Although this may have been a long time in building, it was the voters last year who elected a group of GOP legislators whose specifric promise was that they would not cooperate with the other side. Not only that, but the implied promise was that they would destroy the government of the 'illegal alien' who had abducted the country. With this kind of lunatic narrative becoming the norm of one major party, it's no wonder Congress is the worst ever. We have only ourselves to blame when we give power to people like this.

"At the center of this unfortunate mindset is the notion that those things we do to promote the common good are bad by their very nature."

Of all the craziness that has become the norm in the GOP, this idea that doing anything good is bad seems the most bizarre. Any attempt to do something that might actually help someone or help the country is denounced as some sort of sinister conspiracy. The solution to every problem is to stop paying their taxes, and somehow this will magically fix it all. And they even oppose that, if a Democrat has suggested it. Their own leaders come under attack if they've ever tried to do anything good for the country. It does seem to have come to pass that the Republicans are no longer a "normal party".

I hesitate to put two very distinct thoughts in one post, as it tends to produce confusion in some readers. But I'm pressed for time right now, so...

Without disagreeing at all with Norman Ornstein or the other commentators in what they say about Congress, there are no profiles in courage at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue either. Right from the beginning of the debt ceiling circus, Congressional Republicans have accused President Obama of not putting forward a plan for reducing the federal deficit, of having submitted an FY 2012 budget last winter that all but ignored the problem, and of being persistently vague about exactly what he wants done to cut federal spending (or, for that matter, to increase federal revenues) even in private.

It's all true. Obama and his campaign handlers knew they would face ferocious criticism if they tackled America's fiscal problem through the regular budget process, in which the incumbent administration proposes a budget and Congress responds with its own (or at least with appropriations and tax bills). So Obama didn't. He sent up a budget without any of the big spending cut numbers now being discussed, as a means of kicking this dead political cat as far down the road as he could. He knew that couldn't be very far -- the debt ceiling deadline was clearly visible when the year began -- but he kicked away regardless.

(Incidentally, a President who frequently mentions unemployment officially estimated at well above 9% was expected by some to propose steps to deal with that problem. Obama hasn't done that either).

As a matter of positioning their candidate, Obama's political team followed long established practice. Obama avoided making his ideas for closing the federal government's deficit the object of controversy for as long as he could, and avoided making public specific proposals that the other side could attack in campaign ads. The problem is that Obama is President now. In this matter, he has not acted like one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My other thought is about the fervor of the Congressional Republicans, attributed by many commentators to the rigidity of their economic ideology. I have some doubts about that. That's partly because of the more tangible reasons Republicans in Washington insist on no higher taxes, on anything, at any time: the position maintains the message discipline so important in permanent campaign politics, and appeals to the upper-income Americans who provide essential funding for the GOP's vast campaign infrastructure. Indeed, Republican doctrine on taxes, going back to the beginning of the Bush administration and even before, has been based on a straightforward bargain with the largest sources of campaign funds: you give us money (through contributions), we give you more money back (through the tax code). To call this the product of ideology seems to me to do violence to the common meaning of the word.

But there is something else, and frankly I think it applies especially to many Republicans from the South. Political opposition to Barack Obama -- who is after all a liberal from Chicago -- might be expected from southern Republicans on most issues. The fervor of this opposition on virtually all issues, the violence of the feeling against the man, the utter lack of sympathy for the difficulties imposed on him when he succeeded a President even many Republicans thought had let the country down badly, has been just remarkable. We have to ask ourselves whether the depth of this abhorrence of Obama among southern Republicans is, in part, a function of Obama's race.

I think it is. I actually don't think there is much question about it. Among the Republicans in Congress are many people I used to call "R-squareds" -- Recent Republicans, former southern Democrats who took their somewhat retrograde attitudes toward Negroes with them when they joined the GOP beginning in the 1970s and '80s. Among their most fervent supporters in Southern states and Congressional districts are many more. It has never taken very much to get some white Southerners excited about Negroes who step out of their assigned social roles, and now one of them is President. For an R-squared, it's the reddest possible flag waved at an already irritated bull.

Now, do I think traditional racism is the only or even the most important source of Republican opposition to Obama? I do not. I don't think that's true even in the South, in which millions of people live now who were not raised there. But politicians respond to the passions of constituents who they know will vote every chance they get. These are disproportionately constituents who are scared, and those who are angry. I think there are a quite a lot of Southern white Republicans who are deeply, viscerally angry that someone who looks like Obama is in the White House. Small wonder some of their representatives in Congress are eager to display their resentment of the very idea that they might compromise with such a man.

The thrust of these three commentaries is, more or less:

This is the worst Congress ever because the GOP won't let Democrats do what they want to do.

I enjoy FP for its take on foreign affairs, and its variety of opinions. On domestic matters, however, it seems to be nearly lockstep endorsement of the Democratic position and anyone who interferes with them is evil, obstinate, acting in bad faith, etc.

The reality is that there has been some incredible overreach, particularly on budgetary matters, by the current president. The 2010 election was PRIMARILY about this overreach. Democrats were voted out, and Republicans were primaried, based on support for or failure to block these initiatives.

It is much more accurate to describe the 2010-2012 period as an internal realignment for the GOP. To what extent they realign is an open matter, particularly on the importance of social issues, but the era of "Big Government Conservatism" is over for the GOP. Not only did the current administration ignore the preceding calls for a slower pace and less expensive/comprehensive reform (in the manner proposed), but they doubled down on it and pushed through all sorts of expensive and fanciful laws under less-than-honest pretenses.

I can't believe people would believe that the GOP is wrong to continue fighting the battles they were elected to fight. You may not agree with those battles, but the alternative is to simply capitulate to a party with an ever-expansive view of government, which I find to be abhorrent and largely out of touch with the American center.

I also don't agree with the sense in the commentaries that this is a GOP issue and the administration is simply unable to negotiate with such irrational people. The administration has not proposed concrete plans, and by many accounts, has been inconsistent and misleading themselves in their positioning vis-a-vis proposed solutions.

Every person of voting age in America shares some blame for the debt issue (the amount, not the ceiling; the ceiling is a bit like Guadalcanal in WWII, more about the larger battle than the piece of ground being fought over). Some people voted for intransigent congresspeople as a way of fighting the debt, and that's what these officials are doing. Almost all of us agree that the cap needs to be raised in the short term, but the longer term issues remain and neither party wants to foreclose their agenda.

Re; "The Common Good" reference to the common good legislation that has passed and is proposed, is often done emotionally, without thought on how it should be implimented and overseen. Hence the problems with the budgets and deficit have compounded over decades. Now that the problems of simplistic solutions to so called dire problems has arisen, no one wants to admit that they have not their job, taking responsiblity for the laws and programs they have passed, I am including the voting public in those responsible. If the voters do not take responsibility for those they place in office, they are shirking the blame for what happens when these laws and programs are disfunctional.
When you continue to reelect the same people that put bad policy in place, because it is not their fault, you train people to not feel responsile for their actions.

In Europe it is reported as brinkmanship with the Tea Party people getting most of the blame for being inflexible. But compare your Congress to Greece where the prime minister had to resign after riots in the streets over his proposed package. Every country with a big budget defecit is having to face the music now. Lets see how Congress does when it has to set next years budget

Superbad is a 2007 American comedy film directed by Greg Mottola and starring Jonah Hill and Michael Cera. The film was written by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, who began working on the script when they were both thirteen years old; they completed a draft by the time they were fifteen.The film's main characters have the same given names as Rogen and Goldberg. The film was one of a string of hits by Judd Apatow.Two weeks before their high school graduation, long-time best friends Evan (Michael Cera) and Seth (Jonah Hill) are about to leave for different colleges.Their mutual friend, Fogell (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), has plans to acquire a fake ID, so Seth agrees to buy alcohol for a party that his crush, Jules (Emma Stone), is hosting. Evan also offers to buy Goldslick vodka for his long-time crush Becca (Martha MacIsaac). There is some tension between Seth and Evan because Evan and Fogell will both be going to Dartmouth while Seth will be going to a state college.While purchasing the alcohol Fogell is assaulted by a hooded robber, and the police soon arrive. The two officers, Michaels (Seth Rogen) and Slater (Bill Hader), appear to be fooled by Fogell's fake ID (which has the single name "McLovin" as his identity) and offer Fogell a lift to the party. On the way, however, they make numerous stops and display many instances of inappropriate use of police powers, including stealing beers, drinking on the job, unnecessary use of police lights, and improper use of their firearms.While the police officers are talking to Fogell at the liquor store, Evan and Seth make the assumption that Fogell has been arrested. Seth is suddenly hit by a car but seems uninjured. To avoid being reported, the driver, Francis (Joe Lo Truglio), agrees to take them to a party, where they reason they can steal the alcohol they need. However, Francis is not welcome at the party and is subsequently assaulted by the host, Mark (lisa ann), and Seth and Evan are forced to leave, but not before smuggling out beer in laundry detergent bottles.

Our economic strength has always been *more* important than our military strength. Think about how the USSR fell. They couldn't combine domestic and military spending the way we could. We beat them by having a better economy. Threats of economic boycott are every bit as effective as threats of military force, and much cheaper and easier to apply. That's why OPEC has such power in the world; they can cripple any modern economy. RIO And that's why it is so important for us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil..

It's not like people have no jobs. I know many lawyers and paralegal and those who worked hard, went to school and got their paralegal certification have a nice job and they earn a nice salary too. You just need a little bit of dedication and you will be just fine, don't be too lazy, the government should not help you all the time. It's not like you are going to apartments hotels and ask for food or drink, you can be a lot better than that.

JoJo from First-Byte.Com

With the debt ceiling impasse and legislative gridlock sucking all the air out of Washington, Foreign Policy asked the experts: Is this really the worst Congress ever? this is the congress that brought us the Iraqi war. This is the congress that bailed out Goldman Sachs. This is the congress whose members are purchasesd each year by a foreign spy agency called AIPAC. This is the congress that tries to run foreign policy on behalf of AIPAC. This is the congress that allows for US tax payer money to be spent on illegal israeli nuclear bombs, baby killing idf terro phone meeting The same merry band that continues to place hurdles in front of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, lest there actually be oversight and penalties or checks and balances on how business is done - it's always tricky to finesse that perfect equilibrium between laissez faire and regulation, but we've erred on the lax side for a while prior to 2008. Look where that got us - until talking heads a.