You give too much weight to the experience needed by a President, and too little to his/(hers?)intellect,values and emotional stability. Where experience is needed is in those who advise him and in those who advise his advisors. He has clearly put an emphasis on enlisting very experienced people to confer with and it is clear that he demands all sides of an issue be presented. It may be naive to think other nations will in some essential way sign on to U.S. policy initiatives without complication, but the situation is better for constructive cooperation now, post-Bush, than it has been for a long time. The administration mantra that crisis creates opportunity points up this administration's determination to take advantage of multiple dislocations in the domestic and world economic space to advance an agenda clearly enunciated, at least domestically, before Obama's election. They have stepped rather boldly into chaos in an attempt to refashion some institutions for what they believe is the better. Obama will not succeed without compromise but there is nothing naive about seeing a real opportunity and trying to capitalize on it with the help of a Democratic Congress. Obama's foreign policy is unclear to me but seems to be one of stabilization. He is dealing with a tremendous amount of ill will and, for the moment, seems to be trying to remove as much fuel for the "little fires" you mention and create as calm an environment as possible for dealing with the more intractable international problems. Makes sense to me.
There has never been enough liberals to get an agenda like this to go anywhere - a huge miscalculation by this guy. Meanwhile there's little fires burning all over the world that are being left completely unchecked. If he looks naive with domestic policy, just wait until he has to deal with Iran, N.Korea, Burma, Russia just to name a few. The rest of the world really has this administration bent over a sawhorse.
He is too inexperienced at the art of governing-you know back in the campaign and even today everyone lambasted palin as being too inexperienced when even her limited alaska governorship was alot more than obama had. Even today no one brings this up. He needed to be president for everyone one not just the left. He won't stand up to the left and he will find his mandate is not a mandate at all but just a confluence of events that got him elected. I think that is the real problem. He thought he really had a mandate for liberal policies but forgot that a big part of the electorate was independants dissatified with bush. The country is still center right and he needs to get a grip with that. IMHO BBBud
Yes, market will tank ala 1987 and Obama's policies certainly aren't helping. Didn't vote for the guy, but at least he's taking a big problem by the horns and I got to give him props for that.
His problem is that he's too young, inexperienced, arrogant and naive. Charisma is fine for getting elected but he is and always has been a political lightweight - I too think 70% chance he's a one-termer. Hillary Clinton 2012 maybe?
exactly and why I told seadestiny there would be no public option. It is done and if they do it then they write off election chances in 2010. The people are not organized mobs but angry real folks. My guess is by the time 2012 rolls around interest rates and inflation will make obama a one termer just like carter. Here is what gets me about obama. if he had come in and said my first goal is to get this economy rolling and had embraced some of the ways this really happens(tax cuts etc.) he would have been assured of
high rating and another term. Instead he turned it over to the liberal wing(pelosi) and put his whole presidency in jeapordy. For a smart guy one has to wonder what he was thinking. He can still change course and salvage an 8 year term and maybe a democratic congress(albeit more evenly divided). IMHO BBBud
Cap and trade is absolutely dead on arrival.
Four dem senators have said no way in heck on cap and trade.
Healthcare with cooperatives is nudored healthcare reform. Small businesses near the various cusp employee counts will choose not to grow beyond the cusp count to avoid government healthcare mandates.
Dems overreaching and if they go it alone and vote to decide to alter 18% of the economy on 51 procedural vote in the senate could find themselves in a rerun of 1994.... repubs wouldn't regain control but they could take a ton of seats back and better balance against the democratic socialist party.
it is also inevitable that interest rates must rise ala carter days and inflation must emerge. You folks supporting the left on healthcare and general economic policies must have your heads somewhere the sun don't shine. We just cannot spend this way with the likes of cap and trade, stimulus, and now healthcare. I think the markets will correct but we still have one more run into the end of the year to higher highs. After that all bets are off longer term. IMHO BBBud
Because it's gone from a buck or under to about 3 bucks support level now. The "real bottom" was 58 cents whe BK seemed likely. BK does not seem likely now, it seems more likely that covenants being fixed and/or deals getting done will be the next news; thus an upswing. Tell me the truth - what's more likely in the next 12 months 99 cents a share or 5 bucks?
Yeah, saw that - don't take too much away from it but if 1500 of their 1700 "CAPS" members think this stock is on the upside, I'll take it. Most of these people don't own the stock, IMO, so their thoughts are 'real'