Reply With Quote
When is he going to die on a cross to save us?
The campaign that, at least for the ENTIRE stretch run, was almost exclusively about domestic issues; will ultimately lead to a presidency dominated by foreign policy ones.
Just a prediction.
When is he going to die on a cross to save us?
I think early on you can expect to see some key legislation. You're probably going to see a push very quickly to move toward greener energy and I think you'll see legislation that pushes this forward.
Probably the first big thing they'll do is try to get a federa program in place to repair our countries infrastructure. This is an excellent way to create jobs and the fact of the matter is that we severely need to do this. I don't see how anyone will oppose this if they truly want to work in a unified manner so I guess this will be a key test on how the GOP plans to deal with Obama early on.
I think you'll also see Guantanamo Bay closed. You'll see a move away from torture in any form and you'll likely see some intelligence reform as well.
But in the end priority number one is the economy and that will dominate his early first term unless we're attacked in a huge manner. Thats why I think you'll see a large infrastructure plan and/or a green energy plan as well since both can address large issues while creating economic stimulus.
I do not think McCain can envy the job too much...
Obama will have to face hude problems imidiately:
-world economic crysis
-certain job loss in the US
-huge expectations from his voters
-a world that Bush managed to turn against the US in the last 8 years... especially muslim radicals
-I think a really hard job is what to do with Pakistan... while situations in Afganistan and Iraq are messed up already
-Can he aford to ignore some of the conflicts in Africa while civilians are slaughtered daily?
-etc... Hard, hard work for Obama....
Please show me the evidence for this. Corporate power has been increasing worldwide for decades to the point that 51 of the 100 biggest economic en ies in the world are CORPORATIONS, not nations. In truth, corporations control the world to a larger extent than governments, but they act only in the shareholder's interests, not the people's. I'd prefer a world with stronger regulation, rather than the toothless tigers we have now.
I agree that this presidency is definitely a poisoned chalice - good luck Mr Obama, you will need it.
The World didn't turn against us, it turned against Bush.
That is already resolved.
Now the stark realization that it wasn't all his fault will be sobering - although he can get blamed for it for a good 4 - 6 years.
I'm quoting this, just in case the poster tries to edit it at a later date...
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back about that one...
It will be funny to see Democrats doing the same thing to Bush that Republicans have done to Clinton. There are still people blaming Clinton for things that are happening today.
Both sides have their punching bags/scapegoats now.
Give it another 10 years or so to really see how it pans out.
"all those things I promised you in the election"
Obama has repeatedly spoken about the challenges of the immense problems dubya has bequeathed. Where has Obama promised us a Rose Garden? His time scale is years, even beyond one term.
Many Americans are as dumb and ignorant as a bag of hammers, but some Americans realize that no matter who won the election, the domestic and international problme are immense and complex. They voted for Obama's very difficult way forward, and blocked McSame's way backward.
This is what I see happening:
(1) Obama and Congress will raise taxes on the rich, as promised;
(2) The economy will rebound as it always does, albeit somewhat more slowly due to Obama's tax policy;
(3) The next two years will be rough on the domestic front, due to economic sluggishness and the proposed nationalization of healthcare, and the Republicans will make significant congressional gains in 2010;
(4) After the economy recovers, a combination of the Obama tax hike and congressional Republican resistance to new spending will lead us to something nearing a balanced budget;
(5) Iraq will sufficiently stabilize in time for Obama to withdraw troops within 16 months;
(6) Obama will renege on his promise to revisit trade agreements--I hope;
(7) America's foreign policy will be largely non-interventionist, despite what Obama has said about Pakistan--this guy just wants to talk, it seems; and
(8) Obama will likely win re-election, unless the Republicans get their together.
Actually, given the weak corporate governance provided by most corporate boards, there is a VERY good argument for the assertion that "corporations act only in management's interests".
A good part of the time, management's interests coincide with that of the shareholders, but make no mistake, $100,000,000 golden parachutes don't tend to enrich shareholders.
I would put forth the studies of CEO pay that show either no correlation, or a NEGATIVE correlantion to corporate performance.
http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=3616
Some of this seems to be changing, with greater percentages of CEO pay actually linked to performance of the stock, but still...
http://www.mercer.com/print.htm?indC...e=D&reference=
I find this sentence ironic.
Bush promised, when he ran for his second term, to stay in Iraq no matter how long it took. He did.
He promised to try to privatize a part of Social Security. He did; it was rejected.
He promised to keep his tax cuts in place. He did.
He kept his promises; even when they became EXTREMELY unpopular. I thought that's what we wanted in a President. If Obama knows what's good for him, he'll take a page out of Clinton's book, put his finger in the wind every few days, his promises, and move his positions around at eh whim of the (as you describe them) stupid American population.
I mostly agree with this.
Further:
The massive deficits we have been running have simply been pushing necessary tax hikes down the road. Every deficit can be seen as simply a future tax increase. The only good thing about the current climate it that it lowers the cost of US government borrowing.
Hopefully by the time raising capital gets more expensive, we won't need to do it as much.
Very likely scenario - although a couple of things could screw things up:
Democrats use the nuclear option in the Senate to pass sweeping progressive legislation before they have a chance of slipping in two years.
OR
We are hit by a serious terrorist attack - then, as with 9/11, - EVERYTHING changes.
There you go, that is pretty much what I would predict as well.
The goodwill garnered from the election will fade more or less quickly depending on how much he deviates from the more unpopular Bush policies, like Gitmo.
I predict that we WILL see greater NATO participation in Afghanistan. It will be VERY hard for the Europeans, who found it easy to decline requests for troops from Bush, to do the same to Obama.
I predict a continuation of one of Bush's best foreign policy successes: Africa. (yes, you read that correctly, Bush did something competent and good) I would really like to see that Obama or his advisors sit down with the Gates Foundation to do some coordination of development aid.
I predict that the R & D spent on green energy, and the smarter, less ideologically based economic stimulus will have a fair effect on the economy, to a degree that will surprise a lot of people.
Extending unemployment benefits will happen.
For a look into future likely Obama policies, one should visit this website:
http://www.epi.org/
It is one of the best "progressive" economic think tanks, and is likely to prove to be very influencial in formulating Obama economic policy.
I would also predict that the ultimate cost of the bailout will prove to be smaller than one might think, as the Government sells the stakes it will be buying in flagging companies in a few years.
Despite what a lot of hysterical right-wingers seem to think, US government investments in these companies will end, probably during the last year or so of Obama's probable first term. The bugaboo of "socialism" will be proven to be what everybody with any common sense knew it was: hyperbole.
I sincerely hope the Dems aren't stupid enough to use the nuclear option of eliminating the filibuster.
That would be a mistake of epic proportions.
There will be a fair chance of a terrorist attack in the next 8 years, as the revitalization of the Al Qaeda movement/ideology that Bush's -ups have provided start bearing fruit. Make no mistake, Gitmo and Abu Gharaib have had a huge effect on the ability of these nutters to make the case that we are as evil as they say we are.
I saw an interview on this last night - I was half asleep, sorry I can'r cite it; must have been PBS.
Anyway, regarding infrastructure, they said the reason Congressman don't pass large spending bills for it, is because they can't go to the ribbon cutting, or have their name put on it.
Seriously. It's vanity and/or taking credit for new building. They can't sell "maintaining infrastructure" as a major accomplishment; and with so little money left after en lements, defense and interest, well - gonna do what helps daddy get reelected, aren't we.
Hope you're right, though.
I'm happy the Republicans didn't set the precedent. Thank you gang of 14.
I don't think it'll be Al Queda - they're too busy hiding from Predators - and if Obama "surges" Afghanistan, they'll have there hands full.There will be a fair chance of a terrorist attack in the next 8 years, as the revitalization of the Al Qaeda movement/ideology that Bush's -ups have provided start bearing fruit. Make no mistake, Gitmo and Abu Gharaib have had a huge effect on the ability of these nutters to make the case that we are as evil as they say we are.
I'm thinking the Shia wanna get on the scoreboard.
As for Gitmo; I've got a hunch liberals are gonna be disappointed in the results there. I bet it stays open for business.
That said, a more saavy Obama administration will FINALLY start making use of our best weapons in the war on terror.
Military force, although necessary, is NOT sufficient to win the war against the Al Qaeda ideology.
You can't win a war of ideas with bullets.
The US will make good use of soft power, and moral authority to really hack away at the base of Al Qaeda's strength, i.e. the ability to say "look how evil and imperial they are", and have that be plausible to the mul udes of the developing world with limited or no access to wider global media.
Building schools, roads, and providing something as simple as electricity and fresh water will go a long way towards undermining the chief claims of the muslim nutters of Al Qaeda.
It will be a hard knot to untangle and will take the better part of a 2 years to close down.
Liberals who want it closed down immediately will be disappointed, but it is such a PR disaster that any sane progessive foreign policy advisor will make the calculation, a correct one in my view, that shutting it down is better in the long run than keeping it open, and Obama is likely to agree with that.
[quote=RandomGuy;2881172]That said, a more saavy Obama administration will FINALLY start making use of our best weapons in the war on terror.
Military force, although necessary, is NOT sufficient to win the war against the Al Qaeda ideology.
You can't win a war of ideas with bullets.
The US will make good use of soft power, and moral authority to really hack away at the base of Al Qaeda's strength, i.e. the ability to say "look how evil and imperial they are", and have that be plausible to the mul udes of the developing world with limited or no access to wider global media.[quote]
I don't know....Obama's first pick in his cabinet his "Chief of Staff" is a Jew. "They're" gonna make a HUGE deal out of that.
We've done all of that in Afghanistan - as far as I can tell, hasn't helped. (of course we've also stopped the beheading of women and gays and that didn't endear Bush to those factions in this country AT ALL)Building schools, roads, and providing something as simple as electricity and fresh water will go a long way towards undermining the chief claims of the muslim nutters of Al Qaeda.
What if that sane advisor gets access to all of the intel on what and who is in there, and decides based on THAT that it ought to stay open. Or will they simply symbolically close it, and open a similar operation somewhere else?
A mixture of releasing the obviously non-threats, and the latter would be my guess.
I imagine that the really threatening guys will be, as quietly as possible, either given to friendly police states like Saudi Arabia or similar to lock up and throw away the key, and possibly actually charged with crimes.
The detainees are, unfortunately, too high profile at this time to simply make them "disappear" into the numerous secret detention facilities that I am sure are operational world-wide.
Ultimately the most ethical thing would be to straight up release most, if not all of them, but I don't see this being done, as it would be extraordinarily difficult politically.
Personally, I would be comfortable with an action like this. I judge whatever damage the really dangerous ones might do to us down the road pales compared to the PR damage, as I have previously stated.
I would simply , as the really dangerous ones are released, spend a lot of effort to keep tabs on them, and quietly kill them a few months to a year down the road, if they aren't immediately jailed by a friendly government.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
