Bush knocked down the towers.

[Ralath]

I don't believe the President is a puppet, but I don't think he really has the power to enact real change because of congress. Congress has the real power and they know it... and all the people buying their votes know it too. Don't blame the president for the problems blame the Congress they are the ones passing bills filled with pork and money payoffs.

I don't think the President is a puppet either. But I do think that the President has plenty of sway. If a President wants to get a bill into Congress, he can't do it himself but he can get someone to do it for him. Also, it has been well-documented that the power of the executive branch has been steadily increasing over the past couple of administrations. The executive branch can do a lot of things without having to resort to Congress.

Please name the good things Clinton got done for the people of the United States.

A balanced budget, for one. Economic growth, for another. And no, believe it or not, it was not solely due to the Republican's control in Congress. Otherwise, common sense would dictate that a Republican Congress+a Republican president would have left us off in better conditions than we are now...?

No it doesn't. But it should show that if they are willing to break the trust and vows they have given to their spouse that they would be willing to break any promise that they have given to the public. If you know a person is an admitted liar with low morals who can't be trusted, do you want them to lead you and your family.

*shrug* If you know that a person knows that something is untrue, but tries to espouse it as truth anyway just to achieve his own goals, would you trust that person? Hell. Thomas Jefferson was believed to have a mistress, an belief now backed by DNA evidence, and people regard him rather fondly nowadays, don't they? I do believe there is a difference between what happens in people's private and public lives.

Does our government have problems... Yes, and without real reform to the congress this will never change. Why is it that the President has only a maximum of 8 years to try and make changes and gets blamed if things go wrong, but congress can sit on their seats for a lifetime and no one blames them for anything. I never hear anyone complain about the job their congress people do.

Actually, Congress does get blamed for a lot of things. :3 I remember reading an article from the Rolling Stones about how the 109th Congress has done very little. It's a good read. Highly recommended. In fact, I'll even find it for you. Worst Congress Ever. And the Democratic majority in Congress received very low approval ratings after the honeymoon period was over because the public blamed them for not accomplishing anything. But the President is the figurehead of the United States--he's a lot easier to blame than 100 senators and 400+ representatives.

[Hraesvelg]

I remember reading an article from the Rolling Stones

That Mick Jagger is an insightful bugger.

Actually, Matt Taibbi is a rather interesting columnist to read. I've also seen him quite a few times on Real Time with Bill Maher. Good call.

[koager]

A balanced budget, for one. Economic growth, for another. And no, believe it or not, it was not solely due to the Republican's control in Congress. Otherwise, common sense would dictate that a Republican Congress+a Republican president would have left us off in better conditions than we are now...?

I liked Clinton
yeah the US's economy was up during his presidency
so he had an affair
It is the society that is making it such a big deal, other countries may just ignore it.
Also, this hasn't been the first time. There have been quite a few presidents in the past who had affairs. An example would be FDR. It was known that he had an affair with his secretary, so much that when he died his wife didn't even bother, and yet he is still remembered as one of the greatest presidents in the history of the US (He is ranked up there with Washington and Lincoln due to his contributions for pulling the US out of Great Depression).

[Hraesvelg]

Hmm, I know a lot of people who can't stand FDR because of the New Deal. He did expand the reach of the Federal government, which in hindsight probably wasn't for the best. Of course, there are also a lot of people who don't hold Lincoln in that high of a regard because of his suspension of habeus corpus and refusal to recognize states' rights. Poli sci is fun!

[Manzcar]

I prefer it when Congress gets nothing done. Remember what happens when they DO start doing things? We get lovely things like the PATRIOT Act.

patriot act was an over reaction. But getting nothing done means we don't need you. So why do we need a congress that can't get anything done.

A balanced budget, for one. Economic growth, for another. And no, believe it or not, it was not solely due to the Republican's control in Congress. Otherwise, common sense would dictate that a Republican Congress+a Republican president would have left us off in better conditions than we are now...?

A balanced budget... who's been lying to you. If the national debt increases the budget is not balanced. The debt has increased every year since 1961. Bush has not done anything to rectify this either. But Clinton did not balance the budget.

To begin with economics has a 5 to 10 year lag to be felt. What that means is that if a president does something today to help the economy the real effect is not felt for 5 to 10 years. So looking at how the economy was during a Presidency is not a good indicator as to how the President did. Secondly the economy was not in good shape during the Clinton era it was over inflated due to lowering interest rates and a weakening dollar that was propped up by a Fed who wanted to see the stock market climb more than to really stabalize the economy. We are now feeling the effects of the Fed's handy work. (notice the president doesn't control the US economy but the Fed does)

*shrug* If you know that a person knows that something is untrue, but tries to espouse it as truth anyway just to achieve his own goals, would you trust that person? Hell. Thomas Jefferson was believed to have a mistress, an belief now backed by DNA evidence, and people regard him rather fondly nowadays, don't they? I do believe there is a difference between what happens in people's private and public lives.

At what point do you then say a person's private life is their own thing. Murder, assault, theft, abuse these are all private matters. So at what point do you say what you do in your private life should effect what I think of you.

Actually, Congress does get blamed for a lot of things. :3 I remember reading an article from the Rolling Stones about how the 109th Congress has done very little. It's a good read. Highly recommended. In fact, I'll even find it for you. Worst Congress Ever. And the Democratic majority in Congress received very low approval ratings after the honeymoon period was over because the public blamed them for not accomplishing anything. But the President is the figurehead of the United States--he's a lot easier to blame than 100 senators and 400+ representatives.

I'll have to check that out

That Mick Jagger is an insightful bugger.

Actually, Matt Taibbi is a rather interesting columnist to read. I've also seen him quite a few times on Real Time with Bill Maher. Good call.

LOL

[secbro20]

Dam straight goverment is messed up...Barack the vote!!!!

Barack won't change anything. He thinks Iran is a problem. He wants to cut taxes but wants to increase spending ( Universal Health Care isn't free people) That would actually involve taxing you MORE than you already are ( You could expect to lose between 30%-50% of your paycheck if we get Universal Health care). He wants the government to take care of more and more people which means higher taxes to pay for the new programs.

YAY Socialism! Please take more of my money! I'm not using it for anything important like my own well being and happiness! Take it off my hands because other wise I might not use it for the "common good"!

[Hraesvelg]

Whom do you suggest we vote for, sec?

[secbro20]

Whom do you suggest we vote for, sec?

I don't go around telling people who to vote for. If you support a candidate's positions, then you should vote for him. If you support Barack's ideas, then vote for him. McCain, then vote for him. I am voting for neither. Even though my candidate will not win, I'd rather vote for someone I fully support then vote for someone just because they have a chance at winning. I look towards the independents because I know where they stand. The republicans and democrats only care about hugging the middle in order to gain the most votes. They have no real ideas or solutions. They just say want everyone wants to hear so they can get more votes than the other party.

I've been asked by many people, "Why are you throwing your vote away?" Frankly, I think that if you vote for someone who you don't really know/support but who you know has a possibility of winning or if you vote along party lines without actually thinking and judging for yourself, then it is you who throw your vote away.

[Hraesvelg]

Perhaps I did sort of skip around the question, but I was wondering who you were supporting.

[koager]

They have no real ideas or solutions. They just say want everyone wants to hear so they can get more votes than the other party.

Yes.
And thus why the presidents have so many problems
What people want to hear or not necessarily what is best
Most people don't know anything about the economy or politics, they are living in their own world and only want what will directly impact them for the better directly