The Medusa Fora

Thought i'd officially start our discussion of Obama's presidency, its efficacy and the quality of its actions.

gotta love the mention of military expenditures in the American budget...
anyone else find Obama's decision to expand involvement in the Middle East disgusting considering americans unemployment is likely going to topple 10%?
I'd say starvation is a bigger fucking "security" concern for the public than alleged cave-dwelling jihadists.

Benno wrote:Thought i'd officially start our discussion of Obama's presidency, its efficacy and the quality of its actions.

gotta love the mention of military expenditures in the American budget...
anyone else find Obama's decision to expand involvement in the Middle East disgusting considering americans unemployment is likely going to topple 10%?
I'd say starvation is a bigger fucking "security" concern for the public than alleged cave-dwelling jihadists.

Obama is killing 2 birds with one stone, those Americans headed to the Middle East will have employment. Maybe, we should send some troops "North of the Border" to search out radicals that may be a threat ...

Seriously, I am in Montreal on business this week and the Canadians I have spoken with up here are giving our new President the benefit of doubt. Another American is here working at the same facility and keeps calling Obama the Anti-Christ and the Canadians seem a little bit perplexed at his anti Obama sentiment. This American came from a family with military ties and he claims the military all hate Obama. This leads me to believe that Obama must be doing something right.

Benno, have you found anything that Obama has done yet that you like?

I like his investment in green technologies.
The military is a drain on the american economy. The people who said Iraq's war would pay for itself through oil were clearly retarded...
War in such a quagmire as the middle east will never, ever, be prosperous. American taxpayers are paying for a war which will never pay off. It'll cost them everything.

And another thing about the millions of jobs being "saved or created" by the stimulus (thought that was rather clever as i think LC stated),
they aren't real "jobs". Think about it.

Money for people's paychecks is now coming from the government stimulus package, which is paid for by the people, who are all bankrupt.
The fed is printing trillions of dollars but that money isn't based on any real value, or tangible assets.
It's an unbelievably massive gamble.

Benno wrote:I like his investment in green technologies.
The military is a drain on the american economy. The people who said Iraq's war would pay for itself through oil were clearly retarded...
War in such a quagmire as the middle east will never, ever, be prosperous. American taxpayers are paying for a war which will never pay off. It'll cost them everything.

I really worry about this green technology dream. While, obviously, like any sane person, I hope that scientists can come up with some solutions to better
harness solar, wind, etc. in a cost effective manner. The problem I have is with a story I read the other day-a new windmill was installed next to the highway
right outside Boston.It mentions the savings "It's expected to generate 170,000 kilowatt hours per year, or about $25,000 worth of electricity. " At the
end of the article, it mentions the cost "But the $644,000 Medford project". Doesn't make too much fiscal sense to me - before factoring in current value,
etc. you are looking at 26 years before you get any savings-and who knows if the windmill has a 25 year life.

It's too early for me to judge, honestly. Either that or I'm too lazy to keep up right now (I'll get better with the whole "reading the news" thing soon).

$200 billion + $534 billion =$734 billion, comparable with notorious $787 billion stimulus package, eh?

On the other hand The City of (Obama's) Chicago Board of Education has a $307 million shortfall in their budget and they approved plans to shutter or shake up 16 schools..



A month is a mysterious term – too short to judge but quite enough to make a decision on sending troops to Afghanistan or screw other things up..

Mike you should check out how much power in Denmark and Germany is supplemented by harnessing wind energy.
It is not only possible, it's quite feasible.

People living in the south of the US, indeed any place in the tropics, could use solar power to replace their traditional hot water heating systems.
Depending on the system being replaced and the cost of the power it uses, it could take as little as 5 years for the investment to pay off.

The only thing preventing the US from making investments in green energy is capital.
That's because the same people who control the money supply have control of the gas and oil industry, which ensured a monopoly over the energy lobbyists in Washington.
And THAT'S why Obama's energy policy is very very cool...
The problem is... the money he's using to do it might not end up being worth very much.

In Canada the oil industry (most of which is foreign owned) gets billions in subsidies. But every little penny to green technologies is highly publicized by our government. Might be useful for someone to investigate the continuing US subsidies to oil companies and compare that amount to what's going to green industries.

I think the chances are good that Obama's administration will be protectionist and that could damage our manufacturing, agricultural and resource sectors. Obama's a good man, and a dynamic one. Like most Canadians, I wish him well. But his job isn't to be popular in Canada. It's to serve the interests of the US.

Oh no, Cupcakes and his rants are back. Hide the children!

I might turn that around on you, Clash.

What is it that he has done that's good? BESIDES being notbush?


I would be pleased to give the man the benefit of the doubt, but thus far, there has been little doubt that each step taken thus far has been mostly or exactly wrong.

The "economic" strategy has failed in America and other places time and again (in terms of stimulating an economy), and there's no reason to expect it to work this time around.

He wants government to control ever greater swaths of the market in energy, health care, science, and education. No doubt to which to give a benefit on that one either.

He's down the line with Bush on detainees. No benefit of the doubt there either.

Here's grabbing more power for the executive branch (Census reporting to the White House, non-Senate-approved, non-accountable "czars" in health care, energy policy and more), and that's a no-doubter either.

LittleCupcakes wrote:Oh no, Cupcakes and his rants are back. Hide the children!

I might turn that around on you, Clash.

What is it that he has done that's good? BESIDES being notbush?


I would be pleased to give the man the benefit of the doubt, but thus far, there has been little doubt that each step taken thus far has been mostly or exactly wrong.

The "economic" strategy has failed in America and other places time and again (in terms of stimulating an economy), and there's no reason to expect it to work this time around.

He wants government to control ever greater swaths of the market in energy, health care, science, and education. No doubt to which to give a benefit on that one either.

He's down the line with Bush on detainees. No benefit of the doubt there either.

Here's grabbing more power for the executive branch (Census reporting to the White House, non-Senate-approved, non-accountable "czars" in health care, energy policy and more), and that's a no-doubter either.

Well, Cupcakes, it will be interesting to see how everything unfolds.

Sandyfromvancouver wrote:

LittleCupcakes wrote:Oh no, Cupcakes and his rants are back. Hide the children!

I might turn that around on you, Clash.

What is it that he has done that's good? BESIDES being notbush?


I would be pleased to give the man the benefit of the doubt, but thus far, there has been little doubt that each step taken thus far has been mostly or exactly wrong.

The "economic" strategy has failed in America and other places time and again (in terms of stimulating an economy), and there's no reason to expect it to work this time around.

He wants government to control ever greater swaths of the market in energy, health care, science, and education. No doubt to which to give a benefit on that one either.

He's down the line with Bush on detainees. No benefit of the doubt there either.

Here's grabbing more power for the executive branch (Census reporting to the White House, non-Senate-approved, non-accountable "czars" in health care, energy policy and more), and that's a no-doubter either.

Glad I could provide a larf for ye, Sandy.

Anything "good" that you have seen from the One We'd All Been Waiting For? Again, besides not being Bush?

LittleCupcakes wrote:

Sandyfromvancouver wrote:

LittleCupcakes wrote:Oh no, Cupcakes and his rants are back. Hide the children!

Glad I could provide a larf for ye, Sandy.
Anything "good" that you have seen from the One We'd All Been Waiting For? Again, besides not being Bush?

Really, my dear, you should know better than to ask, but since you do. . . . Obama is spending 5X more per capita on the development of green energy than Canada is. I support the research on the grounds that if nobody enquires they won't find anything out. . . . Obama is refreshingly undoctrinaire, unlike you and I. . . .He cares about the little guy in, say, Kansas, and is pissed off with large corporate bonuses. . . .I know that everything I like about Obama is likely to be something you don't, but that's what you get for being inquisitive.

LittleCupcakes wrote:Oh no, Cupcakes and his rants are back. Hide the children!

I might turn that around on you, Clash.

What is it that he has done that's good? BESIDES being notbush?

Children hidden. Glad to see you back LC. I was just about to comment on the WEW thread that your Karma was changing with your opportunity to see WEW across the pond and it should be attributed to your restraint in commenting on our President. I guess that theory just went out the window.

I am actually a bit disappointed with Obama's Iraq strategy as the main reason I took an interest in Obama in the first place (along with Philip's post of the article by Andrew Sullivan) was his campaign promise to get us out of Iraq. It just makes me sick to see those body bags coming home. I am not well read on the situation in Afghanistan and my initial response to sending more troops there is one of great unease.

The best man in my wedding is dead set against Obama and expressed his belief that Obama's economic policies will be a complete failure. When I asked him what he thought Obama should be doing he suggested "the same thing that Reagan did to get re-elected". So last night I read about "supply side" economic theory. I did not realize that during Regan's administration there was a huge redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy. The theory was that the wealthy would invest the money in new factories, new employees, R&D etc., however what happened was the big corporations went on a huge merger binge, buying up smaller companies which created less competition, less productivity, and more control of the economy in fewer hands. Although Reagan preached less government, and while revenues did increase, Reagan actually increased the national deficit from 900 billion to 2.8 trillion (note: tax revenues also doubled) so Reagan was actually pumping tax payers dollars into the economy (sound familiar).

I guess my point is, I am optimistic that Obama's economic advisers (some really smart people) have studied all the economic models of the past and are putting together a long term strategy that will work regardless of the short term pain that we will suffer. I like that Obama is not pandering to Wall Street.

I do like that Obama is willing to admit when he is wrong (yes not being Bush).

I do like that Obama stated yesterday that he is against protectionism (although it would benefit the US in the short term, he is looking long term).

I do like that Obama struck down the rule that prohibited money from funding international family-planning clinics that promote abortion or provide counseling services.

I do like that Obama is planning to increase taxes on those making over $250,000.

I do like that Obama believes in global warming and wants to do something about it.

I do like that Obama believes in reducing our dependence on foreign oil and is pushing green technologies.

I do like that Obama's directive regarding government contacts to draft new rules by the end of September. Rules that will make it more difficult for contractors to cheat taxpayers and make about $500 billion in yearly federal contracts more accessible to independent contractors.

I really like the fact that Obama is attempting to tackle so many issues all at once. I see no signs of quit or complacency in this man. I am inspired every time I listen to him speak. Could be that after Bush anyone would emote this response?

LC I hope we can agree to disagree and maybe sit down for a beer some day and I will warn William Elliot Whitmore about your stalking plans if I get a chance to visit with him on Sunday.

i always thought LC was a girl... im thoroughly put off by that

the thing about the "little things"
theyre very important, don't get me wrong
but the big things are what need to change, and Obama is keeping them right on track, even increasing them

interventionist foreign policy
continued MASS investment of public funds in the military industrial complex
(which, again, never ever pays off unless you do some hardcore raping and pillaging)
refusal to change current monetary policy
you should all look into how the federal reserve works
the US public hasn't actually owned any real assets in almost a century