Republicans are the problem!

And the current veteran unemployment rate is obscenely high, and it is about to get worse as mandatory defense cuts start soon.

Good...It's about time that some mandatory defense cuts start...(I would prefer to see them start with defense CONTRACTORS, and lets stop spending hundreds of billions on unnecessary toys that can't be killed because they're in some congress-critter's district...)

LadyJazzer wrote: Good...It's about time that some mandatory defense cuts start...(I would prefer to see them start with defense CONTRACTORS, and lets stop spending hundreds of billions on unnecessary toys that can't be killed because they're in some congress-critter's district...)

Totally agree, one thing I do like about Obama & Panetta is their scrapping of some high dollar programs like a new fighter plane. (Then again I don't work for a defense contractor, so my ox isn't being gored.)

Something the Dog Said wrote: As Thomas Mann, a nonpolitical historian of the Congress for the past forty years has stated:

Lord I love the logical and intellectual dishonesty of the "progressives". Dog would have us believe that this very partisan op-ed in not partisan at all simply because Thomas Mann writes history pertaining to Congress that isn't itself partisan. Mann's job has nothing at all to do with whether or not he is himself a partisan, as this op-ed clearly demonstrates. Once again, "progressives" are dependent upon a populace incapable of critical thinking to get them to swallow their baiting attempts hook line and sinker. Unfortunately for them, the populace is capable of critical thinking and thus their attempts, while indeed transparent, are ill conceived, poorly executed and rightly rejected outside of their own echo chambers.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: As Thomas Mann, a nonpolitical historian of the Congress for the past forty years has stated:

Lord I love the logical and intellectual dishonesty of the "progressives". Dog would have us believe that this very partisan op-ed in not partisan at all simply because Thomas Mann writes history pertaining to Congress that isn't itself partisan. Mann's job has nothing at all to do with whether or not he is himself a partisan, as this op-ed clearly demonstrates. Once again, "progressives" are dependent upon a populace incapable of critical thinking to get them to swallow their baiting attempts hook line and sinker. Unfortunately for them, the populace is capable of critical thinking and thus their attempts, while indeed transparent, are ill conceived, poorly executed and rightly rejected outside of their own echo chambers.

Speaking of dishonesty, obviously Printsmith failed to read the linked article or even note that the piece was cowritten not only by Mann but conservative scholar Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. They both agree from a scholarly point of view that the current GOP is responsible for the current gridlock. I note that that Printstmith also fails to provide a counter argument to either my statements or those statements by Mann/Ornstein, but simply does a drive by attack on the messengers. That is typical and to be expected.

Neither myself or Mann/Ornstein are alone in our opinion of the Republicans. There has been numerous commentary about this, and even the American public have noted this, as evidenced in polls showing that over 2/3rds of Americans disapprove of the way republicans are handling Congress.

How about this fact about the current Republican leadership in Congress? Out of 127 days since the House convened, they have worked only 41 days. And they plan to take 17 of the remaining 34 weeks off. And they only work 3 days a week most of the time when they do work. The previous worst Congress (1947-1948) passed 908 bills. The current House has passed 108 bills, and most of them dealt with commerative coins, naming post offices, and other critical issues before this nation. You must be so proud.

That's what happens when representatives take office with the express goal of taking down the sitting president....not doing the country's business, or creating jobs, or improving the economy.....nope, they want to cripple the nation in order to defeat Obama, pure and simple.

archer wrote: That's what happens when representatives take office with the express goal of taking down the sitting president....not doing the country's business, or creating jobs, or improving the economy.....nope, they want to cripple the nation in order to defeat Obama, pure and simple.

Woah! Woah! Woah!

You talk about people putting words in your mouth, how about you slandering a whole group of freshman congressmen who see a President willing to indebt future generations to fund the people who got him elected.

Electing someone else is one way to do this, but other ways they are trying to slow down this debt crisis don't involve removing the President. Offering reasonable cuts to current budgets, slowing the increases in entitlements, etc.

I call it as I see it Fred ...and more than one Republican has stated their goal as bringing down Obama. I also form my opinion based on what I have seen the Republican majority do in the house and the havoc the Republican minority has wreaked in the Senate.

Something the Dog Said wrote: How about this fact about the current Republican leadership in Congress? Out of 127 days since the House convened, they have worked only 41 days. And they plan to take 17 of the remaining 34 weeks off. And they only work 3 days a week most of the time when they do work. The previous worst Congress (1947-1948) passed 908 bills. The current House has passed 108 bills, and most of them dealt with commerative (sic) coins, naming post offices, and other critical issues before this nation. You must be so proud.

And this is the primary problem - "progressives" equate the passage of a large number of new laws with successful governance. If you are not burying the populace under a mountain of legislation, complicating the US Code such that each and every citizen is in violation of at least one of its provisions, then you are not doing your job, right?

The 108 figure you quote is not the number of bills passed by the House of Representatives, it is the number of bills passed by both Houses of Congress and submitted to President Obama for his signature or veto. You've been caught lying like a dog again Dog. Is there no end to your falsehoods and misrepresentations?

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: How about this fact about the current Republican leadership in Congress? Out of 127 days since the House convened, they have worked only 41 days. And they plan to take 17 of the remaining 34 weeks off. And they only work 3 days a week most of the time when they do work. The previous worst Congress (1947-1948) passed 908 bills. The current House has passed 108 bills, and most of them dealt with commerative (sic) coins, naming post offices, and other critical issues before this nation. You must be so proud.

And this is the primary problem - "progressives" equate the passage of a large number of new laws with successful governance. If you are not burying the populace under a mountain of legislation, complicating the US Code such that each and every citizen is in violation of at least one of its provisions, then you are not doing your job, right?

The 108 figure you quote is not the number of bills passed by the House of Representatives, it is the number of bills passed by both Houses of Congress and submitted to President Obama for his signature or veto. You've been caught lying like a dog again Dog. Is there no end to your falsehoods and misrepresentations?

You are correct, I mispoke, the actual number of bills passed by the House is 247, not 108 according to the congressional websitse.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/b ... atus=28,29
Woo hoo! And most of those are naming courthouses.

You must be so proud of your party's leadership at this time for ignoring the economy, unemployment, etc.
And yes, I expect my representatives to work hard at providing solutions when they are receiving taxpayer funds, rather than not showing up for their jobs.