What to Realistically Expect from the 44th President

[xsited1]

If Obama is indeed elected and his administration is successful the Democratic Party has finally found it's new approach. Grass roots campaigns, with the simple message, do what you can with your time, and with your money and you the average Joe can have a say in your country. If you don't there is a group of people who will run for their own selfish gain and your impoverishment.

I guess that's why Obama voted for the bail-out bill.

 

[GigiBowman]

Well at least your honest so hats off to you for that. As you might know a pitcher labeled as Kool-Aid appeared on a fake Food Stamp and many saw it as racist. I truly hope there was no racism involved here.

I hope you are like most in American and are tired of the endless smear campaigns, personal attacks, and more interested in hearing about issues. It is these type of "derogatory" comments that causes people to show up at McCain rallies with toy monkeys with Obama's name on it. I would hope that you are like so many other American including myself that are tired with derogatory attacks, endless smears and downright lies. Are you?

I think I made myself perfectly clear

Doesn't matter what color you are

Obama = CFR

and people not taking this into account or anything else that is brought to the table yet believing he will cure all the ills of the world = Kool-aid drinker

 

[Truthmatters]

Actually this is a Republic, and I'll have to disagree with you about Ron Paul's ideas.

WHEN will you people get this straight.

A republic is a TYPE of Democracy.


No Ron Pauls ideas are so far from the mainstream thought he cant get any percentage of the vote.

 

[GigiBowman]

WHEN will you people get this straight.

A republican is a TYPE of Democracy.


No Ron Pauls ideas are so far from the mainstream thought he cant get any percentage of the vote.

All I can say is WOW

 

[Truthmatters]

ok, so this is why we keep calling Obama supporters Kook-Aid Drinkers.

which is the party that gave us this mess?

 

[Truthmatters]

All I can say is WOW

so just what is wrong with what I said?

 

[Skull Pilot]

WHEN will you people get this straight.

A republican is a TYPE of Democracy.


No Ron Pauls ideas are so far from the mainstream thought he cant get any percentage of the vote.

Let's see BHO's and JM's thoughts are mainstream and have been mainstream for years and look where those two particular schools of thought have gotten us.

 

[Truthmatters]

Democracy definition | Dictionary.com


de⋅moc⋅ra⋅cy   /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

 

[xsited1]

WHEN will you people get this straight.

A republic is a TYPE of Democracy.

Uh, no. A Democracy and a Republic are not only dissimilar but antithetical. Back to class for you.

 

[Truthmatters]

You people just lap the right wing bullshit up like Paplum huh?

 

[Truthmatters]

Democracy

 

[Truthmatters]

Uh, no. A Democracy and a Republic are not only dissimilar but antithetical. Back to class for you.

Please document your insane claim

 

[Truthmatters]

man I now know how to clear a room full of cons

 

[Truthmatters]

We are eight days from this election being over and as usual most Americans are tired of the ads, attacks, and 24/7 news coverage. Given the challenges the new President faces, one must ask why anyone would want the job. An 11 Trillion Dollar Debt, two wars, a severe economic recession, a very divided nation. So what can we realistically expect? Well that depends on US and NOT THEM we are all stake holders.

WE'RE BROKE-Our nation has an 11 trillion dollar debt with an almost 500 billion dollar deficit projected for FY2009. We have already allocated part of the 750 billion dollar bailout to the banks and there seems to be some hope with intra bank lending rates decreasing slightly in the last week. However, many experts agree more will be needed to get us out of this credit crunch. Most Americans are also broke and live paycheck to paycheck, and use their credit cards to subsidize a standard of living they cannot afford. The country is broke and many of us are broke too.

TWO WARS-Right now we are in talks with the Iraqi government on when US forces will leave Iraq and this will probably be finalized before Bush leaves office or shortly after the next President is sworn in. I would bet whoever is sworn in the US will abide by the agreement and if one has not been completed that will become a priority for the new administration. The War in Afghanistan is one that needs long overdue attention. The new President must not "go it alone" as the 43rd did and must did as George H.W. Bush and build a coalition. This will be hard because of the "you are with us or against us approach used by Bush."

SOUND FISCAL POLICY vs. SOCIAL SPENDING-Americans face challenges getting affordable health care in the best of health and if they have problems it is almost impossible. Health Care costs are soaring, and this alone drives up the cost of Medicare, then throw in the Prescription Drug Program giveaway and you have just created the largest entitlement program ever. This is just one area that needs the attention of money THAT WE DO NOT HAVE. No Child Left Behind a/k/a Every School Budget Unfunded is another issue ONCE AGAIN WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO DO ANYTHING. We also face a huge national debt of 11 trillion bucks with 500 billion owed to the Chinese that needs to be addressed.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION-Congress passed the ball on that one to the next Congress and President. With the lousy economy many immigrants are leaving for home because they can't find what they want the most a job here so they can send money back home. However, the problem persists and when the economy comes back they will be returning. Democrats and Republicans have their own interests in keeping the system the way it is because Democrats will see if they win states like CO and NM the Latinos are reliable voting blocks that favor them and the GOP´s corporate interest like the fact illegals work cheap and usually don't do nasty things like forming unions. However, all of us pay for programs that mandate that their children be educated and receive ESOL, Emergency Room Visits, and their use of the justice system. In California they say 25% of the inmate population is here illegally.

YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT COULD BE BROKE TOO-Even governments like Arlington County, VA just outside of Washington DC are seeing their revenues shrink and are bringing in hiring freezes. California needs 7 billion or it could go bust and more problems loom for most local governments.

So what is the solution? Nobody has one. Both candidates McCain and Obama have unrealistic budget plans that will add more to the national credit card. But I urge, all of you to think back to the Immigration Debate that bill was headed for fast passage however WE THE PEOPLE SPOKE OUT and stopped it cold in its tracks. WE THE PEOPLE MUST KEEP WATCH ON OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND WATCH THEM AS CLOSELY AS WE WATCH OUR KIDS AND DEMAND REAL SOLUTIONS TO REAL PROBLEMS NOT QUICK FIXES.

To get lasting fixes we must also need to sacrifice our own selfish interests to the national interests and we must insist the "drive by attacks" end and the real work begin. THIS ELECTION IS EIGHT DAYS AWAY!!! ON NOVEMBER 5TH EVERYBODY NEEDS TO STOP CAMPAIGNING AND START WORKING TO SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS.

Sorry dude I did not mean to kill your thread , the truth just does that to cons.

 

[jillian]

I'll admit I am an amateur Constitutional scholar but I know a thing or two and that seems to be more than a lot of pols know.

I agree. And I'm far from a scholar. But I do care greatly about the Constitution. My problem is that so many people now have decided that they know the exact meaning of the Constitution that it's easy to get caught up in the verbiage.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Democracy definition | Dictionary.com


de⋅moc⋅ra⋅cy   /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

Sigh.


ThisNation.com--Is the United States a democracy?




The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).

By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums. (Initiatives originate with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by, a state's legislative body.) That the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is indicative of the Framers' opposition to such mechanisms. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day.

Writing of the merits of a republican or representative form of government, James Madison observed that one of the most important differences between a democracy and a republic is "the delegation of the government [in a republic] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest." The primary effect of such a scheme, Madison continued, was to:

. . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose (Federalist No. 10).

Later, Madison elaborated on the importance of "refining and enlarging the public views" through a scheme of representation:

There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind(Federalist No. 63).

In the strictest sense of the word, the system of government established by the Constitution was never intended to be a "democracy." This is evident not only in the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance but in the Constitution itself which declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4). Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a republic, not a democracy.

To the extent that the United States of America has moved away from its republican roots and become more "democratic," it has strayed from the intentions of the Constitution's authors. Whether or not the trend toward more direct democracy would be smiled upon by the Framers depends on the answer to another question. Are the American people today sufficiently better informed and otherwise equipped to be wise and prudent democratic citizens than were American citizens in the late 1700s? By all accounts, the answer to this second question is an emphatic "no."

I thought everyone knew this. Guess not.

 

[GigiBowman]

Please document your insane claim

Insane Claim?

You're really getting insulting now to people who actually paid attention in History class.

 

[GigiBowman]

Hmmm in fact, I think it's starting to look like an Oligarchy around here lol --lets start with the powerful elite federal reserve bankers who are running our country? Hmmmmmm

Oligarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Truthmatters]

Sigh.


ThisNation.com--Is the United States a democracy?




The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).

By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums. (Initiatives originate with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by, a state's legislative body.) That the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is indicative of the Framers' opposition to such mechanisms. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day.

Writing of the merits of a republican or representative form of government, James Madison observed that one of the most important differences between a democracy and a republic is "the delegation of the government [in a republic] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest." The primary effect of such a scheme, Madison continued, was to:

. . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose (Federalist No. 10).

Later, Madison elaborated on the importance of "refining and enlarging the public views" through a scheme of representation:

There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind(Federalist No. 63).

In the strictest sense of the word, the system of government established by the Constitution was never intended to be a "democracy." This is evident not only in the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance but in the Constitution itself which declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4). Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a republic, not a democracy.

To the extent that the United States of America has moved away from its republican roots and become more "democratic," it has strayed from the intentions of the Constitution's authors. Whether or not the trend toward more direct democracy would be smiled upon by the Framers depends on the answer to another question. Are the American people today sufficiently better informed and otherwise equipped to be wise and prudent democratic citizens than were American citizens in the late 1700s? By all accounts, the answer to this second question is an emphatic "no."

I thought everyone knew this. Guess not.

ThisNation.com--About


About the Author
ThisNation.com is researched and written by Jonathan Mott, Ph.D. (Political Science from the University of Oklahoma). Dr. Mott has taught introductory American Government, American Political Thought, American Political Processes, the American Presidency, Congress and the Legislative Process, Campaign Management, Transitions from Campaigning to Governing, Cyberpolitics, Political Analysis and Public Policy at the University of Oklahoma and at Brigham Young University. He is currently the Director of Brigham Young University's Center for Instructional Design and an Adjunct Professor of Political Science at BYU.

Dr. Mott's Ph.D. dissertation is on the styles of work adopted by members of Congress while at work in Washington, D.C. While doing his dissertation research, Dr. Mott served as an American Political Science Association Carl Albert Congressional Fellow in the office of Congressman J.C. Watts, Jr. (R-OK), the Congressman who represented the area where the Motts lived while Jonathan was in graduate school. He has published articles in Social Science Quarterly, Public Integrity , the Journal of Political Science Education and has presented numerous papers at academic conferences.

BYU?????????


One nut bag at BYU does not get to change the definition fo Democracy

 

[Truthmatters]

Insane Claim?

You're really getting insulting now to people who actually paid attention in History class.

Are you really going to continue with the claim that a republic is not a Democracy?