Who really is in control.

[Ziggy]

It always makes me laugh how people put so much emphasis on the President and his control of all things government. Saying Clinton did so much great, or Bush ruined our economy is 8 years, or Obama cant fix the economy shows a lack of understanding how the government works. The President is but a small piece of the policy puzzle, we cant forget Congress, voters, and the sheeple. Clinton pushed for some good balanced budget policies, Bush helped our country from falling into a financial mess after 9/11, and Obama (well I think he has complained enough about what he inherited). But seriously sometimes no matter what the policy a President and Congress can't make the Sheeple spend money, invest in companies, hire people, and push for personal success. Sometimes voters over react and push for too much change which tends to compound the problem rather than make it better.

 

In regards to the election, I would rather see nominees go through a vetting much like Supreme court justices, make sure they will execute the office properly and understand what is expected of them. Having a proper vetting process that is open to the public to review would I think make for a much more informed voting block, and would help stop rumors from spreading (Birthers).

[knapplc]

I think the root cause is 1) ignorance of how government works and 2) laziness. I'm guilty of both. I can't claim to have intricate knowledge of how government works, although I do have rudimentary understandings of the budget process and of course the relationship between the House, the Senate and the Presidency. But in conversations it's far easier to break something down by The Clinton Era or The Bush Era than to figure out who controlled which chamber at which time, whose policies and proposals held sway, and how they affected America.

[JJ Husker]

I think both of you have summed it up pretty well. The President is not as all important as we treat him. IMO, the Congress is way more influential in how things government really go. The President will always be held accountable for how things went (are going) during his regime but, it is not always fair to the person. Bush got sidetracked on the war on terror and took his eye off the economy. IMO, not entirely his fault but rather a victim of circumstance. Obama inherited some economic problems , not necessarily his fault. Congress approves budgets and is responsible for any money that is spent, not the President. Sure, the Pres may have an agenda that somebody doesn't like but most everything that gets implemented is because of Congress. I guess it's easier to blame one man who can be identified with a D or R behind his name than it is to hold a mixture of 400-500 D's & R's accountable. If we started doing that, we would realize how broke our system really is and that some good old fashioned revolution was in order. I think we're just too complacent for that. So, in a way, we deserve what we are allowing to happen.

[carlfense]

Obama inherited some economic problems, not necessarily his fault.

"some economic problems" and "not necessarily?"

 

Come on, JJ.

 

(FWIW, I mostly agree with the rest of your post.)

[Comish]

Pretty much agree, but there are some changes in the ways/definitions/interpretations that used to be pretty much in agreement by both parties.

 

Executive privilege is now being claimed for many more dubious reasons than originally intended; congress (in violation) fails to produce budgets as required; litmus tests are uniformly applied to judicial appointments;

So many seeking office do NOT to take strong positions early in careers because a paper trail may come back to bite them; etc.

 

Worst of all, we have allowed the creation of a professional political CLASS that was clearly not what the framers intended................and we are all the worse off because of it......

[JJ Husker]

Obama inherited some economic problems, not necessarily his fault.

"some economic problems" and "not necessarily?"

 

Come on, JJ.

 

(FWIW, I mostly agree with the rest of your post.)

Give me a break already, You know I don't like him. Don't expect me to give him too much slack. "some" economic problems may have been "a little" understated. But, I'll stick by the "not necessarily" comment though. He was a member of Congress during some of GW's term and I do not believe he has shown any propensity for having any better economic plans and certainly has not gotten any better ones implemented.

[ZRod]

Comish you bring up some of my biggest problems with the government at present. I'm to young to really remember Clinton or Bush Sr. but since GW it seems the Executive branch has vastly grown its powers in the last few decades. They may not have much control over the budget and fiscal policies, but their ability to take away citizen's and non citizen's rights is alarming.

 

And about the professional class of politicians, why is it that they can make so much more money than those they represent. I have no idea how their salaries are determined but they make something like $174,000 a year, and just doing a quick google search the mean household income in the U.S. was only about $60,528 for 2009. That's almost three times as much as the average household income...

[carlfense]

Give me a break already, You know I don't like him.

I know that. However, reality is what it is. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Obama . . . we don't need to make them up.

[BigRedBuster]

The President is very important because he sets the tone for the country and the government. If he pushes policies to go a certain way, they will tend to go that way even though it's congress is actually doing the dirty work.

 

If we have a President who is far left, the policies will be everywhere from center to left. If we have a President that is far right, we will have policies that are center to right.

 

The congressmen from the opposite side spend their time fighting against those policies not promoting theirs.