What Should President Obama Do In His Second Term?

He seems to have little choice but to try to work with the republicans...again. I'm hoping they don't make a deal before the arrival of the fiscal cliff.

http://bonds.about.com/od/Issues-in-the-News/a/What-Is-The-Fiscal-Cliff.htm

If they can't get anything done in the next two years, there will be less incentive to add more democrats to the senate or house when the opportunity arrives. I'm afraid that the republicans have a foothold that will be hard to move under any circumstance.

Tax increases and budget cuts to balance the budget.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Get out of Afghanistan and Yemen , and have tight control in providing weapons to Israel

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What do you mean? There are several ways the Constitution is "shredded":

(1) By Amendment. This requires 2/3 passage in Congress, plus ratification by 75% of state legislatures.
(2) By Courts decisions. Opinions of a judge (or panel of judges or justices) can bar suits and prevent parties from winning relief for violations of the Constitutional rights.
(3) By lack of enforcement or "no teeth". Constitutional rights can be lost by deprivations that have no remedy, either because there is no statute in existence to give parties a venue for relief (there is no cause of action upon which relief may be granted), or there is a clear statutory violation, but the law provides no form of enforcement.

Looking back at my list you'll notice they refer to powers or duties of the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government.

Obama heads the executive branch. Are you saying he has obstructed enforcement of laws that are in place to enforce the Constitution? If so, now? What has he done or failed to do that obstructs enforcement?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In Galt’s world anything contrary to his beliefs including over 200 years of jurisprudence and legal precedence constitutes a shredding of the Constitution.

 

I think Galt (and folks of his persuasion) might believe that any exercise of Constitutional powers or duties, and the protection of the rights preserved in the Constitution, might be construed as "shredding", simply because their party failed to enact the Amendment or laws they espouse. I say, "tough luck." Or how about "Love It or Leave It"?

It's a simple question of being an enemy of the Constitution and laws of the US. He ought to try reading it. Supremacy of the Constitution is a Constitutional provision. So is Equal Protection, fundamental fairness, Due Process and protection against Cruel and Unusual Punishments--all areas the Republicans are quick to shred, and the Dems are our best hope of preserving. But so are the separation of powers and the powers of the Executive Branch. Apparently Galt's beef is limited to the Executive. And (I'm guessing) he and his ilk would just as soon do away with the behemoth Big Government. It may sound cool, but what does it mean? Overthrow of the Constitutional form of government?

Once upon a time that was called sedition. And of course there are laws against that, too. Good thing he's protected by Free Speech to whine about his minority opinions that this should be an anarchy (or whatever he's advocating). Because if he ever tried to actually force his hand, he would end up in Leavenworth.

The pretense that one party--or one fringe ideology--owns the flag, the values and the Constitution and laws of the US is pure unadulterated horseshit. Free speech is a really great thing, but at some point, when you're foaming at the mouth, it's time to see the doc. All these delusions about what is or isn't real can lead to really, really gravely bad behavior. 9/11, Columbine, Oklahoma City and the Unibomber are prime examples.

That's one of my central complaints against Rightwingers, by the way. They are enemies of the Constitution, who have painted themselves into the corner and continually whine about shredding the Constitution while plotting how to usurp it, and while trying their best to convert it into a fascist manifesto.

 

I agree. I think both parties need to stop with the pissing contests and actually start working for the good of the country and for once actually work together and listen to the people of this country with the intent to actually consider what our actual concerns are, rather than listening to find out what lying promises they need to offer to get elected the next time around.

 

What should Obama and Congress do?

1. Switch to an corporate tax system exclusively...where only certain product sectors are taxed. This would essentially result in higher consumer prices for foreign made items, junk food, recreational drugs and other trash. Prostitution should also be legalized and highly taxed.

2. Withdraw troops from all other nations including Europe, Japan and the Middle East.

3. End foreign aid to Israel.

4. Switch from private banking to a credit union system exclusively....also ending government control over interest rates.

5. Establish strict controls over all advertising and esp political advertising.

6. Switch to using gold directly as the national currency. Paper bills would cease to exist and be replaced with dime-thin nickel coins that can be exchanged at credit unions for 1 gram and 10 gram gold coins issued by the Treasury.

 

By the way, did the Libertarians save us all from WWIII???

There was a lot of speculation that a strong libertarian vote would tip huge blocks of electoral college votes over to Obama...thus saving us from Romney and his rabid plague of bible thumping war mongers.

 

That's pretty close to government control of trade. Which might work while the government thinks that junk food is bad and healthy food is good. But once the government decides that asparagus is good (because asparagus growers contribute a lot to the economy, and more importantly the candidates) and broccoli is bad, you may not like the result (especially if you're a farmer growing broccoli.)

Agreed for the most part. Nothing wrong with sending military liaisons to other countries, but we don't need to occupy bases there.

Also agreed.

There's no fundamental difference between banks and credit unions.

Have government controls to prevent free speech in the media? No thanks.

Might work, but the massive depression it would cause would be very difficult to live through.

 

The difference is that the depositors are the shareholders in a credit union...which means they have a say in how their money will be used.

The difference between 'free speech' and advertising is that advertising is paid for.

I have no problem with every variety of free speech in a public scenario like a televised debate/interview, website info, books, newspaper editorial...but paid ads? No!

 

Obama needs you as an adviser for his cabinet

 

Usually these notions of gold standards causing depressions stem from Churchill's decision to go back on the standard after WWI at the same previous price...causing several long hard years of money supply contraction.

What he should have done is returned at a higher price to accommodate the increase in the money supply created during the war.

 

Fully my opinion here. He should find him a mistress like Monica. And hope to get impeached. Unlike ol' Billy. And follow what Billy has done. Get his wife a high government job. If he don't like that, well it would be great to see him step down surprisingly. And let Joey Biden try his job for kicks an giggles.
Here is a thought Obama can find former General Betray us's mistress and have her lie that he was with her instead.

I wish Ol' Virgil Goode won the Office.. Hope he runs again next time! Vote for ol' Virgil! Its got a Goode ring to it!

 

this funny you saying this about Joepistole. He is a cheerleader for the democrats. I have seen him shake his pom poms in more than one thread for those democrats.
Reminds me of a neighbor I have. I do get tired of hearing
Ra Ra Obama!! He is elected now. And yay he has only 4 years now left, and then GOOD Riddance!

 

You can own shares in your bank as well if you choose to do so. Your choice. If you do, you are in the same boat as the credit unions.

Newspapers are paid for. Internet access, billboards, flyers - all those are paid for as well. Banning speech you pay for is banning free speech.

How do you distinguish paid free speech in a newspaper ad vs. paid free speech in a pamphlet someone distributes vs. paid free speech that you make on a website where you pay a fee to join or access the site?

 

You'll notice that every citizen of a nation gets one vote, regardless of how much tax they pay...in a credit union all depositors also get one vote, regardless of how much they have in the bank.

Both systems work this way for a good reason...it prevents wealth from creating an imbalance of influence.

 

The question is WHO pays for what. Professional writers and commentators dont pay the newspapers and magazines to publish their articles.

If they did, it would be a form of advertising...and the newspaper would lose all credibility in no time.