Is bypassing Congress gridlock and appealing directly to the people the only hope Obama has?

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

 

Some fiery shit right here. Shuts them other suits right up proper.


Questions for the group: Is he right regarding Obama's (and ours, collectively) only hope of turning this around? Is Congressional election system so money corrupt that we, the people, must literally fire them from their jobs? 

Does anyone know anything about his references to previous presidents bypassing Congress LIKE A BOSS and going to the people, even at the risk of alienating his own party (even more than he has)?


And what about this new bank idea of his, loaning business capital @ 2%? Which side claims that idea?

EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION: Folks, checks and balances are not the issue here. Not is the abolition of Congress and establishing  Executive dictatorships. That is silly talk.

The issue is the speaker in the video suggests the POTUS, who is free to speak directly to the people, should rally the people against the Congress incumbency.

Some think he has to have Congressional oversight to do so. Er, no. He is not passing laws here, folks.

What the gentleman in the video is suggesting is that Obama talk directly to the people as our LEADER, to point the blame at the entire congress, including his party (80% of the country agree). He has the bully pulpit.

The purpose of the bully pulpit being to rally the people to purge Congress of incumbents, replace them with 'clean' legislators (read clarifications in my comments to those below who misinterpreted the intent), who will pledge to work in a non-partisan manner to get the country back on track (whatever that is; another post for another time)

Comments

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

I guess that as long as he is just talking and not acting when he "bypasses" congress, this is fine. I'm just not sure how much good some more talking will do.

I'm certainly not going to defend congress, they've failed at their job of managing the country's finances. I don't expect that a new group would do much better. The fundamental problem is that people like getting services from the government and don't like paying for them, all our representatives have done is to give the voters what they want. Medicare costs are one of the biggest drivers of future deficits, an incumbant who suggested ways to slow spending was depicted throwing wheelchair-bound seniors off a cliff and fired.

Suppose the problem is the voters? Is the president brave enough to say that we need to pay more and get less? He is the most effective fund raiser in history, is he taking on the money that is corrupting the system? Is he willing to say that people who make less than $250,000 per year will need to pay more taxes as well? Half of the households in the US don't pay any income taxes, will he change that?

If not, this would look a lot more like fingerpointing than an effort to fix our government's problems... and fingerpointing is something we already have enough of.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I don't expect that a new group would do much better.

I agree. This is the little distraction we always fall for. Things not working? Get new people! But it's the same system that got the old people. Heck, we just got in these new people. Changing them again isn't going to change the system.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

I agree the system should be changed. Perhaps this should be an entirely new post, but HOW should the system be changed? And how should these changes be implemented.

I mean if the system is corrupt, then prosecute the corrupted and the corruptors. If the corruption is systematic, then the system needs changes.

What we did here in Canada is we implemented a ban on corporate/union donations to political parties and candidates. Lobbyists still exist but have only the influence of their arguments. I think that's a start.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

That would require some leadership and a crisis. On the plus side, we have a crisis, on the minus side, Obama hasn't exactly shown much vision.

Also, I'm not really for making large changes or bypassing congress. I'd rather live in a bankrupt, corrupt democracy than a well run dictatorship. Argentina defaulted a few years ago, it seems to have killed fewer people than Videla. We would just need to get used to being broke.