|
|
|
|
|
by 4RealFreedom
1230 days ago
|
|
I agree that I didn't use lame duck in the textbook definition but it does show the derogatory nature of not doing anything. Likewise congress would be called ineffective if they didn't pass laws. We often hear about gridlock when there's a balance of power with the 2 party system. I think saying 'deliberately designed to make doing something impossible' is an overstatement. Compromise is required. I see more and more that neither party wants to compromise, though. From my perspective, it's hard to talk about any Federal action that would be of benefit. Granted I'm jaded from seeing and being part of second order consequences. What kind of Federal action did you have in mind? Edit
I didn't address one of your points. You said the laws largely accomplished their purpose. What did you see as their purpose? |
|
Patriot act was ultimately designed to avoid the types of failures to coordinate that stopped the authorities from preventing 9/11 attacks. It was very successful at that aim, but created a bunch of other problems in the process. My statement isn’t an endorsement of it.
ACA reduced the number of uninsured individuals by 50%, eliminated a few key policy holes (ie pre-existing conditions) and slowed cost growth.