Expectations For The New Obama Democrat Government

http://news.yahoo.com/...19/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_al_qaida_obamaFunny that Al-Zawahri feels the need to insult Obama and emphasize that the president elect is not going to change US foreign policy in respect to the middle east.Of course, Al-Qeada did support John McCain, so . . .Now what were you saying Buz?

It doesn't, because you (and I) are europeans. And everybody knows europeans are screwed up. I mean, come on, the name eur-o-pean? Why do you have to be peeing? Americans, on the other hand, A-may-I-can? are natural problem solvers, and the only thing that screws us up is if we prevent our own people from canning.This logic is also why germans are so gruff, why italians talk a lot, why brits are shits, the irish spoiling for fights, the swedes so cold, and the danes impossible to understand (no, seriously. Listen to them sometime: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-mOy8VUEBk).And since you're in the netherlands, you're obviously in hell or something since you sit lower than anybody else, so you're doubly messed up.

I can't wait to tell this to a dutch student I know here at Uppsala. I daresay not.Okay, perhaps we should move back to the topic. Seems that Obama is actually going to keep Gates as secretary of defense. what doom does this spell for the US, oh great prophet Buz? Or is Obama now a republican in sheep's skin?

Swedish and US citizenship. Although I'm a natural born US citizen and grew up in conservative SW VA (Wise is the only county to vote democrat, and that's thanks to strong ties with coal and labor; the other coal mining has basically shut down, depressing the region).And while Boulder the city maybe a liberal hotbed, the university president is a republican (and one a lot of people don't like because of his political past; our geology building is named for him as well). Further, the political science arm, at least as far as international relations is concerned, is conservative compared to the rest of the university (I know this because I'm an international relations major). The other thing to keep in mind is that Colorado, outside of Denver and Boulder, is still conservative and a lot of CU students hail from those regions. So the univeristy's character is far more centrist than people realize.For that matter, I'm probably more centrist than you might realize.

Well, I for one hope for some basic competence in governing. Katrina, in my opinion, is all to symptomatic of the inability of Bush to actually govern. There was no excuse for that kind of gross negligence.I hope accountability will return. And not the kind of partisan bickering that is likely under the remainder of the GOP that focuses on small, insignificant matters as a means to obstruct, but rather serious accountability like that from the Iran-Contra scandal.I hope that the rule of law will return. One of the great foundations of this country is the respect for law and rule by it. We won the revolution partly because of this (read up on the American and British campaigns in New Jersey near the start of the war. The brits pillaged. The americans at least attempted to respect property and when they took gave a receipt so compensation could later be claimed). We earned respect around the world for this. Guantanamo, Iraq, secret prisons, illegal torture, illegal wiretapping all ruined that. Without respect, alliances mean nothing. Without respect, the US cannot achieve its aims abroad. Europe, from what I can tell, is willing to help us again because of the prospect of the US returning to the rule of law. Terrorists are confused, because if the Great Satan respects the law, how are they evil?Now onto your points. Obama has yet to pick a Sec. Labor. With this economic crisis and huge job losses, Labor could be important. His economic team is fleshed out and not one major pro-labor person on it (his team is really quite centrist overall).Further, what is bad about unions? In Denmark, Norway, and Sweden there is an agreement between the LO (their version of the AFL-CIO) and the employer federation (think something roughly equivalent to the Board of Commerce). This agreement set up an arbitration court for labor and employer to work out differences without having to resort to strikes and lockouts (thus you generally don't hear about things like air-traffic controller strike because they largely don't exist). It recognizes the power of collective bargaining on both sides. It works best in Denmark, but a recent example is in Sweden, where employers agreed to increase wages by 7% over 2 years. Sweden has no minimum wage because of agreements like this.The unions realize that they are part of the economy, and work to ensure that its members are productive and aren't scamming the system. Union membership isn't forced, but is still extremely high.I should also mention that Denmark and Sweden, with their high percentage of unionized labor, are the 3rd and 4th most competitive economies in the world, respectively. Only the US (1) and Switzerland (2) beat them. Little to no disruption of production is good for the economy, as Boeing is right now painfully learning. They lost millions due to a strike by their union. But what if there was a system like that in Scandinavia? Might have still happened, but less likely.The important thing to take away from this is that unions and these agreements are actually good for capitalist economies if done right. Screaming communism doesn't help anybody, because nobody is looking to implement communism. Ask GM. And Ford. And Chrysler. Is this a good thing for their busienss? Unequivically yes. Part of the reason why they can't compete with foreign auto-makers is because no other foreign auto-maker has to pay for the health insurance of its employees and retirees. Which means a greater margin.It's unlikely that we'll implement a single-payer health care system, but there are numerous benefits to it. First, insurance is cheaper the greater the number of people paying into it. That's why small companies have difficultly being able to afford health care for their employees. They just don't employ enough people to make it cheap enough. So what would happen if you had every tax payer pay into a health care system? Overall, it would be cheaper for each person. Second, about choice. Under our current system, you do have a choice. You can pick a doctor who's part of the plan or you can pick a doctor outside of your plan, which will cost you a lot more and negates the point of insurance. The third option is to pick a different plan, but unless you're wealthy, can you really afford a plan not offered by the company you work for? Under a single-payer system, all the doctors in the country would be a part of the health care, and you don't have to worry about going outside your coverage. Third, a single-payer system would also help drive down the total cost of health care. Currently, the US spends more money on health care per person than anyone else in the world, and we do not have the best health (or health care) in the world. Why are we throwing away our money if a system like the British or Canadian has shown that its cheaper and more effective? How can you be a fiscal conservative and advocate the less inefficient method? Obama has already said that he wants to increase the number of personell in the military. And with Iraq and Afghanistan still going on, it's unlikely that he will try to decrease the size of the military and strain ourselves even more. That said, there are more effecient ways to solve problems than to spend billions of dollars blowing things up and killing people. Let's use some of that money in investments in the US to actually help us instead of kill others, and let's use our diplomacy for a change. From change.gov:
Obama and Biden will call on citizens of all ages to serve. They'll set a goal that all middle school and high school students engage in 50 hours of community service a year, and develop a plan for all college students who engage in 100 hours of community service to receive a fully-refundable tax credit of $4,000 for their education. Obama and Biden will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.It's a work in progress, but just what is wrong with asking Americans to serve their country in ways outside of the military? If you want people to have in interest in the country, what better way than to give them a direct link to it? The arguments I've seen against this so far essentially say that this takes away power from the church and would indoctrinate these people with what the government wants them to think. As to indoctrination, that's what churches do to begin with.Besides, organizations like the Peace Corps have done a tremendous amount of good for the world and our country. The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated in 1987. It required broadcasters to air controversial issues of public interest honestly, balanced, and equitable. It says nothing about hate speech. Further, from June 2008:
"{Obama} does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," but that he "considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," adding, "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."
FCC fairness doctrine - WikipediaA non-issue, really.I'll do the next 5 later.Oh, and yeah, I was one of those who helped turn Colorado blue.

Why does the system have to be exactly as you say it will be? Well, no. All doctors would be under the plan. Unless you mean alt. medicine, which more often than not is kooky. I know your history with it, and you're convinced that doctors scam us for the profit motive. Take away the profit motive, no reason to scam us.By the way, health insurance effectively eliminates choice as it is because getting treatment out-of-network is generally prohibitively expensive. This already exists. Without a socialized health care system, we already have mandated immunizations with very few ways out. So you're fighting the wrong battle. Well, since all doctors would be part of the system, this isn't too much of a concern, now is it? Well, health insurance already does this by refusing to cover certain treatments, so again, you're fighting the wrong battle.Isn't it funny that all of your problems with socialized medicine already exist in the US? So perhaps the problem isn't socialized medicine, but the health care system as it stands?

To be cynical, it's about political power. They're afraid if it passes people will see how great it is compared to what previously was and vote democrat.To be further cynical, what's the point of being wealthy if you can't see people suffer while you get the best care available?The resistance to a system like the NHS is quite frankly irrational and a byproduct of our love affair with capitalism, or put more accurately, our propaganda induced zeolous hatred of all things "red". McCarthyism survives.

I would take that statement with a grain of salt, as it's simply an extreme version of the attitude of why work if you'll never be able to show you're better?A little something called hyperbole.

Then I take it you have a problem paying taxes for public education, no? After all, you and your immediate family probably don't use it anymore, right?And you're what, in your 80s? Not to be ghoulish, but chances are you could get a cancer (1 in 3 men get prostate, for example). Without insurance, are you going to be able to actually beat the cancer into remission without bankrupting your family?It's called being part of society. Get over it. There are more reasons to adopt a single-payer system than to block it because of your irrational fear of convential medicine (which, btw, I've been absolutely fine under). And as I've said (a resident brit would have to confirm this), the British NHS covers several alternative procedures. You just simply have to right the law to include these doctors (who, from my experience, don't actually have an m.d.). You're lucky. Many families who refuse immunizations aren't. Tell me, how do you cure meningitis with diet, a colon cleanse, and detoxification? How do you cure lung cancer? Prostate cancer?

Very few HMO's cover alternative medicine in the US.The treatments themselves are certainly cheaper, but then, medical costs here are really quite inflated because we decided that people should be allowed to make a profit on the health of our people. Cheaper to take an herb than to get chemotherapy.I'm not saying doctors and nurses and technicians and all other people involved in providing health care shouldn't make money. They just shouldn't be allowed to rake in profits. Its destroyed our health care system (seriously--sweden in the 70s had something like 130 beds per 1k*, the USSR ~110, and the US not even 80, and that was when hospitals generally were non-profit).*can't remember if it was 1k or 10k, and my source for it is in a library that won't open for another 10 hours

To be callous, you would have been screwed.The movie John Q should give you a good idea. And he even had an HMO! Just goes to show, even having insurance is not a garauntee for recieving critical health care.My guess is that your son would have gotten the treatment, but you would be bankrupt to this day (not knowing how old your son is, your yearly salary, etc). I simply cannot imagine the hospital letting your son die, if nothing more than the civil suit you could potentially file against them.As a side note, litigation is one of the reasons health care costs so much. You know, malpractice. The US has been and is one of the most litigatious societies in the world, going back to before the revolution (in fact, that was one thing you brits thought you had going for you--how could a bunch of squabbling lawyers unite?). With no to little controls on who and how much you can sue, the insurance hospitals take out is unecessarily large, helping to drive up costs.

And yet, Gates is being asked to stay on? Hmmm.Perhaps Obama is not the radical communist muslim terrorist you may have thought he was.

Well, if this is any indication, it seems like we're in for four years of bad jokes.We're sorry, but that page cannot be found- POLITICOIt also seems like Obama doesn't really appreciate digs.Still, on the plus side, gitmo trials are getting shut down, the executive order shutting down gitmo will be signed thursday, and already Obama and the military and related personnel are discussing the new plans for Iraq and Afghanistan.It's finally sinking in that he's president. Wow.

1. Well, even the employee free choice act doesn't force people to join unions. And that hasn't even been passed yet.2. Still no socialized medicine. And I doubt it will happen. Obama never campaigned on universal health care, only on mandated coverage for children. And the republicans will kick and scream and filibuster before they let it happen. But pray tell just what is so ineffective about British, Canadian, Swedish, Finnish, etc health care?3. Well, for being an advocate of a weaker military he's done an odd thing in ordering 17,000 more troops to afghanistan. As to those DoD budget cuts that Fox reported on a while back--I never found them reported anywhere else except Fox and extreme right-wing media. Let's see what his budget says. Besides, cuts are probably good--you do know that there are multiple weapons programs that are bloated, right?4. There is no mandated paramilitary service required. Do you even know what paramilitaries are? In the US, classic examples are the Coast Guard auxiliary, civil air patrol, aspects of the CIA, SWAT teams, the Naval Sea Cadet Corps, and probably every ROTC program in the country. If you're talking about Obama's bid to get people involved in community service, well, I'm glad you're against people helping others.5. Obama does not support the Fairness Doctrine being reinstated. Said so as much himself.6. Increased terrorism? Well, so far we have al-qeada acting like a little kid insulting Obama (house slave?). Oh, wait, they didn't support Obama. But Hamas did. Funnily enough, they haven't stepped up their attacks on Israel.7. Israel can go stuff itself. They have every right to exist, but this whole conflict could have been solved decades ago if it wasn't for people like you who want to bring about the pre-requisites for Armageddon. Besides, Israel is capable of wrong, and supporting them no matter what is a little ridiculous. That said, Obama won't be undermining Israeli sovereignty (anymore than he undermines anyone else's sovereignty).8. Energy costs will go up regardless of what Obama does. That's because there is a limited supply for an ever-growing demand. If it wasn't for the recession we'd still be paying $4/gallon gas. Obama's actions can limit the increase or exacerbate it. I say he should exacerbate the increase in carbon-based energy, as that will get us toward energy independence and clean energy much faster.9. Coal mines will die eventually. There's nothing all that good about them, other than that they employ a lot of people. The sooner we replace them, the better.10. EPA influence is expanding, and good thing too. Looks like carbon dioxide might just get regulated! I guess this destroys anyone's wet dreams about racing Hummers.11. severe depression? We will most likely not see a depression. Worst case scenario is a japanese lost decade, and that will be because Obama and team will have lacked the courage to act appropriately. Namely, wipe out the shareholders at Citi, etc, take over the bank, clean it up and sell it off. Zombie banks will drain us, and Citi and the like are turning into zombies.12. Well, smart regulation is a good thing. I'm sure you're pissed that nobody was watching the store regarding those derivatives, huh? Last I checked, businesses will find every possible manner by which to cheat the customer. Regulations help protect the consumer from things like lead-based paint used on children's toys.13. Illegal aliens should be protected. By shunning them we create a shadow society that is not only dangerous for them but for us.14. UN power is not likely to go anywhere. But at least we're not dissing it anymore (yes, we do need to work together with the entire world). No, I think you're problem with the UN is that it's no longer the tool of the US like it was in the cold war.15. We'll have to see the budget, but we've not been meeting our expected payments to the UN for some time. In terms of oppressive governments, I guess that would include Israel as regards the Gaza strip? Oh, you meant oppressive governments that don't agree with us. Last I checked, people shouldn't have to suffer needlessly because of some dictator they had no choice but to accept. Glad to see you're such a christian.16. restriction of freedom of religion? How so? And what does the fairness doctrine have to do with religion? (oh, I see: televangelists, and with the FD, us atheists would get equal time to broadcast our sane messages). You're really reaching buz.17. A liberal court system is not a bad thing. And right now, on the supreme court, it would take more than a couple departures to overturn the ideological balance that currently exists. Do you really see that happening over 8 years?18. anti-gun laws can be expanded. I know you want a rocket launcher to stop kids from TPing your house on halloween, but that's a little overboard.19. Oh, I guess you weren't paying attention to the Bush administration. Already done. In fact, that happens to some degree in every administration going back to, oh, before the civil war.If this is your nightmare world buz, bring it on. The world will certainly be a better place.

No, they probably did something to piss him off. You know, like refuse to accept Christ as their lord and savior. I mean, you go through all that trouble and they don't even thank you for your efforts?