A “Do Nothing” Congress

[longknife]

Why does the media tout this as bad? Here's a quote from the article that clearly expresses my feelings on the matter:

A reasonable case can be made that there are too many laws and too many regulations to prop them up. Laws tend to restrict private behavior and obstruct commerce, rather than increase freedom and economic opportunity. They are almost always costly for the taxpayer. Knowing this, any gridlock that stifles runaway legislating becomes a gift of enormous value.

Extremely well-said and worth sharing with your friends and acquaintances.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: Do-Nothing Congress Not The Same As An Unproductive Congress - Investors.com

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

You've got a fourth branch of government that keeps growing larger. It's called "regulations". It is strangling the life out of America.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"Why does the media tout this as bad?"

Why are RWs so willing to put up with it?

For that matter, why do RWs put up with Repub gerrymandering, vote theft, voter suppression? Why do they put with Fox telling the truth in only 18% of their stories?

 

[Conservative65]

What Liberals don't seem to understand is sometimes the answer to your President is NO.

 

[JoeMoma]

What Liberals don't seem to understand is sometimes the answer to your President is NO.

"No" is good.

 

[Conservative65]

What Liberals don't seem to understand is sometimes the answer to your President is NO.

"No" is good.

To Liberals, NO is not good. They believe government is the only answer to problems. The problem with that is they expect the very ones that created those problems to solve them. What they don't realize or are willing to acknowledge is that government was the cause. When an entity causes a problem they can't be expected to fix it. If they could, they wouldn't have caused it to start with.

 

[JoeMoma]

What Liberals don't seem to understand is sometimes the answer to your President is NO.

"No" is good.

To Liberals, NO is not good. They believe government is the only answer to problems. The problem with that is they expect the very ones that created those problems to solve them. What they don't realize or are willing to acknowledge is that government was the cause. When an entity causes a problem they can't be expected to fix it. If they could, they wouldn't have caused it to start with.

 

[BlackSand]

The people who think a do-nothing government is bad ... Are the people who need government to do something for them ... Or make a living off the government doings something.

If you are missing the government when they are not in session or taking care of you ... Move back home with your mother.

.

 

[Conservative65]

The

The people who think a do-nothing government is bad ... Are the people who need government to do something for them ... Or make a living off the government doings something.

If you are missing the government when they are not in session or taking care of you ... Move back home with your mother.

.

Some never left the tit.

 

[longknife]

Thank you for meaningful, not name-calling responses.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What Liberals don't seem to understand is sometimes the answer to your President is NO.

"No" is good.

To Liberals, NO is not good. They believe government is the only answer to problems. The problem with that is they expect the very ones that created those problems to solve them. What they don't realize or are willing to acknowledge is that government was the cause. When an entity causes a problem they can't be expected to fix it. If they could, they wouldn't have caused it to start with.

St Reagan's solution was to grow "big government" and government spending to record levels.

The Free Market Mises Institute

In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."

Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.

The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.

Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.​

The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.​

The math doesn't lie.

Compare Obama to St Reagan;


Big Government? Obama Has 273,000 Fewer Federal Employees Than Reagan

On December 31st 1976 (Not Carter’s term yet), total nonmilitary personnel was 2,883,000. By December 31st 1980 the end of his term (minus a month), the total in nonmilitary personnel was 2,875,000.​

Federal government nonmilitary employees shrunk by 8,000 employees under Carter.

On January 21st, 1981, President Reagan started with 2,875,000 nonmilitary federal employees.

By the end of Reagan’s terms the total number of nonmilitary federal employees was 3,113,000. That is an INCREASE of 238,000

Let’s move on to President George H.W. Bush.

On January 20th, 1989, total federal nonmilitary employment was 3,113,000
by the end of his only term, President George H.W. Bush had 3,083,000 federal nonmilitary employees on the books. That is a REDUCTION of 30,000 employees.

President Bill Clinton came into office with 3,083,000 and by the END of his TWO TERMS he reduced the number of Federal employees to 2,703,000. That is a reduction of 380,000 federal employees.

Now finally, President George W. Bush came into office with 2,703,000 nonmilitary employees and by the time his terms were through, the total nonmilitary federal employees on the books were 2,756,000, which is anINCREASE of 53,000 employees.

The small government, lean and mean political party, seems to be the Democratic Party. President Clinton reduced the size of the federal government’s nonmilitary employees by OVER 10%.

The “so called” small government President Reagan INCREASED the nonmilitary size of government by almost 10%.

In fact, Democratic president Bill Clinton reduced the size of the federal government employee size to PRE- REAGAN levels.

Clinton left office with 2,703,000 and Reagan started his term in 1981 with 2,875,000

The Reagan conservatives, in fact the entire GOP TODAY are trying to frame President Obama as a big government liberal but again, the numbers don’t lie.

By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.

TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 — 2,875,000
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 — 2,840,000

We have 35,000 less nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago.

So it comes to mind that those who claim to be Reagan small government conservatives and blame Democrats for growing government are either lying to the American people or are themselves willfully ignorant.

Big Government Obama Has 273 000 Fewer Federal Employees Than Reagan PoliticusUSA s Archives

So it is Republicans who are for "big government" and government spending. Democrats actually reduce it.

 

[JoeMoma]

What Liberals don't seem to understand is sometimes the answer to your President is NO.

"No" is good.

To Liberals, NO is not good. They believe government is the only answer to problems. The problem with that is they expect the very ones that created those problems to solve them. What they don't realize or are willing to acknowledge is that government was the cause. When an entity causes a problem they can't be expected to fix it. If they could, they wouldn't have caused it to start with.

St Reagan's solution was to grow "big government" and government spending to record levels.

The Free Market Mises Institute

In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."

Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.

The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.

Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.​

The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.​

The math doesn't lie.

Compare Obama to St Reagan;


Big Government? Obama Has 273,000 Fewer Federal Employees Than Reagan

On December 31st 1976 (Not Carter’s term yet), total nonmilitary personnel was 2,883,000. By December 31st 1980 the end of his term (minus a month), the total in nonmilitary personnel was 2,875,000.​

Federal government nonmilitary employees shrunk by 8,000 employees under Carter.

On January 21st, 1981, President Reagan started with 2,875,000 nonmilitary federal employees.

By the end of Reagan’s terms the total number of nonmilitary federal employees was 3,113,000. That is an INCREASE of 238,000

Let’s move on to President George H.W. Bush.

On January 20th, 1989, total federal nonmilitary employment was 3,113,000
by the end of his only term, President George H.W. Bush had 3,083,000 federal nonmilitary employees on the books. That is a REDUCTION of 30,000 employees.

President Bill Clinton came into office with 3,083,000 and by the END of his TWO TERMS he reduced the number of Federal employees to 2,703,000. That is a reduction of 380,000 federal employees.

Now finally, President George W. Bush came into office with 2,703,000 nonmilitary employees and by the time his terms were through, the total nonmilitary federal employees on the books were 2,756,000, which is anINCREASE of 53,000 employees.

The small government, lean and mean political party, seems to be the Democratic Party. President Clinton reduced the size of the federal government’s nonmilitary employees by OVER 10%.

The “so called” small government President Reagan INCREASED the nonmilitary size of government by almost 10%.

In fact, Democratic president Bill Clinton reduced the size of the federal government employee size to PRE- REAGAN levels.

Clinton left office with 2,703,000 and Reagan started his term in 1981 with 2,875,000

The Reagan conservatives, in fact the entire GOP TODAY are trying to frame President Obama as a big government liberal but again, the numbers don’t lie.

By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.

TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 — 2,875,000
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 — 2,840,000

We have 35,000 less nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago.

So it comes to mind that those who claim to be Reagan small government conservatives and blame Democrats for growing government are either lying to the American people or are themselves willfully ignorant.

Big Government Obama Has 273 000 Fewer Federal Employees Than Reagan PoliticusUSA s Archives

So it is Republicans who are for "big government" and government spending. Democrats actually reduce it.

Yes,that is called compromising with a democrat controlled congress. Funny how all credit and or blame is given to the president for the size of government when it is the congress that holds the power of the purse.

Likewise, the deficit under Clinton was balanced with a Republican congress.

Having said that, the president does also bare a great deal of responsibility since he the power of the veto and the bully pulpit. Both republicans and democrats are guilty in growning the goverment.

Perhaps our government works best when we have a devided goverment with a democrat president and a republican congress. That way they tend to keep each other accountable.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Congress is castrated by it's own system. Has been for a few years. From what I can see, there is a general feeling that nothing will seriously get proposed until after the next President takes office. The Teabirchers are still playing the "Hell No" game and it's scaring the hell out Rinos. If that is the choice then there is going to be some real serious trimming and any gain that the Reps have gotten in the last 4 years will be lost. WE need to stop sending the Teabirchers to Washington or at least convince them to shut the hell up.

 

[Silent Warrior]

"Why does the media tout this as bad?"

For that matter, why do RWs put up with Repub gerrymandering, vote theft, voter suppression? Why do they put with Fox telling the truth in only 18% of their stories?

Do you mean as opposed to LW putting up with Demo gerrymandering, vote theft, and voter invention? Perhaps it's because there is no legitimate third choice.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What would be a congress doing something?

I'd say that day will come when infrastructure, science, r&d and things that advance the American people are funded right. Things that don't = cut.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Daryl Hunt]

"Why does the media tout this as bad?"

For that matter, why do RWs put up with Repub gerrymandering, vote theft, voter suppression? Why do they put with Fox telling the truth in only 18% of their stories?

Do you mean as opposed to LW putting up with Demo gerrymandering, vote theft, and voter invention? Perhaps it's because there is no legitimate third choice.

As of Jan 1, 2015 (that's in just a few days) no longer will the Dems be the majority in either part of congress. Your deflection reminds me of something. It's called "Hey, Look Over There". It no longer applies and all the BS stops.

 

[80zephyr]

What Liberals don't seem to understand is sometimes the answer to your President is NO.

"No" is good.

To Liberals, NO is not good. They believe government is the only answer to problems. The problem with that is they expect the very ones that created those problems to solve them. What they don't realize or are willing to acknowledge is that government was the cause. When an entity causes a problem they can't be expected to fix it. If they could, they wouldn't have caused it to start with.

St Reagan's solution was to grow "big government" and government spending to record levels.

The Free Market Mises Institute

In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."

Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.

The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.

Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.​

The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.​

The math doesn't lie.

Compare Obama to St Reagan;


Big Government? Obama Has 273,000 Fewer Federal Employees Than Reagan

On December 31st 1976 (Not Carter’s term yet), total nonmilitary personnel was 2,883,000. By December 31st 1980 the end of his term (minus a month), the total in nonmilitary personnel was 2,875,000.​

Federal government nonmilitary employees shrunk by 8,000 employees under Carter.

On January 21st, 1981, President Reagan started with 2,875,000 nonmilitary federal employees.

By the end of Reagan’s terms the total number of nonmilitary federal employees was 3,113,000. That is an INCREASE of 238,000

Let’s move on to President George H.W. Bush.

On January 20th, 1989, total federal nonmilitary employment was 3,113,000
by the end of his only term, President George H.W. Bush had 3,083,000 federal nonmilitary employees on the books. That is a REDUCTION of 30,000 employees.

President Bill Clinton came into office with 3,083,000 and by the END of his TWO TERMS he reduced the number of Federal employees to 2,703,000. That is a reduction of 380,000 federal employees.

Now finally, President George W. Bush came into office with 2,703,000 nonmilitary employees and by the time his terms were through, the total nonmilitary federal employees on the books were 2,756,000, which is anINCREASE of 53,000 employees.

The small government, lean and mean political party, seems to be the Democratic Party. President Clinton reduced the size of the federal government’s nonmilitary employees by OVER 10%.

The “so called” small government President Reagan INCREASED the nonmilitary size of government by almost 10%.

In fact, Democratic president Bill Clinton reduced the size of the federal government employee size to PRE- REAGAN levels.

Clinton left office with 2,703,000 and Reagan started his term in 1981 with 2,875,000

The Reagan conservatives, in fact the entire GOP TODAY are trying to frame President Obama as a big government liberal but again, the numbers don’t lie.

By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.

TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 — 2,875,000
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 — 2,840,000

We have 35,000 less nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago.

So it comes to mind that those who claim to be Reagan small government conservatives and blame Democrats for growing government are either lying to the American people or are themselves willfully ignorant.

Big Government Obama Has 273 000 Fewer Federal Employees Than Reagan PoliticusUSA s Archives

So it is Republicans who are for "big government" and government spending. Democrats actually reduce it.

The government has, for years, been trending towards outsourcing. Instead of hiring workers to run Medicare, they hire companies like Humana to run it, thus "reducing" government employment.

Its smoke and mirrors.

Mark

 

[longknife]

113th Congress Not the Least Productive

Isn't that a surprise? Especially if you believe our current media.


Read the full story @ Turns Out the 113th Congress Wasn t the Least Productive

 

[Derideo_Te]

113th Congress Not the Least Productive

Isn't that a surprise? Especially if you believe our current media.


Read the full story @ Turns Out the 113th Congress Wasn t the Least Productive

Got to suck to be the Speaker of both of the least productive Congresses on record.