Ask…
Share your views on hot topics
How would you grade Obama’s State of the Union speech?
President Barack Obama proposed a five-year freeze on some government spending and struck a centrist tone in his annual State of the Union address on Tuesday, hoping to prove he has fiscal discipline and can work with resurgent Republicans.
Obama also said that voters want Democrats and Republicans to govern with “shared responsibility”. He offered a raft of proposals that some of his opponents might find appealing as he positions himself for a 2012 re-election bid, but stopped short of the massive spending cuts demanded by some Republicans.
He called for a job-creating “Sputnik moment” fed by new investments in research and education like the 1950s space race, saying what is at stake is “whether new jobs and industries take root in this country, or somewhere else.” In a nod to business, Obama also called for lowering the corporate tax rate.
What do you think of Obama’s call for a five-year halt on domestic spending to help rein in the national deficit? Do you think his approach to job creation will work? Grade his speech below.
How would you grade Obama's State of the Union speech?
- A
- A-
- B+
- B
- B-
- C+
- C
- C-
- D+
- D
- F
Our WikiLeaks poll
Was it right for WikiLeaks to leak the Afghan war documents?
- Yes
- No
WikiLeaks created a firestorm in Washington and Afghanistan last week when it leaked secret documents related to the war in Afghanistan.
The whistle-blowing website published tens of thousands of war records, a move the Pentagon said could cost lives and damage the trust of allies by exposing U.S. intelligence gathering methods and names of Afghan contacts. WikiLeaks is at least morally guilty over the release of the classified documents, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.
What ever happened to intellectual property rights in the context of international law? Irrespective of an activist’s opinion regarding a war (or any other policy/action of a country), a government and its people own the intellectual property (in the form of documents, cables, etc.) that is being stolen by WikiLeaks. Further, there are preliminary thought processes (recorded in cables, etc.) and then there are actual government policies/actions. The two are fundamentally different. Preliminary thought processes of government officials are not policies/actions of a government. Finally, isn’t intercepting a country’s classified information a violation of espionage law? If so, wouldn’t that also be an act of war on the part of WikiLeaks and those that propagate the stolen intellectual property?
from FaithWorld:
Obama’s Nobel citation speaks of shared values – is hope on top?
The statement announcing the Nobel Peace Prize for U.S. President Barack Obama says that "his diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population".
Is there actually a set of values and attitudes shared by most people around the world? It would be interesting to know exactly what the Norwegian Nobel Committee meant by this. Are they talking about some vague form of world political consensus or even global ethics? The citation text mentions Obama's "vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons" and his preference multilateral diplomacy, dialogue and negotiations. But none of these efforts has yet borne much fruit.
The citation also mentioned the "hope for the future" it said Obama has given the world. Hope is a powerful force, both in personal and political life. In the Christian tradition, it's a theological virtue as important as faith and love. And it is a key element of the Obama "yes we can" message.
Do you think this is what they gave him the Peace Prize for?
from FaithWorld:
Should Obama address “Muslim world” as a bloc?
President Barack Obama has just pledged to make a new start for United States relations with the Muslim world: "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect," he said in his inaugural address. "To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
It's not clear what he plans to do. One idea he's mentioned is to deliver a major speech in a Muslim country in his first year in office. There's already a lively discussion on the web about where he should go. During his speech, CNN showed a shot of the crowd with some people holding up signs urging him to deliver the speech in Morocco.
Before this train starts rolling, it might be useful to recall that some Islam experts don't think it's a good idea for him to deal with "the Muslim world" as a bloc opposed to the West. Two French experts on Islam, Olivier Roy and Justin Vaisse, argued this in a New York Times op-ed piece last month. Here is the full text and below are excerpts.
Do you think it's helpful for Obama to talk about the Muslim world as a distinct bloc? Would he actually play into Osama bin Laden's hands by talking about the Muslim world and the West as distinct entities? If so, what should he do?
As Roy and Vaisse wrote:
"Such an initiative would reinforce the all-too-accepted but false notion that “Islam” and “the West” are distinct entities with utterly different values. Those who want to promote dialogue and peace between “civilizations” or “cultures” concede at least one crucial point to those who, like Osama bin Laden, promote a clash of civilizations: that separate civilizations do exist. They seek to reverse the polarity, replacing hostility with sympathy, but they are still following Osama bin Laden’s narrative.
"Instead, Mr. Obama, the first “post-racial” president, can do better. He can use his power to transform perceptions to the long-term advantage of the United States and become a “post-civilizational” president. The page he should try to turn is not that of a supposed war between America and Islam, but the misconception of a monolithic Islam being the source of the main problems on the planet: terrorism, wars, nuclear proliferation, insurgencies and the like...
"The truth is, Islam explains very little. There are as many bloody conflicts outside of regions where Islam has a role as inside them. There are more Muslims living under democracies than autocracies. There is no less or no more economic development in Muslim countries than in their equivalent non-Muslim neighbors. And, more important, there exist as many varieties of Muslims as there are adherents of other religions. This is why Mr. Obama should not give credence to the existence of an Islam that could supposedly be represented by its “leaders”.
Judging “The Speech” — what did you think?
Barack Obama became the first black president of the United States on Tuesday. In his much-anticipated inaugural speech, he said the “economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.”
But the new president also said the United States remained “the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth,” and that “we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.”
What did you think of the speech? Did it meet the hype? Were you moved, or dismayed?
Yes, his speech was moving…people are too quick to judge this president. He needs time and no one said it would be easy. After all, cleaning up after the last president is not going to be that easy!!!
Jobs: How bad will it get?
The economy lost over half a million jobs in December and shed the greatest number of workers in 2008 since the end of World War II. The grim news didn’t stop there: the unemployment rate jumped to 7.2 percent, the highest in 16 years. Many analysts say it will only get worse before it gets better.
“The job situation is ugly and is going to get uglier. There’s no reason to expect hiring anytime in the next three to six months,” said Richard Yamarone, chief economist at Argus Research in New York. Tempus Consulting’s Matt Esteve agrees. “No matter how you look at it, those are dismal numbers,” he said.
How does all this make you feel about the nation’s economy and your own personal job and financial situation? More importantly, how is the economic environment making you change your behavior?
On the wider stage, do you think the dire unemployment picture will be President George W. Bush’s legacy and will it get better under President-elect Barack Obama?
I have been out of work since August, 2006. All I can say is be positive about your situation and Volunteer your time. Also, consider the Peace Corps as an option.
Lining up for a bailout
The auto industry’s Christmas present from the government — in the form of a $1 billion loan to General Motors and a $5 billion stake in GMAC — may have left other industries hoping that the giving season isn’t over yet.
The steel industry is pressing President-elect Barack Obama to boost the flagging demand for U.S.-made steel by instituting a “buy American” clause in his infrastructure stimulus package, the New York Times reported.
“As steel production goes — and it is now in collapse — so will go the national economy,” writes the New York Times, referencing the maxim once applied to The Big Three automakers.
But why stop at manufacturing industries? Rep. Frank Nicastro of Connecticut and some of his fellow legislators want to save two local papers, The Bristol Press and The Herald, which are hanging by a thread after their publisher said it cannot afford to keep them.
Which companies are really too big to fail? If you were writing the check, who would you bail out?
(Pictured above: Workers secure a steel beam at a construction site on 8th Avenue and 42nd Street in New York, April 21, 2008. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton)
The auto manufacturers received a LOAN, not a bailout. When the government made a loan to help Chrysler years ago, the government made money. I still wonder why the auto manufacturers are treated so differently from the way the financial institutions are treated. Not just with the fact that the financial institutions received an outright bailout rather than a loan, but no CEO of a financial institution had to give up a bonus, sell a corporate jet, reduce employee salaries and bonuses, stop throwing pricey corporate parties and retreats. What’s wrong the this picture, people?
from FaithWorld:
Obama wants to address the Muslim world — but from where?
Now here's an interesting question. The New York Times reports that President-elect Barack Obama wants to make "a major foreign policy speech from an Islamic capital during his first 100 days in office." But from which one? As NYT staffer Helene Cooper explains, it's a question that's fraught with diplomatic, religious and personal complications. After a day of calling around Washington, she found a consensus:
It’s got to be Cairo. Egypt is perfect. It’s certainly Muslim enough, populous enough and relevant enough. It’s an American ally, but there are enough tensions in the relationship that the choice will feel bold. The country has plenty of democracy problems, so Mr. Obama can speak directly to the need for a better democratic model there. It has got the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist organization that has been embraced by a wide spectrum of the Islamic world, including the disenfranchised and the disaffected.
(Photo: Obama image in Jakarta, 25 Oct 2008/Dadang Tri)
That's a diplomatic answer, the kind you'd expect to get inside the Washington Beltway. Let's look at this more from the point of view of religion. If the American president gives a major speech in a Muslim country, it will be seen as an indirect comment on the type of mosque-state relations found in that country. It's not for him as a non-Muslim to endorse a certain type of Islam over another, say Sunni over Shi'ite. But as a politician from a country where church-state relations are a lively issue, one could expect him to ask what message his choice will send concerning the political relationship with religion in the state he chooses.
There is no obvious answer. There are Muslim states with close or distant links to violence in the name of religion, which should rule them out from the start. There are Muslim states that do not respect full equality for women, religious minorities and other groups -- that's a strike against them. Others Muslim states seem stuck in a time warp, or are politically unacceptable because they are not even barely democratic. This is where the diplomats start to see some daylight. But there is also overlapping among these groups, so no model candidate emerges. The world is a complicated place, an insight that should now return to U.S. foreign policy after eight years of denying this reality.
Seen that way, the diplomats Cooper consulted seem too cautious. While there is no ideal candidate, two Muslim countries seem to represent more of what Obama might want to see than Egypt -- Indonesia and Turkey. On Indonesia, Cooper writes "the very fact that Mr. Obama once lived and went to school there would make choosing it seem like cheating." Says who? It's the most populous Muslim nation in the world and it has an Islamist problem that it is fighting better than many others.
Cooper also rules out Turkey because a Turkish diplomat told her his country had no problem with its Islamic identity but it had a secular system. Turkey's certainly not perfect, but isn't it trying more than many other Muslim countries to harmonise its faith, its past and its future in a globalised world?
So those are my picks. Where do you think Obama should deliver this speech?
Any light in that tunnel?
Private employers are slashing jobs and the services sector, which powers most of the economy, is in its worst slump ever. “It’s impossible to find any ray of light here,” Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers in St. Louis, Missouri, said of the job losses last month.
With the government working to bail out banks, and possibly automakers, and with a top adviser to President-elect Barack Obama underscoring the need for an economic stimulus package, do you think things will get better and when?
You can bet on your bingle berry rates are going down(not) I got a letter yesterday in the mail wanting me to borrow money at 7.5% the way times are and how tight money is, do they think I would.Thats to high at todays standards.
Filling Hillary’s Senate shoes
If Hillary Clinton is confirmed for secretary of state in President-elect Barack Obama’s cabinet, New York Gov. David Patterson must name a replacement to fill her Senate seat. The front-runner is New york Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, son of former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo. Former President Bill Clinton’s name has also been thrown in the mix.Patterson can name anyone, famous or not, to fill the seat. Who should he select and why?
Hillay is leaving the senate but is going the wrong way.She should be going home and leave politics to people who would do somthing.I mean like she had 8 years under Bill and nothing happen.Oh sure someone out their will try to blam someone besides her,but she didn’t.
-
Resident Ask... Expert
-
There is no question that President Obama is an extraordinary communicator. I do not question his passion for his vision for America. However, I believe that President Obama‘s message left out three of the most important elements. The President, in my opinion, failed to accomplish three important items in his presentation.
1) The President is still focused on growing government. He made a few minor concessions to businesses that seemed to be directed at Republicans but he didn’t bother to even clarify any specifics to the American people. I assume one of his comments about reducing a burden to businesses refers to a part of the legislation that would require a massive amount of 1099 requirements. He did not give any clarification.
2) He referred to a trillion dollar cost to America if the health care reform law were to be repealed. Again, very vague and lacked any information on what he based this accusation on. For example, was his calculation based on an assumption that no legislation would replace the repealed legislation? The president made strong assertions that Health Care reform was largely about bending the cost curve. Now he seems content with an argument that it’s about getting more Americans insured. Interestingly, you don’t hear him or any other strong supporters of Obamacare pointing to other countries as evidence that they are a better model. He certainly isn’t pointing at Massachusetts, as the very recent research shows that this model, which is the primary model used to create Obamacare, reports higher costs on average than the rest of the country. To be fair, the real discussion (not a speech with a few sound bites and general statements) should determine what the cost (or cost savings) would be if the plan were repealed and certain elements and strategies were implemented in its place. This might produce a real picture for legislators and the individuals they serve with the needed transparency to participate in a real debate. Once again, the president alluded in his speech that he is open to listening to other ideas. However, he clearly held himself in a way that, in my observation, is a message to America that it’s either Obamacare or no plan at all. Over the coming months, now that there is more of a balance of Democrats and Republicans the American people will learn that there are in-fact other ways to reform health care and a real debate will begin.
3) The president stated that the economy is on the way back and pointed to the fact that the market is up. We need our president to give us a clear picture of where we are and not a sales presentation to make the picture look better than it is. Not one state is experiencing an increase in employment and some continue to experience a decline. Squarely, most of the energy of our President and our government has to be on getting people back to work. Most importantly, the president needs to avoid the moniker of being “anti-business.” The president must believe and must show that public that he believes the well being of American business is synonymous with the well being of Americans. American businesses may be showing increases in their stock prices, but this is largely because of sales from their foreign based operations and because they have cut costs in their US production. Their profitability has little or nothing to do with the number and quality of jobs here in the U.S. The only way to improve the number (and equally important–the quality) of jobs in the US is to build the productivity of American workers. The president did highlight the importance of education. Believing in American business means more than this. It means putting a lot more money into infrastructure. It most importantly it means sending out a real strong message that our President and our government recognizes and supports American business.