From The Marc Faber YouTube Channel: Faber says Barack Obama is" looking more and more like a dictator in a banana republic."
Idiotic comment. The US presidency is arguably the weakest senior role in politics of any G7 country.
It that the Dr. Doom who know only Gold and is still sucking cock for Bretton Woods who lives in Switzerland? Well...whaddya fucking know.
If you're going to continue to adore and worship Obama, suggest you develop a thicker skin... gonna be LOTS more criticism. Or, you could wake up!
'ya, the Democrats.. party of the little guy, with a President bought by one of the richest men on the planet and a cabinet that is the most Wall Street and Fed Reserve centric one to date.. those guys are for the little guy... in America.... LOL
Your kidding right? What G7 premier has more power (domestically) than the US President? (particularly one with a filibuster proof majority in congress) Look at the power wielded by FDR and Lincoln from the executive. Parliamentary leaders are constantly forced to form coalition governments because of the fractured nature of parliamentary democracy. In addition, Faber was specifically referencing how Obama has directly (through Treasury) taken control over the banking and auto industries and abrogated contract law to benefit political supporters. Very banana republic.
I think I'll "continue to adore and worship" (your words) just to piss you off. OR you could wake up and realize that the the actions of a President have very little effect on ones everyday life. But of that statement is likely waaaaay over your head.
French President (by far the most domestically powerful G7 political office), UK and Canadian PMs, the German Chancellor. A US president with a hostile Congress is a lame duck domestically. Whereas to become PM your party is automatically the majority in a plurality system, and the majority party or biggest coalition party in a proportional representation system. Yes with a large majority in Congress a President is fairly powerful, assuming his party all keep in line, yet a PM is just as powerful with a 1 vote majority on the same assumptions and can't be filibustered. None of the PMs have term limits, and no judiciary is as powerful an obstacle as the US Supreme Court & Constitution. The French President can even dissolve the assembly and suspend the constitution. Coalition governments are a feature of systems that use proportional representation, but even then some countries (e.g. Japan) have a dominant party almost all the time. And plurality systems like the UK and Canada rarely have coalitions and aren't remotely fractured in nature. Unlike every other G7 country, if Obama "abrogates contract law" then he will be successfully challenged and lose in the Supreme Court - unless he manages to alter the constitution, or emergency powers are declared, both of which are harder in the US than most other countries.
You could probably present a good argument as to why the French president holds the most power. A couple of counter points regarding G7 parliamentary leaders: They are not directly elected, and therefore do not achieve the popular mandate granted to the French and US president. This severely limits the strength of their 'bully pulpit', which is a major source of a premier's domestic power IMO. Political power is not solely dependent on the power to legislate- quite the opposite actually. The ability to act by decree is the truest form of power; I don't think G7 prime ministers have an authority comparable to the power of presidential executive order. Executive orders have allowed US presidents to confiscate gold held by US citizens (FDR Executive Order 6102), inter US citizens (FDR Executive Order 9102), seize control of industry (Truman Executive Order 10340), freeze foreign assets (Carter Executive Order 12170), wage war (Clinton Executive Order 13119), create huge bureaucracy (Bush Executive Order 13228), wage war (Bush Executive Order 13239), ect.... Finally, the US judiciary has been largely ineffectual at limiting presidential or legislative authority since FDR, instead choosing the broadest possible interpretation of the powers granted by the Constitution to both branches. The Constitution has become an empty relic in US politics today, rarely mentioned but by a few fringe elements (eg Ron Paul).