Obama won't be able to achieve much at all

[a_unique_person]

Even when he probably gets elected, there's not much he can change that is upsetting the American Public.

* Health. Can't dare touch that.
* Energy. Can't do much about that either.
* Food Prices. Nup.
* Middle East. Not a lot.
* Special Interest Groups and Lobbies. Don't dare touch that either.
* Working for a wage below the poverty line. Only a communist would even dare think about that.

 

[BeAChooser]

Even when he probably gets elected, there's not much he can change

I disagree. He could make many changes for the worse.

 

[Puppycow]

Do-nothing fatalism. Here, dude, smoke some of this stuff and be happy!

I am convinced that generations from now, people will point to this time as the time when we started to heal the planet and all sorts of other really groovy stuff. Peace, man.

 

[WildCat]

Even when he probably gets elected, there's not much he can change that is upsetting the American Public.

Don't you mean "a minority of the American public"? Because it's easy to get things done most people want done.

Just sayin'.

 

[President Bush]

Because it's easy to get things done most people want done.

Shut up! I thought you were a loyal Republican.

 

[Tricky]

Even when he probably gets elected, there's not much he can change that is upsetting the American Public.

* Health. Can't dare touch that.

Can too. He can do things like encourage (and not veto) reversal of the horrible stem-cell research policy of Bushco. He can promote environmental causes. As far as a universal health coverage goes, it is not a short-term possibility, but we can aim in the right direction. The wheels turn slowly, but a fractional change in angle can lead to big directional differences down the road.

* Energy. Can't do much about that either.

Can too. He can take a more progressive position on global warming, making it more reasonable for Americans to conserve. I'm not saying he will (since Big Business has lots of money) but he can. Of course, Jimmy Carter tried to get Americans to be altruistic and conserve just because it was the right thing to do. We see where that got him. I don't know if the situation has changed enough to make it any different for Obama.

* Special Interest Groups and Lobbies. Don't dare touch that either.

Could. Probably won't. This is mostly in the hands of Congress, but if he came out strong for campaign finance reform, he could lead the country in that direction. Oddly, McCain has a better history in this respect, though he isn't exactly talking that up right now.

* Working for a wage below the poverty line. Only a communist would even dare think about that.

That will be a toughie. Of course, in the US, even our poverty is a giant step above the poverty of most countries. Reversing the trend (which has been ongoing since Reagan and continuing all through Clinton et. al.) of widening the gap between rich and poor is a doable thing. It would require some brave legislators and a popular groundswell of support. But like in the French Revolution, there will be a time when the poor people get tired of watching the rich eat cake, and no "commie" scare tactics or blaming illegal immigrants will work to blunt their outrage.

 

[Jimbo07]

I disagree. He could make many changes for the worse.

Hard to see how it can get much worse...

(Actually, I can imagine a few scenarios, but they involve a splash of CT, or a touch of sci-fi, none of which have Obama at the helm...)

 

[IchabodPlain]

Can too. He can take a more progressive position on global warming, making it more reasonable for Americans to conserve. I'm not saying he will (since Big Business has lots of money) but he can. Of course, Jimmy Carter tried to get Americans to be altruistic and conserve just because it was the right thing to do. We see where that got him. I don't know if the situation has changed enough to make it any different for Obama.

I think promoting conservation in 2008 makes much more sense than it did in 1978. With more efficient products on the market, people don't have to necessarily "cut back" to conserve, so it's altruistic, painless, and economically viable. I think offering a tax deduction on Energy Star labeled products would be a good idea, but essentially it costs nothing to encourage people to use more efficient light bulbs, heating and cooling systems, water heaters, tv(s), etc, and you can use the angle that it actually saves the consumer money in the long-term.

I also think he should take a stand on nuclear power. It's relatively safe and clean, and we can reprocess depleted uranium.

 

[corplinx]

Even when he probably gets elected, there's not much he can change that is upsetting the American Public.

* Health. Can't dare touch that.
* Energy. Can't do much about that either.
* Food Prices. Nup.
* Middle East. Not a lot.
* Special Interest Groups and Lobbies. Don't dare touch that either.
* Working for a wage below the poverty line. Only a communist would even dare think about that.

He can sign the bills congress gives him on the domestic issues.

Minimum wage increases are fairly low drama except in skeptical circles where people actually understand it. Mind you, they just signed another increase this past year after the states had already started breaking ranks and making their own minimum wages. California might not need the same minimum wage as Idaho after all. Despite this progress on the issue, the democrats raised the wage federally again.

On the middle east, american presidents can only hold hands and try to get sides to meet together of course.

 

[Daylight]

Sure he would.

1) He could tell congress that the justice department will no longer stand in the way of investigations of crimes of the Bush Administration.

2) He can NOT use the abuse of Executive Privilege to protect the crimes of the Bush Administration.

Just to name a few fun ones.

3) But the best is he'll pick 1-6 Supreme Court Justices

 

[Whiplash]

Do-nothing fatalism. Here, dude, smoke some of this stuff and be happy!

I am convinced that generations from now, people will point to this time as the time when we started to heal the planet and all sorts of other really groovy stuff. Peace, man.

LOL, seriously.. that's just priceless..

 

[Darth Rotor]

On the middle east, american presidents can only hold hands and try to get sides to meet together of course.

Negative. American presidents have shown that killing and bombing is an option. It induces change. Maybe not all the change one wants, but its an option.

American presidents can also reduce the peace bribe/grant to Israel, say from 3 billion to 1 billion. Or to zero.

That's a unilateral decision any US president, and Congress, can make with any justification desired. My favorite is as penalty for the multiple cases of tech/license transfer in violation of US Israeli agreements.

DR

 

[a_unique_person]

Negative. American presidents have shown that killing and bombing is an option. It induces change. Maybe not all the change one wants, but its an option.

American presidents can also reduce the peace bribe/grant to Israel, say from 3 billion to 1 billion. Or to zero.

There's about as much chance of that happening as there is of the subsidies to tobacco or sugar being cut. A few billion in bribes to Israel is cheap if it is actually used to encourage a deal being made.

 

[a_unique_person]

Can too. He can do things like encourage (and not veto) reversal of the horrible stem-cell research policy of Bushco. He can promote environmental causes. As far as a universal health coverage goes, it is not a short-term possibility, but we can aim in the right direction. The wheels turn slowly, but a fractional change in angle can lead to big directional differences down the road.


Can too. He can take a more progressive position on global warming, making it more reasonable for Americans to conserve. I'm not saying he will (since Big Business has lots of money) but he can. Of course, Jimmy Carter tried to get Americans to be altruistic and conserve just because it was the right thing to do. We see where that got him. I don't know if the situation has changed enough to make it any different for Obama.


Could. Probably won't. This is mostly in the hands of Congress, but if he came out strong for campaign finance reform, he could lead the country in that direction. Oddly, McCain has a better history in this respect, though he isn't exactly talking that up right now.


That will be a toughie. Of course, in the US, even our poverty is a giant step above the poverty of most countries. Reversing the trend (which has been ongoing since Reagan and continuing all through Clinton et. al.) of widening the gap between rich and poor is a doable thing. It would require some brave legislators and a popular groundswell of support. But like in the French Revolution, there will be a time when the poor people get tired of watching the rich eat cake, and no "commie" scare tactics or blaming illegal immigrants will work to blunt their outrage.

"can too " but. You seem to be largely agreeing with me.

 

[kallsop]

If Obama has a filibuster proof Senate and a sizable House majority, he most certainly could do a lot.

I do agree that he can't do much on many of the hot button issues. The hard reality is that a premature retreat from Iraq will be the dumbest decision ever and his minders will make him see the light. Social Security, Medicare - he will raise taxes on the evil rich but that merely delays the Ponzi collapse and passes the problem along to the next administration(s). Energy - he won't improve the supply of energy by even one BTU. Stock up on warm sweaters for the winter. An oil company "windfall" tax? That's just the kind of incentive that will have the oil companies rushing to invest (sarcasm). Middle East - he has no choice but to kiss the same butts that President Bush has been locking on to. Food prices - will he scrap the ethanol boondoggle? Nope. Health care - HillaryCare got crushed and ObamaCare will do no better. Education - zilch.

So what can he do? Higher taxes, not to raise revenue but to punish the evil achievers and make it "fair". Lots of talk with dictators.

Now that's change that we believe, like, and stuff.

 

[Darth Rotor]

There's about as much chance of that happening as there is of the subsidies to tobacco or sugar being cut. A few billion in bribes to Israel is cheap if it is actually used to encourage a deal being made.

Let's take a look at the record: about 3 billion a year, minimum, since 1979. Just under 90 billion. License and tech transfer? Betrayed. Road map to peace? Road closed.

OK, Gaza evacuated thanks to Sharon being a realist.

Sorry, I don't find that a good value for the money.

 

[a_unique_person]

Let's take a look at the record: about 3 billion a year, minimum, since 1979. Just under 90 billion. License and tech transfer? Betrayed. Road map to peace? Road closed.

OK, Gaza evacuated thanks to Sharon being a realist.

Sorry, I don't find that a good value for the money.

I wasn't referring to it being used to keep the status quo, but to changing it.

 

[dudalb]

Can too. He can take a more progressive position on global warming, making it more reasonable for Americans to conserve. I'm not saying he will (since Big Business has lots of money) but he can. Of course, Jimmy Carter tried to get Americans to be altruistic and conserve just because it was the right thing to do. We see where that got him. I don't know if the situation has changed enough to make it any different for Obama.

If he tries to force conservation down the American People's throats by legislation, he will not be relected and the Dems will hurt in congress.
He can use the White House as a "Bully Pulpit" on the issue, but anything else would be political suicide. Just try to tell people that High Gas Prices are good for you, and see what happens.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I wasn't referring to it being used to keep the status quo, but to changing it.

I see, the better idea is to throw good money after bad.

Australia is welcomed to take over the three billion a year payments to both Israel and Egypt.

Enjoy the protection racket.

 

[Winston]

Seems to me that the issue is not if Obama or McCain win, but who controls congress next time will be a better indicator of the amount of change in store.