Obama Presidency Watch/post election & first 100 days

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ConservativeJack
 


We have extensively explain how spending and taxes "increases or cuts" will be deal with.

While spending is imminent as the nation needs money to keep government, Federal, state and local level to work this is unavoidable, no even a Republican president would have been able to avoid it.

Taking into consideration that we are on a economical crisis that has nothing to do with Obama's doing he will be faced with the task of trying to fix it.

But does spending more money on another bail out will work?

Experts said no, but then again if the bail out is to be the same that was passed under the present administration I guess I have not need to answer, we will be scammed once again by our own for the people elected government




[edit on 1-12-2008 by marg6043]




posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeJack
Dow's down 650 points tonight.

What's President elect Obama going to do? Print dollars? Heat up the printing presses, we have a lot of bills to print!


Nothing. It's still President Bush's party. You remember him... he's got all the reins right now.

As to what Bush will do... eh... I sort of expect him to issue some sort of statement about faith in the American economy to overcome this, right before he pardons another turkey.

I expect his priorities right now are deciding what to take back to Texas, picking out the national Christmas tree and coming up with a nice message for its lighting, and finding another turkey to pardon for Christmas... like, for instance, Scooter Libby.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ConservativeJack
 


Like I have said you and other conservatives, liberals and independents are welcome here but I reiterate just so there is no misunderstanding:


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....

and:

.... I am just going to try and keep this on as much an even keel as possible... I know you and others are conservative, that's why I extended an invite just as I did for liberals here... I want this to be a place where we can discuss the unfolding Obama administration without the rancor I have seen on a lot of threads... if we can keep it that way we will all learn and benefit.


As long as that is understood... welcome.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by grover]



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ConservativeJack
 


BTW I agree with Byrd... at this stage of the game all President elect Obama can do is to set his team up and try, pick the best people he can and try to exude a feeling of competence.

Until January 20th 2009 the ball is in bush minor's court unless he chose to resign early... and then unless the VP did as well dick cheney would take over government... not Obama.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
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.



Yes, we do have strict environmental laws here in the US, but I wouldn't have thought ANYBODY would have frowned on them!

Here are some examples of exactly how they are able to make more money oversees.

Third World Pollution


For example, IBM, General Motors, and Sony have established manufacturing plants in Mexico, and some of these have created severe environmental problems. At least 10 million gal (38 million L) of the factories' raw sewage is discharged into the Tijuana River daily. Because pollution threatens San Diego beaches, most of the cleanup is paid for by the United States and California governments.


Ain't that a cute one! We still get their pollution to clean up!

But, these companies might not be able to keep doing this forever!



Environmentalists worldwide are calling for a strengthened United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to enact sanctions and keep polluters out of the Third World.


Here's an example of how, by going overseas to get around the US environmental laws (because it's "cheaper"), US companies are polluting the host country who let them "set up shop"!

Communities Reject Coca-Cola in India


The communities are left thirsting as Coca-Cola draws water from the common water resources. Its operations are polluting the scarce water that remains.
******SKIP******
The Coca-Cola plant in Mehdiganj enjoys heavily subsidized electricity and is accused of spewing toxics into surrounding agricultural fields as well as causing serious water shortage as a result of its operations. We have a report from Mehdiganj.

In yet another community, this time in Kudus village in Thane district, villagers are forced to travel long distances in search of water which has dried up in their area as a result of Coca-Cola's operations.


Do you REALLY think we should ease up on our environmental protection laws just so these companies can pollute the US and earn a buck cheaper?

Pollution Caused By Factories


Factory related pollution is the number one source of pollution in the United States. Factory pollution accounts for more than half the volume of all water pollution, as well as for the most deadly of pollutants. More than 365,000 manufacturing factories consume vast quantities of fresh water to carry away wastes of several different types.

This waste water from industrial factories is discharged into lakes, oceans and streams, which eventually disperse the polluting effluent substances. The United States Environmental Protection Agency stated in 1996 to Congress that about 40% of the country’s surveyed rivers, estuaries and lakes were too polluted for such elementary uses as swimming, fishing and drinking water supply.



Do you REALLY think we should just ease our environmental laws, and allow companies to pollute our streams, lakes, ground water and air just so THEY will be able to run their company cheaper and make more profits?

I don't want to see our country turn into a toxic cesspool myself, what about the future generations?

I say keep our environmental regulations in place!



We have imposed numerous burdensome regulations



But, if you were talking about the economy, ...

Deregulating Wall Street is part of what got us in this economic predicament also!

Bush's Deregulation Failed Us


Paulson spared no one in his criticism Thursday of the excesses of
deregulation
that has now created the worst global financial crisis in a
generation
, threatening the health of the U.S. economy, the savings of
millions of Americans, and the survival of some of the biggest financial
institutions in the world.


And here's an article that quotes Obama.

It's the Deregulation, Stupid


As part of a speech on his economic platform, Obama depicted the current economic crisis as a consequences of deregulation in the financial sector. "Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it," he said. "Unfortunately, instead of establishing a 21st century regulatory framework, we simply dismantled the old oneaided by a legal but corrupt bargain in which campaign money all too often shaped policy and watered down oversight."



Sounds to me like he has a pretty good grasp of what happened!

[edit on 12/1/2008 by Keyhole]



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Keyhole
 


An excellent post.

Issues concerning the environment seems to be a place where some (but not all by no means) conservatives don't seem to get it.

I remember back in 1969 when:


On June 22, 1969, an oil slick and debris in the Cuyahoga River caught fire in Cleveland, Ohio, drawing national attention to environmental problems in Ohio and elsewhere in the United States.

This Cuyahoga River fire lasted just thirty minutes, but it did approximately fifty thousand dollars in damage -- principally to some railroad bridges spanning the river. It is unclear what caused the fire, but most people believe sparks from a passing train ignited an oil slick in the Cuyahoga River. This was not the first time that the river had caught on fire. Fires occurred on the Cuyahoga River in 1868, 1883, 1887, 1912, 1922, 1936, 1941, 1948, and in 1952. The 1952 fire caused over 1.5 million dollars in damage.


www.ohiohistorycentral.org...

When DDT was used so indiscriminately that whole species including the Bald eagle became endangered because of the pesticide egg shells were so thin as to be unlayable.

I remember the Union Carbide disaster at Bhupal India where:



The Bhopal disaster was an industrial disaster that occurred in the city of Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India, resulting in the immediate deaths of more than 3,000 people, according to the Indian Supreme Court. A more probable figure is that 8,000 died within two weeks, and it is estimated that an additional 8,000 have since died from gas related diseases.

The incident took place in the early hours of the morning of December 3, 1984, in the heart of the city of Bhopal in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh. A Union Carbide subsidiary pesticide plant released 42 tonnes of methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas, exposing at least 520,000 people to toxic gases. The Bhopal disaster is frequently cited as the world's worst industrial disaster. The International Medical Commission on Bhopal was established in 1993 to respond to the disasters.

During the night of December 3rd 1984, large amounts of water entered tank 610, containing 42 tonnes of methyl isocyanate. The resulting reaction generated a major increase in the temperature inside the tank to over 200°C (400°F). The MIC holding tank then gave off a large volume of toxic gases, forcing the emergency release of pressure. The reaction was sped up by the presence of iron from corroding non-stainless steel pipelines. A mixture of poisonous gases flooded the city of Bhopal. Massive panic resulted as people woke up in a cloud of gas that burned their lungs. Thousands died from the gases and many were trampled in the panic.

Theories for how the water entered the tank differ. At the time, workers were cleaning out pipes with water, and some claim that because of bad maintenance and leaking valves, it was possible for the water to leak into tank 610. UCC maintains that this was not possible, and that it was an act of sabotage by a "disgruntled worker" who introduced water directly into the tank[9]. However, the company's investigation team found no evidence of the necessary connection.


en.wikipedia.org...

I remember Love Canal:


Love Canal is a neighborhood in Niagara Falls, New York, United States of America (USA), which became the subject of national and international attention and controversy following the discovery of 21,000 tons of toxic waste buried beneath the neighborhood. It officially covers 36 square blocks in the far southeastern corner of the city, along 99th Street and Read Avenue. Two bodies of water define the northern and southern boundaries of the neighborhood: Bergholtz Creek to the north and the Niagara River one-quarter mile (400 m) to the south. The south shore of the Niagara River in this area is Grand Island.
Image of the Love Canal.

The Niagara Falls School Board chose to construct a school on a known retired toxic waste dump, and the City of Niagara Falls permitted the building of homes and rental units on this property. The development released the chemical waste, leading to a public health emergency, an urban planning scandal, and a finding of negligence by the former owner. In the words of a state health commissioner, "Among its legacies, Love Canal will likely long endure as a 'national symbol of a failure to exercise a sense of concern for future generations.


en.wikipedia.org...

And so many more.

Point blank public health and safety should not be sacrificed for corporate connivance and/or profits.

Companies are public entities regardless of whether they are corporate or private and they need to behave responsibly and if they refuse to then they need to be made to.

I have no faith in voluntary policing by industry. As it is many companies try and get out of their responsibility for pollution by declaring bankruptcy.

The bottom line is this... when it comes to matters like pollution public weal should take precedence over profits at all times because the results of pollution affect us all... as it stands our blood streams are already teeming with pollutants.

Can you say mercury in Tuna?

[edit on 2-12-2008 by grover]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


OK I will bite . Admittedly I am biased because I live in a Parliamentary democracy but I will still respectfully say that I don't like the idea of cabinet minsters being appointed rather then elected . While the people don't have a direct say who is in cabinet under either system but at least under the Parliamentary system voters can weigh up how the think that shadow minsters would actually do in government or more specify cabinet .



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 




OK I will bite. I am biased because I live in a Parliamentary democracy but I respectfully say that I don't like the idea of cabinet minsters being appointed rather then elected. While the people don't have a direct say who is in cabinet under either system at least under the Parliamentary system voters can weigh up how they think shadow minsters would actually do in government or more specify cabinet.



Separation of Powers. We did not like the British system. At least not in 1776 or 1787. Now it does not look so bad. But remember the Brits took a VERY LONG time to get from 1215 to 1688 which is the beginning of modern governance there. (The Glorious Revolution).

When Thomas Jefferson took over from John Adams in 1801, there were fewer than 500 employees of the United States of America. Not counting the Army which numbered about 1,500. I’m thinking we did not have a Navy then, but only a smallish Coast Guard. By the 1880s we had evolved a Civil Service System that became the model for many countries around the globe. I don’t know its size but let’s play like it was 10,000* strong in 1932. By the end of WW2 - its period of greatest expansion - and the Roosevelt era, it numbered let us say, 3,000,000. Although there was a provision that tended to keep the selection of employees non-partisan, it did not work well.

The hiring provision was this: the Civil Service Commission would first test applicants then forward the top 3 names of eligible persons for the open job in the participating Federal agencies. Not all did, as for example, the FBI. The agency's hiring authority could legally select any one of the 3 without owing anyone an explanation.

Because Republicans are really just “shy Libertarians” who do not believe in government, the Dems had no problem picking a Dem whenever the opportunity arose. Which was most of the time. Hey, you don’t man the oars with guys who WON’T swim.

Quite naturally this angered Republicans and looking back, the Dems did mishandle it. From Eisenhower onward every GOP has followed the mantra that the GOVERNMENT IS TOO LARGE without either knowing if that is true or even giving a dam. I say that because the size of government keeps growing regardless of Republican ideology. So is that disingenuous of the GOP?

Beginning with Republican Icon Reagan, we have been privatizing out our government so that the Republicans can again get PAR numbers in the Federal service which they go to sleep at night hating. Geez! I’m getting too deep into psychology than I meant so lets end this here. You get the idea.

We URGENTLY need a Constitutional Convention to write us a document that will reflect the needs of the 21st century and not the ambitions of the 18th century. AND to prevent us ever again having another president elected 5 to 4 at the Supreme Court.


*I am not counting the Post Office employees which was the major low skill patronage department until the PO was reformed into the USPS.


[edit on 12/2/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
reply to post by grover
 


OK I will bite . Admittedly I am biased because I live in a Parliamentary democracy but I will still respectfully say that I don't like the idea of cabinet minsters being appointed rather then elected.


Think about it for a moment... do you really want some of those bozos who run for president in real positions of authority?

UHH... wait a minute....



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I came across these four paragraphs in this article entitled:

Clues Obama Won't Govern Center-Right

www.alternet.org...


Right wing pundits can comfort themselves with the fantasy that America is a "center-right" nation but it just ain't so. In fact, all of the polls show that the November election represented a complete repudiation of right wing Bush-Cheney top-down economics and their Neo-Con foreign policy. Over 80% of voters indicated they wanted fundamental change. The polling shows massive majorities in favor of policies that would guarantee health care for all. It shows overwhelming support for policies that give tax relief to middle income Americans and increase taxes on the wealthy. Polls show complete rejection of neocon notions about "preemptive" war and unilateralism. And Americans strongly favor bold government action to stimulate the economy - not the failed laissez-faire economics that have lead to the current economic meltdown.

The fact is that normal people have supported policies like health care for all and bottom up economics for decades. They've known for years that economic policies that have lowered their incomes and siphoned off all of our growth to the top 2% were not in their interest. Now the market collapse, potential bankruptcy of the country's biggest firms, and obvious failure of Neo-Con foreign policy have finally forced even the country's punditry and

Not only have "center-right" policies proven themselves a complete failure, their intellectual and moral basis has collapsed. How many more bailouts does someone need before he stops believing that the unfettered "free market" will always lead the "private sector" (meaning those who control giant corporations and Wall Street Bankers) to act in the public interest. How many times can corporate CEO's emerge from their private jets with tin cups in Washington before people begin to question the "center-right's" claim that the private sector is inherently more efficient that the public sector. Let's face it, it's getting pretty tough to justify why Wall Street's "masters of the universe" deserve to be paid hundreds of millions of dollars while middle class incomes tank; or why a CEO should make more money before lunch on the first day of the year than his minimum wage worker makes all year long.....

..... Barack Obama will not govern from the "center right", but he will govern from the "center". That's not because he is "moving to the center". It's because the center of American politics has changed. It has moved where the American people are. It once again resides in the traditional progressive center that has defined America's promise since Thomas Jefferson penned its founding document over 200 years ago.


That spells out what I said earlier...


Well ya know that's a funny thing because while more people (roughly 35% vs roughly 20%) identify themselves as conservative, people tend to agree with liberal policies (domestic anyway) over conservative ones by a significant margin. This is why the Republicans basically refuse to run on policy issues and instead wrap themselves in the flag and attack their opponents characters. They know that if they run on the issues they lose hence the comment from the McCain camp that they had to change the subject because if it remained the economy, they lose.


[edit on 2-12-2008 by grover]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
I am biased because I live in a Parliamentary democracy but I will still respectfully say that I don't like the idea of cabinet minsters being appointed rather then elected .


I'd take a look at your constitution. Your blog mentions Christchurch so I assume you're a Kiwi. I also assume we share a similar parliamentary process. Our (current) PM...Steve...decided he wanted a cabinet minister from Montreal, so he appointed a non-elected, hell, non-running!... buddy to the position. Further, this clown declined to run in a by-election that could have put some real legitimacy to his appointment.

A little off-topic, but it does add texture to the American process.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


I have to take issue with this post grover.

Once again we have the mistaken identity problem with Conservatives and Republicans.

Your linked article talks about conservative vs liberal ideologies and the popularity of each. That's fine.

The article then goes on to use that to explain why Republicans can't run on issues. This is not fine.

Republicans haven't ran on Conservative issues since Reagan. The reason they haven't ran on them is because the Republican party has not been Conservative for the last 20 years!

Don't drag Conservative ideology into the Republican party, because it doesn't belong. The Republican party abandoned Conservatism long ago.

They don't run on issues these days because their "issues" now are new age neo-con garbage.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by grover
 

Your linked article talks about conservative vs liberal ideologies and the popularity of each. That's fine.

The article then goes on to use that to explain why Republicans can't run on issues. This is not fine.

Republicans haven't ran on Conservative issues since Reagan.


Well then using the above three quotes from you I suggest that Republicans can't run on the issues because current Republican issues (the Republican party controlled by movement conservatism... we have discussed this before) are at odds with the majority of the American public... both liberal and conservative.

Would you agree then?

[edit on 2-12-2008 by grover]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   
OKAY... since I am sure this issue of what is or is not a conservative and/or Republican vs what is called Movement conservatism will come up again I am providing these quotes on the issue from the thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Ten Myths Conservatives Believe about Progressives"

because it is relative to this thread.


perhaps it should be said that not all on the right are conservatives in the classic sense which you and I have discussed before but should be more accurately described as nihilists in that they negate anything that does not agree with their views.

For the record a true conservative is someone who is not against change per say but rather is someone who would rather that change be taken slowly and judicially with a focus on preserving what we already have.

Any society that embraces change for change sake ultimately loses all authenticity and ultimately its reason for existing.

Taken in this light you can be a conservative liberal or a liberal conservative but the likes of ann coulter, michael savage and mush loosebowels have nothing to do with these fundamentals but rather negate anything other than their exalted opinion of their opinions.....

..... the Republican party abandoned its principles in its embrace in the late 60's of the racist elements of the old south (coming from there I know), religious funnymentalism and dumping Main street for Wall street. Small business, which is the real backbone of our economy is not the same as big business and their interests are often polls apart.

As for the Democrats they abandoned their principles in their abandoning of the working class for big business money and in a blind push to a middle that the opposition had no intention of meeting.

As a consequence the Republican right came to dominate the party over its moderate and liberal branches in an unholy alliance between religious extremism and big business and the Democrats essentially neutered themselves by trying to become conservative lite in order to compete, or so they thought.

Consequently the Democratic failure was not in their ideas but in their push to become conservative lite they deprived voters what they really want more than anything else... real viable choices... in short why bother voting for them when all they are trying to be is a watered down version of conservatism?

The way I have been phrasing it lately is that I have no faith in the Democrats but I have less faith in the Republicans.....

..... Paul Krugman in his book "The Conscience of a Liberal" makes the distinction by describing it as movement conservatism which Source Watch defines as:


Movement Conservatism is a self-serving and socially malevolent cabal of mega-corporations, right-wing think tanks in Washington, their archconservative foundation benefactors, and an intricate nationwide network of linkages in the communications media, religion, higher education, and law. It has been called the "conservative labyrinth," and common to all its elements is a theology of "free markets," an ideology coming to full bloom in the Administration of George W. Bush. Today, the G.O.P. seeks to impose it at every turn.


www.sourcewatch.org...

These are not the same thing... one is an ideology of caution and the other a framework in essence of the pillaging of America.

The BIG lie of movement conservatism is that it represents the other. It does not.

At its heart movement conservatism is a form of fascism as defined by Mussolini as:


Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.


And as such is antithetical to the American ideals.

It is movement conservatism at its most greedy and crass that brought us the whole financial mess that we are living through now and the vehicle for doing that was the Republican party and its allies in the Democratic party... at no point did either represent the interests of the American people.

It is this movement conservatism and its stranglehold on the Republican party that I take umbrage to.....

..... More from source watch about Movement Conservatism:
www.sourcewatch.org...


The G.O.P. was once a respectable political party, giving voice to cautious citizens who saw much to protect in the affairs of the nation. The Democratic Party offered a forum for less sanguine citizens to disagree and seek reform, and in the healthy conflict between the two a robust democracy served the nation well.

Neither party was rigidly ideological, driven passionately to impose a set of beliefs, as the Taliban, say, imposed Islam in prewar Afghanistan. Both parties respected democracy.

Except in their Orwellian rhetoric, the Republicans no longer do, and the G.O.P. has withdrawn from serving the nation at large. About 25 years ago it became the political arm of "Movement Conservatism," and today it promotes not the general welfare but the commercial interests of corporate enterprise...

...Taking shape in the late '70's, Movement Conservatism became a sort of economic Taliban, absolutist in conviction, righteous, and anxious to impose its ideology on the American people. It found its vehicle in the presidential candidacy and election of Ronald Reagan, and over the next eight years Movement Conservatism and the Republican Party came to be coterminous.

There was little resistance. Since the Republican Party traditionally has been the party of commerce and finance, Movement Conservatism had only to sell an appealing ideology to a receptive constituency. As the pursuit of "free markets" came to mean "corporate well being," the transaction was consummated. The Republican Party took on the ideology, and also assumed a commercial function: marketing public policy as a product. It became the G.O.P., Inc., and forfeited its role as a party of the people.

President Reagan's agenda came almost whole-cloth from the Heritage Foundation. His massive tax cut slashed current revenues, but Reagan shoveled trillions of dollars to corporations in the defense industries anyway. In so doing he added twice as much to the national debt as all his predecessors combined, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter.

This was the first shot from the most vicious and despicable weapon in the arsenal of Movement Conservatism: pile more and more indebtedness onto future generations so that debt service increasingly forecloses public expenditures for anything else. The stupendous deficits of George W. Bush preordain a starving public sector for decades to come.

In 1988 the Democrats learned how effectively corporate financing can facilitate television-based campaigns. A lot of money can make Willy Horton a household name. And so by 1992, dominated by the Democratic Leadership Council, the Democrats veered sharply toward the center, seeking corporate financing for the Clinton campaign. Clinton delivered, enthusiastically embracing "free trade," a global version of the free market fantasy. The Democrats were flirting with their own transformation to corporate status, and they continued in 2000, running free-trader Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, once chairman of the DLC.

Ralph Nader's Greens couldn't see much distinction between the G.O.P., Inc., and its Democratic emulators, and they high-centered the election. The Supreme Court, sporting a couple of Movement Conservatives on the bench, did the rest.

Some Democrats today are openly critical of a centrist, corporate-friendly stance for the party. Others still cling to it: the threat remains.


It is more than anything Movement Conservatism that has fostered the poisoning the well as it were of honest and open political discourse with loaded hate filled rhetoric to convince people to essentially vote against their own best interests....


There I think that pretty much sums up the difference between true conservatives and Movement Conservatism as the group that controls the current Republican party and thanks to nyk537 for his involvement in making that dialog possible.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by grover]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Absolutely.

The Republican party no longer stands for anything in my opinion. They have become a bunch of pansies who only seek to appease the left and make people like them. They have abandoned every value they once held in favor of trying to be popular.

They have failed on every account.

Sadly the Democratic party is no better. At least they stand on their principles, even of those principles happen to be (in my opinion) wrong.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 08:54 AM
link   
See above for my summery of a previous discussion on the subject that we had.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Obama already working on policies to help the economy and he is not president yet

Obama pledges to work with governors on economy

It seems that during the Obama campaign he pledge to,


“Immediately after I become president, I’m going to confront this economic crisis head-on by taking all necessary steps to ease the credit crisis, help hardworking families, and restore growth and prosperity.”


But he will not stop there he has also believes that its a federal responsibility to bail out state and local governments that have overspent and is encouraging them to line up at the federal tax trough to gorge even more.

www.steamboatpilot.com...

He is been true to his worlds so far, as today he is meeting with state governments as I type this information.


Plagued by rising unemployment, falling tax revenue and increased demand for state services, the nation's governors met with President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden on Tuesday to press for federal money to ease their fiscal strain.


www.cnn.com...

So while I see that Obama is fulfilling one of his campaign promises, how govenrmet is going to afford all this spending if its clear that the reason states are falling behind is because citizens are becoming unemployed and taxable income is no enough.

What you people think



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Well simply put the system of local, state and federal governments form essentially the framework of our system and while you can let a locality fail and declare bankruptcy like NYC did in (I think) 1977... to have a state fail is another matter all together... it is a far larger entity.... so in my opinion having a state fail would have far greater impact on the national economy than Lehman brothers failing... for example.

At the end of the Gilmore (R) administration the state of Virginia's finances had been so badly mismanaged that it came close to losing its AAA rating and by all accounts that would have been a financial disaster for us. As it stands we avoided it but it took a combination of budget cuts and tax increases to do it and now we are supposedly one of the best run states in the nation.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Well the governor of California Arnold Wants Feds to Bail Out His Deficits,

Can You Spare $7B?
California Gov. Schwarzenegger Writes Treasury Secretary, Seeking Huge Loan


Well if the trend from the state is going to be like this I think that the Obama promises will be very hard to fulfill.

50 states with billions of dollars of deficit.




As the credit market shut down at midday Monday, Massachusetts was unable to borrow the final portion of a $400 million loan from Wall Street investors to make quarterly aid payments to cities and towns and had to dip into its own funds to make up the $170 million shortfall.


abcnews.go.com...

I don't know about you Grover but this bail out is starting look mighty impossible to finance with the state of America's economy.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Like I said I personally would prefer to see states and major localities bailed out over mismanaged banks and financial institutions.

I bet in the long run it would be cheaper and more productive too.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by grover]





 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join