Presidential Politics

It makes it all seem so simple. Pity that the three branches of govt will never go for it.

Yep. Eliminate the military (it's about time… plus important for our defense), raise soc security to 78 (still better than when it started), and roll taxes to pre-Bush era days.

And yes, if that was enacted, it'd probably cost me $1.5 million. No bull. But that's what I'd do.

When the aged pension was introduced in Australia (in the 30's or 40's or 50's - dunno, I'd have to look it up) it came in for men when they turned 65 - women who ironically lived longer, got it at 60. At the time the average (male) life expectancy was 66.

The average (male) life expectancy is now 78+ and yet the aged pension is only now (gradually - over the next 5-10 years) being raised to 67.

I hate to say it but reform of aged pensions, as well as worldwide compulsory superannuation programs, are urgently needed.

(Why yes, I am a closet tea-party member...)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2010 11:07PM by Tony Leggett.

Clinton takes (back) over.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/12/10/obama_ditches_tax_cut_presser_after_bill_clinton_takes_control.html

Good.

LOL. You know, Clinton does not look like he'd/he's miss/ed a beat. Did O look pissed or tired or what? I have no idea the set-up/lead-up to why they were both there, and such, but hopefully it will make it into a book I read someday. :)

Obama looks pretty buggered up if you ask me. No wonder if you have to work with a party that has made it a rule to vote against everything that's being proposed, by default.

There are now 3 truly historical Democrats. FDR, JFK, and Clinton. Obama could have been, and might still be if he grows a pair, but my impression is that ultimately, O's going to be too academic (and not quickly adaptable enough) for the role he has the chance to play.

Whether you agree with him or not (and as long as you're not a wingnut on either side), you have to give Clinton credit for the awareness, the intelligence, the thoughtfulness he brings to the table. As was pointed out above, no missed beats. He's still on top of it, can still go toe to toe with world leaders and the press, and for whatever the reason, can steal the podium from the sitting President.

Watch for this clip to show up in R election ads for 2012, with the tagline something of the sort, "Obama weak/defers to others".

I've made no secret about being a Clinton Democrat, and I believe that if BC were to be asked/take a more active role, it would be good in the long run for everyone (though as in 1994, possibly with some short-term political pain). I'm encouraged that O brought him in; hopefully it's not show-and-tell but a real attempt to gain from BC's experiences and knowledge.

You can't blame the GOP for all of Obama's problems. His own party has not backed him on most of the big things that he's tried to do.

Quote
John Willoughby
You can't blame the GOP for all of Obama's problems. His own party has not backed him on most of the big things that he's tried to do.

I fully agree that the GOP is only part of the problem. Because Obama has shown himself to be too detached from the role of leader (IMO) he's both sacrificed his own agenda (in large chunks) and allowed himself to be played into a corner. He delegated far too much responsibility to the D-Congress initially for them to "fill in the blanks" on what he claimed to be his priorities. Now that he's trying to reclaim the role he should have used to great effect initially, the Ds are flipping him the finger, and I can't say as I blame them. I'm not talking about support of the tax cut compromise itself, but that the congressional Ds have no reason to believe they're not going to be left out on their own again.

I would say "too little, too late" in the way of direct Obama involvement, but I do hold out hope that things can turn around.

Now as to the compromise itself, that one's going to take the hide off lots of pols, whether it passes or not. As has been pointed out in many other venues, the extension of UI benefits in times of severe unemployment has been fairly routine for both parties for decades. It's not like the Rs are really contributing much to the deal to get the hyperrich satisfied.

Hey Minnesota,

Thanks for finally killing irony.

Love,

ddt

Quote

As a mother of five children and 23 foster children

At the same time?!? Call child services...

Communist! Market forces will ensure that her children are raised in the most efficient manner possible. Like they did for the banking and mortgage industry.

Sometimes it's better to not get involved in things like this, Barack...

Questionable judgement at best...

DPBD!

Rush Limbaugh: 6-year-old, douchebag, or both?

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Egypt yet...

We've never had a plan for when Mubarak fell, and the guy's a geezer. Whether through street revolution, palace coup, or the old guy dying in his sleep, there's going to be a fundamentalist Islamic government in power there soon. Wacky hijinks with Israel to ensue...

Thing is, much of the coverage seems to believe it won't be an Islamic replacement when Mubarak falls. No one knows, of course, and if there's a significantly bloody crackdown, that might encourage an unfriendly replacement, but the primary momentum behind this is the youth, and they're not particularly fundamental. Really depends on who steps into the vacuum and how the vacuum is created.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2011 01:11PM by porruka.

I'm going by my own pessimistic beliefs, founded on very little knowledge. I could have said that earlier, I suppose, but I figured that it went without saying. Until just now, that is, when I said it.

Islamic fundamentalism has been on the rise in Egypt for a while, and has a message that is easy to sell to angry, disillusioned youth. If we get a new military dictator, or "elected" tyrant, then it will probably be business as usual. But I don't think that the folks in the streets want cosmetic change.

More unrest in the Middle East.