Who or What is the PRESIDENT, and why should we care?
Most people when you debate them long enough will eventually acknowledge (either as a "cynic" or a "realist" ) that in a two party system, given the influence peddlars who wholesale special interests in Washington, it hardly matters who the physical manifestation of the presidency is.
Why then do people confuse the guy at point, (in this instance Obama) with the OFFICE of the PRESIDENT?
Surely the two 'Presidents' are different things. One is an electable applicant with enough drive and resonance with the core values of the dominant factions within his party at that time, while the other is the executive branch of a corporation we'll call AmericaInc, which has many wonderfully powerful divisions run from totally impressive edifices, like the Pentagon, the Treasury, the IRS, Congress, the SCOTUS, and so on.
Each division is important in its own right. Each has long standing traditions and histories that together as AmericaInc forms an impenetrable mass of competing and enhancing energies that is fed back 24/7 to the EXECUTIVE BRANCH through a very complex interwoven command structure. All these inputs are then further distilled within the OFFICE of the PRESIDENT, until it can be articulated as policy for the American people.
However, whenever things go badly, or not as planned, then this seeming conventional wisdom of how the system actually works, quickly breaks down, and instead of people commenting on the OFFICE of the PRESIDENT, they tend to turn and focus their attention and bile on the man at point, ie the physically elected official who is tasked with sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office and who takes the photo ops that are part of the gig of being there. We can call this guy, President {*} .
As far as the functioning of the Office of the PRESIDENT goes, does it really matter who {*} is?
Have not the trends in the way the Office of the PRESIDENT functions, been underway over many terms of {*'s} in office?
If you took off your partisan badge and ignored the personal style of the {*} sitting in the Office of the PRESIDENT, are we struck more by the differences or by the similarities in the way the OFFICE functions?
Is the Office of the PRESIDENT therefore a normative influence? And is that normalization simply a fact of the very powerful divisions that mesh beneath the surface to form AmericaInc?
Please debate these and any other questions that may have arisen out of this preamble-thanks!
Originally posted by kmax87It is the progressive way.
Who or What is the PRESIDENT, and why should we care?
Most people when you debate them long enough will eventually acknowledge (either as a "cynic" or a "realist" ) that in a two party system, given the influence peddlars who wholesale special interests in Washington, it hardly matters who the physical manifestation of the presidency is.
Why then do pe te these and any other questions that may have arisen out of this preamble-thanks! [/b]
Let me splain. Progressives have championed a centralized all powerful government and defecated on state rights. The result? The result is looking to only one man for all the answers whether it is what doctor to see, what kind of car or home you should buy, or finding that ever increasingly elusive job. Looking to one man to cure all our ills is pure fantasy, but that is what we are conditioned to do.
As for myself, I like to point out that part of this federal beast which is the United States Congress, only has a 13% approval rating. Some democracy, eh?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by whodey"As for myself, I like to point out that part of this federal beast which is the United States Congress, only has a 13% approval rating. Some democracy, eh?"
It is the progressive way.
Let me splain. Progressives have championed a centralized all powerful government and defecated on state rights. The result? The result is looking to only one man for all the answers whether it is what doctor to see, what kind of car or home you should buy, or finding that ever increasingly elusive job. Looking to one man to ...[text shortened]... beast which is the United States Congress, only has a 13% approval rating. Some democracy, eh?
And yet 90% get reelected and democratically at that. That is the only approval rating that matters.
Originally posted by JS357Americans disapprove of Congress in general, but most love their Congress critter.
"As for myself, I like to point out that part of this federal beast which is the United States Congress, only has a 13% approval rating. Some democracy, eh?"
And yet 90% get reelected and democratically at that. That is the only approval rating that matters.
Kind of like people who complain about dog owners and dogs, but they love their pitbull Cujo.
Originally posted by normbenignThe issue is that Congress was given the purse strings via the federal income tax at the turn of the 20th century. Now Congressmen steal money from the other 49 states to do their bidding. So those who have Congressmen who take in funds are praised while they hate the other 49 who take from them.
Americans disapprove of Congress in general, but most love their Congress critter.
Kind of like people who complain about dog owners and dogs, but they love their pitbull Cujo.
It was never meant to be this way. 😞
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by whodey"It was never meant to be this way."
The issue is that Congress was given the purse strings via the federal income tax at the turn of the 20th century. Now Congressmen steal money from the other 49 states to do their bidding. So those who have Congressmen who take in funds are praised while they hate the other 49 who take from them.
It was never meant to be this way. 😞
So was there a magic moment?
edit: When it was what it was meant to be?
Originally posted by JS357Before the federal income tax, states essentially had the purse strings.
"It was never meant to be this way."
So was there a magic moment?
edit: When it was what it was meant to be?
Look at a chart when the federal income tax came into existence and the national debt. You will see that as taxes increased, so did the deficit exponencially. It was the death blow to state autonomy and democratic representation.
Originally posted by JS357Gotta love election fraud!
"As for myself, I like to point out that part of this federal beast which is the United States Congress, only has a 13% approval rating. Some democracy, eh?"
And yet 90% get reelected and democratically at that. That is the only approval rating that matters.
Originally posted by whodeyOf course not, but this is the residue of the Progressive era, primarily Teddy Roosevelt, and of course Woodrow Wilson who signed the Federal Reserve and Income tax into law in 1913, and the 17th amendment the next year.
The issue is that Congress was given the purse strings via the federal income tax at the turn of the 20th century. Now Congressmen steal money from the other 49 states to do their bidding. So those who have Congressmen who take in funds are praised while they hate the other 49 who take from them.
It was never meant to be this way. 😞
Originally posted by JS357There have been "road to Damascus moments". Abraham Lincoln saving the union by destroying its basic character is one.
"It was never meant to be this way."
So was there a magic moment?
edit: When it was what it was meant to be?
The next was probably the Progressive era, especially 1913 and the Fed and Income taxes.
Originally posted by kmax87That is a really tough question. I truthfully don't think we've had a completely independent President since before the turn of the 20th century. Many have been good men, but all have had backers and puppeteers. The last two, W and Barry, both fall into the manipulated class bigtime.
If I may be so bold as to re-articulate my point, the question is, who was the last President, you would confidently say actually ran the office, and from what point in history could you effectively say that it was definitely the office that was running the President?
Originally posted by normbenignAll empty chairs.
That is a really tough question. I truthfully don't think we've had a completely independent President since before the turn of the 20th century. Many have been good men, but all have had backers and puppeteers. The last two, W and Barry, both fall into the manipulated class bigtime.