The Big Oil Rip-Off/ 2009 Style

easyrider8 wrote:

Gary Tayman wrote:Hopefully only two years.

I think that is pushing it.

Dave

Not necessarily. Bill Clinton caused such a backlash that he was only in power for two years.

Sure, he was President for 8 years, but the President doesn't run the country. His powers are very limited without the help of Congress. One classic example of non-power was the Welfare Reform bill. He was vehemently opposed to it, but signed it.

This is a scenario that many people don't understand when referring to George W. Bush. We hear on a near-daily basis that "Bush killed the economy." Actually Bush had a Congress on his side for 6 of his 8 years, and it has only been the last year of his administration that the economy really headed downward. While it can be argued that Bush indeed signed problematic legislation, you have to admit that he didn't act alone, and that these bills never would have passed, or in many cases even become bills, without the Congress that was there.

The President is not unlike the quarterback of a football team. The quarterback is often praised or blamed for the team's performance, but if you look at the big picture, he is but one member of an entire team.

I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion, but, on the point of congress having a a large part in what occurs, I'd have to agree with Gary on that. While alot could be argued about the president being the cause, if congress hadn't voted for the bills it wouldn't have gone that way.
That puts both sides to bleme. Not just Republicans, or, Democrats. They both share the blame for it.....
Now, I'll go back in my corner, thank you.
Bill Cahill

Obama won't change anything, no more than Bush, or Clinton before him.
The President is a figurehead, and when he steps out of that category, and starts to step on toes, they get the Kennedy treatment.
Dan