This congress has made a mess of America

[Faithfulee]

Much of the detail from this post is found here

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121675870122574633.html?mod=opinion_journal_political_diary


Congress is responsible for the mess that America is in today.

Congress deservedly has a far lower rating than even President Bush today.  We must reacall that   this congress was elected with a pledge to  surrender in Iraq.  They failed to do anything about that even in the face of President Bush’s courageous call for a surge, an act that our military turned into a Victory in Iraq.

That aside, the current congress has done nothing to help our economy or our people.

1.   They continue to block access to our energy resources.  Even refusing to allow votes that would let the people’s  desires be known.Ju
2.   No  nuclear plants have been permitted in decades, no ne oil refineries.
3.   They are proposing a “windfall profits tax” on oil companies.  (remember that carters tax reduced domestic oil production between 3-6%
4.   Congress rejected free trade agreements with Vietnam and Columbia
5.   The Boxer-Lieberman Warner climate bill would have cost America 600,000 jobs, raised electricity prices 44% and worse
6.   They overrode President Bush’s veto of the farm bill, that is a bonanza for corn farmers and ethanol growers, and is in part responsible for high food prices and world wide food shortages
7.   Congress blocked a reduction in import duties on ethanol from south America, thereby burdening American consumers with even higher fuel costs.
8.   Earmarks continue to abound - $20 Billion unaccountable dollars out of  taxpayers pockets
9.   They intend to raise taxes by allowing the Bush reductions to expire. These tax reductions increased federal revenues by $785 Billion over 4 years.


Just 12% of voters think that congress has passed any legislation that would improve live in the country.  It is time for a new congress,  a Republican one.

[Faithfulee]

I am pleased at the lack of disagreement with the premise.

I should punctuate it with refrence to our Republiican Senator for Alaska who is king of pork and now indicted for taking handouts.

The solution of this is term limits.  This is one of the original Bush proposals that was swept under the rug early in ths administration.  Democrats joined Republicans in rejecting this most necessary way ofcurbing the abuses of government in the US.

Anyone disagree with that??

This Congress has made a mess of America  . . . . and sometimes it goes back more than two years.

[SquirleyWurley]

It seems to me that given the nature of the party machineries/party system we have, our system currently functions more optimally when there is significant minority party power in at least one house of Congress, to offset/check the president, whatever party that president might be from.

Bush has been quite effective in stifling the minority party's aims (especially when they didn't carry the House or the Senate, but also despite increasing Democratic presence) , thus explaining why they haven't been able to accomplish much.  Failures of these 8 years really do go to the Bush Admin, which has had quite a bit of control for most of those 8 years, and continues to have the majority of control at this point, also.  The function of an opposition party can often be obstructionist or negative rather than positive, it isn't uncommon or necessarily bad, it's just sometimes it can be extreme (think of the Republicans shutting down government and then wasting their power pursuing Clinton's sex life)

[Faithfulee]

What failures do you attribute to President Bush.

The country was in a mess when he took office

Inflation and Unemployment, and taxes were high

He cut taxes, revived the economy,  increase government income while unemployment dropped along with inflation.

Congress then went on to spend and spend the increased revenues.  It was a Republican congress at that, and they too should be condemned for squandering the changes that President Bush got enacted.

Things changed two years ago when the Dems  assumed control of Congress.

Since then the economy is sputtering, Inflation grows and the congressional abuses of the past 8 years are coming to public attention.

The most recent to come to my attention is that Congress enacted a law that allowed the death penalty in the case of rape of a child.  That may have been a popular decision, but it described Congress power hungry disrespect for the US constitution.

[Faithfulee]

Here are some figures to support the above

US Inflation

January 2001   3.73
January 2002        1.14
January 2003   2.60
January 2004   1.93
January 2005   2.97
January 2006   3.99
January 2007    2.08

June      2008 -  5.02

INFLATION HAS DOUBLED SINCE THE DEMS TOOK CONTROL OF CONGRESS

Unemployment
2001   4.75
2006   4.63

Today     5.5%

18 PERCENTAGE INCREASE SINCE DEMS TOOK CONTROL OF CONGRESS



Last Recession March 2001 through November 2001

The US labor department reported Wednesday that consumer prices rose 1.1 percent in June, the highest one month rise in 26 years, and the 12 month inflation rate at 5.0% the highest since may 1991

Government Revenes      FY 2001    $ 3756.3
          FY 2007    $ 5101 

THAT IS A 37% INCREASE SINCE PRESIDENT BUSH CUT TAXES

WHERE DO WE STAND TODAY??

Some news notes

July 31 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. economy may have slipped into a recession in the last three months of 2007 as consumer spending slowed more than previously estimated and the housing slump worsened, revised government figures indicated.

The world's largest economy contracted at a 0.2 percent annual pace in the fourth quarter of last year compared with a previously reported 0.6 percent gain, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. Growth for the period from 2005 through 2007 was also trimmed.

[SquirleyWurley]

The economy has had issues in the last 8 years that cannot be blamed on Democrats.

[Acumen]

Gas prices actually doubled too since democrats took over congress.  I believe it took only 18 months.

[jacknky]

"Gas prices actually doubled too since democrats took over congress.  I believe it took only 18 months."

Yes, as we approach the end of Bush's tenure the rise in prices are indeed accelerating. Do you suppose that is due to the plan Cheney developed in his secret meeting with oil executives at the beginning of the administration? We'll never know because they've kept that meeting secret aaalll these years.

One of the main reasons the Democratic congress has been unable to pass much of its agenda is because it's majority is very slim and the Republicans vote as a block in support of the president so nothing much is changed. That's why we need not only to elect Obama but more Democratic legislators so real change can be accomplished.

Of course if you're happy with the way things are vote Republican.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

It's very easy to blame another entity for the problems in the world and our country right now.  Fact of the matter is, we are currently reaping the consequences of our own actions and ideologies. Neither congress, nor the president can be blamed for the consequences of our irresponsibility and selfishness, nor can they be expected to make it so we can continue to be irresponsible and selfish because that is what we are used to, and have come to expect. 

all

[Faithfulee]

The economy has had issues in the last 8 years that cannot be blamed on Democrats.

Such as??

Remember the facts show that the tax cuts stimulated the private sector and the government was flooded with revenue.

Whatever they were, the economy has worsened greatly since the dims took over congress, as the above figure show

Jackny said

Yes, as we approach the end of Bush's tenure the rise in prices are indeed accelerating. Do you suppose that is due to the plan Cheney developed in his secret meeting with oil executives at the beginning of the administration? We'll never know because they've kept that meeting secret aaalll these years.

Secret?  Really?  I guess you were there . . .


All

It's very easy to blame another entity for the problems in the world and our country right now.  Fact of the matter is, we are currently reaping the consequences of our own actions and ideologies. Neither congress, nor the president can be blamed for the consequences of our irresponsibility and selfishness, nor can they be expected to make it so we can continue to be irresponsible and selfish because that is what we are used to, and have come to expect.

The president and Congress were Republican for the first six years and things were pretty good (but for the Iraq situation).  Since the dims took over congress, things have gone to hell and we are in the situation we are today.  Sure President Bush is still accountable, but issue by issue, the Dims have prevented further President Bush initiatives.  Like drilling, developing nuclear energy, increasing taxes, etc, etc, etc.

 

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

None of that changes why such things are issues in the first place.

all

[Acumen]

"Gas prices actually doubled too since democrats took over congress.  I believe it took only 18 months."

Yes, as we approach the end of Bush's tenure the rise in prices are indeed accelerating. Do you suppose that is due to the plan Cheney developed in his secret meeting with oil executives at the beginning of the administration? We'll never know because they've kept that meeting secret aaalll these years.

Unless you have a good idea what was said, I really don't see a reason to bring it up.

One of the main reasons the Democratic congress has been unable to pass much of its agenda is because it's majority is very slim and the Republicans vote as a block in support of the president so nothing much is changed. That's why we need not only to elect Obama but more Democratic legislators so real change can be accomplished.

And what real change have republicans blocked that would have led to lower gas prices? 

This is the problem I have with democrats, so allow me to be frank.  They are generally not very good at economy issues because they are married to environmental lobbyist groups, they believe in free market regulation, and they are largely pro-tax.  Their biggest short fall is their unwillingness to budge on diversifying oil production on U.S. soil and off the coast even when our energy situation is dire. 

Their answer to energy issues are primarily investments in research and alternate fuel sources, which is good, but won't help us now with crisis management.  Instead of taking the bull by the horns, they point fingers at Bush for not opening the emergency reserve meant for remedying major disruptions of domestic supply.  Or they say that drilling won't help us for years, which is baloney according to virtually all economists.  They ought to point their fingers at themselves because they are "partly" to blame for this situation.  We haven't build a refinery in over 20 years, and we are binding ourselves with stupid bans, and we wonder why we are vulnerable to those nations who have taken the initiative to be self-sufficient in terms of their own energy.

Please don't act like the party who has demonstrated, time and time again, the need to increase oil production domestically is to blame when democrats ignore the issue that this nation has a stagnant supply of oil and it hurts us big when the global demand happens to go up.  Democrats made a mockery of a republican controlled congress because gas prices went up while they block drilling and vetoed bills like ANWR.

For the most part, democrats have no solutions to our energy situation other than pinning the blame on Big Oil, speculators, or Bush.  Why is it that Pelosi says republicans were to blame for gas prices because they didn't stand up to Big Oil, but when prices hike up under their leadership by 4 times the rate, nobody says anything about their failure to stand up to Big Oil?     

Of course if you're happy with the way things are vote Republican.

No, I'm not happy.  I'll be much more happy when America wakes up to the fact that democrats aren't as concerned upon our pocket books as they lead us to believe.  Remember, an investment strategy may be a good thing, but it doesn't help out working families right now.  The little guy is getting pummeled at the pump, and the DNC believes this is a good thing because it will force us to re-evaluate other energy sources. 

[Faithfulee]

Acumen Good post,

No, I'm not happy.  I'll be much more happy when America wakes up to the fact that democrats aren't as concerned upon our pocket books as they lead us to believe.  Remember, an investment strategy may be a good thing, but it doesn't help out working families right now.  The little guy is getting pummeled at the pump, and the DNC believes this is a good thing because it will force us to re-evaluate other energy sources. 

Democrats are hypocrits.  The furstrated energy development because of their view of environmental issues, but are cowards in telling the public the cost of their plans. We are just now discovering that cost.  The foolish mantra today is that "nothing will take effect for decades" when in fact they have been obstructing progress for decades.  If they hadn't we would today have pleanty of oil and natural gas, refineries, nuclear power plants, etc. 

Drill here, drill now, pay less, and dump Democrats

[Acumen]

I don't think we need to dump democrats, but they need to release themselves from the stranglehold the environmentalist radicals have on them.

[jacknky]

Lee,
"The president and Congress were Republican for the first six years and things were pretty good (but for the Iraq situation)."

Well, let's see. There was the budget surplus that became a deficit in no time. There was the creation of another huge federal bureaucracy (both of these should put to bed the myth that Republicans are good fiscal managers and stand for small government.) There was the crumbling infrastructure that is still crumbling. There was absolutely no leadership on environmental or energy issues so see where we are now. And yes, there was Iraq, a money Black Hole filled with corruption and incompetence.

[jacknky]

Acumen,
"Unless you have a good idea what was said, I really don't see a reason to bring it up."

The reason to bring it up is because of the apparant lack of transparency on the part of the administration. If their goal was to, say, encourage alternative sources of energy or decrease our reliance on oil, why not have an open meeting where US citizens know what their elected representatives discussed with oil executives? Since they made the meeting eternally secret it makes me wonder if these price increases weren't part of some plan. No, I have no evidence it is and there is no evidence it wasn't, simply because they chose to keep it secret. Why?

"And what real change have republicans blocked that would have led to lower gas prices?"
 
The board is broader than just oil prices. But the Republican administration and Congress has provided no leadership toward reducing our dependence on oil. none.

"This is the problem I have with democrats, so allow me to be frank.  They are generally not very good at economy issues because they are married to environmental lobbyist groups, they believe in free market regulation, and they are largely pro-tax.  Their biggest short fall is their unwillingness to budge on diversifying oil production on U.S. soil and off the coast even when our energy situation is dire."

This is a Republican myth. Studies comparing economic indicators under Republican administrations and under Democratic administrations show the economy does better under Democratic administrations. Most recently we see Republicans in charge of all three branches of government turn a budget surplus into a budget deficit, create another Federal bureaucracy and create tax cuts primarily for the very rich. Republicans seem to embrace less government when the other party is in charge and forget those values when they're in charge.

"Their answer to energy issues are primarily investments in research and alternate fuel sources, which is good, but won't help us now with crisis management." 

They also point out that there are already millions of acres of land available to the oil companies that they aren't exploring. they also point out that the returns in any exploration won't be seen for decades while alternative energy and conservation can be implemented much sooner. Yes, we need to keep drilling but our emphasis should move to harnessing good old Yankee ingenuity to develop new technologies.

The internal combustion energy is basically a hundred year old technology. We've used it for so long because oil has been cheap. Those days of cheap oil are over, don't you agree? We need to transition from doing things the way we've always done to new technologies. This will take time and the time to start is now, not when the situation is even more drastic.

[Acumen]

Lee,
"The president and Congress were Republican for the first six years and things were pretty good (but for the Iraq situation)."

Well, let's see. There was the budget surplus that became a deficit in no time.

Jack, you need to stop drinking to Cool aid.   Here are the facts as demonstrated on the U.S. Treasury website.  

Fiscal
Year   Year
                   Ending             National Debt     Deficit
FY1993    09/30/1993    $4.411488 trillion   
FY1994    09/30/1994    $4.692749 trillion    $281.26 billion
FY1995    09/29/1995    $4.973982 trillion    $281.23 billion
FY1996    09/30/1996    $5.224810 trillion    $250.83 billion
FY1997    09/30/1997    $5.413146 trillion    $188.34 billion
FY1998    09/30/1998    $5.526193 trillion    $113.05 billion
FY1999    09/30/1999    $5.656270 trillion    $130.08 billion
FY2000    09/29/2000    $5.674178 trillion    $17.91 billion
FY2001    09/28/2001    $5.807463 trillion    $133.29 billion


As shown above, not one year did the national debt go down.  And President Clinton most certainly did not balance the budget, nor was their a surplus for Bush to squander.  

There was the creation of another huge federal bureaucracy (both of these should put to bed the myth that Republicans are good fiscal managers and stand for small government.)

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of conservative beliefs.  Conservatives are only big government as it relates to military defense, for everything else - we have liberals.  

There was absolutely no leadership on environmental or energy issues so see where we are now. And yes, there was Iraq, a money Black Hole filled with corruption and incompetence.

Now that is funny.  No leadership on energy?  Seriously?

[jacknky]

Acumen,
Your post on Clinton's budget "surplus" gave me pause. I realize that economic issues are not black and white and depend on definitions and assumptions so I will concede your point about the Clinton "surplus".

In googling I came across this little article by Kevin Hasseck. He is senior fellow at the think tank American Enterprise Institute where he directs economic policy studies. He advised President Bush in his campaign, and he currently serves as a senior economic adviser to the John McCain 2008 presidential campaign so he has the conservative bona fides. he wrote in 2005:

"Bring back the Clinton administration. Well, maybe not all of it, but at least its spending habits.  … Spending growth under George W. Bush has been almost four times as high as it was during the same period of Bill Clinton's presidency.  No two-term president in post-war U.S. history has ever presided over a spending binge this monumental in his first six years in office. ... If Bush had vowed when he took office to never spend more than Clinton planned to, then the budget office would be projecting a 10-year surplus of about $3.6 trillion, even assuming that all of the Bush tax cuts are made permanent.  Instead, based on Bush's proposed 2006 budget, we are looking at a 10-year deficit of $2.6 trillion. Tax cuts didn't cause the deficit. At best, they approximately paid for themselves. Spending is the true culprit. … From the education bill to the prescription drug benefit to the war on terror, spending has spun out of control.  If we want to put our fiscal house in order, we need to stop arguing over taxes and bring back the Clinton spending."

[jacknky]

Acumen,
"That is a fundamental misunderstanding of conservative beliefs.  Conservatives are only big government as it relates to military defense, for everything else - we have liberals." 

I agree that the fundamental differences have to do with the allocation of resources between military and human resources. I also agree as a liberal that one of the primary functions of government is to protect its citizens. I question whether we actually need to spend more money than the whole rest of the world in military appropriations to do that.

Quote
There was absolutely no leadership on environmental or energy issues so see where we are now. And yes, there was Iraq, a money Black Hole filled with corruption and incompetence.

Now that is funny.  No leadership on energy?  Seriously?

Well, I admit I was thinking of leadership toward greater energy efficiency, reducing environmental destruction and dependence on foreign oil. I suppose they did provide "leadership" in maintaining ths status quo of oil dependence. What did you have in mind?

[Acumen]

Acumen,
"Unless you have a good idea what was said, I really don't see a reason to bring it up."

The reason to bring it up is because of the apparant lack of transparency on the part of the administration. If their goal was to, say, encourage alternative sources of energy or decrease our reliance on oil, why not have an open meeting where US citizens know what their elected representatives discussed with oil executives? Since they made the meeting eternally secret it makes me wonder if these price increases weren't part of some plan. No, I have no evidence it is and there is no evidence it wasn't, simply because they chose to keep it secret. Why?

I think lack of transparency is a good thing, especially as it relates to a biased media.  On another thread, I showed graphs pointing out the political leanings of journalists - and it's very unfortunate.  Bush is demonized all the time, so why give fodder to liberals unless it is absolutely necessary?  The bottom line is the Administration has every right to be opaque or transparent based upon political need.  It is still a moot point to comment on what might have been said at a meeting, and it strongly suggests a leftward bias and a propensity to believe in the most sinister motives of conservatives.

"And what real change have republicans blocked that would have led to lower gas prices?"
 
The board is broader than just oil prices. But the Republican administration and Congress has provided no leadership toward reducing our dependence on oil. none.

Yes, the picture is broader than oil prices, but not right now it really isn't.  It really doesn't need to be explained that oil drives our economy.  Republicans have demonstrated a willing to take a leadership role in terms of diversifying our oil production, and they have been obstructed for at least the past 12 years.

"This is the problem I have with democrats, so allow me to be frank.  They are generally not very good at economy issues because they are married to environmental lobbyist groups, they believe in free market regulation, and they are largely pro-tax.  Their biggest short fall is their unwillingness to budge on diversifying oil production on U.S. soil and off the coast even when our energy situation is dire."

This is a Republican myth. Studies comparing economic indicators under Republican administrations and under Democratic administrations show the economy does better under Democratic administrations.

And such statistics won't really mean anything unless it can be definitively demonstrated that government policy put into place by democrat leaders is the cause of such economic stability.  Most economists readily admit that the economy is cyclical.  Again, I would be more than willing to examine the reports with you.

Most recently we see Republicans in charge of all three branches of government turn a budget surplus into a budget deficit, create another Federal bureaucracy and create tax cuts primarily for the very rich.

I refuted this myth in my last post.  It also goes against commonsense that a party that likes to raise taxes and spend money on government programs will actually balance the budget anyway.

"Their answer to energy issues are primarily investments in research and alternate fuel sources, which is good, but won't help us now with crisis management." 

They also point out that there are already millions of acres of land available to the oil companies that they aren't exploring. they also point out that the returns in any exploration won't be seen for decades while alternative energy and conservation can be implemented much sooner. Yes, we need to keep drilling but our emphasis should move to harnessing good old Yankee ingenuity to develop new technologies.

This is a liberal canard, Jack.  You and I can both agree that oil companies are driven by profit.  Are you trying to tell me that they have all of this land, but refuse to exploit it when there are large deposits of oil just waiting for the market?  Come on, Jack, you're smarter than that.  The DNC is quick to jump on this point because they don't have another argument to sell.

It's very expensive for oil companies to explore areas that haven't been proved to yield evidence of commercially valuable oil.  I say "commercially" valuable because there must be enough oil in the deposit to justify the millions of dollars it will cost the oil producers to set up, lay pipe, build refineries, and so on.

Internal combustion energy is basically a hundred year old technology. We've used it for so long because oil has been cheap. Those days of cheap oil are over, don't you agree?

Yes and no.  If we are not allowed to exploit our own domestic lode, then yes those days are over.  If we are allowed to tap the domestic lode, it will introduce a new supply to the market, and therefore drop the costs of gas.  Aren't you wondering why gas prices have been dropping the past few weeks?