Would you vote for a Presidential candidate

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,037
20
81
If we had someone running whose only interest was to reduce the power of the President, and return much of the power back to the States - and was neutral on everything else - would you vote for him/her?



Does anybody else think its sad we put so much emphasis on the who the next President should be, when that position was never meant to be more than a status symbol for the nation?
 

TheBDB

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2002
3,176
0
0
No. My next question is assuming your description of the president's original role is correct, why should we in 2008 care about that considering the changes in the world since 1789.
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,037
20
81
Originally posted by: TheBDB
No. My next question is assuming your description of the president's original role is correct, why should we in 2008 care about that considering the changes in the world since 1789.
Because history repeats itself.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,583
32,298
136
Yes, in a second. I would do it for different reasons though. My primary concern isn't presidential vs. state power, it is presidential power compared to the other two federal branches. At this point the executive branch is completely and utterly out of control. It has become a genuine threat to the rule of law that our entire system of government is based on, and someone has to rein it in, I don't care who.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
I can't imagine anyone will ever take real steps to reduce the power of the President or congress. Sad.
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,037
20
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Yes, in a second. I would do it for different reasons though. My primary concern isn't presidential vs. state power, it is presidential power compared to the other two federal branches. At this point the executive branch is completely and utterly out of control. It has become a genuine threat to the rule of law that our entire system of government is based on, and someone has to rein it in, I don't care who.
That's kind of what I was leaning towards - even though they're federal branches, they're representative of the states.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,583
32,298
136
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Yes, in a second. I would do it for different reasons though. My primary concern isn't presidential vs. state power, it is presidential power compared to the other two federal branches. At this point the executive branch is completely and utterly out of control. It has become a genuine threat to the rule of law that our entire system of government is based on, and someone has to rein it in, I don't care who.
That's kind of what I was leaning towards - even though they're federal branches, they're representative of the states.
Well then yes. If this next president and Congress did not do a single blessed thing other than neuter the executive branch, they would have done this country a great service. That's the real danger of Bush's presidency. It's not that he mired us in a shitty war, it's not that he's had disastrous economic and tax policies, (although both are bad), it's not even his assault on our civil liberties (although this is awful), it's that he's been attacking the fundamental basis for our system of government that is supposed to be there to keep this from getting out of hand.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
31,248
4,759
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I can't imagine anyone will ever take real steps to reduce the power of the President or congress. Sad.
Then civil unrest will do it for them. Natural selection has this covered nicely.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,674
482
126
I wouldn't. Congress already pushes enough pork through the Executive Branch.

The line-item veto may have been too powerful, but at least it might have put a dent in the pork that gets attached to omnibus bills.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,583
32,298
136
Originally posted by: Balt
I wouldn't. Congress already pushes enough pork through the Executive Branch.

The line-item veto may have been too powerful, but at least it might have put a dent in the pork that gets attached to omnibus bills.
You realize that pork is a small percentage of federal spending, right? In this case, the total federal budget for 2008 was a bit north of 2.8 trillion dollars. Pork was 17 billion dollars, or 0.6% of the budget.

Is this really your primary concern?

EDIT: This little piece of information is also relevant to why McCain's budget proposals are bullshit.
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,037
20
81
Originally posted by: QED
No. The real power of the Presidency is quite overrated.
I used to think so too. But man, the president seems to be able to do anything these days without passing it through legislation.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,674
482
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Balt
I wouldn't. Congress already pushes enough pork through the Executive Branch.

The line-item veto may have been too powerful, but at least it might have put a dent in the pork that gets attached to omnibus bills.
You realize that pork is a small percentage of federal spending, right? In this case, the total federal budget for 2008 was a bit north of 2.8 trillion dollars. Pork was 17 billion dollars, or 0.6% of the budget.

Is this really your primary concern?

EDIT: This little piece of information is also relevant to why McCain's budget proposals are bullshit.
Primary concern? Nope. One of them? Yup. ;)

I guess I should have been a bit clearer with my answer, though. I think Bush has demonstrated pretty clearly that there are areas where the power of the Executive Branch needs to be curbed. Of course in some instances Bush just assumed he had the right to do certain things even though they weren't spelled out anywhere. Congress hasn't done much to punish him for it, either.

Another problem is figuring out who fills in the vacuum. I don't have a whole lot of faith in Congress or in the states themselves either.
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,037
20
81
Originally posted by: Balt
Another problem is figuring out who fills in the vacuum. I don't have a whole lot of faith in Congress or the states themselves either.
Thats why power needs to shift back to the states from the governor down. Federal government should not be so big that they have trouble running it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,583
32,298
136
Originally posted by: Balt

Primary concern? Nope. One of them? Yup. ;)

I guess I should have been a bit clearer with my answer, though. I think Bush has demonstrated pretty clearly that there are areas where the power of the Executive Branch needs to be curbed. Of course in some instances Bush just assumed he had the right to do certain things even though they weren't spelled out anywhere. Congress hasn't done much to punish him for it, either.

Another problem is figuring out who fills in the vacuum. I don't have a whole lot of faith in Congress or in the states themselves either.
I think this is because Congress has no intermediate steps it can take. Honestly, Bush needed to be impeached for the warrantless wiretapping thing. The way it is now, he basically ignores the laws he doesn't like and dares the Congress to do anything about it. They only really have two options, do nothing, or impeach him. Since the second step is so drastic, they are unwilling to use it and Bush knows it. This is extremely dangerous to our system of government because one branch is now largely unaccountable to the other two.
 

QED

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2005
3,428
3
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: QED
No. The real power of the Presidency is quite overrated.
Explain?
Presidents come and Presidents go, and for most Americans-- who is in the Oval Office, and the decisions that are made there, have virtually no affect on their day-to-day lives.

My life will not significantly change for the better or the worse no matter who wins this upcoming election. Barack Obama cannot suddenly turn this nation into a socialist state-- even if that is what he wants. John McCain cannot suddenly make abortions and gay marriage illegal everywhere-- even if that is what he wants. Whoever wins will still have to work with Congress, and will still be subject to Judicial review.

This is not to say the President yields no power-- who he chooses and how he chooses to run the State Department, the Agriculture Department, the Treasury, his Supreme Court nominations, and when and how he chooses to use diplomacy and military force can have dramatic and far-reaching results-- results that sometimes aren't seen for years, or decades until after the President has left office.

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,583
32,298
136
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: QED
No. The real power of the Presidency is quite overrated.
Explain?
Presidents come and Presidents go, and for most Americans-- who is in the Oval Office, and the decisions that are made there, have virtually no affect on their day-to-day lives.

My life will not significantly change for the better or the worse no matter who wins this upcoming election. Barack Obama cannot suddenly turn this nation into a socialist state-- even if that is what he wants. John McCain cannot suddenly make abortions and gay marriage illegal everywhere-- even if that is what he wants. Whoever wins will still have to work with Congress, and will still be subject to Judicial review.

This is not to say the President yields no power-- who he chooses and how he chooses to run the State Department, the Agriculture Department, the Treasury, his Supreme Court nominations, and when and how he chooses to use diplomacy and military force can have dramatic and far-reaching results-- results that sometimes aren't seen for years, or decades until after the President has left office.
It affects you a lot more than you know. The cost of the Iraq war per taxpayer is estimated to end up as about $17,000 per household when all things are considered. If Al Gore had won in 2000 I think it is highly unlikely we would have invaded Iraq. So in one respect George Bush cost you a bit under $20,000. I'd say thats quite enough power.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,674
482
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Balt

Primary concern? Nope. One of them? Yup. ;)

I guess I should have been a bit clearer with my answer, though. I think Bush has demonstrated pretty clearly that there are areas where the power of the Executive Branch needs to be curbed. Of course in some instances Bush just assumed he had the right to do certain things even though they weren't spelled out anywhere. Congress hasn't done much to punish him for it, either.

Another problem is figuring out who fills in the vacuum. I don't have a whole lot of faith in Congress or in the states themselves either.
I think this is because Congress has no intermediate steps it can take. Honestly, Bush needed to be impeached for the warrantless wiretapping thing. The way it is now, he basically ignores the laws he doesn't like and dares the Congress to do anything about it. They only really have two options, do nothing, or impeach him. Since the second step is so drastic, they are unwilling to use it and Bush knows it. This is extremely dangerous to our system of government because one branch is now largely unaccountable to the other two.
I never really expected Bush to be impeached, but when Congress passed the telco immunity bill I pretty much gave up on them. I realize the bill wasn't going to affect Bush personally, but it sure seemed like an indirect way of giving him a free pass for his actions.
 

QED

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2005
3,428
3
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: QED
No. The real power of the Presidency is quite overrated.
Explain?
Presidents come and Presidents go, and for most Americans-- who is in the Oval Office, and the decisions that are made there, have virtually no affect on their day-to-day lives.

My life will not significantly change for the better or the worse no matter who wins this upcoming election. Barack Obama cannot suddenly turn this nation into a socialist state-- even if that is what he wants. John McCain cannot suddenly make abortions and gay marriage illegal everywhere-- even if that is what he wants. Whoever wins will still have to work with Congress, and will still be subject to Judicial review.

This is not to say the President yields no power-- who he chooses and how he chooses to run the State Department, the Agriculture Department, the Treasury, his Supreme Court nominations, and when and how he chooses to use diplomacy and military force can have dramatic and far-reaching results-- results that sometimes aren't seen for years, or decades until after the President has left office.
It affects you a lot more than you know. The cost of the Iraq war per taxpayer is estimated to end up as about $17,000 per household when all things are considered. If Al Gore had won in 2000 I think it is highly unlikely we would have invaded Iraq. So in one respect George Bush cost you a bit under $20,000. I'd say thats quite enough power.
Well, that might really affect me if the US Treasury suddenly sent me a $17,000 bill-- but they haven't-- so, so far the cost of the Iraq war has not affected me or most Americans directly one bit. Even if Gore had won in 2000, there's nothing to suggest spending in other areas of government would be reduced significantly enough to have a direct impact on my wallet-- and furthermore, the supposition that Gore never would have invaded Iraq is tenuous given he would be working wit the same wrong intelligence accounts that both Clinton and Bush received.

 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: QED
No. The real power of the Presidency is quite overrated.
Explain?
Presidents come and Presidents go, and for most Americans-- who is in the Oval Office, and the decisions that are made there, have virtually no affect on their day-to-day lives.

My life will not significantly change for the better or the worse no matter who wins this upcoming election. Barack Obama cannot suddenly turn this nation into a socialist state-- even if that is what he wants. John McCain cannot suddenly make abortions and gay marriage illegal everywhere-- even if that is what he wants. Whoever wins will still have to work with Congress, and will still be subject to Judicial review.

This is not to say the President yields no power-- who he chooses and how he chooses to run the State Department, the Agriculture Department, the Treasury, his Supreme Court nominations, and when and how he chooses to use diplomacy and military force can have dramatic and far-reaching results-- results that sometimes aren't seen for years, or decades until after the President has left office.
It affects you a lot more than you know. The cost of the Iraq war per taxpayer is estimated to end up as about $17,000 per household when all things are considered. If Al Gore had won in 2000 I think it is highly unlikely we would have invaded Iraq. So in one respect George Bush cost you a bit under $20,000. I'd say thats quite enough power.
With Joe Lieberman as his Vice President? The chances might be higher than you think.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,583
32,298
136
Originally posted by: winnar111

With Joe Lieberman as his Vice President? The chances might be higher than you think.
Nah, under Gore the VP likely would have had about as much influence over policy as Gore had under Clinton.. ie: not much.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,583
32,298
136
Originally posted by: QED

Well, that might really affect me if the US Treasury suddenly sent me a $17,000 bill-- but they haven't-- so, so far the cost of the Iraq war has not affected me or most Americans directly one bit. Even if Gore had won in 2000, there's nothing to suggest spending in other areas of government would be reduced significantly enough to have a direct impact on my wallet-- and furthermore, the supposition that Gore never would have invaded Iraq is tenuous given he would be working wit the same wrong intelligence accounts that both Clinton and Bush received.
You honestly think that Gore would have invaded Iraq. Honestly you think it's even marginally likely? Give me a break man. I am aware of no credible analysis that has tried to argue that.

Furthermore while it's certainly possible that Gore could have cost you money in other ways, that would only reinforce my point... which remember was just that the President does affect you. And while it's true that you haven't gotten a $17,000 bill, you have paid for it through reduced services and increased inflation. You will continue to do so for a long time too. Sure the impact is unevenly distributed, affecting some citizens far more than others, but once again my point was that the president does affect you. (he affects you in many many more ways than this as well, some subtle, some not)

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY