Why is Congress so useless and can it be fixed? With voter ID crashing and burning is it worth asking, why is Congress so useless?

[Kelley1]

It takes lots of money to win elections.

By margins of almost 2 to 1 cross party voters want secure borders, foreign aid slashed to basically zero. By 3 to one, they want less federal spending. By 4 to1 they wants less federal debt, lower taxes, lower immigration, tougher crackdown on violent crime. Voter ID is 5 to 1 including a strong majority Democrat. Smaller deficits are 9:1 . Yet, none of this happens. Instead, voters are the tax donkey.

The Senate ruled that laws need 60 % of votes, meaning only uniarty approved laws get through. But we're talking stuff with 5 to 1 support cross party. These should sail through Congress like 80:20. And yet they do not. The answer, alas, is simple. The voters don't matter. They get outbid by special interests in both parties. A widely cited paper by a pair of left-wing political scientists at Princeton and Northwestern analyzed , policy issues over a 20 -year period and found popularity among voters has zero influence whether something becomes a law. Meaning a policy with 80% support, everybody loves it, stands no better chance of becoming law than a policy with 30% support, everybody hates it. So what does matter? preferences of donors, special interests like unions and NOS's and the richest voters. In other words, this is not a democracy. It is an oligarchy.

A given policy is a small deal for the typical voter. Pay three bucks a year for the sugar cartel, but it's a very big deal for the sugar cartel. Multiply that across every industry, every NGO issue, every teachers union, and it becomes a straight jacket.

[Lliam]

You answered your own question. Congress is for sale. A congress person's main job is to raise money for their party. And all of them are also in business to get rich.

Top lobbyists:
1. Pharmaceuticals and Health Products.
2. Electronics Manufacturing, IT, and Internet
3. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate.
4. Defense and Air Transport.
5. Israel.
6. Business Associations and Labor Unions.

[Kelley1]

Very good.

[Lliam]

Thank you.

[NathanDavis]

well, they might seem to be useless for the people... people like you and me

but for their masters... the ones who paid for their campaigns and their dozens of aids as well as their seats in congress itself... so they can have them as puppets

they are doing a great job at serving them

[abc3643]

THIS:

By margins of almost 2 to 1 cross party voters want secure borders, foreign aid slashed to basically zero. By 3 to one, they want less federal spending. By 4 to1 they wants less federal debt, lower taxes, lower immigration, tougher crackdown on violent crime. Voter ID is 5 to 1 including a strong majority Democrat. Smaller deficits are 9:1

I'm not debating your numbers but what are you repeatable sources of these numbers?

In the real world of industry or academia, you need to cite sources so people can effectively judge your assertions.

[Kelley1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrd_NErdKEk

[abc3643]

A YouTube video is not a reputable source. Now, if the video cites explicit sources, then you should list them so we can follow them.

However Peter St. Onge isn't a quack but he should provide sources in his video.

[Kelley1]

@abc3643 I realize that YouTube is not a reliable source, and half the videos are clickbait (lies) to attract more views. Nevertheless, there are people who post YouTube videos that I believe are accurate. That is one that I believe is accurate. However, you have the right to disregard his statements.

[abc3643]

Oh, I'm not debating that nor am I debating what he says. What I am trying to do is to impart to you to be a better, more persuasive arguer. Arguments of the form "Well, Bob said so." isn't very convincing. (In law, this is called "hearsay" which is generally inadmissible.) Now, if Bob can make the case, then maybe Bob is onto something... You've cited "Bob" (Peter St. Onge), but, even though "Bob" has some credentials, he's giving specific numbers and, when they happens, those "Bob" is attempting to convince want "Bob" to provide sources or evidence for his assertions.

So, for instance, you-via-"Bob" (again, St. Onge) assert this:
"2 to 1 cross party voters want... foreign aid slashed to basically zero."

I don't buy that prima facie. I want evidence and definitions. (What is a "cross party voter"? Does that include Independents who are actually the plurality of voters?) For instance, according to Pew Researches poll last year, 28% of voters are Democrats, 31% are Republicans, but the remaining 41% are Independents. (Now, here I am citing that fact: www.pewresearch.org/.../

So, for all I know "cross party voters" could be a significant part of the electorate or a small part of the electorate. So, since you used that phrase without definition, the onus is one you to get the definition. However, since you cited "Bob", then he needs to define that or source it and you need to echo that.

I could keep going on and on, but I will leave you with this: Part of arguing in which you are attempting to persuade intelligent people (who are likely stakeholders that you are trying to convince of something) is to be prepared with sources and evidence.

SO, if you want some "homework-not-to-hand-in", find for me 1) the definition of a cross party voter and 2) where their opinions of foreign aid are discussed. (I might be able to help you with that: My first attempt would be to try Pew Research. This is exactly the sort of question that they'd poll about.)

[abc3643]

Oh, I'm not debating that nor am I debating what he says. What I am trying to do is to impart to you to be a better, more persuasive arguer. Arguments of the form "Well, Bob said so." isn't very convincing. (In law, this is called "hearsay" which is generally inadmissible.) Now, if Bob can make the case, then maybe Bob is onto something... You've cited "Bob" (Peter St. Onge), but, even though "Bob" has some credentials, he's giving specific numbers and, when they happens, those "Bob" is attempting to convince want "Bob" to provide sources or evidence for his assertions.

So, for instance, you-via-"Bob" (again, St. Onge) assert this:
"2 to 1 cross party voters want... foreign aid slashed to basically zero."

I don't buy that prima facie. I want evidence and definitions. (What is a "cross party voter"? Does that include Independents who are actually the plurality of voters?) For instance, according to Pew Researches poll last year, 28% of voters are Democrats, 31% are Republicans, but the remaining 41% are Independents. (Now, here I am citing that fact: www.pewresearch.org/.../

(more)

[abc3643]

So, for all I know "cross party voters" could be a significant part of the electorate or a small part of the electorate. So, since you used that phrase without definition, the onus is one you to get the definition. However, since you cited "Bob", then he needs to define that or source it and you need to echo that.

I could keep going on and on, but I will leave you with this: Part of arguing in which you are attempting to persuade intelligent people (who are likely stakeholders that you are trying to convince of something) is to be prepared with sources and evidence.

SO, if you want some "homework-not-to-hand-in", find for me 1) the definition of a cross party voter and 2) where their opinions of foreign aid are discussed. (I might be able to help you with that: My first attempt would be to try Pew Research. This is exactly the sort of question that they'd poll about.)

[abc3643]

About Peter St. Onge...

I can't really comment about the guy, but I am concerned about how he earns his money...
He was with The Heritage Foundation (not a great credential) and with the Mises Institute, but left them. Supposedly, he has returned to The Heritage Foundation although his LinkedIn profile - which he is responsible for - says he ended his time with them in DEC 2024.

But, I am a bit concerned about his video; not what he says, but the people who are sponsoring him. He shouldn't need sponsors... He lists them, but he doesn't list his sources of info in the video description...

So, personally, I'd want to know more about him...

I am under the impression from his LinkedIn page that he is totally freelance now.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/peterstonge/

[abc3643]

I misspoke. I said "he left them". I should have been more meticulous in my word choice...
He becamed separated from them. There's an important difference with that... If he "left", then that's his choice. If he was fired or not had a contract renewed, that something else. I don't know how, but he is separated from them and that's the proper term to use in the working world.

[Kelley1]

All that is true, but often that takes more time and effort than I'm willing to invest. Most people on this site don't read past the question, let alone look up sources. It would be different if I were submitting a paper in college or making a speech to a group of experts.

[goaded]

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2025/05/01/majorities-of-americans-support-several-but-not-all-types-of-foreign-aid/pg_2025-05-01_us-engagement_0_01/

Is there any point in fact checking the rest?

[molonski2]

We ( Australia) have a two party system , but as many of the moronic voters ( it's compulsory, so not about turn out ) .. NEVER give either party control of both houses , make sure the SENATE is a genuine " house of review " and one sided policy will not pass.

I'm not from USA , so I don't think it's good for me to comment on Congress, I just watch from a distance.


BUT to Australians , don't give these Socialists control , you always need a solid check and balance , then you will never end with a Prime minister who can't speak properly , you want these people NEVER feeling like they control both houses , works best when they are " on edge " .

[najekim]

Unfortunately, we have two major political parties that deeply wishes, and actively pursuing, the controlling of everyone within the borders of The United States in their own ways.

IMHO, the ONLY way to get anything remotely resembling an active government is to push those two major parties out of power enough to where each only has a 32% representation, at most, in both houses of Congress. The remaining 36% will be elected third party candidates.

Then we may have a chance of getting back to a normal, sensible, form of government.

If anyone votes for either a Democrat or a Republican in any capacity, they're actually causing the problem.

[NaultD]

Get money out of politics. Look at how thomas massie lossed to Ed Gallrein. Its the Most Expensive House Primary ever. Lot of it is from groups that want to keep the Iran war going. Ed GallreinEdEd Gallrein Gallrein

[NaultD]

Sorry some error copying and pasting names with new update AI BULLSHIT.

[goaded]

Hawaii and other states are working on it. "SB 2471 Takes on Citizens United".

https://katiephang.substack.com/cp/198961860
"On May 14, 2026, Governor Josh Green signed Senate Bill 2471 into law. Now called Act 011, the law states that corporations and other artificial entities created under Hawaii’s state laws do NOT have the power to spend money or contribute anything of value to influence elections or ballot measures. Instead, these business entities possess only the powers that are “necessary or convenient to carry out their lawful business or organizational purposes.”...

* It applies not only to Hawaii-chartered entities, but also to out-of-state companies that do business in the islands. Imagine how many companies that is!

* Individuals keep all of their First Amendment rights intact so no one is silenced.

* Violations can lead to suspension of the business’ operations, loss of contracts, tax status revocation, or even dissolution...

SB 2471 passed with strong Republican backing, too. In fact, the votes were unanimous in the [state] Senate and near-unanimous in the House."

[Kelley1]

@goaded That would do a lot, but we still have the problem of Jewish billionaires.

[goaded]

Oh, you're one of those.

[exitseven]

Yes the politicians vote for their own interests and not the people that they are supposed to be representing. The save act is a good example. 70% of democrat voters support it but only 3 % of Democrat politicians are in favor of it. The rest are fighting it. They know that if they cannot get the illegal alien vote they will never win another election.

[exitseven]

Term limits will do a lot to help. when you get somebody like John Cornyn or Lindsey Graham who had been getting fat for the last 25-30 years and they couldn't care less about the people that they are supposed to represent and instead they serve their big campaign donors. It should be like the presicency. 2 terms snd you are done.

[glennos89]

The whole political party thing is a big scam and just a distraction from whats really going on. Did you know both republicans and Democrats are funded by the same organization?

Doesn't mather which side you choose. You will never get what you want its just a facade

[DryGermanGuy]

I’m guessing that‘s the price you pay for a two-party system that every so often even behaves like a one-party system?

[Kelley1]

That is what I noticed. Republicans and Democrats talk a different talk, but, except for hot-button issues like flag burning, that don't matter to the elite, they vote alike.

[DryGermanGuy]

The approval numbers of Congress have gotten so bad, that major reforms should be in their own interest. Term limits, age limits, anti-corruption statutes…
But alas. 🤷‍♂️

[Just_Ken]

Can't understand the US and the issue of voter ID, seems like a non issue blown out of proportion. Like every other country requires that when you turn up to vote that you have a form of id to identify yourself

[FreyaRed]

Politic is subverted by lobby groups and they aren't there to pay for decisions and laws which they could get for free because those laws were in interest of majority.

[genericname85]

congress is not useless at all. it's just not usefull for the average joe. it's very usefull for the richest 10% cause they're doing extraordinarily well these days while everyone else is struggling.

[Ariesman81Nshiiit]

The only answer is term limits. Too many politicians voting for safety and security of their seat over what is principled. The Save act failure was probably a combination of greed and spite by a select few RINOS.

[sawno]

They serve the highest bidder since they need the money to stay in power. Last time I checked thats not us.

[Twalli]

Also, most laws that are brought to the floor are not just cut and dry simple. They often have additions that make them untenable to people who support the overarching part of it. If bills were plain and simple without additions that don't really affect the overarching goal of the bill, it'd have a better chance of passing.

[noohair]

There is a collection of Professional Political Overseers that run the country. They have one goal, to get reelected. That is why nothing gets done. It is not about what party is in power. It is the swamp that we have heard about

[Bklynbadboy12]

They are useless cause they dont care about anything but putting money in there pocket. But the beauty of it is it can be fixed but voting these old stuffy out of touch geriatric congressmen and senators our and infusing our government with some young fresh and innovative thinker that can push our government forward

[blueonblack22]

This is why big centralized government is so dangerous.

[Friendlybro79]

Super pacs don't help. They're bribed by either big corporations or foreign lobbies.

[jahaims]

The government is useless because they just launder tax money instead of providing services

[msc545]

There's no rule that says that Congress has to pass all the stupid shit you're in favor of.

[slatyb]

Your statistics are made up MAGAt nonsense.

[eagle1951]

vote um aall out of office start new