0
riddler

What promises will Obama keep/break?

Recommended Posts

Yes, I voted for him. No, I never thought he will do even half the things he said he will. I want him to end the war in Iraq, I think he will. I want a good fix for the economy - I think he'll listen to his advisers and give us some kind of relief.

I do not think he will:

1. Give 95% of Americans a tax break. First of all, this requires an act of Congress, not just the will of the President. Second, I doubt there has ever been a tax break in history that applied to 95% of Americans. Last, the country has 9 trillion in debt - there's no way we can generate less income and still meet our obligations.

2. Find and kill OBL. Bush hasn't done it, and I don't think Obama will. Anyway, we need an enemy, right? Terrorism isn't as scary if it doesn't have a face. Of course, we should make every effort. I just doubt it will happen - more likely, OBL will die of old age before he's caught.

3. Rid the world of nuclear weapons. I think it can and should be done. I don't think Obama will do it - he's mired in the political system of a major party, and the country is always at war. That's not going to change as long as Democrats and Republicans control every aspect of the government.

4. Make college affordable. College education will only get more expensive, never cheaper.

5. Eliminate oil imports from the middle east and Venezuela. He gave himself 10 years, but at most he can only be in office 8 years at most, so there's no accountability. Meanwhile, the middle east has too much power over the government of this country. Won't happen.

6. Make health insurance affordable and accessible. Right - with the billions of dollars that hospitals and drug companies make every month? No one, no one, will be able to change health care in this country. It will only get worse, with insurance companies dictating coverage, and drug companies and hospitals dictating price.

One of my major issues with Obama is that he made way too many promises, and he won't be able to keep most of them. What promises do you think he will keep, and which ones will he break?
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The #1 thing Obama will do is the thing he's already done in the first few hours;

Obama has shown that the US is not in the hands of two families, it is not a dual monarchy and it is not under the control of the military/industrial shadow.

Obama has shown the world that a country can change hands from one very unpopular world leader to a completely different person and party without spilling blood.

Obama has renewed faith in America around the world.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7606100.stm

Good lord read THIS one!
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/04-11-2008/106660-changebetter-0

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/11/20081155293464248.html
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So by your own words we have already seen the #1 thing Obama will do ? It is to show the world the US is not in the hands of 2 families ? I don't think he showed this, maybe the voters did though.

If this is really the #1 thing as you put it, then maybe you have very low hope for him. I personally won't judge what he does until around 6 months in office, but I expect much more from a man who promises change. I'll be glad to see Bush go but I worry that we'll see change that a majority won't like.

As for Obama renewing faith from the rest of the world. I'm happy for them, but I question as to weather they have out best interests in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



1. Give 95% of Americans a tax break... You and Kallend are both right; both sides were going to jack taxes, it was just a question of how the $$$ would be spent.


3. Rid the world of nuclear weapons. I think it can and should be done... I might disagree here. It's Pandora's box. Now that it's open, it'll never be closed. It's just too powerful.

4. Make college affordable. ...people need to grasp the viability of the community college system and realize that the four-year traditional college education isn't wanted or needed by everyone. Trade schools are another option. I'm making more one year out of a community college associate's degree than I did one year out of my bachelor's degree program.

5. Eliminate oil imports from the middle east and Venezuela. ...there will be no change until there is an outside force that brings the change.

6. Make health insurance affordable and accessible. Right - with the billions of dollars that hospitals and drug companies make every month? No one, no one, will be able to change health care in this country. ...I work in health care. My wife is a pharmaceutical drug rep. And you're right.

Candidates always make promises they don't keep. Can we implement the ever-popular two-year opt-out clause?

Elvisio "only time will tell" Rodriguez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Regardless of who won, taxes will have to go up. That is reality. We can't continue to run $500B deficits.



And spending will increase, too. Goodness knows, you just can't do anything with $3 trillion per year anymore. Anything less than $5 trillion is just going to make things worse.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Regardless of who won, taxes will have to go up. That is reality. We can't continue to run $500B deficits.



And spending will increase, too. Goodness knows, you just can't do anything with $3 trillion per year anymore. Anything less than $5 trillion is just going to make things worse.



Apparently you didn't notice - the GOP lost this time.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think that you can throw out the window anything he said about iraq. decisions about what to do with iraq on january 20 cannot be made without having the latest info and intel about what's going on there. those desicions just cannot be made at this time.

as far as income tax breaks, even if he achieves it, it won't matter because, as he has said, energy prices will go up under his plan. if he keeps his promises there, he won't get a second term.

he won't get rid of all nukes either. someone will sit him down somewhere and explain just how fast the us will fall without having those weapons. if iran or any other rouge america hating nation gets nukes, they will never get rid of them. they are a nessecary evil and when the responsibility is on his shoulders, he will probably see that.

i don't think he can make college more affordable without watering down the quality of the education. we are not entitled to a college education.

they all make promises they can never keep. that may be good, not all of their promises are good things.


"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

he won't get rid of all nukes either.



Read the thread on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty carefully.

The Obama is for the control of nuclear material.
The Dem party sponsored and had several Dem co-sponsors for a bill to give nuclear material to India.

India is one of four non-signers to the NNPT.
India has also tested nuclear weapons (a violation of the agreement).

When did this all occur? Why...just last month.
During the election... while they were promising...?

Oh, and yes, Obama did vote for it.
How do I know this? Read his voting record.

Want to know the way to stop nukes? Your party doesn't sign a bill that gives an exemption to a treaty with 189 signing countries. Otherwise, what was the f-in point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love how he got all the poor non voters to vote thinking he is going to take from the rich and give to the poor------------I sure fucking hope not I have put myself out there opening a business and making a decent living for some one to take my hard earned money and give it to poor people who don't want to make anything of their lives or even work for that matter

Luckily the rich are in power and won't let that happen -- they aren't going to give up their money just like I won't give up mine because someone thinks it will be a good idea ----- but I think his tactic worked to get more votes

The next 4 years will be interesting -- I personally am not looking forward to it
Remember this is America where we can choose our own destiny -- we shouldn't be told how we can live or how we earn money ---- notice to the EARN not wait for hand outs


The pimp hand is powdered up ... say something stupid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Obama has shown that the US ...is not under the control of the military/industrial shadow.



I think you're jumping the gun a bit here quade. I like your optimism, but Obama will only make right on your statement by ending the Iraq war (as promised) and by putting and end to no-bid contracts for defense contractors that have been in bed with the current administration for some time.

We ordinary citizens aren't privy to what goes on behind the scenes and we don't yet know whether the military-industrial influence is bigger than the presidency, be it a republican or democratic presidency.

I hope you will be proven correct.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I love how he got all the poor non voters to vote thinking he is going to take from the rich and give to the poor------------I sure fucking hope not I have put myself out there opening a business and making a decent living for some one to take my hard earned money and give it to poor people who don't want to make anything of their lives or even work for that matter

Luckily the rich are in power and won't let that happen -- they aren't going to give up their money just like I won't give up mine because someone thinks it will be a good idea ----- but I think his tactic worked to get more votes

The next 4 years will be interesting -- I personally am not looking forward to it
Remember this is America where we can choose our own destiny -- we shouldn't be told how we can live or how we earn money ---- notice to the EARN not wait for hand outs



Please tell us what % of the federal budget ( or what dollar amount) goes to lazy worthless people who sit around waiting for a hand out. Real numbers, please, not just a rant.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can only say which Promises I Hope he Keeps and which I HOPE he breaks.

1) I Hope he KEEPS his promise to let us access up to 15% of our Retirement accounts over the next couple years with out penalty. The Money would still be taxed but there would be no additional penalty. This is a good ideas on several levels. One it will help people pay off debt (Hopefully saving some foreclosures), Stimulate Spending (Saving and possibly even helping to create some new Jobs) and increase Tax Revenues. I think this is the best Idea I have heard from the Obama camp and hope he makes it happen.

2) I hope he BREAKS his promise to eliminate the secret Ballot for Unionization. Unions have a long history of using Fear and Intimidation to get their way. The secret Ballot is the backbone of any democratic process, Moving to Open votes on unionization is a horrible idea.

3) I hope he Breaks most of healthcare promises. Forcing employers to carry more of the Insurance Burden simply causes employers to eliminate employees and cut salaries. Also employer provided healthcare does NOT give us any choices. We take what they give us and have no say. I would much rather see the Govt work on ways to force Health insurance companies get more competitive with each other. Putting the power for each of us to CHOOSE our health care plan back in our hands would do that.

4) I hope he finds a way for us to start generating more energy. The Electric Car appears to be coming. How will we charge it? We need more Power Plants, Nuclear would be the most efficient way to go at the moment but takes 10 to 15 years to get one built. Clear the red tape as much as possible and lets get a few more started. Provides Highly paid Jobs for thousands, Stimulates the economy and provides a quick return on the investment once it gets started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

he won't get rid of all nukes either.



Read the thread on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty carefully.

The Obama is for the control of nuclear material.
The Dem party sponsored and had several Dem co-sponsors for a bill to give nuclear material to India.



I'm going to respond under the assumption that you've only recently heard about the India-US civilian nuclear agreement.

The India-US nuclear deal is a product of the Deptment of State initative in line with changing foreign policy objectives of current President's Initiative. The deal is considered to be part of President Bush's foreign policy legacy. In July 2005, President Bush announced the proposed agreement. The announcement followed just six weeks of very quiet negotiations with India during which Congress was not consulted.

The prcess of the agreements -- cuz there are multiple parts -- has been occuring over the last 3 years. The State Department acts as agent for the US; if you have issue with the deal that should be your primary target.

The US-Indian civil nuclear cooperation agreement represents a transformation in American nuclear nonproliferation policy. This transformation is a result of a new US strategic vision from the Executive's office chosen to reflect a rapidly changing global security environment. It's also tied to oil, mangos, and new allies ('friends' in India parlance) in geopolitically important areas of the world.

The key concern over the deal is to balance nonproliferation goals with other foreign policy objectives. There's also an American business and agricultural export interests piece to it: "atoms for mangos." I'm not being facetious about the mangos.

Congress had to pass legislation to change the 1954 Atomic Energy Act to exempt India from US laws that prohibit providing nuclear technology to countries that have not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. The deal also required approval from the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group and the IAEA.

A non-state party (India) testing nuclear weapons is not a violation of a treaty. They can't violate a treaty to which they are not a party. (This is one reason why Isreal has not signed the NPT, the BWC, or the CWC; they're not in violation.)

Not everyone in the administration or Congress was amenable to the deal; internal tensions within the State Department led to bureau reorganization in 2005, which accelerated the pace of policy implementation considerably. Basically, all those who objected were 're-org'd'.

The agreement also ties back to Iran, and the US wanting India to align with us over Iran. The US wants leverage against a major Iran-India natural gas pipeline. The US is imposed to the pipeline because it is thought to undermine sanctions against Iran. India needs more energy. The US deal is to facilitate energy through a means that doesn't support iran. In late 2004 or early 2005, foreign policy experts within the Bush administration expressed concerns over India’s relations with Iran.

If you want to know more about Sen Obama's view and accomplishments w/r/t nuclear issues, I would point you to the Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation (via Sen Lugar's (R-IN) website or Sen Obama's website), which was signed into law by President Bush in January 2008.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

making a decent living for some one to take my hard earned money and give it to poor people who don't want to make anything of their lives or even work for that matter



First, you have no choice. The govt gets your taxes and spends them in whatever fashion it wishes. The best part, it won't be spent on Americans in poverty.

The budget is for $845 Billion and it is being given to the UN.

Second, it is currently being done in the most idiotic fashion.

Companies trade money for resources in foreign countries.
The despots of those countries spend the money on weapons, but not food/medicine/shelter for their own people.
Then, the US provides the impoverished countries relief.

Quote

S.2433
Global Poverty Act of 2007
A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty



Sponsor? O
Co-sponsor? Hillary

Introduced? Dec 2007.
Discussed during the campaign... nope.
Mentioned on the website... nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

making a decent living for some one to take my hard earned money and give it to poor people who don't want to make anything of their lives or even work for that matter



First, you have no choice. The govt gets your taxes and spends them in whatever fashion it wishes. The best part, it won't be spent on Americans in poverty.

The budget is for $845 Billion and it is being given to the UN.

Second, it is currently being done in the most idiotic fashion.

Companies trade money for resources in foreign countries.
The despots of those countries spend the money on weapons, but not food/medicine/shelter for their own people.
Then, the US provides the impoverished countries relief.

Quote

S.2433
Global Poverty Act of 2007
A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty



Sponsor? O
Co-sponsor? Hillary

Introduced? Dec 2007.
Discussed during the campaign... nope.
Mentioned on the website... nope.



Seems like the CBO doesn't agree with your cost estimate:

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
COST ESTIMATE

M arch 28, 2008



S. 2433
Global Poverty Act of 2007

As ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
on February 13, 2008



S. 2433 would require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to
reduce global poverty. The strategy should include, among other things, more effective
forms of development assistance, coordination of efforts with other countries and
international organizations, and continuation of existing initiatives to reduce poverty and
disease in developing countries. The bill also would require the State Department to prepare
several reports describing the strategy, its implementation, and the progress made on
achieving the objectives for reducing global poverty.

Based on information from the State Department, CBO estimates that implementing S. 2433
would cost less than $1 million per year
, assuming the availability of appropriated funds.
Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or receipts.


S. 2433 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Michelle S. Patterson. This estimate was approved
by Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

First, you have no choice. The govt gets your taxes and spends them in whatever fashion it wishes.



You have no idea -- I have always claimed all income with the government / IRS ---- but I could so easily take checks to the banks they are written off of or give a customer a price break for cash and only claim enough to keep the red flags down.

So I do have a choice!!!

You working for the man don't have a choice -- I am the man and I do

And Osama was talking about raising taxes to give to the poor from the rich


The pimp hand is powdered up ... say something stupid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



First, you have no choice. The govt gets your taxes and spends them in whatever fashion it wishes. The best part, it won't be spent on Americans in poverty.

The budget is for $845 Billion and it is being given to the UN.

Second, it is currently being done in the most idiotic fashion.

Companies trade money for resources in foreign countries.
The despots of those countries spend the money on weapons, but not food/medicine/shelter for their own people.
Then, the US provides the impoverished countries relief.

Quote

S.2433
Global Poverty Act of 2007
A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty



Sponsor? O
Co-sponsor? Hillary

Introduced? Dec 2007.
Discussed during the campaign... nope.
Mentioned on the website... nope.



The "Global Poverty Act of 2007,” was originally written in the House.

I'm not sure where the assertions you make originate.

I can ‘guestimate’ from where the “$845B” figure was generated … it’s a red herring (at a most generous characterization).

Please go look at the actual text of the bipartisan bill. There are sections on “Policy,” “Strategy,” “Definitions,” “Findings” & “Required Reports.” There’s nothing on funds.

It is not an appropriations bill. In order to appropriate money, an appropriations bill is needed.

I don’t know how to write it diplomatically and not be explicitly clear. What you siggested can be called “spin,” intentionally misleading, creative interpretation; in the end, it's just incorrect.

There are 30 bi-partisan co-sponsors to the Senate version and 84 to the House version.

At best, it's an effort to direct State Dept to coordinate (across the interagency) & strategize how to leverage it current programs that may relate (or be 'rationalizable' as relating) to poverty reduction. One could characterize it, at worse, as an unfunded mandate (altho' the only real deliverable is a report to Congress).

Summary of the bill: “Global Poverty Act of 2007 - Directs the President, through the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.”

The bill’s language direct the US to develop a strategy to support “Continued investment in existing United States initiatives [emphasis - nerdgirl] related to international poverty reduction, such as the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act” and to submit a report to Congress NLT 1 year after Act becomes law on the strategy and the effectiveness of the programs listed above toward reducing poverty.

There does not appear to be a Presidential Budget Request (PBR) or a Congressional Addition (i.e., an “earmark”) appropriation connected to it. The FY09 PBR has already submitted to Congress; some agencies have approved budgets. Some will be on continueing resolutions (CRs).

Additionally, the full text of the bill also cites:

“The [White House’s –nerdgirl] 2002National Security Strategy of the United States notes: `[A] world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 per day, is neither just nor stable. Including all of the world's poor in an expanding circle of development and opportunity is a moral imperative and one of the top priorities of United States international policy.'.”
&
“The [White House’s –nerdgirl] 2006 National Security Strategy of the United States notes: `America's national interests and moral values drive us in the same direction: to assist the world's poor citizens and least developed nations and help integrate them into the global economy.'.”
&
“The bipartisan Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States [aka ‘the 9-11 Commission report’ – nerdgirl] recommends: `A comprehensive United States strategy to counter terrorism should include economic policies that encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and enhance prospects for their children.'.”

This is also thematically reflected in vision (if not the actual mission) of DoD’s AFRICOM.

This bipartisan House & Senate legislation appears to be fully in line with the highest level documents reflecting President Bush’s goals and strategies, as well as being in line with his Millenium Challenge Corporation. From the official White House release: “President Bush called for ‘a new compact for global development, defined by new accountability for both rich and poor nations alike. Greater contributions from developed nations must be linked to greater responsibility from developing nations.’ The President pledged that the United States would lead by example and increase its core development assistance by 50 percent over the next three years, resulting in an annual increase of $5 billion by FY 2006.”

It was a potential win-win for President Bush w/r/t establishing a legacy & for Congress for supporting his anti-poverty goals.

Now the next administration may chose to incorporate such in a furture budget request, but it's not there now.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Congress had to pass legislation to change the 1954 Atomic Energy Act to exempt India from US laws that prohibit providing nuclear technology to countries that have not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty



The treaty was signed to prevent exactly this type of thing.
An exemption is a bad idea. The exemption adds to proliferation, the stated problem.

It should be pointed out that if someone has non-proliferation as a stated goal, then, as a member of congress, they can vote against it. State one goal, vote another.

The other "non-proliferation" action mentioned is actually supervision of the "build down" that has been in process for years. So, showing up for a fact-finding tour of work-in-progress is not an achievement.

So, the only aspect of "proliferation" that it is fighting is the possible acquisition of these weapons by unfriendly powers in the ME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0