America is reveling in the aftermath of one of the most important elections in American history. Barack Obama is now a mere two months away from removing George Dubya Bush from the white house. America chose the candidate who was nearly unanimously preferred outside of their borders (according The Economist's Global Electoral College Obama was chosen by every country except Iraq, Cuba, Algeria, and The Democratic Republic of the Congo). Irregardless (taking every opportunity to use Bushisms while it is still fashionable) of whether Obama is everything people have made him to be, simply being popular the world over will help repair America's image. If he promotes world unity, environmental protection and completes his plan of near universal health care it would be enough to make him a very successful President. Unfortunately with two wars, a financial crisis, and a budget so stretched that higher taxes or cuts will be a necessity in the short term will make even those three initiatives difficult.
Barack has begun the difficult task of picking his new cabinet to be fully prepared for the inauguration. His first announcement was regarding Chief of Staff where he chose an Illinois local and veteran of the Clinton administration, Rep. Rahm Emanuel. I hope Warren Buffet makes his way into the cabinet as the appointment of a respected figure like Buffet can increase investor confidence immediately. Also having a very wealthy person in charge of the treasury will make the tax hike on the rich easier to enact. Buffet is now, after all, the richest man in America and one of the strongest supporters of heavy taxes on the wealthy.
Around the country we have seen some interesting local election results. It appears as though popular comedian Al Franken lost his chance to be a senator by the slim margin of 700 votes. This has been contested and may result in Minnesota having its first recount in 40 years.
Elizabeth Dole lost her incumbency in North Carolina. Not surprising when it was revealed she spent all of 13 days in North Carolina during the year of 2006. Bob Dole's daughter was distraught on television.
Even with this win and a few other pickups, the Democrats managed to fall short of the filibuster proof 60 seat majority in the senate. With only 55 seats, perhaps 56 if Mr. Franken wins on the recount, the Democrats will have a hard time pushing through any legislation without enduring time wasting bipartisan debates.
Surprisingly California voted to end gay marriage. With absentee ballots not yet counted it is possible this will change but as it stands California has reversed a right bestowed on its gay community. With the liberal hotbed of California saying no to gay marriage it looks as though nationwide bans may be seen in the future.
Already the speculation of Palin 2012 has begun. I really hope this pans out as it would be a huge boost to Obama, giving him an even larger landslide for a second term and likely pushing the senate majority over the 60 seat threshold.
Palin 2012?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Democrats don't need 60 seats to have control of senate. It's mostly accepted now that 51 seats can rule the senate especially in this election where the Republicans have been left in shambles and many of which are leaving and jumping on the democrat bandwagon.
I also wouldn't be surprised how much power Palin could have in future elections. A lot of people liked her here, unfortunately and surprisingly, it was mostly McCain and the economic collapse that scared voters away of republican, not Palin.
I know Buffet has been advising Obama throughout his campaign, and would not be surprised if some serious consideration was put into placing him as treasury. America needs a down to earth wealthy man to straiten their attitudes of "my money is my money". It is hilarious to me when I hear people speak of "America as one nation" and then go on to say, when asked by me, that the money I make is mine and not to be shared in the least.
It's an interesting country with attitudes that need to change. It's the current attitude (greed, selfishness, you name it) that have the rest of the world scoffing at them and you are very right in saying that if Obama does fail in bringing some of his promises to fruition at least electing an African-American has brought some unity.
Yeah the redistribution of wealth is so communistic. If they nationalized their health care system it would save people money in the long run and make the system more efficient.
The democrats are up to 57 senators now with three outstanding (including Al Franken in Minnesota and Ted Stevens in Alaska so they could end up getting close to 60.
although you can do almost anything with 51 seats, you can do everything and much faster with 60 seats so it would be an amazing threshold to achieve.
A lot of people actually liked Palin eh? I thought it was only the evangelicals that liked her. I thought the business republicans thought she was a twit?
Most of the wealthy republicans I suppose were not big fans of Palin, but its the central, southern states, lower income earners that love her, and of course mothers.
Definitely 60 seats is a guarantee but with 57 had, it's pretty much a guarantee anyway.
I totally agree, I try to explain this to people here about the amount of money it saves in the long run having nationalized health care. They just don't think that way. Even my economics professor won't attempt to think that line of thought. He is a hard fast republican though. So that says a lot right there. If anything is outside of Republican mindset it's either a lie, won't work, or the work of the devil.
The red want their whole pie because they feel what they earn is what they should keep and everyone has equal opportunity to achieve that goal.They still view America as a land of opportunity. Unfortunately, they are blind to the number of people living below the poverty line, the collapsing economy, the poor health of America, the polarity and prejudice that is still present today. America is not a land of opportunity where everyone gets that equal chance at success.
A nice veil has been placed over peoples eyes about the state of this country, feigning greatness, and is being held there with great effort by republicans and other right-winged believers to maintain their power and wealth.
The U.S. will not last much longer if they don't actually live up to their name -- "United". Economics shows us that sharing wealth benefits all. It's for the same reason we trade with other countries.
Ha sorry for he long winded comments. If you can call them comments. I get so worked up with this stuff because I'm incessantly bombarded with it living here.
The greed of otherwise good people standing in the way of progress. I realized after two elections, in Canada and America with all the information I had access to being by choice without being subjected to the 'attack ads' and doublespeak, that my opinions on the candidates is likely drastically different than what it would have been if I was living in Canada.
Aside from Palin there was really no person in either the Canadian or the American election that I actually disliked. Of course I disagreed with many things, was disappointed in McCain's policy change, etc, etc. But without the party bickering found on all the 30 second adverts my opinions are likely drastically different than what they would have been.
The evangelicals scare me.
you missed the most important ballot measure in the entire country.. massachussets decriminalized marijuana.
you mean Michigan?
Although I am shocked that the American people have been duped overwhelmingly by little more than a charismatic speaker promising the ever elusive hopes and dreams of the everyman what I am ultimately concerned with is Supreme Court seats that will eventually come up for appointment.
The fact that our government now has a Democratic majority will not have anywhere near the power that the Supreme Court could have with a liberal majority. The ease of finally pushing through gay rights, usually incorrectly referred to as equality, and universal health care will be incredibly quick and probably quiet comparatively speaking.
Universal health care will destroy our economy as the burden on the government to pay for all the freeloaders will multiply exponentially thus causing the need for higher taxes to pay for this hand out become a necessity. The desire of the socialist regime will start to become a reality or the whole house of cards will fall.
If Obama is able to appoint and get approval (should be easy with a liberal congress) enough Supreme Court justices to tip the scales to the left I am afraid that this country will be in for a long 10-20 years before people finally come to their senses and realize that morality is the only thing that will save this country!!
If you pay higher taxes as an offset to health insurance aren't you doing better anyways?
What is wrong with gay rights? Marriage is a secular institution too and far out dates the Catholic Church.
I agree that morality will help to save America. But the morality I speak of is equality and compassion.
Hayshaw said:
"Universal health care will destroy our economy as the burden on the government to pay for all the freeloaders will multiply exponentially thus causing the need for higher taxes to pay for this hand out become a necessity. The desire of the socialist regime will start to become a reality or the whole house of cards will fall."
You think that Universal health care will destroy the U.S. economy just as Universal health care has destroyed the Canadian economy? Or for that matter, the economy of England, France, Germany, Japan or Australia?
Hmm, I wonder what makes the U.S. economy so fragile that it can't support Universal health care, when every other country in the world is completely capable of doing this?
I am just so sick of hearing the LIES LIES LIES about Universal health care that are propagated and promulgated throughout the United States.
The reasons that these people have for not adopting Universal health care as every other industrialized nation has are specious at best, and a complete and utter fiction at their worst.
For example. The often repeated LIE that people in Canada have to wait longer for health care treatment than people in the United States do is ridiculous.
I might as well be telling people in Canada that there is a huge chocolate fountain in the middle of every downtown of every city in Minnesota, then expecting people to believe it.
Do any of these people have any proof at all? A visit to any Doctor, Hospital, or medical facility in Canada would easily disprove this as false.
Also, the idea that someone that needs medical attention and cannot afford to pay for it is some kind of a 'freeloader' if the government pays for it is repulsive.
The school system, Fire department, Police department, highway workers, and public works are all paid for with public money. Does this mean that someone who calls the fire department because their house is on fire is some kind of 'freeloader'?
What about all those 'freeloaders' in the United States military, spending huge amounts of tax money to support an unwinnable war? Enough government money has been spent on the Iraq war to pay for the medical needs of every man, woman and child in the United States for the next hundred years, including illegal immigrants.
As for the so called 'socialist regime', this is the only thing that keeps the Capitalist system (or should I call it 'Crapitalist' system) from collapsing like a house of cards.
Capitalism failed during the great depression of the 1930's and it's failing again right now. The only thing that saved Capitalism during the great depression was FDR's 'New Deal' injection of government cash into infrastructure. It's going to require a similar 'new deal' to keep the economy from collapsing again.
Thank you James. Having lived in Canada for most of my life I have to agree with you about the health care system being good. I have dealt with long lines at the emergency room (because of a system called triage) which probably means you didn't need to be there. Likewise being seriously injured before I know that I saw a doctor within minutes of limping into the waiting room.
Similar can be true about going to the Doctor. If you say it is a regular check up or you are returning to make sure you are healed they may give you an appointment a few days later to keep room in the schedule for people who may need to see the doctor in a more timely manner.
I would like to see health care expanded to include outpatient medication and dentistry.
This would really help make Canada and America more business friendly. How? by reducing the burden of insurance on corporations (most in Canada still offer eye, dental, drug insurance packages).
I also agree that people have a duty to help the lowest members of their society and universal insurance is a fine way to start.
I doubt Buffet would take a cabinet post. He has so many investments he would have to try to distance himself from it would be a disaster for him and cost a bundle (and that's bundle worth billions)
Generally wealthy politicians put their finances in trust. This separation allows them to remain impartial about the decisions affecting the financial markets. Mr. Buffet could even prematurely hand over the bulk of his wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as a way to remove the bias.
I didn't vote for Obama. I didn't think he was the best person for the job. In fact much of what he said and his inexperience scares me. However after the election I thought he could do a good job if he brought good people into his cabinet. So far I am disappointed with his choices. Even though we'll just have to wait and see how things turn out. As for the thin budget he is inheriting, he won't be helping that. He has already said that he will try to issue yet another multi-billion dollar bailout (which I don't see helping).
As for Palin in 2012. That scares me. If it does end up being Obama vs. Palin, I honestly don't know what I'll do. I might consider moving to Canada though.
With all that is going on in the county and world today life is interesting. We'll just have to see where we end up. It will be a rough ride.
A couple of things here...
1) "Universal health care" is a misnomer. We are not talking about health care. We are talking about health insurance. BIG difference.
1a) As a guy who works at a homeless health clinic, I can tell you that about 50-60% of the people who come in are looking for free health care; aka "freeloaders." While I don't mind being compassionate (and I am compassionate; that is NOT a trait that is the exclusive property of the left), those that are in for free care generally are less invested in treatment, they tend to take more entitled attitudes and they are ruder to my office staff than those who actually pony up the very small fee ($2).
1b) One thing we need to remember about money is that it is an exchange for work- and that is ALL it is. Now, if someone is down on their luck, working their butt off, but can not get ahead in life (aka "the working poor"), then by all means, let's help him/her out. That person is definitely NOT a freeloader. On the other hand, if someone is not working who is otherwise perfectly abled, but they expect to simply sit back and collect the dole (for whatever reason), tell me: how in the world are they contributing to society?? They are not. THIS is the difference b/w our military, school, fire, police, etc. and those who call on them. They work, as do almost 93% of the people who are able in this country. Definitely not freeloading.
1c) I got to travel to the UK and met up with a friend who is a nurse over there. She showed me a hospital there (exterior)... holy cow. Our hospitals look like 5 star hotels compared to that. Think of the asylum-type buildings of the 50's... that's the quality that I saw. She confirmed that the attitude of much of the staff, as well as patient treatment, was in keeping with the image. She also pointed her finger at the National Health Service as the cause. Sure, if we adopt a national health insurance plan, we'd serve more people... but we better not call it "care."
1d) Final point here: the government is one of the biggest wasters of money in this country. One person already mentioned the war, but that is the tip of the very large iceberg. Are we REALLY going to hand over MORE sectors to them to mismanage?? Seriously...
2) I'm not entirely sure that we've spent more in Iraq than we would on the health care needs of every man, woman and child here in the States. We HAVE spent more on foreign aid, though, than on the war in Iraq... consistently. We have also passed a ridiculous "bailout" bill that outspent the Iraq war.
3) The New Deal was very instrumental in helping alleviate the Depression... so was WWII. Something people forget about capitalism is that it periodically crashes (say, every 80-100 years). That is not a failure. What contributes to failure, though, are these band-aid fixes that members of BOTH political parties have used since the inception of the New Deal. The New Deal programs were doomed from the start... they were never long term fixes. Take social security; members from the left AND the right both say that it's going to run out, and soon. Are we just going to come up with another 60 year band-aid to make the system keep going?
4) Obama had better deal with these expectations people have of him. He is not superhuman (though some do worship him). He also made a bunch of promises during the campaign that he now has to dial down or put off indefinitely. Nothing new... politics as usual, so I don't fault him for it. However, he did make these prior to getting the high-level security briefings that he now gets. In short, he didn't have all the info.
5) I don't like all the Clinton admin. people in the upcoming cabinet. We already had 8 years of them. Wasn't ALL bad, but for a guy who hammers change during his campaign... hmm....
6) Let's call the war in Iraq unwinnable when we define what "winning" is. Blow up the bad guys without ANY collateral damage and a stirling silver reputation? Yep, that's impossible. However, the word I get from troops over there is that there is a LOT of good that is happening over there. Why in the world is this not reported?? Are certain people in North America invested in the US losing our reputation, if not this conflict??? I think so...
7) Finally, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Will people treat Obama with the same criticism as they do Bush? Will they make fun of his "uhs" and "ums" when he's off script as much as they do the bushisms ("irregardless" is a good one, by the way. That, and "nuke-ular") :)? I'm afraid people on both sides of the aisle are making decisions that are biased, emotional and prejudged, and then justifying their positions.
US Mark, you wrote a great deal and so I will try to address all of it. First off it is poignant. I will give you that.
Freeloaders are an inevitable side effect of any incentive scheme. Usually they are considered when the incentives are devised. In Freakonomics, there is the example of a man who would sell bagels on an honour basis to businesses in Washington. Deliver bagels to the staff rooms with a box to collect the fee. He would average a roughly 90% payment rate. So of course he would charge $1 for the bagel instead of $0.90.
As I am sure you have seen, a large portion of homeless people are mentally ill or substance abusers. Both are probably curable with proper care. Medication and counseling are both needed to address such issues. Even in universal health care countries, like Canada or the UK, these people often resist the help. Would it not compound if that help was not available to those who cannot afford it but do seek it?
I have a real problem with freeloaders. I know I am guilty of it sometimes (I manage to wash all the dishes I use right after dinner when I live alone but they may sit in a shared house) but I generally don't like my own actions when I do it. I also know that it is easier and sometimes I feel my time is more valuable than the good feeling that arises from doing your share. Usually in the work sphere I am the person caring for the freeloaders in the office or school or wherever I am working. Why? I guess monetary incentives work best on me. I guess I am saying we all freeload sometimes, some people more often than others, some people in a more visible way, but doesn't compassion urge to help those who deserve and do not deserve alike? Scarcity may dictate who should be at the front of the line but I do not think anybody should be barred from such things as important as health care or retirement.
I think that a few of Obama's picks from the Clinton campaign where decent, some were a little bipartisan. I am also glad he kept a few of the Bush era folks on staff. I would like to see some more new faces but I think, at least at the advisory (read: intangible power level) he has done so quite well.
Obama has a huge cult of personality and that will help him do what is possible but also make it so living up to anyone's expectation is on the border of impossible (unless he is, in fact superhuman).
He will be mocked. Do you think Bush really got it any worse than say glory-hole Bill? Look at the old daily show clips from the Clinton era or old SNL episodes from any presidential reign since it came into being. You do not need to worry about that.
My guess? It will start off with him as the chain smoker.
The bail out, a war, the new plan, are all essentially the same in one respect. They are designed to increase spending through government intervention.
Also money is a means to trade goods and services without resorting to bartering which creates barriers to trade that slow down the flow of said goods and services.
Post a Comment