Obama Presidency Watch/post election & first 100 days

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
I hope to see some of the Bush admin abuses undone. I think he will move very carefully, though. I like it that he's not hasty about his decisions.


The problem is that it looks like that on the economic the response to the credit crunch will continue to head in the wrong direction that Bush has help point it towards . Throwing money away in the form of bail outs will not restore confidence in the credit market nor put an end to the greed and corrupt corporate cultural that has screwed us all over .

On the credit side of the ledger the expected beginning of a renewal of focus on the War in Afghanistan can only be a good thing ( that is unless you are Don
) . Hopeful Obama can ensure that additional resources are sent to Afghanistan , there is better co ordination between allies and that aid money is spend more effectively e.t.c .




posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Good post Semper but remember I am trying to stay away from partisan attacks on this thread... that is why while it is open to everyone (of course) I have invited certain members to participate because I want a more balanced approach to dominate. That is why I have invited liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats and of course independents as well.

I will say this... take it from a self proclaimed socialist... the Democrats are not socialists and if Obama was I doubt he would have the support of the likes of Warren Buffet and Paul Volcker. The ruling elite in this country would never allow anyone who would seriously jeopardize their wealth or influence to gain such high office... But I don't expect to convince you of that.... yet its true.

As for a tragedy... perhaps but that is true of any incoming president... do they really know what they are doing... can they accomplish their goals... will they be killed... will events conspire to be their undoing? Remember prior to 9/11 bush minor's first 7 months were uneventful and rather insipid and he was already being viewed as a possible one term president.

Mr. Obama is by all accounts a very intelligent man and a quick study plus he is putting together (so far) a top notch team (though I have my problems with Hillary Clinton as Sec. of State) to advise him and also to carry out his marching orders.

General Jim Jones is no slacker... he knows his stuff esp. the middle east.

And while I don't especially care for Robert Gates I can live with him. Him staying provides continuity and Maybe after a year Gen. Colin Powell can be convinced to come on board.

Jim Richardson at commerce is good but I would have liked to have seen him as Sec. of State.

Tom Dashale as Health and Human Services is an odd pick for me... I think Clinton would have fit better there. I really don't know why Dashale is there.

I don't know much about Gov. Janet Napolitano.

Retired Navy Adm. Dennis Blair is apparently the front-runner to be the director of national intelligence. Again I don't know much about him.

I think Eric Holder as attorney general is a good pick.

Both Paul Volcker as head of the new economic advisory board and Timothy Geitner's as treasury secretary is already sending a reassuring message to Wall Street.

I actually would not be surprised if he found a place somewhere in intelligence for Condi Rice... While I personally do not care for her there is no denying her intelligence is formidable.

In regards to your fears about the military Semper I suggest you read this article "Pentagon Board says cuts essential"

www.boston.com...

Its quite interesting and addresses some of these issues.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by grover]



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I have to agree that the only way government can raise the money it needs to work with less borrowing is through raising taxes.

You don't need to be a genius to figure that out.

When it comes to losing jobs because increases in taxes we all know that we are at an unemployment high right now due not to Bushes raising taxes but because companies are sending their productions and their jobs oversea and then the ones that stay in the US are using workers visa to outsource here in the US.

That is a fact and a reality.

So blaming loses of jobs on raising taxes is at this point just speculation.

Because we are already losing them.

The policies behind NAFTA, WTO and the VAT TAX are all killing America and anybody that is behind all of these are guilty.

Obama will not raise taxes in his first 100 days he may do that later on during his administration but not in the beginning.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Excellent thread grover.

I haven't yet caught up on all the posts to this point yet, but I'm working on it.

I hope to offer a unique viewpoint to the discussions here as soon as I feel I am ready.

I love what what I'm seeing so far though.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
...what do people think about this high profile transition as opposed to the more traditional subdued, behind the scenes one.


I'm going to weigh in based upon the OP, without reading the rest of the thread, first. Being blessed with an outsider's perspective, I'd like to make the following observations:
First, the Bush Administration was characterised by fear. The population, and to a large extent, the world, was held in thrall by an unending pummeling by threats and atrocities to the national psyche. Fear served as an instrument of power. The US conceded or diluted many of the strengths and checks designed by the founding fathers, in return for protection from the Great Terror.

Obama set as his mantra the simple word change. Folks are tired of fear, tired of being held in a state of stress...they want change. Is there a Obama-flavoured kool-aid? I believe so. We of the Great White North had an election about the same time as our American cousins. I had the interesting experience of watching as my Ontario rural/small-town riding overwhelmingly voted Conservative (think Bush-Lite) while folks on the street wished we had an Obama too. Well...we did have parties that opposed the neo-con status quo, but they were not able to dislodge that thinly-held grasp upon power. The guy/girl on the street wanted change, but they could not give it shape and act upon it. Hmmm...

So...to address the OP's question of the high profile transition of power, I have a great deal of hope that the people have spoken and the democratic process has set America back on the right path of moral leadership. I hope that Obama can reach out to all Americans and unite them. The people want change and they want relief from fear, and they want it big time, and they are in no mood for subtleties or nuance. They need to see it happen, and the administration-in-waiting is delivering.

But I am also something of a cynic and I have seen enough movies for a 'Good Cop/Bad Cop' scenario to set off my Bravo Sierra detector. Still...I am not above hoping that I am wrong.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Interesting I found this article that reinforce my opinion that Obama will not raise taxes at least for the first 100 days

It seems that Obama and his economic team will follow in their plans to help the economy the famous Nixon's Keynesian conversion, we all know how devastating was to the economy after the fact, but at the time looked like a good idea.

How bad is our government right now when it comes to the economy?

Pretty bad when already Obama is aware that no only federal government but state and local are running out of funds to work.


Yesterday, President-elect Barack Obama and the members of his new economics team made clear that they would be moving toward a budget plan that could push the federal deficit toward $1.5 trillion this year and next, as borrowed money would be channeled into infrastructure investment, tax breaks, loans for ailing industries, and badly needed funds for cash-strapped state and local governments.


www.washingtonpost.com...

Is this a surprise to anyone? no to me.

It seems that the expending will not end with the Obama administration, in fact it will become the only way to bring the nation from its knees.

But what will be the impact of more spending and borrowing when we as a nation do not produce anything anymore to back up that spending.

Many experts see the Obama administration spending 4 years undoing the damage that the bush administration has done to the nation.

But at the end if he is not successful people will make him a 4 year president to fall again into the same vicious cycle that brought us to this point with another administration like the one we have right now.






[edit on 1-12-2008 by marg6043]



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


I will say this, (and this is coming from an old school Conservative) I am not entirely opposed to increase spending at the moment, provided it is in the right areas.

I am completely opposed to wild spending on everything up to and including more government programs and welfare systems. That's the last thing we need.

If Obama wants to spend some more money to help create jobs and provide tax cuts for everyone, including those who he considers "rich", I'm all for that.

If he wants to spend more money on creating a bigger nanny state through the creation of countless government programs, I'll be all over him.

Just to be clear though, I don't believe increased spending is the definitive answer to our problems.

A little fiscal responsibility wouldn't hurt either.




posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   
When we are faced with not only with an epic financial crisis whose outlines have yet to be accurately determined...

When we are faced with a crumbling infrastructure due to years of neglect (I could write a book about how badly I81 has been mismanaged and allowed to decay just here in Virginia) and budget cuts....

When we are faced with a depleted military hardware thanks to the Iraq war that needs desperately to be rebuilt... again see this article :www.boston.com...

When we are faced with growing environmental issues that need to be addressed day before yesterday...

When we are faced with the need for new energy technologies...

When we are faced with my generation (baby boomers) retiring and the subsequent drain on both Medicare and Social Security that need to be addressed before the issue bankrupts the nation...

When we are faced with both an incredible national debt and deficit that is crippling our economy as surely as the banking crisis is...

It is patently absurd to think that these and other problems can be addressed solely by cutting taxes and hope for increased production (and revenue) as a result... especially when the corporate world is damned and determined to ship as much production overseas as possible.

Yes we need to be extremely prudent on how we spend our resources but if we continue this blind knee jerk policy of denying that we need to raise taxes to deal with our problems... we will eventually be unable to deal with them at all...

... and I fear that point is rapidly approaching if not already here.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by grover]



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


I see your point and is well taken, but right now with so many Americans going bankrupt, unemployed and homeless I wonder what the new administration will do with these millions of people mostly families that are now in need.

This is not about a welfare nation but all this means less taxable income to help the nation and social programs.

If the government can not produce enough jobs to help the people that are now in the categories that I mention then how this people are to survive in America.

I see no other way for the Administration of Obama to be able to work government and stop the nation from falling into a humanitarian crisis without increasing spending.

That is a fact, but how much can a nation keep adding to the spending if our lenders are also facing recession and loses because their milking cow the US spenders and consumers can not longer afford to buy their goods.

Do I see hope in the future with Obama? personally I am on the cross roads right now and can not imagine yet how to get out of the situation we are right now without falling more into despair.



[edit on 1-12-2008 by marg6043]

[edit on 1-12-2008 by marg6043]



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I have to say I am really pleased with the quality of posts here so far... they are excellent and very well thought out... indeed ATS at its best... and we've seen what its worst can be so lets keep up the good thinking.

What I am afraid of Marg is sooner or later... and with the United States in danger of losing its AAA bond rating... I am afraid it will be sooner.... the holders of our debt... China, Japan, Korea and Saudi Arabia will run out of patience and call their loans in.

It would send the global economy into an overnight depression for sure but at this point in the game I wouldn't blame them one bit.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by grover]



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


I do agree with you that people are in need of some help at this point and time.

I just hope Obama uses the funds to help create jobs instead of helping to create dependency.

It's a fine line to be sure.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   
See this article about the U.S potentially losing its AAA bond rating:

www.cnbc.com...

[edit on 1-12-2008 by grover]



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Very troublesome future that the Obama administrating will have to face.

This quote from the article tells all.

As for a stimulus package, there is not much of an industry left to stimulate back into life, Hennecke said.

I guess Mr. Hennecke has lost fait of an America recovery.

Right now, China loses on their manufacturing is getting in the danger zone and Japan is already on a recession and they both are our biggest lenders.



[edit on 1-12-2008 by marg6043]



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
As for a stimulus package, there is not much of an industry left to stimulate back into life, Hennecke said....

... Right now, China loses on their manufacturing is getting in the danger zone and Japan is already on a recession and they both are our biggest lenders.


Exactly right on both points... how can we rebuild our industry when the corporations have essentially abandoned us (for cheaper places) except as consumers?

And how long will nations already in or approaching recession keep floating our debt?

The proof either for or against Obama's skills will be as much about how he handles these situations as much as any foreign affairs will.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
how can we rebuild our industry when the corporations have essentially abandoned us (for cheaper places)


By (gasp) lowering taxes on them.

A lot of those corporations have left and gone overseas because it's cheaper to do business there. We in America have made it far too difficult for businesses to succeed. We have imposed numerous burdensome regulations and environmental standards on them to make it hard for them to operate efficiently.

By raising their taxes we are only going to further encourage them to take their jobs overseas where they won't be penalized for making too much money.

I know that Obama and some of this colleagues see big businesses as the enemy, but they need to reconsider that viewpoint. Let the private citizens pay a little more taxes if you must, but give the businesses a break. That's the only way they are going to keep and create jobs here in America.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


While I agree that regulations and taxes are an issue with America industrials also is something that America can not compete and that is slave labor.

That I believe is one of the main reason corporate America has moved oversea.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


That could be a part of it, but I don't think it's the majority.

If the government would allow industry here to operate the way they want to without the harsh regulation they would keep more jobs in America.

I think businesses here want to employ American workers, and believe that American workers are the best in the world, but the strict regulations make it too difficult.

Of course...I could be wrong.

There's only one way to find out...



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I just finished watching Obama roll out his National Security team. I was completely impressed! That's quite a team and I have a good amount of faith that Obama will provide the strong leadership they need. I noticed on this small team, he had males and females, black and white, Democrat and Republican, tall and short!


I didn't like the choice of Hillary at first, but as I've heard what others have said about her knowledge of the military, I feel pretty good about it. And who knows? Bill Richardson's personality may not have fit in well with the rest. In any case, I think Obama will do as he says: listen to the dissenting views and make good judgments.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I was impressed but not surprised by Hillary appointment, the only appointment that I do not agree with, is the one Homeland security Napolitano this woman has more skeletons in the Closet that Clinton and Bush put together.

She is been know for breaking laws to satisfied her donor Base and her own personal agendas.

In my opinion a very bad, bad choice for homeland Security



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


I wasn't impressed with any of his picks, with the exception of keeping Gates.

None of these people really strike me as different in any way, nor they do they impress me as overly intelligent in their appointed areas.

I wasn't expecting much though.





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join