The Obama Administration v3.

[chica2k8]

1. What is your current impression of the Obama Administration?

-i am very pleased with the Obama Administration. it's a clean, fresh feeling of having a new cabinet in the White House. and i'm satisfied with what they have accomplished thus far. the only thing i have NOT agreed with, is Obama's stimulus package and the bailouts.

2. How well do you feel the Obama Administration is responding to the following:
- North Korea
- Iranian Elections / Nuclear ambitions
- Iraq
- Recession

-North Korea: well ... there's not much we CAN do, except what we are doing now. and that's just be alert, vigilant, and watch them. and respond to their actions accordingly.
-Iranian Elections/Nuclear Ambitions: once again. what is there to do? i do suppose the Obama Administration could make a stronger effort to communiccate with the Iranian heads of government though.
-Iraq: we shouldn't even be over there in the first place. i personally think, we should pull our forces out of there immediately. but i do like how Obama has set a date on which he plans on doing that.
-Recession: the bailouts/stimulus packages haven't helped us at all. what should we do? let the economy fix itself.

3. There is the suggestion that Obama's healthcare plans fall into the definition of socialism. So with that in mind, do you:
(a) Agree with his healthcare plans
(b) Believe it to be a socialist policy, for good or bad reasons
(c) Know of democracies that have socialized healthcare and impressions of how they work?

-i VERY MUCH agree with the socialized healthcare. it would be better for everyone. in Canada, 85.5% of the citizens approve of and are very satisfied with socialized health care in their country. and the UK has had socialized healthcare since 1919, and the citizens are very satisfied as well. it WORKS and it would be better for everyone. the healthcare system over here in the States is entirely too complicated, expensive, and many people in low-income families cannot get the care and attention they need due to the rising costs. socialized healthcare would be very effective.

4. What do you believe the President should be concentrating on the most in the coming months?

-umm, i don't think he should be focusing on anything else but the aforementioned things above.

[RavenLH]

1. What is your current impression of the Obama Administration? They're all underqualified

2. How well do you feel the Obama Administration is responding to the following:
- North Korea-ignoring it
- Iranian Elections / Nuclear ambitions- supporting it
- Iraq - not enough
- Recession- everything wrong

3. There is the suggestion that Obama's healthcare plans fall into the definition of socialism. So with that in mind, do you:
(a) Agree with his healthcare plans- it's a good idea but in reality wouldn't work
(b) Believe it to be a socialist policy, for good or bad reasons- it is socialist and yes that's bad
(c) Know of democracies that have socialized healthcare and impressions of how they work?- They don't.

4. What do you believe the President should be concentrating on the most in the coming months? National Security, illegal immigration, the economy, North Korea, Iraq, and Afganastan

[Wab]

Originally Posted by RavenLH

(b) Believe it to be a socialist policy, for good or bad reasons- it is socialist and yes that's bad

Could you elaborate on how this is a socialist policy? Given that socialism is government ownership of all means of production and the Obama policy will still have room for private insurance, I don't see it.

(c) Know of democracies that have socialized healthcare and impressions of how they work?- They don't.

They do, actually.

[purplehawk]

President Obama spoke at the 100th Anniversary of the NAACP on July 16, 2009. I've heard quite a few of his speeches, including the one he gave on race in Philadelphia in 2008, but I don't think I've ever heard him give an address quite like this one. I watched it with my husband. It touched him so deeply, he was moved to tears. I know he's watched it two or three times, not including the night it was given.

There's so much in this speech that I wouldn't know where to begin. But I can promise you this much: If you come to the conclusion that his call for "No Excuses!" was a specific message for African Americans, you weren't listening. Here's the video:

[Klio]

Originally Posted by RavenLH

1. What is your current impression of the Obama Administration? They're all underqualified

I think such a sweeping statement needs at least a few examples to back it up. Who in particular could you name, and in what way are they underqualified?

Originally Posted by RavenLH

2. How well do you feel the Obama Administration is responding to the following:
- Iranian Elections / Nuclear ambitions- supporting it

What are you saying there, exactly? WHat are they supporting? The elections? The nuclear programme? If the latter, I'd like to see something to back up the claim, because it would be pretty outrageous to suggest this.

Originally Posted by RavenLH

3. There is the suggestion that Obama's healthcare plans fall into the definition of socialism. So with that in mind, do you:
(a) Agree with his healthcare plans- it's a good idea but in reality wouldn't work
(b) Believe it to be a socialist policy, for good or bad reasons- it is socialist and yes that's bad

This is a contradiction, it seems. You say it's a good idea (in principle, I assume, since you think it won't work). Then you say it's socialist (again in principle, I suppose), which you consider bad.

Originally Posted by RavenLH

(c) Know of democracies that have socialized healthcare and impressions of how they work?- They don't.

Seeing that you dismiss a great number of countries here, and countries in which a number of posters live who have said a good deal about these systems, I'd like to see this backed up with a bit of argument. How much do you know about this matter that you think you can dismiss it all in this way?

[Chris]

Just a reminder that we have a new healthcare thread here. Responses to stuff in this thread about healthcare can be submitted in that thread .

[pensieve_master]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

President Obama spoke at the 100th Anniversary of the NAACP on July 16, 2009. I've heard quite a few of his speeches, including the one he gave on race in Philadelphia in 2008, but I don't think I've ever heard him give an address quite like this one. I watched it with my husband. It touched him so deeply, he was moved to tears. I know he's watched it two or three times, not including the night it was given.

There's so much in this speech that I wouldn't know where to begin. But I can promise you this much: If you come to the conclusion that his call for "No Excuses!" was a specific message for African Americans, you weren't listening.

Obama has the credibility to deliver a speech like this to the NAACP with impunity, whereas his predecessors could not. I thought it was brilliant and well said.

[purplehawk]

Originally Posted by pensieve_master

Obama has the credibility to deliver a speech like this to the NAACP with impunity, whereas his predecessors could not. I thought it was brilliant and well said.

I know. The best part about it is that his message transcends race. He spoke to all of us.

In a 58-40 vote today, the Senate tanked the plan to build seven more F-22 fighters. The seven planes, which Bob Gates says are unnecessary in today's world, stripped $1.75 billion from the Defense budget.

When I first saw the vote I assumed it was straight party-line, but that's not the case.

The New York Times In the end, 15 Republicans voted to remove the money for the plane, while 14 Democrats supported the extra money in a vote that was partly determined by the geography of where the jobs were. Immediately after the vote, Mr. Obama praised the Senate’s decision, saying that any money spent on the fighter was an “inexcusable waste.”

President Obama got some crucial support from Senator John McCain.

The New York Times Senator McCain told reporters that the vote “really means there’s a chance of us changing the way we do business in Washington,” particularly in terms of Pentagon contracting. He said the size of the victory was “definitely attributable” to the “strong stand” taken by President Obama and Mr. Gates.

Obama had repeatedly threatened to veto any bill with the planes in it.

[pensieve_master]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

In a 58-40 vote today, the Senate tanked the plan to build seven more F-22 fighters. The seven planes, which Bob Gates says are unnecessary in today's world, stripped $1.75 billion from the Defense budget.

I am VERY disappointed in the Senate's short-sighted vote. Maybe Dems are right and John McCain is losing it...I don't know.

I believe we should build a lot more F-22s than just 7. Look, the F-15 is a 37 year old design!!! The Russians have planes now, like the Su-30/4, that have matched it. Without the F-22, there would be NO REPLACEMENT for the F-15. That's crazy!

The F-22 is the best fighter jet ever built, a plane that no other country could match for the foreseable future. This continued focus on current threats, a justification some say to kill production of the F-22, is stupid IMO. F-22 wasn't built to hunt mujahdeen, Saddam Hussein, Somali pirates in a skiff with RPGs and AK-47s, or al-Qaeda. It was built as an air superiority weapon versus other superpower nations and other nations closely aligned to them (e.g. China and North Korea).

Don't get me wrong...the F-15E is a fine aircraft. It has never been defeated in battle. But continued reliance on it more closely evens the odds. How is this in the nation's best interest?

Yes, I know that Gates wants to build a lot more F-35s, primarily to replace the F-16. It's cheaper, he says. It's also an inferior aircraft to the F-22 and was designed for a different mission. Furthermore, a chunk of the technical secrets for F-35 were stolen, perhaps by one of the very same countries (China) that F-22 was intended to counter!

Yes, I think the threats today to our nation's security require us to buy more UAVs and devise better IED detection and defensive assets. And, yes, I support an increase in the size of the Army. And, yes, I understand that all of this is very expensive. But there are some things that we, as a nation, cannot AFFORD TO COMPROMISE. National Defense is one of them.

[Chris]

Personally, I'd prefer my country's premier fighter aircraft to need less than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time. Doesn't seem a good way to keep our nation safe. And, from the same article, they note that the F22 has never seen combat duty in Iraq or Afghanistan.

While I like the idea of the plane, I think the execution has left something to be desired. And that it's the plane's shortcomings that have led to it being on the chopping block, combined with the inability to have an infinite amount of money for defense. Reprioritizing for the threats we face now, instead of continuing to build fighters which are maintenance hogs (without Russia or China having produced a single "next generation" airplane which the F-22 was supposed to be able to keep ahead of), seems a better use of the finite amount of military resources to me.

That being said, I'm not opposed to buying the parts to keep the ones we already have running. I just don't think that we need more.

[Klio]

Well, if Gates - someone who was trusted by Bush AND is trusted by Obama on military matters, thinks that these aren't necessary, I'd say that sounds like a strong argument to me.


Of course, if it were my country, I'd say that the US can afford to compromise on a bit of military equipment a LOT more easily than it can on healthcare. At least if you calculate it by the number of American lives saved or prolongued.....


I also think that warfare in the old style is not a very likely proposition these days. I am not saying that war will end or get less - but it'll be more complicated and a lot less in need of conventional weaponry of the F22 kind, or (say) tanks.

There seems to be a lot of fear about in the US of countries like North Korea, but I don't think that this is very realistic. ANd I am certainly not convinced that the US needs to prepare for a war with China! Of course, it is very easy to stir up and maintain such fears, especially since a lot of internal interests are at stake. But in my personal opinion, it is worth looking at this dispassionately.


Moreover, is it really sensible to spend a LOT of money to prepare for a very remote possibility (i.e. war with another superpower - if there is such a thing at all!!) when lots of Americans' lives are blighted, and at times also directly threatened, by the economic crisis and a failed health system? That really strikes me as an odd hierarchy of priorities.....


Looking at the discourse round the web I do find it rather interesting that those who criticise the big deficit (as it is now under Obama) most also are the most critical of this particular attempt to save on spending. It's not surprising, but an interesting illustration of how the fronts are drawn.

Why should military spending be absolutely sacrosanct, when any other spending of tax money isn't?

[Mundungus Fletc]

Any plane that costs over $40,000 (what a platoon leader in Afghanistan earns in a year) to fly for an hour needs looking at carefully - it looks like a money pit to me. Producing a plane that will help stop the Soviet hordes pouring across the North German plain is a tad outdated (Unless that is Al Qaeda has just created an airforce!)

[pensieve_master]

Does the F-22 have issues that need to be corrected? Yes. No one is saying the plane is perfect. As issues are corrected, that $40k figure will come down.

Nevertheless, the plane's capabilities are unmatched. That the Russians and Chinese (and by extension, the North Koreans) do not currently have a plane that can match it is, after all, the idea!

The Russians are trying, though. Check out this information re: Mikoyan Project 1.44...add'l sources cited within.

The alternative is that we continue to rely on an almost 40 year design for air superiority capability, a design that the Russians have already matched. Do I think we are going to get into an air battle with Russian pilots anytime soon? No. But what will we do when the Russians start selling the Mig-35 and Su-30/34 to North Korea and other non-friendlies? They've already sold the Su-30 to the Indians.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by pensieve_master

Does the F-22 have issues that need to be corrected? Yes. No one is saying the plane is perfect. As issues are corrected, that $40k figure will come down.

Nevertheless, the plane's capabilities are unmatched. That the Russians and Chinese (and by extension, the North Koreans) do not currently have a plane that can match it is, after all, the idea!

The alternative is that we continue to rely on an almost 40 year design for air superiority capability, a design that the Russians have already matched. Do I think we are going to get into an air battle with Russian pilots anytime soon? No. But what will we do when the Russians start selling the Su-34 to North Korea and other non-friendlies?

Shoot 'em down with the 178 F-22's we already have.

[Klio]

Why are the Russians, Chinese and North Korea SUCH a worry?

I just don't buy it. Sounds like Cold War thinking to me - and the Cold war has been over for about 20 years. The dangers aren't any less now, but they are VERY different, and I don't see why it matters so much whether the Russians or Chinese could potentially match an US plane. Have they even been trying lately?

[pensieve_master]

Originally Posted by chparadise

Shoot 'em down with the 178 F-22's we already have.

Yes, today...but keep reading...my next post below.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by pensieve_master

I am VERY disappointed in the Senate's short-sighted vote. Maybe Dems are right and John McCain is losing it...I don't know.

The decision was merely a continuation of the Bush policy based on a needs assessment by the Pentagon. The Pentagon assessed its requirements to be 187 aircraft and that is how many will be made.

As far as I can see the request for additional aircraft comes not from the military but from Congressfolk looking for a) pork; and b) and easy way to look tough on "national security".

But there are some things that we, as a nation, cannot AFFORD TO COMPROMISE. National Defense is one of them.

That's the kind of mentality that led Cold War leaders to determine that the ability to destroy the world 11 times was better than having the capacity to destroy it 10 times.

[pensieve_master]

Originally Posted by Klio

Why are the Russians, Chinese and North Korea SUCH a worry?

I just don't buy it. Sounds like Cold War thinking to me - and the Cold war has been over for about 20 years. The dangers aren't any less now, but they are VERY different, and I don't see why it matters so much whether the Russians or Chinese could potentially match an US plane. Have they even been trying lately?

It's not the state of things today, but tomorrow...the unknown...which makes F-22 so important strategically.

BTW, the Chinese have apparently started their own program to match F-22: J-XX

Russians: Mikoyan Project 1.44

Originally Posted by Wab

The decision was merely a continuation of the Bush policy based on a needs assessment by the Pentagon.

The Pentagon is short-sighted. That's my opinion. No one can question the capabilities of the aircraft. Simply waving away the F-22 by saying the Cold War is over is reactionary, not anticipatory nor strategic in thinking.

Peace through strength.

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by pensieve_master

I believe we should build a lot more F-22s than just 7. Look, the F-15 is a 37 year old design!!! The Russians have planes now, like the Su-30/4, that have matched it. Without the F-22, there would be NO REPLACEMENT for the F-15. That's crazy!

If I remember correctly, McCain opposed the F-22 because it was being built to meet the needs of just the Navy. Instead, with limited resources to spread around, he supported extending the contract to built the Joint something or other which will serve the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. The joint something or other may be F-35, I have no clue. Anyway, that's what he said in a recent interview.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by pensieve_master

The Pentagon is short-sighted. That's my opinion.

And you must also be questioning the judgement of the previous admin as well as the Joint Chiefs who all were and remain committed to 187 aircraft.

No one can question the capabilities of the aircraft.

No one has questioned its capabilities. They have come to a reasoned decision about how many are needed rather than writing a blank check for blatant pork barrelling.

Peace through strength.

A truly Orwellian sentiment. By this reasoning the US should work to have every nation armed to the teeth. MAD is an outmoded doctrine.