Obama - What I expect from him

Jan 20, 2009 

Obama's inauguration comes at a time when the world badly needs HOPE and CHANGE, and Obama appears to stand for both. What he will actually do is yet to be seen, but he surely signifies a clear break from the "business of usual" of the past 8 years -- or even the generally unremarkable legacy of the past 16 years during which America and the world changed forever by stepping into the 21st century and experiencing highs and lows of various kinds, but we did not see any bold, distinctive step emanating from the White House.

Bush presided over one of the worst national and international downfalls in living memory, though he did correctly note that since 9/11 there hasn't been a single act of terrorism on U.S. soil -- and that cannot be just a coincidence. Clinton, on the other hand, presided over one of the most glorious economic highs in recorded history, but his misuse of his august office for petty personal picadillos destroyed the sanctity of the Presidency and underscored the moral degradation that the U.S. in general has been experiencing for decades.

Obama inherits the mantle of leadership today with perhaps the worst ever "baggage" that any President has ever had handed to him. What do I expect him to do? Surely not solve everything at the swign of a magic wand. He has already earned some respect from most quarters by forming a balanced, sensible and formidable cabinet. But nothing and nobody can solve today's mammoth problems rapidly.

What I hope and expect from Obama is, first of all, LEADERSHIP -- an element that has been in short supply for decades and which is the principal shortcoming that plagues American politics today. Give is leadership that is bold, balanced and progressive. Give us leadership that acknowledges the best values of conservative thinking and yet forges a new beginning in open-mided and reformist thought. Free us substantially from politics as usual and the degenerative cronyism that Washington is known for. Do not try to please everyone but do listen to everyone with attention and humility. Give us a new era of responsible governance and accountability.  Give us not just political leadership but moral leadership as well. And above all do not forget that you are empowered by the people of this nation and in spite of being the most powerful man in the world during the duration of your administration, you remain a servant of the people.

Country First? Hmmmmmmm!

McCain says "Country First".

But his pick of Sarah Palin was surely in the best strategic interest of his sagging campaign and NOT in the best interest of the country.

The induction of Palin into the ticket certainly served to re-energize the base and proved to be a shot in the arm for the campaign. But surely McCain cannot claim that in this great wonderful country of 300 million people, the very best V.P. candidate he could find was someone who did not even have a passport until a few days ago and had never met a single world dignitary.

"Me First. Country Next." That was McCain's clear message.

I asked my Republican friends a basic question...

The question was:

"Please suspend for the time being your belief that the Democrats can do no right, and that they are big taxing, big spending socialists, with unbalanced liberal ideas and little respect for family values.

The question for you is:

Would you be pleased if the United States rose out of the present mess and once again became a highly prosperous and secure, with arts, science, music and industry flourishing, strong family values came back in vogue, and democratic/personal freedom rising to a peak, BUT -- in your lifetime -- the Republicans never ever got the White House again?"

Below is an answer I received, which I am reproducing without comment.

"Probal:

I see democrats as a weak party that attracts: losers vs.. winners, women vs...men, most of the rank and file have room temperature IQ scores. They need Government to " take care of them." They are perpetual victims. They blame events and not themselves for being underlings.

Historically the large corporations and Robber Barons in the late 19 and early 20 th Centuries, that built this country and used them as near slave labor. Theodore Roosevelt is the era we are talking about.

Democrats exist because they need to be protected from the strong: Republicans.

To get something you have to produce. Democrats get theirs from moving it from the haves to the have knots. They create nothing but dependency. Unions got power from the owners of Industry. Republicans plugged into this and didn't need organized labor to get what they needed. They depended on their skills, cunning, preparation, strength, etc.

Democrats will never attack preemptively; they wait until they are before going to war. WWII is a prime example. Where would we be if the first Gulf war went uncontested? Our economy would not exist and Sadam would have had nukes by now, and then what?

Jimmy Carter was a miserable failure and so will Obama be if he gets his chance."

Call me a "socialist" - it disturbs me not

ExxonMobil has posted the highest ever quarterly profit in the the history of Corporate America: 

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/30/news/companies/exxon_earnings/index.htm?cnn=yes

 

I, the capitalist, see nothing wrong - in these super-critical times (extraordinary circumstances) -- in imposing a Windfall Gain Tax on the oil companies to "spread the wealth around" a little bit. Windfall Gain essentially means "ensuing from events that were beyond the planning and control of the recipient". OPEC plotted to raise Oil Prices from $40 to $160. The Oil Companies made money hand over fist. I see nothing wrong in taking some of that windfall gain and using it for alternative energy projects or extend to small-businss as credit for creating more jobs.

 

If everything was hunky-dorey and prosperous -- like in the 90's -- then a Windfall Gain Tax would be out of the question. But these are extraordinarily critical times.

 

You want to call me a Socialist -- go ahead. It disturbs me not. What disturbs me much more is that the reigning capitalists have depleted my 401K by an obscene percentage while speaking the right language of capitalism.

 

I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican. I call myself a Value-driven Realist. 

 

Want to call me a Socialist? Go ahead. It disturbs me not.

Obama is a socialist with very questionable ties...!!!

Received an email today, that said:

 

Obama is a socialist with very questionable ties and philosophy, carefully orchestrated so as not to reveal himself, light in  experience, flip-flopping all over the deck, sycophant to the blacks, who wills to destroy the economy through taxation that every financial expert decries as a destructive strategy, who did not vote in many of his Senate duties, who blatantly wants to be the black Robin Hood.

 

NOBAMA NOW!

 

My response to the email:

 

Warren Buffet is without doubt one of the most respected financial experts in the country. 

 

During the second 2008 U.S. presidential debate, when asked by debate mediator Tom Brokaw, McCain mentioned Warren Buffett as a possible future Secretary of the Treasury.

 

But Buffett has formally endorsed Obama and made campaign contributions to Obama's presidential campaign.

 

Is he a deranged socialist? Why does he not decry Obama's policies as a destructive strategy? 

 

Labels be damned

War-time needs war-time decisions. And I am not referring to Iraq. I am referring to the raping of the financial system by greedy capitalists and business owners, in collusion with politicians from both sides of the aisle.  I do not have the patience for labels like "socialism" in the short term any more. 

I am a capitalist. 100% so. I do not give to beggers or to the man who stands in the corner saying "Out of work". But I give to my employees the very last cent that is in the coffers, even if it means no salary for (me) the business-owner; I give to the vendors, even if it means no salary for (me) the business-owner; I pay my bills -- I will not use a credit-negotiating company to negotiate with the creditor and pay 30 cents on the dollar just because the law provides me with a loophole for doing so. I am proudly a capitalist.

I need pragmatic decisions to lift us out of this morass. I do not want an Old Boy's Network to reign supreme in the White House. I want more accountability. I want change.

Talk about "spreading the wealth around"...

How about "spreading the poverty around"?

I am a capitalist, but I am not scared by Republican scare tactics repeating Obama's comment about "spreading the wealth around". Because what President Bush has done a good job of "spreading the poverty around" at all levels of the society. You want me to forgive him just because he used the "right language"?

I don't like distribution of wealth or DISTRIBUTION OF POVERTY.