NationStates Jolt Archive

I realize this is a long article, and I don't except alot of lazy NSGers here to read it. Therefore, I will ask that people don't just say "GIVE HIM A CHANNNNNCEEEEEE IT'S ONLY TWO MONTHSSSSS" without even reading the article because that is not the point of this at all. The point of this article is it breaks down the sucesses and the failures of the Obama administration and how he has either suceeded or failed on issues. It then ends by stating that it seems, in some regards, that Obama may be getting the ball rolling, and hopes for him to suceed. I am of the very same opinion as this article.

I know that many will say "TL;DR" and then say 'GIVE HIM A CHANCEEE" but I know that those really interested in the subject will read the entire article with an open mind, and then post their response to it, even if it is in total disagreement with the article. Which is fine. For those of you somewhere in the middle between both crowds, because I care about you, I'll go through and bold some main points so that can atleast scan through it. Having said that, here we go:

Barack Obama's progress
Coming down to earth
Mar 26th 2009
From The Economist print edition
The president has had a bumpy ride in his first two months

http://media.economist.com/images/20090328/D1309FB1.jpg

TWO months after his inauguration, Barack Obama can already point to some impressive achievements. He has passed a $787 billion stimulus bill—the biggest in American history—and outlined an ambitious agenda for reforming health care and education, tackling entitlements and pushing “green” energy. He has also delighted his admirers at home and abroad by beginning to reverse George Bush’s policies on such controversial subjects as talking to Iran, global warming, the treatment of enemy combatants and stem-cell research.

Unfortunately, Mr Obama’s critics can also point to a striking record of failures. A startling number of his nominees for senior positions have imploded. The upper ranks of the Treasury remain empty in the midst of the most serious recession since the 1930s. Warren Buffett, an early Obama-supporter and a man legendary for holding on to stocks that he has backed, thinks that the president is taking his eye off the ball. Andy Grove, a former head of Intel, describes the administration’s performance as “ineffectual”. Even the commentariat, which swooned over Mr Obama’s campaign, is running out of patience.

Many of Mr Obama’s achievements have a Potemkin quality. He signed a $410 billion spending bill that contains 8,570 earmarks (directing funds to specific projects), despite his pledge to reduce the practice. His budget rests on unrealistic assumptions about America’s future economic growth and about the cost of his spending programmes. He throws out numbers like confetti: Peter Orszag, his usually impressive budget director, made a dismal job of explaining to Congress where Mr Obama intended to find the $634 billion “down payment” he promised for health-care reform.

Mr Obama’s erratic performance is partly the result of the rollercoaster world he finds himself in. Few presidents have come to power with as much political capital. Mr Obama beat John McCain by seven points. His party has majorities of 39 seats in the House of Representatives and ten in the Senate. The administration can also draw on the brainpower and political muscle of a powerful network of liberal think-tanks and pressure-groups that were formed during the Bush years. But this understates his strength. His election represented a turning point in America’s bitter racial history. It also possibly coincided with the end of a conservative era that began with Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980.

At the same time Mr Obama confronts an unusually difficult set of challenges. America is in the grip of a recession that is crushing jobs and reducing demand at an alarming rate. Some of America’s most famous financial institutions have collapsed. General Motors is on the verge of collapse. The unemployment rate, which is already 8.1%, could hit double figures. The American political system is arguably more dysfunctional than ever, with the parties heavily polarised and the 24-hour-news cycle magnifying bad news.

All this means that Mr Obama’s first two months in office are difficult to evaluate. But a few things seem pretty clear. This is a strikingly ambitious president: he wants to be “transformative” in more than just the sense of being the first black president. But so far his presidency has been vitiated by a combination of incompetence and a willingness to fall back on the very tactics that he denounced as a candidate. Indeed, his desire to be “transformative” may be contributing to his problems, distracting him from the economic crisis.

The pragmatic liberal
Mr Obama has already outlined the most ambitious agenda for transforming America since the Reagan revolution: proposing universal health care, expanding the role of the federal government in education, tackling global warming and reducing America’s growing inequalities. This has ignited a fierce debate about his ideology. Is he an unreconstructed liberal who will provide the left’s answer to Ronald Reagan? Or is he a New Democrat, as he himself claims? The answer is probably a mixture of the two. Mr Obama is a pragmatic liberal, more confident about big government than Bill Clinton’s New Democrats, but less wedded to liberal solutions than many of the old lions in his party.
http://media.economist.com/images/20090328/CFB181.gif

He has spent his career, apart from a year or so in business consultancy, in the non-profit sector, first as a community organiser and later as a rising politician. In his memoirs he often speaks disparagingly about the private sector. He draws some of his keenest support from trade unions and liberal pressure-groups. The most influential think-tank in Mr Obama’s Washington, the training ground for many of his top appointees, is the Centre for American Progress, funded by liberal billionaires such as George Soros and Peter Lewis.

But the president also has a pragmatist’s suspicion of ideology. Some of the most prominent figures in his administration are centrists. Kathleen Sebelius, his prospective health secretary, was a popular governor of Kansas, one of the country’s most conservative states. Larry Summers, his chief economic adviser, is a famous gorer of liberal ones. Cass Sunstein, his regulation tsar, argues that the government should use market incentives to “nudge” people rather than bludgeoning them directly.

Mr Obama certainly plans to increase taxes on the rich—but only to their level during Mr Clinton’s administration, which presided over the high-tech boom and a surge in the small-business sector. Mr Obama wants to reform the health-care sector. But he prefers to supplement the private system rather than replace it with a “single-payer” national health service; many of his supporters are business people crushed by the cost of health care. He wants to increase the role of the federal government in education. But he also speaks eloquently about introducing more merit pay and creating more charter schools. “The resources come with a bow tied around them that says ‘reform’,” argues his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. The administration’s nervousness about old-fashioned liberalism has contributed to its hesitancy in dealing with the banking crisis. Rather than simply “nationalising” the weakest banks and taking over their bad debt, it has preferred to create an elaborate system of incentives for private investors.

If his domestic policy is a mix of pragmatism and liberal ambition, his foreign policy is a mixture of pragmatism and liberal caution. He has revised the legal regime governing al-Qaeda terrorists, put an end to brutal interrogations and promised to close down Guantánamo Bay, to the delight of the anti-war left. But otherwise his policy is characterised by a combination of realism and caution. Realism when dealing with other powers: he has signalled to the Chinese that he will not make a fuss over human rights, and to Arab rulers that he will take a more balanced approach to the Middle East. Caution when it comes to unwinding the “war on terror”: he has rethought his campaign promise to withdraw America’s troops from Iraq in 16 months, is increasing America’s military presence in Afghanistan and is stepping up strikes into Pakistani territory.

Obamateur
The biggest surprise of Mr Obama’s first two months has not been his policy preferences (most of which he advertised), but a certain lack of competence. The man who earned the sobriquet “No Drama Obama” for running such a disciplined campaign has, since coming to office, slipped on one banana skin after another.

He has lost a remarkable number of nominees: two potential commerce secretaries, Bill Richardson and Judd Gregg; a health secretary-cum-health-reform tsar, Tom Daschle; a chief performance officer, Nancy Killefer; and a head of the National Intelligence Council, Charles Freeman. This has clouded his administration’s claims to ethical purity, not least because two of the nominees, Mr Daschle and Mr Killefer, had tax problems. It has also contributed to the sense of chaos.

Mr Obama is paying a heavy price for securing the nomination of his treasury secretary, Tim Geithner. Mr Geithner’s tax problems meant that the White House had to be super-scrupulous in vetting other Treasury figures. He was uncertain in his early public appearances and slow to produce a plan for sorting out America’s banks. Mr Obama’s confidence in him may at last be paying off; his plan for buying “toxic assets”, released this week, sent the markets soaring, he gave a confident performance before Congress, and the senior ranks of his department are now beginning to fill up. But it would have been nice not to have waited so long for the Treasury to start firing on all cylinders.

The Obama administration has also made a long list of smaller mistakes. Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, ought to be one of Mr Obama’s closest allies in fixing the global financial system, for both ideological and historical reasons. But Mr Obama badly mishandled his meeting with Mr Brown, giving him no more than half an hour and presenting him with a gift of a job lot of DVDs which do not even work in Britain. The G20 meeting in London is the first get-together of all the big industrial countries since Mr Obama came to office. But the administration’s preparations have been cursory.

Many of Mr Obama’s mistakes stem from a single strategic miscalculation: he is trying to do too much too quickly. The financial crisis would overwhelm any administration, let alone one that is still trying to fill key jobs. But Mr Obama has chosen this moment to tackle a collection of problems, such as health care and environmental regulation, that have defeated much less overburdened administrations.

The administration advances two justifications for this, one substantive (you can’t fix America’s economy without also dealing with its long-term problems) and one political (“Never waste a good crisis”). The American economy will certainly be stronger if the country can tame its health-care costs. But health-care inflation has nothing to do with the financial crisis. The problem with never wasting a good crisis is that you alienate potential supporters, particularly Republicans, and risk overloading the system. “Mr Obama likes to say that presidents can do more than one thing at a time,” remarks Peggy Noonan, a Reagan speech writer, “but in fact modern presidents are lucky to do one thing at a time, never mind two.” It is worth remembering that Mr Obama’s idol, Franklin Roosevelt, introduced a broad reform agenda only after he had gained credit for tackling the banking crisis.

http://media.economist.com/images/20090328/CFB180.gif

There is plenty of evidence that the administration is much too thinly stretched. David Smick, a consultant, argues that Mr Obama has a three-pronged approach to the crisis—“delay, delay, delay”. He announces grand plans only to stint on the details. He promises budgetary discipline only to put off the hard decisions until later. The president pops up with a speech excoriating AIG bonuses (“I am angry”) but fails to explain the thinking behind his economic programme. Mr Buffett has given voice to widespread worries about the administration’s failure to prioritise. “Job one is to win the war, the economic war. Job two is to win the economic war—and job three. And you can’t expect people to unite behind you if you’re trying to jam a whole bunch of things down their throat.”

Mr Obama’s decision to announce a big-spending budget just when he is spending billions to rescue the financial system has also reinforced worries about America’s fiscal situation. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that some of Mr Obama’s social policies will be more expensive than the White House claims, and that the economy will grow more slowly. The deficit will be $9.3 trillion over the next decade, averaging 5.3% of GDP a year. Mr Orszag concedes that such a number would be unsustainable.

Politics-as-usual
Almost as striking as the contrast between Mr Obama’s soaring ambition and his frequent incompetence is that between his promise to elevate politics and his willingness to continue with politics-as-usual. All presidents run for office promising to change Washington and end up becoming its captives. But few have reversed themselves as quickly as the Hope-meister.

Take bipartisanship. It is true that Mr Obama has made some bipartisan appointments, keeping Robert Gates at the Pentagon and giving transport to Ray LaHood. He made concessions in stimulus negotiations, and has invited a few Republicans over for cocktails. But his bipartisanship has been mostly of the George Bush variety: he is quite happy for his opponents to endorse his policies.

He has surrounded himself with hardened Democratic “pols” such as Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, and David Axelrod, his campaign strategist-turned-senior adviser. He has filled the top levels of his administration almost exclusively with people from the world of government: a former senator (at State), two former government officials (Treasury and Defence), two former governors (Health and Homeland Security). David Ignatius of the Washington Post points out that this administration is “as thin on business experience as a Hyde Park book club”. This not only limits the range of advice he can hear and the experience he can draw on. It also makes it even more difficult to prevent panic on Wall Street or Main Street.

http://media.economist.com/images/20090328/D1309FB2.jpg

Mr Obama is now enthusiastically engaged in something that he foreswore as a candidate: the art of the permanent campaign. Senior White House advisers meet every Wednesday night to plot political strategy. Mr Obama’s former campaign manager, David Plouffe, is e-mailing millions of Obama supporters to encourage them to put pressure on their congressional representatives to pass the budget. Mr Obama gives a striking share of his set piece speeches in swing states. The Obama team has repeatedly suggested that the Republicans are a party of “no” who owe fealty to Rush Limbaugh, a polarising talk-radio host. In other words, Mr Obama is squandering his political capital doing exactly what Mr Clinton did so often in his presidency: justifying his mistakes, trying to get the better of the 24-hour news cycle, and demonising opponents.

Mr Obama’s decision to restart the campaign engine is a sign of his administration’s troubles. It is desperate to distract attention from the fact that it has broken some of its promises. It is determined to manage the anger stirred up by the huge bonuses paid to various AIG honchos. It is also desperate to make sure that the Republican Party cannot make too much political capital from the chaos at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The result is a downward spiral: the more Mr Obama fails, the more he resorts to the permanent campaign, and the more he resorts to the permanent campaign, the more he becomes just like any other president.

To add to the impression of business as usual, Mr Obama is continuing the long-standing trend of amassing ever more power in the White House. He has appointed a clutch of powerful White House-based tsars to oversee Cabinet offices. These tsars have no accountability to anybody but Mr Obama. They have every incentive to engage in empire building and turf wars. For example, Jim Jones, the national security adviser, is redefining the role of the NSC to oversee everything from traditional foreign policy to climate change. American liberals complained bitterly about the Bush administration’s politicisation of intelligence. But Mr Obama has arguably taken this politicisation to new heights by appointing Leon Panetta, a Democratic loyalist with no roots in the intelligence world, to oversee the CIA.

The president cannot yet be described as a failure. It is still early days. America’s political system, unlike Britain’s elective dictatorship, is designed to be frustrating. Power is divided. Congress uses its position to inject bloat into legislation. Presidents ricochet between success and failure. At this point in the election cycle Mr Clinton was embroiled in the gays-in-the-military fiasco and John Kennedy was heading towards the Bay of Pigs.

The confirmation process has been getting ever longer and more traumatic. Every recent president has seen presidential nominees flame out in disgrace. Polarisation has intensified. The recession raises questions that go to the heart of the ideological division between the parties: should you resort to Keynesian stimulus or Schumpeterian creative destruction? Should you bail out people who have borrowed too much money or let them sink? Even a president who had worked hard at bipartisanship might have been undone by these divisions. Mr Obama’s approval ratings remain in the 60s, despite the pressure of a global crisis, and the Republicans remain unpopular and rudderless.

During the election campaign Mr Obama was frequently slow to respond to crises. Then, just when his supporters began to despair and his opponents began to smell blood, he would pull himself together and rise to the occasion. Mr Obama has been slow to get the full measure of the presidency. He has failed to establish firm priorities, and has all too often let events dictate his agenda. All in all, his performance has looked shaky. But at last this week there were signs, when he revealed his bank bail-out plan, that he is starting to do what he did so often during the campaign: justifying the enormous faith that has been put in him.


So some main [negative] points the The Economist is making is that:


President Obama has been unrealistic and careless with spending and with the numbers he posts for his spending projections.



President Obama's administration has been incompetent by trying to do too much at once, instead of simply focussing on the financial crisis. They are politicizing the crisis by "not wasting a good crisis" to launch their domestic agenda.



He has lost a remarkable number of nominees and has had to slash his campaign's ethics promises.



Bad management of our relationship with the UK



A government staffed with a ridiculously low amount of people with private sector ties/experience.



Using the "permenant campaign" technique, which he swore against as a candidate.



Failing to work with the Republicans on the economic crisis while claiming that it will be a bipartisan effort and that he will be a bipartisan president.



Increasing the centralization of power around the White that Bush was was doing. Notably having White House-based tsars with no accountability (except to Obama) oversee sectors where they don't belong, like the Democratic loyalist, Leon Panetta overseeing the CIA. A power centralization that so many Democrats (and often Republicans) where against when Bush did it. . .



In general that President Obama has "been slow to get the full measure of the presidency. He has failed to establish firm priorities, and has all too often let events dictate his agenda."


However, the Economist also names good points that he has done, and that hopefully things seem to be picking up and it may look like the President is getting things into shape:

But at last this week there were signs, when he revealed his bank bail-out plan, that he is starting to do what he did so often during the campaign: justifying the enormous faith that has been put in him.

Despite my belief that the Economist is fucking stupid, not paying attention to whats realistic and whats really going on, and just jumping on the right wing whining bandwagon...

Failing to work with the Republicans on the economic crisis while claiming that it will be a bipartisan effort and that he will be a bipartisan president.
This complaint of theirs is especially fucking stupid. Its almost like theyre not paying attention to what is really going on (which I suspect). He has tried to work with Republicans.

But being 'bipartisan' does not mean doing whatever the Republicans want. Hes listening to their ideas, their ideas have just been bad ideas. Their ideas have been the same ideas they had 4 years ago. I would be angry if he took bad ideas from them simply in the interest of being 'bipartisan'.

The Republican party has admitted that their whole goal for the next few years is to simply disagree with whatever he says. How can you work with that?

That 'complaint' of theirs alone is almost enough for me to discount the rest of their critisim outright, because it shows they clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Because this conversation:

"We dont like that idea. Do exactly what we want, no ifs ands or buts."
"No."
"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH YOURE NOT BEING BIPARTISAN!!! YOU LIED!!!!"

is not a conversation worth taking seriously.

Despite my belief that the Economist is fucking stupid, not paying attention to whats realistic and whats really going on, and just jumping on the right wing whining bandwagon...


This complaint of theirs is especially fucking stupid. Its almost like theyre not paying attention to what is really going on (which I suspect). He has tried to work with Republicans.

But being 'bipartisan' does not mean doing whatever the Republicans want. Hes listening to their ideas, their ideas have just been bad ideas. Their ideas have been the same ideas they had 4 years ago. I would be angry if he took bad ideas from them simply in the interest of being 'bipartisan'.

The Republican party has admitted that their whole goal for the next few years is to simply disagree with whatever he says. How can you work with that?

That 'complaint' of theirs alone is almost enough for me to discount the rest of their critisim outright, because it shows they clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Because this conversation:

"We dont like that idea. Do exactly what we want, no ifs ands or buts."
"No."
"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH YOURE NOT BEING BIPARTISAN!!! YOU LIED!!!!"

is not a conversation worth taking seriously.

That's a summary that TAI gave, you should at least address what the Economist itself says regarding that (it's a lot more specific).

That's a summary that TAI gave, you should at least address what the Economist itself says regarding that (it's a lot more specific).

But it comes down to the exact same complaint. And their biggest beef seems to be with cabinet appointments and their instance that the bailout wont work.

Cabinet complaints are fine, except they are bitching that they have no experiance in the private sector. I dont give a fuck.

And the bailout whining is so fucking old. Consumer confidence has actually incresed to the highest its been in a while (http://www.gallup.com/poll/117346/Weekly-Economic-Wrap-Mood-Year-Long-High.aspx). Be that as it may, its too early for any side to have any real claim on the facts yet.

The Economist is just doing more whining. The fact that it comes from someone more intellegent and who uses more facts then Limbaugh doesnt make it anything but partisan whining.

An interesting read, but the article lays far too much blame at Obama's feet. The collapse of his nominations were in a large part unavoidable. Let's face it, everyone has some dirt on them, and every successful politician has even more. The senate committees seem intent on exposing every single questionable thing done by Obama's picks. I wouldn't be surprised to find that a similar level of scrutiny on most sitting congressmen would find equal or superior levels of dirt on all of them.

Mr Obama’s decision to restart the campaign engine is a sign of his administration’s troubles. It is desperate to distract attention from the fact that it has broken some of its promises. It is determined to manage the anger stirred up by the huge bonuses paid to various AIG honchos. It is also desperate to make sure that the Republican Party cannot make too much political capital from the chaos at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The result is a downward spiral: the more Mr Obama fails, the more he resorts to the permanent campaign, and the more he resorts to the permanent campaign, the more he becomes just like any other president.


Let's face it, Obama is a politician, and that means that he's always campaigning, and his opponents are desperately taking every slip and blowing them way out of proportion.

Now, I know that you posted a very large objection to saying "It's Early" at the beginning of the post, however, it really is. Obama's still learning to play the game, figuring out how much he can do, and what works. I have every confidence in his ability to adapt to the realities of the White House.

Despite my belief that the Economist is fucking stupid, not paying attention to whats realistic and whats really going on, and just jumping on the right wing whining bandwagon...


This complaint of theirs is especially fucking stupid. Its almost like theyre not paying attention to what is really going on (which I suspect). He has tried to work with Republicans.

But being 'bipartisan' does not mean doing whatever the Republicans want. Hes listening to their ideas, their ideas have just been bad ideas. Their ideas have been the same ideas they had 4 years ago. I would be angry if he took bad ideas from them simply in the interest of being 'bipartisan'.

Politics is the art of compromise.

The Republican party has admitted that their whole goal for the next few years is to simply disagree with whatever he says.

Source?

And the bailout whining is so fucking old.

What 'bailout whining'? What part of the article is that?

Despite my belief that the Economist is fucking stupid, not paying attention to whats realistic and whats really going on, and just jumping on the right wing whining bandwagon...


This complaint of theirs is especially fucking stupid. Its almost like theyre not paying attention to what is really going on (which I suspect). He has tried to work with Republicans.

But being 'bipartisan' does not mean doing whatever the Republicans want. Hes listening to their ideas, their ideas have just been bad ideas. Their ideas have been the same ideas they had 4 years ago. I would be angry if he took bad ideas from them simply in the interest of being 'bipartisan'.

The Republican party has admitted that their whole goal for the next few years is to simply disagree with whatever he says. How can you work with that?

That 'complaint' of theirs alone is almost enough for me to discount the rest of their critisim outright, because it shows they clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Because this conversation:

"We dont like that idea. Do exactly what we want, no ifs ands or buts."
"No."
"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH YOURE NOT BEING BIPARTISAN!!! YOU LIED!!!!"

is not a conversation worth taking seriously.

If they had good ideas they wouldn't be republicans.

Rolling squid;14677567']An interesting read, but the article lays far too much blame at Obama's feet. The collapse of his nominations were in a large part unavoidable. Let's face it, everyone has some dirt on them, and every successful politician has even more. The senate committees seem intent on exposing every single questionable thing done by Obama's picks. I wouldn't be surprised to find that a similar level of scrutiny on most sitting congressmen would find equal or superior levels of dirt on all of them.



Let's face it, Obama is a politician, and that means that he's always campaigning, and his opponents are desperately taking every slip and blowing them way out of proportion.

Now, I know that you posted a very large objection to saying "It's Early" at the beginning of the post, however, it really is. Obama's still learning to play the game, figuring out how much he can do, and what works. I have every confidence in his ability to adapt to the realities of the White House.


That, and the Economist's claim that Obama has to actually worry about his approval rating right now is just a plain old lie: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/04/07/1883696.aspx

The most recent New York Times/CBS poll -- conducted during the president’s overseas trip -- shows Obama with a 66% overall approval rating (his highest as president), 59% approving his handling of foreign policy, and 56% approving his handling of the economy. “By contrast,” the New York Times writes, “just 31 percent of respondents said they had a favorable view of the Republican Party, the lowest in the 25 years the question has been asked in New York Times/CBS News polls.”


http://www.examiner.com/x-5890-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m4d6-CBSNY-Times-Poll-GOP-approval-rating-at-its-lowest-in-25-years-Obama-has-66-approval

A CBS/New York Times Poll released today show that Americans are feeling somewhat more confident about the economy than they were before President Obama was inaugurated. In February only 8 % of respondents thought the economy was getting better while this weeks' survey revealed that 20% of respondents believe the economy is getting better.

President Obama is enjoying a 66% approval rating by respondents as opposed to 64% in March.
And if you dont believe those because it has "New York Times" attatched to it:
http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

Upper left hand cornor. Thats relatively unchanged since inaugeration day, and within the marign of error.

Compared to the Republican party's 31%, a 25 year low. And a 12% increase in consumer confidence.

The people like what Obama is doing and dont like what the Republicans want to do, regardless of how the Economist tries to spin that one.

Politics is the art of compromise.


Yes, but good politics isn't always good leadership.

Politics is the art of compromise.
Not when you A) Dont have to and B) When the other side has shit ideas that ruined the country in the first place.
Source?
Really? Every time Obama proposes a plan, the GOP comes out and says theyre telling their members to vote against it.

If they had good ideas they wouldn't be republicans.

What a stupid generalization; easily defeated:

http://myhero.com/images/guest/g211761/hero52739/g211761_u58751_2008-04-dr-martin-luther-king-jr%5B1%5D.jpg

http://www.visitingdc.com/images/dwight-eisenhower-picture.jpg

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Blotter/nc_nixon1_070905_ssv.jpg

And as far as Nixon goes, I am referring to his idea to change welfare: a family could get much more money if the father left, so this encouraged families to break-up. Nixon wanted to insure that even families that stayed together could receive just as much aid.

Not when you A) Dont have to

Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is why you are no longer a vulture *Miss Birdwood uses pointer*, but now, a dodo category student.

and B) When the other side has shit ideas that ruined the country in the first place.

Not all Republican ideas are bad, just more than half of them.

Really? Every time Obama proposes a plan, the GOP comes out and says theyre telling their members to vote against it.

So far Obama has only proposed more spending.

But being 'bipartisan' does not mean doing whatever the Republicans want. Hes listening to their ideas, their ideas have just been bad ideas. Their ideas have been the same ideas they had 4 years ago. I would be angry if he took bad ideas from them simply in the interest of being 'bipartisan'.
1. That was my summary of the article. If you wanted to attack The Economist points specifically, you should have. Instead you just attacked my summary. :p

2. One of the main reasons why Republicans didn't work with Obama on this is because Obama used the policy "never pass up a good crisis" (which this article talks about) and is using the current crisis to push his agenda in with the economic policy needed to fix the economy, which would have been bipartisan (or atleast more so) alone.


The Republican party has admitted that their whole goal for the next few years is to simply disagree with whatever he says. How can you work with that?
Really? Where did "The Republican Party" state that? If by "The Republican Party" you mean Rush, then maybe. But don't give Rush too much credit. Just because he's on an ego trip (which is better than his usual drug trip, I suppose :p) does not mean he speaks for the Republican party. You should know better than that.
That 'complaint' of theirs alone is almost enough for me to discount the rest of their critisim outright,
But you still shouldn't because this is one of the most detailed articles on the administration so far, and has a hell of alot more to say than that one point.

That's a summary that TAI gave, you should at least address what the Economist itself says regarding that (it's a lot more specific).
This.

And their biggest beef seems to be with cabinet appointments and their instance that the bailout wont work.
There are many other big beefs. Centralizing power around the White house is one, for example. Bad one Bush did it, not when Obama does it?

except they are bitching that they have no experiance in the private sector.
That's extremely important though, no? If not, why not?

The Economist is just doing more whining. The fact that it comes from someone more intellegent and who uses more facts then Limbaugh doesnt make it anything but partisan whining.
Given that The Economist both a) endorsed (although grudgingly) Obama as President and b) is not Republican, I fail how this is 'partisan whining'. ? ? ?

If they had good ideas they wouldn't be republicans.
Yes. Good ideas like economic nationalism/protectionism only exist in the Democrat party, clearly. :rolleyes:

Yes. Good ideas like economic nationalism/protectionism only exist in the Democrat party, clearly. :rolleyes:

Really didn't say that. Felating Rush Limbaugh while chanting "We hope Obama fails!" and holding hands with Pat Robertson. Those aren't good ideas. They do however seem to be the only ideas the Republicans are coming up with.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is why you are no longer a vulture *Miss Birdwood uses pointer*, but now, a dodo category student.



Look, we'll consider compromise when the right actually offers up a few working plans of their own, rather than just whining about how bad their own medicine tastes.

Really didn't say that. Felating Rush Limbaugh while chanting "We hope Obama fails!" and holding hands with Pat Robertson. Those aren't good ideas. They do however seem to be the only ideas the Republicans are coming up with.
You said Republicans didn't have any good ideas, which means then that only the Democrats have good ideas. Well a major theme right now is that Democrats are often pushing for protectionism and Republicans are against that.

However, since Republicans being against that, by your logic, is not a good idea, then Democrats being for that must be a good idea.

Given that The Economist both a) endorsed (although grudgingly) Obama as President and b) is not Republican, I fail how this is 'partisan whining'. ? ?

Yeah, this is a serious error. A magazine based in London, that has serious and major criticisms of the republicans. Really can't say it's partisan.

Rolling squid;14677676']Look, we'll consider compromise when the right actually offers up a few working plans of their own, rather than just whining about how bad their own medicine tastes.

They did offer some plans, which could use tweaking. First-off, no bail-outs, secondly cuts taxes. The cutting taxes is what needs tweaking, as in whom the cuts apply to.

You said Republicans didn't have any good ideas, which means then that only the Democrats have good ideas. Well a major theme right now is that Democrats are often pushing for protectionism and Republicans are against that.

However, since Republicans being against that, by your logic, is not a good idea, then Democrats being for that must be a good idea.

What kind of world do you live in where there are only two groups of people?

I myself am a member of no party. There are many small parties, untold millions of independents.

Honestly critical thinking just isn't your thing is it?

Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is why you are no longer a vulture *Miss Birdwood uses pointer*, but now, a dodo category student.

Why would you comprimise when you dont really have to? So far, how has not comprimising hurt the Democrats? Theyre approval rating keeps going up.

There are many other big beefs. Centralizing power around the White house is one, for example. Bad one Bush did it, not when Obama does it?

Actually, I support a strong executive. My complaints with Bush was his belief that the executive branch was above the law.


That's extremely important though, no? If not, why not?

Why the hell would it be?

They did offer some plans, which could use tweaking. First-off, no bail-outs, secondly cuts taxes. The cutting taxes is what needs tweaking, as in whom the cuts apply to.

Look I think many people are pigeon holing 'the Economist' with 'the Right'. They supported the bailouts!

2. One of the main reasons why Republicans didn't work with Obama on this is because Obama used the policy "never pass up a good crisis" (which this article talks about) and is using the current crisis to push his agenda in with the economic policy needed to fix the economy, which would have been bipartisan (or atleast more so) alone.
1. The Economist makes that claim that he is using the crisis, true. But they offer no support, so I can just as easily say "I disagree!" And I do.

2. Of course parts of his agenda are attatched to economic stimulus bills! A lot of his agenda has a lot to do with government spending and the stimulus, and has the potential to help the economy.

Look I think many people are pigeon holing 'the Economist' with 'the Right'. They supported the bailouts!
Some bailouts.
What kind of world do you live in where there are only two groups of people?
Oh don't give me that crap like you don't beleive in absolutes right after telling me that Republicans don't have a single good idea. :rolleyes:

Actually, I support a strong executive. My complaints with Bush was his belief that the executive branch was above the law.This is bad, mkay?

To add to the impression of business as usual, Mr Obama is continuing the long-standing trend of amassing ever more power in the White House. He has appointed a clutch of powerful White House-based tsars to oversee Cabinet offices. These tsars have no accountability to anybody but Mr Obama. They have every incentive to engage in empire building and turf wars. For example, Jim Jones, the national security adviser, is redefining the role of the NSC to oversee everything from traditional foreign policy to climate change. American liberals complained bitterly about the Bush administration’s politicisation of intelligence. But Mr Obama has arguably taken this politicisation to new heights by appointing Leon Panetta, a Democratic loyalist with no roots in the intelligence world, to oversee the CIA.

It is the extreme centralization of power. The politialization of the intelligence and defense agencies, the obstruction of efficiency and the removal of accountability.




Why the hell would it be?
In the arguably most pro-business country in the world, during an economic crisis rooted in the private sector you don't think it's important to have people who personally know the private sector?

1. The Economist makes that claim that he is using the crisis, true. But they offer no support, so I can just as easily say "I disagree!" And I do.

2. Of course parts of his agenda are attatched to economic stimulus bills! A lot of his agenda has a lot to do with government spending and the stimulus, and has the potential to help the economy.

Sure they offer support for that. They show that instead of focussing on the financial crisis in itself, and by doing which he could work bipartisan with Republicans, he instead if choosing to thin himself out by also pushing for healthcare reform, which is taking time and energy away from the financial crisis and is alienating Republicans who otherwise would have supported financial action (without anything about healtchare or the enviornment).

Healthcare and indeed the enviornment have nothing to do with the financial crisis.

This is bad, mkay?



It is the extreme centralization of power. The politialization of the intelligence and defense agencies, the obstruction of efficiency and the removal of accountability.
I see a lot of conspirecy claims from them. Ill wait and see how it pans out. But I repeat, I dont see a problem with a strong, centralized executive. I care when that executive thinks itself above the law.

In the arguably most pro-business country in the world, during an economic crisis rooted in the private sector you don't think it's important to have people who personally know the private sector?

No, I dont think its important. In fact, I think that since the private sector caused this mess, I dont see why we should let them fix it.

This is bad, mkay?


Well, obviously. No one should be above the law.

:rolleyes:

Also, with the approval ratings stuff, I'm not sure what people are referring too about the Economist saying Obama has to worry? Are they talking about that little graph in the article? Because that is referring to the spread, and that graph seems to be showing it accurately.

Sure they offer support for that. They show that instead of focussing on the financial crisis in itself, and by doing which he could work bipartisan with Republicans, he instead if choosing to thin himself out by also pushing for healthcare reform, which is taking time and energy away from the financial crisis and is alienating Republicans who otherwise would have supported financial action (without anything about healtchare or the enviornment).

Healthcare and indeed the enviornment have nothing to do with the financial crisis.

Hes already passed 2 stimulus bills before he even touched those issues. So their claim is a load of steaming bullshit.

And, why would be work with the Republicans more then he did? Their idea was "MORE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!"

And since that worked so well before...

Really didn't say that. Felating Rush Limbaugh while chanting "We hope Obama fails!" and holding hands with Pat Robertson. Those aren't good ideas. They do however seem to be the only ideas the Republicans are coming up with.

I am a tad bit concerned with listening/challenging to Rush Limbaugh on the part the democrats. The people Limbaugh brings to the party wont be dissuaded Where as targeting him provides an easy out for a Republican Candidate as he hold no party leadership position, and is not elected.

Some bailouts.


A lot of the ones that the 'right wing' were crying over.

Healthcare and indeed the enviornment have nothing to do with the financial crisis.

The fact that the COST of healthcare has been breaking the back of small industry for years, and will continue to harm other sectors of the economy... says your argument is bullshit.

The environment is both directly and indirectly linked - through issues like offshore drilling, to the cost of making industry more ecologically friendly. From the benefits of making industry more efficient, to green-collar job production.


Just because you didn't get a nice map showing all the pretty arrows, doesn't mean there's no connection.

The fact that the COST of healthcare has been breaking the back of small industry for years, and will continue to harm other sectors of the economy... says your argument is bullshit.

The environment is both directly and indirectly linked - through issues like offshore drilling, to the cost of making industry more ecologically friendly. From the benefits of making industry more efficient, to green-collar job production.


Just because you didn't get a nice map showing all the pretty arrows, doesn't mean there's no connection.

No no, clearly Obama is just using this crisis to pass his liberal agenda.:rolleyes:

Well, obviously. No one should be above the law.

:rolleyes:
Don't play dumb. You know the "this" was in regards to everything that came after to show what exactly Obama was doing.
I see a lot of conspirecy claims from them.
What conspiracy claims from The Economist?

Ill wait and see how it pans out. But I repeat, I dont see a problem with a strong, centralized executive. I care when that executive thinks itself above the law.
It's totally againt the point of seperation of powers.


No, I dont think its important. In fact, I think that since the private sector caused this mess, I dont see why we should let them fix it.
The private sector is vital to this country, because without it America would not have the standard of living it enjoys. To say we shouldn't fix the private sector and just let it die would be the end of America. What exactly are you proposing here??? Government ownership of everything???

No no, clearly Obama is just using this crisis to pass his liberal agenda.:rolleyes:

I would imagine he is taking advantage of this crisis to do that. Would you not do the same in his position?

No no, clearly Obama is just using this crisis to pass his liberal agenda.:rolleyes:

Yerp. That must be what's going on. If Rush says it, it must be true. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Health costs and environmental concerns do play a huge role in the economy. If we don't contain health costs somehow, no one will have money to spend on anything else. If we don't watch what we pump into the air, the water, and the ground, there won't be anyone to buy anything.

The fact that the COST of healthcare has been breaking the back of small industry for years, and will continue to harm other sectors of the economy... says your argument is bullshit.

The environment is both directly and indirectly linked - through issues like offshore drilling, to the cost of making industry more ecologically friendly. From the benefits of making industry more efficient, to green-collar job production.


Just because you didn't get a nice map showing all the pretty arrows, doesn't mean there's no connection.

That's all nice and well, but it is still not a direct concern like the financial crisis is. Don't misunderstand me on purpose. I didn't say healthcare and enviornment were non-issues, I said they were not part of the financial crisis that needs direct and immediate action. Nothing you said changes anything.

The private sector is vital to this country, because without it America would not have the standard of living it enjoys. To say we shouldn't fix the private sector and just let it die would be the end of America. What exactly are you proposing here??? Government ownership of everything???

Show me where I said we shouldnt fix the private sector. Ill save you the trouble. I never said that.

I just dont think we should let the private sector fix itself. It caused this mess. Time for someone else to fix it.

I would imagine he is taking advantage of this crisis to do that. Would you not do the same in his position?

Id be more concerned with ending the crisis. And all signs point to him feeling the same way.

I see a lot of conspirecy claims from them. Ill wait and see how it pans out. But I repeat, I dont see a problem with a strong, centralized executive. I care when that executive thinks itself above the law.

Read this: http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Presidency-Americas-Dangerous-Executive/dp/1933995157

Yerp. That must be what's going on. If Rush says it, it must be true. :rolleyes:
Oh shut up about Rush. It's honestly enough. Not once in the OP was Rush cited as a source on these issues, so let it go.
No no, clearly Obama is just using this crisis to pass his liberal agenda.:rolleyes:

Why wouldn't he and how is he not? ? ?

That's all nice and well, but it is still not a direct concern like the financial crisis is. Don't misunderstand me on purpose. I didn't say healthcare and enviornment were non-issues, I said they were not part of the financial crisis that needs direct and immediate action. Nothing you said changes anything.

As was said, he's already passed several economic bills. So dont pretend like hes just ignoring it. I know thats what the Economist wants to pretend is the case, but youre smarter then that.

Id be more concerned with ending the crisis. And all signs point to him feeling the same way.

Sure he is more concerned about it, but I still think he is milking it for any potential to make things more progressive.

Someone please explain what "TL;DR" means.

Also, with the approval ratings stuff, I'm not sure what people are referring too about the Economist saying Obama has to worry? Are they talking about that little graph in the article? Because that is referring to the spread, and that graph seems to be showing it accurately.

TRVE this was aimed at you, I would like to know what you're talking about with the approval rating stuff. I'm not sure if you've properly read the article, I mean after all, they did specifically say:

Mr Obama’s approval ratings remain in the 60s, despite the pressure of a global crisis, and the Republicans remain unpopular and rudderless.

Show me where I said we shouldnt fix the private sector. Ill save you the trouble. I never said that.Ah, I read it wrong. You meant they should not fix the private sector, the government should, right?

I just dont think we should let the private sector fix itself. It caused this mess. Time for someone else to fix it.
Who can fix a broken house better? A builder or a real estate broker? This is about being pragmatic over ideological.

Ah, I read it wrong. You meant they should not fix the private sector, the government should, right?
Yes.
Who can fix a broken house better? A builder or a real estate broker? This is about being pragmatic over ideological.
Depends. Is the builder the one who broke the house in the first place?

Because thats what makes your analogy more accurate.

Disagree with the article on several points, disagree with the article on others.
Don't really want to go into depth because it is too long of a article and ever little point would take hours to debate.
Overall seems like a balanced article.

Depends. Is the builder the one who broke the house in the first place?

Because thats what makes your analogy more accurate.

Not everyone who has had experience in the financial industry was responsible for breaking it.

As was said, he's already passed several economic bills. So dont pretend like hes just ignoring it. I know thats what the Economist wants to pretend is the case, but youre smarter then that.
Nobody (neither I nor The Economist) said he was ignoring it. Indeed the article ends with saying this seem to be picking up and here's hoping for Obama to pull through and save the day (more or less :p) and I agree with that, but the point is he is squandering bipartisanship, speed and all around efficiency by milking the crisis to push issues like healthcare and enviornment when he should be doing that later and right now only work on pushing financial crisis-related agenda, which the Republicans would be much less likely to oppose.

Also his ridiculous "spend spend spend, let's-get-into-more-debt" attitude it fiscally unsound and has alot to do with his healthcare and enviornmental reforms.

That can wait.
Someone please explain what "TL;DR" means.
I hate it. It is lazy nerd for "too long; didn't read" and is just a cop out and an automatic fail-of-debate.

Sure he is more concerned about it, but I still think he is milking it for any potential to make things more progressive.

So in other words, Obama is using the crisis to implement his political position, in other words, the stances and opinion he feels are the correct ones? I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that a man is doing what he feels is right to fix a crisis.

Rolling squid;14677843']So in other words, Obama is using the crisis to implement his political position, in other words, the stances and opinion he feels are the correct ones? I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that a man is doing what he feels is right to fix a crisis.

I am not; I believe every President would do it.

I hate it. It is lazy nerd for "too long; didn't read" and is just a cop out and an automatic fail-of-debate.

Why? I like it. I prefer it when people actually say they can't be bothered to read it, and not make a judgement on it, instead of making a judgement on it, without reading it!

I am not; I believe every President would do it.

Then why:

Sure he is more concerned about it, but I still think he is milking it for any potential to make things more progressive.

Yes.
*in french accent*

I apologize. :p

Depends. Is the builder the one who broke the house in the first place?
It depends. But remember, neither I nor The Economist criticized him for not having enough financial sector-connected members, but rather for having a lack of people with connections to the private sector overall. Remember, the private sector does not equal "just the financial sector".

Not everyone who has had experience in the financial industry was responsible for breaking it.
Especially considering the article was saying that his government was light on private-sector experience, not simply just financial-sector experience.

It depends. But remember, neither I nor The Economist criticized him for not having enough financial sector-connected members, but rather for having a lack of people with connections to the private sector overall. Remember, the private sector does not equal "just the financial sector".


Fair enough. Im still not entirely convinced that we need a ton of people in the private sector in charge, however.

Why? I like it. I prefer it when people actually say they can't be bothered to read it, and not make a judgement on it, instead of making a judgement on it, without reading it!

Because often people will take that to mean anything you posted (facts, sources whatever) in opposition to their points don't existent, because they were in the "tl;dr" article . . .

Rolling squid;14677861']Then why:

I was stating my beliefs. You agree with them, but Trve does not.

Fair enough. Im still not entirely convinced that we need a ton of people in the private sector in charge, however.
Which is understandable, given your political score you probably trust the public sector more than the private sector. But the fact remains that the criticism was not that Obama's administration doesn't have"a ton" of people with private sector experience, it was that his administration has close to none, comparitvely.

And that, for anyone who is a centrist or further right (economically), is a very, very bad thing.

Fair enough. Im still not entirely convinced that we need a ton of people in the private sector in charge, however.

But I'm pretty sure you'd agree that Mr Jack the Lad private schooled politics student who went straight into government when he graduated without doing any honest work might not be the best person for it.

I was stating my beliefs. You agree with them, but Trve does not.

That still does not fit with your first post, which seems to indicate that you believe that Obama is doing whatever he can to implement his policies, regardless of what he actually thinks will make things better, which of course, makes no sense.

Ich muß los. Keine Agnst! Ich komm bald zurück. . .

I haven't changed my position from the start: I don't care about anything Obama and his administration does until they sort out the financial system. That is the primary role of the US government right now, virtually to the exclusion of everything else. It's that important.

And he's not doing anything worthwhile on that front, which is disappointing. I get newsletters several times a week from academic journals spitting out one option after another, from people who know what is going on and aren't on a first name basis with all the CEOs. Obama could have picked any of them and they would have done a better job than Geithner.

But he didn't, and more importantly I really get the feeling from him that he doesn't really care. He doesn't understand it, which is fine. But from what I see here, he seems happy to just delegate and do nothing but occasionally throw some vague comment into the wind or go for photo calls with bankers to show how great his plan must be. To me, that's being asleep at the wheel. What I would want Obama to do is spend every night studying until he himself is capable of judging the mechanics of these policy options on their merits. That's the least his voters can expect, I think.

Rolling squid;14677909']That still does not fit with your first post, which seems to indicate that you believe that Obama is doing whatever he can to implement his policies, regardless of what he actually thinks will make things better, which of course, makes no sense.

I never indicated that; you are confused because "milking" has a negative connotation.

Don't play dumb. You know the "this" was in regards to everything that came after to show what exactly Obama was doing.


What you were responding to, was: "I support a strong executive. My complaints with Bush was his belief that the executive branch was above the law."

So - anything you added after, is actually irrelevent.

One assumes that you posted your material as 'evidence' of your claim that 'this is bad', rather than totally ignoring the post that went before, and just opening a completely new gambit.

So - you must, logically, have been referring to either the 'strong executive' part of the previous post... or the 'above the law' part.

And, we both know you were responding to the 'strong executive' part, but the evidence you cited was hysterical nonsense, so I pointed out that what really IS bad ISN'T necessarily a 'strong executive' - it's the fact that a 'strong executive' operated above the law for almost a decade.

I assumed you'd be able to work that out, and I'm sure you did - so who is really 'playing dumb'?

That's all nice and well, but it is still not a direct concern like the financial crisis is. Don't misunderstand me on purpose. I didn't say healthcare and enviornment were non-issues, I said they were not part of the financial crisis that needs direct and immediate action. Nothing you said changes anything.

They ARE part of the financial crisis.

Our financial woes will not improve until we have a number of things. Tighter regulation and accountability, sure - but also, some control over runaway healthcare costs.

If the economy can't afford to employ people, it won't recover.

Oh shut up about Rush. It's honestly enough. Not once in the OP was Rush cited as a source on these issues, so let it go.


And yet, you do seem to keep trotting out Rush's party line...

Sure he is more concerned about it, but I still think he is milking it for any potential to make things more progressive.
i dont know about milking it but he definitely has put a progressive/liberal slant on the stimulus.

which i greatly approve.

I never indicated that; you are confused because "milking" has a negative connotation.

hence the confusion, if you had just picked a different word, we could have avoided all this. :p

Rolling squid;14678012']hence the confusion, if you had just picked a different word, we could have avoided all this. :p

Connotations irk me, and I will never submit to their vile advances.

Connotations irk me, and I will never submit to their vile advances.

one of us, one of us, one of us....

I haven't changed my position from the start: I don't care about anything Obama and his administration does until they sort out the financial system. That is the primary role of the US government right now, virtually to the exclusion of everything else. It's that important.


No, it isn't. Fixing the economy to the exclusion of everything else would be nonsensical, destructive... and suicide.


And he's not doing anything worthwhile on that front, which is disappointing.


Obama lacks the muscle to do the things that REALLY need doing... not just because Republicans have opted out of non-partisanship, but because 'conservative' Democrats are making political hay.

So - no ironfist regulation. No accountability. No nationalising.

What we're going to get, is progressive options pushed through by politicking. Maybe too little, maybe too late. But the American government and the American people have yet to take this crisis seriously - and far too many people are looking out for their pet projects while Rome burns.


I get newsletters several times a week from academic journals spitting out one option after another, from people who know what is going on and aren't on a first name basis with all the CEOs. Obama could have picked any of them and they would have done a better job than Geithner.

But he didn't, and more importantly I really get the feeling from him that he doesn't really care. He doesn't understand it, which is fine. But from what I see here, he seems happy to just delegate and do nothing but occasionally throw some vague comment into the wind or go for photo calls with bankers to show how great his plan must be. To me, that's being asleep at the wheel.


On the contrary, that's the only responsible course of action. That's WHY a President has all those advisors and staffmembers - because no one is an expert on everything, and no one is expected to be.

So you get other people to find information and provide insight.


What I would want Obama to do is spend every night studying until he himself is capable of judging the mechanics of these policy options on their merits. That's the least his voters can expect, I think.

That's nonsense. The voters don't want Obama staying up nights reading books on the economic debates of the last century. They certainly don't expect it.

The Two Faces of Barack Obama
One for the masses, one for the power elite
by Justin Raimondo, April 06, 2009


The news from Europe, if you listen to our infatuated media, is that the Euros love President Obama: according to the American reportage (http://www.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=obama%2Beurope), his recent trip there was a cavalcade of photo-ops, cheering crowds, and hugs from the queen of England. Even the French were in awe of him! However, if you look beneath the surface, not that far beneath the gloss and the glam there runs a current of irritation, and, dare I say it, resentment.

Take, for example, his stop in the Czech Republic, where he declared that he was seeking a nuclear-free world (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10565411) – that is, a world free of nuclear weapons. This is a goal the United States has a special moral responsibility to seek, he averred, because we are the only nation that has actually used these weapons. The crowd loved it. What they didn’t at all love, however, was his announcement that

“‘As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies.’”

"The governments of the Czech Republic and Poland, he added, are ‘courageous’ for ‘agreeing to host a defense against these missiles.’"

One supposes it takes a fair amount of courage to defy the wishes of your own people and obey the dictates of a foreign power, albeit not the sort of courage appreciated by Obama’s audience. As the London Telegraph put it (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5110918/Barack-Obama-goes-ahead-with-missile-defence-shield-despite-disarmament-pledge.html):

"The crowd enthusiastically cheered the more idealistic parts of Mr. Obama’s speech but was relatively subdued when he spoke about his backing for missile defense.

"Petr Sramek, 33, was among those disappointed that Mr. Obama had not dropped a policy that was opposed by more than two thirds of Czechs. ‘I really liked the clear message on nuclear disarmament but I am against the missile defense system. It is more about geopolitical influence then defense against missiles.’

"Arena Protivinska, 30, described herself as a ‘big fan’ of Mr. Obama but accused him of ‘hypocrisy’ for urging world peace while also pushing forward with the missile shield. ‘He sounded like George W Bush saying that we should be afraid in order to justify missile defense.’"

Like Americans, the Europeans want to believe – but they see the two (http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/iran_nie_reax.php) faces (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-usiran12-2009feb12,0,3478184.story) of Barack Obama too clearly, and the contrast is too apparent to be denied. The gullible Americans (http://file23magazine.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/family-guy-peter-griffin82.jpg), who take things at face value, still believe their new president represents a real change, a challenge to the status quo (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22530), while the more sophisticated Europeans are quick to pick up on Obama’s inconsistencies – made all the more glaring by his habit of pairing two mutually contradictory stances on the same issue.

This includes not only coupling missile "defense" in Eastern Europe with the prospect of a nuclear-free world, but also the recent launching of his "Af-Pak (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/03/29/af-pak-fever/)" initiative. Although dressed up as a diplomatic offensive, this is essentially a military offensive aimed at widening the war (http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2009/March/20090327121221xjsnommis0.1558496.html&distid=ucs) in Afghanistan to include portions of Pakistan.

The administration and its media lapdogs portrayed the Af-Pak rollout as a definitive break with the bad old days of the Bush White House, when it was all about troop movements (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090218/pl_politico/18970). The new regime, we’re told, will initiate substantial diplomatic and humanitarian aid efforts, notably an effort to reach out (http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=14414) to dissident elements of the Taliban. However, the real core of the Af-Pak strategy is a radical escalation of the military element, in effect an Afghan "surge" spilling over (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/washington/02military.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all) into Pakistan’s tribal areas: it means the addition of some 21,000 (http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/World/2009/03/27/8902781-sun.html) soldiers to U.S. forces, with the prospect of more to come (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/04/05/the-two-faces-of-barack-obama/).

The Janus-faced American hegemon speaks out of both sides of his mouth, and in two voices: one for the masses, who delight in his soaring idealism and seeming ability to express their deepest aspirations, and one for the elites, who hear a promise of continuity rather than change.

This two-track narrative framed even his Prague declamation of a nuclear-free world. According to a top White House aide (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/04/05/the-two-faces-of-barack-obama/), we are not to take this idea all that seriously:

"Gary Samore, a White House adviser on arms control, indicated that Mr. Obama’s call for ridding the world of nuclear weapons should not be taken too literally. ‘In terms of a nuclear-free world, we recognize this is not a near-term possibility,’ he said. Rather, the call was an attempt to ’seize the moral high ground’ in order to increase pressure on countries such as North Korea and Iran."

Obama giveth with one hand, and taketh away with another – smiling that oil-slick grin the whole time. Although I agree with the sentiments of the Czech woman cited above, the Obama method goes way beyond mere hypocrisy. It is a conscious technique of inverting the true meaning and intent of his policies.

Thus, his launching of an intensified military campaign in Central Asia is portrayed as an effort to "stabilize" the region. His provocation against Russia in Eastern Europe is paired with a call to abolish nuclear weapons. And, of course, this ploy carries over into the domestic arena, as well, where – in the process of giving certain favored sectors of the financial industry trillions in subsidies (http://www.cnbc.com/id/27719011) – he has launched a campaign against "corporate greed" and outrageously extravagant executive salaries and perks. He rails against corporate irresponsibility, yet he has appointed to his administration the very corporate insiders who got us into this mess in the first place.

Obama ran for president as the spokesman for the underdog – the little guy just managing to make ends meet, whose volunteerism and contributions over the Internet catapulted the Illinois senator into the running. Yet the reality is that Obama was corporate America’s candidate (http://www.takimag.com/site/article/establishment_messiah/) from the very beginning, and they showed it by lavishly financing his campaign: the money emanating from Goldman Sachs (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638) was quite impressive, and, together with the DNC, Wall Street buried the Republicans, who were outspent (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122835139848377873.html) by three-to-one (http://wiscadproject.wisc.edu/wiscAds_release_103108.pdf) [.pdf] (and out of gas in any event). Unsurprisingly, the top echelons of the president’s economic team are filled with former Goldman Sachs officials – and, not coincidentally, that firm is the primary beneficiary (http://blog.kir.com/archives/2009/03/the_goldman_sac.asp) of the AIG/bank bailout.

The ruling elites of this country, confronted by the specter of a rising populist anger, have found in President Obama a subtle and skillful anger-management expert. For years they’ve been frustrated in Washington, as their efforts to fight a spreading war met increasing resistance from the American people. Divine Providence smiled down on them, however, as Obama suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Here was an "antiwar" candidate who said we’ve been fighting the wrong war all along – and, upon taking office, immediately rectified that by sending 21,000 more troops to the wilds of Central Asia.

What a godsend (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/03/kristol_all_hail_obama.asp) to the War Party Barack Obama is! As he moves toward confrontations with Iran, Russia, and Pakistan, and continues to unnecessarily irritate China (http://antiwar.com/article.php?articleid=14384), Asia’s sleeping giant, the media portray him as the Great Peacemaker. As the mask slips, however, and the reality becomes all too apparent, how will his "progressive" supporters react? Will they rise in protest, or sign on to Obama’s war?

The (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/22/guantanamo/index.html) more (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/02/executive_power/index.html) things (http://antiwar.com/article.php?articleid=14135) change (http://antiwar.com/article.php?articleid=13891)...

...the (http://antiwar.com/article.php?articleid=13807) more (http://antiwar.com/article.php?articleid=13698) they (http://antiwar.com/article.php?articleid=13623) stay (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2009%2F04%2F06%2FBARP16TJOQ.DTL&tsp=1) the (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_follows_Bush_policy_on_wiretapping_0406.html) same (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html).

The Europeans can see through this would-be-chameleon's camouflage; why can't we?

While Obama differs marginally from Bush on a few minor issues, on the major ones - the economy, the military-industrial complex, and empire - he doesn't differ at all. More bail-outs, more "socialism for the rich," more corporatist plutocracy, more policing the world, and more empire (see this map (http://www.motherjones.com/military-maps)). Oh, and more militarism, too (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga).

"Where's the change?"

Can't we talk about something else?

what do you think he should be doing?

Yup, remember, missiles carrying 5-8 MRV'd multi-megaton warheads that can reach anywhere in the world are not more dangerous than a system designed to ensure that those missiles never actually hit. :rolleyes:

Can't we talk about something else?

Absolutely. In eight years. :p

These Giant articles saying similar things is getting annoying. Condense it into one Obama thread covering your concerns.

No, it isn't. Fixing the economy to the exclusion of everything else would be nonsensical, destructive... and suicide.
There will be nothing else to do without the economy working. Politics is a luxury people can engage in when the economy is chugging along. But without an economy, there is nothing to regulate, nothing to distribute and nothing to build proverbial (or literal) monuments with. Politics can never add anything, it never contributes. So in the interest of the self-preservation of politics as a vocation, I'd have to say that yes, dealing with other issues at this time beyond an absolute bare minimum is a waste of valuable time and resources.

Obama lacks the muscle to do the things that REALLY need doing... not just because Republicans have opted out of non-partisanship, but because 'conservative' Democrats are making political hay.
He was elected in a landslide, with public support the like of which hasn't been seen for a decade and as the heroic new leader and rescuer of his party. I think if he'd shown a little bit more forcefulness, he would have carried the day. I understand that he doesn't have heaps of experience, and that he can't be an expert in all things. But there's a limit to how much delegation one should be doing as a manager, and certainly when the issue at hand is basically the issue of the decade.

What we're going to get, is progressive options pushed through by politicking. Maybe too little, maybe too late. But the American government and the American people have yet to take this crisis seriously - and far too many people are looking out for their pet projects while Rome burns.
We agree here. But wouldn't you think that it then is the responsibility of the dude in charge to change this? It's not like Obama is a "nice guy" who just doesn't like to confront others. He got people kicked off ballot sheets back in the day, he knows how to play rough. If there was ever a time at which it was justified, now is it, when dealing with people who either can't or refuse to understand what's going on.

On the contrary, that's the only responsible course of action. That's WHY a President has all those advisors and staffmembers - because no one is an expert on everything, and no one is expected to be.

So you get other people to find information and provide insight.
Yes, but when there is one issue which dominates everything else to such a degree, wouldn't you want the guy to make every effort to get up to scratch and be able to deliver meaningful input? In WWII for example the president was expected to know what was going on and spend the majority of his time on dealing with war-related issues. I don't think Obama has shown a similar level of commitment to this particular issue, and I think he has to. And I certainly think he should be held responsible for the policies planned or enacted so far. And when they're shit policies, I think it's fair enough to say "Obama has put in place shit policies".

That's nonsense. The voters don't want Obama staying up nights reading books on the economic debates of the last century. They certainly don't expect it.
If all everyone wanted him to do was to nominate a Treasury Secretary and then walk off and do whatever, then I think it's wrong that the voter doesn't get told who will end up being that person before the polls. If we're really only voting for a team, then the entire team should be decided on and ready to go before the voters judge it.

There will be nothing else to do without the economy working.


If the economy really implodes, the US could become a communism. It would be a painful adjustment, maybe, but it could be done - and the nation could survive.


Politics is a luxury people can engage in when the economy is chugging along. But without an economy, there is nothing to regulate, nothing to distribute and nothing to build proverbial (or literal) monuments with. Politics can never add anything, it never contributes.


Like investing, banking, all that financial sector stuff?


So in the interest of the self-preservation of politics as a vocation, I'd have to say that yes, dealing with other issues at this time beyond an absolute bare minimum is a waste of valuable time and resources.


Ah - we're allowing 'bare minimums' now?

The thing is, and I'm sure you know this really, national leaders don't govern in a vacuum. The President can't just shut down everything but accounts.


He was elected in a landslide, with public support the like of which hasn't been seen for a decade


All of which is irrelevent.


...and as the heroic new leader and rescuer of his party. I think if he'd shown a little bit more forcefulness, he would have carried the day.


Maybe. I doubt it - it's too recent that the American people got stung that way.


We agree here. But wouldn't you think that it then is the responsibility of the dude in charge to change this?


How? The American political system really doesn't allow much.

He's tried playing it serious - and he gets attacked by those who say that you have to seduce a recovery. When he's more upbeat, he's attacked for being too chirpy under the circumstances.

He doesn't have any actual power implicit in the office, to force people to pay attention to how serious the issue is - and just how dire it could get.


Yes, but when there is one issue which dominates everything else to such a degree, wouldn't you want the guy to make every effort to get up to scratch and be able to deliver meaningful input? In WWII for example the president was expected to know what was going on and spend the majority of his time on dealing with war-related issues.


Since you raised WWII - there's the problem. A war is a clear and present danger, and people often DO unite across party lines for it. There are people now STILL denying that there's really anything wrong - and everyone is gambling that it's going to be a swift recovery - so much so, that they're campaigning.

In a way, it's complimentary to Obama - everyone has taken it as read that the day is saved.


If all everyone wanted him to do was to nominate a Treasury Secretary and then walk off and do whatever, then I think it's wrong that the voter doesn't get told who will end up being that person before the polls. If we're really only voting for a team, then the entire team should be decided on and ready to go before the voters judge it.

I think most American voters realise they're voting for a party, not a team, and not a president. There are, of course, those who don't - but you can't exactly say they were decieved... it's not like the knowledge is protected.

I knew you should have elected this guy.

http://www.firstshowing.net/img/harvey-dent-believe-350w.jpg

I knew you should have elected this guy.

http://www.firstshowing.net/img/harvey-dent-believe-350w.jpg

I would have...

what do you think he should be doing?

For starters, he should:

1) Stop antagonizing Russia and China.
2) Remove the missile defense systems from Europe.
3) Begin an immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.
4) Leave Iran the hell alone.
5) End all foreign "aid" programs.
6) Dismantle all our bases abroad.

At the very least, he should do 1 through 4. Anyone who thinks Europe is in danger of being attacked by Iran needs a reality check.

I knew you should have elected this guy.

http://www.firstshowing.net/img/harvey-dent-believe-350w.jpg

I did believe in him, until the Joker burned half of him to Hell and he became a vindictive, psychotic vigilante.

I did believe in him, until the Joker burned half of him to Hell and he became a vindictive, psychotic vigilante.

In other words, made him into presidential material.

In other words, made him into presidential material.

lolz

For starters, he should:

1) Stop antagonizing Russia and China.
2) Remove the missile defense systems from Europe.
3) Begin an immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.
4) Leave Iran the hell alone.
5) End all foreign "aid" programs.
6) Dismantle all our bases abroad.

At the very least, he should do 1 through 4. Anyone who thinks Europe is in danger of being attacked by Iran needs a reality check.
oh well

that is never going to happen and it was foolish of you to think that there might be some chance that it would.

I never thought there would be any chance of it. I'm just waiting for this imaginary "change" to manifest itself.

Well this should be interesting *sits and awaits* the "Obama can do no wrong club" as well as the "Americans against the Dark Lord club".

Well this should be interesting *sits and awaits* the "Obama can do no wrong club" as well as the "Americans against the Dark Lord club".

I don't think he's "the Dark Lord," just a very manipulative and persuasive consummate liar.

I never thought there would be any chance of it. I'm just waiting for this imaginary "change" to manifest itself.

Well, let's see, in the last 75 days he's been in office, Obama has:

- ended the ban on stem cell funding
- ordered Guantanamo Bay closed
- pushed forth one of the largest economic stimulus plans since the new deal
- penned a budget that radically changes government health care funding
- put an end to torturous interrogation techniques
- ended the federal policy of arresting and prosecuting drug users under federal law when such drug use was legal under the state law of the state they were in
- expanded employment protection laws to allow for great recovery from discrimination

I'm sorry you believed "change" to mean "radically restructuring the very fundamental aspects of 100 years of American governance". Those of us grounded in reality had slightly less expectations.

It's no wonder you're disappointed though. You live in fantasy land.

I don't think he's "the Dark Lord," just a very manipulative and persuasive consummate liar.

I wasn't talking about you, however, as you are already here. But someone from the other club has alrerady arrived.

I wasn't talking about you, however, as you are already here. But someone from the other club has alrerady arrived.

I'm sorry, perhaps you'd like to point out any factual errors I made. Care to tell me any you see?

Well, let's see, in the last 75 days he's been in office, Obama has:

- ended the ban on stem cell funding

A minor issue, compared to some of the numerous other ones we're facing.

- ordered Guantanamo Bay closed

Symbolic move. Has he promised to close down the bases where we torture detainees in Afghanistan?

- pushed forth one of the largest economic stimulus plans since the new deal

That's not a good thing.

- penned a budget that radically changes government health care funding

No doubt this will benefit politically-connected drug companies the most.

- put an end to torturous interrogation techniques

Has this actually happened yet, or has he just said it would happen?

- ended the federal policy of arresting and prosecuting drug users under federal law when such drug use was legal under the state law of the state they were in

Yet the War on Drugs continues unabated, with no sign of it ending anytime soon.

- expanded employment protection laws to allow for great recovery from discrimination

I'm sorry you believed "change" to mean "radically restructuring the very fundamental aspects of 100 years of American governance".

No, I believe "change" means more than just "sugar-coating the status quo."

Those of us grounded in reality had slightly less expectations.

So you confuse a few small cosmetic changes here and there as real "change?"

It's no wonder you're disappointed though. You live in fantasy land.

Why, because I don't drink Obama's Jim Jones Kool-Aid?

Considering the fact that you think there's a substantive difference between Obama and his predecessors, I would say you're the one living in fantasy land.

Presidents will differ slightly on a few issues, it's true. But they never differ in their devotion to empire, militarism, corporatism, "socialism for the rich," centralization, etc.

It's funny, because on those issues I think President Obama is actually doing a rather good job. :p Shows how different we stand on foreign policy, eh Ledgy?:p

I'm glad he realized that all of his ridiculous "chaaaange" populism (in terms of foreign policy) was unrealistic and just that, populism. I rather like that he's become much more pragmatic and realistic in terms of international relations. :p

Domestically, I have alot of beef with alot of Obama's handeling of the economic crisis, centralization of power with all his tsars, his trying to use the crisis to promote his healthcare and enviornmental agenda, and his extreme deficit spending.

Domestically, however, things I do like from him are that he has closed Guantanamo (Though truth be told Bush already was doing that as the Supreme Court sort of ruled its purpose illegal. Good luck figuring out what to do with those prisoners, though :p), taken a stance against torture, promoted stem cell research, put science in general back in the white house . . . and that's about it.

Well, let's see, in the last 75 days he's been in office, Obama has:

- ended the ban on stem cell funding

Good.

- ordered Guantanamo Bay closed


Great.

- pushed forth one of the largest economic stimulus plans since the new deal

*winces*

- penned a budget that radically changes government health care funding

Dandy.

- put an end to torturous interrogation techniques

Superb.

- ended the federal policy of arresting and prosecuting drug users under federal law when such drug use was legal under the state law of the state they were in

Fantastic.

- expanded employment protection laws to allow for great recovery from discrimination


*claps*

I'm sorry you believed "change" to mean "radically restructuring the very fundamental aspects of 100 years of American governance". Those of us grounded in reality had slightly less expectations.
It is a little hard to do that without assuming absolute power. We should be careful what we wish for

It's no wonder you're disappointed though. You live in fantasy land.

We are in fantasy land now--it is called America, land of the free.

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/5637/bushsfantaciesgifza9.gif

through in "bourgeois" a few times, and it'd be a near perfect replica....

through in "bourgeois" a few times, and it'd be a near perfect replica....

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

Commie! Filthy commie!

Commie! Filthy commie!

lolwut?

If Obama was a duck, You think he'd weigh as much as a Witch?

lolwut?

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/maggieNZ/344ad0570e8a93b884a6c568a8b02a96.gif

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/maggienz/344ad0570e8a93b884a6c568a8b02a96.gif

roflmao

Guys, stop spamming or I'll purge you from my thread.

Guys, stop spamming or I'll purge you from my thread.

you can do that ?

you can do that ?

The Spam Problem: Final Solution.

you can do that ?
Ich kann alles.
The Spam Problem: Final Solution.
Fail. "Purge" was a Stalin reference and you use a Hitler joke. . . :rolleyes::p

Ich kann alles.

Fail. "Purge" was a Stalin reference and you use a Hitler joke. . . :rolleyes::p

Ah but it could be a Stalin joke.

"Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem."

-Man of Steel.

If the economy really implodes, the US could become a communism. It would be a painful adjustment, maybe, but it could be done - and the nation could survive.
I think that unlikely. And as for the survivability, that depends entirely on what sort of communism we're looking at, and what happens to the rest of the world.

Like investing, banking, all that financial sector stuff?
I direct you to this (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=0uhyai9jSGgC&dq=freixas+rochet+microeconomics+of+banking&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=OwfcScrLMpCUMdrxqdMN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5). Have a go at the first few chapters, and then we can talk. But we better make another thread for it.

Ah - we're allowing 'bare minimums' now?
Hence why I said "virtually". It makes sense to keep things going at least at the level that allows them to be picked up quickly once things start returning to normal. But Obama is doing big policies and implementing some major political program, which is a diversion away from what matters right now.

The thing is, and I'm sure you know this really, national leaders don't govern in a vacuum. The President can't just shut down everything but accounts.
No, but he can divide his time and attention to his liking.

All of which is irrelevent.
I'd say it gives him the sort of "soft power" that is traditionally important when a president wants to implement a certain program.

He doesn't have any actual power implicit in the office, to force people to pay attention to how serious the issue is - and just how dire it could get.
But if he realises it himself, he can put the relevant policies in motion. The other advantage of his office is that he can spend the majority of time on the economy even if no one else wants him to, unless he breaks some sort of law it's hard to remove him from office. And given that the details of these rescue packages go above the heads of Congress anyways, and as president being able to create coalitions to force through your ideas is part of the job description, he should be able to get something done as well.

Since you raised WWII - there's the problem. A war is a clear and present danger, and people often DO unite across party lines for it. There are people now STILL denying that there's really anything wrong - and everyone is gambling that it's going to be a swift recovery - so much so, that they're campaigning.
Yeah, but why does Obama have to listen to it? Compared to pretty much all the other democracies, the PotUS has huge amounts of lee-way. All I'm asking is that he stops ignoring what Geithner is doing and takes enough of a personal interest in it to see that if there is anywhere that needs change, that is where it is.

I think that unlikely. And as for the survivability, that depends entirely on what sort of communism we're looking at, and what happens to the rest of the world.


Given that the main obstacle to communism has historically been external pressure, rather than internal - and that one chief (if not THE chief) agency of that pressure was the US... a communist US would revise the battlefield, somewhat.

I think it unlikely, too - because I think that a worsening situation WILL be caught before it gets too explosive - and, even though by the time it's realised, the response will have to be quite draconian - I think complete collapse will probably be avoided.


I direct you to this (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=0uhyai9jSGgC&dq=freixas+rochet+microeconomics+of+banking&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=OwfcScrLMpCUMdrxqdMN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5). Have a go at the first few chapters, and then we can talk. But we better make another thread for it.


Interesting read. I've faved it to look at later - but you're missing the point. Banks, regardless of their evolving functionality - are no more important than a functioning government.


Hence why I said "virtually". It makes sense to keep things going at least at the level that allows them to be picked up quickly once things start returning to normal. But Obama is doing big policies and implementing some major political program, which is a diversion away from what matters right now.


Except... he isn't, really. He's dealing with legacy issues, and he's dealing with some associated issues, and he's dealing with the broken economy. He's not really 'diverting' anything.


No, but he can divide his time and attention to his liking.


But, apparently, not to yours.


I'd say it gives him the sort of "soft power" that is traditionally important when a president wants to implement a certain program.


He could declare he has a mandate, but the American people have heard that before - and not too long ago. The 'soft power' in this Presidency is largely a casualty to the abuses of the last.


But if he realises it himself, he can put the relevant policies in motion. The other advantage of his office is that he can spend the majority of time on the economy even if no one else wants him to, unless he breaks some sort of law it's hard to remove him from office. And given that the details of these rescue packages go above the heads of Congress anyways, and as president being able to create coalitions to force through your ideas is part of the job description, he should be able to get something done as well.


I really am not sure where you get your ideas of the relative abilities of different offices from. There are certain things a President can do, and crtain things that he can't... and again, the US recently got burned on issues just such as this. You seem to think Presidents have some ability to force things through, but under realistic circumstances, they don't. You say he should be able to force coalitions, but again - there's no mechanism for that.

Which means coalition forming in this administration, is at the option of the other main party... and the intransigent elements of the Presidents own party.


Yeah, but why does Obama have to listen to it? Compared to pretty much all the other democracies, the PotUS has huge amounts of lee-way. All I'm asking is that he stops ignoring what Geithner is doing and takes enough of a personal interest in it to see that if there is anywhere that needs change, that is where it is.

Why would Obama behead the person he is using as his finger-on-the-pulse? If he removes Geithner, he's got to deal with that vacuum, and the political backlash.

Go Obama!
Yes We Can! (We Almost Have, now if those Republican nuts can shut up for a while - or maybe forever)

Grave_n_idle, why would you possibly want a Communist America? Don't you care that that is completely against the foundation of this country?

Grave_n_idle, why would you possibly want a Communist America? Don't you care that that is completely against the foundation of this country?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iKcZ3qcCmyo/R4cCkTP8VdI/AAAAAAAAEN4/kRr9x5a0Ho0/s400/liberal-idiot.jpg


:D I could not resist it, though I would certainly describe myself as "liberal".

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iKcZ3qcCmyo/R4cCkTP8VdI/AAAAAAAAEN4/kRr9x5a0Ho0/s400/liberal-idiot.jpg


:D I could not resist it, though I would certainly describe myself as "liberal".

:D Love it. Though I don't like using the term "liberal" in the American sense. American leftists corrupted it.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iKcZ3qcCmyo/R4cCkTP8VdI/AAAAAAAAEN4/kRr9x5a0Ho0/s400/liberal-idiot.jpg


:D I could not resist it, though I would certainly describe myself as "liberal".

Heh, which game is that from?

Grave_n_idle, why would you possibly want a Communist America? Don't you care that that is completely against the foundation of this country?

Where did I say 'want'?

Heh, which game is that from?

The one you just lost.

I'm sorry, perhaps you'd like to point out any factual errors I made. Care to tell me any you see?

I'm sorry pehaps you could point out to me the error I made? Or are you hoping I will deny what Obama has done?