US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
The presidency is more powerful when both houses of congress are controlled by the same party as the president simultaneously and also when there has been a national disaster - in the nine months before 9/11 he was very ineffective and in his second term he was very ineffective, especially after the 2006 midterms.

When the constitution was designed in Philadelphia in 1787 it was determined that the presidency would be the weakest of the three branches of government, the presidency as we see it today is a construct of the 1930s when the president became more vocal and more visible thanks to the rise of the modern media. Constitutionally the president has as much say in the matter of legislation and budget setting as Her Majesty in the United Kingdom does.

Obviously, the president is more powerful when his party controls both houses, but you said that the president has been basically without much power throughout history, which is a different point altogether.

As to the periods in which GWB was powerful, you're basically proving my point that GWB wielded a substantial amount of power during his presidency. Even if your timeline is correct, you're pointing to five years of significant power. Furthermore, a president's last years of power especially after a two-term presidency is historically his least influential. Perhaps stretching the literal definition, but that period is also referred to his lame-duck years.

But even beyond GWB, one only needs to look at Clinton's presidency. Though the GOP dominated Congress, Clinton basically made them his bitches. Or even Reagan's presidency dominated by a democratic Congress.

What's more, you also seem to be ignoring the fact that the number of executive branch includes numerous department under the president's thumb, to wit, departments of agriculture, commerce, defense, education, energy, health and human services, housing and urban development, interior, justice, labor, state, transportation, treasury and veterans affairs. With an executive order, the president can basically wave his right hand, and implement long lasting policies in these departments.

And not to mention that the executive has had a near direct hand in swinging the Supreme Court to the right. And when you compound all of these powers with the fact that the US is the most powerful country in the world, it's little wonder that the US president is deemed the most powerful man in the world.

The president has never been powerful? Sorry, but that's highly disagreeable.
 
Obviously, the president is more powerful when his party controls both houses, but you said that the president has been basically without much power throughout history, which is a different point altogether.

As to the periods in which GWB was powerful, you're basically proving my point that GWB wielded a substantial amount of power during his presidency. Even if your timeline is correct, you're pointing to five years of significant power. Furthermore, a president's last years of power especially after a two-term presidency is historically his least influential. Perhaps stretching the literal definition, but that period is also referred to his lame-duck years.

But even beyond GWB, one only needs to look at Clinton's presidency. Though the GOP dominated Congress, Clinton basically made them his bitches. Or even Reagan's presidency dominated by a democratic Congress.

What's more, you also seem to be ignoring the fact that the number of executive branch includes numerous department under the president's thumb, to wit, departments of agriculture, commerce, defense, education, energy, health and human services, housing and urban development, interior, justice, labor, state, transportation, treasury and veterans affairs. With an executive order, the president can basically wave his right hand, and implement long lasting policies in these departments.

And not to mention that the executive has had a near direct hand in swinging the Supreme Court to the right. And when you compound all of these powers with the fact that the US is the most powerful country in the world, it's little wonder that the US president is deemed the most powerful man in the world.

The president has never been powerful? Sorry, but that's highly disagreeable.


The president has been without power throughout history, that isn't debatable at all as it was specifically designed to be that way. The framers of the constitution wanted a federal structure that could centralise authority over the states yet didn't want a head of state who would have undue influence so they came up with what they did.

In over 220 years of the US constitution being in operation that has been the way it has worked, since the thirties the presidency has been more powerful relative to its history but relative to commonwealth heads of government the president is not powerful at all - never has the president been stronger than the legislature which ultimately puts it in its place.

I am not proving anything you said about Bush, he did not have five years of a 'substantial amount' of power, he had a few years of authority beyond what is typical but in no way was it substantial - he could not get social security reform, he could not get immigration reform and he could not get any significant education reform - that is not my idea of significant power and this is when he had massive approval ratings, both houses of congress and Cheney and Rove twisting arms.
 
The power of the Presidency began to take shape in the late 19th century after the states finally began to cede power to the federal government. Before that, Congress ran the show to a large extent.
 
With regard to Clinton and Reagan they were not all powerful and neither is the president's control over federal agencies - it only takes one committee in the House of Representatives to reallocate funding for a department and that is the end of that.
 
The power of the Presidency began to take shape in the late 19th century after the states finally began to cede power to the federal government. Before that, Congress ran the show to a large extent.

Though it really for going when Roosevelt created the Executive Office of the President and was able to whip up public support like no other president before him could.

The president is only as good as the people around him, and up until the thirties less than a dozen people worked at the White House in anything but a clerical role.
 
Though it really for going when Roosevelt created the Executive Office of the President and was able to whip up public support like no other president before him could.

It goes beyond the Presidency. The shift in the balance of power from the legislative (who were at the time selected by and beholden to state legislatures), to the executive started when federal institutional capacity began to take shape through a series of reforms in the 1880s. The railroads, civil service commission, the bureau of labor etc. All of these changes meant that states had to cede a large degree of control to the federal government, which in turn strengthened federal institutions, including broader capacity for the Executive branch.
 
It goes beyond the Presidency. The shift in the balance of power from the legislative (who were at the time selected by and beholden to state legislatures), to the executive started when federal institutional capacity began to take shape through a series of reforms in the 1880s. The railroads, civil service commission, the bureau of labor etc. All of these changes meant that states had to cede a large degree of control to the federal government, which in turn strengthened federal institutions, including broader capacity for the Executive branch.

Indeed, it all comes together - the biggest shift from state to federal authority in all likelihood came with the Sixteenth Amendment, and for that matter the Seventeenth Amendment as well.
 
Hmm... the top tax rate was 94% during the war, and still 70% under Reagan. My wild guess is that they collected more, not less revenue from higher earners than they do today.

Not necessarily. The rich have the option to move money offshore or simply roll investments over and avoid paying tax. I am not sure about the years and scenarios you mention but I do know that tax receipts from the rich were much higher under Thatcher than the Labour government that proceeded her with their 99% super tax. Once tax rates become punitive the rich find ways around the system.
 
The president has been without power throughout history, that isn't debatable at all as it was specifically designed to be that way. The framers of the constitution wanted a federal structure that could centralise authority over the states yet didn't want a head of state who would have undue influence so they came up with what they did.

To the contrary, the president has been with substantial powers throughout history. Your statement would be correct if the US were still being run under the long-dead Articles of Confederation, which was, in effect, the constitution before the Constitution. Under the Articles, the executive basically had very little powers if any. When the US failed under that design, the US then came up with the current Constitution, which afforded the executive office far more powers in no small part due to the fact that the very little powers under the the Articles simply didn't work.

Obviously, the current constitution divests the presidency of powers unlike other heads of state, but even with this tri-partite government, it's hardly debatable that the US president is very powerful, and that your statement that the presidency has been without power is simply incorrect.


In over 220 years of the US constitution being in operation that has been the way it has worked, since the thirties the presidency has been more powerful relative to its history but relative to commonwealth heads of government the president is not powerful at all - never has the president been stronger than the legislature which ultimately puts it in its place.

It is simply an incorrect statement to suggest that presidents before the '30s were not that powerful. Perhaps apart from the Radical Republicans post-civil war, the executive office has dominated US history regarding governmental achievements. And besides, sorry for being so trite, but you're also moving the goal posts with your latter statement.

I am not proving anything you said about Bush, he did not have five years of a 'substantial amount' of power, he had a few years of authority beyond what is typical but in no way was it substantial - he could not get social security reform, he could not get immigration reform and he could not get any significant education reform - that is not my idea of significant power and this is when he had massive approval ratings, both houses of congress and Cheney and Rove twisting arms.

I'm sorry, but your calling the powers that GWB wielded as being "in no way...substantial" is jarringly unreasonable. Further, you're not entirely correct that he failed in those areas of reform in those regards, but even if he was a complete failure, what he was able to accomplish as a whole, again, suggests that your statement that the president has never had any power is woefully incorrect.
 
The president has been without power throughout history, that isn't debatable at all as it was specifically designed to be that way. The framers of the constitution wanted a federal structure that could centralise authority over the states yet didn't want a head of state who would have undue influence so they came up with what they did.

In over 220 years of the US constitution being in operation that has been the way it has worked, since the thirties the presidency has been more powerful relative to its history but relative to commonwealth heads of government the president is not powerful at all - never has the president been stronger than the legislature which ultimately puts it in its place.

I am not proving anything you said about Bush, he did not have five years of a 'substantial amount' of power, he had a few years of authority beyond what is typical but in no way was it substantial - he could not get social security reform, he could not get immigration reform and he could not get any significant education reform - that is not my idea of significant power and this is when he had massive approval ratings, both houses of congress and Cheney and Rove twisting arms.

Sorry if I'm sidetracking the argument for a second, but the Patriot Act and it's cousins gave Bush unprecedented powers and effectively destroyed several of the amendments from the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech. He wasn't able to do absolutely everything he wanted, but there were significant end-arounds on many government processes. I had to stop reading about them at one point it was all so depressing.
 
A more prudent interpretation of Obama's speech:

It was the State of the Union speech, which is aimed at the American people. In that respect he was a brilliant speech that most will identify with.
 
It was the State of the Union speech, which is aimed at the American people. In that respect he was a brilliant speech that most will identify with.

Obama's always been very good at drumming out emphatic rhetoric and this SOTU speech is no different. Nader here mentions the inconsistencies and contradictions between those strong words and action, and in most cases he's right. The progressive left in the US is in absolute tatters.
 
Obama's always been very good at drumming out emphatic rhetoric and this SOTU speech is no different. Nader here mentions the inconsistencies and contradictions between those strong words and action, and in most cases he's right. The progressive left in the US is in absolute tatters.

The content of his speech was spot on IMO, and I am well to the left of center. Talk is cheap of course, especially when the Republicans block everything he does.
 
Obama's always been very good at drumming out emphatic rhetoric and this SOTU speech is no different. Nader here mentions the inconsistencies and contradictions between those strong words and action, and in most cases he's right. The progressive left in the US is in absolute tatters.

The left is in tatters??

Why? Because Obama does not agree with all their views?

Obama has to govern from the center as all Presidents do. A Democratic president will be left of center and a Republican president will be right of center is all.

His speech was inspiring and a call to unite and work together. Congress may not do that, but the man on the street wants that and if he does not see this happening, he will make his feelings known in November.
 
The left is in tatters??

Why? Because Obama does not agree with all their views?

Obama has to govern from the center as all Presidents do. A Democratic president will be left of center and a Republican president will be right of center is all.

His speech was inspiring and a call to unite and work together. Congress may not do that, but the man on the street wants that and if he does not see this happening, he will make his feelings known in November.

The rhetoric and choice of language in his speech was indeed inspiring but they haven't complemented his action, and you can't just use congress as an excuse to broken promises.

And the whole point of the common man making his point on November is moot, as a progressive lefty you have a choice between corporate Obama or Romneybot/Stay puf Marshmallow man. There is no real progressive, corporate-independent candidate to speak of...well not one with a realistic chance of winning that is.
 
The rhetoric and choice of language in his speech was indeed inspiring but they haven't complemented his action, and you can't just use congress as an excuse to broken promises.

And the whole point of the common man making his point on November is moot, as a progressive lefty you have a choice between corporate Obama or Romneybot/Stay puf Marshmallow man. There is no real progressive, corporate-independent candidate to speak of...well not one with a realistic chance of winning that is.

the discussion about the powers of the preseident above is a good one. He does not have absolute authority. He does have to work with congress...and that is not an excuse.

Where is the disconnect? He has asked congress to act on policies he is advocating.

the reason for the lack of a realistic pogressive choice is that, the country is not there...yet. Change comes slowly. But if you give up and disconnect, that change will never come.
 
The rhetoric and choice of language in his speech was indeed inspiring but they haven't complemented his action, and you can't just use congress as an excuse to broken promises.
.

The only broken promise you are interested in is Guantanamo Bay, and the American public don't really care about that anyway.
 
Thats the smallest of them really, watch the video I posted above for a more specific insight.

I am not really bothered about the views on a bitter politician like Nadar. Obama did deliver on his number one promise, and his health care bill was passed. He came to office on the back of the one of the worst financial crashes in history, and in the midst of a global recession. With everything he has had to contend with he has done a pretty decent job.

If Obama was in power during better times with a majority in congress he would be a great President.
 
Why have you dismissed Nader as a 'bitter politician'? He's one of the few remaining true progressives who isn't completely at the mercy of corporations or lobbyists.
 
Nader is good man. You are right in saying he is not beholden to corporations.

Just think he could have had more of a voice in the democratic party.

His breed are a rarity even within the Dems, though I don't particularly blame him for being an independent.

A Kucinich/Nader campaign would be a dream ticket, but unfortunately only about 10 people would end up voting for them.
 
It's hard not to hate Nader for letting Bush into the White House.

But then, when both parties are so far right of centre and such corporate whores, really he was right to make a stand.

But then again... George Bush. Iraq, torture, Patriot Act, slashed taxes for the rich, Katrina...

Wanker.
 
Voters are such sheep, hard to imagine Mitt coming back from this. He'd have to re-brand himself significantly, and he's got Al Gore level personality problems.
 
It's hard not to hate Nader for letting Bush into the White House.

But then, when both parties are so far right of centre and such corporate whores, really he was right to make a stand.

But then again... George Bush. Iraq, torture, Patriot Act, slashed taxes for the rich, Katrina...

Wanker.

blame the Dems for putting up such a poor candidate as Gore.
blame the Supreme Court for appointing Bush...but don't blame Nader.
 
Secret hostage rescue played out as Obama spoke

The secret was still intact when President Barack Obama, entering the House chamber Tuesday evening to deliver his State of the Union speech, pointed at his Pentagon chief and said, "Good job tonight."

Unknown to a global television audience watching the annual Capitol Hill ritual, a bold U.S. raid was still playing out half a world away with an elite Navy SEAL team's rescue of two hostages in Somalia, one of them an American. It was the same unit that killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, two U.S. officials said Wednesday.

Publicly, Obama did not tip his hand during his speech, though microphones picked up his congratulation to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as he entered the House chamber. Obama pointed his index finger to Panetta and said, "Good job tonight. Good job." Panetta smiled broadly.

Obama had learned shortly before that American aid worker Jessica Buchanan and Poul Hagen Thisted, a Dane, were safely in U.S. military hands. Immediately after the speech, Obama telephoned Buchanan's father from the Capitol to tell him that she was safe and "on her way home," according to the White House.

A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Capt. John Kirby, said that although the two hostages were safe by the time Obama gestured to Panetta, the secretive rescue mission had not yet been completed.

Kirby and other Pentagon officials declined to reveal details of how the rescue was conducted, although they said the Americans originally intended to capture alive and detain the kidnappers. Instead, for reasons that have not been explained publicly, they killed all nine of them.

Panetta's press secretary, George Little, said the kidnappers were heavily armed, with explosives "nearby." He said neither the two hostages nor any members of the U.S. assault team were injured.

Little said one factor in deciding to go ahead with the rescue was that Buchanan's medical condition had been deteriorating. He said it was believed that her condition could be life-threatening. Neither Kirby nor Little would say more about her medical problem or say how the U.S. learned of it getting worse.

In his State of the Union speech the president did not mention the rescue, though he did refer to another successful military operation _ the May 2011 killing of bin Laden in Pakistan by Navy SEAL Team 6.

"One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL Team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden," Obama said in his speech.

Tuesday's rescue was carried out by the same SEAL unit that carried out the bin Laden operation, two U.S. officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the operation. The unit is the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, also known as SEAL Team 6. The members of the unit who carried out the rescue operation were not the same personnel as those who killed bin Laden, the U.S. officials said.

In a predawn White House statement, Obama praised U.S. Special Operations Forces who rescued Buchanan and the Dane, who had been kidnapped at gunpoint by Somali pirates in October.

"As Commander-in-Chief, I could not be prouder of the troops who carried out this mission, and the dedicated professionals who supported their efforts," Obama said in a statement.

A U.S. official speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the top secret operation, said the SEAL team parachuted into the area and got to the rescue site on foot. The official said U.S. Air Force special operations planes carried the SEALs to the parachute drop zone, and Army special operations helicopters carried the raiders and their hostages to safety.

Panetta, in a statement, said Buchanan and Hagen Thisted "have been transported to a safe location where we will evaluate their health and make arrangements for them to return home." He said the two hostages were not harmed during the operation, and no U.S. troops were killed or injured.

"This was a team effort and required close coordination, especially between the Department of Defense and our colleagues in the Federal Bureau of Investigation," Panetta said.

On NBC's "Today," Vice President Joe Biden said the U.S. decided to move after determining that Buchanan's health "was beginning to decline."

"We wanted to act," Biden said.

Obama approved the mission Monday. On Tuesday, Obama's top counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, gave the president half a dozen updates on the movement of forces and the progression of rescue operation.

About two hours before Obama was scheduled to begin delivering his State of the Union address, Brennan told him Buchanan and Thisted were safe and in U.S. hands.

After delivering his address, Obama called Buchanan's father. In his statement Wednesday, Obama said he told John Buchanan "that all Americans have Jessica in our thoughts and prayers, and give thanks that she will soon be reunited with her family."

"The United States will not tolerate the abduction of our people, and will spare no effort to secure the safety of our citizens and to bring their captors to justice," Obama said. "This is yet another message to the world that the United States of America will stand strongly against any threats to our people."

Biden had high praise for the special forces. "It takes your breath away, their capacity and their bravery," he said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "These guys and women are amazing."
 
404488_3071018345054_1551490339_32839886_1782025225_n.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.