..even if some her don't agree, but then again, for some here, when would they EVER agree on anything, big, small, tiny, consequential, inconsequential that he proposed, thought about, dreamed about, mused over, mumbled about or proposed..so why worry if you were he..just do it, right?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 1, 2011 11:52:37 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

Jul 1, 2011 11:45:41 GMT -5 wyouser said:

That is an intersting twist. Congess is supposed to have the power of the purse....Can the executive branch do that? That will be another one for the SCOTUS if he does.

Obama told the AP without doubt: "We will raise the debt limit. We always have. We will do it again."

Ok and if congress doesn't act to raise the debt ceiling then possibly(?) Obama could step in by an executive order to raise it and prevent a financial meltdown....now if this is unconstitutional or not, I don't have a clue..

It's blatantly unConstitutional. I don't think there's anything in the Constitution that the plain language doesn't clearly explain, but this particular item is beyond any doubt one of the most unambiguous:

Article I, Section VII

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Executive orders don't carry ANY force of law with respect to spending. The President can't order spending- or spending cuts for that matter.

However, if the President CAN order spending or spending cuts, stand the f*** by for the next President. Mrs. Bachmann will relish that power, I'm sure. ;D

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I think the worst fear of the left right now is a default or government shut down during which the American people scarcely notice. Imagine no government and no one cares. As governor Mitch Daniels noted while fixing the Democrat mess in Indiana, "You'd be surprised the government you won't miss". So, the Democrats are going to cry, they're going to scream, they're going to shriek-- but ultimately they will forced to cut spending. It's not a matter of "if" there are going to be massive spending cuts-- only when, and if we act quickly we'll get to decide what.

I think the fundamental dishonesty displayed by Democrats in this 'debate' is that there's a debate. There's not. It's going to happen. This idea that there's a choice to maintain the status quo is one of the great Democrat myths. And this idea that if we don't raise the debt ceiling there will be a default ignores the fact that the US government is on a path towards inevitable default anyway. The ONLY responsible people right now are Republicans. There's not a single Democrat in favor of doing the right thing here- and after 2010, I would think they'd want to rethink that.

[Bluerobin]

Jun 30, 2011 19:21:23 GMT -5 ugonow said:

And the sad part is many think gridlock is good.

That is the really scary part.
I am betting it back fires on the pubs.
I gave my pub congressman an earful the other day. I just know he is gonna put the arm on me next election.
I told him Bush tax cuts did not work, which is partly why we are in a recession. I told him no more tax cuts. Instead, try to give tax credits per job added - up to 50% of each new salary. That way, no jobs, no tax reductions.

[deziloooooo]

Jul 2, 2011 9:16:57 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I think the worst fear of the left right now is a default or government shut down during which the American people scarcely notice. Imagine no government and no one cares. As governor Mitch Daniels noted while fixing the Democrat mess in Indiana, "You'd be surprised the government you won't miss". So, the Democrats are going to cry, they're going to scream, they're going to shriek-- but ultimately they will forced to cut spending. It's not a matter of "if" there are going to be massive spending cuts-- only when, and if we act quickly we'll get to decide what.

I think the fundamental dishonesty displayed by Democrats in this 'debate' is that there's a debate. There's not. It's going to happen. This idea that there's a choice to maintain the status quo is one of the great Democrat myths. And this idea that if we don't raise the debt ceiling there will be a default ignores the fact that the US government is on a path towards inevitable default anyway. The ONLY responsible people right now are Republicans. There's not a single Democrat in favor of doing the right thing here- and after 2010, I would think they'd want to rethink that.

I really don't know what will happen, possible you do if the cealing is not raised..however, if SS payments are not made on time, federal retirement payments are not paid on time, not just military payments but all those others too..I would think the American public would notice. I know my share of my medicare costs are automatically taken out of my SS payments..that would put me in a bind if they were not met..and those are just some things that might not be done if the cealing is not raised me think, off the top of my head .