Fact filled article on why the current Congress is the worst ever.

[Verto]

Congress has repeatedly refused to look at any aspect of the war. In 2003, Republicans refused to allow a vote on a bill introduced by Waxman that would have established an independent commission to review the false claims Bush made in asking Congress to declare war on Iraq. That same year, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Porter Goss, refused to hold hearings on whether the administration had forged evidence of the nuclear threat allegedly posed by Iraq. A year later the chair of the Government Reform Committee, Tom Davis, refused to hold hearings on new evidence casting doubt on the "nuclear tubes" cited by the Bush administration before the war. Sen. Pat Roberts, who pledged to issue a Senate Intelligence Committee report after the 2004 election on whether the Bush administration had misled the public before the invasion, changed his mind after the president won re-election. "I think it would be a monumental waste of time to re-plow this ground any further," Roberts said.

[Verto]

Sensenbrenner has done his bit to squelch any debate over Iraq. He refused a request by John Conyers and more than fifty other Democrats for hearings on the famed "Downing Street Memo," the internal British document that stated that Bush had "fixed" the intelligence about the war, and he was one of three committee chairs who rejected requests for hearings on the abuse of Iraqi detainees. Despite an international uproar over Abu Ghraib, Congress spent only twelve hours on hearings on the issue. During the Clinton administration, by contrast, the Republican Congress spent 140 hours investigating the president's alleged misuse of his Christmas-card greeting list.

[Verto]

Perhaps the most classic example of failed oversight in the Bush era came in a little-publicized hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee held on February 13th, 2003 -- just weeks before the invasion of Iraq. The hearing offered senators a rare opportunity to grill Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and top Pentagon officials on a wide variety of matters, including the fairly important question of whether they even had a ****ing plan for the open-ended occupation of a gigantic hostile foreign population halfway around the planet. This was the biggest bite that Congress would have at the Iraq apple before the war, and given the gravity of the issue, it should have been a beast of a hearing.

But it wasn't to be. In a meeting that lasted two hours and fifty-three minutes, only one question was asked about the military's readiness on the eve of the invasion. Sen. John Warner, the committee's venerable and powerful chairman, asked Gen. Richard Myers if the U.S. was ready to fight simultaneously in both Iraq and North Korea, if necessary.

Myers answered, "Absolutely."

And that was it. The entire exchange lasted fifteen seconds. The rest of the session followed a pattern familiar to anyone who has watched a hearing on C-Span: The members, when they weren't reading or chatting with one another, used their time with witnesses almost exclusively to address parochial concerns revolving around pork projects in their own districts. Warner set the tone in his opening remarks; after announcing that U.S. troops preparing to invade Iraq could count on his committee's "strongest support," the senator from Virginia quickly turned to the question of how the war would affect the budget for Navy shipbuilding, which, he said, was not increasing "as much as we wish." Not that there's a huge Navy shipyard in Newport News, Virginia, or anything.

[Verto]

When Bill Clinton left office, the nation had a budget surplus of $236 billion. Today, thanks to Congress, the budget is $296 billion in the hole. This year, more than sixty-five percent of all the money borrowed in the entire world will be borrowed by America, a statistic fueled by the speed-junkie spending habits of our supposedly "fiscally conservative" Congress. It took forty-two presidents before George W. Bush to borrow $1 trillion; under Bush, Congress has more than doubled that number in six years. And more often than not, we are borrowing from countries the sane among us would prefer not to be indebted to: The U.S. shells out $77 billion a year in interest to foreign creditors, including payment on the $300 billion we currently owe China.

What do they spend that money on? In the age of Jack Abramoff, that is an ugly question to even contemplate. But let's take just one bill, the so-called energy bill, a big, hairy, favor-laden ***** of a law that started out as the wet dream of Dick Cheney's energy task force and spent four long years leaving grease-tracks on every set of palms in the Capitol before finally becoming law in 2005.

Like a lot of laws in the Bush era, it was crafted with virtually no input from the Democrats, who were excluded from the conference process. And during the course of the bill's gestation period we were made aware that many of its provisions were more or less openly for sale, as in the case of a small electric utility from Kansas called Westar Energy.

Westar wanted a provision favorable to its business inserted in the bill -- and in an internal company memo, it acknowledged that members of Congress had requested Westar donate money to their campaigns in exchange for the provision. The members included former Louisiana congressman Billy Tauzin and current Energy and Commerce chairman Joe Barton of Texas. "They have made this request in lieu of contributions made to their own campaigns," the memo noted. The total amount of Westar's contributions was $58,200.

Keep in mind, that number -- fifty-eight grand -- was for a single favor. The energy bill was loaded with them. Between 2001 and the passage of the bill, energy companies donated $115 million to federal politicians, with seventy-five percent of the money going to Republicans. When the bill finally passed, it contained $6 billion in subsidies for the oil industry, much of which was funneled through a company with ties to Majority Leader Tom DeLay. It included an exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act for companies that use a methane-drilling technique called "hydraulic fracturing" -- one of the widest practitioners of which is Halliburton. And it included billions in subsidies for the construction of new coal plants and billions more in loan guarantees to enable the coal and nuclear industries to borrow money at bargain-basement interest rates.

[Verto]

Anyone who wants to get a feel for the kinds of beasts that have been roaming the grounds of the congressional zoo in the past six years need only look at the deranged, handwritten letter that convicted bribe-taker and GOP ex-congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham recently sent from prison to Marcus Stern, the reporter who helped bust him. In it, Cunningham -- who was convicted last year of taking $2.4 million in cash, rugs, furniture and jewelry from a defense contractor called MZM -- *****es out Stern in the broken, half-literate penmanship of a six-year-old put in time-out.

"Each time you print it hurts my family And now I have lost them Along with Everything I have worked for during my 64 years of life," Cunningham wrote. "I am human not an Animal to keep whiping [sic]. I made some decissions [sic] Ill be sorry for the rest of my life."

The amazing thing about Cunningham's letter is not his utter lack of remorse, or his insistence on blaming defense contractor Mitchell Wade for ratting him out ("90% of what has happed [sic] is Wade," he writes), but his frantic, almost epic battle with the English language. It is clear that the same Congress that put a drooling child-chaser like Mark Foley in charge of a House caucus on child exploitation also named Cunningham, a man who can barely write his own name in the ground with a stick, to a similarly appropriate position. Ladies and gentlemen, we give you the former chairman of the House Subcommittee on Human Intelligence Analysis and Counterintelligence:

"As truth will come out and you will find out how liablest [sic] you have & will be. Not once did you list the positives. Education Man of the Year...hospital funding, jobs, Hiway [sic] funding, border security, Megans law my bill, Tuna Dolfin [sic] my bill...and every time you wanted an expert on the wars who did you call. No Marcus you write About how I died."

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I've started 10 threads recently and only 4-5 have been about politics.

1. Fact filled article on why the current Congress is the worst ever. - Politics

2. Bush's deficits and the coming crunch. ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... Last page ) - Politics

3. It seems like the Dems will be taking both houses of Congress. ( 1 2 3 4 ) - Politics

4. "al-Qaeda does appear to ... be more coherent and organised" - Informational

5. How to make plasma in your microwave. - Informational

6. The all new do you have someone on ignore thread. ( 1 2 3 4 5 ) - Spam

7. But Can They Run a Horse Show? Steal Your Rights? Hand Out Contracts to Friends? - Politics

8. How the Iraq war was won, media review 3 years on - Poltics/Media

9. Rep. Bob Ney pleads guilty to bribery - Politics

10. GOP losing grip on married moms ( 1 2 3 4 5 ) - Politcs


7 out of last 10 - Politics

Next 10


11. Democrats aren't only better people then Republicans but they're better managers too. - Politics

12. Your top websites. - Spam

13. Norwegians are the real sheep shaggers. - Interesting FACTS

14. Air show time - Miscellaneous

15. ROVE Pressured Foley Into Staying In Congress - Politics

16. Ex-Congressional Page comes forward; says Folley had sex with him. - Politics

17. Would One Of You Einsteins Help stop these copy cat threads? - Spam

18. F.U. right wingers. NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional ( 1 2 3 4 5 ) - Politics

19. I am going to help retake America. ( 1 2 ) - Politics

20. Washington Times calls for Hastert's resignation... ( 1 2 ) - Politics

6 out of 10.



Neglecting Spam topics - say 13 out 17. Batting .764

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Verto


"As truth will come out and you will find out how liablest [sic] you have & will be. Not once did you list the positives. Education Man of the Year...hospital funding, jobs, Hiway [sic] funding, border security, Megans law my bill, Tuna Dolfin [sic] my bill...and every time you wanted an expert on the wars who did you call. No Marcus you write About how I died."[/b]

To be fair, its tough to compose a letter when being assraped by your cellmate.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Vertos compendium of examples are proof of the partisanship that occurs and becomes even more intense when one party own the legislative and one party owns the executive.

The comparison of Repugs to Dems in Cintonian times vs today is a bit naive in that the repugs were allowed by virtue to their majority in Senate and House to establish the agendas. Given that the Dems are not in position to do that why would any of the examples talking to the apparent niceties of the Dems today in contrast to Repugs be that surprising.

Is this an appeal to get Dems into a majority position for payback purposes because Repugs dared to act in a majority fashion when they had a legislative majority in the Clintonian era. If so count me out I don't want to see a replay of that brand of political partisanship that IMO sincerely distracted and weakened the US.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
The comparison of Repugs to Dems in Cintonian times vs today is a bit naive in that the repugs were allowed by virtue to their majority in Senate and House to establish the agendas. Given that the Dems are not in position to do that why would any of the examples talking to the apparent niceties of the Dems today in contrast to Repugs be that surprising.

Is this an appeal to get Dems into a majority position for payback purposes because Repugs dared to act in a majority fashion when they had a legislative majority in the Clintonian era. If so count me out I don't want to see a replay of that brand of political partisanship that IMO sincerely distracted and weakened the US.

I think the point is to show that the Republican Congress is not fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, instead allowing itself to be consumed by partisanship. Let's pretend for a second that the huge amount of resources, time and attention spent going after Clinton was motivated solely by a desire to investigate criminal behavior, and had no political agenda behind it; surely the Iraq invasion and the Katrina bungling deserve far more attention, on an exponential scale? The article does not, IMO, want the Democrats to seek revenge after winning a majority; rather, the author wishes that Congress would act like its own branch of government, and not merely a rubberstamp appendage of the White House that turns a blind eye to anything done by a fellow GOPer.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Verto
Whether or not the article has a bias, it certainly brings up valid points and startling stories.

Which of course is exactly what the usual suspects are trying to avoid talking about.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

6 out of 10.



Neglecting Spam topics - say 13 out 17. Batting .764

OK, ********. There are total of 14 pages worth of posts in the OT, I have 16 nonpolitical threads and 10 for sure political and 3 which might be considered political but are more just informational stuff. That is 10 out of 27 at best and 13/27 at worst.

Learn to frigging count.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Verto


I think the point is to show that the Republican Congress is not fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, instead allowing itself to be consumed by partisanship. Let's pretend for a second that the huge amount of resources, time and attention spent going after Clinton was motivated solely by a desire to investigate criminal behavior, and had no political agenda behind it; surely the Iraq invasion and the Katrina bungling deserve far more attention, on an exponential scale? The article does not, IMO, want the Democrats to seek revenge after winning a majority; rather, the author wishes that Congress would act like its own branch of government, and not merely a rubberstamp appendage of the White House that turns a blind eye to anything done by a fellow GOPer.

And to that point I agree, however I do think it important to understand the depths to which the country will sink when even more rampant partisanship paralyzes all aspects of the government. If there has been one thing I have been consistnet on is the revulsionI have for the devisiveness of both parties during this and the former administration terms. It is not a case of one party or the other being at fault as they both suck mightily.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin


OK, ********. There are total of 14 pages worth of posts in the OT, I have 16 nonpolitical threads and 10 for sure political and 3 which might be considered political but are more just informational stuff. That is 10 out of 27 at best and 13/27 at worst.

Learn to frigging count.

I'ld be happy to use my limitted counting ability if you be so kind as to post the topic threads as I did.

Until then it remains clearly evident per the very clear analysis as 13 of 20, and 13 of 17 discounting spam.

[korn469]

I wish there was something we could do to change the entire situation. I don't think that the American people will have the determination to overhaul our government until things become truly horrible.

These are the root causes of the problems in my opinion:

*Too many safe congressional districts
*A 51% vote is the same as a 100% vote
*No congress people represent the entire nation, they each represent either a state or a very small section of a state
*Congress doesn't have to make hard choices on spending bills because they can run up the debt
*Bills are too long, too complicated, have too many hidden features, and also have too many loopholes

Fixes I would like to see

*A balanced budget amendment. It should prevent overspending and also require paying off the entire US debt. It would take 3/4's of both houses of congress to spend more than what the US takes in. This forces congress to make hard choices, and helps deter pork.

*Term limits. A congressperson couldn't serve more than two terms in the senate and three terms in the house. This would help combat safe districts.

*Amendment that requires a super majority of 60% to pass any bill in both the house and the senate. This would help encourage bipartisanship and rule by consensus without making it impossible to pass legislation.

Far fetched idea

*Amendment that decreases the number of senators by about half, but makes them elected on a either a national level or a regional level instead of on a state level. This would combat safe districts, reduce pork, and increase the standing of Senators so that they could hopefully stand up more effectively to the executive branch.

[Elok]

Tldr, especially not after I read that this is from Rolling Stone (in the first line). Insightful political commentary: page twelve. Top-ten list of the best guitarists currently working in the thrash-metal genre: page twenty. Riiiight.