Can someone please explain something to me?

[BrianFromWA]

I'm not kidding, I don't quite understand this, and since it's bipartisan I'm hoping to get a gamut of responses.

When I hear the candidates at the debates, I hear about "plans" (for things like health care, tax cuts, education, military withdrawal from Iraq/Afghanistan/Germany/Japan/Korea --oh wait, nevermind the last 3) from both politicians. Yet both have, for at least the last few years, been powerful members of the United States Senate, one half of the legislative branch of the US government. The last time I took civics, the President was the Executor of the policies the Legislative Branch makes, with checks and balances each way. Presidents don't "build plans", they enforce legislation. Hence things like Bush not being able to strong-arm the country into war...Congress voted on it. If they said "No troops in Iraq", there wouldn't be troops in Iraq. A step further...if they wanted, they could say "We're voting to disestablish the US military". (Fallacious, I know...it would be vetoed. But get enough seats and you can do things like that).

So anyway...if Obama/McCain have these great ideas for health care and education and military, why haven't these plans been introduced into Congress already? When has it ever been reality that someone has to be President to have a great idea, and put it through Congress? Where can I read about these plans, to see if I like what either one says?

More than anything, (and again, this is for both candidates and part of the process), I HATE PEOPLE LYING TO ME and attaching pragmatism to it. Of course, I consider myself rather egotistically as part of the very small group that is not part of the mobbing herd mentality of me-first entitlement.

 

[maxiep]

I'm not kidding, I don't quite understand this, and since it's bipartisan I'm hoping to get a gamut of responses.

When I hear the candidates at the debates, I hear about "plans" (for things like health care, tax cuts, education, military withdrawal from Iraq/Afghanistan/Germany/Japan/Korea --oh wait, nevermind the last 3) from both politicians. Yet both have, for at least the last few years, been powerful members of the United States Senate, one half of the legislative branch of the US government. The last time I took civics, the President was the Executor of the policies the Legislative Branch makes, with checks and balances each way. Presidents don't "build plans", they enforce legislation. Hence things like Bush not being able to strong-arm the country into war...Congress voted on it. If they said "No troops in Iraq", there wouldn't be troops in Iraq. A step further...if they wanted, they could say "We're voting to disestablish the US military". (Fallacious, I know...it would be vetoed. But get enough seats and you can do things like that).

So anyway...if Obama/McCain have these great ideas for health care and education and military, why haven't these plans been introduced into Congress already? When has it ever been reality that someone has to be President to have a great idea, and put it through Congress? Where can I read about these plans, to see if I like what either one says?

More than anything, (and again, this is for both candidates and part of the process), I HATE PEOPLE LYING TO ME and attaching pragmatism to it. Of course, I consider myself rather egotistically as part of the very small group that is not part of the mobbing herd mentality of me-first entitlement.

I think the simple answer is that it's all bullshit. Neither of these candidates is going to change anything. In fact, I suspect that an Obama administration will spend more time coming up with excuses how his policy of hope and change can't get done than they will proposing policies. And in a McCain administration, it will just be another four years of gridlock.

I think people are choosing to exchange responsibility for entitlement. Frankly, I don't think very much of the character of the past three generations. Phil Gramm was right; we've become a nation of whiners.

 

[Haakzilla]

I think people are choosing to exchange responsibility for entitlement.

...and liberty for security [sadly enough]!!!

 

[Minstrel]

I think the simple answer is that it's all bullshit. Neither of these candidates is going to change anything. In fact, I suspect that an Obama administration will spend more time coming up with excuses how his policy of hope and change can't get done than they will proposing policies.

Didn't you say Obama and the Democratic congress will be a "socialist steamroller?" This vision of an Obama presidency seems a bit different. Do you think he'll be an activist socialist or a do-nothing president? I can't really see both happening.

 

[maxiep]

Didn't you say Obama and the Democratic congress will be a "socialist steamroller?" This vision of an Obama presidency seems a bit different. Do you think he'll be an activist socialist or a do-nothing president? I can't really see both happening.

I was referring more to not giving 95% of "working families" a tax break. I am also referring to all those programs he wanted to fund but will be unable to do because of the upcoming recession.

That being said, legislation will occur and it will undoubtedly be anti-captialist. I happen to believe that government works best when it's divided. For the next two years, there will be no brake.

 

[MARIS61]

As Senators, they can accomplish things for their state, which is whom they represent.

As far as bigger accomplishments, the President ultimately has Veto power, and has used it often.

Any humanitarian idea can easily be twisted into seeming unpatriotic and dangerous when our entire populace is being told terrorists are scheming to kill us in our beds, and any Senator who bucks that idea has been presented as a traitor by this administration. Voters have followed like frightened sheep and without voter support a Senator can do nothing.

When voters get tired of being afraid, take to the streets and voice LOUDLY that we aren't gonna take it anymore, change will happen.

If you're old enough to remember the sixties, you know what I'm talking about.

If you're NOT old enough to remember the sixties, it's your voice we're waiting to hear screaming in the streets.

 

[Dumpy]

In the primaries, each candidate runs on a set of positions . . . at the party convention, not only is the party presidential candidate (officially) named, but also the party devises its "party platform," which in most cases corresponds to the the views of their presidential candidate. This is a statement of the party's priorities and goals for the next few years. The new platform could, in some cases, be different from their previous platform.

Thus, when a candidate runs, he is really saying, "If you elect me, my party's platform will be ____. Our priorities will be ___."

Of course, each congressman is not bound to the party platform, but it does represent the goals of the senior leadership of the house and senate.

The president, BTW, does not "enforce" legislation. Legislation is enforced by federal departments and agencies, many (but not all) are in the executive branch, which means that they answer to the president. "Independent" agencies are overseen by Congress, and were established by Congress to fulfill a role of expertise to ensure that certain legislation is carried out. I believe that the SEC is an independent agency, which is why tehre is some question as to whether McCain could actually fire the SEC chairman if he was president (the president does nominate the chairmen and commissioners of such agencies, but they are confirmed by the senate, and the idea is that they will be immune from political pressure).

As far as being a "socialist steamroller," I guess we'll see what happens.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I think the simple answer is that it's all bullshit. Neither of these candidates is going to change anything. In fact, I suspect that an Obama administration will spend more time coming up with excuses how his policy of hope and change can't get done than they will proposing policies. And in a McCain administration, it will just be another four years of gridlock.

I think people are choosing to exchange responsibility for entitlement. Frankly, I don't think very much of the character of the past three generations. Phil Gramm was right; we've become a nation of whiners.

Well said. I think McCain is going to represent pretty much the status quo and Obama clearly the standard elitist liberal agenda. In other words, no matter who gets elected, things aren't going to change or get better for the common person.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm not kidding, I don't quite understand this, and since it's bipartisan I'm hoping to get a gamut of responses.

When I hear the candidates at the debates, I hear about "plans" (for things like health care, tax cuts, education, military withdrawal from Iraq/Afghanistan/Germany/Japan/Korea --oh wait, nevermind the last 3) from both politicians. Yet both have, for at least the last few years, been powerful members of the United States Senate, one half of the legislative branch of the US government. The last time I took civics, the President was the Executor of the policies the Legislative Branch makes, with checks and balances each way. Presidents don't "build plans", they enforce legislation. Hence things like Bush not being able to strong-arm the country into war...Congress voted on it. If they said "No troops in Iraq", there wouldn't be troops in Iraq. A step further...if they wanted, they could say "We're voting to disestablish the US military". (Fallacious, I know...it would be vetoed. But get enough seats and you can do things like that).

So anyway...if Obama/McCain have these great ideas for health care and education and military, why haven't these plans been introduced into Congress already? When has it ever been reality that someone has to be President to have a great idea, and put it through Congress? Where can I read about these plans, to see if I like what either one says?

More than anything, (and again, this is for both candidates and part of the process), I HATE PEOPLE LYING TO ME and attaching pragmatism to it. Of course, I consider myself rather egotistically as part of the very small group that is not part of the mobbing herd mentality of me-first entitlement.

The War Powers Act would have permitted the president (Bush) to all-out invade Iraq without congress' permission. Congress would have to authorize them remaining there beyond a certain point (60 days I believe). Once we would have committed troops, it would have been very difficult for congress to refuse to authorize further action/use of force.

You're right, we can't expect much of the candidates' agendas to go through. More likely if Obama is elected, we're giving a rubber stamp to a congress with 9% approval rating. The president can propose legislation, but a senator or representative has to sponsor the bill.

The president does have the power to order govt. agencies to take certain actions within the scope of those agencies' mandates. These are called executive orders.

Nixon imposed a price and wage freeze in the 1970s, but he was actually granted the authority to do so by congress.