Congress ain't as bad as we make it seem

[OfTheCross]

Search Bills in Congress - GovTrack.us

The House passed 343 bills to the Senate
The Senate passed 90 bills to the House

78 became laws.

Of those, 51 were sponsored by Dems, and 27 by Reps.

That seems like a decent amount of legislation. I'd say they're working pretty well.

Of course, I haven't dug into the weeds yet to see what these laws actually were. But there was definitely some activity and bipartisanship going on.

 

[FAH1223]

Search Bills in Congress - GovTrack.us

The House passed 343 bills to the Senate
The Senate passed 90 bills to the House

78 became laws.

Of those, 51 were sponsored by Dems, and 27 by Reps.

That seems like a decent amount of legislation. I'd say they're working pretty well.

Of course, I haven't dug into the weeds yet to see what these laws actually were. But there was definitely some activity and bipartisanship going on.

Surprise billing didn’t make it through

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

Corruption is bipartisan.
Trump's war bill for example

 

[newworldafro]

Search Bills in Congress - GovTrack.us

The House passed 343 bills to the Senate
The Senate passed 90 bills to the House

78 became laws.

Of those, 51 were sponsored by Dems, and 27 by Reps.

That seems like a decent amount of legislation. I'd say they're working pretty well.

Of course, I haven't dug into the weeds yet to see what these laws actually were. But there was definitely some activity and bipartisanship going on.

Negate yourself on the last paragraph brehs.

 

[cheek100]

Need term limits

 

[OfTheCross]

Negate yourself on the last paragraph brehs.

you ain't go through it either.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

Congress is not working. Need term limits and to overturn citizens united. But term limits alone would make it hard enough to buy people off and keep those seats purchased

 

[OfTheCross]

Congress is not working. Need term limits and to overturn citizens united. But term limits alone would make it hard enough to buy people off and keep those seats purchased

How so? They'll just buy the next person.

Just gotta get the money out of it. Term limits is 2ndary to that.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

How so? They'll just buy the next person.

Just gotta get the money out of it. Term limits is 2ndary to that.

If someone can only serve 8-12 years, you’re going to have to work hard to buy them. they don’t need endless funds to run re-election campaigns nonstop, you don’t know who is stepping into their seat, someone principled, someone opposed to your cause, someone from another party, someone in the bag for another company, etc. it would make the lobbying system much less efficient to have to try to buy someone new every few years.

But yes, the money needs to come out, but as long as we allow people to sit in office forever, stockpile this money so challengers can’t successfully mount challenges to many incumbents - Diane Feinstein is a clear example

They also have no incentive to be efficient when there is, save for losing reelection, endless time.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Term limits would lead to think tanks and lobbies churning out even more candidates.

There would be organizations devoted to developing candidates with similar views for certain districts/states to keep uniformity

Term limits alone is a bad idea.

 

[DEAD7]

Correct. Its worse.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Public Laws

Renaming buildings is the most common one

That doesnt mean shyt

 

[OfTheCross]

If someone can only serve 8-12 years, you’re going to have to work hard to buy them. they don’t need endless funds to run re-election campaigns nonstop, you don’t know who is stepping into their seat, someone principled, someone opposed to your cause, someone from another party, someone in the bag for another company, etc. it would make the lobbying system much less efficient to have to try to buy someone new every few years.

But yes, the money needs to come out, but as long as we allow people to sit in office forever, stockpile this money so challengers can’t successfully mount challenges to many incumbents - Diane Feinstein is a clear example

They also have no incentive to be efficient when there is, save for losing reelection, endless time.

You're correct.

We should do both

 

[OfTheCross]

Term limits would lead to think tanks and lobbies churning out even more candidates.

There would be organizations devoted to developing candidates with similar views for certain districts/states to keep uniformity

Term limits alone is a bad idea.

That's true too..

Lol. fukk it. Just get the money out.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

Term limits would lead to think tanks and lobbies churning out even more candidates.

There would be organizations devoted to developing candidates with similar views for certain districts/states to keep uniformity

Term limits alone is a bad idea.

Those wouldn’t go away by limiting corporate money. You’d have to try to create legislation against their existence, which that won’t happen.