DumberDrummer

I'm not exactly the most politically literate person out there, but I have a real question (not trying to flame any particular candidate here)

I see a lot of "I'm gonna do this" and "I'm gonna do that" when I'm elected, but I'm really at a loss to understand how presidents go about this.

Both Obama and McCain talk about fixing problems a lot, and they've bandied about a whole lot of ideas about the economy, health care, and other things. For example, I recall in one of the debates, McCain stating that he was going to give a tax break to americans to purchase their own health insurance.

How would he go about doing something like that? AFAIK the president can only approve or disapprove new legislation, he cant actually introduce it. He may be the president, but he can't just order people to do things (Executive orders and signing statements aren't supposed to be acting as line-item vetoes for the pres). I guess the pres is responsible for the budget as well, but that has to be approved by congress. So to me it sounds like what they are promising depends a whole hell of a lot on congress cooperating with them.

Is there something here I'm missing?

manic

Its all talk ie politics. Mccain said in the last debate that he could
balance the budget in 4 years, I about fell out of my chair. Obama
has said some doozeys as well, its all talk. The president can introduce
legislation, and suggest things, but his biggest tool is the power of
his veto.
I dont believe what any of them say. Its all talk. I wish we could
eliminate the 2 party system all together, wont happen.

bry623

The president can actually do nothing. All he can do is try to wheedle Congress into helping him out. Bush had a majority in both houses and cut taxes. Reagan did not and had to fight to get part of what he wanted.

linderman

the president influences what gets done and what doesnt get done in a huge way, congress knows to work on legislation he wont sign is a waste of time almost always ....... very rarely do they have the numbers to overide his veto

we wont even get into the horse trading swaps that occur ........ if your state wants a bridge than you better "push" for this as payback

bry623

So it's all about working together.

linderman

yes; but some candidates have far more "listening" qualities than others ..... Regan for example


and King George as the opposite = "the great decider"

bry623

That's not fair. Bush listened very well to Jesus.

RedScott

Wellllllll.......anyone can write new legislation. Even you. You just can't vote on it. Also if you send a piece of legislation to your congressmen he's apt to ignore it, but if the POTUS sends it to him you can bet he'll give it his full attention.

SABL

What does the President do?? He takes the blame (whether or not he wants it) for any failures during his administration. The president relies on his cabinet members to inform him of problems and possible solutions or what action is appropriate. But, in the end, it is the President who selects his cabinet members and therefore is to blame??

The President may have veto power (which can be overturned) but he is not in absolute control of the country, he can only attempt to guide the direction in which the country is headed. A hostile House or Senate can (and has) made many a President look rather foolish and incompitent.

President= Head Coach
Cabinet= Assistant Coaches
Players (both sides)= House and Senate
Fans= The People

You just hope the coach makes the right call from input from his assistants, the players accept and execute the play, and all the fans are happy.

I wish it was REALLY that simple.

linderman

GW should have been given his walking papers loooooong ago ......... but it took the american people too long to drop the "kool-aid" cups

manic

9-11 got gw re-elected. What a goof, him and cheney should be locked
up, imo. Gettin off topic, but Im sorry, worst president that ever came
down the sewer. I would like to have a peek at president cheneys
stock portfolio prior to the presidency and take a peek now, the same
with his side kick gw. Never happen. They never cared about America,
it was all about the money. F****** antichrist.

linderman

AMEN brother ................... now we can give the socialist a shot

SABL

Actually both Capitalism and Socialism are practiced in the US. The very first colony was based on Socialism if I remember my American History correctly. Both systems need to be applied in moderation; the government can't just give everything away and the Capitalists should not be allowed to rape the populace. The Capitalists have been running rampant for the last 8yrs and I feel it is time realign our steering mechanism before we run off the road.

Who's in your wallet?? ( I just love those Capital One commercials...but they have the closing line incorrect)

linderman

SABL .................... you said a mouthful there !!!!!!!!!!!!!!1





I wanted to puke when I heard how much money some of the banking and investment firms are setting aside for managment bonuses ...... and these are all corporations that need a governement bail to avoid bankruptcy! thats horrible! how do you get a bonus to run a corporation into the muck ????????

let walmart run the US government ........ they will show you how to shake things up!

mikeber

The rationalization for this is that they "do not want to lose talent". I heard these words even from NYC mayor, who together with the governor are calling for "deep and painful budget cuts". Budget cuts are necessary, but should not to harm "talent".
This phenomena seems uniquely American.
I have a few questions which are never answered:
1) Talent is found in all sectors. Why aren't they afraid to lose talent in lower ranks or in places like the city police or water departments? Why the talented people in production rooms, IT departments, quality control or other such places are always dispensable, while those at the top cannot go on even one day without a $100 million bonus??
2) How could talent exist and flourish in the 50s and 60s when the gap between the average employee and upper management was narrower and $100K was a great annual income for the top brass. At that time there were many inventors and brilliant guys who lead world industries, even without $100 million bonuses.
3) How those at the top of big corporations can be that isolated from the average life and existence in the US?

linderman

good points Mike ????


I often wonder if these are not just a means to an end

If I am a CEO and push for you to get a 3million dollar bonus ...... and you get it ...... would not my bonus be worth how many more times that than yours ?