Good or bad?

[audtatious]

http://www.theaustralian.news.....html

BARACK Obama yesterday declared his vast schedule of higher taxes and massive spending was a fundamental reordering of federal priorities that would deliver "the sweeping change that this country demanded when it went to the polls in November", underscoring a budget plan that marks the biggest ideological shift in Washington since the Reagan administration.

Reports yesterday said battle lines in Washington were hardening over the broad policy shifts represented by the budget plan, which killed off the idea of small government with a vast schedule of tax and spend. The President vowed yesterday to fight powerful US interest groups as he sought to push through Congress the ambitious plan that could help reshape American society. Mr Obama is asking Congress to enact contentious measures that have been debated, but not decided, in calmer times: cut subsidies for big farms; combat global warming with a pollution tax on industries; raise taxes on the wealthy; and make big changes to the healthcare system.

"The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long," Mr Obama said in his weekly radio and video address.

"But I don't. I work for the American people."

He said the budget plan he presented on Friday would help millions of people, but only if Congress overcame resistance from deep-pocket lobbies.

"I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight," Mr Obama said, using tough-guy language reminiscent of his predecessor, George W.Bush. "My message to them is this: so am I."

The budget proposal seeks $US3.6 trillion ($5.6 trillion) for the fiscal year that begins in the US on October 1. Congress begins reviewing Mr Obama's request this week.

The scale of Mr Obama's ambition began to sink in at the weekend. If his budget for 2010 passes through Congress largely unscathed, it will represent "the biggest redistribution of income from the wealthy to the middle class and poor this nation has seen in more than 40 years", said Robert Reich, a former secretary of labour under Bill Clinton who has been advising Mr Obama.

"It is the boldest budget we have seen since the Reagan administration, and drives a nail in the coffin of Reaganomics. We can basically say goodbye to the philosophy espoused by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher," he said. The US economy contracted by 6.2 per cent in the final three months of last year, its worst showing in a quarter of a century. Mr Obama says the crisis calls for gutsy actions.

Under the President's proposal, the US's wealthiest 5 per cent would pay $US1 trillion in higher taxes over the next decade, while most others would get tax cuts. Industries would buy and trade permits to emit heat-trapping gases. Higher-income older people would pay more for government health insurance benefits. Drug companies would receive smaller profits from the Government. Banks would play a much smaller role in student loans. Passing the budget, even with a Democratic-controlled Congress, "won't be easy", Mr Obama said, "because it represents real and dramatic change; it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington."

Mr Obama's $US3.6 trillion budget proposal includes $US770 billion in tax cuts over 10 years for the "middle class", the American term for everyone from the moderately well-off to the working poor; $US150 billion for funding "green" energy sources, and $US634 billion towards introducing universal healthcare.

The numbers are almost beyond the power of imagination, but it is clear somebody will have to pick up the bill. A hefty $US1 trillion or so will come from new taxes on the rich, paid for by families earning more than $US250,000 a year, increases in capital gains tax and limits on generous tax deductions, including those for charitable contributions. An extra $US80 billion a year is predicted to come from auctioning off carbon permits under yet-to-be determined cap-and-trade legislation - if and when it actually happens.

The politics of "tax and spend" is not only back in vogue, it has also become an essential component of the US economic recovery plan. Mr Obama has seized on the "once-in-a-generation" crisis to fulfil his campaign pledges on expanding education and health, and greening the economy, with scant regard for the ballooning deficit - the largest, relative to the size of government, since World War II.

Reagan once said: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'." Mr Obama has made just such a promise to restore the US's fortunes, and the rest of the world can only pray that it works.

"So the revolution has come," one US commentator noted. "Now, will it bring a new egalite? Or will we simply lose our heads?"

Republicans believe Mr Obama has finally emerged in his true colours.

[Armelius]

Reagan did about the same thing. Not sure what the tax rate is on rich americans. They don't seem to be going anywhere.

I am still trying to figure out why we need such a big military presence in places like Europe and Asia. Let them fight again. Would do us all some good.

[Jacko3]

Reagan did about the same thing. Not sure what the tax rate is on rich americans. They don't seem to be going anywhere.

I am still trying to figure out why we need such a big military presence in places like Europe and Asia. Let them fight again. Would do us all some good.

The US needs a credible presence everywhere. This is called deterrence---a very active US foreign policy. Without the US, there would have been several major wars beyond WWI and II in the last 50 years. People don't understand how flammable the world really is, and how much global peace ad stability the US actually creates every passing minute of the day.

The wars that have occurred globally since WWII have been wars either deliberately created by the US (Iraq war), wars that escaped the US's attention (Bosnia-Kosovo), or wars that have been there since the beginning of time (middle east skirmishes). The US is the single thread of peace on this planet and so, the US cannot fail, else, all hell will break lose on this planet. The President of the US is actually, the President of the world.

If anyone thinks the world is a tumultuous place these days, then they really need to sit down an visualize a world without the United states---it would be a world of immense torment, unrivalled fear, total anarchy, and inexplicable savagery.

Modified by Jacko3 at 6:13 AM 3/2/2009
Modified by Jacko3 at 6:14 AM 3/2/2009

[Urabus GodofTraction]

this country demanded when it went to the polls in November

Translation: MINE MINE MINE MINE!

BHO is turning out to have the mentality of a 5 year old who managed to win a soccar game...

[Armelius]

We don't need our military in Europe or even some places in Asia. How many military bases do we have in Africa?

When should we start sending troops to Africa if this world is going to crap?

[Cold_Zero]

wars that escaped the US's attention (Bosnia-Kosovo)

Bosnian Civil War, yes escaped our ‘attention.’ But I have to take you to task on Kosovo. We (and NATO) started that one illegally. Kosovo, a sovereign part of Serbia had Albanian terror groups inciting a portion of the population to revolt. When the police cracked down, NATO bombed the s*** out of Serbia, invaded Kosovo and created a humanitarian disaster. Imagine this; let’s say that Mexican terror groups moved into Texas to incite Texans to revolt against the United States government. And when the law enforcement agencies and National Guard in Texas cracked down on the revolting populous, Russia decided to step in and bomb the s*** out of Washington DC. Do you think there would be righteous indignation on the part of Americans? Yet all we can do is scratch our heads and wonder why the Serbian people are upset that Kosovo is not a free country.

How many military bases do we have in Africa?

Officially? One, Camp Le Monier, which is a French Foreign Legion base in Djibouti which has been reassigned to the US for JTF-Horn of Africa ops. It is poised at the Gulf of Aden to help crack down on Somali Pirating.

I believe that the United States Air Force used the Canary Islands as a refueling stop for aircraft during the Kosovo War (1999) and the Invasion of Iraq (2003). But you can't call the Canary Islands, Africa because they belong to Spain.

The United States Navy probably uses all sorts of ports and bases in Africa as port of calls. But that really doesn't count as a 'base.'bud

[Jacko3]

Bosnian Civil War, yes escaped our ‘attention.’ But I have to take you to task on Kosovo. We (and NATO) started that one illegally. Kosovo, a sovereign part of Serbia had Albanian terror groups inciting a portion of the population to revolt. When the police cracked down, NATO bombed the s*** out of Serbia, invaded Kosovo and created a humanitarian disaster. Imagine this; let’s say that Mexican terror groups moved into Texas to incite Texans to revolt against the United States government. And when the law enforcement agencies and National Guard in Texas cracked down on the revolting populous, Russia decided to step in and bomb the s*** out of Washington DC. Do you think there would be righteous indignation on the part of Americans? Yet all we can do is scratch our heads and wonder why the Serbian people are upset that Kosovo is not a free country.

Officially? One, Camp Le Monier, which is a French Foreign Legion base in Djibouti which has been reassigned to the US for JTF-Horn of Africa ops. It is poised at the Gulf of Aden to help crack down on Somali Pirating.

I believe that the United States Air Force used the Canary Islands as a refueling stop for aircraft during the Kosovo War (1999) and the Invasion of Iraq (2003). But you can't call the Canary Islands, Africa because they belong to Spain.

The United States Navy probably uses all sorts of ports and bases in Africa as port of calls. But that really doesn't count as a 'base.'bud

There is some truth to what you have said. But I think it was the other way around----Bosnians did not want Kosovo to break away, at least that was not Milosevich and his executor, Mladic, wanted. They felt ethnic albanians, who were muslims, were a problem in their efforts to unite a greater Yugoslavia, or Yugoslavia as Emperor Tito had once envisaged. So, bombing Bosnia and driving out Milosevich's troop in Kosovo was of vital NATO importance to NATO forces, especially seeing that a freer Kosovo would be less prone to Russian interference with NATO protection.

[Cold_Zero]

There is some truth to what you have said. But I think it was the other way around----Bosnians did not want Kosovo to break away, at least that was not Milosevich and his executor, Mladic, wanted. They felt ethnic albanians, who were muslims, were a problem in their efforts to unite a greater Yugoslavia, or Yugoslavia as Emperor Tito had once envisaged. So, bombing Bosnia and driving out Milosevich's troop in Kosovo was of vital NATO importance to NATO forces, especially seeing that a freer Kosovo would be less prone to Russian interference with NATO protection.

I disagree 100% with your assessment of the Kosovo War. Bosnia had nothing really to do with what transpired in Kosovo during the NATO campaign.

[Jacko3]

I disagree 100% with your assessment of the Kosovo War. Bosnia had nothing really to do with what transpired in Kosovo during the NATO campaign.

While you may disagree, the only thing missing in my comment was Bosnian-Serbs. Yes, Bosnia, as far as their ehtnic serbs were concerned, were involved in the war. See link (just copy and paste).

http://www.google.com/imgres?i...&cd=1

[Cold_Zero]

No worries Jacko, Slava and I (here at work) were just chuckling about your analysis of the Kosovo War and your faux pas with brining Bosnia into the discussion. There is a distinct difference between the NATO action in Bosnia after the Civil War and the NATO action in Kosovo after the Bombing of Belgrade (Operation Allied Force).

[Jacko3]

Do you mind sharing the chuckles with Jacko, and the basis for the chuckles?

I disagree that issues and actions in Bosnia are distinct from issues and actions on Kosovo. Remember, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, (I forgot the fifth one), were technically one nation at one point. So, I am not sure how in their fragmented states, an action taken on one of them would be viewed independently of the other. First, NATO had to end the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, by driving our Serbs, and then bomb their way back to Serbia and portions of Bosnia in order to contain Milosevich and his henchmen. Anyways, you are a great debater. This is exactly how it should be. Well done!

[Cold_Zero]

Could you share the chuckles with Jacko, and the basis for the chuckles?

I disagree that issues and actions in Bosnia are distinct from issues and actions on Kosovo. Remember, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, (I forgot the fifth one), were technically one nation at one point.

A few things, Jacko. The split up of the former Yugoslavia effectively produced Croatia, Slovenia, Republic of Macedonia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). Bosnia Herzegovina was formed from the Dayton Peace Accords and Serbia and Montenegro split up later. Peace had broken out and no part of the war in Kosovo was ever fought in Bosnia Herzegovina.

Quote »So, I am not sure how in their fragmented states, an action taken on one of them would be viewed independently of the other.[/quote]By the time NATO started the war in Kosovo, there were five countries Croatia, Slovenia, Republic of Macedonia, Bosnia Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Want to wager a guess which country Kosovo was a part of? The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Quote »First, NATO had to end the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, by driving our Serbs, and then bomb their way back to Serbia and portions of Bosnia in order to contain Milosevich and his henchmen. [/quote]First of all, Albania through terrorlst groups worked to subvert Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's control of Kosovo. The KLA (a terrorlst group) killed police officers and soldier and forced crack down from the government. The war and ethnic genocide (remember the UN definition of genocide now includes movement of people out of their country) in Kosovo was started by NATO in 1999. Their bombing campaign (Operation Allied Force) caused Albanians to flee Kosovo into the Republic of Macedonia, which in turn destabilized the Republic. Further more, NATO displaced ethnic Serbs from their country Serbia (Kosovo) and destroyed the capital of Serbia (Belgrade) with their bombing campaign. At no point in Operation Allied Force am I aware of NATO forces bombing Bosnia Herzegovina. Please stop confusing Bosnia Herzegovina with Serbia or Operation Deliberate Force (Bosnia 1995) with Operation Allied Force (Kosovo 1999). It's no wonder that Americans can’t understand why Serbians were pissed that when the US recognized Kosovo as an independent nation. They can’t get the wars straight.

[480sx]

Sorry about your OP Aud. Im going to take the time to read it when i get the chance, im sure it would have wanted it that way.

[Jacko3]

A few things, Jacko. The split up of the former Yugoslavia effectively produced Croatia, Slovenia, Republic of Macedonia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). Bosnia Herzegovina was formed from the Dayton Peace Accords and Serbia and Montenegro split up later. Peace had broken out and no part of the war in Kosovo was ever fought in Bosnia Herzegovina.

By the time NATO started the war in Kosovo, there were five countries Croatia, Slovenia, Republic of Macedonia, Bosnia Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Want to wager a guess which country Kosovo was a part of? The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

First of all, Albania through terrorlst groups worked to subvert Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's control of Kosovo. The KLA (a terrorlst group) killed police officers and soldier and forced crack down from the government. The war and ethnic genocide (remember the UN definition of genocide now includes movement of people out of their country) in Kosovo was started by NATO in 1999. Their bombing campaign (Operation Allied Force) caused Albanians to flee Kosovo into the Republic of Macedonia, which in turn destabilized the Republic. Further more, NATO displaced ethnic Serbs from their country Serbia (Kosovo) and destroyed the capital of Serbia (Belgrade) with their bombing campaign. At no point in Operation Allied Force am I aware of NATO forces bombing Bosnia Herzegovina. Please stop confusing Bosnia Herzegovina with Serbia or Operation Deliberate Force (Bosnia 1995) with Operation Allied Force (Kosovo 1999). It's no wonder that Americans can’t understand why Serbians were pissed that when the US recognized Kosovo as an independent nation. They can’t get the wars straight.

We have 4 independent states (Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina) and 2 regions---Montenegro and Kosovo. All of them together were once the old Yugoslavia. I am not going to go into the process this occured.

Once again, here is a nice google map.

http://www.google.com/imgres?i...&cd=1

Secondly, as I said before, Milosevich's desire to create a greater serbia led to the persecution of croates, albanians, and muslims, who made it difficult for him to re-constitute old Yugoslavia. He was nationalistic.

Thirdly, yes, there were some portions of Bosnia--very small amounts that were bombed when ethnic serbs of Serbia, escaped into Bosnia with the aim of re-constituting with Bosnian serbs and hopefully fighting back NATO.

Don't confuse the power of ethnicity (serbs) with the boundaries of nations----- Bosnia and Serbia. This is where some americans erroneously assume that ethnicities are functions of defined boundaries. Afterall, Turkish Kurds are one and the same in most respects with Iraqi Kurds, and Iranian Shiites have lost little connection to Iraqi shiites. Without Turkish Kurds, how would Iraqi Kurds have been succeesful with their campaign against Saddam in Iraq II? And don't suppose that the full detail of war is ever told. About 40% of ethnic Serbians live out side of Serbia.

NOTE: My brain is getting tired.


Modified by Jacko3 at 2:18 PM 3/3/2009

[Cold_Zero]

We have 4 independent states (Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina) and 2 regions---Montenegro and Kosovo. All of them together were once the old Yugoslavia. I am not going to go into the process this occured.

Once again, here is a nice google map.

No today there are seven: Slovenia, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Kosovo, the Republic of Macedonia and Montenegro. But hey man look at your map, what is that big round orange country to the south? The Republic of Macedonia eh?

Quote »Secondly, as I said before, Milosevich's desire to create a greater serbia led to the persecution of croates, albanians, and muslims, who made it difficult for him to re-constitute old Yugoslavia. He was nationalistic.[/quote]Actually it was the contrary during the breakup of Yugoslavia. The majority of people wanted to (not create a greater Serbia) but to keep the country of Yugoslavia unified and together. Obviously, the aim of certain groups was to form independent countries led to the break up and the Bosnian civil war.

Way to lap up the western Rhetoric and propaganda, your bias of Serbians in this discussion tells me a lot. You talk as if either the Bosnian Civil War or the Kosovo War was totally one sided. The Bosniacs (which you incorrectly refer to as Muslims), the Serbs and the Croats in Bosnia Herzegovina were all culpable, committed acts of genocide with their militias and their thug gangs. I guess in our western minds, you have to have a good guy (NATO?) and a bad guy (Milosevic). I guess you can believe what ever you want, just as long as it gets you through the day, Jacko.

Quote »Thirdly, yes, there were some portions of Bosnia--very small amounts that were bombed when ethnic serbs of Serbia, escaped into Bosnia with the aim of re-constituting with Bosnian serbs and hopefully fighting back NATO.[/quote]Wow, so Serbian forces in retreat of the 1999 NATO bombing campaign fled into Bosnia Herzegovina in order to take on the IFOR/SFOR forces there? How bold, since NATO had 4 years to secure Bosnia Herzegovina. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Quote »Don't confuse the power of ethnicity (serbs) with the boundaries of nations----- Bosnia and Serbia. This is where some americans erroneously think ethnicities are functions of defined boundaries. [/quote]Don’t confuse??? Or should you have said, ‘don’t diminish the power..’ Give me a break.

[Jacko3]

No today there are seven: Slovenia, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Kosovo, the Republic of Macedonia and Montenegro. But hey man look at your map, what is that big round orange country to the south? The Republic of Macedonia eh?

Actually it was the contrary during the breakup of Yugoslavia. The majority of people wanted to (not create a greater Serbia) but to keep the country of Yugoslavia unified and together. Obviously, the aim of certain groups was to form independent countries led to the break up and the Bosnian civil war.

Way to lap up the western Rhetoric and propaganda, your bias of Serbians in this discussion tells me a lot. You talk as if either the Bosnian Civil War or the Kosovo War was totally one sided. The Bosniacs (which you incorrectly refer to as Muslims), the Serbs and the Croats in Bosnia Herzegovina were all culpable, committed acts of genocide with their militias and their thug gangs. I guess in our western minds, you have to have a good guy (NATO?) and a bad guy (Milosevic). I guess you can believe what ever you want, just as long as it gets you through the day, Jacko.

Wow, so Serbian forces in retreat of the 1999 NATO bombing campaign fled into Bosnia Herzegovina in order to take on the IFOR/SFOR forces there? How bold, since NATO had 4 years to secure Bosnia Herzegovina. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Don’t confuse??? Or should you have said, ‘don’t diminish the power..’ Give me a break.

Yes, there are 7. Good job!

I don't know what the majority of the people were thinking. But I do know that a good portion of old Yugoslavia were Serbs. Given the support that Milosevich received with his nationalistic rant, and given historical outcomes of nationalistic thinking, it is hard to suggest that a majority, who happened to be Serbians, did not want a greater Serbia. Highly doubtful!

I never referred to the Bosniacs as muslims---not even once. Muslims are found everywhere through out that region. However, there is a good portion of Bosnians that are muslims.

Yes, everyone was culpabale, but some more than the others. It all started with the Serbs who wanted to assert themselve throughout that region under a misguided nationalistic mentality. If that fact makes my comment one-sided, then i can't help it, can I? It all starts with the serbs. The same example can be found in Iraq where Sunnis beleive that they should dominate other ethnicities in the region becasue of their nationalistic and selfish interests.

IFORCE/SFOR generally enforced a no-fly zone in that region. They did not effectively stop militants from crossing the border and engaging in small militant skirmishes against the IFORCE/SFOR troops. For example, while Iraq seems secure, we still have terorists crossing the border to engage in small skirmishes with out troops. The same thing happened in Bosnia. Some serbs from Serbia, when betean back by NATO troops in Kosovo, and while belgrade came under attack, found refuge in Bosnia. And if Kosovans fled into macedonia and Albania, why on earth would anyone think that Serbs who were attacking them and who were also under NATO attack, would flee into Albania or Macedonia to be massacered, when they have Serbia and Bosnia to flee to? I don't get it.

The events of this region cannot be treated as mutually excusive from each other, over time or condition. It is all inter-twined. Its like trying to seperate Afganistan issue from those of Pakistan, when in fact some Afghani tribes share a lot in common with some Pakistani tribes.


Modified by Jacko3 at 3:15 PM 3/3/2009

[Cold_Zero]

Getting back to the OP. I find it ironic that the Markets have been hemorrhaging points each day after Obama introduced his proposed budget. I guess if the Stimulus Bill and the new Budget were suppose to get the country back on track, investors are telling us they disagree. Its hard to believe that our stock was worth $58 dollars per share, now its trolling around $3.60 a share.

[audtatious]

Sorry about your OP Aud. Im going to take the time to read it when i get the chance, im sure it would have wanted it that way.

lol

I don't mind watching Bud lay down facts and don't mind if my threads go OT.

[audtatious]

Getting back to the OP. I find it ironic that the Markets have been hemorrhaging points each day after Obama introduced his proposed budget. I guess if the Stimulus Bill and the new Budget were suppose to get the country back on track, investors are telling us they disagree. Its hard to believe that our stock was worth $58 dollars per share, now its trolling around $3.60 a share.

It's for the greater good as the rich are not so rich anymore. They must PAY for their intolerance.

[Tayluh_240]

o yeah thats bad

[Cold_Zero]

Sounds like a line from 'It Can't Happen Here.'

[audtatious]

o yeah thats bad

which means?