The ..2012.... Political thread
-
well Obama not making promises but saying what he's gonna do now: video http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=Ai.gh_nYp70Bnstfsf.heT1h24cA/SIG=12fnodl4b/**http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/ynews?ch=4226720&cl=10580635&lang=en and this is a link to Yahoo news (they use to be quite accurate) of what he plans to do exactly 2 hours ago Major points of Obama's economy proposal http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081107/ap_on_el_pr/obama_economy_box you know I can't copy and paste it all, but yes most: Major economic proposals President-elect Obama discussed Friday to aid recovery from the nation's economic distress: 1_Swift passage by Congress of a new fiscal stimulus bill either before or soon after he takes office. 2_Immediate extension of unemployment benefits for those who can't find work. 3_A rescue plan for the middle class that invests in immediate efforts to create jobs and provides relief to families watching paychecks shrink and life savings disappear. 4_Efforts to address the spreading impact of the financial crisis on other sectors of the economy, including small businesses struggling to meet payroll and finance holiday inventories and state and municipal governments facing budget cuts and tax increases. 5_Aid for the struggling auto industry and related businesses such as auto suppliers. 6_Review the implementation of the $700 billion financial rescue plan to ensure it is achieving its central goal of stabilizing financial markets while protecting taxpayers, helping homeowners and not unduly rewarding the management of the financial firms receiving government assistance. 7_A set of energy, health care, education and tax relief policies designed to grow the middle class and revive the economy. I've deleted just some words... Well, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 need a lot of public spending, so a lot of money coming from taxes, and 7 is about the taxes going down, yet in a economic crisis... In a ec crisis even if the taxes stay at the same rates the gov receives less money. Cause the profits of companies or the amount of salaries are smaller so it's a % over a smaller amount of money. So it doesn't sound very possible I hope it is but well... maybe spending less money coming from taxes in another things, cause I don't think that increase the rates for people with higher income is gonna be enough. It would be if the economic was doing well... but as this is done "after the event" (and not foreseeing the possible problems of the system), it would need more than 14 % instead of a 12 % or so. I feel the "Obama effect" on Monday in the stock markets coming again...
-
Don't forget about what type of dog they will be bringing to the White House.....
-
Better yet, thee attack dog that's leaving the White House and the pitbull that didn't make it there! just kidding!
-
Maybe the two dogs can run for president in 2012......then we would really see CHANGE!
-
deKooningartist:
You being an artist would understand what is meant by the concept of freeform and that of structure. The liberal arts and the rigidly regimented. ~ SurSteven
And that's why I do not like other people, albeit in the arts or government to tell me how to run my life. ~ deKooningartist I feel exactly the same way @ times....... in fact ...i'm famous for it! ~ SurSteven
-
JennyLP:
Maybe the two dogs can run for president in 2012......then we would really see CHANGE!
That may be the best idea yet! The DOGS...that is!
-
Funny how the media is already starting to turn on Obama and question if he can even do any of what he promised. I love how the Dow drops 1000 points 2 days after he is elected, and it is already known as the "Obama effect" on the stock market.
-
BandontheRun:
Funny how the media is already starting to turn on Obama and question if he can even do any of what he promised. I love how the Dow drops 1000 points 2 days after he is elected, and it is already known as the "Obama effect" on the stock market.
well, I'm calling that "the obama effect", I don't know how they call it, it's a just a personal thing... I also call it the "Obama paranoia", but that could be more controversial, you know. There is Obamamania and Obamaphobia...
-
Yeah, because the Dow was SO stable up until this week. :
-
BandontheRun:
Funny how the media is already starting to turn on Obama and question if he can even do any of what he promised. I love how the Dow drops 1000 points 2 days after he is elected, and it is already known as the "Obama effect" on the stock market.
We've had nearly 8 years of right wing philosophy slowly destroying thee economy..."with 2 months to go".......And you think it's who's fault???
-
All I know for certain is that no matter who has been newly elected they have always blamed their current woes on the previous administration. Here's a lead in to the first Presidential speech... "after examining the current situation and speaking with my advisors, the situation is far worse than we could possibly have anticipated. " (Fill in some stats).... "It is therefore under advisement that I can not.....(fill in the blanks ) at this time. The patience of the American peoople will be greatly appreciated...." It's always the same : A few pages back someone asked which U.S. President you most admire who was truly tested during his term? Of course Abe Lincoln. But I think history is going to show us at least the test part of his merrit may very well be President-Elect Obama. He's made an awful lot of promises not just to us Americans but to the entire world. Plus he has alot to live up to within his own community. I do not envy his position at all!!! And yes people are already ripping apart his short speech today. I say give the guy a break and see what he can do
-
Bill:
Yeah, because the Dow was SO stable up until this week. :
Yes, the Obama effect started when he started to have many chances to become president. And reduced when McCain was closer on the polls!.
-
Good grief : You "boys & girls" can't handle a bit of stock market angst...gees
-
deKooningartist:
All I know for certain is that no matter who has been newly elected they have always blamed their current woes on the previous administration. Here's a lead in to the first Presidential speech... "after examining the current situation and speaking with my advisors, the situation is far worse than we could possibly have anticipated. " (Fill in some stats).... "It is therefore under advisement that I can not.....(fill in the blanks ) at this time. The patience of the American peoople will be greatly appreciated...." It's always the same : A few pages back someone asked which U.S. President you most admire who was truly tested during his term? Of course Abe Lincoln. But I think history is going to show us at least the test part of his merrit may very well be President-Elect Obama. He's made an awful lot of promises not just to us Americans but to the entire world. Plus he has alot to live up to within his own community. I do not envy his position at all!!! And yes people are already ripping apart his short speech today. I say give the guy a break and see what he can do
Yes, and he blamed and put down President Bush. Obama set the precident - if he doesn't start succeeding within his first 6 months - we have the right to start blaming him with the same measure that he & the majority of Democrats blamed Bush No more excuses or finger pointing accepted
-
Republicans still blame Clinton for Sept 11 even though Bush was more than six months into the job then. Now who set the precedent? You can't have it both ways.
-
I hadnt heard this until last night ops: when George Galloway played it
Sam Cook A couple of GG quotes from GG last night " Sarah Palin makes bush seem like Aristotle " " i had fox news on this morning....their faces are greener than a St Patricks day parade " Talking of George ......the US have found a great man to improve things . Who have the UK got ? No-one really . George is a great , inteligent man , whoi admire greatly.....but the gutter press and the establishment brainwashed the sheep like public long ago against George. I went to a Q &A session in Manchester recently and was impressed by John McDonnell MP http://www.john4leader.org.uk/ I am nearly sure that i heard George say that John used to be a mod (which George used to be by the way ) But the Labour party as gone that far to the right, that he didnt get enough names last time to be able to stand for leader. I would probably vote for a Labour party with John in charge.......but not these Tories in disguise. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00681/brown-thatcher-2007_681192c.jpg Traitors to the working class http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/02/article-1040849-01AD179D000004B0-943_468x337.jpg -
I think that when the 2008 election was here and decided I saw more smiling faces and less stressed out ones in my area., love doris
-
I think the Anti- christ has risen.
-
I'm sure things won't be absolutely perfect under Obama. But I'm also sure that we won't have the horrendous imcompetence and purely mineboggling mistakes that we have had under bush. This is common knowledge bush ignored terror threats and 9/11 may have been prevented. This is from the Guardian UK ' Bush ignored terror threat, claims ex-aideBush ignored terror threat, claims adviserJulian Borger in Washington guardian.co.uk, Monday March 22 2004 12.03 GMT Article historyGeorge Bush's re-election campaign suffered a blow yesterday when the president's former chief counter-terrorism adviser accused him of doing "a terrible job" in protecting America against attack, largely because of a fixation on Iraq. Richard Clarke, who retired as the White House counter-terrorism coordinator last year, accused the president of putting pressure on him to find evidence of Iraqi involvement in the September 11 attacks, despite being told repeatedly that there was no link. "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism," said Mr Clarke. "Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know." Mr Clarke made his allegations in an interview last night on a CBS current affairs programme, 60 Minutes, and in greater detail in a book, Against All Enemies, published today. He is also expected to deliver a blistering critique of the administration's performance tomorrow to a bipartisan commission investigating US preparedness for the 2001 attacks. Mr Clarke's book is the latest in a trickle of unflattering accounts of the Bush White House to emerge from people leaving the administration. It confirms the view provided by a former treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, of an ideological clique fixated on Iraq. White House officials have questioned Mr Clarke's impartiality, pointing out that he served as counter-terrorist "tsar" in Bill Clinton's White House, and although he stayed on after Mr Bush's election, he lost his cabinet rank. However, Mr Clarke also served as a state department counterterrorism adviser under President Reagan and the first President Bush. A senior Republican senator, Chuck Hagel, yesterday described Mr Clarke as "a serious professional", adding that "the White House is going to have to answer these charges". Mr Clarke's account comes at a time when the Bush re-election campaign is spending millions of dollars to define the president as a decisive wartime leader, and his Democratic challenger, John Kerry, as a vacillating liberal who is weak on defence. One of Mr Clarke's tasks was to chair the administration's counter-terrorism and security group, a panel of CIA, FBI and White House experts that met several times a week to assess foreign threats. He depicted the Bush White House as being uninterested in the threat from al-Qaida in its first eight months in office, and more concerned about Iraq. He said his urgent request in January that year for a cabinet-level meeting on the possibility of an attack was only granted a few days before 9/11. At crisis meetings in the White House the day after those attacks, Mr Clarke said he expected to discuss how to strike back at al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan, and was surprised when the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, quickly shifted the subject to Iraq. "Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Mr Clarke said in last night's interview. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaida is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq." Mr Clarke initially thought that Mr Rumsfeld was joking, but quickly discovered he had the backing of Mr Bush. "The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this," he said. "I said, 'Mr President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection ...' He came back at me and said, 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean, that we should come back with that answer." Mr Clarke coordinated the writing of a report by the CIA, FBI, and his own staff, concluding that Iraq had few links with al-Qaida and no involvement in the September 11 attacks. He said: "We sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the national security adviser or deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer ... Do it again.'" Mr Clarke's comments came as former US president Jimmy Carter launched a withering attack, claiming that George Bush and Tony Blair had waged a war in Iraq based on "lies". "There was no reason for us to become involved _ That was a war based on lies and misinterpretations from London and from Washington, claiming falsely that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks," he told the Independent newspaper. Printable version Send to a friend Share Clip Contact us larger | smaller EmailClose Recipient's email address Your name Add a note (optional)
-
This book tells the truth about the deciete, lies and then the cover up about Iraq http://img.tesco.com/pi/Books/L/73/9781842752173.jpg The US and UK are strong powers on the winning side , otherwise bush , bLiar, brown , cheeny , rumsfeld and co would be on charges of war crimes. Only the losing side get charged. They have increased the threat of terrorism greatly with this illegal invasion. Also many people , who know far more about the middle east than myself, say terrorism will grow until the Palestinian problem is solved. Talking of Iraq, they got the man who had nothing to do with 9/11. Hows the hunt for bin laden going ?....dont hear him mentioned much these days do you ?