Our time has come!

Unless Obama is able to make Congress accelerate their work, the economy should hopefully be improving by the time any of Obama's major economic policies take effect, likely in 2010 or later.

Several economists note that his plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the "wealthy" will happen naturally anyway, so there is likely no need to rush them along when other legislative issues are important. I expect another type of stimulus check to be issued as a temporary patch.

Obama will have a 100 day honeymoon period. The big question will be what he chooses to tackle - social security, health care, the tax code, the economy, social issues, the war in Iraq, or ? After the honeymoon's over you have to bet that it will be tougher to get big policies implemented. The laundry list is just too big for it to get done in a single term, yet he has to do something to placate the diverse voter base otherwise risk defeat in the midterms.

Obama has the opportunity to transcend the traditional Democrat "eyes bigger than their stomach" approach to introducing sweeping changes when they take power. If, of course, he can keep Pelosi and Reid in check.

 

The big mystery. If you look at the definition of narcissistic personality disorder you'll see that it applies to many if not most politicians, including Obama. He has successfully done whatever it takes to address his needs to date. Time will tell if he truly wants to lead the country far Left.

 

Thanks for the comments.

The picture was something I found on the net. It was a photo from a Mayday calibration. I thought it interesting enough to post as my signature.

I would say the real problem with US Healthcare is that too often money is spent on catastrophic care and not preventative. Americans actually have poor diets and bad lifestyles. This is why obesity, diabetes (adult onset and not type one which is hereditary) cancer and vascular disease is so common.

Its also interesting to note that US life expectancy is lower than most of the industrialized world. And infant mortality is also very high compared to many other nations such as Japan, the UK or Germany.

 

there is no such thing as a perfect nation. I do think that we should strive for improvement whenever possible however.

 

My assignment to you is to see Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911.

 

Big "If". Pelosi is power run amok but we'll see.

 

Point taken. Lets all lighten up.

 

Why?? Do you really think anything Moore creates has value?

 

ok, how's this: "Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job"

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/black_man_given_nations

 

My assignment to you is to see Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911.


I appreciate the gesture, but I do not need to take "assignments" from you. I am well aware of current political propaganda, and Moore certainly forwarded the far left's most radical ideas in his "documentary" on the Bush administration. Yes, there were/are problems in the Bush presidency, but Moore hardly counts as a historian to recount them; he is a propagandist with an axe to grind, at least in this case. Let's be fair and unbiased here.

For you to state that Fox News helped Bush "steal" the election is downright loony. Because of the Electoral College system that we had for...well...forever, Bush won the election. It's the way we run U.S. Presidential elections. President Hayes was the beneficiary of the first Electoral College win/popular vote loss. We go by rules and laws in this nation--or at least we profess that--so the election had little if anything to do with Fox News or any views it espoused...if, indeed, it did lean one direction or another.

Before giving any assignments to anyone else, perhaps you should take your own advice and complete a few assignments of your own--starting with a good lesson in American politics and government and the laws that dictate American Presidential politics and elections.

basrsu

 

I'll go ahead and take a 0 on your "assignment"

My assignment to you is to see Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911.


I appreciate the gesture, but I do not need to take "assignments" from you. I am well aware of current political propaganda, and Moore certainly forwarded the far left's most radical ideas in his "documentary" on the Bush administration. Yes, there were/are problems in the Bush presidency, but Moore hardly counts as a historian to recount them; he is a propagandist with an axe to grind, at least in this case. Let's be fair and unbiased here.

For you to state that Fox News helped Bush "steal" the election is downright loony. Because of the Electoral College system that we had for...well...forever, Bush won the election. It's the way we run U.S. Presidential elections. President Hayes was the beneficiary of the first Electoral College win/popular vote loss. We go by rules and laws in this nation--or at least we profess that--so the election had little if anything to do with Fox News or any views it espoused...if, indeed, it did lean one direction or another.

Before giving any assignments to anyone else, perhaps you should take your own advice and complete a few assignments of your own--starting with a good lesson in American politics and government and the laws that dictate American Presidential politics and elections.

basrsu

 

The Election of 1876

For further information, just as a point of interest:

ELECTION OF 1876

Popular Vote

Tilden (Democrat) 4,288,546
Hayes (Republican) 4,034,311

Electoral Vote Count

Tilden (Democrat) 184
Hayes (Republican) 185*

*185 electoral votes were needed to win.

Wow...was Fox News around back then to help Hayes "steal" the election from Tilden?

basrsu

 

My dear Basrsu,

Umm...the Compromise of 1877 helped to determine that election. I would not call it a steal, but it was a hoodwink. A candidate needed more than 185 to win. You must win a majority of the electoral college votes. Hayes did not have it. Thereby it went to the House of Representatives to which a panel of Democrats, Republicans made up the panel. The Republican candidate won because the Democrats asked for three things.

Corrupt Bargain # 2


1). Install a Southerner as the Post Master General
2). Allocate monies and build a railroad from Texas to California
3). Take the remaining troops out South (South Carolina and Louisiana) and put an end to Reconstruction.
4). Legislation to industrialize the South

Guess what. Only one and three were done. The troops were taken out of the South and Reconstruction was over. We then had to have another Reconstruction (1950's and 1960's) to finish what was started (As per Eric Foner). President Hayes was referred to as his Fraudulance. "Many of Tilden's supporters believed that he had been cheated out of victory. Hayes was variously dubbed "Rutherfraud," "His Fraudulency," and "His Accidency." On March 3, the House of Representatives went so far as to pass a resolution declaring its opinion that Tilden had been "duly elected President of the United States." Nevertheless, Hayes was peacefully sworn in as President on March 5. Many historians have complained that, after entering office, Hayes rewarded those who helped him win the election dispute with federal offices. Most notably, one the lawyers who argued Hayes' case before the Electoral Commission, William M. Evarts, was appointed Secretary of State. Another, Stanley Matthews, was nominated to the Supreme Court".



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877

Corrupt Bargain # 1

I think the worst case of complete stealing was the election of 1824. This was an out and out case of highway robbery. Andrew Jackson won both the electoral college vote and the popular vote. Unfortunately, you have to have a majority in the electoral college vote (these days it is 270), or it is thrown to the House. Well, John Quincy Adams won because of Henry Clay ( and Henry Clay's digust of Andrew Jackson)...who was later promised a Secretary of State job..and boy did General Jackson come back with a vengence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrupt_Bargain


Just my take.

 

Yes, I understood all that, Tireman 44444.

The point I was making, in sarcasm, was that the Bush presidency was not "stolen" by anyone. Laws are in place by which we abide...re-read my post, please.

Plus, I was responding to a poster's previous instruction to view Michael Moore's incredibly deep foray into the "truths" of the Bush presidency. Certainly, as a fellow historian, you do not believe that Michael Moore is an unbiased chronicler of information. Do you? Also, please tell me, as a fellow historian, that you do not rely on Wikipedia for all your information.

basrsu

 

I use Wikipedia as a guidepost,not a source of reference. I tell my students that they need to use the printed materials at the bottom of the page of Wikipedia as a the guide not to quote from the edited portions. I was in a rush when I was posting. If you would like me to post printed materials on the two elections (Carol Berkin, Eric Foner and C.Van Woodward, I will be happy to do so) Second, I was giving information. I was not trying to get political. I never said that the election in 2000 was stolen. I think there were irregularities. I am suprised that the Democratic Party did not fight harder ( as per Dr HW Brands lecture at Texas A&M during his 20th Century Diplomacy course, Fall 2004). Third, I do not agree with Michael Moore on many things. I think that President Bush handled himself quite well during 9/11. At times like those, I do not want my president to show panic. I want him to be steady ( Lincoln and FDR come to mind). I do, however, think that the Electoral College is outdated. If you remember, it was devised by Elbridge Gerry ( during the Constitutional Convention) who felt that ordinary citizens were not smart enough to make the right choice. Again, I posted this as information. I do not want to debate politics.

 

I do not want to debate politics.

Agreed...nor do I.

Take care and live well.

basrsu

 

Thanks you too. Your MA is in History?

 

Bill Dayson and guitarmark2000 have summed up my thoughts quite well, so no need to rehash it, but I do want to make one observation;

The same people who are now calling for peace, unity, and respect for the Presidency are the same people who said the most hateful, vicious, and slanderous things imaginable about George W. Bush for the last 8 years.

Why the sudden change of heart?

 

Unfortunately I fear that little has changed if you use an example like Peggy Joseph:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6ikOxi9yYk

 

Because they...never mind. I stay away from the politicial discussions and I got sucked in. Back to my PhD / MBA studies.