Obama Wins! - So What's Next?

Remove all ads!

Exactly.

 

That was the whole idea. If Americans had to really sacrifice for a prolonged, useless war they would have forced an end to it a long time ago.

But all this aside, I really wish Gnarff would bother to at least read what some of us post here. Or at least do the research himself so that he knew what he was talking about. If he had, he would have read the part about Obama giving "coporate and small businesses LOWER taxes for investing in jobs HERE." I even provided a link for him that describes Obama's tax plan in detail. Oh, well. I don't know why a bother to qualify anything I post with some factual information.

 

DR: A few things about New Orleans and Katrina...

1. Every administration has been warned about the levees for several decades. They were not ever built to withstand a Katrina-type hurricane. Everyone knew that. The state had many opportunities to fix the levees around New Orleans but was not willing to spend the money and wanted the US to provide 100% of the funds (which is why every other administration balked at this as well).

2. Repair of the levees was projected to be a ten year long construction process. It would not have been completed in time if Clinton had started the project.

3. I've hashed this over many times -- just where were the rescue workers supposed to be during the hurricane? You do not ever position rescue workers in the storm's path. Roads were destroyed, airfields were destroyed. Even if airlifted in, there was no means to distribute goods until trucks could get in. I was amazed the Coast Guard was in two days after Katrina hit -- that meant they followed the hurricane insanely close. Being two days behind the hurricane is still riding 30-50 foot swells (I've been there, trust me it's not fun and very dangerous), and they were in small boats. By the way, the Coast Guard is credited with rescuing over 50% of the remaining populace of New Orleans -- that's an amazing response.

The city and state are responsible for the first several days of an emergency. People died because New Orleans and Louisianna failed to have an adequate emergency plan in place.

There were a few errors by the administration (some big ones) but nowhere near the errors by the city and state. Nigel and Blanco deserve the lion's share of the blame.

 

This is utter crap. From FactCheck.org:

You may want to consider going somewhere else for your mis-information, because your current source sucks.

 

Wooooohahaha!
Like that's ever gonna happen in the States.
But a left-wing security force would be a useful 'grounding' effect, if only to bring the USA back to the centre of politics.
But what with the acceptance, even glorification of exaggerated national security and secrecy in the States, such an organization is doomed to become another KGB-like organization.
How about Obama disband one of those many expensive right-wing security forces? It would save the world a few wars and economic crises too!
If Obama's first strategic decision is to INCREASE military spending, then my hope for the future will die quickly.

 

Blackwater would be a good start. But where would the Iraqi insurgents get their weapons from without them?

 

And where is that money coming from? There is nothing that Obama can do that's going to stop many companies from going under from years of complacent mismanagement, killing thousands, if not millions of jobs. If these former members of the middle class are no longer working, they aren't paying taxes. Even if they do find work, it will likely be lower paying work, which means they aren't paying as much in taxes. Add to this expenses that I don't think he can get out of (like Iraq, Afghanistan), and there's no money for the promised tax cuts. Quite simply, you can quote all the rhetoric you want, and I'll believe it when I see it actually happen.

What's worse, how many of these people that will be losing jobs have credit card debt or mortgages that are larger than they need to be? I'm guessing quite a few. How many of them will be forced to Bankrupcy? More than 8% of them. The bank crisis will likely get even worse, thus asking for more tax payer money to bail them out yet again!

I don't think they'll have a problem finding a source of weapons.

 

This time I'll let you do the research. You tell me "how many of these people will be losing jobs." And tell me how many of them have mortgages or credit card debt. You asked the question, let's see if you can find the projections. But if the research is not your thing, just make up a number and we will see how close you come in 2009. Unemployment will be very high, btw, but with Obama as president, it should start falling by 2010 (but no gaurantees here). It will take him some time to clean up the mess that GWB will be leaving behind for him.

How many millions do you project? You said "there would be no more middle class." Do you know how many millions of jobs that would be? You made a comment about "rhetoric." Seems to me your comments contain quite a bit of rhetoric. How about some details and specifics to go along with all the "rhetoric?"

 

The economy and the housing market will recover... eventually. My predicition is that it probably won't be next year though. I think 2010 is a much better projection. (Just in time for the midterm election! If the economy is good by then, the Democrats will be credited with fixing the economy.) Note, I do not think that there is any immediate action any president can do that would result in a quick fix.

The other problem is we have no idea if the bailout is a good idea or not. We have already distributed about 1/3 of the $700 billion, and the economy is still in the tank. What is unknowable is whether we would be in even worse shape if it were not for that $700 billion. There is some evidence that the companies that are getting bailed out are simply putting the money in their coffers. It was hoped that the cash infusion would get banks to start lending money again, but it appears that hasn't happened.

 

Being in the construction industry, the majority of prediction are late next year (third quarter) for recovery -- even then it will pick up slowly. The nation will need 18 million new homes in the next 9-10 years.

 

That's one of the good things about the US, I guess - barring total mess-up, you can count on a growing population, and more people => bigger market. Even illegal immigrants need to eat, drink, and have a roof above their heads

BTW, I'm hearing a lot of commentary about how Obama may switch some of the funds in the 700+ billion bailout plan for the auto industry, possibly some others. TBH I don't think it would be a bad move, and given the latest (and previous) AIG excess scandals I do think it somehow wrong that such businesses are exclusively singled out for help. Seriously, when you are getting billions in government assistance, asking for more and still spending tons of cash on luxuries for the management, it does not look well for you, the business, or Uncle Sam (who's trying to fix your mess).

 

It's all conjecture, but considering that at least one of the big three is teetering, and even with a Government bailout and a merger, that's still 10's of thousands of jobs lost in the auto plants, and 100's of thousands in parts plants. That will trickle into other areas such as luxury goods, which will also see lower sales. Starbucks has already seen store closures, and a great many companies will see increased losses, thus leading to layoffs. How far can this snowball.

And I've said it before, and I'll say it again, that you are in a minority if you don't have credit card debt. And with the over-inflation of the housing market before the crisis, how many of these people are at their limit just to cover their mortgage? I'm guessing that the bankrupcy rate will go well above the 8% that you've provided earlier. That will compound the crisis for the banks. If the banks lose more capital, and are making less interest, then how much is available to lend to businesses that would need to porrow to make payroll or to upgrade their facilities? Will that not cost the loss of more jobs?

And as for cleaning up GWB's mess, I don't think Obama can do that--period. I don't think that Obama will have troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and that issue will still be debated in 2012, 2016, and maybe even 2020. It means that Obama will have to get the international community to get off their ass and reach a solution to an ongoing problem. If they don't want to, then not even Obama can make that happen. The expensive war will continue even though the US tax base is eroding.

I again don't have much in the way of numbers, but the "Iron Law of Wages" suggests that any employed people would be reduced to labouring for just enough to cover basic needs. That would mean that the middle class, as we know it, gets the middle finger...

Basically imagine all manufacturing jobs in the country gone. Now look at the support services that are going to lose customers because people can't afford them? That's more job losses. I think that you're being optimistic as to where rock bottom is and the timeframe for recovery.

And by then , maybe someone will be able to afford to buy one...

How long before they start going home to find work?

Not enough. No amount of money can fix years of complacent mismanagement.

 

While I understand what you are saying about the auto industry, that is not exactly a news flash, at least not here. Perhaps news travels slowly in Canada? What you are trying to explain is that the industry employees 1 in 10 jobs in the US. Bush will let the auto industry fail, but not Wall Street (wonder why), but if the industry can hold on until Obama takes over, they will have some support. Since you say that you know how much the industry needs to retool its plants, I would be interested to know as well what projections you have read.

Here is the latest on the political struggle that might prove helpful for you in your quest to untangle the current economic crisis in the US regarding the auto industry (and yes the projections are there for you to read):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27718233/

 

If their home is at least as hit as the US, as it appears it would be? Very long. This crisis is not just something that hit the US; it's a global crisis and chances are the countries the immigrants are coming from (which were worse off to begin with) will be hit harder. There may actually be more migration to the US and other developed countries, not less

I personally disagree, but it does not matter anyway: the idea of bailing out troubled companies seems to be the underlying presumption of the entire rescue package. Surely you don't think the financial institutions that are now benefitting from the US government's (and taxpayers') largesse were competently managed? I wouldn't be surprised if in coming years AIG's name is as infamous as Enron's. While some government intervention might have been necessary to stabilize the market, bailing out companies who had gone through years of complacent mismanagement was and is the overall plan. Actually, given a modicum of protective measures for the economy, I wouldn't be surprised if bailing out manufacturers rather than finance companies turns out to be more effective.

 

Okay, I realize that I'm 10 days late responding to this, but honestly, the USA already has been royally f@cked over by our little friend GWB. Do you honestly think Obama can do much worse?

Let's see, we've already started a war that had no back out plan (which Obama is already working to fix). Oh, and how about, the whole letting Wall Street run rampant and do whatever and the f@ck they want? Yeah, that's working out really well for us. How many people have lost their houses? How many US banks have had to shut their doors? I recently read an account about a strawberry picker who made $14k a year who, under the unregulated Bush administration, had no problem purchasing a $700,000 home. Gee, I wonder if he defaulted on that loan yet?? How many industries are now in trouble, largely, as a result of the downright criminal behavior that became common place in the sub-prime housing market? Have you checked the unemployment rate recently? Just to put it in perspective, the only thing we can compare our current situation to is the Great Depression. Oh yeah, GWB and the Republican party have done a stellar job. Yeaaah, let's keep them in office!

I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, but I for one, am glad to see the republicans on the side lines for a change. They have done more than their share of damage. And come on, were we really expected to take Palin seriously?? Feel free to lament the loss of the McCain/Palin administration, if that's what you need to do to get through the day. For some, I'm sure it is.

 

Seems to me, that on one of these many political threads during the election, we had this mini debate about how teachers were making fun of students who were for McCain. It led to all this hand wringing by the conservatives about how our institutins were so "liberal." Yet, at the same time there was a reluctance to admit that Obama faced some of the same old "racial dislike," like the type that went on 50 years ago.

The portions I drew from were within those institutions that are supposed to be so "liberal" -- and enlightened.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27738018/

 

Man, that's the funniest thing I have read today.

:roflmao:

 

Projections deal in conjecture. I'm talking common sense. No amount of money will change the fact that the big three have fallen behind in their research of new models that people will want. Sure SUV's are nice, but they use too much fuel. The Big three are at that crucial moment where they need fuel efficient or even Hybrid models of their popular vehicles, but they have not delivered. That is why the bailout can't save the automotive sector. That's 10% of the jobs that will be lost over the next few years.

But with cheaper labour, there will be more jobs there than there will be in the US.

I believe the words I used were complacent mismanagement. Meaning that they were not competently managed, and the people doing the mismanagement were complacent and believed that nothing bad could happen no matter what they did.

Again, too little, too late. While the money to the manufacuting sector may slow the fall, it will not stop the economic correction that needs to happen. Too many outdated or fundamentally weak practices need to go out the window. The necessities of life need to come down in price to where they are affordable--specifically Housing, Utilities, food and fuel. Once this is taken care of, then you look at disposable income. And a ceiling on interest rates will also be imperative. Interest on Housing (abasic need) should be the lowest, follows by Education, business start up, vehicles--basically important items for contribution to society. The third tier should be important equipment for home or office, like Appliances, tools and computers (just the base computer). Finally the fourth tier would be for Credit cards and in store financing on luxuries.

I don't hear any of that being discussed, so I fear that Obama will just be part of the problem, not part od the solution...

You really think Obama will change that?

Watch it plummet over the next four years.

Chandos: The treatment of Obama you cite was reprehensible, but it's the issues that will sink Obama, not the racism that won't go away...

 

Yeah, actually, I do. The Bush administration worked very hard to deregulate Wall Street. Whereas the democrats are typically pretty good about putting regulation in place. With all the damage that has been done by deregulation, and all of the painful reminders of why regulation is needed, why wouldn't Obama capitalize on the opportunity to put some much needed regulation in place? And more, this was a fairly signficant component of his campaign. So, again, yeah, I really do think this will be a priority for Obama.

I'd love nothing more than to see the unemployment rate plummet over the next 4 years. I'm not exactly sure what's driving your optimism, but I hope you're right!

 

A bad choice of words. I meant the exact opposite. The Unemployment rate will rise dramatically during the economic correction that will happen. I just don't think that any bailout will solve that problem, and it will only slow the tearing down of the problems in the economy.