Worst congress ever!

At least according to this guy.

Übereil

While there's a lot of very good and very accurate info in there, the writer is obviously writing from the stance that our debt doesn't need to be controlled. If you buy that, then his one-sided rant against republicans in points 4 and 5 might even hold up. Of course, since that stance is obviously utter nonsense, it sort of undermines the credibility of the entire article.

I find the assumption that passing laws = congressional productivity to be absurd.

Originally Posted by CrazyIrish
I find the assumption that passing laws = congressional productivity to be absurd.

Granted, it's a rather indirect measure. I'm sure you have a better gage in mind?

Congresssfolks spend almost all their time raising money to get reelected. If I was cynical I'd say something about them prostrating themselves before their true masters.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Granted, it's a rather indirect measure. I'm sure you have a better gage in mind?

I don't, but then I'm not writing articles about it

Its difficult to measure the effectiveness of a group of people who can't even come to a consensus about what they are there to accomplish. You could argue that passing laws is their job, so if they aren't passing laws then they must not be doing much. Does that mean that towns with low crime have cops that aren't doing their job?

Admittedly its difficult to look at the question in an unbiased fashion. At the moment there aren't very many politicians in office that I wouldn't oust.

Well I don't know if there is much else that Congress does that's useful except write laws. They couldn't even do appropriation laws in a timely fashion. Silly proclamations are rarely useful. Political grandstanding or investigating doesn't count as *useful* to me, either.

However, I am concerned that writing laws should not just be additions, but also simplifications of existing laws where appropriate (like the tax code).

I guess my point was that writing laws isn't inherently useful in and of itself.

Uh, it depends on the laws written, of course. That's like saying building a bridge isn't inherently useful.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
Uh, it depends on the laws written, of course. That's like saying building a bridge isn't inherently useful.

Building a bridge isn't inherently useful.

You assume things are done without purpose. That's a rather nihilistic attitude. And abnormal.

Something done with purpose is useful to someone. But may be not be to you. But if you're nihilistic you deem nothing important.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Granted, it's a rather indirect measure. I'm sure you have a better gage in mind?

How about bills passed? Those may create laws, destroy laws, or both. If a bill gets to the president, is vetoed, and gets passed anyway then score two points.

Seems like approval of presidential appointments should get in there somehow, too, but I can't figure out how to do it. If a president makes nothing but stupid appointments, I don't want to see congress punished for it but if congress just bounces everyone the president sends then they deserve a big hit. (I'm really afraid we're going to start losing SC judges for years at a time simply because congress refuses to let anyone in that might sometimes rule in favor of the other side.)

Sounds like a good start on a better metric, to me.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
You assume things are done without purpose. That's a rather nihilistic attitude. And abnormal.

Something done with purpose is useful to someone. But may be not be to you. But if you're nihilistic you deem nothing important.

I assume things are done with very specific purpose. You just don't read your opponents very well. Even if I was a nihilist it would make no sense to assume others were the same. Its ok though, I've been called abnormal before. Oddly enough its never bothered me. Mostly because of who it is that made the claim.

A bridge has no purpose unless people need to cross something. A law has no purpose unless the people need to regulate something, or at least convince themselves they are regulating something. Either way, the purpose could be very counter to actual need.

You're missing the point. Just because something doesn't fit a purpose or need that suits you, doesn't make it not useful to someone else. For example, building a bridge may be useful to someone who just likes to build bridges. Believing otherwise is nihilistic.

Originally Posted by Zloth
Seems like approval of presidential appointments should get in there somehow, too, but I can't figure out how to do it. If a president makes nothing but stupid appointments, I don't want to see congress punished for it but if congress just bounces everyone the president sends then they deserve a big hit. (I'm really afraid we're going to start losing SC judges for years at a time simply because congress refuses to let anyone in that might sometimes rule in favor of the other side.)

This is leading to a bad thing. Instead of nominating the best people the ones that get nominated are the ones least likely to have done anything controversial or even done anything at all. It gets worse with every shift in power in the various branches, too.

Congress shouldn't rubber-stamp presidential appointments but the president DOES get to pick them and (OH MY GOD!) they shouldn't be surprised that he actually picks people who agree with him.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
You're missing the point. Just because something doesn't fit a purpose or need that suits you, doesn't make it not useful to someone else. For example, building a bridge may be useful to someone who just likes to build bridges. Believing otherwise is nihilistic.

Repeating the word nihilistic over and over doesn't make you right. A thing is only useful if it serves a purpose. Laws that don't achieve their stated purpose aren't useful.We have Gun Control Laws that don't reduce violent crime, Drug Control Laws that don't reduce drug traffic, and Immigration laws that encourage circumventing them. And that is just the tip'o'the iceburg.

When I go to work, my bosses lay out their expectations. I am required to fulfill them. Sure, I could just shuffle paperwork and look busy without actually accomplishing anything, but eventually someone will figure it out and it'll be my butt in a sling. For some reason this metric isn't applied to our nation's leaders.

Building a bridge from nowhere to nowhere = doing nothing. What makes the trick so impressive is that the American public has allowed themselves into being fooled into believing nowhere and nowhere are nice places to work, play, and retire to. And the real estate market in nowhere is killer!

Well I seemed to have pulled you out of the nihilistic reverie. As you say - doing something to fulfill a "stated purpose" is useful, most likely to the person making the statement. For example, people build things all the time just for the pleasure of building them. Others poo poo their work because it doesn't do something useful. But for that person and the wor'ks admirers it's great. That is all.

If you wish to support people that make laws just cause it fun then knock yourself out. If you forget, that's the only thing we're talking about. Just don't be surprised when the rest of us snicker a bit and roll our eyes when you also say you're part of the solution.

Remember you started the divergence away from the topic of laws by bringing in other examples. You began to generalize, which is why you started to sound nihilistic.

Originally Posted by CrazyIrish
Building a bridge isn't inherently useful.

Yes, you're not making much sense here…