|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 11, 2008 22:49:14 GMT -5
Any question on why the a-holes of the world wanted to see the Obamanation win? First it was Russian, next it's Iran. Gee....I feel so much safer! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Iran test-fires new missile near Iraq: state media TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has test-fired a new type of missile during war games near the Iraqi border, state television said Tuesday, after warning the United States it would respond to any violation of Iranian airspace. The English-language Press TV said the Iranian-made missile, named as the Samen, was successfully tested Monday by the elite Revolutionary Guards in the western border city of Marivan. They also tested artillery and rocket launchers, Press TV said on its website. Iran's armed forces have staged frequent maneuvers in recent months, coinciding with speculation of possible U.S. or Israeli strikes against the Islamic Republic over its disputed nuclear ambitions. In a move that further heightened tension, Iran in July test-fired nine highly advanced missiles, including one which reportedly could reach Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East. Iran's army last Wednesday said U.S. helicopters had been seen flying close to Iran's border and that it would respond to any violation, a message analysts said seemed directed at U.S. President-elect Barack Obama more than American troops in Iraq. The November 5 statement followed a cross-border raid last month by U.S. forces into Syria, an action that was condemned by Damascus and Tehran. The United States and its Western allies suspect Iran is seeking to build atomic bombs, a charge Tehran denies. Obama, like outgoing U.S. President George W. Bush, has not ruled out military action although he has criticized the outgoing administration for not pushing for more diplomacy and engagement with Iran. Iran has said it would respond to any attack on its territory by targeting U.S. interests and Washington's ally Israel, as well as closing the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for world oil supplies. (Reporting by Fredrik Dahl; Editing by Angus MacSwan) www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSTRE4AA4N220081111 |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Nov 12, 2008 3:02:27 GMT -5
you're right. Iran would have retroactively not developed the missile platform had McCain won. Them craaaazy Iranians with their time machines.
Do you honestly believe that these are actual reactions to an Obama election? These events would have happened anyway, and the sitting President is still Bush, who will make all decisions for the next two months (though he would likely at least discuss the solutions with the President-Elect.
It might not be six months before the world tests Obama (thanks Joe Biden) but it hasn't happened yet. At least not in a manner that's a directed, explicit reaction to the election.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 13, 2008 22:34:04 GMT -5
you're right. Iran would have retroactively not developed the missile platform had McCain won. Them craaaazy Iranians with their time machines. Do you honestly believe that these are actual reactions to an Obama election? These events would have happened anyway, and the sitting President is still Bush, who will make all decisions for the next two months (though he would likely at least discuss the solutions with the President-Elect. It might not be six months before the world tests Obama (thanks Joe Biden) but it hasn't happened yet. At least not in a manner that's a directed, explicit reaction to the election.
1. Russia could of announced the missile deployment before the election but the last thing they wanted to do is give McCain a chance .....and then face him as a president. Thre is absolutely no doubt that the Russians wanted to send Obama a message by announcing it the very next day of his election.
2. The market is melting BECAUSE they fear what abama will do. It's the worse post election meltdown in 60 years.
Here is an article that summaraizes what I have been saying.....The voters may be full of hope about the looming Obama Presidency, but so far investors aren't. No President-elect in the postwar era has been greeted with a more audible hiss from Wall Street. The Dow has lost 1,342 points, or about 14%, since the election, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq hitting similar skids. The Dow fell another 4.7% yesterday. Much of this is due to hedge fund deleveraging, as well as dreadful corporate earnings reports and pessimism that the recession will be deeper than many had hoped. We also don't want to read too much into short-term market moves. But there's little doubt that uncertainty, and some fear, over Barack Obama's economic agenda is also contributing to the downdraft. The substance of what Mr. Obama has promised for the economy is bearish for stocks. The threat of higher tax rates, especially on capital gains and dividends, now may be getting priced into the market. Add that to investor doubts about Democratic policies on unions, health care and trade -- and no wonder stocks are falling. Lower stock prices in turn reduce household net worth, thus slamming consumer confidence and contributing to what appears to be a consumer spending strike. If investors are going to face massive new increases in dividends, they will abandon the market in droves and basically collapse the stock values. This is a DIRECT link to Obama's campaign promises. PLUS the promise of pro union legislation taht will drive up manufacturing costs. PLUS carbon sky falling legislation that will drive up EVERYTHING. If Mr. Obama wants to reassure markets, he could announce that he won't be raising taxes for the foreseeable future. Unlike hundreds of billions in new government spending or more taxpayer cash for Detroit auto companies, this no-tax-hike declaration is a "stimulus" that would cost the U.S. Treasury nothing. In the current market, there won't be many capital gains and few companies will have surplus earnings to pay out in dividends. A higher tax rate on zero gains yields zero revenue, so what's the point of raising rates? What markets want to see from Mr. Obama is a sense that the seriousness of this downturn is causing him to rethink the worst of his antigrowth policies. online.wsj.com/article/SB122653625916922633.html |
|
|
|
Post by gy on Nov 13, 2008 22:50:10 GMT -5
It sure is what the world needs. Now try selling that ideology to the Russians. McCain would have a stronger hand to play over Obama in this type of crisis for three reason: (a) McCain is a military man. He understands how the military works. He knows how to use it more effectively than Obama. That's not a slight against Obama or his ability to lead in general, because the President serves many other roles than Commander-in-Chief and it's not a prerequisite for the job. Bush Jr. had limited experience. Clinton had none. Reagan was in the military, but did not serve on active duty due to vision problems. However it helps in military matters to have an idea of what's going on. (b) McCain is a social conservative and less isolationist than Obama. He would be more likely to see the actions of the Russians as a heavy-handed swipe at American interests. Consequently the Russians would probably want to tread more lightly - the idea being to rock the boat, not capsize it. (c) McCain would represent a continuation of the current political climate in Washington. While McCain != Bush, they do hold many of the same core ideals when it comes to foreign policy. The shift to Obama and the Democrats represents a shift in the climate, and consequently leaves a certain space of uncertainty for the Russians to operate in. You might be right and only time will tell,... but I think it's time the Americans try to take a different approach towards the rest of the world, at the risk that Russia doesn't buy the "ideologie"..... It seems obvious that the Bush / McCain ideologie didn't do too much good as far as maintaining good relationships with the rest of the world....It doesn't seem like Bush was a very good "listener"... which is never a good quality when you try to negotiate any sort of peace... If Russia isn't cooperating but the rest of the free world (and maybe beyond) gets on board, I say the USA will be in better shape. I don't think more Bush scaring tactics is what the world needs right now.... I still don't understand how the fact McCain was a military guy give him such a gigantic advantage. Although the president has the final say, I'm sure they must consult with a multitude of experts and generals etc...... before they make that call. How would Obama not understand just as much ? ..... he will be well surrounded ? He seems like a very smart men ? How many President were war heroes ? Like you said, I really think there is a LOT more to be president than being the commander in chief. The Americans should be very nervous if they had McCain as commander in chief in a serious crisis. He'd shoot first and ask questions sater. Still worse, he could have a stroke or heart attack, leaving Sarah Palin, who believed Jesus Christ will return during her lifetime. If so, then what does it matter if there's a nuclear war! Armageddon and The Rapture!, it's all decreed. As for Iran, what the hell could they do? Even the fanatics know that if they fired a nuke, Iran would experience many Hiroshimas. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Nov 14, 2008 2:00:13 GMT -5
you're right. Iran would have retroactively not developed the missile platform had McCain won. Them craaaazy Iranians with their time machines. Do you honestly believe that these are actual reactions to an Obama election? These events would have happened anyway, and the sitting President is still Bush, who will make all decisions for the next two months (though he would likely at least discuss the solutions with the President-Elect. It might not be six months before the world tests Obama (thanks Joe Biden) but it hasn't happened yet. At least not in a manner that's a directed, explicit reaction to the election.
1. Russia could of announced the missile deployment before the election but the last thing they wanted to do is give McCain a chance .....and then face him as a president. Thre is absolutely no doubt that the Russians wanted to send Obama a message by announcing it the very next day of his election. Or perhaps Russia was using the US election as cover for the announcement, anyway? What better way to get limited publicity (which is what happened) than to use the US election as cover? McCain wouldn't have had any legs to stand on in a negotiation, anyway. What's he gonna do, wage war with a third country? Empty threats are fairly easily batted away. And I didn't say anything about the market and Obama. It was melting in the first place, and McCain's "let's buy everyone's houses" rhetoric wouldn't have helped anything, either. You indicated that the market dictates how it forsees the Presidency, I only provided an example of the 2nd biggest meltdown, in similar economic circumstances, which foresaw FDR to three re-elections. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 15, 2008 13:53:27 GMT -5
Or perhaps Russia was using the US election as cover for the announcement, anyway? What better way to get limited publicity (which is what happened) than to use the US election as cover? McCain wouldn't have had any legs to stand on in a negotiation, anyway. What's he gonna do, wage war with a third country? Empty threats are fairly easily batted away. Cover of the election? Why announce it the day after the election and not a week later if they didn't want it to be in Obama's face? Timing is everything on this issue. What McCain negotiating legs? McCain was not goingto gnegotiate anything with Russia and Russia knew this. So that is why they were dead quiet about it until after the election. We have to be realistic about this. Russia didn't wake up the day after Obama got voted in. This was months in the making and picking on the right time to do it. What third country war? I don't understand. And I didn't say anything about the market and Obama. It was melting in the first place, and McCain's "let's buy everyone's houses" rhetoric wouldn't have helped anything, either. You indicated that the market dictates how it forsees the Presidency, I only provided an example of the 2nd biggest meltdown, in similar economic circumstances, which foresaw FDR to three re-elections. Yes, the market was going down but Obam's policies greased the skids. If you have 100 million dollars do you invest into the US market if your high risk profits face more direct and dividend taxes? Do you invest in a market if the populace faced more taxes while already in a recession? Do you invest in a market when the will be more power given to the unions? When the of holding up the sky and everything else is going to go up? Remember, when you have a lot of money, you don't see borders, you see opportunities and hindrances. There is NOTHING positive for an Obama presidence from a business point of view. Now the only counter argument is that this is all hot air and Obama will do little of what he says. I can't argue against that nor can the stock market. They can only act on stated future expectations...thus the speculative decline. Anywho.....this is one of those times that I hope and pray that I am dead wrong about things. |
|
|
|
Post by Yossarian on Nov 15, 2008 15:58:39 GMT -5
There is NOTHING positive for an Obama presidence from a business point of view. Now the only counter argument is that this is all hot air and Obama will do little of what he says. I can't argue against that nor can the stock market. They can only act on stated future expectations...thus the speculative decline. Anywho.....this is one of those times that I hope and pray that I am dead wrong about things. That all depends on what the extra tax revenue is used for. If he is able to implement a national health care plan, the country and business is instantly better off. Corporate America has been lobbying the US fed government for years for one. Health insurance for employed individuals working for employees with a certain number of employers falls on the back of employers. A health plan will instantly make businesses more competitive on the world stage with all the industrialized countries that have national health care plans, and the other third world countries that have none. Ideologically, Bush would never commit to a national health plan. Obama has committed to one. Other than the doctor/hospital lobby, what business would not be in favor of eliminating the extremely inflationary cost of health insurance for their employees, and instantly making them more competitive and freeing up capital to do business? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 15, 2008 22:29:46 GMT -5
Or perhaps Russia was using the US election as cover for the announcement, anyway? What better way to get limited publicity (which is what happened) than to use the US election as cover? McCain wouldn't have had any legs to stand on in a negotiation, anyway. What's he gonna do, wage war with a third country? Empty threats are fairly easily batted away. Cover of the election? Why announce it the day after the election and not a week later if they didn't want it to be in Obama's face? Timing is everything on this issue. What McCain negotiating legs? McCain was not goingto gnegotiate anything with Russia and Russia knew this. So that is why they were dead quiet about it until after the election. We have to be realistic about this. Russia didn't wake up the day after Obama got voted in. This was months in the making and picking on the right time to do it. What third country war? I don't understand. And I didn't say anything about the market and Obama. It was melting in the first place, and McCain's "let's buy everyone's houses" rhetoric wouldn't have helped anything, either. You indicated that the market dictates how it forsees the Presidency, I only provided an example of the 2nd biggest meltdown, in similar economic circumstances, which foresaw FDR to three re-elections. Yes, the market was going down but Obam's policies greased the skids. If you have 100 million dollars do you invest into the US market if your high risk profits face more direct and dividend taxes? Do you invest in a market if the populace faced more taxes while already in a recession? Do you invest in a market when the will be more power given to the unions? When the of holding up the sky and everything else is going to go up? Remember, when you have a lot of money, you don't see borders, you see opportunities and hindrances. There is NOTHING positive for an Obama presidence from a business point of view. Now the only counter argument is that this is all hot air and Obama will do little of what he says. I can't argue against that nor can the stock market. They can only act on stated future expectations...thus the speculative decline. Anywho.....this is one of those times that I hope and pray that I am dead wrong about things. If timing is everything then why didn't they wait a few more months until Jan.21 ... when Obama is really the president. You say that Russia did it because they knew Obama would do nothing, that they waited until the day after the election on purpose..... as a slap in the face to Obama so to speak. But he isnt president, and what was the Republican president's response to Russia? How was this different from Obama's? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 16, 2008 11:12:35 GMT -5
That all depends on what the extra tax revenue is used for. If he is able to implement a national health care plan, the country and business is instantly better off. Corporate America has been lobbying the US fed government for years for one. Health insurance for employed individuals working for employees with a certain number of employers falls on the back of employers. A health plan will instantly make businesses more competitive on the world stage with all the industrialized countries that have national health care plans, and the other third world countries that have none. Ideologically, Bush would never commit to a national health plan. Obama has committed to one. Other than the doctor/hospital lobby, what business would not be in favor of eliminating the extremely inflationary cost of health insurance for their employees, and instantly making them more competitive and freeing up capital to do business? Okay, sounds good BUT.....but have you seen the numbers? Who is going to pay for it when 50% of Americans don't pay any taxes and the other 30% don't pay enough taxes? In the end, the tax burden is going to fall on the profitable companies and the 10% of the population that can afford it. Worse yet.... 50 million Americans do NOT have health insurance so not only are you shifting the cost to the very few who actually make money, you are adding another massive amount on top. Here is another number.....2.3 TRILLION dollars is the current health insurance cost. If you cover everyone it rises to 3 trillion dollars. Employers pay for 60% regardless of the original sum regardless of how profitable they are. Now you are shifting ALL of that to the small percentage of companmies that are profitable (more then 250,000). How are they better off? Or more competitive? That is one reason why the stock market is still falling. BTW, just for the record, I have a pretty good idea what Obamanation is up to. He will tax carbon emissions and shift it to health care. Of course it will raise the price of EVERYTHING, but it looks good to the left and an easy sell to anyone who doesn't understand things beyond headlines. Just like Dion, he will sell it as painless "solution" that only "hurts" the polluters. Problem is that EVERYONE is a "polluter" and EVERYONE is going to pay a lot more. In fact, the biggest worry for the US is high inflation that can go into economic obliterating hyperinflation. Twenty four trillion is bad enough but add to it a yearly three trillion carbon tax that directly shifts the cost to consumers and it is just the ticket to push it over the brink. And just like the credit crunch, it will be ignored until they fall off the cliff.....and then Obamanation and his cult will blame Bush. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 16, 2008 11:39:24 GMT -5
If timing is everything then why didn't they wait a few more months until Jan.21 ... when Obama is really the president. You say that Russia did it because they knew Obama would do nothing, that they waited until the day after the election on purpose..... as a slap in the face to Obama so to speak. But he isnt president, and what was the Republican president's response to Russia? How was this different from Obama's? You do it when Bush is still president so you can give Obamanation an excuse to blame Bush while bending over. If they did it the day he became president, it's a challange that Obamanation could NEVER, EVER back away from. Timing is everythign.... BTW, chances are high that Obamanation is going to say that it's not a 100% system so implementing it is a waste of time. The reality is that the missile shield is more then just a missile shield, it is a line in the sand that puts American troops and equipment in harms way and raises the stakes sky high for any Russian adventures. THAT is what this is all about. Obamanation will sell it as "unproven system", his cult will lick it up like free ice cream and the former eastern block countries will be thrown under a bus. Again, the effects of it wont be seen for a number of years until it's too late....and too devastating. In geopolitics, events that happen today don't mainfest it's true nature for years. Putin knows this and so did Reagan. Carter amd Clinton never did. Bush Sr. not so much and Bush Jr. WAY overdid it. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Nov 16, 2008 13:01:26 GMT -5
Or perhaps Russia was using the US election as cover for the announcement, anyway? What better way to get limited publicity (which is what happened) than to use the US election as cover? McCain wouldn't have had any legs to stand on in a negotiation, anyway. What's he gonna do, wage war with a third country? Empty threats are fairly easily batted away. Cover of the election? Why announce it the day after the election and not a week later if they didn't want it to be in Obama's face? Timing is everything on this issue. What McCain negotiating legs? McCain was not goingto gnegotiate anything with Russia and Russia knew this. So that is why they were dead quiet about it until after the election. We have to be realistic about this. Russia didn't wake up the day after Obama got voted in. This was months in the making and picking on the right time to do it. What third country war? I don't understand. Everything is a negotiation. What magical playing card does McCain have that Obama doesn't? You've been trumping about how it clearly wouldn't have happened had McCain been elected, but failed to mention any reason why. I'm legitimately interested. The US election is cover regardless of outcome. It dominates the global media for at least one, if not several days afterward. McCain or Obama, whichever. And the third country the US would be at war with is Russia. And I didn't say anything about the market and Obama. It was melting in the first place, and McCain's "let's buy everyone's houses" rhetoric wouldn't have helped anything, either. You indicated that the market dictates how it forsees the Presidency, I only provided an example of the 2nd biggest meltdown, in similar economic circumstances, which foresaw FDR to three re-elections. Yes, the market was going down but Obam's policies greased the skids. If you have 100 million dollars do you invest into the US market if your high risk profits face more direct and dividend taxes? Do you invest in a market if the populace faced more taxes while already in a recession? Do you invest in a market when the will be more power given to the unions? When the of holding up the sky and everything else is going to go up? Remember, when you have a lot of money, you don't see borders, you see opportunities and hindrances. There is NOTHING positive for an Obama presidence from a business point of view. Now the only counter argument is that this is all hot air and Obama will do little of what he says. I can't argue against that nor can the stock market. They can only act on stated future expectations...thus the speculative decline. Anywho.....this is one of those times that I hope and pray that I am dead wrong about things.[/quote] The issue that Obama got elected on is that big business has done the common electorate a disservice over the last 20 (100?) years. Regardless of what business' outlook is, they can't expect continual deregulations and tax-breaks to fuel an economy growing at a pace it can't sustain. Recessions are part of the business cycle, and economic policy has been putting it off for the last 10 years while digging an even deeper hole. It's time. We don't disagree with this issue, I just don't think it's so unbelievably awful. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Nov 22, 2008 4:40:39 GMT -5
Truly a historic event; the first black President in US history. As Georges Laraque said, how can anyone play the race card now? When 98% of black voters vote for the black candidate over the white candidate, it's reasonable for whites to play the race card. Some of the voters have legitimate reasons for choosing Obama, economy, war, Bush's record, climate, market, Katrina; but when 98% vote along racial lines they are bigoted! White voters were fairly evenly split in an election where the popular vote was within a couple of points while many black voters were bigots. I'm a little late, but I had to respond to this. Bigots? Legitimate reasons? There's an enormous difference between (a) white voters voting for a white candidate because they think black people are stupid, or that a black leader would take "revenge" on white people, or just because they don't "like" black people, and (b) black voters voting for the first black president because of the tremendous hope it has created for black people and the cultural change they hope it will produce. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 22, 2008 13:27:26 GMT -5
Personally, I'm beginning to think Bush's two 'victories', were Al Queda plots. And it's worked better than in their wildest dreams. He has economically destroyed a nation (not to mention my portfolio). Heck, if you were the opponent of country 'A' and they voted in a mental midget, wouldn't you take advantage of it? The US has give their opponents 8 years to work on it. Obama has many challenges ahead of him, and gaining respect for the US is just one of them. I suspect you'll see US opponents back off a bit starting in January, cause the escapee from the retard factory has a short shelf life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 22, 2008 13:30:14 GMT -5
When 98% of black voters vote for the black candidate over the white candidate, it's reasonable for whites to play the race card. Some of the voters have legitimate reasons for choosing Obama, economy, war, Bush's record, climate, market, Katrina; but when 98% vote along racial lines they are bigoted! White voters were fairly evenly split in an election where the popular vote was within a couple of points while many black voters were bigots. I'm a little late, but I had to respond to this. Bigots? Legitimate reasons? There's an enormous difference between (a) white voters voting for a white candidate because they think black people are stupid, or that a black leader would take "revenge" on white people, or just because they don't "like" black people, and (b) black voters voting for the first black president because of the tremendous hope it has created for black people and the cultural change they hope it will produce. I didn't say and certainly didn't mean black people are stupid. It irks me that McCain lost the election because a segment of the population voted along racial lines and then had the audacity to claim whites are racist. Question? Do we refer to Brian as GM-Elect Burke? |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Nov 22, 2008 16:09:21 GMT -5
I'm a little late, but I had to respond to this. Bigots? Legitimate reasons? There's an enormous difference between (a) white voters voting for a white candidate because they think black people are stupid, or that a black leader would take "revenge" on white people, or just because they don't "like" black people, and (b) black voters voting for the first black president because of the tremendous hope it has created for black people and the cultural change they hope it will produce. I didn't say and certainly didn't mean black people are stupid. I didn't say you did. I just pointed out the difference between bigotry and the reasons some black people voted for Obama. McCain lost because he ran a very poor campaign, picked a running mate who nullified his one major advantage (experience), and generally seemed erratic, impulsive, and uninformed. That and the fact he was running against possibly the best campaign in history. And of course, Bush is a tough act to follow, for Republicans. As mentioned above, black voters have heavily supported Democratic candidates before. Race is not the reason Obama won. Frankly, I do wonder about someone who thinks that McCain was so much better than Obama that they resort to blaming McCain's loss on race. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Nov 22, 2008 16:17:44 GMT -5
Personally, I'm beginning to think Bush's two 'victories', were Al Queda plots. And it's worked better than in their wildest dreams. He has economically destroyed a nation (not to mention my portfolio). Heck, if you were the opponent of country 'A' and they voted in a mental midget, wouldn't you take advantage of it? The US has give their opponents 8 years to work on it. Obama has many challenges ahead of him, and gaining respect for the US is just one of them. I suspect you'll see US opponents back off a bit starting in January, cause the escapee from the retard factory has a short shelf life. I don't claim to fully understand George W. Bush, but I don't think it's just a question of his being dumb (if he is). Anyway, having a dumb opponent doesn't make you safe. If anything, it might be more dangerous (just ask anyone in Iraq). |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 22, 2008 19:15:49 GMT -5
I exagerrate, of course. But on the intelligence scale for what you need in that position, he falls far short. Worse than his lack of intelligence is his lack of judgment and extremely poor leadership skills. I understand that he didn't even know for a week that Katrina was pillaging New Orleans, because his people didn't want to break the news and he doesn't read, nor watch tv news. He discourages dissenting vews and simply doesn't want to hear bad news. A perfect recipe for how to destroy a nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 21, 2009 12:27:30 GMT -5
So, how will he do guys?
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jan 21, 2009 12:33:57 GMT -5
So, how will he do guys? Cheers. Horrible disappointment. It's been built up too much for anyone to think he's succeeded -- even if he has a good term. The moderates will jump on the next ship in 4 years (assuming the Republicans can get their s**t in order) and he'll win, but be stuck with a Republican Congress so nothing will get done. But hey, I'm an optimist. |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jan 21, 2009 12:50:12 GMT -5
So, how will he do guys? Cheers. Horrible disappointment. It's been built up too much for anyone to think he's succeeded -- even if he has a good term. The moderates will jump on the next ship in 4 years (assuming the Republicans can get their s**t in order) and he'll win, but be stuck with a Republican Congress so nothing will get done. But hey, I'm an optimist. I think the "good ole boys down Saaoouth" call that being "Hog-tied". Man, I hope you're wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jan 21, 2009 13:27:28 GMT -5
The polls say people's expectations are more realistic than that, that they know he isn't going to fix everything and things will take time. After Bush, the bar for success is very low. I think he can (not necessarily will) have a presidency which is viewed as successful.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 21, 2009 14:06:21 GMT -5
Heck, after the euphoria of yesterday they are now saying "don't set the benchmark at the first one hundred days like they do for everyone else". Funny how he has gone from the new messiah that can bring about change to he'll eventually bring about some change.
The first four years will see a lot less done than hoped for, and Bush will be blamed. the following four years will all be on him.
I hope he does well, but the US slide from leadership started before 2000.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 21, 2009 15:19:45 GMT -5
The first four years will see a lot less done than hoped for, and Bush will be blamed. the following four years will all be on him. OTOH, anything positive he does could be overblown given his predecessors' track records. I really hope they don't play the 'Bush card' too much. But, if they do I honestly feel they'll be substantiated in doing so. Bush has them in a war they don't want, an out-of-control national debt and a sinking economy. Blaming Bush might be easy, but I think it's warranted. However, Obama will have to back up his words and show the rest of the world, let alone the USA, that he's the real deal. That he can make a difference. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 21, 2009 15:38:18 GMT -5
I'm very hopeful. Granted, as has been stated the bar has been set very low given his predecessor, but still I'm very optimistic.
There are two things that make a great leader in my opinion, whether it be in politics, business or sports;
1) The ability to motivate;
2) The ability to make tough decisions.
For the first point Obama is a great orator, capable of moving millions of people with his words alone. That is both a great and dangerous thing, as history has shown. However, as history has also shown, when motivated there is NOTHING the American people cannot do. Nothing. The greatest thinkers, planners and workers in the world are American. And I say that as a Canadian. When America decides it wants to accomplish something, history has shown that nothing can stand in their way. The American people are down now, but if - when - they get up, they will be fine. A great motivator like Obama is EXACTLY what they need right now.
On the second point, you can't be an expert at everything. A President can't be the smartest economic mind, the most brilliant military tactician and the wisest health care practitioner. He has none of those qualifications, and no one single person can.
What a President can have though, is an entourage that does include the smartest economic minds, the most brilliant military tacticians and the wisest health care practioners. And if he has the ability to motivate the aforementioned, then all will be well. And when things aren't well, if he has the ability to make a tough decision, in a fair, balanced and most importantly, informed way, then all will be well again.
I do not know if Obama has surrounded himself with the best people he can find, but I like the early appearances. Keeping on Robert Gates for example, when he could very easily have played partisan politics, shows a little moxy and a little savvy. Its saying "I can stand up to the wing nuts in my own party who want Democrats and Democrats only" and it's saying "I think you are the best person for this job, even though we have our differences." Same thing for placing bitter rival Hilary Clinton in such an important position - its an acknowledgement that hey, maybe she can do the job even though we clashed in the past.
The biggest problem with Bush and his team was an inability to see outside or conflicting positions. Group think. There were no challengers, only yes men. You need somebody to stand up and say "no, I think you are wrong." And by amassing a diversified team (or more diversified than any political team we have seen in god knows how long) Obama is surrounding himself with good people who won't be afraid to stand up to him. This is a good thing. Whether Obama has the ability to make tough decisions remains to be seen, and it is on this point that his Presidency will be judged, in my opinion, but so far I am very hopeful.
|
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jan 21, 2009 15:48:59 GMT -5
I'm very hopeful. Granted, as has been stated the bar has been set very low given his predecessor, but still I'm very optimistic. There are two things that make a great leader in my opinion, whether it be in politics, business or sports; 1) The ability to motivate; 2) The ability to make tough decisions. For the first point Obama is a great orator, capable of moving millions of people with his words alone. That is both a great and dangerous thing, as history has shown. However, as history has also shown, when motivated there is NOTHING the American people cannot do. Nothing. The greatest thinkers, planners and workers in the world are American. And I say that as a Canadian. When America decides it wants to accomplish something, history has shown that nothing can stand in their way. The American people are down now, but if - when - they get up, they will be fine. A great motivator like Obama is EXACTLY what they need right now. On the second point, you can't be an expert at everything. A President can't be the smartest economic mind, the most brilliant military tactician and the wisest health care practitioner. He has none of those qualifications, and no one single person can. What a President can have though, is an entourage that does include the smartest economic minds, the most brilliant military tacticians and the wisest health care practioners. And if he has the ability to motivate the aforementioned, then all will be well. And when things aren't well, if he has the ability to make a tough decision, in a fair, balanced and most importantly, informed way, then all will be well again. I do not know if Obama has surrounded himself with the best people he can find, but I like the early appearances. Keeping on Robert Gates for example, when he could very easily have played partisan politics, shows a little moxy and a little savvy. Its saying "I can stand up to the wing nuts in my own party who want Democrats and Democrats only" and it's saying "I think you are the best person for this job, even though we have our differences." Same thing for placing bitter rival Hilary Clinton in such an important position - its an acknowledgement that hey, maybe she can do the job even though we clashed in the past. The biggest problem with Bush and his team was an inability to see outside or conflicting positions. Group think. There were no challengers, only yes men. You need somebody to stand up and say "no, I think you are wrong." And by amassing a diversified team (or more diversified than any political team we have seen in god knows how long) Obama is surrounding himself with good people who won't be afraid to stand up to him. This is a good thing. Whether Obama has the ability to make tough decisions remains to be seen, and it is on this point that his Presidency will be judged, in my opinion, but so far I am very hopeful. "Pastels" on you (last Friday night) is very, VERY wrong. You're welcome. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 21, 2009 17:24:30 GMT -5
He's not wasting any time. Sounds like he has a plan. Check it out. Oops! Company just walked in ... Cheers. ================================================================= Obama’s Day One: recession, war, salary freezes
By Jennifer Loven - THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) — In a first-day flurry of activity, President Barack Obama set up shop in the Oval Office, summoned advisers to begin dealing with war and recession and ordered new ethics rules for “a clean break from business as usual.” He also froze salaries for top White House staff members, placed phone calls to Mideast leaders and had aides circulate a draft executive order that would close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay within a year.“The way to make government responsible is to hold it accountable,” Obama said as he unveiled ethics rules that he portrayed as the fulfillment of a major campaign promise. He said the action was necessary “to help restore that faith in government without which we cannot deliver the changes we were sent here to make.”Devoting swift attention to the Mideast turmoil, Obama prepared to give George Mitchell, the former Senate Democratic leader, a top diplomatic post for the region. In his phone calls to Israeli, Palestinian, Egyptian and Jordanian leaders, Obama emphasized that he would work to consolidate the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, said the new White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs. Gibbs said Obama expressed “his commitment to active engagement in pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace from the beginning of his term.” The enormity of Obama’s challenge on the economy was evident in the mixed messages coming from Capitol Hill. Rep. David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, expressed doubt that the currently planned $825 billion economic stimulus package would be enough, calling the proposal “no silver bullet.” At the same time, House Republicans requested a meeting with Obama to air their worries that the plan was too big. A multi-denominational prayer service at Washington National Cathedral and an open house at the presidential mansion were also on the schedule of the 44th president, taking office on a promise to fix the battered economy and withdraw U.S. troops from the unpopular war in Iraq on a 16-month timetable. The shift in administrations — former President George W. Bush was back home in Texas — was underscored in far-off Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where a judge granted Obama’s request to suspend the war crimes trial of a young Canadian. The judge issued a one-sentence order for the 120-day continuance without so much as a hearing, possibly the beginning of the end for the former administration’s system of trials for alleged terrorists. A draft executive order made clear the new president intends to go further. It called for closing the facility within a year, releasing some of the 245 detainees still there and transferring others to different sites for trial. (I find this significant given the stigma that surrounds the institution.) Pushing back pre-emptively, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said the draft order raises difficult questions. “The key question is where do you put these terrorists?” he said. “Do you bring them inside our borders? Do you release them back into the battlefield? ... Most local communities around America don’t want dangerous terrorists imported into their neighborhoods, and I can’t blame them.” Among Obama’s executive orders:
—A freeze on salaries for White House staff earning $100,000 or more — about 100 people in all.
—New Freedom of Information Act rules, making it harder to keep the workings of government secret.
—Tighter ethics rules governing when administration officials can work on issues on which they previously lobbied governmental agencies, and banning them from lobbying the Obama administration after leaving government service.Obama and first lady Michelle Obama sat in the first row for Wednesday’s invitation-only prayer service. Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, joined them, as did former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., awaiting confirmation as secretary of state later in the day. “Grant to Barack Obama, president of the United States, and to all in authority your grace and good will. Bless them with your heavenly gifts, give them wisdom and strength to know and to do your will,” prayed the Rev. Andy Stanley, one of numerous clerics from several religions to speak. Obama’s first White House meetings as president meshed with quickened efforts in Congress to add top Cabinet officials to the roster of those confirmed on Tuesday and to advance the economic stimulus measure that is a top priority of his administration. Treasury Secretary-designate Timothy Geithner, appearing before the Senate Finance Committee for a confirmation hearing, said enactment of the new president’s economic stimulus was essential. He also said the Senate’s decision last week to permit use of the second $350 installment of a financial industry bailout “will enable us to take the steps necessary to help get credit flowing.” He said Obama and he “share your belief that this program needs serious reform.” Geithner also apologized for his failure to pay personal taxes earlier in the decade, calling the omission a mistake. The taxes were repaid in stages, some after an IRS audit and the rest after a review of his returns late last year by Obama’s transition team. Obama and his wife arrived at the White House around 1 a.m. after attending 10 official inaugural balls. Several hours later he walked into the most famous office in America for the first time as president. The new White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said in a statement that Obama spent 10 minutes alone and read a note left for him by Bush that was in an envelope marked “To: #44, From: #43.” He was then joined by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and, several minutes later, the first lady. Wednesday’s meeting with economic advisers was coming at a time when 11 million Americans are out of work and millions more feel the loss of savings and face the prospect of foreclosures on their homes. Last week, Congress cleared the way for use of a second, $350 billion installment of financial-industry bailout money, a pre-inaugural victory for Obama. Democratic leaders hope to have the $825 billion economic stimulus measure to his desk by mid-February. The war in Iraq that he has promised to end featured prominently in Obama’s first day as well. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, were among those called in for the meeting as the new president assumed the role of commander in chief. In his inaugural address on Tuesday, Obama said his goal was to “responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan.” cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2009/01/21/8100486-ap.html |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 21, 2009 19:57:36 GMT -5
I exagerrate, of course. But on the intelligence scale for what you need in that position, he falls far short. Worse than his lack of intelligence is his lack of judgment and extremely poor leadership skills. I understand that he didn't even know for a week that Katrina was pillaging New Orleans, because his people didn't want to break the news and he doesn't read, nor watch tv news. He discourages dissenting vews and simply doesn't want to hear bad news. A perfect recipe for how to destroy a nation. How exactly do you know that? By his oratory skills? By the fact hat he can't "imspire" people by reading a speech off a teleprompter? Have you met him? HOW do you know he "falls far short". From WHERE do you "understand" that he didn't even know for a week what was going on with Katrina? From the fact that he ordered and had 30,000 people evacuated by helicopter from rooftops afterthe storm had passed? From the fact that he had problems passing 121 billion in aid, aid that was getting loaded with pork by the democrats? He did eventually but needless to say, "Bush did it" was the hourly media mantra ignoring the partisan politics. Worse still, when he reflected that more could of been done, it was touted by the media as "see, he admitted he failed". Do you want to talk about the economy with "Bush did it" OR do you want to talk about the WORLD WIDE government failures basing their growth on lowering the interest rates and creating bubbles that would eventually burst? Did Bush run Britain? France? Germany? Greece? Face it, every thing you said is because you simply hate the guy. I get that. Once again, I'm forced to defend someone I don't really like but all this "Bush did it" is not only old, it's substantially wrong. . |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 21, 2009 21:06:12 GMT -5
I really like Obama. He bring oratory skill of a possessed preacher and the good looks of an older GQ model. Not only that, his vast experience in running neighborhoods at every level and few weeks in the private sector should give him vast advantage to rn the US. Now that I got that out of my system....Here is some hard reality. US debt....the nuclear economic problem. As it stand, right now the US is 12 trillion idn debt. By the end of 2009, it will be 14.5 trillion in debt. Of American households that even have a remote chance of paying enough taxes, only 22 million households are above $90,000 income level. As it stands, that would be about $600,000 debt per 80% household. At a measly 3% interest rate, that would amount to $18,000 anual debt charges. It get's better....  The unfunded entitlement (social security, medicaid, medicare) will ballon astronomically in the next several years to the tune of 53 TRILLION by 2018 BESIDES whatever Obama wants to add in entitlements. Assuming 40 million 20 percentile, that is roughly 1.3 MILLION DOLLARS DEBT per household. There is hue and cry that corporations must pay a larger part of that tax burden. While that looks nice on paper, ultimatly, it's the shareholders or owners who pay it. For example, I have a number of companies, I choose which company pays corporate tax and how much I give myself (and pay taxes). If I leave it in the company, the company get's taxed and then I get taxed AGAIN when I withdraw it. So ultimatly, that tax comes from my pocket one way or another. It works the same way with shareholders and dividens. Bottom line, all taxes are paid by the people. The American people owe that debt and the American people have to pay it. Why I'm worried? Because the only way out of massive debt like this is inflation or hyperinflation. And if any Canadian thinks that we are immune to what happens to the US, witness where we are now when they have a simple cold. Why I don't like Obama is very simple. The US needs some very painful economic conservative medicine. Leaving 4 million unemployed in the streets sound awful, but a hyperinflation dollar that destroys everybody's saving is nuclear level catastrophy. While the Democrats are going about to "save the poor", the poor will be rioting when their social security can't buy dog food and their life savings are worth a piece of bread. Anywho.... Rhetoric no matter how well it's "delivered", is still nothing then hot air passing through a couple of muscles..... . |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 21, 2009 22:56:11 GMT -5
I really like Obama. He bring oratory skill of a possessed preacher and the good looks of an older GQ model. Not only that, his vast experience in running neighborhoods at every level and few weeks in the private sector should give him vast advantage to rn the US. Now that I got that out of my system....Here is some hard reality. US debt....the nuclear economic problem. As it stand, right now the US is 12 trillion idn debt. By the end of 2009, it will be 14.5 trillion in debt. Of American households that even have a remote chance of paying enough taxes, only 22 million households are above $90,000 income level. As it stands, that would be about $600,000 debt per 80% household. At a measly 3% interest rate, that would amount to $18,000 anual debt charges. It get's better.... The unfunded entitlement (social security, medicaid, medicare) will ballon astronomically in the next several years to the tune of 53 TRILLION by 2018 BESIDES whatever Obama wants to add in entitlements. Assuming 40 million 20 percentile, that is roughly 1.3 MILLION DOLLARS DEBT per household. There is hue and cry that corporations must pay a larger part of that tax burden. While that looks nice on paper, ultimatly, it's the shareholders or owners who pay it. For example, I have a number of companies, I choose which company pays corporate tax and how much I give myself (and pay taxes). If I leave it in the company, the company get's taxed and then I get taxed AGAIN when I withdraw it. So ultimatly, that tax comes from my pocket one way or another. It works the same way with shareholders and dividens. Bottom line, all taxes are paid by the people. The American people owe that debt and the American people have to pay it. Why I'm worried? Because the only way out of massive debt like this is inflation or hyperinflation. And if any Canadian thinks that we are immune to what happens to the US, witness where we are now when they have a simple cold. Why I don't like Obama is very simple. The US needs some very painful economic conservative medicine. Leaving 4 million unemployed in the streets sound awful, but a hyperinflation dollar that destroys everybody's saving is nuclear level catastrophy. While the Democrats are going about to "save the poor", the poor will be rioting when their social security can't buy dog food and their life savings are worth a piece of bread. Anywho.... Rhetoric no matter how well it's "delivered", is still nothing then hot air passing through a couple of muscles..... Good post, HA. The thing is, Obama and his administration will have to come up with a viable economic strategy to bring their country back onto its feet. Whether it's the Democrats or the Republicans, that's not going to be an easy task. Obama doesn't strike as the kind of man who will blame the Bush administration for all of their problems. I'm going out on a limb, granted, but he just comes across as bigger than that. Besides, he has to know that the current internal economic mess goes well before the Bush administration; however, where they certainly didn't help matters any either. Honestly, HA, I don't know if it really matters whether a Neocon Republican, or a leftist Democrat tackle the problems the USA has right now. It's fallen on Obama and while he may have a plan, he's definitely going to need some luck. I just hope he gets some breaks too. He's going to need them. As an aside, I think I mentioned way back in the thread somewhere that there's a strong comparison here to JFK (too lazy to look it up). I hope Obama's changes come gradually, so as to allow for an adjustment period. Too much change too fast might be ... fatal on many levels. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 21, 2009 22:58:18 GMT -5
The polls say people's expectations are more realistic than that, that they know he isn't going to fix everything and things will take time. After Bush, the bar for success is very low. I think he can (not necessarily will) have a presidency which is viewed as successful. You might indeed be right on all of your points, MC Habber. Cheers. |
|
