Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
for once we agree. Look at what happened the last time when we had Obama, Reid and Pelosi in charge. Spending increased in excess of 24% (I believe is the number).
for once we agree. Look at what happened the last time when we had Obama, Reid and Pelosi in charge. Spending increased in excess of 24% (I believe is the number).
Well the same could be said when we had a plurality with Bush. It seemed to work better under Clinton with a republican congress. Gridlock is not always a bad thing.
We can bemoan these low congressional ratings all we want but I still say the number is meaningless. If you insist on balling a Jim McDermott, Ron Paul, Maxine Waters, and Paul Ryan all into one number, look at the average pct. of votes in their district recedived by incumbent reps.
I bet it would be at least in the high 50's. Incumbent re-election is over 90%. 2010 was naturally an exception with the changeover of house from D to R. Incumbent re-election rate plummeted all the way down to 85 percent.
Instead of whining about Congress, how about just your own Senators and Representatives? Are the conditions ripe for a third (and even fourth) party to emerge?
Instead of whining about Congress, how about just your own Senators and Representatives? Are the conditions ripe for a third (and even fourth) party to emerge?
I would say that your suggestion would elect Obama, automatically, no matter how successful it is with who is in Congress.
Do you understand that if we could elect enough Congressmen to weaken the hold of the Dems in the Senate and the REpublicans in the House poor Obama would have to depend on whatever kind of group could be formed by those four parties in Congress? Somehow I don't believe that any of you good Obama supporters know what you are wanting for him. It won't be fun to be elected by the people and then have to depend on getting enough support from the Congress for a group to pass any law for each little question that comes up.
Do you know quite a lot about how parliamentary government works? How about in a presidential system, like ours?
0%, and that's both parties, for the last 14 years.
Come on and admit that the voters are at least as much to blame for their actions as they are. Another election or two like the last one may either get rid of a lot of the establishment people through the vote or force most of them to give up their desires for power. We elect them over and over and they keep drawing their $175,000 plus all the perks they get. We are to blame for too much of it. The voters are, by and large, too ignorant to take care of their part of the job of government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
