Bluegrassrivals

What will be the first five policy changes President Elect Obama initiates?

lawrencefan Wrote:What will be the first five policy changes President Elect Obama initiates?

(1) Some sort of mortgage relief for homeowners, not canceling debt, but providing debt relief in some way.
(2) Implementation of tax cuts for middle class.
(3) Beginning process of one payer medical insurance system for those who choose to be included, probably including some sort of co-pay provision along income guidelines.
(4) Initiating and implementing a plan to draw down troops in Iraq, making it clear to Iraq that our part of the deal is changing. Included in this, is a renewed focus on Afghanistan, primarily the Taliban, a hot coal in the grill of terrorism.
(5) A complete review of foreign policy to reflect the globe as it exists circa 2008.

thecavemaster Wrote:(1) Some sort of mortgage relief for homeowners, not canceling debt, but providing debt relief in some way.
(2) Implementation of tax cuts for middle class.
(3) Beginning process of one payer medical insurance system for those who choose to be included, probably including some sort of co-pay provision along income guidelines.
(4) Initiating and implementing a plan to draw down troops in Iraq, making it clear to Iraq that our part of the deal is changing. Included in this, is a renewed focus on Afghanistan, primarily the Taliban, a hot coal in the grill of terrorism.
(5) A complete review of foreign policy to reflect the globe as it exists circa 2008.

The withdraw of troops started quite a while ago with the surge. What he needs to do is reform and redirect money beeing spent in Iraq. How about withdrawing some of the contractors from iraq?

Matman Wrote:The withdraw of troops started quite a while ago with the surge. What he needs to do is reform and redirect money beeing spent in Iraq. How about withdrawing some of the contractors from iraq?

I am talking about American forces being out of Iraq, with a demand upon the government and security forces of Iraq to maintain and enhance the stability of their country. The contractors issue would be a part of the overall evaluation of foreign policy circa 2008, where, in my opinion, our policies and practices make us look and act like an Imperial and nigh colonizing power.

thecavemaster Wrote:I am talking about American forces being out of Iraq, with a demand upon the government and security forces of Iraq to maintain and enhance the stability of their country. The contractors issue would be a part of the overall evaluation of foreign policy circa 2008, where, in my opinion, our policies and practices make us look and act like an Imperial and nigh colonizing power.

We have been withdrawing troops and turning over Iraq Province by Province for a couple years now. That means we have been pulling our troops our of harms way and pulling them back into the larger bases. Once these areas have proven to stay secure after we leave then they push an increase of troops into the more violent areas and repeat the process. We are just now getting to the point where we can bring them home instead of pulling them back to the larger bases. Look at the Anbar province. When i first landed in Ramadi and Fallujah they were the most violent areas in iraq. They remained that way for my first three months there. Now just a couple weeks ago we turned the entire province over to the iraqis. We came home after 18 months. Our releif didn't even come to ramadi. Only a few went to Fallujah. Most went to the north. And when they leave they won't even be releived. They will not be replaced with more troops. Its a slow process to turn a country back over. Its done that way to keep it stable and safe for the troops still there.

US govt should have no say about the contractors, unless we are the ones hiring the contractors. If the Iraqi's hire contractors, then we have no say. Which is what I imagine you're going to see if we fully withdraw too soon. Iraq will bring in contracted American security agencies such as Blackwater.

Matman Wrote:We have been withdrawing troops and turning over Iraq Province by Province for a couple years now. That means we have been pulling our troops our of harms way and pulling them back into the larger bases. Once these areas have proven to stay secure after we leave then they push an increase of troops into the more violent areas and repeat the process. We are just now getting to the point where we can bring them home instead of pulling them back to the larger bases. Look at the Anbar province. When i first landed in Ramadi and Fallujah they were the most violent areas in iraq. They remained that way for my first three months there. Now just a couple weeks ago we turned the entire province over to the iraqis. We came home after 18 months. Our releif didn't even come to ramadi. Only a few went to Fallujah. Most went to the north. And when they leave they won't even be releived. They will not be replaced with more troops. Its a slow process to turn a country back over. Its done that way to keep it stable and safe for the troops still there.

Good post.

Beetle01 Wrote:US govt should have no say about the contractors, unless we are the ones hiring the contractors. If the Iraqi's hire contractors, then we have no say. Which is what I imagine you're going to see if we fully withdraw too soon. Iraq will bring in contracted American security agencies such as Blackwater.

The contractors are hired by us. We pay at my last count approximately 160,000 contractors in Iraq. They take care of things like cooking, porta johns, some security, mechanic work on mwraps, fix gyro cams and laser sytems along with a whole slew of other jobs. While they are needed some of their contracts have gotten too lucrative. Alot of the contractors were also hired for the mwraps. we had to get the vehicles in country fast and didn't have time to train alot of mechanics to fix them. Now that the mechanics are getting the needed training they should be able to cut back on the contracts.

Matman Wrote:The withdraw of troops started quite a while ago with the surge. What he needs to do is reform and redirect money beeing spent in Iraq. How about withdrawing some of the contractors from iraq?

The "contractors" act on behest of private companies or are hired by the U.S. for specific jobs within the military. The part regarding private companies shouldn't be a policy concern, while the other part will diminish naturally as the military withdraws.

And the "surge" was an increase in ground troops in Iraq. But after that, you're right, a slow drawdown has occurred.

Matman Wrote:The contractors are hired by us. We pay at my last count approximately 160,000 contractors in Iraq. They take care of things like cooking, porta johns, some security, mechanic work on mwraps, fix gyro cams and laser sytems along with a whole slew of other jobs. While they are needed some of their contracts have gotten too lucrative. Alot of the contractors were also hired for the mwraps. we had to get the vehicles in country fast and didn't have time to train alot of mechanics to fix them. Now that the mechanics are getting the needed training they should be able to cut back on the contracts.

Private businesses exist to make a profit. Therefore, they tend toward trying to expend the minimum and make the maximum. This can lead to problems, as profits get put before people ("O that silver and gold would be so dear and flesh and blood so cheap" --see history of human enterprise-- Also, private security firms have, without question, often crossed the line of justice in their dealings.

thecavemaster Wrote:Private businesses exist to make a profit. Therefore, they tend toward trying to expend the minimum and make the maximum. This can lead to problems, as profits get put before people ("O that silver and gold would be so dear and flesh and blood so cheap" --see history of human enterprise-- Also, private security firms have, without question, often crossed the line of justice in their dealings.

LOL...nice quote.

The reality is... life isn't valued the same the world over, but GOLD (profit) is. That's why a capitalist system is, BY FAR, the most efficient economic mechanism. It has warts and it isn't nice, for sure, but it preserves that which is MOST precious - individual freedom.

thecavemaster Wrote:Private businesses exist to make a profit. Therefore, they tend toward trying to expend the minimum and make the maximum. This can lead to problems, as profits get put before people ("O that silver and gold would be so dear and flesh and blood so cheap" --see history of human enterprise-- Also, private security firms have, without question, often crossed the line of justice in their dealings.

Your 100% right. You should compare the salaries of the contracted workers to the salaries of their military counterparts. An army specialist mechanic in the army will be lucky to make 30k a year while his contracter counterpart will make 80k a year. The good part of the deal is they are usually hiring military personal. Which is a double edge sword. It gives our ex military a good reward for serving our country but it also gives them a reason to not reenlist.

oneijoe Wrote:The "contractors" act on behest of private companies or are hired by the U.S. for specific jobs within the military. The part regarding private companies shouldn't be a policy concern, while the other part will diminish naturally as the military withdraws.

And the "surge" was an increase in ground troops in Iraq. But after that, you're right, a slow drawdown has occurred.

Thank you for restating. I think thats what i was getting at. The surge was an increase so that we can decrease. But i agree there needs to be reform.

The No. 1 priority, Obama said, is to get Congress to approve an economic stimulus plan that would extend jobless benefits, send food aid to the poor, dispatch Medicaid funds to states and spend tens of billions of dollars on public works projects. If the plan is not approved this month, in a special session of Congress, Obama said that "it will be the first thing I get done as president of the United States." According to NEDRA PICKLER and TERENCE HUNT, Associated Press Writers. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama

TENS OF BILLIONS?! Wow. What would this do for our economy? It won't help create jobs. It won't give them skills to get new jobs. What does it help? And i'm not saying this to down Obama or anything of the such so don't take this the wrong way. I'm being serious i don't believe increasing spending in the retail market will help the economy. I don't think giving people money and aid alone will help.

Matman Wrote:The No. 1 priority, Obama said, is to get Congress to approve an economic stimulus plan that would extend jobless benefits, send food aid to the poor, dispatch Medicaid funds to states and spend tens of billions of dollars on public works projects. If the plan is not approved this month, in a special session of Congress, Obama said that "it will be the first thing I get done as president of the United States." According to NEDRA PICKLER and TERENCE HUNT, Associated Press Writers. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama

TENS OF BILLIONS?! Wow. What would this do for our economy? It won't help create jobs. It won't give them skills to get new jobs. What does it help? And i'm not saying this to down Obama or anything of the such so don't take this the wrong way. I'm being serious i don't believe increasing spending in the retail market will help the economy. I don't think giving people money and aid alone will help.

We found gobs and gobs of money to fight a war in Iraq. We found gobs and gobs of money to bail out a group of people who nearly bankrupted everything in a greed induced feeding frenzy (sub prime etc.). We can't find money for Head Start. We can't find money to help folks have medical insurance. We can't find money to rebuild infrastructure. Yes, it is a matter of priorities.

thecavemaster Wrote:We found gobs and gobs of money to fight a war in Iraq. We found gobs and gobs of money to bail out a group of people who nearly bankrupted everything in a greed induced feeding frenzy (sub prime etc.). We can't find money for Head Start. We can't find money to help folks have medical insurance. We can't find money to rebuild infrastructure. Yes, it is a matter of priorities.

The infrastructure faults are due to congress's priorties. Out of over 150 days they spent in session they spent 8 days talking about steroids in baseball. Thats more time then they spent talking about medical insurance, infrastructer (to include katrina and the minnosota bridge), and the war in iraq. So maybe things aren't getting done for many reasons not just because of gobs of money we are using to support our troops. By the way the "gobs of money" we have spent to fight a war in iraq went to equipment that has reduced deaths by nearly 90 percent. For me thats money well spent.

So has President Obama's priorities changed?

Of course they have! till november that is XD

It's wild to go back and look at all the things the President promise or said he'd do but hardly even touched. How people accept this, I'll never know. Our country isn't going to shit, it's already there.

vundy33 Wrote:It's wild to go back and look at all the things the President promise or said he'd do but hardly even touched. How people accept this, I'll never know. Our country isn't going to shit, it's already there.

Blind sheep being lead to slaughter.

of course his priorities have changed. differen probs come up and when that happens he has to shift his priorities. sort of like hurricane issac right now. becoming a top priority. things like that happen...thats a slice o' life 4 ya

WideMiddle03 Wrote:of course his priorities have changed. differen probs come up and when that happens he has to shift his priorities. sort of like hurricane issac right now. becoming a top priority. things like that happen...thats a slice o' life 4 ya

National emergency contingencies are planned for. Only a weak person in a position of leadership blames other people or circumstances for his own failures. This aint like crying to your mommy because things are too tough for you. Obama is the president. "You know the buck stops here?"

TheRealThing Wrote:National emergency contingencies are planned for. Only a weak person in a position of leadership blames other people or circumstances for his own failures. This aint like crying to your mommy because things are too tough for you. Obama is the president. "You know the buck stops here?"

^ That's racist.

TheRealThing Wrote:National emergency contingencies are planned for. Only a weak person in a position of leadership blames other people or circumstances for his own failures. This aint like crying to your mommy because things are too tough for you. Obama is the president. "You know the buck stops here?"

no it doesn't congress takes just as much responsibility puls it's republican controlled that means that it won't be running as good

Bob Seger Wrote:Blind sheep being lead to slaughter.

yell your the blindest one of all

vector Wrote:yell(Yeah)(,) your(you're) the blindest one of all (.)

Is that what you are trying to say?nicker:

:thatsfunn:thatsfunn

Bob Seger Wrote:Is that what you are trying to say?nicker:

Maybe Google Translator will add an idiot clone to English translator module for these guys.

Bob Seger Wrote:Is that what you are trying to say?nicker:

maybe you should hang up your apron and dust buster and be an english teacher..:please:

4_real Wrote:maybe you should hang up your apron and dust buster and be an english teacher..:please:

Perhaps you should just learn how to write. Do you really think that anybody takes anything you "attempt" to say seriously? You are giving vector a run for the money as the laughing stock of the forum.