44th President and 111th Congress (US Gov't 2009-2011)
 

With the end of the election most everyone knows what the outcome was. Scince there was some conflicts in the US Election 2008 thread about content, I decided to create a new thread to focus on the future as opposed to past events.

So this thread is to speculate on the direction gov't goes in from now on and reaction to what goes on.



As of right now we have what 3 senate seats in question? After that the Dems have made great gains, one of the big things is how the balance between the congress and white house will be. Especially with a larger (but more VARIED) democratic congress and a shell shocked and (according to analysts) more conservative republican party.

It'll be interesting to see what happens from here on.

First on the agenda: The economy. Hell, it could very well become the only thing on the agenda.

The wars: Well, this ties in with the economy. To stop the money burning, a quick pullout might work. But, geo-politically, things would be sticky.

umm isn't 110th congress still Bush 2.0?

Obma starts in 111th (2009-2011)
44th President and 111th Congress (US Gov't 2009-2011)

Good point, sorry if I can't change it, I don't know how.

I supported Obama on his energy, urban and infrastructure platform but yea, most of such plans will have to severely curttailed, microsized or even ignored in the short term. There is just no money. Iraq will wind down, I'm not THAT worried about it, I don't want to make Iraqi's sound lazy at all, but we just can't afford to be over there at the level we are at now for too much longer. As for Afganistan, yea it's important that we refocus energy there but I'm not sure if the american part of the "surge" tactic will be of that much use. Is it possible to get Europe to cooperate more?

The fact is once we pull out in 16 months as Al maliki wants, we did our job. We won our fight. If he loses the war after that, well, that's his loss. We're handing his country to him the way he wants it.

On troop pullouts, the shutting of overseas bases might be brought up. Places like South Korea and Okinawa.

That would be a terrible idea.

As much friction as the base presence may have on locals, the truth is, both South Korea and Japan needs US presence to keep security in that part of asia, and US needs both of those countries for economical reasons. Between Japan and Korea, more than half of the electronics in US are supplied and countless jobs.

You will hear the vocal minority of Okinawan protests, but the silent majority of Japanese understands the importance of US presence. We're not that stupid. ;)

Now, how about Missile defense in Europe? Obama said NO ground based ABMs in Europe unless "it works".

Too bad he's gonna have to scrap it for now. Euro-based ground ABM is useless against current and future threats, especially the latest generation of TOPOL Ms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4XzipgqfbY

Actually, I beg to differ. Would the Chinese do anything to upset the status quo? My answer is: No. As for North Korea, well.... anything goes with that kid. Are South Korea and Japan so incapable of defending themselves? As I remember it, some troops will be pulling out of South Korea, and battlefield command would be handed to the Koreans themselves.

As for missile defense, economically, it doesn't make any sense. As I see it, Russia is reacting to an perceived threat by NATO to tighten its sphere of influence.

It's not China, it's North Korea. It's not that the US troops are militarily crucial, but their expertise and intelligence resources are nonetheless useful. Moreover, if North Korea's gone wild, the US will find no better casus belli than American soldiers being attacked unprovoked.

Besides, the local citizenry might be a little miffed at US military presence, but to the governments on both sides of the Pacific it's just another useful diplomatic relationship that put the countries' shared interests together. The cost of maintaining such bases, I suspect, is probably minimal at best. Why tinker with what's already working fine enough? I'm sure President-elect Obama has a lot of better things to do anyway.

Edit: Didn't catch your NK edit in time. :) But yeah, reduction in troop commitments isn't anything new or particularly game-changing. It might not even have anything to do with East Asian geopolitical concerns as it is with requiring all that extra manpower in Afghanistan.

Thanks for the reminder, though I caught myself in time... I guess.

Still, I'm pretty sure that troops in SK will be cut back, as I mentioned (Kang might give a better update on this.). Troops in Okinawa will also be cut back (I think), but overall, the US will continue to have a presence in East Asia. I don't expect, or desire, a total pullout. But, the troops are being stretched by the wars...

Of course, funding for bases is peanuts compared to the wars. That is where the money is being burnt.

In other news, the lobbies. Oh boy, the lobbies. How Obama will fare against them is anyone's guess. Now, I personally think that lobbies are not inherently bad. They look after the interests of their clients. That's fine. My beef is their under-the-table stuff, the type which will disintegrate under sunlight.

May be that's where Rahmbo comes in? ;) They say he was chosen precisely because somebody needs to be Obama's bad cop.



I have to admit, though, that the idea of saving Detroit doesn't really go well with me. Not unless the government adds a whole lot of strings attached to justify the bailout: no golden parachutes, one-time only, green cars, etc. Oh, and the unions there, Democratic stalwarts that they are, are also pretty sleazy.

As I mentioned, it's the underground deals that are the problem. Also, the entrenched industries meant that if nothing is done, new and more viable solutions will not be possible as the oldies just deemed them expensive and dismiss them out of instinct.

Detroit is a nuke waiting. No bailout, the city WILL meltdown. The companies are losing money and pretty soon, their pants as well.

There will be some gov't action due to the huge importance of the big 3 on US economy, but yea it should be condition based.

Also if if the big 3 go under, say good bye to Detroit. It really hasn't diversified enough to get moving on it's own yet.

A thread dedicated to Obama. This should be pretty exciting. :)

Not that the economy & American troops are not important, but Obama needs to get the Middle East Roadmap back on the agenda again. The fact that Israel & Palestine have been stalled for so long makes it look bad on the U.S, who proposed the thing in the first place (if I'm not wrong).

He might try also to be less belligerent with the Iranians. Not everything should be an absolute when it comes to bilateral ties.

Show that he can make some progress with these 2, and he'll make a lot of people where I'm at happy.

That is true, I don't know if Bush has really done much with those two. The economy is definitely going to be a beast, that's gonna be the biggest issue on his plate.

The 44th president, hmm. I hope he isn't superstitious.