Obama Wins! - So What's Next?

Remove all ads!

Holy poop, i go away on a long weekend, come back to find that everybody & their mother has posted!!

Ok chandos, lets take it from the top.
Equal pay bill - wow, now you can sue up to 2 years after the date the pay discrepancy took place. Didn't really do anything to address the underlyng issue BUT i really don't think any president can. Pass on this one, no negative or really positive point. A hardy handclap for signing the bill though.

Closing Gitmo - Has to be closed in a year with still no one willing to take the prisoners. So in a year when they still can't find anyone to take them are they going to make a new gitmo? Again neither positive or negative ATM.

Banning torture - Well sort of, it says the Army Field Manual has to be followed BUT it has also set up a special task force to :

So if they determine more severe methods are needed, they can(& will) be approved.

Notice they didn't ban rendition either, just going to look at it.

Blackwater* not getting a license from Iraq. I see this as either a way to get blackwater to "grease the wheels" or a way for the Iraqi Gov't to earn goodwill from certain segments of their own people.

Not sure how long that will take & if they will have worked something out by then.

Now on to some new obama stuff.
Samantha Power - remember her? The professor from Harvard University who was let go from the obama campaign after calling HRC a "monster" & saying "She will stoop to anything & the amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive".
She is now going to be senior director for multilateral affairs at the National Security Council.
This is a position that will have her working & possibly traveling with the monster herself, HRC. So is obama just trying to piss Hillary off or what?

What is it with Obamas nominees not paying their taxes? Now it turns out that Tom Daschle, obamas choice for health secretary, failed to pay more than $128,000 in taxes.

Now does this disqualify him from the position? Of course not because, unlike Tim Geithner, he wont be dealing with the Dept that is in charge of such things.

Now the latest talk of obamas newest gaff(changed to relfect drews response as this fits better than "hypocrisy") is the White house thermostat.
Apparently he likes it very warm.
After he was photographed in the oval office without his jacket( & half of the others in the picture have theirs off also) it was explained thusly.

Now i don't have a problem with that however wasn't obama the one who told us

So . . .it's do as i say not as i do?



* - i thought it was just funny to put in the part about Blackwater as i was there this weekend taking a couple of training programs.
That place is like a slice of heaven to any gun-nut.
Firearms Ranges from CQB 7yds ranges to 1,200 yds sniper courses, 4000+ sq. ft. multi-story Live Fire shoot house(plus a "little" ~1500 sq. ft. one), every possible firearm you could imagine(& some that you just can't). Plus so much more.

Anybody that likes guns, if you ever get a chance to train there don't hesitate, GO!

 

Yes and no. Water boarding is being banned because it violates international law (which defines it as torture). To contrast the Bush adminstration, any new techniques approved by an Obama administration will not violate international law. As it stands currently, the Army Field Manual is more restricted than it is required to be.

This is only half true. Rendition to nations that torture has been banned.

Regarding the thermostat stuff, I think you're jumping the gun a little. It's currently a balmy 68 degrees in my house. I'm wearing a T-shirt. "Warm" is a relative term. Given that none of your anecdotes reference the actual temperature in the white house (only referencing the fact that it is warm enough to warrant taking off one's jacket), you really don't have enough information to call him a hypocrite....and even if he were setting the thermostat to 72 degrees, this is a really petty argument. If this is the best you can come up with, things are going great.

 

I didn't know he was a Democrat. I knew that he was hired because he is supposed to be an economic wizard, but I did not know that he had any party affiliation. He may be a Democrat, but I never heard of him being all that active in the Democratic Party. Wiki lists him as an Independent, but that could be wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Geithner

 

No drew i wasn't actually saying that he had the thermostat set at Xdegrees because we don't know, however even his own people are commenting on it. I(& others) just think it is funny that he tells the country we can't do something but then turns around & does it himself.
Personally, i like 65 in the winter & 76 in the summer.
Haha, was kind of funny as when i got in today the better half had the heat cramked up to 80! Felt like a sauna in the house.
I just turned it down & didn't fuss as there are just some battles you ain't gonna win(typically any that involve a woman)

Thanks for the info Chandos, i will go back & reword that part.

 

About the first thing you've said in that post worth reading. Kerry ran an inept campaign, and Bush defeated him. That's what I remember about the 2004 election. And yes, I was here then too.

You quoted Dr. Grossman and asked me for my interpretation. That what I gave.

 

Hey, I'm just going by this remark:

Again, maybe there's just an issue of pronoun case. The word "you" seems to give you a bit of trouble. As I commented I did not "suggest" anything made in that comment itself, Grossman did.

In some ways you echo what he is saying. The problem with Gorssman's, and your comment, is that while "Obama stands outside that experience," so do many other blacks. Despite your stereotypical view, many blacks DO NOT live in the "low rent, crime ridden areas" that you describe. Once you move beyond Grossman's point, you suggest that blacks should have stopped living in these areas "decades ago." I'm not sure what that point is, (and I don't think Grossman would agree with that point) since there have been debates about whose fault it is that there are depressed economic areas in which all kinds of people are forced to live out of "economic necessity."

Many people are faced with personal obstacles and setbacks: sometimes issues of race, gender, religion, age, health issues, education, economic disadvantages, the list can become long. But a few, rather than feeling sorry for themselves and just complaing about it, still overcome those issues and are able to accomplish great things. Many here feel that America is a land where such opportunities are always possible, and that is one of the comments made quite often regarding this election: It helps to prove the point the America is a land of opportunity. It isn't just for the "advantaged."

The point is that Obama is outside that experience, and as a son who was abandoned by his father, and raised by single mother (with the help of her family), he overcame all the stereotypes, and is now president of the US. He never had the advantages of say, a George W. Bush, but he is still equally accomplished (probably more so) than our "frat-brat" ex-president. In that regard he is a "symbol of achievement" for many different people, not just African-Americans.

That fact that I don't agree with Gorssman fully, does not prevent me from respecting his view. I don't have to necessarily agree with someone to be able to appreciate his/her opinions (you should try it sometime).

Nevertheless, I still feel that blacks are entitled to "pat themselves on the back," over this election, whether you think so or not. You have been very unconvincing in this regard, and your views only reflect your jealousy over our national feelings here. You may not agree that it should be a big deal, but as many have suggested, including Grossman, it is a "symbol of black achievement," and as I've commented, blacks in the US are estatic, to say the least. And I have posted links to some very moving comments made by African-Americans regarding their feelings over this election. I'm sure you didn't bother to read them anyway.

 

I didn't say it was universal, nor that I approve of the way they live.

It's still not the percentage you'd like it to be. Where a society of emotional oppression flourishes, it makes it hard for people on the bottom--regardless of race--to rise above that station. While the American dream is not reserved for the advantaged, it is much harder for those that are not advangated. But the percentage of blacks that live in such circumstances is still alarming...

It's not the blacks I'm *****ing about. It's the white people celebrating like they've done something great that bugs me...

 

I cannot believe this. This article brings up something so stunningly stupid I can't believe it got into a newspaper. But the author is right -- utter and complete idiots will use this as supposed evidence that Obama is a bad choice for president. I only hope that they are silenced before totally embarrassing themselves.

I mean, really! Who cares about whether it was canned or not?

 

Two things: Where do you get off with this "what I'd like it to be," bull. If it's only one person, it's one too many. Get a grip.

The second point is that you have no idea what the numbers are for single-moms, people with health defects, gender and race discrimination, etc. You're too lazy to find out what they are even in your own country, let alone mine. I'm done posting the research for you. You sit back, make baseless comments with no data, no test in reality, and when a person who really cares about the truth takes the time to research an important point, you just ignore them and start arguing the point from the other side of your mouth; you do this on almost every thread. Your mouth must get tired from arguing out of both sides.

So now it's just "white" Americans you have a problem with in this election? How about Asian people? or Hispanic people? In your world, which racial backgrounds should be able to celebrate this election? How about Obama himself? Should his white side be apathetic, while his black half celebrates? Talk about "division."

Many people are glad of this election because it is bringing people of all races that much closer together. Each step we take, blurs the racial lines. This was a giant step. This is also from the Grossman essay:

Many of us will remember that moment in Grant Park for the rest of our lives. It will be like a small handful of other important events, some of them more infamous like 9/11. For once, something really good happened in America, and worth remembering. Don't let your jealousy rule too much of your own heart, Gnarff.

 

Bush did a good job of that too. Judging by his approval ratings, people of all races must have hated his guts.

But what were you celebrating? A Democrat win? The end of the Bush years in office? Simply a new president? To me, those things would be more historically significant than Obama's skin colour. It just felt to me like the American people were holding him up as a token black to make brownie points with other nations, and I think it cheapens his accomplishment and drew attention away from the task at hand--getting the economy back on track.

 

Great, now obama wants the census done to his will not the way it is set up in the constitution & federal law.
Yeah the dems will administer it fairly, RIGHT now pull the other one.
Can you imagine the hell that the dems would have raised if bush tried this crap?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...-fox-news-concerned-obamas-census-bureau-coup

 

Martaug, the fact that the same news team that thought Obama might not be president -- because the Justice who swore him in flubbed a line -- thinks that Obama's choice to have the Census bureau report to him might violate constitutional law isn't exactly convincing. No offense, but given their track record of factual (in)accuracy, I'm inclined to view FOX's outrage as an indicator that Obama is doing something right. If they thought everything was hunky-dory, I'd probably **** my pants.

 

You feel about fox news the way i feel about anything msnbc(or as it should be called, obamatv) or cnn reports as they are as biased(if not more so) than fox ever is.

 

Martaug, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I couldn't care less about Fox's bias. My problem is with their established record of (often deliberate) factual inaccuracy. Bias and factual inaccuracy are not the same thing, and where factual inaccuracy is concerned, Fox "news" is in a league of its own.

To address the non-issue you've brought up, I will merely point out that while I've seen conservative bloggers and Fox "news" posit the argument that Obama is violating constitutional law by taking a more active role in the census, I haven't seen anyone detail how this would violate constitutional law. Until then, all we have is more noise from an increasingly frustrated, bellicose, and irrelevant radical right.

 

Just like all we hear from the ludicrous & silly left is that all will be well if we just let the messiah obama have his way.
Not gonna happen, we are gonna treat him to the same shitstorm that dems gave to bush.
Every single action will be examined & any that don't smell right will be questioned.

Even politifact has obama listed as 1 promise already broken, 1 already compromised & 1 stalled & soon to be listed as broken.
He also has apparently been spending to much time with al gore as he is using gores tired old lines of "There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jump-start the economy."
False - completely untrue as noted here http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../barack-obama/some-economists-disagree-obama/

 

Yeah, it will happen. The stimulus plan will more than likely pass sometime next week. The Cato ad is pretty much meaningless in the greater scheme of things. Nevertheless, they are entitled to their opinion. What FDR did during the Depression was to put people back to work who desperately needed help. His programs did not end the Depression but it kept a lot of people from going under. And that was FDR's stated goal: To stop as many people from going hungry as he could.

As for the Japanese: Everyone knows that the government spending stopped things from getting worse, but that it did not get the recovery going strong or fast enough. Part of the problem was corruption and that banks continued to make incompetent decisions based on the notion that the government would continue to be there to prop them up regardless of what they did. That is very much like our situation where the banks expect that money will continue to flow to them because they are too important to let go down the tubes. The solution is to nationlize the banks, sell off their debt and then sell the banks back to the private sector once they are solvent. Have you heard this before? Yes, it's what the government did with the SNL's back in the 1980's. AND IT WORKED.

As for your comments that some on the right will make a "turd storm," well there is not much else one can expect from turds anyway. The right did the same thing when Clinton was in office, and they saved his presidency by making themselves look worse than he did in the eyes of the public during his first term. Now they are back at it again, and already the voters will see what they stand for. The right will only continue to marginalize itself politically with its mean-spirited rhetoric and antics. They are digging their own political graves. Btw, many libertarians thought as little of GWB as real liberals did. Just ask Ron Paul what he thought of GWB if you don't believe me.

 

Chandos, you are right that libertarians don't like either party.
I am going to point out every occurence of obama being just another dirty politician & not this great messiah that so many seem to think he is just because he is black.
Pt 1 - yep that stimulus package sure does have broad support, a whole 37% of the country. Unfortunately 43% dislike it & 20% aren't sure. Thats(those who like it) down 8% from 2 weeks ago & up 9%(for those who dislike it) in the same time frame.

Pt 2 - 9% of americans support nationalization of the banking system, 75% oppose it.
Even going by party only 14% of dems & 6% of reps support it while 62% of dems & 88% of reps oppose it.

Pt 3 - 62% of americans want the stimulus plan to include more tax cuts & less spending.

All percentages from rasmussen polls. Remember though that there are 3 kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies & statistics.

Pt 4 - I do like his idea on how to get tax cheats to pay their debts, just offer them a place in his administration &after they get scrutinised they pay up.
Really unique idea.

Pt 5 - In his address monday night he was b****ing about coming into office with a trillion dollar debt from last year when he helped pass the bill responsible for over +$700 Billion dollars of that said debt.

Check out the http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/index.cfm to see a good breakdown & grading of the various parts of the stimulus bill.

Thats all i will post for now as i don't want to make it to long.

 

LOL, The running joke on the right wing blogs is "Now we know why Democrat politicians like to raise taxes, they don't feel they have to pay them."

 

Well of course - who doesn't want to pay less taxes? Everyone likes to keep more of the money they earn, and if you are content with your current job, then spending money on new jobs (most of which you won't qualify for and/or won't be located where you live) isn't helping you out any.

Here's the problems I see with that - the economy has shed over 3 million jobs in the last year, and unemployment may rise as high as 10% in the coming year. An income tax break does not help you if you do not have an income, and most people who are unemployed don't have an income. Lack of employment is what many economists credit with the recession in 2001-2003 lasting as long as it did. It took 47 months (until near the end of Bush's first term in office) before there was a net increase in jobs. I will concede that you don't need to recover all of those jobs to start the economy growing again (as the last recession shows economic recovery began over a full year before all the lost jobs were replaced) but it is very hard to begin the recovery when the economy is still hemorrhaging jobs.

The second point is that the people in the worst shape - those in the lower half of the middle class on down, aren't paying that much in taxes the way it is. In other words, there's very little that can be cut. As an example, a family of 4 with a household income of $45K paid just $600 in federal income tax last year. (This does not count any state or local taxes, nor does it count the taxes they pay into Social Security or Medicare, which would work out to an additional $3K in taxes for the year.) Even if you said to those people you don't have to pay any income tax, they will only see a net increase of income of approximately $11.50 per week.

The third and final issue I have with only giving tax breaks in the stimulus package is that we have already been shown that this is ineffective. I think people will do the same thing with their rebate checks this time that they did when they got rebate checks from Bush last time: Most people won't run out with their checks and put a down payment down on a new car or widescreen TV. What most people did with thier checks was use the money to catch up on their overdue credit card bills, pay their mortgage to prevent their home going into foreclosure, or sock it away for a rainy day. None of those things help get the economy moving again.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm willing to give government spending to create jobs a shot. Giving out tax breaks has not got the economy moving. I also believe that tax cuts work on the principle of diminishing returns, in that the less taxes you pay, the less of a benefit you receive from reducing taxes further. I don't know if Obama's plan will work or not, but it is absurd to think that by repeating last year's tax rebates we'll get the economy moving, when that proved to be only marginally effective last time.

 

Hehe, as I pointed out in my post-election thread. I do not think Obama is going to be a messiah, I think he is a business as usual American politician the thing is. Right now, a business as usual American politician is a vast improvement over the complete nutcases and lunatics you have had running your country during the last eight years. The last administration was so close to pure fascism that I had serious doubts at times whether the US would ever get to have free and real elections again. Thankfully the American system proved to me more resilient than I sometimes feared it was.