Obama Presidency Watch/post election & first 100 days

Obama Presidency Watch/post election & first 100 days

change.gov

The Agenda

President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden have developed innovative approaches to challenge the status quo in Washington and to bring about the kind of change America needs.

The Obama Administration has a comprehensive and detailed policy agenda. Among many important domestic and foreign policy objectives, priorities of the Obama Administration include: a plan to revive the economy; provide affordable, accessible health care to all; strengthen our public education and social security systems; define a clear path to energy independence and tackle climate change; end the war in Iraq responsibly and finish our mission in Afghanistan; work with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

* Civil Rights
* Defense
* Disabilities
* Economy
* Education
* Energy and Environment
* Ethics
* Family
* Fiscal
* Foreign Policy
* Health Care
* Homeland Security

* Immigration
* Iraq
* Poverty
* Rural
* Seniors and Social Security
* Service
* Taxes
* Technology
* Urban Policy
* Veterans
* Women
* Additional Issues

(visit the link for the full news article)

I was privileged to take part in the Clinton, Edwards, Obama: Who will it be? thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

over the course of the incredibly long election cycle this year and I was pleased with the quality of the submissions and the expert coaching that xpert11, donwhite and Justin oldham provided.

My hope for this thread is something similar. I hope people can put rabid partisanship aside (you can still be for or opposed, just not rabidly so) and seriously discuss this historic presidential transition period and the first 100 days out from there.

If everything goes well the thread can be extended to embrace the whole of his presidency if the participants desire.

If we can do this in a serious, thoughtful and sober manner with respect for all posters regardless of whether they agree or disagree...

not only will ATS benefit but all of us as concerned and involved citizens will benefit.

Thank you in advance for your involvement.

change.gov
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 29-11-2008 by grover]

I guess the first two questions I have are what do people think about this high profile transition as opposed to the more traditional subdued, behind the scenes one.

And about the cabinet picks he's made so far? What do people think of them and what do they suggest about the nature of his presidency to come?

100 days is about the timeframe I give for the rest of the economy to collapse completely and the US to begin defaulting on it's external debt. The rest of the proposals are all fluff and will never happen unless the economy is rescued right now, and not by throwing fistfuls of money at it.

Obama is going to have to slash the budget to the bare bones - ESSENTIAL services only and no more subsidies and tax breaks for big business. Call in all the bailout loans and dump the worthless stock they got in exchange, then let the banks and finance companies fail. Anybody still holding their stock after the last 12 months deserves to lose what's left of their money and should get a damned good slap to go with it for being so stupid. Get all the bad debt out into the open and wall it off from the rest of the economy, there's jobs for about a million lawyers right there sorting out that stink and settling bankruptcies for a couple of years. Then take just 10% of what's already been given to the thieving rotten banksters and create a brand new bank with NO sub-prime-mortgage-backed-security-derivative-based-credit-swap-packaged-financial-instruments and allow it to leverage at NO MORE THAN 10:1 and we would have about $8 Trillion to lend to CREDIT WORTHY business and individuals. Credit Crisis SOLVED.

reply to post by grover


A nice concise list.

Iran... ok so I finally get this now. Seems to me like America WILL NOT allow Iran to develop nukes. Period. And will take whatever measures are necessary, come what may.

I'm right, right??

reply to post by grover

I hope people put partisanship aside (you can still be for or opposed, just not rabidly so) and seriously discuss this historic presidential transition period and the first 100 days out from there. If we do this in a serious, thoughtful and sober manner with respect for all posters regardless of whether they agree or disagree ... not only will ATS benefit but all of us as concerned and involved citizens will benefit. Thank you in advance for your involvement.

A Recount of Not So Recent history. (In 7,000 strokes or less).

Roosevelt's legendary "First 100 Days" is generally calculated to run from March 9 to June 16, 1933. It is an especially notable period of time for the many pieces of MAJOR legislation passed by Congress on the request of FDR. See Foot Note 1.

Aside: No good Democrat claims FDR’s New Deal solved or ended the Great Depression although it certainly was meant to do that. Au contraire. What the New Deal really accomplished was the restoration of personal HOPE and national CONFIDENCE the future would be better. And that the full powers of the Federal Government were put to work to make it happen. It made living a pleasure again. And that is why old New Dealers* love it so.

The GOP held both the House and Senate after the 1928 election of Herbert Hoover. Aside: The great dam under construction on the Colorado River was named Hoover Dam after him before it was finished. Not entirely proper in that era. In 1933, the Dems promptly renamed it Boulder Dam. Then in 1946 with the election of the 80th GOP controlled Congress - labeled the “do nothing” Congress by Harry Truman - it was changed back to Hoover Dam. HST brought Hoover back into good graces and appointed him Chairman of the Hoover Commission, one of the first to study the organization of the Federal government. The Dems have not changed the name again since then.

The 1932 election was held on November 8. Prior to the adoption of the XX Amendment (in 1933) the XII Amendment (in 1804) had set March 4 as the president’s inauguration day. Therefore, in the 1929-32 economic calamity - similar to that of today - 116 days would pass before FDR could be sworn in. Almost 4 months! See Foot Note 2. That all too long delay was shortened by 43 days in the aforementioned XX Amendment. (The last election was held November 4 and it will be 67 days - 2 months and 1 week - before the new president takes office. Too long to wait in Century 21, IMO).

The newly elected Democratic controlled Congress took office on December 5,1932. (That was changed by XX Amendment to January 3). The Dems began passing laws (as requested by FDR - no transitions then) but Herbert Hoover promptly vetoed almost all of those. See Foot Note 3. From 1929-1933, unemployment in the U.S. increased from 4% to 25%, manufacturing output reduced by approximately a third. Prices fell causing a deflation of currency values, which made the repayments of debts much harder. The mining, lumber, and agriculture industries were hit especially hard by the drop in values. en.wikipedia.org...

FDR's natural air of confidence and optimism did much to reassure the nation. His inauguration on March 4 occurred literally in the middle of a terrifying bank panic - hence the backdrop for his famous words: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." The very next day, to prevent a run on banks, he declared a "bank holiday," closing all banks indefinitely until bankers and government could regain control of the situation.

The term "holiday" was meant to give a festive air to what was actually a desperate situation, but such was FDR's desire to provide hope to the nation. Congress was almost entirely compliant and gave the President everything he wanted. The Emergency Banking Bill, which strengthened, reorganized and reopened the most solvent banks, was passed overwhelmingly by Congress with little debate.

On March 12, Roosevelt announced that the soundest banks would reopen. On March 13, deposits at those banks exceeded withdrawals - a tremendous relief to a worried nation. "Capitalism was saved in eight days," said Raymond Moley, a member of the President's Brain Trust.

The success of the First 100 Days was important, because it got the New Deal off to a strong and early start. Later, the conservative Supreme Court would declare much of the New Deal unconstitutional, and Roosevelt's political prestige would decline as his policies failed to resolve the Depression. If Roosevelt had not passed his agenda early, we would probably be without many New Deal programs we take for granted today.


Foot Note 1. These included the creation of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Congress also gave the Federal Trade Commission broad new regulatory powers, and provided mortgage relief to millions of farmers and homeowners. www.huppi.com...

Foot Note 2. The initial Wall Street Crash of the U.S. stock market occurred on Thursday October 24, 1929; then, on "Black Tuesday" October 29, the stock market fell even more than it had the week before. These events were the catalyst of a worldwide economic depression.

Foot Note 3. If you are a history buff and want to see a clear representation of Mr. Hoover’s ideology, go to your local law library - every county’s attorney has one and it’s open to the public - and ask for the 1933 annual book of the United States Code Annotated. Perusing it will lead you to 2 laws enacted by the Democratic Congress.

One bill was to provide money to buy feed for cattle stranded in the middle west by heavy snows. The second bill was to provide money to operate soup kitchens around the country to feed hungry people. President Hoover signed the bill to feed animals but vetoed the bill to feed people.

His veto message is reported in the book. He offered that to feed hungry people would destroy their initiative and self reliance and would create dependence on the government. You can be sure that did not endear him to the millions of Americans out of work. Hmm? Name a dam after him? No way!

*I was born in April, 1934, some 329 days post June 19, 1933, which is more or less consistent with the human gestation period which is given as 240 to 300 days, averaging 270. My parents had married the day after Christmas in 1931. Without getting more graphic I can say it was probably the New Deal that give my parents the confidence they could afford a first child! I therefore think of myself as a Child of the New Deal and I love it!

reply to post by eniac

Iran... ok so I finally get this now. Seems to me like America WILL NOT allow Iran to develop nukes. Period. And will take whatever measures are necessary, come what may. I'm right, right??

Wrong!

The way it is put exemplifies the PROBLEM America faces around the word. " . . America WILL NOT allow Iran . . " This attitude is not getting the job done in 2008. We may well be the most belligerent county or even the most dangerous country but we are surely not the most beloved or respected country. And once upon a time we were just that. Between 1941 and the 1950s we commanded an almost automatic super majority in the UN General Assembly. Now we don't even bother to count the vote.

Our decline began in 1948 with the creation of Israel by the UN at our instigation. We opened a wound only we can close and so far, 60 years on, we show no signs of doing what has to be done. OPEC oil pricing and the Nine Eleven Event can be traced directly to our neglect of the rights of the Arabs living in old Palestine in 1948. That has cost us so much we could have BOUGHT all of Palestine!

Lesson One. You cannot mitigate the great harm suffered by one people by inflicting equal or greater harm on another people.

Iran. We overthrew the ONLY democratic government the Iranians ever had, in 1953. That in collusion with the British to retain control over the sweetheart oil extraction contracts in Iran. Those people don’t get regular opportunities to change their government as we do. The shah we imposed on them ruled with an IRON fist and with the aid of a cruel secret police called the SAVAK which we trained. Run of the mill Iranians LOVE American people one on one, but HATE the policies of successive American governments since 1953.

We as a people seem unable to grasp that and instead we allow ourselves to be manipulated by demagogues who have their own agendas. A nuclear Iran will be no more a threat to the world than will Israel or India or Pakistan or North Korea. All of them VIOLATORS of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Three of them with our BLESSING and one without. Get a life!

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe

Obama is going to have to slash the budget to the bare bones - ESSENTIAL services only and no more subsidies and tax breaks for big business.

Currently the tax supported Social Security entitlement payments income exceeds the outgo. So it is not included here. Medicare is more or less in the same category but it is included for a variety of reasons primarily related to the recent Part D for drugs.

Of the discretionary budget, here are the major categories: Jobs traiing, 0.3%; Environment, 1.4%; Housing, 2.0%; Nutrition, 2.7%; Veteran Benefits, 3.7%; Education, 4.1%; Earned Income Credits, 6.6%; Interest on the debt, 18.7%; Health care, 20.2%; Military, 28.5%; and All others, 11.6%.

Nutrition includes food stamps. Heath care includes Medicaid and the cost of Federal employees including the military as well as the legal part of Medicare. “All others” includes the intelligence services, NASA, the courts, FBI, jails and prisons, and other agencies like the Coast Guard and Border Patrol and etc.

The only place we can make any substantial cuts is in the MILITARY budget. It’s about $600 b. and IMO could be cut in half with no harm done.


[edit on 11/29/2008 by donwhite]

There is a excellent article in the WSJ dated Tuesday November 4th 2008 on Hebert Hoover entitled "Fans of the 31st President Find Hate for Hoover Greatly Depressing" by Louise Radnofsky that is quite interesting.

oilpressure.wordpress.com...

I remember reading a history of the 20's and they pointed out that before his election Hoover was viewed as a business man par excellence and a great humanitarian due to his work in Belgium to relieve famine after WW1.

The crash of 29 and the next 4 years totally destroyed his reputation yet much of his bad rap is unfounded.

He didn't sit back and fiddle while Rome burned he warned that low interest rates risked triggering a stock market crash months before it actually happened.

He created the Reconstruction Finance Corp. to push credit to banks and gave $300 million in loans to states to distribute aid. he also started a massive public works program...Something FDR criticized him for as socialist in the 1932 election. However many of the programs FDR pushed had their incipient beginnings under Hoover.

Another thing Hoover did which we would benefit greatly from is he made a point of appointing a Democrat to the Supreme court reasoning that all the different political viewpoints needed to be represented on the highest court of the land.

In short Hoover was one of a now endangered breed, a progressive Republican.

President elect Obama unfortunately has a far slimmer framework to build on than FDR since for the past 30 years movement conservatism has pushed to dismantle the social and economic safety nets that were enacted in response to the great depression.

This is bad in one sense in that if those structures had stayed in place much of what happened on Wall street could have been avoided but it has its pluses too in that we now have the chance to try some totally new approaches.



[edit on 29-11-2008 by grover]

Excellent thread and one that I will put on my favorites to be able to come back once in a while to add more to the "first 100 days" and to get information already posted.

In my humble opinion is going to take more than one presidential term for the new president to see any results to anything that he may start during his first 100 days.

The economy is in a very precarious position, cutting cost will have to be only in those sectors that doesn't included services as our nation rate of unemployment is just too critical.

I see the cuts mostly coming from the defense budget and the end of the two wars in the middle east.

But that will not be effective immediately as probably before seen any financial impact it may take three years or more.

Another problem is that the US is dependent on foreign financing to even run government.

Taking into consideration that we are nation run by corporate and banking entities I believe that no matter how much the new president may want to help the American people he may face many stone walls around Washington.

He may just find out within those 100 days that he is nothing than a political figure with not power at all but those that will be given to him by the real government that will be sitting behind his seat.

So what do people think of his choices so far?

I would have thought Hillary would have been a perfect choice for health and human services and Bill Richardson as Sec. of State so I am not exactly doing handstands for her as Sec. of State and him in commerce.

I am not so thrilled about Gates staying on either though I understand the reasoning but if gates leaves after a year I would love to see Obama pick Powell for Sec. of Defense.

reply to post by grover

There is a excellent article in the WSJ dated Tuesday November 4th 2008 on Hebert Hoover entitled "Fans of the 31st President Find Hate for Hoover Greatly Depressing" by Louise Radnofsky that is quite interesting.
oilpressure.wordpress.com...
I remember reading a history of the 20's and they pointed out that before his election Hoover was viewed as a business man par excellence

Gosh, Mr G, those writers are making it sound that it was Herbert Clark Hoover who actually founded the New Deal! That FDR was a johnny-come-lately to the salvaging of the American economic system. That the public mistakenly choose Roosevelt over Hoover.

The adverse effect of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was admitted. It closed overnight the European markets our farmers had gained in Europe following Word War 1. Of all people in the Administration Hoover was best placed and the most experienced to know that, yet he signed it into law. It is still argued why did he do that? Ideology is the only answer that covers all the bases.

On Hoover aiding banks. It was very much like the Bush Paulson assist to banks. Huge sums of Federal money given over to the banks with no requirements they make loans. The crucial part of helping banks was NOT to aid the shareholders, but to aid the depositors. That did not happen until FDR’s FDIC for bank depositors and FSLIC for savings and loan depositors. Mr. Hoover was a TOP down man whereas Roosevelt was a BOTTOM up man. That was the essential difference between the two.

Finally, not one of the HOOVER RECONSTRUCTORS have mentioned Harry Truman. He more than any other person did what it took to restore Hoover’s blemished reputation. The Hoover Commission, officially named the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, was a body appointed by President Harry S. Truman in 1947 to recommend administrative changes in the Federal Government of the United States. It took its nickname from former President Herbert Hoover, who was appointed by Truman to chair it.
en.wikipedia.org...

I am always suspicious when such an obvious contribution to their goal is ignored or overlooked. It casts doubt to me on their whole work. For example, I am unaware of anything Eisenhower did to restore Hoover’s reputation or give him an opportunity to serve his country.

[edit on 11/29/2008 by donwhite]

I will be the first to admit I don't know a lot about Hoover but I do recall reading that many considered him a president of great promise and then felt let down.

Been there done that.

reply to post by grover

I am not so thrilled about Gates staying on either though I understand the reasoning but if gates leaves after a year I would love to see Obama pick Powell for Sec. of Defense.

Where did I hear that Colin Powell was slated for Education and Arnold Schwarzenegger for Energy? By keeping Robert Gates at Def, Obama can devote more time early on to the economy and other issues. Gates will be in a "holding" pattern. Powell could easily step in in 2010 as teh best preapred man to ever take over at Def.

reply to post by grover

I am hoping Obama picks John Boyd instead of Tom Vilsack for Sec of Ag. Vilsack is very definitely in bed with the big Ag corps. and I doubt if John Boyd is. I would like to see someone who has actually gotten his hands dirty and understands the family farmer in charge of our food supply instead of someone who only see it as a way to make money.

Originally posted by grover
I guess the first two questions I have are what do people think about this high profile transition as opposed to the more traditional subdued, behind the scenes one.

Any star power Obama has aside the transition process is far to long and it only serves to have the care taker president to try and rush thou there last minute agenda . Sure the new government was sworn in quicker in NZ then usual due Key desire to attended APEC. Surely given that he was elected in November Obama should have been at the recent G20 and APEC meetings and Bush having returned home to Texas .

And about the cabinet picks he's made so far? What do people think of them and what do they suggest about the nature of his presidency to come?

I reckon that the Obama camp cut a deal with Hillary the Secretary of State role in exchange for dropping out of the race . Since Hillary would be focusing on overseas issues as Secretary of State rather then her traditional focal point of domestic issues I conclude that her presidential ambitions are not yet dead .

Hillary is either has a 2016 run in mind or if things go badly she could run Obama in 2012 something like happened to LBJ . As Don noted on another thread It looks like I got got my wish concerning Gates being reappointed as Secretary of Defence . Gates is both reserving the damage done by Rumsfeld and taking the US military in the right direction . Politically Gates reappointment could also serve as a token Republican appointment that doesnt do any harm on the purely political or more practical basis .

I keep thinking he will appoint John McCain to something... He hasn't named a VA chief yet but even if its not a cabinet position he could appoint him to a commission of some sort... maybe along with Biden to look into cutting waste in government. Kinda like what Gore did under Clinton.

reply to post by xpert11

. . the new government was sworn in quicker in NZ then usual due Key desire to attended APEC. Surely given that he was elected in November Obama should have been at the recent G20 and APEC meetings and Bush having returned home to Texas.

It’s historic. Our first unifying document was the Articles of Confederation and its Continental Congress. It had NO executive but instead relied on the Congress to serve as the executive. That was a total failure which is why they called for a Convention in Philadelphia - our largest city - in 1787. We opted for an elected KING. To assure us he did not over-stay his welcome, we fixed his term of office.

Lincoln set a great precedent when he went forward with the regularly scheduled election in 1864 despite the ongoing Civil War. The next time that circumstance occurred was in 1944 and no one really wanted to make a change here so FDR was elected for a fourth term over NY’s (reluctant?) GOP Tom Dewey. I favor another amendment to hasten the change-over.

I reckon that the Obama camp cut a deal with Hillary the Secretary of State role in exchange for dropping out of the race .

While that would be logical I do not believe any deal was made. Hillary gave up only because the Super Delegate Issue was getting nasty. She “knew” in the end she would lose at the Convention on an up and down vote by a few dozen or so votes but that would definitely SPLIT the Dems thereby giving the GOP a third term. I compliment her on her party loyalty for bowing out in a timely fashion. And sure, Obama "owes" her a real debt. But I do not believe any deal was made. It may well have been an "understood" commitment without speaking it?

I have pointed out that Obama HAD to win the race on his own or his victory would be greatly compromised. Endlessly denigrated by the “talking heads” and even denied by such Luminaries of the Right as Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson or Rupert Murdoch’s two ideologue stooges, Hannity and Colmes. All looney-tunes types.

The Clinton’s were not employed in the fall campaign for that same reason. As I recall Hillary and Bill made just one appearance each. For Obama it was a do or die race. On his own! He could not allow anyone to reduce the power his winning would give him by setting up the pundits claim he was REALLY elected by the WHITE Clinton’s. I’m sure he has nothing personal against the Clinton’s but that was the way it was. PS. I would not be sruprised to learn later that Barack and Bill talked via telephone every night.

Since Hillary would be focusing on overseas issues as Secretary of State rather then her traditional focus on domestic issues. I conclude that her presidential ambitions are not yet dead. Hillary is either has a 2016 run in mind or if things go badly she could run Obama in 2012 something like happened to LBJ.

I agree on Hillary’s continued presidential ambitions. But keep in mind she is 60 years old. Tummy tucks, face lifts and implants both front and rear will only carry you so far. So far it looks to me that Obama is going to work out well. He is pragmatic above any ideology. And he is LIBERAL in his fall-back or default mode. That’s the best of both worlds. A pragmatic liberal.

Unfortunately, Hillary will be 68 when her next opportunity will come around. Sure, Joe Biden is even older so he is out of that race. That’s not an automatic disqualifier as Konrad Adenauer and John McCain have proved. But it must be very hard on our bodies (and the brain in particular) to run for so long on adrenalin?

[edit on 11/30/2008 by donwhite]

Personally I consider Obama to be a moderate... I consider Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) or the late Paul Wellstone as liberals.

reply to post by grover

Personally I consider Obama to be a moderate... I consider Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) or the late Paul Wellstone as liberals.

Yes. On LIBERALS by polls there are fewer than 10% self identified in our population. Just as Obama could not tell the truth on taxes, or on war, so also he could not use the word LIBERAL because of several generations of incessant GOP propaganda. As Josef Goebbels said it: “A big lie told often enough becomes the truth." Sieg Heil!

[edit on 11/30/2008 by donwhite]