The problems with Congress

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by solvs, Feb 17, 2008.

  1. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #1
    Surprised none of this has appeared here, but some not so great things happened in Congress this week. Worse than usual. Waiting for someone to defend it or change the subject, because someone always has to.

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/14/664927.aspx

    Which they did. How dare Congress investigate the WH. Let alone threatening contempt charges against people who refused to show up when subpoenaed. :rolleyes: And:

    Classy.

    Meanwhile some seem to think that investigating steroid abuse (while an issue in it's own right) is more important than investigating things like torture or that those in charge balk at pleas from officers in field for safer vehicles or awarding another contract to a company already fined for providing faulty equipment to the troops.
     
  2. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #2
    ya know I dont know why it is worth congress's time to deal with steroid use...
    its just baseball, its not like anything of any importance what so ever
     
  3. Roger1 macrumors 65816

    Roger1

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Location:
    Michigan
    #3
    What a bunch of !@#$%^ morons. Personally, I think congress is just doing fluff work to try and distract people from realizing how incompetent they've been over the last couple of years.
    ATTENTION CONGRESS CRITTERS! LET THE POLICE HANDLE THE STEROID ISSUES! YOU HAVE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO! :mad::mad::mad:

    SO **** AND GBTW!!

    Now, that being said, a guy I know pointed out that we are probably better off with congress focusing on this, rather than other issues. Basically meaning that they won't have the opportunity to screw up other things. :p
     
  4. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #4
    I saw this story, and my first reaction was that I was amazed and not a little upset that it got so little play in the media.

    But of course they're up to their eyeballs in stories about the delegate counts and Roger Clemens. Who has time for stories about lawbreaking in the White House?
     
  5. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #5

    http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/12/2477/print/
     
  6. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #6
    And in the meantime, there's little commentary about Obama's idea to spend 0.7% of GDP on reducing world poverty. The bill has passed the House and is now out of the Senate committee. $94.5 billion a year for ten years.

    So we get out of Iraq and supposedly then have that money to give away, already knowing it will wind up in bank accounts in Switzerland and the Caymans. do we not, however, care about overty here?

    Whence cometh the money for Hillary's medical program? Tax the rich?

    Where do we get the trillion bucks that's needed for already-existing infrastructure upgrades? Tax the rich? Oops, done that.

    Then where do we get the money to deal with additional infrastructure for the additional 130 million new people in the U.S. in the next 38 years? Electricity, water, streets, parks, libraries, schools, all that stuff.

    And the money for the 79 million Baby Boomer Old Pharts that will be drawing SS and using Medicare/Medicaid by 2030?

    But worrying about a few US Attorneys is far more important, right?

    'Rat
     
  7. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #7
    The problem with congress is not from the list the OP made.

    The problem with congress is they can not see past re-election. This applies to all congressmen. They do not see what is needed in the long term. Only short term.

    They claim they are following the will of the people but the will of the people is a bunch of idiots who do not give a hoot about anything in the long term. They only care about tomorrow.

    Now if our congress would wake up and start doing things for the long term things would get better but that is never going to happen. This is an issue world wide among politicizations I do not care what country you are in. They can only see to the next election. To be more exact only the last few months matter any how. People do not remember much before that.

    if the economy was doing great right now everyone would love Bush. But our economy world wide is going down hill as part of the normal cycle. It is not Bush fault it is just the way things go. It normally goes on a 6-8 year cycle.
     
  8. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #8
    They are all important, Rat. That is why Congress is made up of numerous committees, so they can work on a large number of diverse issues concurrently.
     
  9. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #9
    It depends which cycle you speak of, as there are many different business cycles with varying levels of acceptance. I'm assuming you mean the Junglar cycle, since it has the closest to 6-8 year length you cite at 7 to 11 years.

    Business cycles can be restrained, usually by fiscal policy, such as in 1945 and the 1990s. While the US economy is currently on the downswing on the Kondratiev wave model, business cycles are still not understood, and some argue that they can be eliminated entirely. Poor fiscal policy can have an adverse effect, and President Bush was no steward of the economy.
     
  10. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #10
    You seem to suggest that if Bush could 'buy us off' with a sound economy, we would be willing to excuse him for his numerous impeachable offenses? I do not think so! Bush and his band of co-conspirators are arch-criminals.
     
  11. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #11
    With a Democrat Congress, I would have assumed the entire Administration would have been impeached by now, had there been any impeachable offenses committed. Wonder why that hasn't happened?
    I don't know how you guys live your lives being so angry and bitter. Seems as if it would be a terrible existence, but to each his own.
     
  12. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #12
    Well, yes. It is important and far more important than Arlen Specter's investigation into the NFL or baseball's steroid problem. The US Attorney scandal goes right to the heart of what the executive branch can and cannot do according to the US Constitution. That's important to me and frankly is exactly what Congress should be doing.

    I'd also like them to deal seriously with an energy policy, infrastructure repair, and other very unsexy but necessary legislature.

    You're just playing another debate tactic (one surprisingly well-worn if I remember these forums correctly) by trying to paint SMM (and others) as somehow irrational for being fed-up with the politics and dealing that has occurred over the last few years. This isn't the result of an irrational mind, this is the result of paying attention and understanding that these scandals are part of an overriding pattern of poor government that should be addressed. We should demand (and receive) good government. We have serious problems demanding serious and thoughtful people.

    Maybe being so close to the White House has an RDF all its own?
     
  13. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #13
    Where was the outrage when President Clinton had all of the US Attorney's fired?
    They serve at the discretion of the President, and can be fired at will.
     
  14. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #14
    As most people following the story have usually acknowledged, the firing that happened in the Bush administration wasn't wrong for the act itself, but raised significant and weighty questions specifically because the pattern of firings did not indicate anything other than a systematic attempt to undermine the legal processes the lawyers were in the middle of. Theoretically, any firings should have either been based on performance or entirely arbitrary. However, if they represent an attempt by the administration to affect the course of the justice system, that, and only that gave adequate cause for alarm and/or review.

    ~ CB
     
  15. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #15
    From the Washington Post (March 3, 2007):

    From the Washington Post (May 14, 2007):

     
  16. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #16
    There is a big difference between firing all of the attorneys at the beginning of a presidential term (which almost every president has done), and firing them mid term for what appeared to be political reasons that had to do with cases they were or were not investigating.
     
  17. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #17

    Like I said, they serve at the discretion of the President and can be fired for any reason, no reason, or at any time.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070320-8.html
     
  18. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #18
    That's true. --And if it turns out that they were fired in a way that implies a distinct political agenda, that President will be questioned and properly investigated to the fullest extend of the law. No one ever said he had no right to perform the action. I have a right to drive down the street, but if I endanger someone's life in the process, I may have to face prosecution. Seems pretty clear cut how things work.

    ~ CB
     
  19. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #19
    1) You should not assume. Your reliance on it has completely led you to ignore the thousands of articles, op-ed pieces and books, which make up and air-tight case for impeachment. The authors are the most knowledgeable and distinguished criminal/constitutional scholars in the country. And, by the way, a large percentage of them are conservatives. The only people who dispute this are the three monkeys (hear, speak and see no evil).

    2) Do not collectively group the members of this forum into a shared mindset. We all have our own opinions. For me, I do not like my country ran by a thug, not much better than SH. The Bush administration is the most corrupt one this country has ever known, probably ever imagined. You can try to come here and do 'damage control', but your position is laughable.
     
  20. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #20

    I could provide 1000's of articles showing there to be no cause for impeachment, as well as 1000's more 'proving' the existence of ghosts, alien visitation, and a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world.

    I didn't say anything about Group-think. I said I couldn't imagine being so angry and full of hatred and vitriol all the time.

    We all know the real reason there have not been impeachment hearings.


    http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5719
     
  21. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #21
    Honestly yes he more than likely could of.

    Look at history and look at elections for president and the opinion polls. You will notices a very close relationship to the economy. If the economy is booming the president is liked. If it is not then they are not.

    Also look at re-elections. If the economy is doing well they get re-elected. The opposite is true when it is doing poorly. Sad but true.

    People are short sighted. The strongest tie to how well a president is liked is to the thing he has the least control over. The economy.
     
  22. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #22
    CleverBoy, Janet Reno accepted ALL the resignations, even of those attorneys who were in the middle of ongoing cases. I dunno. I don't object to changing who's doing what, for politics, so much as ending criminal prosecutions to the benefit of the criminal. Let the guy finish his job, first, then can him. I guess.

    Yeah, lots of committees and sub-committees. But focussing on two-year election cycles is what gives us the absence of rational, on-going study/planning/policy of those problems which really affect all of us. The example of Specter's nonsense is well-taken--and unfortunately the media thinks it's as important as the economy or energy.

    And we wind up with the ethanolitis of the last energy bill.

    'Rat
     
  23. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #23
    So when Harry Reid called a closed session of Congress it was just a cheap political stunt, but when McConnell calls a walkout of the GOP, it's taking a principled stand huh?

    Funny, that...

    Oh, and my guess would be that if Congress actually stands up to the Bushies on amnesty for the telcos, their approval ratings will rise accordingly.
     
  24. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #24
    Sure wasn't for lack of reason.

    Pfft! We're pikers compared to conservatives. We've got nada on Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Hugh Hewitt, Bill O'Reilly, Dick Armey, Denny Hastert and Ted Stevens. You want angry, cast your mind back to how conservatives behaved during the Clinton administration. That was vein-popping, wild-eyed fury.
     
  25. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #25
    Some serious jealousy-fed hatred was ginned up during that time period for sure.
     

Share This Page