obama is president!!!

[Commander]

Originally Posted by superbilt

As a Christian and a person I believe Obama is this country's and this world's best chance for peace.

OK, but you didn't answer why he is the best chance for peace?

Originally Posted by rootb33r

Great post superbilt. You're dead-on about the foreign countries' perception of the US. We need someone the rest of the world respects, and I think Obama is that man.

Why do you feel other countries' perceptions of the USA matter so much? Are you assuming that all other countries are doing most everything correctly and have such great judgement that we should care what they think of us? How does another countries judgement effect the well-being of the USA? If other countries have policies that differ from ours and therefore think the USA is bad, stupid, or evil...Why should that matter to us? Isn't it courageous to go ahead to do what it right even in the face of opposition?

[klosey]

Originally Posted by Commander

OK, but you didn't answer why he is the best chance for peace?



Why do you feel other countries' perceptions of the USA matter so much? Are you assuming that all other countries are doing most everything correctly and have such great judgement that we should care what they think of us? How does another countries judgement effect the well-being of the USA? If other countries have policies that differ from ours and therefore think the USA is bad, stupid, or evil...Why should that matter to us? Isn't it courageous to go ahead to do what it right even in the face of opposition?

gas and oil prices i'd say mainly with russia now controlling over 60% of gas supplies and norway controlling near 80% of european oil relationships with these countries effects prices

[bigbear6708]

i dont like obama, but the election is over, so i must support him as my president now..its about unity right?? with that being said, i DO believe there was some race involved, as well as the "youth vote"..its great to see young people get involved in voting..i LOVE IT!, BUT...did they really pay attention to the issues, or did they vote based on a popularity contest just like any reality show such as american idol, etc..i garuntee if you go into the streets and ask random "youth voters" questions about the candidates most will just stare blankely and confused. are we going to get this "change" he talks about...yeah, i am sure we are..but it was already going to come naturally anyway..the economy goes up and down naturally...ALSO..the president really does not have that much power when you look at it..yeah, he can try to sway congress, but really thats what the checks and balances are all about..so people putting all this heat on Pres. Bush is really unwaranted as most of the economic downfalls didnt start to happen until the democrats controlled congress

[rootb33r]

Originally Posted by Commander

OK, but you didn't answer why he is the best chance for peace?

Why do you feel other countries' perceptions of the USA matter so much? Are you assuming that all other countries are doing most everything correctly and have such great judgement that we should care what they think of us? How does another countries judgement effect the well-being of the USA? If other countries have policies that differ from ours and therefore think the USA is bad, stupid, or evil...Why should that matter to us? Isn't it courageous to go ahead to do what it right even in the face of opposition?

klosey has a good point, but it's not the crux of the argument.

Other countries' perceptions of us are extremely important, especially in this time of global political unrest. The political volatility around the world is at obscene levels. Between the energy crisis, the financial crisis, and most importantly the war in the Middle East, the United States has become incredibly unpopular. We are trying to keep dangerous communist countries from developing nuclear weapons, and being a global outcast doesn't help. When dealing with North Korea and Iran, we need the full support of powerful political leaders from Germany, Britain, France, Japan, etc.

I understand it's not a popularity contest, but political factions being in good standing helps us mainly improve our economic welfare through trade agreements. So much of our country's prosperity is due to trade agreements like the WTO, NAFTA, and other Free Trade Agreements. It also helps us do things like foreign aid, in such forms as financial help, food, shelter, clothing, defense, protection, and medicine.

Bottom-line is that Bush's "steadfast" approach to the war was/is detrimental to our Nation's political standing. I am not one of those anti-war hippies that line the street corners waving signs, I just recognize the damage it is doing to our country's reputation. There are enough people in this world who think the US is an imperialistic nation, we don't need to do anything more than we must to right the situation in the Middle East.

I am not a foreign policy expert, and I do not claim to know a lot about the war and the underlying situation that we face at this point in time, however I do know that with every day that goes by, Americans are dying for the democracy of another nation. I am glad Hussein is gone, believe me, but those countries need to now take over and sort themselves out. The political situation in the Middle East is horrendous, and the political culture is a bunch of yahoos blowing the other political faction to bits. This is archaic and, frankly, imbecilic. We do not need to associate ourselves with this form of governance.

And, hey, guess what? For the last two years, between 62-69% of Americans have agreed with me.

[rootb33r]

Originally Posted by bigbear6708

did they really pay attention to the issues, or did they vote based on a popularity contest just like any reality show such as american idol, etc..i garuntee if you go into the streets and ask random "youth voters" questions about the candidates most will just stare blankely and confused

Yes, I'm afraid you're right. A large part of the vote differential was due to blacks and youth voters. Chances are they are not well-informed, and they watched their MTV and listened to their favorite Hollywood actors when they said "Vote Obama!"

... Then again, do you think much of McCain's republican base knew about the issues? It's a well-known, and well-debated fact that Democrats have an "empty vote" (meaning someone who doesn't understand the issues) with the minorities and the youth, while republicans have empty votes with the religious base.

I'd be hard-pressed to find someone in the Bible Belt of the South who could utter a word about McCain's issues other than "I reckon I saw a Bible in his hands." Then you have to think about the race factor-- this probably exactly negates Obama's "push" that he got from the black community. Do you realize how racist much of the south is? It's disgraceful to the country.

They talked before the election about the "Bradley Effect." I haven't heard much about it after the election, but I still think it happened. I think that it was quantitatively negated by the black and youth votes. It was buried in McCain's loss, but I really think it was there.

Originally Posted by bigbear6708

are we going to get this "change" he talks about...yeah, i am sure we are..but it was already going to come naturally anyway..the economy goes up and down naturally

Yes, this is the natural cycle of the economy. However, there is much an administration can do to either amplify or stifle economic growth. I said in a previous post, I hope that Obama is able to piggy-back off of this inevitable period of growth by implementing fiscal policy that will do great things for this country in that time of growth.

Originally Posted by bigbear6708

ALSO..the president really does not have that much power when you look at it..yeah, he can try to sway congress, but really thats what the checks and balances are all about

You're right, and as I've said before, whoever is President is not going to change a whole lot in this country. Nothing DRASTIC will happen.

Originally Posted by bigbear6708

so people putting all this heat on Pres. Bush is really unwaranted as most of the economic downfalls didnt start to happen until the democrats controlled congress

... the economic recession is a product of poor regulation. There were incentives for banks to loan out far too much credit, and to people who didn't deserve it. Then there were the credit default swaps, but don't get me started on those.

Basically, it's the fault of the financial regulatory system and the systemic abuse of the lax regulations by financial institutions. Too much greed on Wall Street; it had nothing to do with the President or Congress.

Some say that Bernanke has reacted in a bad way, same with Henry Paulson the Treasury Sec... that's where people want change (because the Treasury Sec is a partisan position).

[Commander]

Originally Posted by klosey

gas and oil prices i'd say mainly with russia now controlling over 60% of gas supplies and norway controlling near 80% of european oil relationships with these countries effects prices

This only highlights our need for energy independence.

[Commander]

Originally Posted by rootb33r

klosey has a good point, but it's not the crux of the argument.
Other countries' perceptions of us are extremely important, especially in this time of global political unrest. The political volatility around the world is at obscene levels. Between the energy crisis, the financial crisis, and most importantly the war in the Middle East, the United States has become incredibly unpopular. We are trying to keep dangerous communist countries from developing nuclear weapons, and being a global outcast doesn't help. When dealing with North Korea and Iran, we need the full support of powerful political leaders from Germany, Britain, France, Japan, etc.

If Germany, Britain, France aren't willing to work with us when in the face of a really perilous situation as you mentioned just because there is a vague disrespect for some of our policies....isn't that pretty petty on their behalf? Can't we unite when things are really important?

I understand it's not a popularity contest, but political factions being in good standing helps us mainly improve our economic welfare through trade agreements. So much of our country's prosperity is due to trade agreements like the WTO, NAFTA, and other Free Trade Agreements. It also helps us do things like foreign aid, in such forms as financial help, food, shelter, clothing, defense, protection, and medicine.

Trade continues regardless of popularity. China isn't very popular, but check the "Made in" tag of many products you buy, we still buy from them. People will still buy USA made products as well.
And Foreign Aid is best down in the private sector. Less mismanaging of money and far more compassion.

Bottom-line is that Bush's "steadfast" approach to the war was/is detrimental to our Nation's political standing. I am not one of those anti-war hippies that line the street corners waving signs, I just recognize the damage it is doing to our country's reputation. There are enough people in this world who think the US is an imperialistic nation, we don't need to do anything more than we must to right the situation in the Middle East.
I am not a foreign policy expert, and I do not claim to know a lot about the war and the underlying situation that we face at this point in time, however I do know that with every day that goes by, Americans are dying for the democracy of another nation. I am glad Hussein is gone, believe me, but those countries need to now take over and sort themselves out.

They will, Iraqis now control 12 of 18 provinces.

The political situation in the Middle East is horrendous, and the political culture is a bunch of yahoos blowing the other political faction to bits. This is archaic and, frankly, imbecilic. We do not need to associate ourselves with this form of governance.
And, hey, guess what? For the last two years, between 62-69% of Americans have agreed with me.

(I am entering more characters, I was getting an error message that my reply was too short, ooohhh, I know why, because my original text was within the quote, whoops!)

[Commander]

Originally Posted by rootb33r

... the economic recession is a product of poor regulation. There were incentives for banks to loan out far too much credit, and to people who didn't deserve it. Then there were the credit default swaps, but don't get me started on those.

Basically, it's the fault of the financial regulatory system and the systemic abuse of the lax regulations by financial institutions. Too much greed on Wall Street; it had nothing to do with the President or Congress.

Do you know why banks loaned out far too much credit?
It sure did have to do with Congress.

[rootb33r]

Originally Posted by Commander

If Germany, Britain, France aren't willing to work with us when in the face of a really perilous situation as you mentioned just because there is a vague disrespect for some of our policies....isn't that pretty petty on their behalf? Can't we unite when things are really important?

It's more about whether these countries agree with our REASON for doing what we are doing over there. There will always be disagreements between the countries on various policies, but there's a inherent political obligation from these countries, as our NATO allies, to help us. I'm not saying everyone is going to get along all the time, but foreign policy is all one big game; you must be careful where you tread.

Originally Posted by Commander

Trade continues regardless of popularity. China isn't very popular, but check the "Made in" tag of many products you buy, we still buy from them. People will still buy USA made products as well.
And Foreign Aid is best down in the private sector. Less mismanaging of money and far more compassion.

We buy from China because we still have free trade with China. We have free trade with China because it is vital to our economic welfare. Believe me, if we could survive without the Chinese goods, we would cut ties with them. But even the biggest opponents to outsourcing agree that our economy would crumble if we had a trade embargo with China. Occasionally we will pick and choose various industries and apply temporary embargoes on those goods to regulate/calibrate the US market for those goods.

I agree with you on foreign aid being done best in the private sector, but the US will continue to throw money out for it, so why not think of the most efficient way to use it? And that is with the help of other foreign governments in a collaborative fashion.

Originally Posted by Commander

They will, Iraqis now control 12 of 18 provinces.

I may sound like an ethnocentric saying this, but this isn't a regular war we're fighting here. We're fighting a culture of guerrilla warfare combined with corrupt politics and political/religious factions. They kill each other over politics and religion! The culture is doomed to be implosive. There is too much unrest.

I hope I am proven wrong.

Originally Posted by Commander

Do you know why banks loaned out far too much credit?
It sure did have to do with Congress.

The only thing it had to do with Congress is the fact that Congress didn't have strict-enough regulation laws in place. There is speculation that Clinton's administration made it easier for people to get mortgages, and also there was a bill in 2003 that was supposed to tighten lending practices that congress voted against... but the blame should all be on the private sector.

The rest of it was pure greed on the banks' behalves, wanting to lend as much money as possible to people who didn't deserve it, and also by loaning more money than credit-responsible people could handle.

[Commander]

Originally Posted by Bahir

bigbear - read up on microeconomics, market failures and oligopolies in particular. A free market does not always work, and that's why the government is there.

As for Obama being a socialist - it's ridiculous. Compared to the system we have in Sweden (which happens to be one of the most democratic countries in the world), Obama's politics would be far, far to the right of our most right parties (well, maybe exept for one, due to them being racists).


By the way, Venom: strange, I always though of you as more of a republican/conservatist.

If a firm, through greater efficiency, does obtain a monopoly, oligopoly (M or O)in some sense in its industry, it would typically do so, by lowering prices and benefiting the consumers. Most people who attack M or O say that what is wrong with them is precisely a restriction of production and a rise in price. So one achieved by the opposite methods would be OK.

When an oligopoly, sometimes called a cartel, of many firms forms, what is actually involved is co-operation to increase the incomes of the producers. But is this process not the same as any sort of joint partnership or the formation of a single corporation?

If there is a crime committed when forming said M or O, then let the existing penal code address it, excessive government rules on the activity of the market only makes if function less than optimally. I don’t want the government restricting the economy. I want to vote with my dollars.

If no outsiders enter this field, in a free economy, it is because they do not feel it is profitable. If it is not profitable, then the current M or O or what have you, must be doing things fairly efficiently and not hurting the consumer. The problem arises when you have a monopoly or oligopoly in a society where people are not free.

The government you rely on to protect you from M or O, is the very government that plays favorites and protects certain groups from others and restricts fair competition. If the consumer is allowed to vote with their dollar, rather than the government making decisions for us, we will be better off.

All of the above, rests on the assumption that you reside in a free economy. The more socialist your economy than the more harm M or O will do. It is ironic people who feel government intervention is necessary because they think the free market doesn’t work, are OK with government regulations as a nation slowly slips into a socialist state. The original goal of the government regulations was to prevent M and O but when the socialist state is complete, government has a monopoly on everything! Pure irony!