American Politics (continued from the 'If Outsourcing.....' thread

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

In 2008, Obama won a Historic election beating the establishment candidates like Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Many pundits termed it as the ‘Beginning of New America’, Post racial president etc etc…..

Obama’s slogans were ‘CHANGE’ and ‘Yes we can’.

Yesterday USA had mid-term elections and strangely Obama’s Democratic Party is thrown out and the Republicans on the bandwagon of newly formed Tea-Party have captured power.

It looks like
If the ‘CHANGE’ one prescribes is not acceptable to the People they will throw away the change with more vigor
And Ideology (whatever form) should not be the only policy of a Democratic Administration in a heterogeneous country.

Some may say Tea-Party Ideology is much worse, the fact that people went with them over ‘Obama’s Ideology’ is telling !!

thanks,

It will be informative for people like me if those of you who are more knowledgeable give your views on what went wrong with Obama's policies. Or, is it that the white majority is now repenting its support to Obama?

 

[kunjuppu]

It will be informative for people like me if those of you who are more knowledgeable give your views on what went wrong with Obama's policies. Or, is it that the white majority is now repenting its support to Obama?

sangom,

i disclaim the 'knowledgeable' nomenclature. however, sitting close to north of the 49th parallel (latitude 49 degrees which is the border) and watching the u.s. from an concerned outsider, i think, it is the way the u.s presidency is structured.

in the westminister model, that we, u.k., canada etc follow - the process is simple. the majority party/ies get the power. the leader of the majority party becomes the prime minister. essentially the prime minister, with a simple majority and invoke far reaching changes.

our upper house rajya sabha, in reality, has no clout. neither does the president. it has to be exceptional conditions where a president can refuse to sign a bill passed by the parliament. the vox populi as reprented by the lok sabha is the ultimate ruling body.

in the u.s. even though the president is elected, the administrative power is divided between the house of representatives and the senate. the house gets elected every two years, and is proportionate to the population. hence it is tilted in favour of heavy populated states like texas or california.

the senate is elected per two senators per state. so the clout of the small states is the same as the large states ie 35 million california is the same as 350,000 south dakota. many of the small states, are rural, conservative, overwhelmingly white and resistant to reforms. also the u.s. south is resistant to any reforms due to historical reasons.

so, even though a majority of the americans elected obama, many of his reform policies had to be compromised, because the legislative branches have to approve his plans and allocate budgets/taxes. the president can suggest, but without the approval of both the houses, he cannot sign his plans into law.

also, americans do not like to suffer for long. they want quick results. except that the nature of the current economic crisis, is taking longer to repair. obama's plan for economic recovery involved more borrowing from an already extended government. the tea party movement was able to capitalize on this. also many americans, by nature, want little government, no taxes.

but the americans also increasingly depend on government aid re healthcare and education. also the u.s. supports two wars. there was a joke in a satirical magazine called onion, when obama was elected, 'black man gets the worst job in the u.s.'.

it is a tough job with conflicting pulls. more government services needed. people unwilling to pay more taxes (gasoline is still cheaper than coca cola in the u.s.).

nara & KRS probably represent the different spectrums of u.s. political thought. it is at this time, that i will gracefully withdraw and leave it to the giants

sangom, hope this preamble is of some use....thanks.

 

[Nara]

A Tamilian wins big in California, read about it here. Long time ago a Tamilian lady married this African-American and look what that union produced, a woman who could be a future Barak Obama, presidential material, so much so, Carl Rove and gang spent mega bucks to try to nip it in the bud.

p.s. got to go, will write my 2 cents on the election later ..

 

[suresoo]

Kunjuppu Sir,
If i may interject here

so, even though a majority of the americans elected obama, many of his reform policies had to be compromised, because the legislative branches have to approve his plans and allocate budgets/taxes. the president can suggest, but without the approval of both the houses, he cannot sign his plans into law.

The House, Senate and Presidency was controlled by Democrats. So there was very little resistance to implement Obama's Policies.

also, americans do not like to suffer for long. they want quick results. except that the nature of the current economic crisis, is taking longer to repair. obama's plan for economic recovery involved more borrowing from an already extended government. the tea party movement was able to capitalize on this. also many americans, by nature, want little government, no taxes.

An Exit poll published by CNN said, On the question of 'Who is to blame for the economy' the voters said, its Bush, Wall Street and Obama in that order.

American people are very reasonable. If the job in hand is difficult and President had taken necessary steps and explained it to the people, people would have accepted it.

but the americans also increasingly depend on government aid re healthcare and education. also the u.s. supports two wars. there was a joke in a satirical magazine called onion, when obama was elected, 'black man gets the worst job in the u.s.'.
it is a tough job with conflicting pulls. more government services needed. people unwilling to pay more taxes (gasoline is still cheaper than coca cola in the u.s.).

If the people had become more dependent on Government for survival, they should have voted for democrats. Because Democrats had promised 'affordable health care' and unlimited jobless benefits and policies to help the poor and middle class. Republicans want to cut benefits across the board.

Its widely said, the Rich and Upper middle class who pay most of the taxes and they do not participate in elections.

------
This is surely not about 'White Majority' and racial divides. That subtext was largely absent in this election cycle. I will look for a no-spin perspective on this election result and post it.

The question now is, will Obama adjust like 'Bill Clinton' in 1994 or take an ideological stand on all issues. Some of the incoming Senators / Congress man are the opposites of Obama on Policy (they will see no incentive to compromise).

thanks,

 

[KRS]

Dear Sangom Ji,

Let me add my own perspective as to why the republicans won the lower house (Congress). I am sure that Professor Nara Ji will add his own.

Now to set the scenerio: As Sri Kunjuppu Ji rightly said, the entire lower house has to be elected every two years and the upper house, the Senate, based on when a particular Senator's term is up after serving for 6 years. Of course the President is elected every four years.

The President always sets the legislative agenda and based on which party is in majority of the congressional houses, the President is able to get the Congress and Senate to pass legislation. Because of the two party system, either congressional houses can have majority with one party and the President belonging to another.

In 2008 elections, there was a perfect storm against the republicans - unpopularity of President Bush because of long drawn Iraq war, combined with the housing financial bubble bursting just before the election (this is another topic by itself, with culprits everywhere - from greedy bankers, to the Congress which was protecting two quasi government entities named Fanniemae and Freddimac, which they had created to guarantee easy housing loans, to the Bush Administration which was asleep at the Securities oversight switch), there was a huge Obama wave - he not only got elected, but also got majorities in both houses for his party, with the required 60 seats out of 100 in the senate, where they do require 60 votes to pass any big legislation (by design - the founders wanted the 'seniors' as the senators are called to discuss issues deliberately anf free of any political pressures caused by an election every 2 years as faced by the members of the lower house).

So, as history has always shown, the new President always had lost seats in the election after he gets elected (except for George Bush, whose party won seats, because the election was right after 9/11), Obama knew he had to use the two years to pass many landmark legislations, like the health care etc. He then shut out reaching any political accommodations with the republicans, because he did not need them and passed the stimulus bill and spent his political capital by passing a very complicated health care bill as well. The process of passing these were so apparently partisan and political even within the democrats, it was there for all to see and they rammed it through.

Because of this he has tripled the debt and deficit from the day he took over from Bush and since the benefits from the health care would not start till 2014, with costs being paid in the interim and with the high unemployment not getting down despite his promise for spending almost a trillion in stimulus, Americans have gotten spooky - 75% of all voters have said that the country is headed in the wrong direction.

So, his party has lost the majority to the tune only last seen in 1944. So, now he has to deal with the lower house controlled by the republicans, with his party having now a barely a simple majority in the Senate, next two years till the next presidential election in 2012 are going to be interesting. People are fed up with both parties as they have more and more do not cooperate with each other and are roughly controlled by either extremes of their parties.

Bill Clinton was exactly roughly in the same position in 1994 and he struck deals then with the republicans, passed some good bills and got reelected. I do not think, for various reasons, Obama is not going to do that, and there is going to be almost no bills passed and then in 2012, the question is, who will pay the price?

Hope this helps.

Regards,
KRS

 

[RVR]

Obama is visiting India to create jobs for his countrymen.

Obama says Asia trip to focus on job creation - Yahoo! India News

All the best

 

[RVR]

Expectations of the Indian Industry on US President Obama is very low.

Little expectations from Obama's visit, says India Inc - Hindustan Times

All the best

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom Ji,

Let me add my own perspective as to why the republicans won the lower house (Congress). I am sure that Professor Nara Ji will add his own.

...
Hope this helps.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS,

Thank you for the insightful post. Now what is your own view? Do you also feel that the people getting nervous is right, the country is being not managed properly?

 

[Nara]

It will be informative for people like me if those of you who are more knowledgeable give your views on what went wrong with Obama's policies. Or, is it that the white majority is now repenting its support to Obama?

Dear Shri sangom, The short answers to your questions are (i) nothing has gone wrong with his major policy initiatives, at least not yet, it is too early to judge and (ii) the white majority did not support Obama even in 2008 for them to turn against him now, McCain beat Obama 55 to 43% among all White voters. For a more detailed analysis please see this Pew Research Center article.

Before I get my take on the election results, an observation and a couple of clarifications. First, the observation, if anybody clearly won Tuesday night it was Nate Silverman, a fairly obscure, but brilliant nerd. His statistical and simulation models have come through one more time.

Clarifications:

K said, "... n the u.s. even though the president is elected, the administrative power is divided between the house of representatives and the senate."​

This is not technically correct. The difference is perhaps too arcane, but worth mentioning. The administrative/executive power rests entirely with the presidency and not shared with the legislative branch. Congress passes laws, and the president gets to implement those laws. The legislative branch has only oversight role in the administration.

Shri KRS said, "with the required 60 seats out of 100 in the senate, where they do require 60 votes to pass any big legislation (by design - the founders wanted the 'seniors' as the senators are called to discuss issues deliberately anf free of any political pressures caused by an election every 2 years as faced by the members of the lower house)."
​

The 60 vote rule for the US senate, which is not required to pass legislation, but only to end debate and call the question, is only a senate rule. It is not part of the US Constitution. The U.S. constitution allows each chamber to set its own rules. Early in U.S. history, both houses allowed infinite debate. Debate was ended mostly by consensus. As the membership grew in the lower house, they did away with unlimited debates. The senate also did away with unlimited debate, but they required 3/4th of the members wanting to end debate. This was later reduced to 3/5. The senate can do away with this rule at any time by a majority vote. But, it would require 60 votes to end debate on it. The only time a rule change is possible without 60 votes is at the very first session of a given congress where the rules for that class is voted on for the first time.

Now the 2010 election.
Elections are decided by many factors, the most important of which is the economy. When Bill Clinton ran for the presidency for the first time, his campaign chief James Carville is supposed to have hung a huge sign in their campaign office that read "Its the economy stupid" to remind everyone to focus on the message of economy. When the economy is doing poorly the party in power usually suffers at the polls.

Historically, with some exceptions, the party that holds the presidency suffers electoral loses. It seems in midterm elections since 1862, the president's party has averaged losses of about 32 seats in the House and more than two seats in the Senate. (Source: Media Matters) But to see a similar loss like the one the Democrats suffered this time you have to go way back to 1940s. In 1942 under President Roosevelt democrats lost 55 seats. Democrats lost 60 this time.

The influence of the so called Tea-Party (a reference to Boston Tea Party and patriotism) is overrated in my opinion. There were some successes for them, no doubt, but in the aggregate, they cost the Republicans the Senate. But for Sharon Angle in Nevada, Republicans would have defeated Reid there. Chrstine O'Donnel turned a sure loss in Delaware to an easy win for Democrats. In the lower house, even though the Rs won a majority, only 1/3rd of the tea-party affiliated candidates won. Further, the tea-party affiliated candidates who won have unrealistic expectations for their own party. They will turn out to be more troublesome for Rs in the long run.

Another point to consider is the wave of Democratic wins from 2006 and 2008. The 2008 elections saw an unprecedented surge in young voters for Obama. This surge in younger voters pushed a lot of democrats over the finish line from districts that usually favor Republicans. This time, with Obama not on the ticket, unemployment still hovering around 10%, the young voters not showing up in droves, those Ds had tough time holding on to their seats and many lost.

Finally, there is this thing called enthusiasm gap. Those who went all out for Obama in 2008 felt let down by his corporate-centric policies. He won on a progressive wave and they expected real change that he kept promising. He started out quite well, setting a firm date to close Guantanamo Bay (which he later let slide indefinitely) and in short order passed and signed into law the equal-pay act. Liberals and progressives were thrilled.

But this was short lived. He let all the change he promised slip by. He hired the same Wall Street tycoons the public hated for his economic council. He kept Bush's defense secretary as his own. He compromised with the Republicans and big business even without extracting any support from them to pass legislation. He allowed the health-care industry lobby to write the new Health-care law. He made secret deals with Pharma companies. He did not allow Single-Payer proponents to even testify in congress. He sold out to the insurance companies by dropping even the one last thing the progressives wanted, the so called "public-option" program. My circle of liberal friends I have here in my hometown, who were once the most vocal and enthusiastic supporters of Obama were aghast. This is when Obama lost his base.

On the security front, he continued Bush era policies of intrusive eavesdropping policies. He defended the so called "Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy" policy, which he says he wants to get rid of. He has instituted a world-wide extra-judiciary program to assassinate U.S. citizens whom he suspects as terrorist, a policy that even Bush did not follow. He did not appoint even one truly progressive person to any of the cabinet positions.

All of this clearly showed to the progressives and liberals, Obama wants them to vote for him and the Democrtas, and then go to their corner and wait two years, and then come back and vote for them again. His own close staff like Rahm Emmanuel and Robert Gibbs openly ridiculed liberals and progressives. Is it any wonder then there was no enthusiasm among the truly devoted.

Where as, the Republicans were all fired up. They stood united in their opposition to whatever Obama proposed, even the ideas they themselves once supported and even sponsored. Republicans are very good at enforcing party discipline. They constantly painted Obama was characterized as the "other", Kenyan, Muslim, not born in U.S.

Well, here you have it, the way I see why Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri sangom,
...
Well, here you have it, the way I see why Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

Thank you for the very detailed write-up. What do you think Obama is likely to do in the next two years to shore up his popularity?

 

[Nara]

A sad loss

Many people won in the last Tuesday's election, more Republicans than Democrats. Republican or Democrat, they mostly belong to one party, the party of the corporatists.

But I want to talk about one who lost this time, a man of principle and courage, Russ Fiengold of Wisconsin.

He was the lone vote of courage against the most ironically named piece of despotic legislation "The Patriot Act" the American counterpart to TADA in India. He voted against the Iraq war. He voted against Obama's consumer protection law because in deference to Wall street and the unfounded hope of attracting Republican votes, the legislation was completely watered down. There are many more such instances in his long record in defense of the interest of the common man.

In a Senate chamber filled with multi-millionaires, belonging to both parties, he was one with an average net worth in 2008 of under $100K.

He lost this past Tuesday.

 

[kunjuppu]

nara,

even if obama wanted to implement his agenda, he would not have mustered the votes to pass his bills.

just look at what happened to clinton's health care plan. obama did not want his plan to go the same drain. better half a rotten apple than no apple at all!

which comes back to my point - the u.s. president is a toothless tiger. at the mercy of the congress and (even worse) the senate.

i like our westminister system better. the elections are not long drawn. the majority party can make radical changes. overall, it has worked better for the common voters.

my 0.98 cents worth (the current value of the candian dollar vs greenback)

 

[Nara]

Thank you for the very detailed write-up. What do you think Obama is likely to do in the next two years to shore up his popularity?

Dear Shri Sangom, he is in a pickle. There will be lot of Clintonite Democrats who will advice him to move further to the right, and even outflank the Republicans. If he does that he will surely face a primary challenge.

With diminished majority in the Senate and lost lower house, he cannot go for any bold progressive initiatives that can energize the base. So he is stuck in the middle.

He has a few things going for him also. The public discontent is so intense the Republicans don't have a long rope either. In a way, 2010 results may be blessing in disguise for Obama. He can take credit if economy improves or, if it still languishes, put the blame on the Republicans.

One final hope for him is the Republicans will nominate Sarah Palin or somebody like her. After 2008 loss Republication party is more and more dominated by the extreme right-wing. So, this scenario is not entirely outlandish. Obama may be praying to his god, Alla or Jesus depending on whom you ask, that they do just that.

There is not a whole lot else he can do now. He had his chance over the last two years and he blew it.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

...even if obama wanted to implement his agenda, he would not have mustered the votes to pass his bills.

Yes K, what you say is true. Because of the primary system for selecting candidates, elected representatives are not entirely beholden to party leaders. Obama can only cajole, he cannot command. But the view among progressives and liberals is, he did not do any cajoling at all, he just capitulated to the right-wing.

Liberals would have turned out in larger numbers than even 2008 if he had taken a firm stand for the least of the provisions in the heath-care bill they cared about, the "Public Option", let alone a single-payer Canadian style system. He promised to telecast health-care negotiations over C-Span, but then secretly made a deal with the Pharma industry. He appointed people like Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner.

He refused to launch any investigation on Bush era excesses, not even a truth-and-reconciliation type inquiry where nobody goes to prison if they tell the truth, not even that, nothing. Top level criminals are walking free while low level people who were just doing their jobs, a little over zealously perhaps, are sent to jail. Cheney has never denied his role in approving "water-boarding". Now, the latest is, Bush admitting he approved "water-boarding" himself.

He says he wants to repeal "Don't-ask-don't tell", but defends it in the court with language that is fit to come out of people like Franklin Graham.

Even in the case of appointing the widely popular Elizabeth Warren to the consumer protection agency, he vacillated and finally made a half job of it.

It is tough to get enthused in the face of continuing list of disappointments and outright betrayals.

which comes back to my point - the u.s. president is a toothless tiger. at the mercy of the congress and (even worse) the senate.

There are presidents who have done a lot, like FDR and LBJ. But in the most part, when it comes to domestic agenda, his role is best described as a, dare I say in the current climate of proclivity for canine analogies, a dog in the manger, a role that comes naturally to Republicans and who are best suited for that role.

i like our westminister system better. the elections are not long drawn. the majority party can make radical changes. overall, it has worked better for the common voters.

The U.S. system is further handicapped by the enormous powers of a single senator. A senator from a state with hardly over 500,000 can bring the entire senate to a virtual standstill.

What we have in U.S. is not a democracy, it is a system in which the rights and powers of the rich are protected and grown. Some people like the newly elected senator-elect from Kentucky, Rand Paul, think that is a good thing. He said the following right after he won,

"We all either work for rich people, or we sell stuff to rich people. So just punishing rich people is as bad for the economy as punishing anyone." He also said: "We're all interconnected. There are no rich, there are no middle class, there are no poor. We're all interconnected in the economy." (Source: TPM)
​

Cheers!

 

[RVR]

There is an interesting article in rediff explaining Obama's agenda during India visit.

As Obama arrives, US bids for heavy arms business - Rediff.com India News

I wish everybody reads the last paragraph of the above, where women are insulted. We read all this type of things in media on daily basis.

All the best

 

[tbs]

Obama may be praying to his god, Alla or Jesus depending on whom you ask, that they do just that.

nara sir,

just FYI .....i heard that he always pray to LORD HANUMAN JI...i may be wrong...


my 2 cents

regards
tbs

 

[tbs]

hi nara sir,

good news for tea party GOP's.....a lady belong to indian american won governor for south carolina....


Nikki Haley wins South Carolina, becomes the second American of Indian origin to become Governor

Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/u...icans-deal-blow-to-india-bound-obama-64129?cp


​

regards
tbs

 

[sangom]

In the link cited above I find the following statement:

"The most expensive midterm election campaign in the nation's history, fueled by a raft of contributions from outside interest groups and millions of donations to candidates in both parties, played out across a wide battleground that stretched from Alaska to Maine."

Are the details of the outside interest groups secret or available to the public?

 

[kunjuppu]

nara,

both fdr & lbj were giants of their time, due to circumstances that propelled them to greatness.

fdr had the depression, but like obama, even though he was spending money like water (good advice from canadians like jk galbraith, englishman keynes and jewish american morgenthau), they could not solve the perennial unemployment problem, till hitler came to fdr's aide.

the world war 2 paved the way for american prosperity of the 50s, 60s, which led the youth of that generation to question the values of their parents and that fundamentally unequal society of that time. out of this came medicare, medicaid and the mighty civil rights bills.

lbj was an old fashioned texan larger than life,redneck turned opportunist, who had greatness thrust upon him due to the times that he was the president.

When he realized that he could not stop the forces of change..quickly and very quickly he turned around and used all his mite (he was after all the ex dem leader of the senator or house i forget) to ensure these bills were passed and the u.s. constitution ratified (for civil rights).

also, he had the ghost of john f. kennedy hovering around him. it would have been a fair surmise, that jfk would have signed all these bills had he lived..but jfk would have done the same thing in vietnam, though there is a school of thought that beleives that both robert kennedy & theodore sorensen (recently demised) would have convinced jfk for a quick pullout.

lbj's graveyard was vietnam. but for that, he would have been one of the greatest u.s. presidents. still i think lbj is vastly underrated, and history will be kinder to him, than his contemperories.

fdr was God's gift to the usa in their time of need.

footnote: i don't know why obama cannot get out of afghan. fear of the right i think.

 

[sangom]

...
footnote: i don't know why obama cannot get out of afghan. fear of the right i think.

Kunjuppu,

I feel Obama sticks to Afghanistan for fear of China swallowing the entire region, including Pakistan. Taliban is either knowingly or unknowingly helping US. After all Taliban and Osama were created by US only to prise out USSR.

 

[kunjuppu]

Sangom,

I think the whole concept of nations conquering other nations have changed. Let me explain…

Why should the u.s. care about who rules Afghanistan? This is after all an impoverished opium poppy country located in the backwaters of the world stage. The concern now may be that they will produce more jihadists but these jihadists suck more blood out of their own muslim brethren.

In this quarrel, there are hostage and no mercy is given or expected. Quite a different rule from what the Americans are used to at home, and hence the big examination of conscience. Can the u.s. fight a war per its own moral standards, and still win?

I really don’t know why the u.s. is still in afghan. I can guess – pride ie not behoving of a world power to be decimated by a bunch of tribals. It is this ignorance that has proved afghan to be graveyard of empires. The u.s. may pour money there for development, just like it did in Pakistan. All of this will flow directly to the coffers of those at the top and the country will be as backward as ever.

Countries that should worry are india and china. We have a large muslim population, and all it takes is about 1000 of these guys to start acting radical and be ready with suicide bombs. Can you imagine the resulting communal carnage? The han Chinese will probably be ruthless in suppressing the uighurs and populate the whole area with their own kins. That is one way of resolving the issue, though I don’t know if it will be long lasting.

Re fear of china: what is china going to do if it overwhelms india? Let us step through it. Are they going to come and occupy new delhi? They already have more than a billion to feed. Why would they want to get saddled with another billion? Same goes for Pakistan. Would china be interested in breakup of india? Maybe there is a reason there. it effectively removes many layers of competition in the world stage including prestige.

The usa is too far away to be concerned about Chinese hegemony. We don’t have the fear of threat from global communism. There is real fear of Islamic radicalism. I read somewhere that 10% of muslims can be called or sympathize with the radicals. If that be true, it is a fearful situation. But the people to fear most, would be the moderate citizens of the muslim countries who would feel the immediate threat of loss of power.

Also the usa is in debt to china. There is real fear that the u.s. federal reserve may be priming the printing presses ie flood the world with dollar bills. It has been done once before, during the Vietnam war when the u.s. paid for the war and ambitious ‘Great Society’ social programs by just printing dollar bills. The feds is an independent body, but is strongly susceptible to political winds.

U.S. party politics mask real battle lines - The Globe and Mail


Once upon a time the world owed japan a lot of money. I think it was in the 1980sa or 1990s the Japanese threw their money around, buying anything that was for sale in the west. Those days are gone now. Thanks to an overextended and corrupt banking system, japan today maybe considered the ‘sick man’ of the developed world.

Now the Chinese have the money to buy up the whole world. Why would they bother with acquiring headaches like afghan or pak? They could ofcourse use them as teasers or tools of mischief to distract india, but hopefully our political pundits have this all figured out. In fact, I gather, our foreign ministry gets high marks for astuteness.

Also china, like india is an ancient country. To them time means nothing. They have not made one misstep, both domestic or foreign since deng xiao ping in the 1980s. it is that meticulous long range vision and the inscrutability of their policies that should caution us. The world has yet to discover and prove any structural weakness within china of today. My 1 cent’s worth (the Canadian dollar is at parity to u.s greenback today)

 

[sangom]

Sangom,

I think the whole concept of nations conquering other nations have changed. Let me explain…

Shri Kunjuppu,

Iraq war IMO was a nation attacking another - whatever the reason or provocation may be. Now Bush says it was right and US feels it has installed a regime in Iraq which will be subservient to it, unlike Saddam.

Why should the u.s. care about who rules Afghanistan? This is after all an impoverished opium poppy country located in the backwaters of the world stage. The concern now may be that they will produce more jihadists but these jihadists suck more blood out of their own muslim brethren.

The present situation/urgency may be jihadists but US got involved in Afghan because they wanted a piece of strategic land in Asia. That imperative will continue, I think. A superpower has not only itself to grow but also see that others do not overtake; it is as simple as that.

In this quarrel, there are hostage and no mercy is given or expected. Quite a different rule from what the Americans are used to at home, and hence the big examination of conscience. Can the u.s. fight a war per its own moral standards, and still win?

I really don’t know why the u.s. is still in afghan. I can guess – pride ie not behoving of a world power to be decimated by a bunch of tribals. It is this ignorance that has proved afghan to be graveyard of empires. The u.s. may pour money there for development, just like it did in Pakistan. All of this will flow directly to the coffers of those at the top and the country will be as backward as ever.

I have already given my view as to why US is not leaving Af. But if it decides to, that will hasten its decline from the status of the world superpower.

Countries that should worry are india and china. We have a large muslim population, and all it takes is about 1000 of these guys to start acting radical and be ready with suicide bombs. Can you imagine the resulting communal carnage? The han Chinese will probably be ruthless in suppressing the uighurs and populate the whole area with their own kins. That is one way of resolving the issue, though I don’t know if it will be long lasting.

China may have less to fear about Af. but India has to be careful, I agree.

Re fear of china: what is china going to do if it overwhelms india? Let us step through it. Are they going to come and occupy new delhi? They already have more than a billion to feed. Why would they want to get saddled with another billion? Same goes for Pakistan. Would china be interested in breakup of india? Maybe there is a reason there. it effectively removes many layers of competition in the world stage including prestige.

Winning a war and extending its borders further into Indian territory will enhance the standing of China in the entire SAARC region in which India is the leader now. India will get sidelined as a weak power which cannot look after its own safety. China will be able to capture more of the SAARC markets. Besides, others will be more inclined to China's side than to India in any future tussle.

The usa is too far away to be concerned about Chinese hegemony.

It was afraid of USSR's hegemony; why should it be unconcerned about China's?

Also the usa is in debt to china. There is real fear that the u.s. federal reserve may be priming the printing presses ie flood the world with dollar bills. It has been done once before, during the Vietnam war when the u.s. paid for the war and ambitious ‘Great Society’ social programs by just printing dollar bills. The feds is an independent body, but is strongly susceptible to political winds.

Printing more greenbacks will end up as US Treasury bills with China and to some extent India. If USD gets significantly devalued (say 10 percent or more) it may get an edge in its exports but since US presence is not much in day-to-day consumables, but very high-tech and armaments, planes etc., its exports may increase in volume but not in total real worth much, because these items are not purchased just because they come cheap. Hence I think US is between the devil and the deep sea; it will have to think of some new strategy to come out of this tricky situation. Perhaps the best that can happen is another WW; what if US is able to capitalize on the fear of Islamic terrorism, and get a Xian vs Islam war started some where? Just as Hitler helped FDR, this might come as a saviour for the US. Will it not?

Now the Chinese have the money to buy up the whole world. Why would they bother with acquiring headaches like afghan or pak? They could ofcourse use them as teasers or tools of mischief to distract india, but hopefully our political pundits have this all figured out. In fact, I gather, our foreign ministry gets high marks for astuteness.

from the past performances of our foreign minister, it is real surprise how you got such feedback!

Also china, like india is an ancient country. To them time means nothing. They have not made one misstep, both domestic or foreign since deng xiao ping in the 1980s. it is that meticulous long range vision and the inscrutability of their policies that should caution us. The world has yet to discover and prove any structural weakness within china of today. My 1 cent’s worth (the Canadian dollar is at parity to u.s greenback today)

Exactly, that is what makes China the most "to-be-watched-carefully" country.

 

[suresoo]

Here is a opinion piece, i think very nicely reflects the state of America and the recent elections

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1&hp

and ends with
"American politics are volatile because nobody has an answer for these people. They will remain volatile until somebody finds one. "

thanks,

 

[Nara]

...re the details of the outside interest groups secret or available to the public?

Dear Shri Sangom, we talk about corruption in India, and it is true, there is corruption in India at all levels. Corruption in India at the level that common people have to deal with directly is really depressing and we in the U.S. don't face that kind of corruption.

But, when it comes to corruption in high places, U.S. will give a run for its money against any other country. Only that, in the U.S. much of this high level corruption is legal, so we can't call it corruption in the legal sense.

This high level corruption was elevated to unprecedented levels only recently via a case called Citizens united v. Federal Election Commission, in which the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that no election spending limits can be placed on independent groups. We also need to note that by a supreme court ruling from the previous century, Corporations are "persons" and money is "speech". Taken together, all these rulings in effect opened the flood gates. A rich man can set up a paper entity without disclosing his identity and flood money for his favored candidate, with a wink and a nod, can get to control the political process for his advantage.

But, more normal route is to have political operatives like Carl Rove to setup a plethora of groups with innocuous sounding names like American Cross Roads and American Action Network into which hundreds of millions are poured in. The donors now have a middlemen to control the process.

After the Citizens United case, U.S. congress tried to pass a law called Disclose Act that required that the source of funds must be disclosed. It failed by a vote of 59 to 40 votes in the senate. Yes, it failed even though it had 59 votes in favor, but to end debate and move to vote on final passage Senate rules require 60 votes. The Republicans erected a fire wall against the Disclose Act.

So, the answer to your question is, it is secret, not available to public, thanks to Republicans.

We need to note here that any restriction or freedom given to or placed on Corporations are given to and placed on Labor groups as well. But the difference is, the Labor is in favor of Disclose Act, but the corporations are not. Further, Labor by definition is grass-root.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

....fdr had the depression, but like obama, even though he was spending money like water (good advice from canadians like jk galbraith, englishman keynes and jewish american morgenthau), they could not solve the perennial unemployment problem, till hitler came to fdr's aide.

Dear K, what ended the great depression continues to be debated. What role the so called New Deal played in ending the depression will never be squarely settled. Leaving that aside for the moment, let us unpack this point that WWII ended the unemployment problem and see where that leads us.

There was a time when some economists advocated, with tongue-in-cheek, that the government must take up a program to pay people to dig holes in the ground, and, after it is done, pay them to fill the holes back up. They were making a point, and that is, spend money like water as you say, in the short run and once we are out of the hole, the debt can be easily taken care of. To make that point they even said completely pointless spending will have an effect.

And now, what do you think WWII was, it was pointless and destructive. And who did the spending, the government. So, it was not WWII that paved the way for American propsperity, but it was massive amount of government spending.

This is the problem Obama was facing in 2008. Many Keynesian economists were advocating to go big. But he was thwarted mainly by his own party. He should have known that he can't count on Republicans to do the right thing. But he surrounded himself with corporatist economists, and he let the conservative democrats have their way in the senate. The result was a tepid stimulus spending. Obama went to a gun fight with a knife.

Obama has now lost his momentum. We are in for two years of massive gridlock. Nothing is going to get done. The tea-party wing of the Republican party is already staking claims for leadership positions. I don't see how any Republican can get nominated without their support. That, in the end, is what can give Obama his second term.

Cheers!