posted November 05, 2008 12:28 PM              

Nonetheless, I do think that Obama is aware of what is to come, but I do not think he is ready for the massive wave he's created to turn against him. If you don't think so, history shows, it always does. The pendulum is going swing, and for Barack Obama's sake, I hope it doesn't hit him in the face, but it probably will. The good news for Repubicans is that Obama will be a terribly constrained president, so a lot of his initiatives will not see the light of day. People don't realize this, but Barack Obama is going to have the same problem G.W.B. had, he will do the weasel dance.

The fact is, once a president enters office, the very first initiation are the security briefings, and afterward you'll notice that all of their promises from the campaign trail go out the window. Peace? Yeah right. I laugh at people who think Barack Obama is going to bring peace. How unbelievably ignorant can they be? I'm sure he has the intention of making a change, but once he receives all that top secret information, you know, the kind of information that would make someone wet their pants, everything he said about peace and changing the world will fall by the wayside. It always does!

Rest assured, however, there will be a 6-12 month jubilation period for Obama. He will be treated with love and adoration. He will have nice approval ratings for the first two years or so. Unfortunately for him, this love and adoration won't last, because America is fickle, and they will turn against him just like waves do, and he'll be faced with making some very unpopular decisions.

posted November 05, 2008 01:24 PM            

Yes he is and so are we. It`s going to be a long rough road to recovery in all aspects.

Buckle your seatbelts and hang on

juni

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted November 06, 2008 12:25 AM            

I dunno', StarLover, I do think GWB ended up doing a weasel dance, particularly the last couple of years, but I don't believe Obama will have the same situation as an excuse. Democrats have overwhelming control, atm. If he can't pass his high falutin' plans through them it can't really be blamed on partisan issues, can it? If he ends up a lame duck, well, who are he and his supporters going to blame? All the other Dems?

It's more like a very large chess game.

How many months will he be allowed to govern? Anyone tossing 42 around just, you know, for the sake of argument? All the peoples of the Earth already support him, didn't you know? There should be nothing he can't accomplish. No excuses. Show me the Change!

posted November 06, 2008 12:36 AM            

Are our troops home yet?

posted November 06, 2008 01:42 PM            

quote:

---

Democrats have overwhelming control, atm. If he can't pass his high falutin' plans through them it can't really be blamed on partisan issues, can it? If he ends up a lame duck, well, who are he and his supporters going to blame? All the other Dems?

---

Who last held the Presidency and both Houses of Congress? Oh yeah: Bush. Who actually had mixed results in accomplishing his promises? Bush. We do have some frame of reference for what we ought to expect.

Every President abandons some, if not a lot, of his campaign promises, and few start in this kind of economic position.

quote:

---

Are our troops home yet?

---

Is Mission Accomplished yet? How long ago did Bush declare that?

posted November 06, 2008 11:44 PM            

I have a tough time dealing with what I see as someone being over-reactive.

And I'm not making excuses for him. Every President in history has been naive to exactly how much he can accomplish, or alternatively has overpromised knowing full well that things are bound to fall by the wayside. That's just reality, and it doesn't matter which party the President is from. How much change did G.W. Bush make to Social Security in 8 years? It was talked about in both elections, and nothing ever came of it. Where's Bill Clinton's healthcare?

quote:

---

Change, it must be remembered, was the watchword of the Clinton campaign. His promise, explicit and implicit, was to present Americans with something dramatically different from, and better than, the twelve years of Reagan/Bush plutocracy. He would address human needs, reverse economic decline, and restore hope and dignity to a demoralized America. That's the prospect that got Clinton elected. It's the prospect that is fading fast.

"Bill Clinton is preparing to walk away from some of his campaign promises," The Wall Street Journal reported early in January, noting that the incoming Administration "faces a much bigger budget deficit" than he had anticipated. "Simply put," The Journal added, "Mr. Clinton cannot keep all his campaign pledges, which call for halving the deficit and increasing Federal spending and cutting taxes on the middle class.... Even if the deficit outlook hadn't changed, Mr. Clinton would have had a tough time sticking to the plan laid out last summer in the campaign manifesto, |Putting People First,' because some of the estimates were exaggerated."

Precisely the same message has been emanating from Clinton's transition team. As one astute editorial cartoonist put it, the famous campaign-headquarters sign that read, It's the Economy, Stupid, has been replaced by one that states, Lower Expectations, Stupid. Among the expectations we are apparently expected to lower is that the Administration will move swiftly and decisively to institute a a fair and cost-effective reform of our scandalously expensive and inadequate health-care system. We're now advised that the reform will be modest - and delayed. Job-creation programs, Clinton's advisers say, will have to be scaled back because of the budget deficit. Even Clinton's flat promise to lift the ban on gays and lesbians in the military, which has no particular cost component, is now officially described as so "complex" that the new Administration will have to proceed with extreme caution.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_/ai_13417453

---

Remarkable similarities wouldn't you say? Only Obama's going into office under a worse situation. It's not surprising that Obama had to admit that he may not be able to do everything even before the election took place.

posted November 06, 2008 11:58 PM            

quote:

---

It kind of makes you think that campaign promises are more designed to illustrate what the candidate would love to do if conditions permitted. Conditions don't often seem to permit.

---

That doesn't seem like any kind of change, imo. Just the same as every single other politician ... say what will get people to vote for you and then do what you want. I would say "do what you can" only that there is little Obama should not be able to accomplish with so many Dems in control. Or did I miss a Republican majority overthrowing Congress?

posted November 07, 2008 01:02 AM            

quote:

---

Now, seriously, why do you think Obama will NOT be able to (not changing his mind but blocked from) keep up what he promised considering he has such overwhelming support?

---

Well, I already pointed out that sweeping change didn't happen when Bush had both houses of Congress under Republican majorities, so we have recent precedence for a united government not accomplishing campaign promises.

I've made the comment a few times now that Congressional gains have come from Red states. How do Red State Democrats retain their office? Not by going along with any radically leftist ideas. That's for certain. Like I was telling TINK in the other thread, I don't at all believe that Obama's win was a mandate for a radical, or in her case Socialist, agenda.

Budgetary concerns will still play into policy moves, especially with this deficit and economic crisis. It's a politically dangerous move to go on spending sprees. Need not look beyond modern Republicans to realize that.

quote:

---

When someone makes a promise, I expect them to keep it.

---

Well, when that person is a politician, I don't think that's wise.

quote:

---

Are you saying you're not going to hold him accountable?

---

posted November 07, 2008 11:43 AM              

Well I'm a senior now, and I'm supposed to be writing a paper, but I'm procrastinating. College is good, but I want to get out and move on now. You know how it is.

posted November 07, 2008 08:28 PM            

Blaming Clinton for lifting Glass-Steagall I can see... but Carter.. um.. no.

posted November 07, 2008 11:18 PM            

Supporters of the CRA argue that it had been restricted during the Bush Admin. [and it is true that Bush, McCain and others tried to halt and at least weaken this "progress"]. Supporters also argue that it isn't "possible" that a law enacted in '77 could be responsible today and that many of the newer loans were made by institutions not under the thumb of CRA regulations. Imo, those arguments completely ignore all the rest of the crap done in conjunction with bad lending.

For me, I don't think encouraging people to buy what they can't afford is responsible no matter how good your intentions. Also, I'd like to know how long the mortgages gone bad had on them already and by percentages. As in, XX% of loans before (and also after) 2002 were approved by lenders required as such by the CRA and for how long had they been in effect.

All in all, imo, the CRA had a lot to do with setting the ball rolling as far as the mortgage/lending crisis is concerned. Even if other lenders got the genius idea to do the same whether or not they answered to the CRA. "Good" ideas like those are contagious and certainly advantageous to those making a profit off the poor. Fortunately for them, they are getting bailed out ... and since we can't afford to bail them out realistically, the Gov is now taking a loan from the Treasury. It gets better and better.