Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8016 posts, RR: 8 Posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 1614 times:
Interesting article from Businessweek:
The U.S. House and Senate, facing a backlog of unfinished business, are set to be in session together for 13 days before the Nov. 6 election. Even so, members plan to do what they have done all year on the biggest tax and spending decisions: Nothing.
Of course, politicians on both sides of the aisle have taken off on the 6 week summer vacation. Some head home and some go on "critical junkets" overseas.
People who want a smaller government should be pleased as the politicians take off so much time during the year that nothing of importance gets done. Just the trivial stuff.
BTW, looks like your tax cuts will end:
Neither Democrats nor Republicans see an advantage in spending time before the election on averting automatic income tax increases and the $1.2 trillion in spending cuts that start taking effect in January. Each side wants to try to improve its negotiating position depending on which party will occupy the White House and control the House and the Senate.
I find it ridiculous we let them have any time off at all. They should be in session 7 days a week forever until they undo the mess they've got us in! Hopefully after the election, win or lose, Congress can get its act together (doubt it)
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11812 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 1511 times:
It just shows that the 'kick the can down the street' strategy works.
We had the GOP ploy of shutting down the government, which led us to the Super Committee, which led to: naught.
Now we have the sequestration mess, which I believe will fall to the 'lame duck' Congress, to at least kick the can down the road till the newly elected Congress can figure out their own way to kick the can down the road.
We already have both parties saying sequestration will be a terrible thing for our Military.
I guess they should have thought about that when they chose this course of action!!!
And of course they bring up the Military because they want us all to rally round the flag, yada yada.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6011 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 1493 times:
Frankly I don't understand how the markets can be so gloomy on the eurozone when our politicians work overtime on the matter (and that's a lot of congresses, senates, presidents, prime ministers, chancellors) but let the US off the hook while the debt keeps piling up.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
QFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2059 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 1493 times:
You do realise that every single representative and 33 senators will be out there campaigning rather than going on overseas junkets. I agree there is rorting of overseas travel during breaks but to say that politicians should spend their entire time in Washington (or whatever your respective capital is) is ludicrous. You bitch that they're not listening to constituents when in Washington then bitch that they're not 'legislating' when they're in their constituencies.
The Australian parliament ends a 6 week winter recess next week and I can guarantee you, the only MP's who have gone on their triennial 'study trips' are those that have announced they won't contest, or know they will lose. The rest are out their campaigning their arses off.
I'm actually surprised how often your politicians do sit, ours never sit 4 weeks back to back (yours get 4 day weekends while ours get 3).
slider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6647 posts, RR: 36
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1433 times:
If Romney had any balls whatsoever, he'd HAMMER on the fact that the Senate still hasn't passed a budget.
yet for all the furor over the Tea Party and the great results of the 2010 midterms, statistically speaking 87% of the bastards will still get re-elected no matter party affiliation. It's why we need term limits and a mathematically neutral way to derive districts to stop gerrymandering.
NorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1798 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1358 times:
Very clever the way the GOP wrote the bill in such a way that those cuts don't take effect until after November. Very clever also the way the tea party basically held a knife to the throat of the American public to arm twist Obama into signing it. Talking about gloom, doom, economic devastation, gloom, doom, and more gloom and doom if the president didn't immediately bow to their will. I'm a card carrying democrat, will be for life, and I know of at least three democratic presidents (JFK? Johnson? Clinton? Anyone) who would have stared down the tea party, vetoed their sequestration bill, let the clock tick down to economic armageddon and then if the economy did end up going to hell, slit the tea party's throat with it. That's the kind of ruthlessness a president sometimes needs to get things done in congress. Obama's a great guy and a first class president, but, he's not ruthless and at that moment in history, we needed ruthless. We needed a president with the moxy to tell the tea party to shut the f*ck up and go away. They're not needed, they're not wanted, we like our democracy just the way it is, full of compromise.
As for a budget, I think Obama submitted a budget, the tea party wouldn't allow the republicans to pass it. The tea party submitted their own budget instead, i think it was called the Ryan Budget, which proposed 3.5 trillion dollars in social welfare spending cuts and no tax increases on the people who can most afford it. Honestly, sometimes, I think Obama should have said "sure, go ahead, pass it, I'll sign it, then, when the fabric of America is destroyed, I'll blame you. There will be lots of blame to go around when people are rioting in the streets because they can't get jobs and dying in the streets because they can't get reasonable medical care, it's all you baby, but go ahead, make my day."
Sometimes it's all about ruthlessness, and Obama just doesn't have that.
In the meantime, I'll wait for the results of the next election, do my best to give obama a second chance at control of the house and senate, and hope he doesn't squander it the way he did the first time around.
Why are people so against low yields?! If lower yields means more people can travel abroad, i'm all for it