Until we elect people willing to work together, it doesn't matter who the President is, unless they also have super majorities in both the House and Senate that all think/act/vote the exact same way.

And of course, that's exactly the government we really don't want, no matter WHO has the power. America, from the founding fathers framing the government onward to the voting public now, have NEVER wanted that consolidation of power. We, on the whole, constantly split votes and want split, divided power.

Obama showed every motivation again and again to want to bring people together and not be a dictator. In some circumstances, he's been forced to appropriate powers in order to get anything done (and the doors for him to be ABLE to do this were largely opened by Dick Cheney/George Bush II, which is why it's dangerous to open that door. It's all well and good when you like the guy doing it/what he does, but eventually the other "team" gets power.) And don't take that to be a criticism of just the GOP. The Democrats in Washington are also roadblocks, though in slightly different ways. Both sides are much too intransigent, though I will allow that more Dems try and get some stuff done - - their base then screams that they've "caved". But if they didn't "cave" from time to time,NOTHING would happen.

You can blame the President as much as you want for his role in not being able to get things passed, but his power in that regard is severely limited. He can ask and work behind the scenes, but when the GOP literally says no to everything he says and are perfectly willing to filibuster anything and everything, what else can he do?

The President has vetoed only two bills. This is an absurdly low number. Why? Because NOTHING GETS TO HIS DESK. He's not the one slowing things down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes

So he's not getting anything he asks for, outside of Health Care, which hardly resembles what he really wanted. And he's not getting anything he vehemently disagrees with either. He's getting - - nothing. So far he's on pace to have the fewest vetoes of any modern president, with the exception of Bush II's first term - when 9/11 happened his first year and they (sadly in many cases, in my opinion) somewhat rubber-stamped everything that came up.

I wouldn't be too sure about that.  We're finding out that TARP was nothing, compared to what they REALLY needed to get bailed out.  And the banks are still under-capitalized for their size and very much still in danger of having repeat performances.  (And let's not forget TARP wasn't enacted under Obama.  It was in 2008 when Bush was president, and he gave ultimate power to treasury Sec. Paulson to administer funds as he liked using executive order.  People seem to forget that a lot.)

Obama would have done Tarp anyways.

That is a nonsensical point.

People do not blame any one person but politicians overall for that move.

I'd buy that arguement if it wasn't for the fact that Obama had 2 years of super majority, anything democrats agree on passes.

Aside from which, the behind the scenes talk suggests that it was actually the democrats unwilling to compromise on the deficit deal.

I never said that the fact that the economy is not in a recession means everything is great, nor that massive tax increases would be possible. (Though I think the US needs to make a choice if they want to continue to be the dominant world power, or continue with extremely low taxes and innefficent use of recources). My point is exactly what you say though, most people still talk about 'The Great Recession' and how everything is getting worse. This is ignoring simple factual information. Again, that something feels like a recession is a meaningless metric. When you base youre actions on how things 'feel' rather than what they are you are acting irrationally. Yet there are countless politicians in the US that base their entire platform on playing into how people feel about things.

But yes, the economy is growing very slowly. Unemployment is being held back by the massive preasurre on public budgets. The last job numbers I saw for example showed modest growth in hiring. Good news that was as unemployment continues to go down, but if you looked at the numbers there were over 100 000 government jobs lost in that month. Regardless of how you feel about government size, those 100 000 jobs would have made a huge difference last month. Basically, with the economy recoverign so slowly it's a bad time to be cutting the number of people in the public sector.

Of course, the US doesn't have much choice right now, public spending must come down to manage the debt problem. So, right now we are paying for the mistakes made 10 years ago or so when everybody thought it was a great idea to cut taxes and underfund the government. Basically congress has painted itself into a corner that is proving very hard to get out of.

You are right, but where do you think most of the US debt is from? Borrowing from Social Security...

Here's another example of how the political debate is getting framed. How many times have you heard that the Democrats had 2 years of super majority? It's now an established 'fact' to deflect critisism against Republican obstructionism, but is it true? No, it is not. The Democrats had the majority of the house and the Senate, but never had a supermajority in both. They came very close, but have throughout the 110th - 112th congresses never been closer than 1 vote away from a supermajority in both chambers. Yet, the simple adjustment from 'majority' to 'supermajority' lets Republican apologists disregard facts and present an alternate view of reality that is completely fabricated.

To start with, I'm not a republican.

Aside from which they had 60 members in the democratic caucus in the senate in 2009.  They just couldn't even get IT to agree on just about anything Obama wanted done.

They had on their side, 58 democrats, but one guy who is an out and out socalist (IE more left then the democrats,.) and the other would of still been a registered democrat had it not been for the fact that the democrats activly kicked him out of the party but he still won back his seat and caucused with them.

As for the house.  Super Majority isn't really a term talked about in the House of Represenatives as far as I know.  There are no filibusters there.

So in 2009, they had a supermajority and could get a vote on anything they wanted.  They spend basically all their time on that Healthcare bill to get a 60-39 vote... because it took FOREVER to reign in more fiscally conservative demcorats.

A bill so popular that in 2010 house of representative members were running ads about how they DIDN'T vote for it.

In fact, no republican voted for it.  So to say the Democrats couldn't pass anything without republican support kinda rings false.  When you consider... they did... and not just any bill either, but a bill that is FAR less palatable then anything the democrats have offered lately.

You have to sort also remember Scott Browns historic win in Massachusetts in Jan 2010 spooked and demoralized democrats and energized Republicans.

So you had a few conservative democrats going against the President and Republicans feeling they can do well in 2010.

That special election had a huge impact.

To many this is ancient history but that was the first major defeat for Obama.

First, I never called you a republican, but implied that you're a Republican apologist. I am sure even your libertarian leaning (?) self will see that is the role you are playing in this discussion.

As for supermajority during the 111th Congress, check it again. The Democrats did not have a super majority in the senate in 2009, with the exception of during the summer break when the chamber was not in session and at the very end of the year, when indeed they pushed hard to be able to get through a health care bill. Which they did. The work done was not to secure the 60 votes in the senate by the way, it was to secure enough votes in the House.

Also, a super majority is most certainly relevant to the House of Representatives, there are several votes that requires a super majority in the House, most relevant to this line of the discussion is that a supermajority is needed in both houses to override a presidential veto for example.