If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   "The current Congress has only enacted 49 laws, the fewest since 1947. That's a mark of pride to Tea Party nihilists, but, for the rest of the country, which expects action on fundamentals like jobs and immigration, it's a mark of shame"   (nytimes.com) divider line 315
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

1267 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Nov 2013 at 1:40 AM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



315 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-28 09:48:08 PM
And yet the country keeps rolling along without Congress patting it on the back every step.

/Congress can't make jobs
 
2013-11-28 09:55:39 PM
you elect morons, don't be surprised when the morons would rather whine about Benghazi than do something helpful for the country.
 
2013-11-28 10:06:40 PM
How many more laws do we really need?
 
2013-11-28 10:07:10 PM
There are different ways of looking at it.

IMO, simply looking at number of laws passed as some kind of benchmark statistic is missing the point.  Certainly not all laws are wise or beneficial.  And in the simplest sense, with our system of checks and balances, it is supposed to be difficult to enact change to ensure that only the worthiest of legislation becomes law.

Fewer laws enacted might be preferred.  Especially when integrity of lawmakers is questionable.
 
2013-11-28 10:17:49 PM

Frederick: Certainly not all laws are wise or beneficial.


We don't have a Farm Bill or a budget.

We might need those to run the country.
 
2013-11-28 10:33:35 PM
Quantity != Quality
 
2013-11-28 10:35:32 PM

EatenTheSun: How many more laws do we really need?


The thing is, we think of "passing a law" meaning the same as "lowering the speed limit", but in reality, most laws fall closer to "paying my mortgage this month" - I didn't buy a new house, or even change the mortgage, I am simply taking action to maintain my current state of financial affairs.

Things like filling vacant positions are boring, but then you have to take someone to court, and find that you won't even have your case heard for 19 months because the backlog is seriously that bad.
 
2013-11-28 10:39:09 PM

MisterTweak: EatenTheSun: How many more laws do we really need?

The thing is, we think of "passing a law" meaning the same as "lowering the speed limit", but in reality, most laws fall closer to "paying my mortgage this month" - I didn't buy a new house, or even change the mortgage, I am simply taking action to maintain my current state of financial affairs.

Things like filling vacant positions are boring, but then you have to take someone to court, and find that you won't even have your case heard for 19 months because the backlog is seriously that bad.


Maybe with fewer laws there wouldn't be as much to litigate.
 
2013-11-28 10:44:23 PM

NewportBarGuy: Frederick: Certainly not all laws are wise or beneficial.

We don't have a Farm Bill or a budget.

We might need those to run the country.


Fair enough -but simply counting "laws enacted" fails to distinguish importance between bills that keep our government operational and those that are frivolous.  It doesnt really tell the proper story.

Passing 490 bills but neglecting a budget wouldnt be any improvement.
 
2013-11-28 10:47:32 PM

EatenTheSun: MisterTweak: EatenTheSun: How many more laws do we really need?

The thing is, we think of "passing a law" meaning the same as "lowering the speed limit", but in reality, most laws fall closer to "paying my mortgage this month" - I didn't buy a new house, or even change the mortgage, I am simply taking action to maintain my current state of financial affairs.

Things like filling vacant positions are boring, but then you have to take someone to court, and find that you won't even have your case heard for 19 months because the backlog is seriously that bad.

Maybe with fewer laws there wouldn't be as much to litigate.


Actually, if we had fewer laws, there would be a lot *more* to litigate. Where there is a law to follow (like when you hire an employee or sign a contract) compliance with those laws largely makes you immune from litigation.

No-fault insurance is one of the simplest examples. A fender-bender would take years to work it's way through civil and appelate courts rather than being settled usually within 24 hours, without a single attorney getting involved.
 
2013-11-28 10:48:33 PM

NewportBarGuy: Frederick: Certainly not all laws are wise or beneficial.

We don't have a Farm Bill or a budget.

We might need those to run the country.


Do we need a budget? Yes. Farm bill? No.
 
2013-11-28 10:48:46 PM

George Babbitt: And yet the country keeps rolling along without Congress patting it on the back every step.

/Congress can't make jobs


Tea Party logic detected.
 
2013-11-28 10:54:03 PM
I'm still amazed that people put in office morons who promised to break the government and said government is always the problem. These people are now shocked that the government is somewhat broken
 
2013-11-28 11:06:52 PM
We have so many damn laws that you are probably breaking some just sitting there reading Fark.
 
2013-11-28 11:15:14 PM

MisterTweak: No-fault insurance is one of the simplest examples. A fender-bender would take years to work it's way through civil and appelate courts rather than being settled usually within 24 hours, without a single attorney getting involved.


This is actually true. I lived in a country where that was a case, and I knew a guy that spent a year negotiating with the woman that plowed into his car to reach a settlement.
 
2013-11-28 11:16:28 PM

George Babbitt: Do we need a budget? Yes. Farm bill? No.


We don't need a Farm Bill?

OK, you explain that to the dairy farmers and people on food stamps. That's like 50,000,000 people. Better get started on those letters.

Frederick: Fair enough -but simply counting "laws enacted" fails to distinguish importance between bills that keep our government operational and those that are frivolous. It doesnt really tell the proper story.


I completely agree with you on the stupidity of focusing on the number of bills passed. I'm just outraged that they have failed to pass the basic bills we need to run the country in any kind of adult fashion.  
However, these assholes have made it a thing not to pass important legislation simply to be the coolest guy at their derp rallies.
 
2013-11-28 11:18:52 PM
At least they haven't tried to repeal more than Obamacare.

/yet
 
2013-11-28 11:19:14 PM

basemetal: We have so many damn laws that you are probably breaking some just sitting there reading Fark.


What percentage of laws would you like to get rid of? How should we prioritize the laws we get rid of?
 
2013-11-28 11:31:59 PM
There is no more vapid and empty response to this than "good there are enough laws." It brushes aside soooo much without a hint of consideration.
 
2013-11-28 11:51:57 PM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: basemetal: We have so many damn laws that you are probably breaking some just sitting there reading Fark.

What percentage of laws would you like to get rid of? How should we prioritize the laws we get rid of?


I want to make it legal to beat stupid people with a length of cable.
 
2013-11-29 12:02:50 AM

NewportBarGuy: George Babbitt: Do we need a budget? Yes. Farm bill? No.

We don't need a Farm Bill?

OK, you explain that to the dairy farmers and people on food stamps. That's like 50,000,000 people. Better get started on those letters.


If we stop insisting on using corn for fuel, which is a really bad idea as cane sugar kicks its butt for production cost, efficiency and combustibility. Corn fuel also raises the cost of feed for the majority of animals to unsustainable levels hence the pork industry opting for raising fewer hogs this year as they just simply couldn't afford to feed more and still make a profit at market. Corn for fuel also is only cost effective because of the huge subsidies it gets to make it close to affordable to produce. It also raises costs of food for people to eat, both the simple staple form of the grain that is corn and thousands of products that it goes into, but also the meat costs that were previously mentioned are also inflated because of it.

The food stamp program should never have been attached to the Farm bill, but was probably done so to garner support for it. A safety net, general welfare issue such as food stamps needs to not be saddled with all the politics of farm subsidies.
 
2013-11-29 12:03:00 AM
Yes, thank goodness that the circumstances of our society don't evolve from year to year to require any new legislation or that technological advances don't ever outstrip the relevance of laws already on the books. Otherwise, this might be a real problem.
 
2013-11-29 12:14:31 AM

George Babbitt: The food stamp program should never have been attached to the Farm bill, but was probably done so to garner support for it. A safety net, general welfare issue such as food stamps needs to not be saddled with all the politics of farm subsidies.


Ya know, that's really nice in theory and sh*t. But, I bet the people who need that program just want these assholes to pass it so they can eat.
 
2013-11-29 12:24:05 AM

NewportBarGuy: George Babbitt: The food stamp program should never have been attached to the Farm bill, but was probably done so to garner support for it. A safety net, general welfare issue such as food stamps needs to not be saddled with all the politics of farm subsidies.

Ya know, that's really nice in theory and sh*t. But, I bet the people who need that program just want these assholes to pass it so they can eat.


Ok, are either of us serving in Congress right now and able to do something like what you're talking about or are we just two people on the internet talking about stuff?
 
2013-11-29 12:27:41 AM
DEAR MEDIA: Please stop framing this story as "The current congress is the most useless since 1947".  This implies the 80th Congress was on a par with the current one, when in fact 1947 is just when they started keeping track of this.  In fact the 80th congress passed nearly 8 times as many laws as our current one.

Saying the current congress is more broken than its been in 7 decades is actually dramatically understating the problem.
 
2013-11-29 01:20:35 AM

Tigger: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: basemetal: We have so many damn laws that you are probably breaking some just sitting there reading Fark.

What percentage of laws would you like to get rid of? How should we prioritize the laws we get rid of?

I want to make it legal to beat stupid people with a length of cable.


What length of cable? Steel braided or nylon? What thickness? For how long can the beating last? Who determines who is stupid enough to warrant beating?
 
2013-11-29 01:25:50 AM
DNRTFA but.

Just counting the number of bills means nothing.  What is the overall size of the bills passed?  What is the complexity?

Could it be that 70 years ago they just stuck one thing in a bill and called it good instead of of shoveling everything into a single bill possible?
 
2013-11-29 01:38:30 AM

propasaurus: Who determines who is stupid enough to warrant beating?


I would like to volunteer for that benchmark.  Anyone dumber than me gets beaten.
 
2013-11-29 01:46:07 AM

George Babbitt: Do we need a budget? Yes. Farm bill? No.


lolwut?
 
2013-11-29 01:46:16 AM
They'd pass 1000 right now, if the freaks had a majority they'd further restrict gay marriage, clamp down on abortion, ramp up the drug war, find ways to imprison more people, etc. The elected republicans and tea people are talking out their asses when they proclaim to be the champions small government. An honest and pragmatic approach to curtailing government waste, bloat, and excess would be welcomed by a lot of people, but that would require a purging of the tea freaks.
 
2013-11-29 01:46:56 AM

NewportBarGuy: George Babbitt: The food stamp program should never have been attached to the Farm bill, but was probably done so to garner support for it. A safety net, general welfare issue such as food stamps needs to not be saddled with all the politics of farm subsidies.

Ya know, that's really nice in theory and sh*t. But, I bet the people who need that program just want these assholes to pass it so they can eat.


Come now, there's obviously no connection between the people who grow the food and the people who buy it.
 
2013-11-29 01:48:52 AM
So, how many congressmen must we crucify to get the rest to work?
 
2013-11-29 01:53:19 AM

George Babbitt: /Congress can't make jobs


Millions of government workers would probably disagree with you.


Lionel Mandrake: George Babbitt: Do we need a budget? Yes. Farm bill? No.

lolwut?


It's *kinda* true. If no farm bill is passed things just keep rolling along pretty much as they are. In fact that's one strategy Democrats are considering to stop SNAP cuts. If it doesn't pass:

Funding for conservation programs and for organic and small farms would dry up, for example. Wasteful subsidies to Big Ag would continue. But these things "are not life or death" like food stamps are, argues the second Dem staffer.
 
2013-11-29 01:54:16 AM
Good luck trying to get a Republican to feel shame. They just hate whatever the fat shouty angry men tell them to hate.  It doesn't matter how incompetent they are. Over the past few decades they've built an entire industry that does nothing but stroke their egos and tell them they are heros regardless of how little they actually accomplish.

Just look at the 2012 election. They went into it losing, they were down in the polls the entire time, they lost in a landslide, and they still think they won.
 
2013-11-29 01:56:35 AM

NewportBarGuy: Frederick: Certainly not all laws are wise or beneficial.

We don't have a Farm Bill or a budget.

We might need those to run the country.


A farm bill typically means giving lots of our money to a bunch of rich assholes through their agri-corps.   I think we can do without, for a change.
 
2013-11-29 01:57:55 AM

Alphax: So, how many congressmen must we crucify to get the rest to work?


I vote for all of them.  I don't mean all of whatever party you don't like.  I mean every single one of those farkers.
 
2013-11-29 02:05:30 AM

propasaurus: Tigger: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: basemetal: We have so many damn laws that you are probably breaking some just sitting there reading Fark.

What percentage of laws would you like to get rid of? How should we prioritize the laws we get rid of?

I want to make it legal to beat stupid people with a length of cable.

What length of cable? Steel braided or nylon? What thickness? For how long can the beating last? Who determines who is stupid enough to warrant beating?


A few years ago it was fashionable among the "gummint bad" goober-gulping TeaTard fanatical morons - well, not their proudly-ignorant selves themselves but their well-to-do slavemasters - to call for abolition of the Department of Commerce, as though the very idea of a Department that chose to concern itself with the promotion of Commerce was prima facie eviidence of ad infinitum tyranny.

Yes, the Department of Commerce, a Department so Commercial we farking named it that.

But NO, because Gummint.

NIST? Man up, a gram or a pound weighs whatever your vendor says it does so STFU and pay what the...

NOAA? Puuhhh- LEAASE!!?!? Really? Are we to still think that rainstorms or wind or whatever stand a chance against our Panamax juggernauts?

Fisheries? The FISH had their chance, if they didn't want to be harvested to extinction they'd have f*cking swim faster, wouldn't they?

ITA? Pfffft bribe 'm yourselves, Atlases.
 
2013-11-29 02:07:22 AM

George Babbitt: If we stop insisting on using corn for fuel, which is a really bad idea as cane sugar kicks its butt for production cost, efficiency and combustibility.


If we stop using corn for fuel...what?
 
2013-11-29 02:07:25 AM
Yes but now every time a Democratic has the floor a Republican will walk over and play the "I'm not touching you" game.  It's incredibly distracting and Republicans hope this bold move will make all the Democrats resign in irritation.
 
2013-11-29 02:10:02 AM

Frederick: And in the simplest sense, with our system of checks and balances, it is supposed to be difficult to enact change to ensure that only the worthiest of legislation becomes law.


This is bullsh*t.

fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-11-29 02:12:17 AM

BizarreMan: DNRTFA but.

Just counting the number of bills means nothing.  What is the overall size of the bills passed?  What is the complexity?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_113th_United_States_Congres s

A sizable portion are of the "name thing/give award" variety.
 
2013-11-29 02:14:01 AM

BuckTurgidson: propasaurus: Tigger: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: basemetal: We have so many damn laws that you are probably breaking some just sitting there reading Fark.

What percentage of laws would you like to get rid of? How should we prioritize the laws we get rid of?

I want to make it legal to beat stupid people with a length of cable.

What length of cable? Steel braided or nylon? What thickness? For how long can the beating last? Who determines who is stupid enough to warrant beating?

A few years ago it was fashionable among the "gummint bad" goober-gulping TeaTard fanatical morons - well, not their proudly-ignorant selves themselves but their well-to-do slavemasters - to call for abolition of the Department of Commerce, as though the very idea of a Department that chose to concern itself with the promotion of Commerce was prima facie eviidence of ad infinitum tyranny.

Yes, the Department of Commerce, a Department so Commercial we farking named it that.

But NO, because Gummint.

NIST? Man up, a gram or a pound weighs whatever your vendor says it does so STFU and pay what the...

NOAA? Puuhhh- LEAASE!!?!? Really? Are we to still think that rainstorms or wind or whatever stand a chance against our Panamax juggernauts?

Fisheries? The FISH had their chance, if they didn't want to be harvested to extinction they'd have f*cking swim faster, wouldn't they?

ITA? Pfffft bribe 'm yourselves, Atlases.


Then-Senator Santorum: The National Weather Services Duties Act of 2005, introduced by [Santorum] on April 14, would, if passed, "bar the National Weather Service from providing any service that competes with the private sector." Sure, he was getting thousands from the president of AccuWeather, but I'm sure that was just a coincidence.
 
2013-11-29 02:18:25 AM
...Congressional Republicans threatened to retaliate by slowing things down on Capitol Hill.

Lemme see if I got this straight.

Congressional Republicans are so pissed that the Senate took away some of their ability to slow government to a crawl that they are now threatening to slow thing down?

That's their plan?

Anything specific?

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, specifically warned that a United Nations disability treaty was now in danger of being rejected for the second time.

They are so mad they are gonna pick on cripples?

Wow, what a bunch of assholes.
 
2013-11-29 02:21:32 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Frederick: And in the simplest sense, with our system of checks and balances, it is supposed to be difficult to enact change to ensure that only the worthiest of legislation becomes law.

This is bullsh*t.

[fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 700x700]


Your graphic deals with the executive appointees to the judicial blocked by legislature.  While the article is about the legislative exclusively.

It's kind of an apples to oranges comparison in regards to my statement you quoted and not very analogous.

/for the record I share your anger over the filibusters.
 
2013-11-29 02:26:06 AM

propasaurus: BuckTurgidson: propasaurus: Tigger: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: basemetal: We have so many damn laws that you are probably breaking some just sitting there reading Fark.

What percentage of laws would you like to get rid of? How should we prioritize the laws we get rid of?

I want to make it legal to beat stupid people with a length of cable.

What length of cable? Steel braided or nylon? What thickness? For how long can the beating last? Who determines who is stupid enough to warrant beating?

A few years ago it was fashionable among the "gummint bad" goober-gulping TeaTard fanatical morons - well, not their proudly-ignorant selves themselves but their well-to-do slavemasters - to call for abolition of the Department of Commerce, as though the very idea of a Department that chose to concern itself with the promotion of Commerce was prima facie eviidence of ad infinitum tyranny.

Yes, the Department of Commerce, a Department so Commercial we farking named it that.

But NO, because Gummint.

NIST? Man up, a gram or a pound weighs whatever your vendor says it does so STFU and pay what the...

NOAA? Puuhhh- LEAASE!!?!? Really? Are we to still think that rainstorms or wind or whatever stand a chance against our Panamax juggernauts?

Fisheries? The FISH had their chance, if they didn't want to be harvested to extinction they'd have f*cking swim faster, wouldn't they?

ITA? Pfffft bribe 'm yourselves, Atlases.

Then-Senator Santorum: The National Weather Services Duties Act of 2005, introduced by [Santorum] on April 14, would, if passed, "bar the National Weather Service from providing any service that competes with the private sector." Sure, he was getting thousands from the president of AccuWeather, but I'm sure that was just a coincidence.


... While 100% of Accuweather's data was slurped from the taxpayer-funded NWS.
 
2013-11-29 02:26:46 AM
This is all rather funny.
 
2013-11-29 02:30:34 AM

Frederick: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Frederick: And in the simplest sense, with our system of checks and balances, it is supposed to be difficult to enact change to ensure that only the worthiest of legislation becomes law.

This is bullsh*t.

[fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 700x700]

Your graphic deals with the executive appointees to the judicial blocked by legislature.  While the article is about the legislative exclusively.

It's kind of an apples to oranges comparison in regards to my statement you quoted and not very analogous.

/for the record I share your anger over the filibusters.


Rationalize all you want, it's all the same pile of obstructionist bullsh*t and it's fooling no one.
 
2013-11-29 02:39:21 AM
As an actual nihilist, I'm deeply offended at being compared to teabaggers. Those assholes do care about achieving a particular outcome, it just happens to be a total apocalypse.
 
2013-11-29 02:41:26 AM

OgreMagi: NewportBarGuy: Frederick: Certainly not all laws are wise or beneficial.

We don't have a Farm Bill or a budget.

We might need those to run the country.

A farm bill typically means giving lots of our money to a bunch of rich assholes through their agri-corps.   I think we can do without, for a change.


My impression is that those rich assholes will still get their money even without a new farm bill. Apparently that money (along with SNAP, crop insurance and USDA operations) continues because they're part of "permanent law". So even though we end up reverting to a 1949 farm bill (ya, really!) a lot of stuff doesn't change.

What happens with farmers, food stamps and the USDA with no farm bill?

It all seems rather arcane.
 
2013-11-29 02:44:11 AM

George Babbitt: And yet the country keeps rolling along without Congress patting it on the back every step.

/Congress can't make jobs


By that logic they can't kill jobs either.

So why do I keep hearing about 'job killing regulations'?
 
Displayed 50 of 315 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report