data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/88804/888040ab59111168de3a737fd976f70a252b5bf1" alt=""
One thing that should have become obvious long ago is that the President has only discrete power, like a flip-flop in in a computer. They can sign or veto a bill. Please read the Constitution.
You can blame the Banks, the Corporations and the Lawyers all you want, but then you are missing the point. The housing market failed in the last quarter of 2007, which was the first quarter of the first budget of Chairwoman Pelosi. Still, it took President Bush to cause the global stock markets to fall by announcing the problem at the beginning of 2008.
Presidents, in the end, are partisan puppets of the Speaker of the House. Please read the Constitution. Why do you think Chairwoman Pelosi endorced Senator Obama. Was it for independent thinking or was it because he voted strictly a party line. For all the propaganda about Obama seeking bipartisan support, he did not vote bipartisan. He never, as a senator, was involved in compromise. In fairness, few junior senators are.
The policy of the US belongs to the one who holds the purse strings. Only the House of Representatives can propose a spending bill. The Senate can modify and refer it back to the House, but it is still in the power of the House.
If you just have to blame the Republican Party for the economics of 2001 to 2007, then you should be looking at what Speaker Dennis Hastert did.
Budgets are passed 18 months before they are applied. That means the first budget of Chairwoman Pelosi began July 1, 2007. You could claim it began in the first 100 hours of 2006, though, because she changed the rules and excluded dialog with the Republicans. That allowed her to force through $700 billion in supplimental spending.
People are quick to blame or credit Presidents, but that is obfustication. The one responsible for budget deficits or surpluses is the Speaker of the House. Do you really think there was a six year lag in the surpluses in the Clinton Administration or did it happen because of who was Speaker of the House?
So, to blame the Presidents or claim that it has been the special interests' influence on them is ignorant simplistic thinking with regard to the Constitution or party politics.
Personally, I expect the politics of Chairwoman Pelosi to come more from Walgreen's than her district. If Chairwoman Pelosi had represented her district, she would have followed through on her promise to impeach President Bush. Instead, she stopped Kucinich and others from that. The President is just a strawman for politicians to play against.
Are the main players in the media really this ignorant?
No comments:
Post a Comment