Export thread

Ok. First of, my English skill needs work I'll try to edit and re-edit them to be as coherent as possible. I am trying to dump all my thoughts on this subject into words.

I was on the phone with one of my parents' client. I was going to drop off some products that they needed and need the direction to their home. I told them where I work and the customer starts going off with "You are lucky to have work! I don't know what is Obama is doing all this time" I went like "okkkkkk, where is your address again?"

I didn't want to get into a debate with her since it won't end well, but it got me thinking. Who's fault is it anyways when things doesn't go our way?

I know the President is our main executive figure head. Limit 4 year terms with 2 terms max. But is the President responsible for everything?

I took some government course. I remember that some big policy (mainly that require money) usually need Legislative branch (House and Senate) approval. Now while House has 2 year limits, but no term limit, and senates are 6 years with no term limit. Wouldn't the fault lies in Congress more than President?

So far on the news (if you can consider it to be reliable), you hear that President need Congress to pass this, vote for that, negotiate for this and that....... I wonder at the end of the day, the President seems to be an executive scapegoat when things goes wrong.

You can get a change of presidency every 4 year, but you hardly see the senate change that often (I have read that many have made a career for 30+ years)

so..... who's fault is it anyway?

You are correct in that most of the responsibility lies in the legislature, but the President also acts as his party's poster boy and "cheerleader-in-chief." But often it IS like a quarterback: he gets too much credit for successes and too much blame for hardships.

But you have to keep in mind, a lot of the mindless hordes bought into Obama's campaign messages - that everything was going to change and everything would be awesome if they elected Obama. There were actually people who thought that Obama was (personally, no less) going to make it so they didn't have to pay rent and would be rich. He pretty much did promise whatever your heart yearns for, without actually getting specific ("Hope and Change!"), and that led a lot of people to imagine him as their magic bullet solution to whatever their particular pet issue was. And now they're disillusioned.

GasBandit said:

You are correct in that most of the responsibility lies in the legislature, but the President also acts as his party's poster boy and "cheerleader-in-chief." But often it IS like a quarterback: he gets too much credit for successes and too much blame for hardships.

But you have to keep in mind, a lot of the mindless hordes bought into Obama's campaign messages - that everything was going to change and everything would be awesome if they elected Obama. There were actually people who thought that Obama was (personally, no less) going to make it so they didn't have to pay rent and would be rich. He pretty much did promise whatever your heart yearns for, without actually getting specific ("Hope and Change!"), and that led a lot of people to imagine him as their magic bullet solution to whatever their particular pet issue was. And now they're disillusioned.

Click to expand...

How is that different from any other President in the past?

(This could get heated) I personally believe that Obama is getting more flak lately because the color of his skin. My memory may be failing on me, but I remember at least each president (after Regan) promise something and sometimes don't deliver, but this time I feel Obama is getting more flak than other president.

I hate the quarterback analogy, because it doesn't really fit. He's not really on the field, and is only a poster boy. You want a better analogy? The President acts as the Coach. he suggests the plays, but at the end of the day Congress is calling the shots.

Chibibar said:

How is that different from any other President in the past?

(This could get heated) I personally believe that Obama is getting more flak lately because the color of his skin. My memory may be failing on me, but I remember at least each president (after Regan) promise something and sometimes don't deliver, but this time I feel Obama is getting more flak than other president.

Click to expand...

Most previous presidents promised specific things and didn't deliver on them, which only pisses off people who cared about those specific things, which isn't "everybody." In fact, it'd be less than half of everybody, by far, usually. As was covered in the media at the time, Obama's promises and platitudes were pretty much unprecedentedly vague. And his charisma was such that even many a jaded American really believed him. "This time it'll be different!" Obama went into office with really great numbers. His election and inauguration could only be described as the "feel good event of the decade." It was all downright messianic.

He then went on to have the fastest falling approval rating since as long as they have been measured. The disapproval rate now sits around 50%.

You gotta be careful how high up you perch, because you have that much farther to fall.

Krisken said:

I hate the quarterback analogy, because it doesn't really fit. He's not really on the field, and is only a poster boy. You want a better analogy? The President acts as the Coach. he suggests the plays, but at the end of the day Congress is calling the shots.

Click to expand...

Yea and people tend to "forget" that and just blame the President.

---------- Post added at 02:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:35 PM ----------

GasBandit said:

Most previous presidents promised specific things and didn't deliver on them, which only pisses off people who cared about those specific things, which isn't "everybody." In fact, it'd be less than half of everybody, by far, usually. As was covered in the media at the time, Obama's promises and platitudes were pretty much unprecedentedly vague. And his charisma was such that even many a jaded American really believed him. "This time it'll be different!" Obama went into office with really great numbers. His election and inauguration could only be described as the "feel good event of the decade." It was all downright messianic.

He then went on to have the fastest falling approval rating since as long as they have been measured. The disapproval rate now sits around 50%.

You gotta be careful how high up you perch, because you have that much farther to fall.

Click to expand...

Yea. Of course Obama is trying to fix all the issue from past President or in this case Congress. I remember that Congress was quick to pass the Bail out Bill part 1 before Bush left office. Now I am reading articles it is all Obama's fault for doing it. Heck, Obama is continuing some of Bush's policy and people STILL hate it but love it when it was Bush's idea (the continue of bail out bill part 2 is a good example)

Actually, very few conservatives liked Bush's TARP either.

Looks like plenty of Conservatives voted for it anyways.
Some of those names might surprise you

Krisken said:

Looks like plenty of Conservatives voted for it anyways.
Some of those names might surprise you

Click to expand...

I didn't mean republican politicans, who are only conservative when they think it will get them votes, and usually then only SOCIALLY conservative, which is really just fake conservatism anyway.

That it came from a site called "RINO list" actually illustrates my point - it shows that conservatives weren't happy with the republicans that voted for it.

Anyways, back on topic (and away from the trolling), without Congress Obama is pretty useless. He had to wrangle and remove half of his promises just to please individual Congressmen to get a weak healthcare bill. And that was with his own party. Even then, many members of the party (and those who voted for him) were not pleased with what needed to be done to even get that.

Krisken said:

Anyways, back on topic (and away from the trolling), without Congress Obama is pretty useless.

Click to expand...

I suppose we'll find out exactly how useless after november.

GasBandit;431556][QUOTE=Krisken said:

Anyways, back on topic (and away from the trolling), without Congress Obama is pretty useless.

Click to expand...

I suppose we'll find out exactly how useless after november.[/QUOTE]

Yea..... we'll see on that. Let the mud slinging begin?

Chibibar;431558][QUOTE=GasBandit;431556][QUOTE=Krisken said:

Anyways, back on topic (and away from the trolling), without Congress Obama is pretty useless.

Click to expand...

I suppose we'll find out exactly how useless after november.[/QUOTE]

Yea..... we'll see on that. Let the mud slinging begin?[/QUOTE]

Well, historically speaking (outside time of war), midterms usually change the majority over to whatever party didn't win the presidency.

Chibibar;431558][QUOTE=GasBandit;431556][QUOTE=Krisken said:

Anyways, back on topic (and away from the trolling), without Congress Obama is pretty useless.

Click to expand...

I suppose we'll find out exactly how useless after november.[/QUOTE]

Yea..... we'll see on that. Let the mud slinging begin?[/QUOTE]
Not really any point. Considering how useless both parties in Congress have been, it really is a crap shoot. Neither party really has much to offer.

Our campaign finance system really needs to be slapped around some. The ways in which corporations, PACs, and national parties can contribute both people and money to local representatives is one of the things that really keeps us locked into our two-party system.

SpecialKO said:

Our campaign finance system really needs to be slapped around some. The ways in which corporations, PACs, and national parties can contribute both people and money to local representatives is one of the things that really keeps us locked into our two-party system.

Click to expand...

I don't see that changing. That is like, "hey, lets change the way we get paid"

Chibibar;431578][QUOTE=SpecialKO said:

Our campaign finance system really needs to be slapped around some. The ways in which corporations, PACs, and national parties can contribute both people and money to local representatives is one of the things that really keeps us locked into our two-party system.

Click to expand...

I don't see that changing. That is like, "hey, lets change the way we get paid"[/QUOTE]
Plus with the recent court ruling on company donations, it would be nearly impossible to push it back in the other direction.

Is Obama Taking Credit for Iraq Too Soon? - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Obama gets blame for the economic and war issues. Obama now gets criticize for taking credit.

Heh, guilting them into doing what is right isn't going to persuade them. I do wish him luck, though.