Is The USA President Just a Puppet?

Politics International Politics
1

My parents used to say that, and I’ve heard people say the same many times since then. I’m reading threads where the usual suspects discuss Bush or Obama, and I came to think that people are just hurting for hope. Problem is, there is no hope to be had. It’s not going to get better. It logically can not get better.

All this debate about Obama leaves me feeling sorry for all the people who invest so much into that man. I know little about him other than a lot of people like him, but I know enough to know that he’d better be able to pull some serious strings to bring about more balance in this world. It bugs me. He’s no God. The whole world is falling apart and people seem to think this one bloke will fix it all up. It won’t happen.

It bugs me. People complain that the economy is crashing, and that the world is coming to a fucking end, almost. People might just have to remember what it used to be like to feel blessed just to have food on your plate and a warm place to lay your head at night. My grandfather had to work 20 straight years without a single holiday to feed his family. I can’t imagine what his grandfather had to go through. I can see that people would have some pride into improving their lives generation after generation. The old American Dream wasn’t handed over. People had/have to work really hard for it. In fact, many people lost their lives to keep that dream alive…

But here’s the problem. While people in America and other developed nations were chasing that dream, millions of people all around the world were living in horrible conditions compared to say… north American living standards. Half of the world is living with less than the minimum required to survive, meanwhile the rest of the world is living in total luxury. How is that supposed to work? The dynamics at play that keep the ball rolling can not possibly roll the ball in the right direction. More people become poor at the expense of a few people who get richer, and so on, and so on. Things are going in the wrong direction. It’s that simple.

It’s all very comparable to a big game of monopoly. You can’t just start complaining at the middle of the game because you are losing. Winners and losers is what the game is all about.

People want hope, people want more money, people want a bigger house, people want security, etc, etc, etc, etc. It’s all good, except I don’t think it’s going to happen for everyone. It never has, and it’s going to get harder. Obama won’t be able to do anything substantial to change that, even if he wanted to.

marboulette

2

Yes, I am a little surprised Obama gets almost a Jesus treatment. Meaning he probably only gets 10% of the appreciation Mr. Christ himself would get when walking the Earth, but that’s a lot already.
But he is no God, no Magician, he is only a politician in a system that is basically conservative, meaning it only allows moderate changes to the establishment.

Some things will slow down in getting worse compared to what they would be with Bush steering… That’s the only thing he can do.

3

“People want hope, people want more money, people want a bigger house, people want security, etc, etc, etc, etc. It’s all good, except I don’t think it’s going to happen for everyone. It never has, and it’s going to get harder. Obama won’t be able to do anything substantial to change that, even if he wanted to.”

[color=#FF0000]BLASPHEMER…BE GONE![/color]

4

My contribution to this forum is quite scarce. The truth is, it bugs me reading all these discussions. Some bits are interesting, of course, but most of it seems so narrow minded. It’s like people can’t see the bigger picture. The hype surrounding Obama seemed to be a perfect example.

Congratulations to the American people. I sincerely hope that Obama will do good things for you guys, but don’t count your chickens just yet because there is only so much a president can do when his hands are tied.

No, it really bugs me.

[quote]Some things will slow down in getting worse compared to what they would be with Bush steering…[/quote]Hopefully.

[quote] That’s the only thing he can do.[/quote]Exactly, and we’d be foolish to think that Obama isn’t aware of that. From there, the promises of hope and change leave a bitter taste on my palate.

marboulette

5

Obama is where he is because he benefits business.

Nothing he will do (bar the odd thing which will be milked to high heaven) will be done for the ‘people’

What gets me about the Obama crowd (and the Bush crowd before) is that he can NEVER do anything wrong.

If Bush had say, nuked Iran, any of his idiotic supporters would have found any reason to justify it (those same buffoons will be the first to criticize Obama when he pulls of something similar).
The same administration that said crushing childrens testicles is justifiable.

The same will happen with the Obama supporters.
When he continues the agenda of centralization, raping of the constitution, and making big business even more powerful that will be the ‘change’.
It will get worse for the majority.

This week something will apparently happen (according to Powell (wasn’t he on the other side?) and Biden) that will make Obama a little less of a savior so to speak.

Obama like his predecessors are singing from the song sheet.

6

[quote=“cake”]Obama is where he is because he benefits business.[/quote]I think so, too. It seems a bit foolish to think otherwise.

[quote]Democracy is a fine idea in theory, but in practice, it doesn’t work very well. At the end of the day, it doesn’t cater to the majority of voters.

[quote]Obama like his predecessors are singing from the song sheet.[/quote][/quote]I hope not, but I’m afraid so because he happens to be really good at it. I don’t know why, but I have a really bad feeling about this…

marboulette

7

I look back at all the presidents I’ve known in my lifetime, and rate them thus:

Nixon: Bad.
Ford: Meh.
Carter: Meh.
Reagan: Bad.
Bush I: Meh.
Clinton: Good.
Bush II: Terrible.
Obama: ???

Given his competition (particularly his predecessor), I’d say he has a fighting chance at being a Good president. He easily has what it takes to outdo Meh. And he just has to outdo Clinton in order to be a Very Good president.

8

The President takes a lot of credit, and blame, for things he can’t really control. No matter which President it is, Congress controls the budget and the spending. The President can put forward recommendations, and threaten to veto the budget if its bad, but that’s the extent of his control. However, when the economy goes to shit, the President gets blamed. The closest thing we came to having a President who could pare down the Congress’ excess was President Clinton with the “line item veto”. I seem to remember that lasting not quite as long as a snowflake in hell.

We purposefully tie the President’s hands so that he can’t get out of control. That and the Executive office has been progressively weakened by stronger and stronger Congresses since the end of WW2. That doesn’t give you much of a chance to change anything when you need to deal with Congress and their constituents heroine addiction to pork barrel spending.

I predict that a lot of the Obama supporters are going to be really disappointed when he has to delay many of his campaign promises. The economy just isn’t there for some of the things he has planned, and if he doesn’t focus on the economy, he’ll be run out of office with pitchforks. That will be priority 0, before any other priority. I also predict that there will be a market rally due to the fact that we won’t have a lame duck president anymore. I personally think a lot of the volatility of the last two months were due to the fact that people were unsure if what changes President Elect Obama would make from his predecessor, President Bush.

There is one man at the top of every organization. He gets all the credit when things go well and all the blame when things go poorly.

[quote=“Chris”]I look back at all the presidents I’ve known in my lifetime, and rate them thus:

Nixon: Bad.
Ford: Meh.
Carter: Meh.
Reagan: Bad.
Bush I: Meh.
Clinton: Good.
Bush II: Terrible.
Obama: ???

Given his competition (particularly his predecessor), I’d say he has a fighting chance at being a Good president. He easily has what it takes to outdo Meh. And he just has to outdo Clinton in order to be a Very Good president.[/quote]

I’ll comment even though I wasn’t born until the middle of Regan’s years.

Nixon: Bad.
Ford: Meh.

Carter: Bad. He let our State Department employees to be held hostage for a year. Inflation got out of control in his administration. Wish the giant rabbit had swam faster.

Reagan: Both good and bad. His debt legacy is bad but he took an inflation rate of 16% and brought it down. Helped spend the USSR out of existence.

G (HW) B: Good. Operation Desert Shield/Storm. Wish he hadn’t had listened to the Saudis and taken Saddam out then. Would have saved a lot of Iraqi lives from 1991 - 2003. Raised taxes to try and balance the Reagan years.

Clinton: Hard to say. A lot is coming out about Clinton’s legacy that isn’t very good. Clinton balanced the budget, which is a huge plus. He got DADT passed, which is much better than what was there before. But, he also sat on the tech sector bubble, not wanting to derail the gravy train. The beginning of the housing fiasco started before 1997 when people pulled equity out of their homes to put into the market. Missed a chance to kill Osama Bin Laden in Sudan. Started the practice of rendition.

GWB: Lots of negatives during his watch, no doubt about it. His one claim, that they prevent more terrorist attacks on American soil, can’t be proved or disproved until the documents are released. So in 50 years we may know that someone was a few days away from blowing up another building, or that it was all for naught. He wasn’t a very good president, but we’ve had worse. The worst ones have been dead for a long time though.

As far as PEBO goes, we’ll see. He has to DO something first before he gets the glory. Just because he is elected doesn’t mean that he has done anything of value yet. However, he seems to be coming at problems more pragmatically than his predecessor, trying to find a middle ground. Compromise compared to the winner take all and that’s a good thing in the times we have.

9

I am continually reminded of how many people are able to sleep thru Poli Sci 101 and still get a passing grade.
Of course that doesn’t preclude them from making stupid comments on the internet.

10

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]I am continually reminded of how many people are able to sleep thru Poli Sci 101 and still get a passing grade.
Of course that doesn’t preclude them from making stupid comments on the internet.[/quote]Mr. Taiwan Cowboy, it can NOT be healthy to talk to yourself like that. :offtopic:

marboulette

11

[quote=“marboulette”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]I am continually reminded of how many people are able to sleep thru Poli Sci 101 and still get a passing grade.
Of course that doesn’t preclude them from making stupid comments on the internet.[/quote]Mr. Taiwan Cowboy, it can NOT be healthy to talk to yourself like that. :offtopic:
marboulette[/quote]
Well, honestly, I did not intend for your comments to be included in this remark.

12

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb. B. Franklin

We’ve already seen the triangulation starting with Obama on formerly bad Bush policies no seeming sensible and needing time. Gitmo, wire tapping non-US citizens without a warrant.

As far as Nixon being bad, that is just pure folly. While Nixon wasn’t a good president, he did do a lot of things that are now wedded to the left i.e. OSHA, opened up China, and ended the Vietnam War. Personally I feel he should of been shot for price controls he imposed, but do give him some credit for his actions nevertheless. He was brought down by a FBI man with an agenda feeding info to 2 unwitting reporters serving as pawns.

Anyone who rates Carter as Meh or bad, is probably younger than 30 and has no recollection of just how bad Carter was. This is a man who almost lost to Ford, and had to run against the ABC factor in 1980(Anybody But Carter). Carter is rightfully rated the 2nd worst president in American history. The Community reinvestment act, that led to our current financial crisis, was passed during his time in office.

Anybody who rates Reagan as bad, or meh is also younger than 30 and fails to realize how much Reagan demercantilized the economy. You also fail to realize how demoralized the US was after Nixon, Carter and Ford. Reagan had cojones, the likes of which I hope we see again in my lifetime. The current financial success that the US has experienced for 30 odd years is due to this one man. When was the last time you heard of a tax shelter on a TV program, during the early 80’s it was common place.

13

Oooooh, no he isn’t!

14

[quote=“Okami”]Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb. B. Franklin

We’ve already seen the triangulation starting with Obama on formerly bad Bush policies no seeming sensible and needing time. Gitmo, wire tapping non-US citizens without a warrant.
[/quote]

What’s the problem with wire tapping non-US citizens? They don’t have the same rights under the constitution as US citizens, IE the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments. I thought the problem was wire-tapping US citizens, as in this CNN article: NSA Wiretapping.

As for Gitmo … That place won’t be closed until they can figure out what to do with the men who are there. There is a Newsweek article saying that PEBO should go slow on that issue until they figure out how to try the men. Some of them may not be able to be tried, and may have to be sent to their home countries to rot in a cell there.

You are right though, I am under 30 and have mostly history textbooks as the sole basis of my knowledge about Nixon.

15

So he’s a messiah?

16

I’d prefer the term revolutionary as no one is crazy or skillful enough to sell his ideas again.

17

Actually this depends. The word “citizen” isn’t ever found in those amendments, rather they use terms like “the people,” “no person”, or “the accused.” These terms are generally interpreted to protect people who are legally residing in the U.S., regardless of citizenship. For instance a non-citizen who has a greencard would still be protected from a warrantless search. Cases involving illegal immigrants or others of dubious status are less settled, but suffice it to say that there isn’t carte blanche on surveilling non-citizens.

18

Actually this depends. The word “citizen” isn’t ever found in those amendments, rather they use terms like “the people,” “no person”, or “the accused.” These terms are generally interpreted to protect people who are legally residing in the U.S., regardless of citizenship. For instance a non-citizen who has a greencard would still be protected from a warrantless search. Cases involving illegal immigrants or others of dubious status are less settled, but suffice it to say that there isn’t carte blanche on surveilling non-citizens.[/quote]

The word citizen isn’t found in the first several amendments, however it is found in the 14th amendment.

US Citizen and Immigration Services

There is a distinction between citizens and legal residents in modern political theory and how it is applied in the US. The idea of a “citizen” vs a non-citizen allows for this. You can discriminate against non-citizens of all colors as long as you are equally discriminatory against them all. If you allow for different categories of discrimination then it is an illegal act.

The issue with the wiretapping was that it involved US citizens on one end and a non-citizen on the other. Non-citizens of the world, not within the US, have no standing to complain about our intelligence agencies listening in to them. They can complain but the CIA, NSA, and other agencies are not likely to agree to not listen to them. So yes, there is carte blanche to listen to non-citizens outside the US. The question was inside the US though.

I disagree that green card holders are afforded the same rights as citizens. That we have, in the past, generally extended the same rights and privileges to non-citizens doesn’t mean that they are codified. The 14th amendment clearly specifies that you can’t abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens. That means you can abridge the privileges and immunities of non-citizens and green card holders. You can spy on green card holders and non-citizens alike, with a lesser burden of proof required than to spy on the conversations of US citizens. Due process means that you still have to get a subpoena, but you can get one from the FISA court and don’t have to get one from a normal court. Due process is still served, even if its a different route, as long as the process is followed. That’s where President Bush went wrong. He tried to say that he didn’t need to go any court to listen in on the phone calls of citizens talking with non-citizens, that the executives role as CIC granted him the legal responsibility to lead the fight against the enemies of the US.

19

Fair enough, non-citizens outside the U.S. don’t have standing, and are outside the scope of the 4th amendment anyway, I agree.

I don’t follow this privileges & immunities clause discussion. For one, the clause in question addresses the states, and not the federal government, and to the extent that it affects the amendments at all, it bolsters them by applying them to the states. Two, it was virtually written out of existence by the slaughterhouse cases, though it has been somewhat revived as regards the right to travel. It’s never been applied to the 4th-6th amendments in any way, certainly not with respect to the issue of whether “people” includes green card holders. You may have it confused with the “plenary power” doctrine, whereby Congress has absolute or “plenary” power over issues involving immigration and citizenship. The problem is that even that broad power is 1) not vested in the president and 2) has never been construed as allowing the power to suspend the bill of rights for an immigrant who is otherwise covered.

Maybe there are other arguments as to why these people don’t fall within the protection of the 4th amendments – for instance, you could argue something along the lines of exigent circumstances or war powers as justification, or that wiretaps of this kind simply aren’t covered (good luck), but it’s not enough to just declare immigrants unprotected.

Basic wikipedia article on the privileges or immunities clause: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges … ies_Clause

Interesting article that touches on these issues, though is more focused on illegal immigration:
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_h … tBody;col1

20

[quote=“Okami”]
Anybody who rates Reagan as bad, or meh is also younger than 30 and fails to realize how much Reagan demercantilized the economy. You also fail to realize how demoralized the US was after Nixon, Carter and Ford. Reagan had cojones, the likes of which I hope we see again in my lifetime. The current financial success that the US has experienced for 30 odd years is due to this one man. When was the last time you heard of a tax shelter on a TV program, during the early 80’s it was common place.[/quote]

He was bad, but I’m older than 30 and only remember the sound of Regan’s demercantilizing…It’s SWOOOOSH, there goes another factory job overseas…