We should realize what it took for us to get 60 Senators

[dsc]

Obama won the following states twice ME, VT, NH, MA, RI, CT, NY, PA, NJ, DE, MD, VA, OH, FL, MI, WI, MN, IA, CO, NM, CA, OR, WA, HI, IL, and NV. Of the 52 Senators who represent those states all but 5 were Democrats (Martinez, Ensign, Collins, Grassley, and Snowe). In addition we had 2 Senators in WV, AR, and MT plus one Senator in each of LA, NC, AK, NE, MO, ND, SD. Now even with all of that we had 60 Senators for only a few months due to Franken not being seated until July and Brown's win several months later. If we don't get rid of the filibuster it will take 60 senators to get anything done if we win in 2016 or any other time. If you think the GOP won't behave this way again after the way it worked for them this time you are naive. If you think the GOP will tolerate us behaving the same way if they win in 2016 you are also naive. Keeping the filibuster is a recipe for us never getting anything done while it puts pretty much no restraint upon the GOP. We won't ever see 60 Senators again.

[geek tragedy]

1. Congress is pretty much permanently irrelevant

when it comes to substantive policy making.

It is there to sign checks and hold hearings. The work of dealing with the challenges facing our country and our planet resides solely in the executive branch.

[dsc]

2. tell that to the gays who couldn't serve openly

even though the President wanted them to and now can because the Congress let them. Tell that to the people who have health care now who didn't before. I can go on.

[geek tragedy]

4. That was a past era.

2010 changed everything.

Democrats won't control the House for several decades. And the Republicans are both incapable and disinterested in doing anything but cutting taxes and social spending.

They take "do nothing" as a compliment.

The only way Congress becomes relevant is when the Republican Party attains permanent minority status there.

[Recursion]

3. Eh?

Where do you think policy comes from, then? All the President does nowadays is introduce a budget, and one of those hasn't passed in years.

[geek tragedy]

5. Executive interpretations and agency rule

making.

Republicans will have a hammer lock on the House and will have at least 41 votes in the Senate for decades.

And they're all functionally irredeemably sociopathic nihilists.

[MFrohike]

6. Well, there's a thought

I'm curious how your dictator plans to appropriate money, tinker with the tax code, fix our horrendously broken bankruptcy code, make necessary changes to federal criminal sentencing, finally end the drug war, establish real standards for emissions, regulate the FIRE sector, overhaul the ridiculously broken immigration system, and actually implement basic changes to federal governance that will affect people's lives without Congress. Do tell.

[geek tragedy]

7. I said congress is there to sign checks.

Immigration: Obama will show us next week.

Emissions : he's taken several actions on this issue, with carbon regulation via the EPA on the way.

Bankruptcy code-- no positive changes can be made. Sorry.

DOJ can use prosecutorial discretion on drugs.

[MFrohike]

8. Hahahaha

Quite a change of tone from your first post. Also, a real lack of understanding when it comes to money. Congress appropriates, the executive spends. In short, Treasury signs checks.

As for the rest, it's good to see that you do realize that Congress is a bit more than a forum for hearings and a mislabeled accounts payable department. The fact that it's led by a pack of corrupt idiots doesn't make holding it any less necessary. Without it, executive actions will necessary be limited and of quite dubious legality, not to mention legitimacy.

[geek tragedy]

9. Ever heard of a metaphor?

Like it or not, all policy change for the better will come out of the executive. If legislation is necessary, it won't happen.

[MFrohike]

10. Heh

That "metaphor" wasn't clear from the context of the rest of your posts.

Any policy change by the executive can easily be overridden by Congress. Not only that, but the executive is necessarily limited when he's acting within the scope of Congress' constitutionally delegated powers. Add in the fact that rule by executive order smacks of royal decrees and you have a situation that's tailor-made to shoot you in the foot. The smarter move would be to lean on people to pressure the Congress to pass a law that would actually be effective, but that's not how Washington works.