Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

What do you expect, if Obama wins?

By

Me, I expect pragmatic, center-left policies, and advisors and cabinet members who reflect those viewpoints.  There are those, of course, who expect something else.

I fear that one of the catastrophes of an Obama Administration would be a high density of intellectual radicals, and not just on domestic policy, not just an increase in self-destructive political correctness in the schools and the media (the stifling of dissent in talk radio, etc. etc.), but also in foreign policy ….

Those guys may actually believe that.  I think they’re wrong.  If Obama wins, I guess we’ll find out.  That should be interesting.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. shown a willingness to turn his back on what he says he values: civil rights and some constitutional principles.  I’d expect his administration to reflect the same characteristics.  I hope he retains the best and dumps the worst, but I’ll be surprised if he’s willing to spend any chits on real civil rights advances.  I’d like to be proven wrong, however.  The guy has a lot of making up to do to those of us who are paying for his campaign with our very rights.  I only hope he has a conscience.

    • I say I hope the reform comes through congress – and my main hope from Obama is that he doesn’t stifle it. While I don’t think he’s going to invest a great deal of his political capital in repealing DOMA, for example, if Congress repeals DOMA I think he’ll sign it. It’s the same with this health care plan: there are some great parts about it, don’t get me wrong, but it’s glaringly missing a government option, which is about to become as necessary as nationalizing some of these banks. I hope we can get a government option, a la the Hillary plan, through the House so we can truly infuse market competition in the system and kick off the medicare-for-all campaign, which is the solution to this country’s health care cost problem. My hope for an Obama administration is that we can put true change and reform like that on his desk and it will get his signature. Once these reforms are passed, they’ll never be wrested from the American population, no matter how hard the Republicans try. (Indeed, Republicans who try to repeal them will be risking their campaigns.)

      • If we havve universal health care in USA and with the ensiung costs–the 25-45 years of age crowd will be having me and my fellow “senior citizens” in rail cars enroute to Bergen Belsen and Auschwitz!

        • Medicare is solvent for another 30-40 years, from the last I remember. I think, in that time, should solutions be needed, we can come up with them.

          <

          p>In terms of adding care, by nationalizing the system the country would save hundreds of billions every year – whilst improving the quality of health care for this country by leaps and bounds. Just imagine, you won’t have to sign all those forms while in the emergency room, needing emergency care.

          <

          p>How would the US pay for it? Instead of the 10-20% of your income that you pay to the HMOs today, the government would place a 3% additional medicare charge to both you and your employer (both parties, in most cases, saving money). You should check out the Conyers bill; it’s good stuff.  

          • Medicare and medicaid are broken and almost insolvent. because of declining reimbursement–providers are no longer taking on any further medicare patients.

            <

            p>Unless you have been asleep for the past two weeks;

            <

            p>#1  MD’s (primarily internists and OB’GYN) are fleeing MA. Why—mostly hostile working enviroment and Tort law.

            <

            p>#2. Newly insured Pt’s are still jamming the ER’s—Why—because there AIN”T NO GP’S!

            <

            p>#3 AND the newly insured are coming in increasing numbers—bcause they CAN, not because of medical necessity.

            <

            p>There are at present not suficient numbers of helathcare providers. WHAT DON”T YOU UNDERSTAND.

            <

            p>One thing that amazes me about progressives/liberals. Facts and figures riccochet off the cranium. They have a belief system that if they say it—and if a law is passed—then it is so.

            <

            p>WHAT?  Take off the rose colored glasses!

            <

            p>Did I say the system is insolvent>

            • my mother works at an ob’gyn and, to put it mildly, the phones are ringing off the hook. Every day. Anecdotal? Perhaps, but it’s more evidence to back my opinion than you’ve provided.

              <

              p>Any decline in the industry overall could be more easily explained by the economy than it could doctors fleeing Massachusetts, or any other mostly-absurd premise. The middle and working class has been reeling for years now, with wages that are down the past 8 years, while the country’s battled serious inflation and the devaluing of the dollar. These procedures are very expensive and, in many cases, insurances only cover them for so long. I suggest thinking more before you write.  

  2. <

    p>    Even he doesn’t know. Circumstances here and world events will drive him to do all sorts of things. He is not carried away by juvenile fantasies and not deaf dumb & blind to the world. It’ll be fascinating. We liberals must contribute ideas and  urgency. Lack of money must not be allowed to be an obstacle, because it is only a marker of value, not value itself. If real value is created money will be too, though it may appear to happen the other way around.

    <

    p>Tom from Troy NY  

    • Never put mortar in a trowl and built a wall. never built a home, never built a company. He’s been an “arm” man his entire life. One handout after another–and his wife as well.

  3. stifle legislation we pass.

    <

    p>Of course, he’ll be pragmatic, but I’m hoping that the real reform comes from a newly progressive house, with a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. I’m tired of “bipartisanship.” People wonder why they hate congress so much. It’s because of bipartisanship. What does a government look like when it tries to get each party on board? Well, let’s take a look at the bailout: it took giving $150 billion in goodies to pass an already $700 billion dollar bill. Enough with that.

    <

    p>Americans want results. Let’s pass true-blue bills that solve problems like universal health care and true reform to our educational system. Let’s truly invest in renewable energy and conservation. Let’s balance the budget in four years, get out of the war and make sure that our investments are spent wisely. Let’s actually, you know, do stuff, bring real change and then let the voters decide if that change is what they wanted. My guess: the progress we make during the next 4-8 years will stay with this country for decades to come, hopefully as popular and important as medicare and social security.  

    1.  I expect some improvement on the foreign policy front.

    <

    p>2.  I expect Guantanamo to have an end date.

    <

    p>3.  I expect substantially less water boarding.

    <

    p>4.  I expect sensible security policy domestically.  Which is to say, more security, less fuss about toothpaste.

    <

    p>5.  I expect the rapid enactment of card-check legislation, allowing trade unions to expand dramatically thought the use of old-fashioned thuggish bullying, resulting in a renewal of wage/price inflation that ultimately causes the new Democratic majority to collapse, either in 2012 or 2016, and leaving President Obama with a legacy largely tarnished by economic stagnation.

    <

    p>6.  Oh, and I expect to discover that I’m wealthy after all, because I am not on welfare, and thus get a huge tax hike rather than a middle class tax cut.

    <

    p>I’m voting for him anyway.  Way to go, GOP, you’re guy is worse.

    • I was about to give you a 4 because #5 and 6 are a bit unrealistic, but your last comment made me laugh… so you win. Unless you make some serious dough, though, I seriously doubt you’ll see a tax hike. And I don’t think a slightly friendlier territory for union organizing would result in economic stagnation. Indeed, the Bush administration was one of the unfriendliest to unions, well, ever… and we’ve had nothing but stagnation for 95% of this country… and what growth at the top was had has been more than erased over the past fortnight.  

      • Without getting gummed up by a newly empowered Democratic Congress that owes all of its various interest group constituencies, all of which will have their hand out.

        <

        p>I expect reality to differ markedly from campaign promises.

    • A good analogy is your liver. The liver works OK at 55%. The liver will maintain life at 50%.  At 49% the organism perishes.

      • I won’t call it lying, but your comment is simply not true. (About the tax rates. I suspect the liver thing isn’t true either, but medicine’s not my forte and not the topic of this board.)

      • as they are expert in all things.

        <

        p>I’d rather a guy who can keep his cool in a crisis than a panicky hothead lurching around to find a sufficiently dramatic course of action.

  5. (1) Substantially higher taxes, as already mentioned by Reid, and by Barney Frank on that oft-player CNN video clip.  This increase will be conceived by Congress but waved through by an Obama administration so as not to disappoint his base.  Top marginal income tax rates now approach 50%.

    <

    p>(2) Tax policy will be modified so that greater than 50% of working Americans will receive more money from Washington than they remit (at 36% now.)  These policies will go hand-in-hand with increasing marginal tax rates across a variety of personal and corporate tax sources and create significant economic disincentives to capital investment, savings, and productivity.

    <

    p>(3) Massive, one-time “stimulus” packages will be passed by Congress, applauded by President-elect Obama.  Consumer spending around the holidays pops, but then evaporates in time for Obama’s inauguration.  I don’t think I’ll be seeing any of it;

    <

    p>(4) Congress and the Obama administration, through Treasury’s purchase of warrants in and government loans to the banking and auto industries, respectively, demand board seats and will begin to politicize those businesses’ strategic policies and operations;

    <

    p>(5) Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine which, if passed, will kill the talk radio industry (although I intend to host a new, fair-and-balanced “Our Things Considered” on NPR);

    <

    p>(6) The Obama Justice Department will being to investigate and prosecute 527s or other politic organizations and individuals critical of Barack Obama.  A Supreme Court fight over First Amendment rights will break out.

    <

    p>(7) Near-immediate withdrawal of US presence in Iraq.  Al Qaeda/Taliban/Madi Army/Iranian Quods Forces will reappear and throw Iraq into chaos and provide a new and fertile breeding ground for Islamic-radical terrorism … now with oil supplies;

    <

    p>(8) Just as the Obama administration beings to relocate military assets from Iraq to to Afghanistan, our EU allies there, under domestic political pressures and renewed al Qaeda terror attacks across major European cities (think Madrid,) will abandon us.  The Obama administration, claiming all is futile, will also retreat thus ceding control to al Qaeda.  Bin Ladin makes a victory video which is played endlessly on US TV.  Bush/Cheney/Halliburton are blamed.

    <

    p>(9) Russia will invade — repeat, invade — the Ukraine to “protect” their “interests.”  This is really intended to take their naval base at Sevastopol by force rather than by mutual negotiation as their lease is expiring  The Obama administration will hem and haw, and prevent the EU and NATO from coming to Ukraine’s aid;

    <

    p>(10) Iran will acquire, or claim to have acquired, some sort nuclear weapon capability.  Using their new-found threat of nuclear retaliation, an Iranian preemptive strike on Israel by conventional means will be attempted.  The Obama administration will convene EU heads and UN Security Council and attempt to impose embargoes but will be vetoed in the UN by China and in the EU, German will balk.  Lots of talk from the White House, but no action.  All carrot, no stick.

    <

    p>So, yes, terrific, Obama legalizes gay marriage!  Hooray, we’re sitting down with North Korean.  Again.  Europe loves us once more!

      • The election isn’t even over and Republicans are already playing the victim.  

        <

        p>My answer: If Obama wins, we’re in for four years of incessant whining.  

      • about Obama’s reaction to probable real events.  Maybe #6 is a stretch.

        <

        p>But what’s implausible about the others?  #3?  Pelosi’s on it!  $300 billion, coming up.  #2 and #3 are not Obama actions per se. But I’ll betcha dinner they come to pass.  #5? Dem. Senator from NV, Jeff Bingaman, has publicly stated reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine is on the table.  Admit it, progressives would love to get Rush Linbaugh off the air.  After Air America, the Fairness Doctrine is your only hope.  #8? No withdrawal?  Isn’t that Obama yapped about for the past 24 months?  You don’t believe he’ll do this?  Are you voting for McCain?  #9?  If Georgia, why not Ukraine because of their naval base there?  Completely plausible.  #10? It’s in the news every day.  I’m simply guessing at Israel’s response.  Still, it’s as good a guess as yours, stomv, if you had the balls to make one.

        <

        p>Instead of slamming me personally, take one or two and refute.  Or is that too much mental effort?

        <

        p>

      • My hope for Congress:
        A.  Start the funding for the pull out of Iraq.  Tangible results by July 1 2009.  

    • 1-3, yes.

      <

      p>4.  That would be bad news indeed.  I rather hope that the interest is re-privatized.  I haven’t heard anyone besides conspiracy theorists push this angle to date, and I think it would be opposed, successfully, by moderate to conservative Democrats and the GOP rump.

      <

      p>5.  That would be nice.  I’ll donate during your show.

      <

      p>6.  Good thing we have established such precedent over the last 8 years that individual rights, such as those protected under the First Amendment, are meaningless if that is the will of the sovereign Commander in Chief.

      <

      p>7.  Immediate withdrawal is logically impossible, even if desired ardently.  The remainder of this point is possible, even likely, but has zilch to do with who is president in January, and a lot to do with who was president from 2003-2009.

      <

      p>8.  Also plausible, except that I don’t think Obama would withdraw, as at that point, Obama, and not Bush/Cheney/Halliburton would be blamed.

      <

      p>9.  Since when is the EU willing to take on Russia?  Did you miss the last 60 years?

      <

      p>10.  Going to happen anyway.  If the announcement is true, air strikes won’t be enough, and we lack the capacity to invade yet another big country.  Good thing we got rid of the WMDs in Iraq, though.

      <

      p>Even if all of these disasters come to pass, I don’t see how even one would be improved by the election of the candidate from the Torture a Gay Terrorist for Jesus party.

    • “Tax policy will be modified so that greater than 50% of working Americans will receive more money from Washington than they remit (at 36% now.)  These policies will go hand-in-hand with increasing marginal tax rates across a variety of personal and corporate tax sources and create significant economic disincentives to capital investment, savings, and productivity.”

      <

      p>For the sake of arguement—what if corporate America redfuses—then individual taxpayers refuse?  What then?

      <

      p>Crank up the rail cars for Trablinka and Belsen? IRS gestapo making late night collection calls with democartic approved water boards and tasers?  I for one would gladly lead and promote a tax revolt.

      <

      p>I never swore an oath to pay income tax or any other kind of tax. You can only lock up so many people and I don’t own anything.

  6. My hope for Obama: put the right admins atop the alphabet soup organizations.

    <

    p>My hope for Congress:
    A.  Start the funding for the pull out of Iraq.  Tangible results by July 1 2009.

    <

    p>B.  A few nice pieces of legislation to help stem the anti-wave 2010 election.  Goodies that are good policy.  This could come from any number of places, including but not limited to:
    * health care expansion.  Let’s start with a solid universal health care plan for pregnant women and their newborns.  Everyone loves motherhood and cute babies — and we ought to protect and ensure the good health of every one of them.
    * ethics reform and transparency.  We got some of it in 2006, and we want more.  More transparency.  More limits on lobbyists.  Rinse, repeat.
    * energy policy.  Start building wind turbines.  Right away.  Get some working by 2010 that wouldn’t be there otherwise, and point to a real energy plan.
    * throw “teh gays” a bone.  Something legit.  Get rid of DADT.  Expand some Federal rights/responsibilities to all spouses — how about some 1040 action?  Something!

    <

    p>If it’s spending, it’s got to have tangible results by 2010 that people can associate with the Dems.

    <

    p>C.  Clean up the rules and regs that are full of loopholes.  This must be subtle, constant, and efficient — and may require the whipping of members to get it done.  I’m thinking of everything from the SUV loopholes to tax loopholes to small-industry giveaways and exemptions.  Clean things up, and get policy that encourages good and fair behavior.

    <

    p>D.  Pass a few budgets very quickly with little expansion and pass all budgets on time.  None of this emergency spending crap.  Look professional, calm, and under control.

    <

    p>

    <

    p>Imagine that.  By 2010, we could have tangible improvement on health care, draw down in Iraq, better energy infrastructure, expanded civil rights, and better regulations.  By 2012 it’d be nice to have a smaller tax code, even mo’better energy, substantial investment in infrastructure [including roads & bridges but also rail and subway and elec transmission and high speed data], and so forth.

    • the suburban loophole for small businesses is already gone… thank goodness. If half of what you say actually happens, we’ll expand our majorities in 2010… and hold them in 2012, when the map isn’t quite as friendly for us… giving us at least 6 years to fix the Bush mess – and hopefully add some legacy policies that people will enthusiastically support for decades to come.

      <

      p>I can’t help but think if we could somehow institute medicare for all, it would become one of the most popular programs in government and be something that even the Republicans wouldn’t dare touch 5-10 years from now… a la national health care in just about every other country. It would solve so many other problems, too… even the problems that exist in our local town budgets, trying to keep up with skyrocketing health care costs.  

    • Just which civil rights would you like to see expmnded.
      Personally I’d like t see law abiding citizens being able to purchase and possess high capacity repeating firearms.

    • “Let’s start with a solid universal health care plan for pregnant women and their newborns.  Everyone loves motherhood and cute babies” — Feminists love seven month neonates with a stainless steel shank in their brains laying at room temperature on a stainless steel dissecting pan.

  7. We’ve forgotten what these were since its been a while since Clinton was president.  Since Democratic presidents in general legislate for the majority of people and not economic elite, people will generally prosper.  In order to create the illusion that the country made a mistake by not voting republican, all sorts of crap that has nothing to do with the actual administration of our government will be dredged up (true or false) with the intention of getting more GOPers in there in the future.  Because even false accusations repeated enough times are enough to generate mistrust in voters’ minds.

    • I’m not so sure this will happen for a while. A lot of manufactured outrage (see: ACORN) has been spittled out by the Republican party lately, and none of it is sticking any more (see: polls).

      <

      p>Also, we’ll have the majorities in the House and Senate, at least for a while, and a party in minority can only do so much damage (or good). (See: filibuster rules.)

      <

      p>I don’t think we lose the majorities in the Congress after 2 years like Clinton did. People are too scared of Republican policies, both economic and war mongering.

      • why not the last Democratic presidency.  Isn’t that what Obama is talking about in his Bush’s failed tax policies and rollback, to try a different approach (you know the one that worked).

  8. I expect a national focus on renewable energy, with the government actively trying to make it happen, including in ways that aren’t flashy and obvious.

    • But I have not seen ANY emphasis on this in the campaign. Perhaps that’s a consequence of the fact we’re in more dire economic crisis in the immediate future, so the other stuff (global climate crisis, independence from foreign oil) aren’t as compelling right NOW but will be, but this is one of the few things that disappoint me about this election cycle.

      <

      p>I hope I’m wrong, but I just see too much “clean coal” “biofuel” talk from BOTH Obama and McCain. Clean coal is a frappin’ joke. I have long suspected it of being “vaporware,” of the sort Microsoft was accused of hyping, that which forces competitors with good products to not bother to continue with their own development. In this case, I think it’s a ploy to stop the government and the popular will from restricting and reducing the dredging up of coal from our mines on a promise of future “consequence-free” processes, but really they just want to make sure they can keep digging it up and burning it as long as they can before things turn sour.

      <

      p>I mean, laws of physics. The release of energy in carbon-based fuel happens when you break the special double-bond of the carbon atom. Putting that carbon back into “locked” form – ie back into a double bond of some sort – the most stable way to lock carbon, requires energy to do. How is this even viable? If you have to produce energy of some sort in order to lock the carbon back up, wouldn’t it be better to, I dunno, produce the energy directly using some other method and leave coal in the ground?

      <

      p>And do NOT get me started on biofuel.

      • Perhaps in some ways you’re paying too much attention… but it’s still strange that you’ve missed that this was a focus of Obama’s campaign for much of the year.  You may be looking for details and definitely aren’t getting them right in the past few weeks from the debates and TV ads, but if that’s it, I think that’s a sort of tunnel vision.  Certainly a high proportion of Obama’s ads, and even McCain’s for a while, talked about renewable energy, though obviously without details.  Certainly Obama’s web site has material about it.  Details don’t matter much, IMO, because it’s about leadership: Congress will fill in the details, we just need a national focus and support from the White House.

        <

        p>Also, when asked how he’d want his first term judged, Obama without hesitation named three things that need to be accomplished, and one of them was a serious renewable energy policy.  (The other two were universal health care, and a substantial withdrawal from Iraq)

        <

        p>I expect it.

      • is a set that is much larger than corn-based ethanol.  Surely you support some biofuel — using waste oils for biodiesel or waste plant matter for ethanol, for example.

        <

        p>Many people are frustrated with corn based ethanol, a frustration I understand [though don’t share].

  9. For a lot of different reasons–some of them you are not privy to, some of them have been in the news and  unreported.

  10. There is your question:

    <

    p>

    What do you expect of the Obama administration, if he wins?

    <

    p>Which is well and good.  I expect a shinier version of the Clinton administration.  Specifics will have to wait on the answer to the second question:

    <

    p>

    What do you expect of the opposition (GOP, libertarians, etc…) if Obama wins

    <

    p>An uglier version of the Gingrich GOP of the early ’90s.   Buck nasty and bomb throwing is pretty much all the GOP has left.  They can’t be expected to see this, much less repent of it…   It’ll be up to Democrats. And their task, to be precise and specific, is to mold the Republican party.  Yeah, you read that right: mold the Republican party. They ought to have the power to ignore the worst impulses of the GOP and reward the best.   Grim, straight-up paternalism is the order of the day and the GOP can learn to share and play in a safe controlled environment or they can have a decades long time-out.  

    <

    p>Other than Joe Lieberman, I’m not that worried about the Senate.  The HofR, on the other hand, disappoints.  Pelosi has been a constantly moving target and Steny Hoyer just bugs me.   In comparison to past Dem speakers (I’m thinking specifically of Tip O’Neill) Pelosi’s been a real disappointment.
    There is room for her to redeem herself here.

    <

    p> I’ll note that the ’06 elections were the last of the full 9/11 cycle (meaning that, as of the ’08 elections, all Senators have now undergone at least one election) and the HofR went Dem in a big way in ’06.  That is, I think, an important milestone.

  11. …for those who have been seething since the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

    <

    p>Control of all the levers of government will present a temptation for many to vent their decade old rage and revel in some good ol’ fashioned Republican beatdowns.

      • in Reason.

        <

        p>

        The Republican Party has exiled its Goldwater-Reagan wing and given up all pretense of any allegiance to limited government. In the last eight years, the GOP has given us a monstrous new federal bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security. In the prescription drug benefit, it’s given us the largest new federal entitlement since the Johnson administration. Federal spending-even on items not related to war or national security-has soared. And we now get to watch as the party that’s supposed to be “free market” nationalizes huge chunks of the economy’s financial sector.

        <

        p>Thanks to Hub Blog for the pointer.

          • …and appreciate the emphasis on Republic.  Too many people seem to have skipped that part of highschool civics.

            <

            p>Mob rule is an explicit non-goal.  đŸ˜‰

Archives