Is it better when the legislative and executive branch are controlled by different parties? (McCain, Congress)

[melinuxfool]

What are your thoughts? It seems that we are better off when the presidency is held by one party and the congress is controlled by the other. Back when Bill Clinton was president, we had a bunch of Republican congress critters, and we had prosperity. Bush and Obama both start off with their own party in control and we have mediocrity and government expansion.

It seems, to keep government from growing, and to preserve liberty, it behooves us to keep the government divided amongst itself.

[Memphis1979]

Well,

Clinton did start off with a Democratic majority in both houses, just like Obama did. After a disaterous first 2 years, the Republicans gained control of the house.

I don't think Republicans are going to gain majority in either house of Congress, but it is probable they'll gain filibuster power back in the Senate. I actually think thats a bad thing. In the house, you only needed to sway a few Republicans to your side to get a majority. In the Senate, you've got to have 60 votes to outpower a filibuster. Thats a big deal if you are 5 votes shy, and Republicans are the only ones you've got to turn to to get that done.

Historically, it does appear that when the Presidency is controlled by a different party than the Congress, things go better. Which is the remarkable thing about our political system, it seems to work best when both parties have to compromise. The danger is today, both parties seem to be dead set against anything the other party has to say, regardless of how good of an idea it is.

[Thaskateguy]

With out a true balance of Power, we end up where we are now.---Truth fully, when we lost the "balance of Church and State" and replaced it with a Balance of Gubment and Corporations" we sealed out fate. ---as long as nothin but the bottom line is important, it's just a matter of time.

[filihok]

It'd definitely be better if the Legislative and Executive branches were controlled by different parties. As long as the 'choices' are Conservative and Conservative Light there's no real reason to have parties.

[melinuxfool]

Originally Posted by filihok

It'd definitely be better if the Legislative and Executive branches were controlled by different parties. As long as the 'choices' are Conservative and Conservative Light there's no real reason to have parties.

Funny... I considered the previous election to be Liberal (Obama) and Liberal light (McCain). Same with Kerry and Bush, and Gore and Bush. But then again, if I were to label myself, I'd say I'm a strict-constructionist with constitutional matters. So I really don't care for any of the parties out there.

[Teak]

Yes, it is much better if there is gridlock in Congress and little gets passed. We need fewer laws, less meddling of the government in business (apart from necessary regulation), and government to be less attractive to the crooks and liars, errr..... lawyers, who tend to get into those positions. They would do well just to keep an eye out for infringements to our Constitutional rights. No need to change the Constitution (with more additions), just keep an eye out.

[ovcatto]

Of course none of this makes any sense. Perhaps the thread would be better entitled, is it better when the legislature or the executive are controlled by different parties when either is controlled by the party that I am against.

[texdav]

Each party is conrolled by speacil interest who pay for the support of any presdiental candaidte or senator or congressman. Not gib=ving etiher party ful control is IMo the best thing. What you endup with if you do is what we saw with teh stimulus;most of teh moeny went to those speacil interest ,not main street.For instance business contribute to both paries but mainly the republicans;wall street contributes to both. The trail lawyers are the democrats biggest contribuiers;thus you see no restrictions hurting the trail lawyers i any of their legislation so far including healthcare.