Promises, promises. Are you sick of Congress yet?

United States
August 3, 2011 10:28am CST
The debt battle is over for now, but the work is still ahead, most of the true tough decision were set aside to be fought later. A recent Gallup poll showed a 18% disatisfaction with the US Congress. That seems a bit high actually. Does anyone think the debt ceiling fight went well? In a Parliamentary System, Congress would have declared a vote of "no confidence" by now, that's how frustrated even they are. But why can't Congress control itself? And why did Americans suddenly start caring? This isn't the first debt limit increase. There have been over 70 increases since the limit went into effect in 1917. Public apathy, tax cuts and "pork" spending exploded the debt as the limit almost doubled during the GW Bush years. 7 increases from $5.9B to $11.3B. What the heck? Where was this wait 'til the last second scare tactic negotiation years ago? It seems the combination of a slow economy and Tea Party pressure have led us to a greater public disgust of this unchecked spending from both parties. A balanced budget amendment is back in talks and soon we'll probably hear about line item veto talks, but both are excuses for Congress not to take responsibility and not have to say "no" to special interests. It falls to the unresponsive Congress to bear most of the blame. The Presidents bear some responsibility for not fighting for more cuts, but blaming the Presidents just lets Congress more off the hook. Where are you on Congress's avoiding the issue? Fed up yet? Is it time for term limits, balanced budget and line item veto since they have done so poorly over the years? What would you do? Constant Vigil! Love, The Rat
1 person likes this
3 responses
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
3 Aug 11
I think it's hard not to throw blame on a president whose tactic for everything is to go in front of the public and throw whomever he can under the bus. He comes across as big a whiner as anyone else in office. One of the extremely few things I respected about Bush was that he was rarely heard from (at least in comparison). He didn't prompt an insta-conference every time someone in Congress didn't share his view on how America should run. My point: A guy putting himself out there so often and so willingly should be more than ready to bear the full brunt of all blame, even though it obviously wouldn't/couldn't be him at full fault. It's that whole what makes ya laugh makes ya cry bit. When it comes to Congress, I'm sick of the lot. For me, I have enough to go around. Shooting an evil eye at Obama doesn't mean my other eye isn't burning a hole through Congress as well. I truly believe that if all politicians were limited to only one or two terms, a lot more would get done. There are some lifers in Congress! And the fact the country fell apart while they served, party affiliation aside, speaks loudly to their overall ineffectiveness at everything but seeking reelection. If the federal government is going to have as much control as it does over the states, a Congressperson simply satisfying the needs of his or her immediate constituents is not enough. Sure, it might keep them on the taxpayer's dime, but it obviously isn't healthy for the country at large.
2 people like this
@sam3m1 (190)
• United States
4 Aug 11
i'm using this to response to you and to some of your commenters. first, i believe this country is in serious trouble because the tea party folks have seen that their tactics have resultred in a win for them, a bill which cuts social programs with no cost to the wealthy and corporations. we will see this repeated in the future. i'm sure that term limits will bring politicians who are incompetent and greedy, but quicker. a balanced budget may not make sense unless it includes provisions for natural catastrophes, war, etc. the line item veto should have been instituted decades ago. what should be instituted is a system whereby each bill contains only one object for a vote, without addenda, riders, etc. this would eliminate the need for tradung votes between congressmen.
• United States
4 Aug 11
You really have it all wrong. The TEA party is for fiscal responsibility, limited government and free markets. The point is that if we have no money, we need to find places to cut spending. Everywhere. If we don't do it now - and everyone will hurt a little bit - then we'll end up like Greece - and everyone will hurt a lot. Why is that so hard for some people to comprehend?
@kenzie45230 (3560)
• United States
4 Aug 11
You bet I'm fed up. For years, I was one of those persons who screamed at politicians on the TV, but didn't get involved. I voted, of course. When the first TEA party event happened in my town, I was among 5,000 to show up. (Boy was everyone surprised, including the 2 guys who arranged the thing at one's kitchen table.) I actually think that Pelosi is right about something. Not long ago, she said that it didn't use to matter which party elected the president or which one had the majority. And she was right. It didn't used to matter because even though there was a different philosophy about taxes and spending, there was still a love of country by each one, there was an attitude of servitude, and there was a respect for the people who elected them. At no time in my 59 years can I remember a president so intent on dividing the nation like this one. At no time can I remember a president or Congressmen/women being so disrespectful to one segment of the population like the Democrats are today.