Now that we have a new President--what do we want him to do first?

[titsrock]

Here are your choices

1. End Iraq Occupation. Shift troops to Afghanistan. Hunt down Osama.

2. Work with Dem Leadership in Congress to pass Healthcare Reform.

3. Work with Congress to begin "Green Agenda"--wind, solar, movement away from "Oil," etc.

4. Overturn Bush Tax cuts in order to "rebuild" American infrastructure (bridges, highways), new Power grid, nationwide fiber-optic data network (rural and urban areas).

5. Address education system--he has mentioned several ways to do this--JobCorps/college education, "fix" No ***** Left Behind, increase teacher pay for increase teacher performance accountability...sort of broadbased initiatives which do need "meat" on the bone in the form of money, either Bush Tax Cut repeal or maybe cutting the Defense Dept Budget (which he has not said he'd do but which is a viable option instead of tax increase).

Bitter Repub Members can answer this ONLY if you take a CENTRIST approach in your reasoning/answer.

Let's have an open, honest discussion and not a flame war.

 

[Violator79]

My order is:

4,1,2,5,3

 

[BlueBalls]

Here are your choices

1. End Iraq Occupation. Shift troops to Afghanistan. Hunt down Osama.

:thumbsup:

 

[Manalishi]

1. End Iraq Occupation. Shift troops to Afghanistan. Hunt down Osama.

(my first pick was actually "go fuck himself" but I'll play nice)

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

First thing he should do? I think making it to January 20 would be a good start...

Then, after that, do whatever. Start the Iraq withdrawl, I suppose.

 

[Galactic]

FIX IT!

Step 1: Identify the problem
Step 2: FIX IT!
Step 3: Repeat as necessary until it's FIXED!

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

FIX IT!

Step 1: Identify the problem
Step 2: FIX IT!
Step 3: Repeat as necessary until it's FIXED!

Step one: Identify the problem.
Step two: ...............
Step three: PROFIT!

 

[calpoon]

(my first pick was actually "go fuck himself" but I'll play nice)

funny, because mine was "suck my dick." don't get me wrong, I like the guy. I just think that is probably my automatic response to any such question.

I'm not really in a big hurry for him to start doin' stuff. I think he needs to try and see if there is any way to salvage the economy and then sit tight for a while.

I was for pulling troops out of Iraq in 2002 (yes, I know that was before the start of the current Iraq war, that's my point). but I don't really see it happening like that. Washington isn't known for doing anything in a expedient manner, they are pretty much like the council of the Ents.

 

[Galactic]

Step one: Identify the problem.
Step two: ...............
Step three: PROFIT!

I was really just quoting a skit from SNL.....thought it would be funny.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

I was really just quoting a skit from SNL.....thought it would be funny.

:rofl: Well I was quoting South Park. Your post just reminded me of the underpants gnomes...

 

[Galactic]

:rofl: Well I was quoting South Park. Your post just reminded me of the underpants gnomes...

Oh **** I forgot all about that one!

 

[Facetious]

Develop a comprehensive nuclear energy infrastructure very much similar, if not identical with that of the French system. Obama should thrust the nuclear energy hysterics, along with their cooked up, close minded, extremely left winged and purely obstructive political agenda aside and begin to break ground at once!

It's embarrassing for America, that unelected, nonsensical, pseudo environmental mobs along with their attorneys could use the courts as a means to slow down this nations progress. We're already some fifteen years behind Europe in terms of nuclear energy output capability. These very environmental groups are attempting, with some success I might add, to ban any on site nuclear rod reprocessing capabilities.

Did you know that these "rods" when spent, retain a substantial amount of energy within their cores ? The environmental nutter orientation on the matter is that they use the courts to see that these perfectly recyclable, toxic - radioactive - goo spewing hazmat materials ("rods") not be reprocessed. Why would the "environmentalists" wish to hinder a reprocessing technique that would essentially render any waste product that may come from a nuclear power plant inert and virtually non hazardous following their reprocess procedure ?

Apparently, they have found a niche for themselves -> ripping off the public via the addition of greater regulation, shorter supply, fictitious scare tactics, and increased utility costs, unelected bureaucrats even !!!
Most of the time, these outreaching environmental lobbies - C.A.R.B. (California Air Resource Board) to name one, neeto acronym, huh ? :thefinger have repeatedly caused greater environmental damage had they not existed in the first place. Google - California reformulated fuel - MTBE
and go see for yourself.

The moral of the story is that, IMO, most of these outreaching environmental rackets are full of themselves and quite deprived of REAL science.
This "deprivation" is quite lucrative, don't you know.

And Mr President, not only would I like to take you up on your offering to "look" at offshore oil drilling, Premium Link Upgrade <- From UCSB.


Peace

 

[RogueWolf]

4. Overturn Bush Tax cuts in order to "rebuild" American infrastructure (bridges, highways), new Power grid, nationwide fiber-optic data network (rural and urban areas).

It's been proven time and time again that when taxes are reduced...government revenues go up... So any type of tax hike would be unwise if they wish to have money for infrastructure.

I would say establishing a comprehensive PRACTICAL energy policy is priority one. Yeah...we need to find new sources of energy...but in the meantime...the USA runs on OIL. So we need oil NOW...while we work on new energy for the FUTURE.

 

[Facetious]

I apologize, T.R. - Your opening question was so irresistibly self explanatory, I replied without reading your opening paragraphs. :o

 

[Facetious]

I apologize, T.R. - Your opening question was so irresistibly self explanatory, I replied without reading your opening paragraphs. :o


Also, Mr Pres. - Lasso "Big Government", as well, where ever that fits.

 

[Facetious]

Wtf ?

 

[LBP 76]

1) Get out of Iraq AND Afghanistan yesterday.

Iraq is obvious. Afghanistan is unwinnable (the former British Commander said). And bin Laden is probably in West Pakistan where the US cannot go after him (cause the Pakistani gov't won't let them) and the Pakistan gov't doesn't dare go after him too strongly for fear of ******* of too many citizens.
The US would do better by pulling out and posting a $500 million dollar reward for his capture, alive. $250 mil. if dead.

2) Balance the budget - fast.

Forget 'fixing' the economy. Let the recession run it's course, stop bailing everyone out and let free enterprise be free. If the poor need help? Help them. But just the basics. No cash payouts. And they have to work for it ('workfare').

3) Get those without healthcare some basic healthcare - fast.

Nothing fancy. And pay for it by direct cuts to the military budget (to a maximum of 25% of it's present level).
But this should be viewed as a stop gap measure until something more permanent can be worked out.

 

[historylover]

Here are your choices


2. Work with Dem Leadership in Congress to pass Healthcare Reform.

3. Work with Congress to begin "Green Agenda"--wind, solar, movement away from "Oil," etc.

In my political opinion, #2 can be done "tomorrow" and will be perceived as different from prior administration, but if coupled with #3. Further, neither involves anything more than, I think, mere debating in order for public support to rise in support. Thus, they are the most politically efficient presently.

I support all these things, titsrock. Yet, Obama only received 52% to McCain's 48% -a close margin, in my opinion. He must maintain or increase that percentage until he's in the 60's to do anything more extreme. 40 Republicans in the Senate is a big number which can still block legislation.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

Iraq is obvious. Afghanistan is unwinnable (the former British Commander said). And bin Laden is probably in West Pakistan where the US cannot go after him (cause the Pakistani gov't won't let them) and the Pakistan gov't doesn't dare go after him too strongly for fear of ******* of too many citizens.

Do you know what he meant by unwinnable? Did he mean that they will never be able to change the coutnry, or just that they won't be able to find Bin Laden? :dunno:

 

[LBP 76]

Do you know what he meant by unwinnable? Did he mean that they will never be able to change the coutnry, or just that they won't be able to find Bin Laden? :dunno:

The former. He said 'We will not win this war'.

Try a Google search if you're interested (it's difficult for me to post links). He made the comments just last month.