SlowwHand Unplugged, About "The Election"

[Lancer]

Originally posted by LotC


Nah, they'll be too busy working for the Israeli lobby to give the Chinese any time.

I think the Chinese pay alot more these days, but you would have to ask the Clintons.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
As a for instance, if he could (does) put in universal health care, at all, but especially in his first term, I'll kiss your ass and give you 20 minutes to draw a crowd.

I think he'll put it out there. Whether we get it or not, and whether it's truly universal, will be up to Congress, not him. But I do think he'll submit a proposal to Congress, and he'll do it in his first term.

But when he does, I think I'll skip the asskissing, if it's all the same to you.

@ Lancer - your memory is better than mine; you're right. But it's still specific (maybe ebven more specific), which was my point.

[GePap]

I don't think there will be fundamental change after Obama gets elected - he will still have to deal with a Congress stuck in infighting, because while the Republicans will lose seats, they will retain enough Senators to gum up the works, and the President can only propose, not pass, legislation.

I never bought the idea of great change because the fact is the US is a democracy, and as sick of the current situation as clear majorities are, Americans have absorbed the idea over the last decades that grand plans aren't the way to do things - that the "little guy" should do it, that taxes should remain small, blah, blah, blah. Without real support for aggressive government action, even on something so basic as fixing up and improving our decrepid infrastructure, there isn't going to be radical change.

All that said, no way in hell I would ever even consider voting for John McCain.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think what Sloww was getting at, is what GePap was referring to, a fundamental change. Raising taxes on the wealthy isn't exactly a fundamental change.

That being said, I think universal health care is a pretty sizable change.. but then Clinton was for that as well.

[GePap]

I don't expect real changes in foreign policy either, an area where President's do have significant control.

The idea that we could be out of Iraq in 18 months is a bit silly- there is a lot of simple inertia that would keep our occupation ongoing, including just the physical apsects of moving all the troops and equipment. What kind of fundamental change would happen in Iran policy? Real change would require the US to take steps to lessen the attractiveness of going nuclear for the Iranian regime - which would mean either recognizing the regime, opening up relations, and giving them security guarantees (something no President would be able to get through Congress) or going to war with them.... Or Russia. This whole "lets back Georgia" business is in my view moronic. Sorry, but I don't think Georgian territorial integrity is worth a single US life or a single US taxpayer penny, but that can't be said because of the whole business of territorial integrity, and challenging that openly invites radical rethinking about way too many international problems. Personally I think that type of rethinking is sorely needed, but no one in the international community is willing to exmaine the validity of the Westphalia system.

As for Afghanistan, a lot more NATO forces can tap down the violence, but I doubt that will "win" the war there, and no, going into nuclear armed Pakistan to get Osama is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think what Sloww was getting at, is what GePap was referring to, a fundamental change. Raising taxes on the wealthy isn't exactly a fundamental change.

That being said, I think universal health care is a pretty sizable change.. but then Clinton was for that as well.

Actually, I think what Obama's promising -- though you won't hear him or his supporters say it -- is not change, but change back. With the exception of support for gay rights, his platform is one with which Truman or Eisenhower would have been very comfortable (for example, Truman was the first prez to champion universal health care, and the top marginal tax rate during the Eisenhower administration was, iirc, 88%). That our country could be economically prudent, internationally responsible, use military force with circumspection, and nurture a middle class and those with asperation to it -- none of this is new. If Obama has to sell it as new in order to drive the GOP from power, so be it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So, he's a reactionary?

[SlowwHand]

No, he's an outright liar, if he says anything at all.
What I'm hearing from Rufus is that he's taking credit for a profound and revolutionary idea, that various presidents have had for decades.
He says he's going to do it in his first term; when the fact is, he won't be doing it at all. Congress would, and not in his first term.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
No, he's an outright liar, if he says anything at all.
What I'm hearing from Rufus is that he's taking credit for a profound and revolutionary idea, that various presidents have had for decades.
He says he's going to do it in his first term; when the fact is, he won't be doing it at all. Congress would, and not in his first term.

And John McCain claimed he would balance the budget in his first term, which if he actually believes is possible, means the man is mentally unhinged.

[SlowwHand]

He wouldn't do it at all, either. Clinton didn't do it. He just happened to be in office when the effects Reagan put in motion finally hit.

[DaShi]

Just keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile Bush continued Reagan's policies and destroyed any progress they had supposedly made.

[Theben]

Well as one of the Keating 5, I'm certain McCain has a plan to 'fix' the subprime crisis...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
He wouldn't do it at all, either. Clinton didn't do it. He just happened to be in office when the effects Reagan put in motion finally hit.

You must mean by raising taxes and reversing other mistakes that he made in his first term.

[Lancer]

As long as they try to both implement universal health care and keep the insurance cos that sell health insurance happy, they will fail. Also the lawyers will take a big hit because the ambulance chasers that are like a leach on the current system will be out of business. How will they handle malpractice?

[SlowwHand]

Doctors will be thrilled. What about universal legal care?