Why does everyone blame Obama for the country being the way it is? He actually has only two obligations, to declare war and to veto or affirm bills passed by Congress. Even then, Congress can overrule both.
It seems that people want one man to solve their problems alone, as if it is a temporary dictatorship. Congress is made up of 535 people. Those people are people that citizens voted for. Even if they did not vote for Obama, they still probably voted for a member of Congress that won.
Obama really can't do much other than to plead to Congress to address the topics he wants Congress address in his State of the Union address. Besides, if Obama is doing any thing unconstitutional, Congress can't impeach him. The Supreme Court can only deem his actions unconstitutional, and then impeach him. He can be impeached from office, but not removed from office unless he did something horrendous.
So, why do people want to impeach Obama, force his image on the reason the country's status is like this, and blame him for not being able to be bipartisan with the increasingly leftist Republicans?
Yeah, but who proposed that bill? 535 others, but you never hear people blaming each and every one of them who voted on it.
This doesn't mean Obama didn't play a role, therefore he must take some of the blame.
I understand that Obama isn't the only person to blame, but you can't act as if he wasn't involved at all. In fact, he's the one who speaks what he wants to do with the country, and when those things happen, we blame him and his party.
What do you expect him to do?
Not mirror Bush. Obama didn't start a war, that's about the only difference between Bush and Obama. And yes, it took both of their signiture to fulfill the stimulus package and bailouts. Not to mention the whole national health care move is Obama's pride and joy.
Before all this happened, it was Bush's fault, and before that was Clinton, and so on and so fourth. I think that the greed and selfishness...probably a little bit of gluttony as well started this. I'm starting to get a little off topic so I'll just end there.
During the Clinton era we had a surplus of billions if not trillions of dollars.
This doesn't mean Obama didn't play a role, therefore he must take some of the blame.
No, he's the president. His signature holds much more "voting" power than anyone else. Even when he needs approval, his choice is his own, while Congress is divided.
I don't like Obama...he's just a charismatic guy, his plans won't work. I hate his healthcare plan, his plan for the economy, etc. I like his repeal of DADT, his promise to get us out of the war, etc. I still don't like him. But at the time of the election, it was either Obama or McCain...Obama is the lesser of two evils.
No, he's the president. His signature holds much more "voting" power than anyone else. Even when he needs approval, his choice is his own, while Congress is divided.
So please stop with your fallacious arguments.
No he doesn't. If the President vetoes, it Congress can go back and pass the bill without him. If Congress hadn't voted on it, then the President never would've even received the bill.
I don't like Obama...he's just a charismatic guy, his plans won't work. I hate his healthcare plan, his plan for the economy, etc. I like his repeal of DADT, his promise to get us out of the war, etc. I still don't like him. But at the time of the election, it was either Obama or McCain...Obama is the lesser of two evils.
For the last ****ing time, this isn't a thread to complain about Obama. I am just trying to explain that everyone needs to stop blaming Obama for the problems that Congress caused.
For the last ****ing time, this isn't a thread to complain about Obama. I am just trying to explain that everyone needs to stop blaming Obama for the problems that Congress caused.
I will not dismiss his responsibility.
well, you voted him. you shouldn't blame him, but yourself if something goes wrong.
First off, I didn't vote for him. But even if I had, I would still have the right to complain. I want the person I voted for to do a good job. If I vote for someone and they don't do what they said they would do, I have a right to be against them. If they do what they said, and I end up changing my mind about them, I still have a right to complain.
I will never blindly accept authority, regardless if I voted them in or not.
and remember: this is maybe a thing that's to easy for me to say, I am a german who'se living in the netherlands, so I can't vote for anything exept for europe, but:
Noname, you hate Barack Obama for approving one piece of legislation and you don't hate the other 535 people? I think that is like getting in a fight with someone and when a bystander calls you a name, you punch him, not the person you're fighting. You really have no idea how government works.
Noname, you hate Barack Obama for approving one piece of legislation and you don't hate the other 535 people?
I never said I didn't blame them.
I think that is like getting in a fight with someone and when a bystander calls you a name, you punch him, not the person you're fighting.
Yes, except the bystander is actually the leader and throws a rock once in a while. Then again, my analogy here probably doesn't even work.
You really have no idea how government works.
If the president does not sign a bill, he can veto it. Congress can over ride this veto with 2/3 majority vote. Do you not see how powerful his signature is?
Congress does play a very important role in creating laws and they are responsible for getting that bill to the president in the first place, but that does not mean the president has little power. He has the final say if he is to approve the bill and he if he does not approve of the bill the bill must go through another gruesome cycle where it has a good chance of being killed.
The link you provided proves that Obama says that they cannot allow the same policies to continue so he set forth to do the opposite. Even though they both did the same, the policies in each bill changed.
The link you provided proves that Obama says that they cannot allow the same policies to continue so he set forth to do the opposite. Even though they both did the same, the policies in each bill changed.
Let me rephrase what you said. Bush and Obama are creating similar policies, but because they aren't the exact same, then Obama is doing the opposite of what Bush did?
Do correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that's what you wrote, just in a different order.
The link you provided proves that Obama says that they cannot allow the same policies to continue so he set forth to do the opposite.
The part about him saying he can not allow the same policies is correct. The whole "set forth to do the opposite" is absolutely wrong.
Even though they both did the same, the policies in each bill changed.
You need to do some research on analogies. When you compare two like things, chances are they won't be exactly the same. If the two things you were comparing were exactly the same, then you would be comparing two identical objects which is pointless.
So yes, the content in the bills Obama signed do differ from the content of the bills Bush signed, but understand that the same basic policies are the same.
This might be a little over your head, so let's not even debate semantics. Just focus on the main idea of the video that Obama is pushing bills that are similar to the ones Bush passed.
