Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

3 Bumps

Should presidents have probation?

Most serious jobs when you are hired you have a period somewhere from 6 weeks to 6 months where you have to prove you are fit for the job and if you aren't you are let go. You don't qualify for insurance or sick leave or vacation time until that period is over. Should we extend this practice to the executive branch? (or even all of them)

Answer Question
 
NotPanicking

Asked by NotPanicking at 3:40 PM on Jul. 2, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 51 (421,172 Credits)
Answers (13)
  • I think a year would be a decent amount of probation time for a president....
    hotrodmomma

    Answer by hotrodmomma at 3:41 PM on Jul. 2, 2010

  • Being hired is fundamentally different than being elected. Considering the cost, instablity, and the fact that our policital system already allows for removal from office for all elected officials, a probation period would be pretty useless.
    UpSheRises

    Answer by UpSheRises at 3:46 PM on Jul. 2, 2010

  • No. Why? As if I don't know..... @@
    gertie41

    Answer by gertie41 at 3:48 PM on Jul. 2, 2010

  • Being hired is fundamentally different than being elected.

    Not really. Most large businesses hire the people who fill executive positions by committee.
    NotPanicking

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 3:48 PM on Jul. 2, 2010

  • nope, the office needs stability. Even if you don't like the current pres (any, not just this one) or even if you do, there will ALWAYS be those that disagree. You could potentially have a revolvingdoor on the oval office, you want to talk about a weakened country.....I understand those that do not like the current administration, I would be in exactly the same position if the McCain/Palin ticket had succeeded, but I would still say the same thing, nope no playing at being the POTUS.

    emptynstr

    Answer by emptynstr at 3:48 PM on Jul. 2, 2010

  • lol, what would the criteria be?
    lovinangels

    Answer by lovinangels at 3:50 PM on Jul. 2, 2010

  • Even if you don't like the current pres (any, not just this one) or even if you do, there will ALWAYS be those that disagree

    Look at the big pictures - would corporations and lobbyists be willing to invest millions into candidates that might get booted within a year? It would be massive campaign finance reform on a national scale. Would parties by as unified behind candidates they knew were unqualified with the idea that they only had to fool people for October and a little of November?
    NotPanicking

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 3:52 PM on Jul. 2, 2010

  • A political economy, or government, is not the same thing as a corporation. It doesn't function the same way, isn't intended to serve the same purpose as private corporations, doesn’t have the same organizational structure, and its effectiveness isn't measured in the same way. Because of all those reasons, the recruitment and selection process must also be very different. Likewise, separation processes are also very different. Our system of checks and balances is designed to ensure a stable and effective government, one that isn't subject to the knee-jerk reactions, squeaky wheels, or crowds with pitchforks & torches.
    UpSheRises

    Answer by UpSheRises at 4:06 PM on Jul. 2, 2010

  • Our system of checks and balances is broken and has been as long as there have been corporate backed lobbies smart enough to throw millions to each candidate equally.
    NotPanicking

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 4:09 PM on Jul. 2, 2010

  • Yes. I think that would be good. Save us from having communist morons running the country!
    krystie-tina

    Answer by krystie-tina at 4:18 PM on Jul. 2, 2010

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN