3 ms·
That's the important question. If the answer is, "not that many", then this would probably lead to gridlock. Not the worst outcome, I guess.
by dharmon 10y ago
That's the important question. If the answer is, "not that many", then this would probably lead to gridlock. Not the worst outcome, I guess.
- mywittyname 10y agoBasically the continuation of the last six years of Congress.
- trav4225 10y agoCongress was, in part, designed for gridlock.
- nickff 10y agoThe past few Congresses have done a good job of passing large numbers of resolutions, but the President has not been signing them into law.[1] It seems to me that the 'problem' (if you believe there should be more laws) is a disagreement between branches or obstinancy by the President. [1] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics
- kbenson 10y ago> Not the worst outcome, I guess. It's both comical and sad that I think you're correct in that assessment, but only because it's been so gridlocked already, that it's just the continuation of what we know and what we know it to be pretty shitty.
- vidarh 10y agoIt will just lead to lawmakers getting more creative about merging laws together into monstrosities that meets the "quota" without actually achieving any real change and/or that uses the oportunity to expand the reach.