Usa Thread

[robaus]

The US government has wasted $30bn (£18bn) in contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last decade, according to a bi-partisan spending commission.

 

The commission on wartime contracting blamed an over-reliance on contractors, poor planning and fraud for the waste.

 

It had evidence of lax accountability and inadequate competition, it said

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14712172

 

But I'm sure Dick Cheney's Halliburton did well out of it. The poor bugger needs every last $billion he can scrape together with his poor book sales.

 

[Flashermac]

At least Darth Vader finally abandoned the dark side. Cheney never will. I can't think of a single thing that is likeable about the man.

[Flashermac]

Obama's Legacy: A Failed Recovery & Double-Dip Recession

 

by John Mariotti

 

 

There will be no significant recovery in the United States of America while Barack Obama is President. The evidence is overwhelming: everything Obama has tried to fuel a recovery (with his Democratic allies in Congress) has failed. Statistics claiming jobs saved by the stimulus package were mostly fiction, and cost American taxpayers about $275,000 each. Nearly 2.5 million fewer Americans have jobs than before the stimulus.

 

Barack Obama has been President for 30 months — 2 and a half years. He spent the first year obsessed with passing Obamacare, a program that doesn’t create jobs, but might destroy a lot of them. He “bailed out†GM, but many believe that his interference didn’t save GM; it merely cost taxpayers an extra $15-20 billion, and stole from legitimate investors to buy off the UAW. His broken campaign promises are too numerous to list.

 

At some point, his statute of limitations on blaming Bush runs out. The latest joke is that the White House has named the location of East Coast earthquake near DC as “Bush’s Faultâ€.

 

Obama himself said, “…that after three years, if the economy wasn’t fixed he should be a one-term president.â€

 

Clearly the economic malaise started on George W. Bush’s watch. Its causes will be argued for decades, but most of them are traceable to irresponsible lending and excessive spending— both by government and the American people.

 

The trouble that started before 2008 is directly traceable to actions (or inactions) of Bush and GOP allies in Congress. They spent America into the start of the current deficit during his eight years in the White House.

 

But that was then, and this is now. Since Obama took office the situation has gotten much, much worse. Obama has run up the deficit at more than twice the rate Bush did. During the first quarter of 2011, the US economy “barely grew†— at 0.4%. That was followed by second quarter’s “anemic growth†of 1%. This was during the period when the Obama recovery was supposed to be well underway. Employment data is unremittingly terrible: new jobless claims are stuck at 400,000+/- each month, with job creation well below what it takes just to absorb new workforce entrants. More Americans have been unemployed longer than ever in our history. And looking ahead, the news is not good.

 

This is Obama’s failed American recovery, and in the near future, Obama’s impending double-dip recession (thanks in no small part to his three consecutive years with trillion-dollar in deficits that have inflated the national deficit to soaring heights — $14+ trillion.)

 

That legacy clearly belongs to President Barack Obama and with help from the Congress led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi during 2008-2010. Thanks to them, our country hasn’t even had a budget since Obama took office.

 

The latest Obama Blame Finger Pointing focuses on the “Tea Party†as “extremists†who have a problem with astronomical deficits as far as the eye can see. (Pointing at Bush is getting a little old since he’s been out of office for 2-1/2 years). Obama needs a new scapegoat. The problem with the Tea Party is that it is like the child in the fairy tale, “The Emperors New Clothes.†The child is reviled for pointing out that the emperor is naked. Thus, the Tea Party is not wrong, just unwelcome.

 

Now Obama also wants to point the Blame Finger at the GOP House for the downgrade in the US debt rating by Standard and Poor’s. It seems that he believes that everyone else is to blame but he himself. That downgrade was predestined by the combination of irresponsible spending and Obama’s clueless attempts to throw money at a recovery to no avail. Spending $1.50 for every dollar of revenue, running trillion dollar annual deficits is reason enough for a downgrade in the US debt rating.

 

Face it folks: This is Obama’s failed recovery. And if (or when) it comes to pass, this “double-dip†recession (just around the corner) is his too.

 

Make no mistake, there IS plenty of blame to go around. About 75% of Americans are fed up with both Obama and Congress. The conservative and liberal factions of the House and Senate behaved badly in the recent debt ceiling negotiation. President Obama wanted to stay above the fray so he provided no leadership. He didn’t even know how to bring the opposing viewpoints together. He talked about bi-partisanship and consensus, but his actions disproved his words.

 

Until the president saw an impending disaster, he sat on the sidelines, afraid to do anything that might hinder his reelection campaign. Then, when his intervention didn’t help, and arguably hurt the progress, he grew impatient, petulant and angry.

 

John Boehner, however, did an admirable job trying to build a compromise deal on the debt ceiling, and get his own Caucus to support such a plan. Except, Obama was attacked by his liberal base for even considering the “grand bargain,†so he came in and dumped another “raise taxes more†demand on Boehner. I’d have walked out too, which Boehner was right to do.

 

But at least they were arguing about the right thing: how much to cut spending and how.

 

The Tea Party’s desire for fiscal responsibility is right, but it doesn’t mean that tax revenue can’t be increased. It can; how it’s done is what matters. The tax code desperately needs to be restructured. Simply digging in on old positions doesn’t help, it hurts. The goal is to “get the country working again,†and grow our way out of this mess.

 

The one phrase of President Obama’s that I agree with is “Country First.†But John Boehner was the one who tried his best to put “Country First.†If Obama truly chooses that as his 2012 campaign slogan, it will reek of hypocrisy.

 

If the members of Congress would put 1) country first, 2) constituents wishes next, and 3) personal agendas last, they might be able to work together to find a way out of this mess.

 

What happens in the Super-Committee of Twelve will be both revealing and predictive. Either America’s Congressional leaders will — or won’t — put "country first" and try to find common ground and reasonable compromises to lead America out of this mess.

 

Whatever happens, this failed recovery and impending recession belong to President Barack Obama. His condescending explanations of why “we Americans†don’t get it, how “this will take a long time,†this recovery, and his “class warfare†about “millionaires and billionaires†versus the “common folk†are all wearing thin.

 

This kind of rhetoric won’t solve America’s problems. It takes strong, informed, and experienced leadership to get through a mess like this one. We need a fixer, not a hypocritical speechmaker in the White House. Barack Obama is not that man. A wise man once told me, “The person who got you into a problem is seldom the one who will get you out of it.†That’s why there will be no recovery on Obama’s watch, but there could be a double-dip recession.

 

---------------

 

John Mariotti is an internationally known executive and an award-winning author. His book, The Complexity Crisis was named one of 2008’s Best Business Books. In his recent novel, The Chinese Conspiracy, he merges an exciting fictional thriller with the factual reality of America’s risk from Cyber-Attacks. Mariotti does Keynote speeches, serves on corporate boards and is a consultant/advisor to companies.

 

My link

[Steve]

Black congressional members have never liked Obama. He was not seen as one of them hence none of them endorsed him. Same with the non elected so called black leaders like Jesse Jackson and Rev Al both of whom made comments about him during the primaries. They endorsed Hillary instead and only came to him when they had no choice. There were only a few. Jesse Jackson's son and other younger black Dems, but the old guard didn't like lim. Obama in return didn't make any of them part of his administration or give them anything after. He had a long memory and remembered the slight against him. Its the black masses that have taken to him. I know some have made note of blacks voting for him only because he's black and its true. However, its true of all groups. Not excusing it but I don't see how blacks are any different than just about anyone else. If Bush could have run against Obama in '08, there are white southern Republicans who would still vote for Bush. As much as that seems incredible. Its human nature. Irish Americans voted for JFK becauuse he was one of them. That's it. Nothing more nothing else. Older dem women were voting for Hillary for similar reason. Geraldine Ferarro was the poster child of that generation. They lived for the day to see a woman president just like blacks did for one our own. Again, its human nature. Younger dem women grew up not knowing the women's right struggles so they had no problem going with Obama. Older women wanted to see their efforts a generation ago come to fruition.

 

Obama can win. If no where close to a foregone conclusion he won't despite a large drop in popularity. Republicans have picked up seats and such but its a far cry from a national election and recent memory isn't that long ago. Republicans have a bad reputation as well and carry some negatives. Also, there is a lot of wild cards between now and the elecdtion that can go for or against him. Before the financial meltdown McCain had a chance. It was close but he had a fairly good chance. Right after it, he lost the election. His poll numbers in key states droppped. The economy could get better....or worse and if it moves a good ways in either direction, its significant. If the economy gets better voters are less likely to rock the boat. The same thinking got Clinton re-elected in '96. If the economy gets worse its probably over for Obama. The only way it won't is if the Republicans are blamed for it. Perhaps by blocking some plan for jobs or whatever. There could be some international event, something always happens that affects voters.

[kamui]

2. The "excitement" factor of having a new, charismatic candidate will be absent with Obama. (He's old news now.) He will not get the independent voters; the black and latino voters who came out to support a black candidate will not come out in the numbers as before. I'm hopeful that Maxine Waters is not representative of the Black Caucus, but her tirades have shown disapproval of Obama that stunned me. (Not to make a pun, but she's gotta be a "black widow"...turning on a fellow liberal in office like she has.)

 

HH

 

I am wondering about Latinos and Blacks.

While they might not be impressed by Obama anymore, a GOP president will definitely be far worse for them in regard to immigration (see Arizona e.g.), education (see Texas, e.g.), social security and medicare, infrastructure (like reduced and more expensive mass transit), consumer protection and labor rights. Since the majority of them is lower or lower middle class the proposed cuts and changes will hurt them deeply.

[Flashermac]

Since they have long been Democrats anyway, does it really matter? They will vote as they usually do.

[kamui]

Since they have long been Democrats anyway, does it really matter? They will vote as they usually do.

 

GWB was able to win over a lot of Latinos. But of course they abandoned the GOP when Obama entered the field. The question is how many of the Blacks and Latinos will vote at all after being abandoned by Obama?

 

I guess regardless how Obama will do in the next 12 months, the next election might not be for Obama, but against a GOP candidate: If a right wing hardliner like Perry will win the GOP nomination I think many of the non-whites might not explicitely vote for Obama, but against the GOP candidate.

 

A right wing GOP candidate is probably the best what could happen to Obama. The Tea Party is already falling below 20%, while the GOP candidates are still playing to the conservative fundamentalists. If they keep on doing so, Obama will be able ato place himself as s center candidate who might not be liked by the independent and moderate voters, but who would be the only electable candidate for millions of people.

[Flashermac]

Bush seems to have been a fairly popular governor in Texas, with a lot of Hispanic support. He also got the Cubans, who were all pissed off at Bill Clinton.

 

Actually, I can't remember an election in decades where the voters were so much voting for someone rather than against the other guy except with Obama in round one. He was new, fresh and talked a good line. People wanted change. Now Obama is no longer new or fresh, and a lot of people feel he is not up to the job. It's up to the Republicans to blow this election.

[Bangkoktraveler]

Bush seems to have been a fairly popular governor in Texas, with a lot of Hispanic support. He also got the Cubans, who were all pissed off at Bill Clinton.

 

Actually, I can't remember an election in decades where the voters were so much voting for someone rather than against the other guy except with Obama in round one. He was new, fresh and talked a good line. People wanted change. Now Obama is no longer new or fresh, and a lot of people feel he is not up to the job. It's up to the Republicans to blow this election.

 

 

Republicans really have nothing to offer. A lot of rhetoric but nothing worth listening to.

[kamui]

Republicans really have nothing to offer. A lot of rhetoric but nothing worth listening to.

 

This doesn't matter at all. Like Obama before, they just need a good narrative. For foreign eyes the US people seem to be extremely naive and gullible. Just sell the narrative they want to hear (preferably a mix of religion, US patriotism and capitalist ideology) and they will trust you, even though you might be as able to run a country as a loaf of bread. Just have a look at GWB. He almost single handed ruined the country, lost (two wars) and destroyed the US world leadership...