American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Sidney]Most troubling is the sense that Obama cannot have thought this through. He can't have planned this. President Clinton used to say at strategy meetings that we needed to think three or four moves ahead and not just "kick the can down the road." Obama is clearly not following his predecessor's advice. He realized GM needed money. He knew the public would have a fit if he gave it. So he decided that he would appease his electorate by exacting blood from the company's management and directors by using his guillotine on some of its old gray heads.[/QUOTE][size=3][I]Obama: the [strike]dumbest[/strike] most inexperienced President ever![/i][/size]

[QUOTE=Jackson][size=3][I]Obama: the [strike]dumbest[/strike] most inexperienced President ever![/i][/size][/QUOTE]I can't agree. He's a very nice, bright young man. He reads beautifully from a teleprompter.

He's also in completely over his head. He's weak, in the sense that he has never dealt with adversity and he's naive in that he has no concept of the pressures being brought to bear on him by his external enemies. He is definitely obsessed with the idea of destroying one radio talk show host, however.

His outreach to the Iranian mullahs is a good example of where all this is headed: "Let's just sit down, drink some tea, and reason together, my friends." Meanwhile they laugh at him, not behind his back either, and continue to busily build atomic bombs. Mushroom clouds over what used to be Tel Aviv and Manhattan are definite possibilities for the not-too-distant future.

And we haven't even talked about the government taking over the running of the economy. That has turned out really well in Argentina, hasn't it?

It's like the t-shirt says, "Welcome Back, Carter."

I truely believe that international cooperation is preferable to unilaterality to solve global issues.

I truely believe oil and weapons industries have negative influences when they take control of a nation s executive power.

I can only witness that US american public debt was at its lowest in a generation after Clinton s mandate, it is now at all times record high after 8 years of Bush administration, so high that it started the biggest financial crises since 1929.

I can only witness that lack of control of loaners practices as well as hedge funds are universally identified reasons for this crises.

If 1929 crises lasted so long and lead to the rise of nationalisms (patriotisms?) and a global war, this is because of the belief that markets would "regulate themselves". Amazingly the same that are in favor of interventionism in foreign countries refuse any kind of interventionism in their own.

I can only conclude that if irresponsability has to be granted to one side, this is certainly not on the Democrat s one.

Perhaps you don't remember, but Clinton only had to deal with Monica and not Osama. You also did not notice it was the Democrats who oversaw the deminse of Fanny and Freddy, with their lending rules put in place in the late 80's early 90's when they were the ruling party, leading directly to the failure Frank and Dodd watched occur in 2008. This is not 1929 or any where near it, it could be argued the "New Deal" of the thirties acutally caused the depression to last until WWII lifted the country out of it. I still say the Carmel One is going to make Carter look good as a president. This is not to say there need to be changes, but these changes need to be in enforcement of current regulations and not adding great power to the government.

[QUOTE=MataHari]I truely believe that international cooperation is preferable to unilaterality to solve global issues.

I truely believe oil and weapons industries have negative influences when they take control of a nation s executive power.

I can only conclude that if irresponsability has to be granted to one side, this is certainly not on the Democrat s one.[/QUOTE]Mata Hari, here is what I believe:

"I believe that children are the future, teach them well and let them lead the way".
- George Benson (Or Whitney Houston, pre crack Who** Bobby Brown Phase)

That's my way of saying I don't care what you believe.

I also believe that spelling is important. It's Irresponsibility not Irresponsability.

You will impress the judges if A) unilaterality is a word (it isn't) and B) it is spelled correctly (it isn't)

The great thing is in America, or as you call it "us american industry", we have freedoms of speech and expression. But in certain cases, like yours, I have been granted absolute power to revoke that right and put a Chinese spell on you. (Kind of like in Gremlins, Great Movie!)

But, if you are a woman I would love to meet you and try to bridge our differences. I would like for CIM to be the subject, (CIM means Conversationally Intellectual Mata Hari)

Just like the 1990's African-American philosopher Rodney King said, "Can't we all just get along?"

Here is what I would like to do Mata Hari:

"I'd like to buy the world a home.
And furnish it with love.
Grow apple trees and honey bees.
And snow white turtle doves."

Yes Mata Hari,.

"I'd like to teach the world to sing.
In perfect harmony.
I'd like to buy the world a Coke.
And keep it company.
That's the real thing."

"Oh yeah, Mata Hari, It's the Real Thing"

By the way, Coke is a multi-national "us american industry" and billions of Chinamen save for days to savor one drink of this fine nectar.

I am thinking of exporting my chain of Big Kahuna Burger franchises and having Samuel L. Jackson as spokesman. But I digress.

Hit me up Mata Hari, I love you.

My lovely singing Grasshopper,

You are very right, education is indeed important, and since we can learn everyday, here is the definition of the word unilaterality:

[url]http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definitions/unilaterality[/url]

The chinese national drink is still tea, it s drunk all over the world and keeps you safe from diabetis, overweight et al. Any restaurant in China will welcome you with this beverage for free, since a customer is first and foremost a guest.

Sorry if I hit a patriotic nerve, I can teach you how to spell irresponsAbility in Chinese if you wish =)

[QUOTE=MataHari]My lovely singing Grasshopper,

You are very right, education is indeed important, and since we can learn everyday, here is the definition of the word unilaterality:

[url]http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definitions/unilaterality[/url]

The chinese national drink is still tea, it s drunk all over the world and keeps you safe from diabetis, overweight et al. Any restaurant in China will welcome you with this beverage for free, since a customer is first and foremost a guest.

Sorry if I hit a patriotic nerve, I can teach you how to spell irresponsAbility in Chinese if you wish =)[/QUOTE]You have proven a worthy opponent against my weak grammatical skills. I would have used the statement "international cooperation is preferable to unilateralism to solve global issues". I guess you win the spelling bee.

While you are at it, can you teach me how to spell, "Ten dollar Chinese Hooker" in Chinese? Because there were a tonne of them on my last visit. I'm sure they must have been there by choice and not necessity, because the powerhouse that is China's economy surely provides for all, huh?

Oh yeah, it's Diabetes not diabetis. And since you solved the beverage of preference issue regarding tea over Coke, I won't try and explain the marketing lesson I was trying to demonstrate about choice, product position, branding and American envy of Brands throughout the world that was the crux of my argument.

I am not Grasshopper, I have graduated to Kung Fu.

Check out this link:

[url]http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definitions/asshole[/url]

Confucious say: "Man with hands in pockets, feel cocky all day"

All this discussion of China reminds me of what a friend of mine was told by a working girl who was coming on to him in a Shanghai (or was it Beijing, I forget) disco:

"You hairy like monkey!"

I love Asian girls, Mata why don't you tell me where I can get some top-shelf pussy on my next trip to Hong Kong or Shenzen? Left and right, unilateralist and multilateralist can certainly find agreement on this topic.

[QUOTE=Hunt99]All this discussion of China reminds me of what a friend of mine was told by a working girl who was coming on to him in a Shanghai (or was it Beijing, I forget) disco:

"You hairy like monkey!"

I love Asian girls, Mata why don't you tell me where I can get some top-shelf pussy on my next trip to Hong Kong or Shenzen? Left and right, unilateralist and multilateralist can certainly find agreement on this topic.[/QUOTE]Too much ego and steroids here for any rational arguments here. Very sad.

Sid,

While it's obvious that the neophyte Messiah fucked up all over the G20 meetings and was essentially lead through the nose by the [i]experienced[/i] and eminently more qualified foreign leaders in attendance, I don't believe that a "joint communiqué" has quite the same legal weight as a ratified treaty.

Of course, ceding American sovereignty to the "New World Order" is a core element of the Messiah's belief system, but I'm hopeful that he can't accomplish this in the 39 months he has left in office.

Thanks,

Jackson

[size=3][I]Obama: the [strike]dumbest[/strike] most inexperienced President ever![/i][/size]

More opinions from the Politicos at Quakhunter University. A long read but insightful on how to cave in to your adversary.

At least the European people will like us, that feels good.

Credit goes to stratfor.com. Enjoy.

OBAMA'S STRATEGY AND THE SUMMITS.

By George Friedman.

The weeklong extravaganza of G-20, NATO, EU, U. S. And Turkey meetings has almost ended. The spin emerging from the meetings, echoed in most of the media, sought to portray the meetings as a success and as reflecting a re-emergence of trans-Atlantic unity.

The reality, however, is that the meetings ended in apparent unity because the United States accepted European unwillingness to compromise on key issues. U. S. President Barack Obama wanted the week to appear successful, and therefore backed off on key issues; the Europeans did the same. Moreover, Obama appears to have set a process in motion that bypasses Europe to focus on his last stop: Turkey.

Berlin, Washington and the G-20

Let's begin with the G-20 meeting, which focused on the global financial crisis. As we said last year, there were many European positions, but the United States was reacting to Germany's. Not only is Germany the largest economy in Europe, it is the largest exporter in the world. Any agreement that did not include Germany would be useless, whereas an agreement excluding the rest of Europe but including Germany would still be useful.

Two fundamental issues divided the United States and Germany. The first was whether Germany would match or come close to the U. S. stimulus package. The United States wanted Germany to stimulate its own domestic demand. Obama feared that if the United States put a stimulus plan into place, Germany would use increased demand in the U. S. market to expand its exports. The United States would wind up with massive deficits while the Germans took advantage of U. S. spending, thus letting Berlin enjoy the best of both worlds. Washington felt it had to stimulate its economy, and that this would inevitably benefit the rest of the world. But Washington wanted burden sharing. Berlin, quite rationally, did not. Even before the meetings, the United States dropped the demand -- Germany was not going to cooperate.

The second issue was the financing of the bailout of the Central European banking system, heavily controlled by eurozone banks and part of the EU financial system. The Germans did not want an EU effort to bail out the banks. They wanted the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to bail out a substantial part of the EU financial system instead. The reason was simple: The IMF receives loans from the United States, as well as China and Japan, meaning the Europeans would be joined by others in underwriting the bailout. The United States has signaled it would be willing to contribute $100 billion to the IMF, of which a substantial portion would go to Central Europe. (Of the current loans given by the IMF, roughly 80 percent have gone to the struggling economies in Central Europe. The United States therefore essentially has agreed to the German position.)

Later at the NATO meeting, the Europeans -- including Germany -- declined to send substantial forces to Afghanistan. Instead, they designated a token force of 5,000, most of whom are scheduled to be in Afghanistan only until the August elections there, and few of whom actually would be engaged in combat operations. This is far below what Obama had been hoping for when he began his presidency.

Agreement was reached on collaboration in detecting international tax fraud and on further collaboration in managing the international crisis, however. But what that means remains extremely vague -- as it was meant to be, since there was no consensus on what was to be done. In fact, the actual guidelines will still have to be hashed out at the G-20 finance ministers' meeting in Scotland in November. Intriguingly, after insisting on the creation of a global regulatory regime -- and with the vague U. S. assent -- the European Union failed to agree on European regulations. In a meeting in Prague on April 4, the United Kingdom rejected the regulatory regime being proposed by Germany and France, saying it would leave the British banking system at a disadvantage.

Overall, the G-20 and the NATO meetings did not produce significant breakthroughs. Rather than pushing hard on issues or trading concessions -- such as accepting Germany's unwillingness to increase its stimulus package in return for more troops in Afghanistan -- the United States failed to press or bargain. It preferred to appear as part of a consensus rather than appear isolated. The United States systematically avoided any appearance of disagreement.

The reason there was no bargaining was fairly simple: The Germans were not prepared to bargain. They came to the meetings with prepared positions, and the United States had no levers with which to move them. The only option was to withhold funding for the IMF, and that would have been a political disaster (not to mention economically rather unwise) The United States would have been seen as unwilling to participate in multilateral solutions rather than Germany being seen as trying to foist its economic problems on others. Obama has positioned himself as a multilateralist and can't afford the political consequences of deviating from this perception. Contributing to the IMF, in these days of trillion-dollar bailouts, was the lower-cost alternative. Thus, the Germans have the U. S. boxed in.

The political aspect of this should not be underestimated. George W. Bush had extremely bad relations with the Europeans (in large part because he was prepared to confront them) This was Obama's first major international foray, and he could not let it end in acrimony or wind up being seen as unable to move the Europeans after running a campaign based on his ability to manage the Western coalition. It was important that he come home having reached consensus with the Europeans. Backing off on key economic and military demands gave him that "consensus."

The Russian Dimension.

Let's diverge to another dimension of these talks, which still concerns Turkey, but also concerns the Russians. While atmospherics after the last week's meetings might have improved, there was certainly no fundamental shift in U. S.-Russian relations. The Russians have rejected the idea of pressuring Iran over its nuclear program in return for the United States abandoning its planned ballistic missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The United States simultaneously downplayed the importance of a Russian route to Afghanistan. Washington said there were sufficient supplies in Afghanistan and enough security on the Pakistani route such that the Russians weren't essential for supplying Western operations in Afghanistan. At the same time, the United States reached an agreement with Ukraine for the transshipment of supplies -- a mostly symbolic gesture, but one guaranteed to infuriate the Russians at both the United States and Ukraine. Moreover, the NATO communique did not abandon the idea of Ukraine and Georgia being admitted to NATO, although the German position on unspecified delays to such membership was there as well. When Obama looks at the chessboard, the key emerging challenge remains Russia.

The Germans are not going to be joining the United States in blocking Russia. Between dependence on Russia for energy supplies and little appetite for confronting a Russia that Berlin sees as no real immediate threat to Germany, the Germans are not going to address the Russian question. At the same time, the United States does not want to push the Germans toward Russia, particularly in confrontations ultimately of secondary importance and on which Germany has no give anyway. Obama is aware that the German left is viscerally anti-American, while Merkel is only pragmatically anti-American -- a small distinction, but significant enough for Washington not to press Berlin.

From the American point of view, Europe is a lost cause since internally it cannot find a common position and its heavyweights are bound by their relationship with Russia. It cannot agree on economic policy, nor do its economic interests coincide with those of the United States, at least insofar as Germany is concerned. As far as Russia is concerned, Germany and Europe are locked in by their dependence on Russian natural gas. The U. S.-European relationship thus is torn apart not by personalities, but by fundamental economic and military realities. No amount of talking will solve that problem.

The key to sustaining the U. S.-German alliance is reducing Germany's dependence on Russian natural gas and putting Russia on the defensive rather than the offensive. The key to that now is Turkey, since it is one of the only routes energy from new sources can cross to get to Europe from the Middle East, Central Asia or the Caucasus. If Turkey -- which has deep influence in the Caucasus, Central Asia, Ukraine, the Middle East and the Balkans -- is prepared to ally with the United States, Russia is on the defensive and a long-term solution to Germany's energy problem can be found. On the other hand, if Turkey decides to take a defensive position and moves to cooperate with Russia instead, Russia retains the initiative and Germany is locked into Russian-controlled energy for a generation.

Obama gave the Europeans a pass for political reasons, and because arguing with the Europeans simply won't yield benefits. But the key to the trip is what he gets out of Turkey -- and whether in his speech to the civilizations, he can draw some of the venom out of the Islamic world by showing alignment with the largest economy among Muslim states, Turkey.

This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to [url]www.stratfor.com[/url].

Mongers,

It really amazes me that the ultra right wing neo-con members of this board continue to hate and hate and hate upon Obama. This President is going to stave off the massive decline the US has been experiencing and all the neo-cons can do is whine and complain and yearn for the "good ol' days" of Shrub and Darth Vader. Guess what neo cons? The aggressive war-mongering policies that you so love, which serve to make you and your friends filthy rich, actually bankrupt the US! Dick Cheney: "deficits don't matter"- sure, Dick, they don't matter when all that cash that we don't have is being paid to your company (Halliburton) and the companies of your friends! The neo-cons do not look out for the best interests of the state, they only seek to make money for their greedy military / industrialist friends.

Well, thanks for fucking up everything so bad, because now the neo-cons will be out of power indefinitely. The Republican party has become a regional party of waning national importance. Obama is bringing our constitutional rights back and making amends with our alleged enemies so we don't have to engage in anymore pointless wars that only serve to make more enemies and bankrupt the state. It has already been announced that massive cuts (hundreds of billions of dollars) are coming to the military budget. By the end of the first term, Obama will have re-established cordial diplomatic relations with Cuba, Syria, Iran, and North Korea. Obama will order the foundation of a viable Palestinian state. The economy will recover, and he will win a second term in a landslide. So get ready for 87 more months.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

What's a Neo-Con?[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers-

It really amazes me that the ultra right wing neo-con members of this board continue to hate and hate and hate upon Obama. This President is going to stave off the massive decline the US has been experiencing and all the neo-cons can do is whine and complain and yearn for the "good ol' days" of Shrub and Darth Vader. Guess what neo cons? The aggressive war-mongering policies that you so love, which serve to make you and your friends filthy rich, actually bankrupt the US! Dick Cheney: "deficits don't matter"- sure, Dick, they don't matter when all that cash that we don't have is being paid to your company (Halliburton) and the companies of your friends! The neo-cons do not look out for the best interests of the state, they only seek to make money for their greedy military / industrialist friends.

Well, thanks for fucking up everything so bad, because now the neo-cons will be out of power indefinitely. The Republican party has become a regional party of waning national importance. Obama is bringing our constitutional rights back and making amends with our alleged enemies so we don't have to engage in anymore pointless wars that only serve to make more enemies and bankrupt the state. It has already been announced that massive cuts (hundreds of billions of dollars) are coming to the military budget. By the end of the first term, Obama will have re-established cordial diplomatic relations with Cuba, Syria, Iran, and North Korea. Obama will order the foundation of a viable Palestinian state. The economy will recover, and he will win a second term in a landslide. So get ready for 87 more months.

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]

Neo Conserative = Neo Con to the best of my knowledge.

Hard Rocks -Seems to me it was the left that was heaping on the hate / hate / hate not the right. Time will tell with the Carmel One as to if he is good, bad or indifferent (I think he will make Hoover and Carter look good) But IMHO he needs to stop campaigning and start leading, he won the election, he is president now do something concrete. Last I looked unemployment is going up, market is going down again, GM and Chrysler are near Chapter 7 or 11, banks are still a mess as well as Wall Street and Main Street. Now we are cutting back on defense while the social programs run on unchecked. Have you looked at the federal budget lately? Defense is a small slice compaired to the "entitlements". It is no long a "guns or butter" argument it is a "butter or pork" arguement.