Why congress sucks (an interesting read)

[ivwshane]

I knew Gingrich was bad and he is the father of our current political climate IMO but I didn't realize all the little things he did that contributed to shit congress we have now.

The article gives a lot of background and I think keeps things honest as opposed to biased.

Anyway, I thought it was a good read.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ma.../features/the_big_lobotomy050642.php?page=all

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Can someone Cliffs it for me please? Too long for me to read at work

 

[dmcowen674]

Can someone Cliffs it for me please? Too long for me to read at work

In a nut shell the U.S. Government has gotten too big to fail.

 

[cubby1223]

Can someone Cliffs it for me please? Too long for me to read at work

Skimmed through it. The declaration at the end is that congress sucks because the GOP is proud of their stupidity.

A good article for people who hate the Republican Party.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol! It's almost as if you guys read the title of the article and then said, "I would like to personify that, so I'll post something that highlights my stupidity".

 

[ivwshane]

In a nut shell the U.S. Government has gotten too big to fail.

Actually it's too big to do half assed, which the article goes on to explain how that became the norm.

 

[ivwshane]

Skimmed through it. The declaration at the end is that congress sucks because the GOP is proud of their stupidity.

A good article for people who hate the Republican Party.

Not really, as the issues created by Gingrich also affect democrats.


It's probably better to be an idiot in silence than to make everyone aware of your idiocy.

 

[pcgeek11]

Yep. That article isn't biased at all.

Looks at the writer.

Paul Glastris

From September 1998 to January, 2001, he was special assistant and senior speechwriter to President Bill Clinton. He wrote over 200 speeches for the president, on subjects ranging from education to health care to the budget. He co-wrote the president's address to the Democratic convention in Los Angeles in August 2000, and contributed to his 1999 and 2000 State of the Union addresses. In November 1999, Glastris traveled with Clinton to Turkey and Greece and wrote the president's landmark address to the Greek people. Glastris was co-creator of the president's "DC Reads this Summer" program,

 

[Matt1970]

lol, good one.

 

[ivwshane]

Yep. That article isn't biased at all.

Looks at the writer.

Paul Glastris

From September 1998 to January, 2001, he was special assistant and senior speechwriter to President Bill Clinton. He wrote over 200 speeches for the president, on subjects ranging from education to health care to the budget. He co-wrote the president's address to the Democratic convention in Los Angeles in August 2000, and contributed to his 1999 and 2000 State of the Union addresses. In November 1999, Glastris traveled with Clinton to Turkey and Greece and wrote the president's landmark address to the Greek people. Glastris was co-creator of the president's "DC Reads this Summer" program,

Well golly gee, I'm sure Haley sweetland Edwards was just the co author for her personal experience at the time and not the other way around!

Did you read it? Did you find something inaccurate about it? Do you have a counter point? Does paul have something to gain by this article.

While it's good that you researched one of the authors, your research shouldn't have stopped there when trying to dismiss an article.

Critical thinking is a little harder than you think


How about comments from someone that actually read the article?

 

[FerrelGeek]

Yep. Congress ran like a Rolex until ol' Newt came along. Nothing but bluebirds and bi-partisan bliss, I tell ya.

As to Ivv's summary of the article, why do you think there are so many right now that are crying for a smaller government? Government has taken on more that it can effectively manage and mo' money isn't the simple cure-all that some claim it to be.

 

[ivwshane]

Yep. Congress ran like a Rolex until ol' Newt came along. Nothing but bluebirds and bi-partisan bliss, I tell ya.

As to Ivv's summary of the article, why do you think there are so many right now that are crying for a smaller government? Government has taken on more that it can effectively manage and mo' money isn't the simple cure-all that some claim it to be.

Well typically with a growing population you have a government that grows with it to accommodate it or at the very least you keep in place people/departments/research that helps keep things running correctly/smoothly.

People don't hate big government, they hate inefficient government of any size.

What newt apparently did was tie governments hands. Not very smart in my opinion.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep. Congress ran like a Rolex until ol' Newt came along. Nothing but bluebirds and bi-partisan bliss, I tell ya.

As to Ivv's summary of the article, why do you think there are so many right now that are crying for a smaller government? Government has taken on more that it can effectively manage and mo' money isn't the simple cure-all that some claim it to be.

Interesting argument: the article is about conservatives making it so congress can't function effectively leads you to the conclusion that we should do what conservatives want instead of say, restoring that function.

I don't think you get to cite a problem you helped create as a reason to do something else you want.

 

[Zorba]

Probably the biggest reason congress sucks [more than historically] is cable news and talk radio. Makes people focus on stupid, unimportant stuff at a very shallow level. So therefore, congress only focuses on stupid, unimportant stuff at a very shallow level.

 

[ivwshane]

Probably the biggest reason congress sucks [more than historically] is cable news and talk radio. Makes people focus on stupid, unimportant stuff at a very shallow level. So therefore, congress only focuses on stupid, unimportant stuff at a very shallow level.

I agree and one of the reasons for me posting this article was to highlight the fact that washingtons disfunction isn't just because both sides have moved to the extremes, it's because measures congress themselves put in place to keep power in check have been removed and now the power lies with leadership which like with incest eventually produces retarded shit

 

[Jhhnn]

Interesting argument: the article is about conservatives making it so congress can't function effectively leads you to the conclusion that we should do what conservatives want instead of say, restoring that function.

I don't think you get to cite a problem you helped create as a reason to do something else you want.

It makes sense in Glenbeckistan. If govt is seen as inefficient & ineffective, tear it down. When it becomes even less effective because of your efforts, tear it down some more until it fails to function at all.

That shifts power enormously away from the Government of the People to multinational corporate interests, to the uber wealthy, which was the whole point all along.

It helps when when 40 years of well formulated agitprop has afflicted the mental processes of the feebs.

 

[hal2kilo]

Yes let's cut funding for indepedent analysis on the issues of the people. The lobbyist are much more efficient at writing legislation and it doesn't cost a dime (up front).

 

[realibrad]

It makes sense in Glenbeckistan. If govt is seen as inefficient & ineffective, tear it down. When it becomes even less effective because of your efforts, tear it down some more until it fails to function at all.

That shifts power enormously away from the Government of the People to multinational corporate interests, to the uber wealthy, which was the whole point all along.

It helps when when 40 years of well formulated agitprop has afflicted the mental processes of the feebs.

Oh, so that's neat. The GOP, being a major part of the government, is not of the people? How can you honestly think that corporations don't have a much larger influence on government than the people?

Both parties are beholden to corporations. Both get paid to pass or hold back laws for their benefit. I would much rather a smaller government, to limit the stupidity of both parties.

 

[BUnit1701]

Well this line is pretty telling:

"Of course, all of this slashing and cutting has done nothing to actually help shrink the federal government. Real federal spending has increased 50 percent since 1995, in line with the growth of the U.S. population and economy."

I'd love to see the stats to back that up.

 

[Brainonska511]

Oh, so that's neat. The GOP, being a major part of the government, is not of the people? How can you honestly think that corporations don't have a much larger influence on government than the people?

Both parties are beholden to corporations. Both get paid to pass or hold back laws for their benefit. I would much rather a smaller government, to limit the stupidity of both parties.

I swear, everytime I hear the stupid phrase "small government", I want to whack my head into my desk. It's such a meaningless and bullshit phrase.

We should be striving for an effective government. The limits of its operating parameters are debatable. But "small" does not automatically mean better and simultaneously, "large" does not mean worse. We should want to elect people who are knowledgeable, have knowledgeable staff, and can do their jobs effectively. The idea that Congress is effectively abdicating its roles of oversight and writing legislation is appalling.

 

[DigDog]

^this

 

[fskimospy]

Well this line is pretty telling:

"Of course, all of this slashing and cutting has done nothing to actually help shrink the federal government. Real federal spending has increased 50 percent since 1995, in line with the growth of the U.S. population and economy."

I'd love to see the stats to back that up.

US real GDP in 1995 was a bit over $10 trillion.

Today it is a bit over $15 trillion.

That's 50%

 

[Zebo]

Congress sucks because they are all bought and paid for. They don't represent the vast majority of Americans but the .001%. When they do it's an accident that our interests converge.

All proven In the peer reviewed study, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups and Average Citizens”

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/G...ens and Page 2014-Testing Theories 3-7-14.pdf

 

[realibrad]

I swear, everytime I hear the stupid phrase "small government", I want to whack my head into my desk. It's such a meaningless and bullshit phrase.

We should be striving for an effective government. The limits of its operating parameters are debatable. But "small" does not automatically mean better and simultaneously, "large" does not mean worse. We should want to elect people who are knowledgeable, have knowledgeable staff, and can do their jobs effectively. The idea that Congress is effectively abdicating its roles of oversight and writing legislation is appalling.

Are you saying that society has not been striving for an "effective" government. What has the collective voters been doing, if not trying to make the government more effective?

The reason I say small, is that it limits the power of corporations to effect government. When you centralize power, you centralize corruption, and it becomes far less expensive to corrupt. The reason there are so many lobbyist, is because its the most effective use of corporations time and money. There are very important roles for a central government, and that central government needs to have authority. With out that, you get free loaders and it all breaks down. But, at some point, the incentives for government are to benefit the corporations and organized wealthy, and not the voting populous.

So while you may be sick of hearing people wanting smaller government, know that advocating an effective government has not been working so far.

 

[Zebo]

I swear, everytime I hear the stupid phrase "small government", I want to whack my head into my desk. It's such a meaningless and bullshit phrase.

We should be striving for an effective government. The limits of its operating parameters are debatable. But "small" does not automatically mean better and simultaneously, "large" does not mean worse. We should want to elect people who are knowledgeable, have knowledgeable staff, and can do their jobs effectively. The idea that Congress is effectively abdicating its roles of oversight and writing legislation is appalling.

Small doesnt mean Republican either. Reagan privatized lots of federal duties in his "small government" efforts only to have to hire more contract managers to supervise privatization. Ended up costing more than ever. Bush grew govt faster than any president before him. But base laps the rhetoric up. Ultimatly it's about making thier real constituents rich beyond belief...the halibutons..the koch bros etc

Our whole govt is about grants of discretion today (see post a couple up) not effectiveness. Down the line democrat or republican. ACA to no bid contracts.