The Obama Administration thread

[Smoking Guns]

Jarmo, you are wrong, again.  I told you we should have been there, but it was poor strategy.  We should have just sent in small teams with expert snipers and picked them away and leveled the Taliban and got out.  That was in 2001.  WE ARE NOW IN 2009!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I bet we have killed almost all the original terrorists from that era, now we are fighting new recruits.  I think after 8 years out military needs a break.  That is all.  This enemy has no name or face or anything.  The president says the same things George Bush said about our fight there (and you hate George Bush).  Its a cause worth fighting, but, at what cost?  Send in the seals, take care of business, then get out.

It's funny how you focus on Afghanistan and how it's become a mistake when the biggest mistake is in another country....

Shouldn't you be cleaning up that mess first and keep the forces where they were supposed to be int he first place?



The military needs a break? Where were you saying that when Bush wanted to invade Iraq?

I'm sure many of the men and women in the military do deserve to go home. But Afghanistan wasn't the mistake, Iraq was.

This enemy has no name or face or anything.

That's comedy.

So I guess it's better to make up an enemy (Saddam Hussein) compared to fighting a faceless one?

Although the guy was an evil dictator, he had nothing to do with the war on terror...... Unlike the Talibans.








/jarmo

Even the Soviets stopped fighting in Afghanistan because they couldn't win there.  All we are doing is making money for the defense contractors and losing American lives.  If North Korea launches a nuke and blows up someone you will find out how important Afghanistan is when we pull an all out retreat to take down North Korea.  We are stretched thin right now.  I just don't know if what we are doing is the best solutions "right now".

[Axl4Prez2004]

Jarmo, you are wrong, again.  I told you we should have been there, but it was poor strategy.  We should have just sent in small teams with expert snipers and picked them away and leveled the Taliban and got out.  That was in 2001.  WE ARE NOW IN 2009!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I bet we have killed almost all the original terrorists from that era, now we are fighting new recruits.  I think after 8 years out military needs a break.  That is all.  This enemy has no name or face or anything.  The president says the same things George Bush said about our fight there (and you hate George Bush).  Its a cause worth fighting, but, at what cost?  Send in the seals, take care of business, then get out.

It's funny how you focus on Afghanistan and how it's become a mistake when the biggest mistake is in another country....

Shouldn't you be cleaning up that mess first and keep the forces where they were supposed to be int he first place?



The military needs a break? Where were you saying that when Bush wanted to invade Iraq?

I'm sure many of the men and women in the military do deserve to go home. But Afghanistan wasn't the mistake, Iraq was.

This enemy has no name or face or anything.

That's comedy.

So I guess it's better to make up an enemy (Saddam Hussein) compared to fighting a faceless one?

Although the guy was an evil dictator, he had nothing to do with the war on terror...... Unlike the Talibans.








/jarmo

Even the Soviets stopped fighting in Afghanistan because they couldn't win there.  All we are doing is making money for the defense contractors and losing American lives.  If North Korea launches a nuke and blows up someone you will find out how important Afghanistan is when we pull an all out retreat to take down North Korea.  We are stretched thin right now.  I just don't know if what we are doing is the best solutions "right now".

S Guns, actually, the use of a N Korean nuke would make our response straight-forward...Pyong-Yang would no longer exist.  'nuff said.  It gets more hairy with a conventional invasion of the South by N Korea...then, yes, we'd really be feeling the stretch.

btw, I wish it was as easy as, "send in the SEALS, snipers, Rangers, etc." but it's a lot more complicated than that.  Bush let the opportunity of a lifetime slip by not rallying the world behind a united force bent on destroying the Taliban and Al Qaeda. (while, might I add, allowing the N Koreans to become nuclear in the 1st place)
Pres. Obama's between a rock and a hard place.  Pulling out of that region would be a huge mistake.  Pakistan is a nuclear power that we can't let be de-stabilized. 
btw, Jarmo's correct with his points.  Give him some props S Guns!   

[jarmo]

Even the Soviets stopped fighting in Afghanistan because they couldn't win there. 

You're saying the western world is in Afghanistan for the same exact reasons the Soviet Union was?

But you guys spent decades fighting the communists.... In every possible way.

Now you're fighting for the same thing the Soviets fought for in the same country?

All we are doing is making money for the defense contractors and losing American lives. 

And I'll repeat myself. Unlike Iraq, this wasn't a made up conflict.

You should focus on the real issue. The war which was a lie. Focus on that. Focus on all the lives lost and money spent on that.

If North Korea launches a nuke and blows up someone you will find out how important Afghanistan is when we pull an all out retreat to take down North Korea.  We are stretched thin right now.  I just don't know if what we are doing is the best solutions "right now".

Umm, yeah.

You just keep going on and on about Afghanistan being the big problem.

While ignoring the one war you were tricked into by your former president. The one war that had no support from the rest of the world while the war in Afghanistan was supported by most of the allies.


To show you how international the operation in Afghanistan is, you can check out the Wikipedia page that lists all countries taking part.

In comparison, international troops have been withdrawing from Iraq for years.

To me it seems like the rest of the world think of Iraq as "done" and Afghanistan as the one where troops are needed.





/jarmo

[Bodhi]

 I hate to say I told you so...no wait, I love it.


2 Obama officials: No guarantee taxes won't go up

2 Obama administration officials can't guarantee middle-class Americans won't see tax hike

By Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer
On Sunday August 2, 2009, 9:24 pm EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's treasury secretary said Sunday he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul.

As the White House sought to balance campaign rhetoric with governing, officials appeared willing to extend unemployment benefits. With former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan saying he is "pretty sure we've already seen the bottom" of the recession, Obama aides sought to defend the economic stimulus and calm a jittery public.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers both sidestepped questions on Obama's intentions about taxes. Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to lower the federal deficit; Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere.

"There is a lot that can happen over time," Summers said, adding that the administration believes "it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what."

During his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." But the simple reality remains that his ambitious overhaul of how Americans receive health care -- promised without increasing the federal deficit -- must be paid for.

"If we want an economy that's going to grow in the future, people have to understand we have to bring those deficits down. And it's going to be difficult, hard for us to do. And the path to that is through health care reform," Geithner said. "We're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take."

Selling that proposal, however, has proved tricky.

On Friday, the government released a report that suggested the worst recession in the United States since World War II appears on the verge of ending. The economy dipped only slightly in the second quarter of this year -- falling at a 1 percent annual pace, better than expected.

The president cautioned against instant turnaround, though.

"Well, as I've said, I think we maybe are beginning to see the end of the recession, but it's still going to be some time before we are seeing companies hiring again. That's usually the last thing that happens," Obama said in an interview with Univision that aired on Sunday.

"So I think we are still going to have a tough remainder of the year -- probably until next year -- but, you know, at least what we are seeing -- we've pulled back from the possibility of a depression. That's not the danger."

Many analysts think the economy is starting to grow again in the current quarter, setting up a long-awaited recovery.

"Most private forecasters -- and let's use their judgment -- suggest you're going to see unemployment start to come down maybe beginning in the second half of next year," Geithner said, adding those same economists predict positive growth during the second half of this year.

At the same time, Geithner and other administration officials are contemplating how to ask Congress to extend -- again -- unemployment benefits for the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in recent months. The proposal drew measured support from Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., as long as the benefits are drawn from the already approved economic stimulus package.

"We need to take care of those who are unemployed, but we also need to make sure they get jobs," he said.

Those jobs, though, are still elusive. Greenspan said the economy is slowly coming back.

"Collapse, I think, is now off the table. We were teetering for a while," he said.

Greenspan said he doesn't think the Federal Reserve should be considering raising interest rates to ward off inflation, although he added that the Fed will have to rein in credit and raise rates at some point.

Obama's opponent for the presidency, Sen. John McCain, questioned whether the administration's actions will prove beneficial for the country.

"I think it's pretty clear, if you pump trillions of dollars into the economy, you will see some recovery," the Arizona Republican said while giving Obama credit for the improvement. "But the long-term consequences, I think, are going to be, unfortunately, devastating unless we do something about it."

Geithner and Greenspan appeared on ABC's "This Week." Summers appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" and CBS's "Face the Nation." DeMint was interviewed on "Fox News Sunday." McCain spoke with CNN's "State of the Union."

[jarmo]

I hate to say I told you so...no wait, I love it. :smoking

Then you'll love this: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gpKlcN2oB5og6-h34ilV1flq338wD99RI2GO2

WASHINGTON ? The White House spokesman says President Barack Obama is committed to not raising taxes on U.S. families earning less than $250,000.

Robert Gibbs restated that assurance Monday after two top White House officials suggested over the weekend that they could not rule out tax increases as the administration struggles to cut the budget deficit in half in the coming years.

In appearances on TV network news shows Sunday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to lower the federal deficit. National Economic Council Director Larry Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere.

Gibbs said the president "has made a very clear commitment to not raise taxes on the middle class."





/jarmo

[Bodhi]

I hate to say I told you so...no wait, I love it. :smoking

Then you'll love this: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gpKlcN2oB5og6-h34ilV1flq338wD99RI2GO2

WASHINGTON ? The White House spokesman says President Barack Obama is committed to not raising taxes on U.S. families earning less than $250,000.

Robert Gibbs restated that assurance Monday after two top White House officials suggested over the weekend that they could not rule out tax increases as the administration struggles to cut the budget deficit in half in the coming years.

In appearances on TV network news shows Sunday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to lower the federal deficit. National Economic Council Director Larry Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere.

Gibbs said the president "has made a very clear commitment to not raise taxes on the middle class."





/jarmo

Yes an AP story, the most accurate of sources.  Well it sure took them long enough to issue that response.   I for one hope you are right and Obama keeps his campaign promise, because that would be my taxes going up. Democrats have a history of raising our taxes, so forgive me if I am skeptical.   Jarmo I have to ask, why are you so passionate about Obama?  You don't live in America and most of his policies at least domestic ones will not affect you in any way.  Yet you seem to be defending him more than a lot of other members on this board who have pretty much disappeared since the election.  I think its cool that you have such an interest in American politics,but am very curious  as to why.  Oh and this may be a spoiler, but most of our government, Democrats AND Republicans, are incompetent fools.

[jarmo]

What happens in the USA does affect the rest of us.

Remember how this recession started?


Because I believe people aren't giving him a fair chance.

After eight years of Bush, it took weeks for some to start saying Obama is doing a terrible job.


No matter how pissed off you republicans are, the world outside of your country gets along better with the USA now than a year ago...




/jarmo

[sandman]

No matter how pissed off you republicans are, the world outside of your country gets along better with the USA now than a year ago...

/jarmo

in what ways? what exactly do you mean by "gets along better"?

(i'm not disagreeing, just curious.)

obama will not raise taxes on the middle class (at least not directly). IF he did he would be finished, and the power would shift back to the republicans alot sooner than it should.

[jarmo]

In my opinion, it seems like a bunch of countries are more open to the idea of working with the USA than during the Bush era.




/jarmo

[babydolls]

No matter how pissed off you republicans are, the world outside of your country gets along better with the USA now than a year ago...
/jarmo

in what ways? what exactly do you mean by "gets along better"?

I think so too - I know one major UK politician (family friend) who has told me personally that the Obama effect has been quite staggering in how America is now perceived overseas following the Bush era.  In that the feeling of change is something that feels more attainable and that America made a good choice in electing him. I travelled to Italy and France recently for work and in three of the offices I was at, there were "yes we can" posters up for inspiration - when I asked if they were Obama "fans", they said that they were happy to like America again and thought Obama had given America back credibility.  he does need some more time to get things underway and lets face it - there's a maze of stuff to delve into - he didnt inherit the same economy as Bush did.
 We in the Uk are envious that at least you have candidate debates during your election process - something our dickhead of a PM would never agree to, as he is incompetant and relying on the votes of the uninformed.

[pilferk]

Yes an AP story, the most accurate of sources.  Well it sure took them long enough to issue that response. 

I heard the daily press briefing yesterday.  He said it.  It took them..what..a whopping 36 hours to address it....a good 24 of which was on a Sunday/overnight (thus, no daily press briefing).  They addressed it pretty much the first chance they had, in terms of proper setting and mouthpiece.

  Yet you seem to be defending him more than a lot of other members on this board who have pretty much disappeared since the election. 

Hey, I resemble that remark.

I don't know about everyone else, but SLC got banned, and I got busy.    I pop in and lurk now and again, but don't have the time to sit and construct well thought out arguments in prose.  Someday (maybe) things will slow down again and I'll hop back into the deep end.

[pilferk]

Do we not pay a grocery tax already?

Maybe the govt should make fruits and veggies more affordable?

In case the rich population on this forum haven't noticed, eating healthy is expensive as fuck.

It won't be long before they start locking people up for being fat.

I don't pay a "grocery tax", or even state sales tax on my grocery purchases..  Food is tax exempt in CT, provided it meets certain nutritional requirments.  Soda, candy...that stuff they still tax.

[pilferk]

Taxes are there because the government needs money. If taxation (??) is directed so that something good also comes out of it, such as taxing unhealthy food more, or higher taxes for cars that pollute more, it's not the worst of things in my eyes...

Eating unhealthy food and driving a hummer aren't illegal, but since they do end up costing the environment and other taxpayers in bad air quality and more health care expenses, I think it's only fair that people are encouraged to act towards the common good through taxes...

It's not like this is a new concept.  The government has been doing it with booze and cigarettes forever.

[D]

Can we please wave the stupid 2 term rule and put Bill Clinton in the White House till death?

US can't get shit done

Bill goes to N Korea and within a day the two journalists are released.

[freedom78]

Can we please wave the stupid 2 term rule and put Bill Clinton in the White House till death?

US can't get shit done

Bill goes to N Korea and within a day the two journalists are released.

Are you honestly under the impression that this was Bill hopping a plane and saving the day, rather than months of behind the scenes negotiation, of which this is the endgame?

[Bodhi]

Can we please wave the stupid 2 term rule and put Bill Clinton in the White House till death?

US can't get shit done

Bill goes to N Korea and within a day the two journalists are released.

Are you honestly under the impression that this was Bill hopping a plane and saving the day, rather than months of behind the scenes negotiation, of which this is the endgame?

Slick Willy baby!! making magic happen.

in all seriousness though, very good news to hear of their release.

[D]

Can we please wave the stupid 2 term rule and put Bill Clinton in the White House till death?

US can't get shit done

Bill goes to N Korea and within a day the two journalists are released.

Are you honestly under the impression that this was Bill hopping a plane and saving the day, rather than months of behind the scenes negotiation, of which this is the endgame?

what?

N Korea sure have complied with the US so far haven't they? How are those missile tests going?

They insulted Hillary

So yeah, I think Slick Willy single handedly got the job done.

I believe we would be in amazing shape still had he not left the White House.

If things are going great? Why change them?

Just a very weird system we have where someone can only serve 2 terms.

SO this guy is amazing, has a surplus, great economy etc etc

so lets just kick that guy out cause he has been there 8 years.

just seems illogical.

[Axl4Prez2004]

SNL could do a kick-ass sketch about this whole ordeal.  I can see Kim Jong-Il and Bill Clinton sitting back in their chairs starting off negotiations a bit on the tense side...  Daryl Hamond does a kick-ass Bill impression.  Cue the Bill nod with gentle bite of his lip, southern drawl, Bill asking Kim how long he had to put up with Hillary's bitching.  By the end, Kim and Bill have something in common (having to put up with Hillary) and Bill gets to take the 2 young ladies home with him. 

Don't flame me, it's just some creative writing 101 

 

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Isn't Kim Jong-Il going to die soon?

[Smoking Guns]

I am kind of with D on Bill.  I would rather have him than Obama no doubt and I am pretty sure Clinton wouldn't do half this crazy shit Obama is doing.  Even if he is using a lot of Clinton retreads.  They didn't send Hilary, they sent Bill.  That says a lot to me right there.  What the fuck is in Kenya?  They knew Bill commanded the respect it took to get the deal done. 

As far as the tax thing goes, every head economist says taxes will have to be raised, its mathematically impossible for them not to be.  So Obama will say no as long as he can and will lower the new number to $150,000 that he won't go below or something.  Atleast Geitner (a fucking weasel) and Summers are being honest.  Why can't Barack?  And this rumor has been out there for a few weeks, so there is something to it.