Obama - a three term President?

[sandinista]

Furthermore, the 2-term limit alters the outlook of a President. A re-elected executive who no longer has to think about the next election is likely to act differently than one who is worried about whether or not he's going to have another term. He/she is more likely to act in the nation's long-term interests (or if you're a cynic, in the interests of his legacy) than for short-term political gain. To take one example (and I'm using one I was against): George W. Bush waited until his 2nd term to try and tackle Social Security reform. I doubt he would've done that if he was planning to run for a 3rd term - it was a very unpopular thing to do, not least of which in Florida, and he knew it. But it took guts, and guts tend to be lacking in a politician who always has to keep one eye on the strategy of winning his next election. This also explains why lame-duck Congresses tend to be more productive than those in other times in the election cycle.

That sounds like a good argument against term limits to me. First term is trying to actually do what the public wants, second term is doing whatever 'you' want and screw the people. Doesn't sound very democratic.

That brings up an interesting political debate. Some argue that many of the faults in the democratic system spring from populism, in that when politicians make decisions solely on how it effect their chances of re-election, they pander to fleeting and fickle public opinion. This, it is said, may prevent them from making wise decisions for the long-term benefit of the community; it certainly means they are often more preoccupied with current opinion polls than rational analysis of what a community needs. This is probably exacerbated by the nature of modern media, which favours the instant and shallow over the delayed but reasoned...

Who decides what is for 'the long-term benefit' of the community? It's not a democracy, it's not a republic, it's a disguised plutocracy with a pretense of democracy. A disgusting perversion.

Well, of course, when you want to get into actual neo liberal politics. I don't agree with term limits ideologically or even hypothetically, but, of course, in reality, the "president" or even the political parties don't really matter. The are not the seats of power. I wouldn't even say that the plutocracy is even disguised. I suppose so, but it is pretty obvious to anyone who cares enough to look.

[Rum]

Well for once I agree. You'll never get a democratic vote to dismantle capitalism in America, even if the majority wanted it, which they don't anyway. To be fair most don't even think there might be alternatives or liberalised versions available.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If you take away term limits you effective guarantee that some US politicians will never leave office. Strom Thurmond comes to mind. This would indeed render elections moot.

[mistermack]

If you take away term limits you effective guarantee that some US politicians will never leave office. Strom Thurmond comes to mind. This would indeed render elections moot.

I don't think the US would be a good country to allow more than two terms.
You just have to look at the Bushes. How the fuck would W ever get elected, if he didn't have a famous daddy?
American people as a group seem to have a problem knowing who is who. So they would vote for the incumbent, just because they didn't know who the other guy was. That's how W Bush got in. They knew the name.

The other problem with more than two terms is the opportunity of corruption.
If you KNOW that there is going to be a new administration, you might hold back a bit.

[Coito ergo sum]

I wasn't aware until recently that the 22nd Amendment was made so recently (1947). Some guy is trying to get it repealed it seems. If so Obama could get a third term! (Roosevelt had 4..)

What do Americans in particular think of this (Obama aside))?

Link below..

http://www.examiner.com/article/preside ... erm-limits

It won't pass. And, it has to be ratified by the State legislatures of 3/4 of the States, so since the States split 50-50 on Romney/Obama, there is precious little chance of it being ratified.

With the consolidation of power in the executive branch, I really would be hesitant to repeal that amendment.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well for once I agree. You'll never get a democratic vote to dismantle capitalism in America,

Would anyone want to dismantle capitalism, given that as an economic system it outperforms all rivals?

even if the majority wanted it, which they don't anyway.

They don't, that's probably true, although a growing minority is being convinced that socialism is a much nicer economic system.

To be fair most don't even think there might be alternatives or liberalised versions available.

Very true, but that is true of the citizens of most countries.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think somebody should be able to hold office as long as the people want them to. They should have to go up for re-election regularly, of course. If it's not broke, don't fix it.

That is, I think, what everyone would want in a perfect world. A term limit, though, is a check and balance against too much power in a single person's hands, and the likelihood of an incumbent being able to use the power of his or her office to retain that seat, not because of but despite public opinion.

[Blind groper]

It is not a choice of capitalism or socialism. It is quite possible to incorporate both. This is very true of the UK, for example, with a system that seems to work well. The British health system, for example, makes the American health system look silly.

[Gerald McGrew]

It is not a choice of capitalism or socialism. It is quite possible to incorporate both. This is very true of the UK, for example, with a system that seems to work well. The British health system, for example, makes the American health system look silly.

And that's what always strikes me in these debates/discussions. So many people seem to be capable of only thinking in a black/white manner where it's either capitalism or socialism, with nothing in between.

Although the US is probably the most capitalistic country, it still has elements of socialism. And in countries that are often thought of as socialist (e.g. the Scandinavians), they have strong elements of capitalism. And interestingly, by most metrics it's the more socialistic countries that are doing the best. In the US OTOH, our economy is "working" increasingly for the wealthy and less and less for everyone else.

[Coito ergo sum]

It is not a choice of capitalism or socialism. It is quite possible to incorporate both. This is very true of the UK, for example, with a system that seems to work well. The British health system, for example, makes the American health system look silly.

And that's what always strikes me in these debates/discussions. So many people seem to be capable of only thinking in a black/white manner where it's either capitalism or socialism, with nothing in between.

Most people here are plenty capable of thinking in non-black and white terms, and a mixed capitalist/socialist economy is called "Mixed Economy." That, of course, is not "dismantling" the capitalist system, which was what Rum mentioned.

Although the US is probably the most capitalistic country, it still has elements of socialism. And in countries that are often thought of as socialist (e.g. the Scandinavians), they have strong elements of capitalism. And interestingly, by most metrics it's the more socialistic countries that are doing the best. In the US OTOH, our economy is "working" increasingly for the wealthy and less and less for everyone else.

A socialist economy is, simply stated, an economy where the means of production is all or mostly owned and controlled by the State, whereas a capitalist economy the means of production is owned/controlled mostly by private persons, whether individuals or corporations.

The US is generally considered to be on stronger footing than the socialist western European countries, and the people here by and large have higher standards of living.

(Average Individual Consumption Index, per OECD).



Generally, the countries that are doing the best in western Europe are the Scandinavian countries, which as you correctly pointed out have strong capitalist private sectors. Countries like Greece and Italy and Spain are, however, teetering on the brink.

[Robert_S]

All Obama has to do is sit out a term or two. He could easily be president again in 2020 or 2024.

[Coito ergo sum]

All Obama has to do is sit out a term or two. He could easily be president again in 2020 or 2024.

Nope. Can't do that. The maximum times a person can be elected President is "twice." Not "twice in a row," but "twice." So, the only other clear way he could become President would be to get elected to the House of Representatives, and then have the President and Vice President die. There is a legal question about whether he might run as a Vice Presidential Candidate -- some scholars say the 12th Amendment would prevent that, and others find the language distinguishable (the 12th applying to eligibility to serve as vice president and the 22nd Amendment applying to how many times one can be "elected" President. I side with the latter, which would allow Obama to run as, say, Hillary's running mate and serve as VP. If Hillary died in office, then 'bama could "succeed" to office, but he could not be "elected" again.

[Gerald McGrew]

Most people here are plenty capable of thinking in non-black and white terms, and a mixed capitalist/socialist economy is called "Mixed Economy." That, of course, is not "dismantling" the capitalist system, which was what Rum mentioned.

Yet usually when this comes up, it's always "capitalism vs. socialism" as if those are the only two options available.

The US is generally considered to be on stronger footing than the socialist western European countries, and the people here by and large have higher standards of living.

Again, as above, none of those countries are purely socialist and none are purely capitalist.

Generally, the countries that are doing the best in western Europe are the Scandinavian countries

It depends on which metric you choose as your yardstick. For example, if I were a single mother I would much rather live in Sweden than in the US. Just today, the WP posted a story about "the best places in the world to be born into".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... tid=pm_pop

The first line is telling:

If you came into the world today and could pick your nationality, there are at least 15 better choices than to be born American, according to a study by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

As is this:

Yes, it’s yet another international ranking on individual well-being where the Nordic countries come out on top, alongside Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

IOW, it's becoming commonplace that every time one of these types of surveys is conducted, the Nordic countries are always in the top spots.

which as you correctly pointed out have strong capitalist private sectors. Countries like Greece and Italy and Spain are, however, teetering on the brink.

First, Greece and Spain are suffering under extreme austerity during an economic recession, which even on it's face should be an obvious stupid move (that's why the IMF is now admitting as such), as well as having debt in a currency they don't control. Second, chalking up Nordic success to their "strong capitalist" system is laughable given that many of their economic and social policies would be decried as "communism" if they were proposed here in the US. Hell, we have a Democratic POTUS who proposes ideas originally developed by conservatives (individual mandate), advocates low tax rates for most of the county, proposes cutting social services, and is generally a Rockefeller Republican, yet is decried as some sort of communist/socialist infiltrator by much of his opponents!

[Coito ergo sum]

Again, as above, none of those countries are purely socialist and none are purely capitalist.

But, countries like France are generally considered socialist because they are mostly socialist. There are hardly any countries in the world that are 100% socialist. But, the point still stands -- the US is generally considered on better economic footing than Europe, whatever you call their systems.

Generally, the countries that are doing the best in western Europe are the Scandinavian countries

It depends on which metric you choose as your yardstick. For example, if I were a single mother I would much rather live in Sweden than in the US. Just today, the WP posted a story about "the best places in the world to be born into".

Sweden is a Scandinavian country, and as I said they are doing better. Sweden is also extremely capitalist, relative to the rest of Europe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... tid=pm_pop

The first line is telling:

If you came into the world today and could pick your nationality, there are at least 15 better choices than to be born American, according to a study by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

Well, that's pretty arguable, but if the US is in 16th, then that's not too bad.

As is this:

Yes, it’s yet another international ranking on individual well-being where the Nordic countries come out on top, alongside Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

IOW, it's becoming commonplace that every time one of these types of surveys is conducted, the Nordic countries are always in the top spots.

And, I didn't argue that they weren't. They also have a very strong sector of free market capitalism, and Norway's rise, for example, has directly corresponded with a large wave of privatization over the past 25 years.

which as you correctly pointed out have strong capitalist private sectors. Countries like Greece and Italy and Spain are, however, teetering on the brink.

First, Greece and Spain are suffering under extreme austerity during an economic recession,

They were suffering BEFORE the austerity, and their economies were imploding. The austerity measures were conditions on IMF and other international fund lending because those countries could not get money on the bond market anymore.

which even on it's face should be an obvious stupid move (that's why the IMF is now admitting as such), as well as having debt in a currency they don't control. Second, chalking up Nordic success to their "strong capitalist" system is laughable given that many of their economic and social policies would be decried as "communism" if they were proposed here in the US. Hell, we have a Democratic POTUS who proposes ideas originally developed by conservatives (individual mandate), advocates low tax rates for most of the county, proposes cutting social services, and is generally a Rockefeller Republican, yet is decried as some sort of communist/socialist infiltrator by much of his opponents!

That isn't correct - they would by all means NOT be decried as communism here if they were proposed in the US -- not the private enterprise systems they have there. They've reduced their regulatory impediments to private enterprised, de-nationalized their oil industry,etc. and people there can and do start businesses all the time. If the kind of "socialism" you favor is what they've done in Norway over the past 25 years, then sign me up. They were much more to the "socialist" end of the spectrum 3 decades ago.

You think they wring their hands about off-shore oil drilling? Fuck no! Stick the drills in the holes and deep sea drill like mad! Norway is still out there hauling in wales, for crying out loud.

[Gerald McGrew]

Norway has state-owned strategic oil (Statoil), hydropower, aluminum plants, banks, and telecoms. Fully 1/3 of the country's companies are gov't owned/controlled. Their tax code is very, very much more progressive than ours and they are one of the most heavily taxed economies in the world. Benefits like retirement, medical care, and disability care are all fully paid for out of a public trust. Since WWII Norwegians have expanded and increased these gov't benefits.

Try running on that platform in the US and tell me what happens.