Should President Obama be more concerned about running the Country or Running fo

1. 60

   Neil Hortonposted 12 years ago

   Should President Obama be more concerned about running the Country or Running for Office?
   
   After the President was caught on open mic stating he would have more flexibility after the election, did this expose his true agenda?

   replyreport
2. 67

   conradofontanillaposted 12 years ago

   Running the country is different from running the office of the Presidency. The reason is that there are two governments in the United States. One is the Federal Reserve Bank and the other is office of the Presidency. Each has its share in running the United States of America. President Obama has no jurisdiction over the Fed. It is the turf of the chairman of the Fed that can raise or decrease interest rates. Interest rate affects the whole population because a high interest rate may increase inflation that erases savings. That enrages the poor among the American population. President Obama has jurisdiction over federal budget, deficit reduction package, economic stimulus package and health care reform. He does not have jurisdiction over monetary policy. He cannot order the minting of U.S. coins without the approval of the Fed. Most Americans do not realize that they have two governments.

   replyreport
3. 60

   Neil Hortonposted 12 years ago

   To each their own reality. I do not remember asking a question about the Federal Reserve Board.

   replyreport
4. 0

   Jayfortposted 12 years ago

   He should be running the country in the best interests of the American People NOT the Democrat Party or any other person, party, etc... Obama has only blamed others and campaigned.

   replyreport
5. 0

   thegeckoposted 12 years ago

   Running the country, of course. The American people elected him and pay him to be Commander and Chief. The country provides residence for him at the White House, in our nation's capitol, so he can always prioritize his duty as president above all else.
   
   In the end, if his actions and leadership serve the best interests of a majority of the people, there should be little need to worry about re-election. He should never sacrifice his presidential duties to campaign if these two should ever conflict.
   
   Naturally, he would gain more flexibility after being re-elected. A president spends the first four years compromising and making deals in hopes to gain enough future support to serve another four years. Re-election lifts the burden of needing to always bargain for the sake of staying in office. He can be tougher and less yielding on issues he truly cares about. Not that this alleviates his need to compromise, but he can more often make standing decisions based on his own principles and convictions.
   
   Exposing his true agenda? That sounds a bit cryptic and vague. Looking at his policies over the past three years and the agenda he set out when he campaigned in 2008, he usually takes the middle road. He aims for incremental changes over huge reforms. The only legislation he pushed remotely close to a large shift in policy would be his Healthcare Bill, but even that simply expands on policies already in place. If people study his actions and speeches they will see a pretty clear agenda.
   
   Its the media and the large special interest groups that spin conspiracies about President Obama to make him out to be a radical aiming to tear the nation apart. It seems as though no one on television, and few online, can be decent enough to show the minimal amount of respect the President of the United States deserves.
   
   I fall much farther left on the political spectrum than President Obama would tread. Being an initial supporter of his, I wish he would take more radical action. It just frustrates me when the media paints a portrait of him as this out of control crazy socialist with hidden schemes and devious plans for the country.
   
   So no, it did not expose any true agenda of his.

   replyreport