(03-16-2016, 03:47 PM)xxlt Wrote: The above statement is true only if you care about improving things for the citizenry. By and large Republicans do not. They like to say, "Government can't do anything," and when they get elected they try to prove it. This makes them the ultimate hypocrites. They decry those who receive any form of assistance as moochers and free loaders who are "lazy" and "get a check for doing nothing." As elected officials, they get much bigger checks for doing nothing, and perversely they are quite proud of it. Fred is right in that they've gotten nothing substantive done, but they don't care and even brag about it. The whole work for welfare thing - it should apply to these politicians, but it doesn't. They literally get paid a handsome salary to do nothing.

(03-16-2016, 05:20 PM)michaelsean Wrote: How many bills have they passed?

(03-16-2016, 05:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This caused me to look this up. Interesting information: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics

(03-16-2016, 05:19 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The House passed a ton of stuff that sat on Harry Reid's desk.  Or do we only count passing things if it's what Dems like?

(03-17-2016, 01:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So I am sure the backlog was cleared out since he has not been the majority leader for a whille.

Including the 150 bills that repealed the ACA.

(03-17-2016, 10:17 AM)michaelsean Wrote: There is no backlog.  Bills are dead once there is a new congress.

(03-17-2016, 11:10 AM)fredtoast Wrote: But surely all these hard working congressmen have revived all these dead bills, right?

Oh, wait, they haven't?  (except for maybe the couple of dozen "repeal ACA" bills they passed)

I didn't realize the Republican leaders in the House are so clueless that Harry Reid still controls them over a year after he was removed from the majority leader position.

(03-17-2016, 11:19 AM)michaelsean Wrote: You keep changing the argument.

(03-18-2016, 03:59 AM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: In my guestimation, Bernie will ride off into the sunset once he loses to Clinton.  This country really needs a Libertarian Socialist party, but this would mess with the business party and its two factions defining the political paradigm so it probably isn't realistic.

(03-18-2016, 11:00 AM)Benton Wrote: Could be. But I'm thinking his endorsement will get sought out in the future, like a liberal version of Barry Goldwater.

Younger politicians will seek out his support in running, and some of his better policies (ending lop-sided free trade agreements, reducing government surveillance programs, addressing campaign finance reform and income inequality) will be what the Dems platform on in the future. Right now they don't have a platform outside of "get Hillary elected" and that's going to leave them vulnerable 2020 if the GOP ever goes off the rails and actually comes together.

(03-18-2016, 11:33 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I thought Elizabet Warren would run this time.  But she is 66 and if she was not interested in running this time she never will.  But someone else will step up.  

The problems Bernie is preaching about are not going away.  As things get worse more people will accept his point of view.

(03-18-2016, 11:52 AM)Benton Wrote: Agreed. They're large, long-term problems without easy answers. Unfortunately, for the last decade (or more) both sides have focused on a handful of issues effecting minorities (gay marriage, immigration, abortion). If you listen to most of them talk, everyone in this country is either an illegal alien or strangling babies in the streets on their way to a gay marriage.

(03-18-2016, 03:59 AM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: In my guestimation, Bernie will ride off into the sunset once he loses to Clinton.  This country really needs a Libertarian Socialist party, but this would mess with the business party and its two factions defining the political paradigm so it probably isn't realistic.