The do-nothing Republican Congress

The do-nothing Republican Congress

Posted in the Chambersburg Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1 Jan 3, 2013
Nail.

On.

The.

Head.

----------

Good Riddance to Rottenest Congress in History

What’s the record of the 112th Congress? Well, it almost shut down the government and almost breached the debt ceiling.

It almost went over the fiscal cliff (which it had designed in the first place).

It cut a trillion dollars of discretionary spending in the Budget Control Act and scheduled another trillion in spending cuts through an automatic sequester, which everyone agrees is terrible policy.

It achieved nothing of note on housing, energy, stimulus, immigration, guns, tax reform, infrastructure, climate change or, really, anything.

It’s hard to identify a single significant problem that existed prior to the 112th Congress that was in any way improved by its two years of rule.

The 112th, which was gaveled into being on Jan. 3, 2011, by newly elected House Speaker John Boehner, wasn’t just unproductive in comparison with the 111th. It was unproductive compared with any Congress since 1948, when scholars began keeping tabs on congressional productivity.
...
The 112th found legislating so difficult that lawmakers repeatedly created artificial deadlines for consequences and catastrophes intended to spur them to act. But like Wile E. Coyote with his endless supply of Acme products, when the 112th set a trap, the only sure bet was that it would explode in its collective face, forcing leaders to construct yet another hair- trigger legislative contraption.
...
The 112th didn’t even achieve the narrow political objective that Republican leaders sought. Insofar as there was a theory behind their effort to grind the U.S. government to a halt by making Congress a destructive force, it was that American voters would blame the failures of Washington on the party in charge of the White House, leading to President Barack Obama’s defeat.

Yet Republicans were so mistrusted that, despite the previous two years of ineffectual governance and a weak economy, Obama was re-elected by a margin of five million votes, and Democrats won more votes than Republicans for House and Senate seats, as well.
impeach Congress

Chambersburg, PA

#2 Jan 3, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Nail.
On.
The.
Head.
----------
Good Riddance to Rottenest Congress in History
What’s the record of the 112th Congress? Well, it almost shut down the government and almost breached the debt ceiling.
It almost went over the fiscal cliff (which it had designed in the first place).
It cut a trillion dollars of discretionary spending in the Budget Control Act and scheduled another trillion in spending cuts through an automatic sequester, which everyone agrees is terrible policy.
It achieved nothing of note on housing, energy, stimulus, immigration, guns, tax reform, infrastructure, climate change or, really, anything.
It’s hard to identify a single significant problem that existed prior to the 112th Congress that was in any way improved by its two years of rule.
The 112th, which was gaveled into being on Jan. 3, 2011, by newly elected House Speaker John Boehner, wasn’t just unproductive in comparison with the 111th. It was unproductive compared with any Congress since 1948, when scholars began keeping tabs on congressional productivity.
...
The 112th found legislating so difficult that lawmakers repeatedly created artificial deadlines for consequences and catastrophes intended to spur them to act. But like Wile E. Coyote with his endless supply of Acme products, when the 112th set a trap, the only sure bet was that it would explode in its collective face, forcing leaders to construct yet another hair- trigger legislative contraption.
...
The 112th didn’t even achieve the narrow political objective that Republican leaders sought. Insofar as there was a theory behind their effort to grind the U.S. government to a halt by making Congress a destructive force, it was that American voters would blame the failures of Washington on the party in charge of the White House, leading to President Barack Obama’s defeat.
Yet Republicans were so mistrusted that, despite the previous two years of ineffectual governance and a weak economy, Obama was re-elected by a margin of five million votes, and Democrats won more votes than Republicans for House and Senate seats, as well.
Someone needs to get a life!

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#3 Jan 3, 2013
impeach Congress wrote:
<quoted text>Someone needs to get a life!
Or impeach congress at least! I like the idea of impeaching an institution rather than a person. It adds a level of gravitas few can achieve online. You really bring the point home thought with your inconsistent capitalization.
Matt

Charlotte, NC

#4 Jan 3, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Nail.
On.
The.
Head.
----------
Good Riddance to Rottenest Congress in History
What’s the record of the 112th Congress? Well, it almost shut down the government and almost breached the debt ceiling.
It almost went over the fiscal cliff (which it had designed in the first place).
It cut a trillion dollars of discretionary spending in the Budget Control Act and scheduled another trillion in spending cuts through an automatic sequester, which everyone agrees is terrible policy.
It achieved nothing of note on housing, energy, stimulus, immigration, guns, tax reform, infrastructure, climate change or, really, anything.
It’s hard to identify a single significant problem that existed prior to the 112th Congress that was in any way improved by its two years of rule.
The 112th, which was gaveled into being on Jan. 3, 2011, by newly elected House Speaker John Boehner, wasn’t just unproductive in comparison with the 111th. It was unproductive compared with any Congress since 1948, when scholars began keeping tabs on congressional productivity.
...
The 112th found legislating so difficult that lawmakers repeatedly created artificial deadlines for consequences and catastrophes intended to spur them to act. But like Wile E. Coyote with his endless supply of Acme products, when the 112th set a trap, the only sure bet was that it would explode in its collective face, forcing leaders to construct yet another hair- trigger legislative contraption.
...
The 112th didn’t even achieve the narrow political objective that Republican leaders sought. Insofar as there was a theory behind their effort to grind the U.S. government to a halt by making Congress a destructive force, it was that American voters would blame the failures of Washington on the party in charge of the White House, leading to President Barack Obama’s defeat.
Yet Republicans were so mistrusted that, despite the previous two years of ineffectual governance and a weak economy, Obama was re-elected by a margin of five million votes, and Democrats won more votes than Republicans for House and Senate seats, as well.
It's interesting that when Bush was in office, everything was his fault. Now that Obama is in office, everything is the Republican's fault.

How is that? I don't understand.

If I were a liberal, I'd be angry with Obama. He has done absolutely nothing he promised(and got elected on).

Gitmo-nope
Afghanistan-nope
Homeland security-nope
Jobs-nope
Economy-nope
CHANGE-nope

He has become a moderate right in front our eyes. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. He made no decisions as a Senator and he's done the same as a President.

His legacy should fade fast. Will the left be calling him a lame duck? I'd bet not.
Marisa

Chambersburg, PA

#5 Jan 3, 2013
Matt wrote:
<quoted text>
It's interesting that when Bush was in office, everything was his fault. Now that Obama is in office, everything is the Republican's fault.
How is that? I don't understand.
If I were a liberal, I'd be angry with Obama. He has done absolutely nothing he promised(and got elected on).
Gitmo-nope
Afghanistan-nope
Homeland security-nope
Jobs-nope
Economy-nope
CHANGE-nope
He has become a moderate right in front our eyes. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. He made no decisions as a Senator and he's done the same as a President.
His legacy should fade fast. Will the left be calling him a lame duck? I'd bet not.
You have to understand that liberals will follow blindly. They do not ask questions, they just follow.
Basically liberals are mindless drones. It's really that basic.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6 Jan 3, 2013
Matt wrote:
<quoted text>
It's interesting that when Bush was in office, everything was his fault. Now that Obama is in office, everything is the Republican's fault.
How is that? I don't understand.
If I were a liberal, I'd be angry with Obama. He has done absolutely nothing he promised(and got elected on).
Gitmo-nope
Afghanistan-nope
Homeland security-nope
Jobs-nope
Economy-nope
CHANGE-nope
He has become a moderate right in front our eyes. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. He made no decisions as a Senator and he's done the same as a President.
His legacy should fade fast. Will the left be calling him a lame duck? I'd bet not.
Gitmo - obstructed by congress
Afghanistan - drawing down as promised
Homeland security - bin Laden dead, al Qaeda decimated
Jobs - unemployment continues to fall, private sector job growth continues to increase
Economy - GDP continues to grow
CHANGE - Obama is the Democratic Ronald Reagan. He is shifting American attitudes the same way Reagan did.

And he hasn't BECOME a moderate - he's always BEEN a moderate.

Everything Obama has done is what he promised he'd do. He is doing what we elected him to do.

And in the face of historic levels of obstructionism, he has passed universal healthcare, reformed Wall Street, decimated al Qaeda, and is restoring our economy. To deny his obvious successes is to deny reality.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7 Jan 3, 2013
Marisa wrote:
<quoted text>You have to understand that liberals will follow blindly. They do not ask questions, they just follow.
Basically liberals are mindless drones. It's really that basic.
A stunning example of Freudian projection.

And the poor troll doesn't even realize it.
Matt

Charlotte, NC

#8 Jan 3, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Gitmo - obstructed by congress
Afghanistan - drawing down as promised
Homeland security - bin Laden dead, al Qaeda decimated
Jobs - unemployment continues to fall, private sector job growth continues to increase
Economy - GDP continues to grow
CHANGE - Obama is the Democratic Ronald Reagan. He is shifting American attitudes the same way Reagan did.
And he hasn't BECOME a moderate - he's always BEEN a moderate.
Everything Obama has done is what he promised he'd do. He is doing what we elected him to do.
And in the face of historic levels of obstructionism, he has passed universal healthcare, reformed Wall Street, decimated al Qaeda, and is restoring our economy. To deny his obvious successes is to deny reality.
Gitmo-Democratic Congress first two years.
Afghanistan-Drawing down on Bush's timetable. Which BO said was unacceptable while running.
Homeland Security-Not Navy Seals
Jobs-http://www.istockanalyst. com/finance/story/6216397/u-s- jobless-claims-rise-more-than- forecast
Economy-Check National Debt, Check Jobless rate,
Change-none-He just signed off on the making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Better come up with some other things he has done. Ronald Reagan he ain't. Oh yeah, Gay Marriage-nope. Gay equal rights-nope. Want me to go on?

Which attitude is he shifting? The liberal media is still carrying his water. They fought so hard against Bush and BO has changed anything since Bush yet they still love him.

Have you noticed that we don't see the death numbers from Iraq/Afghanistan in the papers anymore? When Bush was in office they were front page every day. They used to note every milestone and do stories on soldiers that had been killed. Not anymore.

The libs are the real sheeple.
Matt

Charlotte, NC

#9 Jan 3, 2013
He did manage to avoid the debacle around selling his senate seat. Even though he probably knew about it.

He also avoided the association of his crazy pastor.

Mitt takes a hit for being Mormon and Obama is untouched by his crazy pastor's rants.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#10 Jan 3, 2013
Matt wrote:
He did manage to avoid the debacle around selling his senate seat. Even though he probably knew about it.
He also avoided the association of his crazy pastor.
Mitt takes a hit for being Mormon and Obama is untouched by his crazy pastor's rants.
And the world is flat.

And the moon landing was faked.

And there is a secret international organization that is plotting a one-world government.

Your beliefs aren't reality-based, son. You're ranting like someone suffering delusions.

I believe you're suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome.

LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11 Jan 3, 2013
Matt wrote:
<quoted text>
Gitmo-Democratic Congress first two years.
Afghanistan-Drawing down on Bush's timetable. Which BO said was unacceptable while running.
Homeland Security-Not Navy Seals
Jobs-http://www.istockanalyst. com/finance/story/6216397/u-s- jobless-claims-rise-more-than- forecast
Economy-Check National Debt, Check Jobless rate,
Change-none-He just signed off on the making the Bush tax cuts permanent.
Better come up with some other things he has done. Ronald Reagan he ain't. Oh yeah, Gay Marriage-nope. Gay equal rights-nope. Want me to go on?
Which attitude is he shifting? The liberal media is still carrying his water. They fought so hard against Bush and BO has changed anything since Bush yet they still love him.
Have you noticed that we don't see the death numbers from Iraq/Afghanistan in the papers anymore? When Bush was in office they were front page every day. They used to note every milestone and do stories on soldiers that had been killed. Not anymore.
The libs are the real sheeple.
Matt wrote:
He did manage to avoid the debacle around selling his senate seat. Even though he probably knew about it.
He also avoided the association of his crazy pastor.
Mitt takes a hit for being Mormon and Obama is untouched by his crazy pastor's rants.
Tell me Matt - what did you believe was going to be the outcome of the November Presidential election? What did you believe about skewed polls? What did you believe about Nate Silver?

Because the sources of information that led you to have all those wrong beliefs also told you the things in these asinine posts.

Turn off Fox "news" and AM radio and step into the reality-based universe, because the longer you continue to believe the dumbassed shit you believe, the more huge, HUGE disappointments are in store for you.

Stop being such a dupe.
Matt

Charlotte, NC

#12 Jan 4, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Tell me Matt - what did you believe was going to be the outcome of the November Presidential election? What did you believe about skewed polls? What did you believe about Nate Silver?
Because the sources of information that led you to have all those wrong beliefs also told you the things in these asinine posts.
Turn off Fox "news" and AM radio and step into the reality-based universe, because the longer you continue to believe the dumbassed shit you believe, the more huge, HUGE disappointments are in store for you.
Stop being such a dupe.
Nice. No retort so you turn to sensationalism. It's ok. I'd be upset with him too.

Tough things is, now you have no choice but to support him. It's unfortunate. You thought you were electing somebody who would actually put forth the left agenda and he has failed you.

You were warned though. He didn't vote for anything as a senator. Look it up. Now you're getting what you paid for.

By the way, here's another. No more lobbying influence-nope. As a matter of fact, he is now selling the inauguration to corporate supporters. Should be fun. "the Solyndra Presidential Inauguration". Has a nice ring to it.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#13 Jan 4, 2013
Matt wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice. No retort so you turn to sensationalism. It's ok. I'd be upset with him too.
Tough things is, now you have no choice but to support him. It's unfortunate. You thought you were electing somebody who would actually put forth the left agenda and he has failed you.
You were warned though. He didn't vote for anything as a senator. Look it up. Now you're getting what you paid for.
By the way, here's another. No more lobbying influence-nope. As a matter of fact, he is now selling the inauguration to corporate supporters. Should be fun. "the Solyndra Presidential Inauguration". Has a nice ring to it.
Matt, you believe objectively false things. And you are attributing expectations onto me that I never had of the President. He's been very successful at implementing the agenda he ran on. And where he's been unable to do so, I understand why.

He's not perfect, but no President is, so I'm not upset with him at all. Odd that you would think I am. Obviously you are a conservative. He's pretty much doing what I elected him to do.

BTW - the President isn't "selling" the inauguration. He's accepting private donations to reduce taxpayer expense. That's something you conservatives ought to be supportive of.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#14 Jan 4, 2013
Matt wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice. No retort so you turn to sensationalism. It's ok.
I can't help but notice that you're avoiding the questions. Why is that, Matt?

What did you believe was going to be the outcome of the November Presidential election? What did you believe about skewed polls? What did you believe about Nate Silver?

The entire Republican party, from Mitt on down, totally swallowed the rightwing propaganda that Romney was going to win in a landslide and that all the polling was wrong.

But not you, right? LOL!
Matt

Charlotte, NC

#15 Jan 4, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Matt, you believe objectively false things. And you are attributing expectations onto me that I never had of the President. He's been very successful at implementing the agenda he ran on. And where he's been unable to do so, I understand why.
He's not perfect, but no President is, so I'm not upset with him at all. Odd that you would think I am. Obviously you are a conservative. He's pretty much doing what I elected him to do.
BTW - the President isn't "selling" the inauguration. He's accepting private donations to reduce taxpayer expense. That's something you conservatives ought to be supportive of.
He ran on all of the things I listed. You've chosen to forget about them. I understand why. He ran on Bush's withdrawal timetable being untenable and yet he has followed it. He ran on closing Gitmo as one of his "first" things. With a dem congress for two years, he didn't do it.

He also ran on anti-corporate lobby. He hasn't changed anything. As a matter of fact, he is allowing it to sponsor the inauguration party. Not only allowing, soliciting for it. How many favors will he owe for that one.

The left screamed about cronyism but Obama has taken it to new heights.
Matt

Charlotte, NC

#16 Jan 4, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't help but notice that you're avoiding the questions. Why is that, Matt?
What did you believe was going to be the outcome of the November Presidential election? What did you believe about skewed polls? What did you believe about Nate Silver?
The entire Republican party, from Mitt on down, totally swallowed the rightwing propaganda that Romney was going to win in a landslide and that all the polling was wrong.
But not you, right? LOL!
I passed on your "questions" because they are entirely irrelevant to a discussion about Obama.

How is a statisticians prognostications relevant to a discussion about the incompetence of a President and his Congress? His re-election? Hardly. Bush was also re-elected remember. Before you talk about the people being happy enough to re-elect Obama, tell me about Bush being re-elected.

You avoided the first series of questions with a flippant response. Fact is, you know down deep that Obama has let you down. Perfect example is that he ran for a second term on basically the same crap he ran on in the first.

And you bought it.

You probably think a tax increase on the wealthy will support all of the programs.

Had Bush gone four years without presenting a budget, it would be front page news and you know it.

Furthermore, had Bush proposed that he no longer wanted to ask Congress when he wanted to raise the national debt, you would have been outraged.

Where is all of that now?
skittle bugger

Chambersburg, PA

#17 Jan 4, 2013
Are you same morons still at it? You people need a life and probably a job too!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#18 Jan 4, 2013
Matt wrote:
<quoted text>
I passed on your "questions" because they are entirely irrelevant to a discussion about Obama.
How is a statisticians prognostications relevant to a discussion about the incompetence of a President and his Congress? His re-election? Hardly. Bush was also re-elected remember. Before you talk about the people being happy enough to re-elect Obama, tell me about Bush being re-elected.
You avoided the first series of questions with a flippant response. Fact is, you know down deep that Obama has let you down. Perfect example is that he ran for a second term on basically the same crap he ran on in the first.
And you bought it.
You probably think a tax increase on the wealthy will support all of the programs.
Had Bush gone four years without presenting a budget, it would be front page news and you know it.
Furthermore, had Bush proposed that he no longer wanted to ask Congress when he wanted to raise the national debt, you would have been outraged.
Where is all of that now?
I addressed every dishonest accusation you made. Fact is that your ODS doesn't allow you to accurately perceive reality.

I brought up the predicted Romney landslide, "unskewed polling," and Nate Silver because they were all rightwing myths that I'm sure you swallowed.

And your gullibility with them is reflected in your false beliefs now - you CONTINUE uncritically swallow the distortions and lies Fox "news" and AM radio is feeding you and mindlessly regurgitate them here. It's like the smack in the face reality gave you on November 6th hasn't taught you anything.

I guess it's hard to learn when you don't want to learn, huh Matt? LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#19 Jan 4, 2013
skittle bugger wrote:
Are you same morons still at it? You people need a life and probably a job too!
You're the one buggering skittles. Sick!
Jimmy

Charlotte, NC

#20 Jan 4, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I addressed every dishonest accusation you made. Fact is that your ODS doesn't allow you to accurately perceive reality.
I brought up the predicted Romney landslide, "unskewed polling," and Nate Silver because they were all rightwing myths that I'm sure you swallowed.
And your gullibility with them is reflected in your false beliefs now - you CONTINUE uncritically swallow the distortions and lies Fox "news" and AM radio is feeding you and mindlessly regurgitate them here. It's like the smack in the face reality gave you on November 6th hasn't taught you anything.
I guess it's hard to learn when you don't want to learn, huh Matt? LOL!
Still avoiding. Nothing about the national debt. Nothing about the budget. You continue to attack me for pointing things out.

You're pretty upset. I would be too. He's let you down.

I don't watch Fox news by the way. You can stop with that. It makes you seem silly.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chambersburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
chambersburg pa walmart Wed Martz friends 5
Best Dining In Chambersburg, Part three (Jan '12) Jul 17 Diner 1,105
Keep A Word Drop A Word (Jun '11) Jul 4 trooper dude 646
white jeep patriot Jul 2 Martz friends 1
News 3 teens charged for assault of guard at South M... (Feb '11) Jul 1 Ctrek75 13
News Tennis courts turned into public skate park (Jun '08) Jun 28 Bmxboy1 31
News Police log (May '12) Jun '16 GenPatton 10

Chambersburg Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chambersburg Mortgages