The Debate: Should Obama put certain things off for now or go for it?

[dem629]

Maybe I'm an idealist, or even a radical, but I say: We have a progressive president, a majority in the House and in the Senate, so let's use these next two years (especially the first 6-12 months) to steamroll the motherfuckers. GO FOR IT.

Edit: typo

[Double T]

1. Someone once said...'It's the economy STUPID!'

Unless we're STUPID, ALL of the focus should be on our financial system and the economy.

[daninthemoon]

2. Most of the mess can be helped greatly by one overarching plan

to build green technology infrastructure grids and businesses. The whole plan can be modelled after Eisenhower's highway construction and many of FDR's public works programs. Jobs will be be created across the country, so the economy gets a boost. Operating costs for businesses as well as homes will fall. Healthcare reforms can include these workers, which will help the system (whatever it ends up being) get off to a good start.

[Honeycombe8]

3. He needs to go for it, before 2010, when Repubs may take back Congress.

It's now or maybe never.

[Zynx]

4. The Republicans are not going to take back Congress. That's absurd.

First of all, there aren't even enough competitive Senate seats up for that. Secondly, that would only happen if Obama was obscenely unpopular.

[Honeycombe8]

6. Actually, you are wrong. That is history, Grasshopper. Ask Bill Clinton.

He was, as you put it, "wildly" popular, but the country gave his Democratic Congress back the Reublicans in the mid-1990's, and there they kept it for years.

The country likes a President and a Congress of different parties.

What I SHOULD have said, though...is that Obama and his administration MUST go for it before 2010 because losing the Congress to Republicans (or losing ANY seats) is a very real possibility. He has to move while he knows he has the votes in Congress.

[PermanentRevolution]

5. He should take whatever course has the best chance of ensuring long-lasting success for his agenda

Cop-out answer, I know, but I'm not qualified to determine what that course is.

My gut says pushing too soon too fast risks a possible backlash in 2010 or 2012, negating our ability to bring about lasting change. There's certain issues that the majority of the country is completely behind, and those can and should be pushed quickly. But there are trickier subjects that might need a slower hand to build the support necessary to ensure approval.

After all, passing laws means little if the people reject your agenda and vote you out so your successor can undo it - that's what we just did with Bush. If Obama is seen as only governing for the left, then we risk the same fate. But if he can first convince the country that the left's policies are best for everyone, we could see a lasting majority for years to come.

Of course, I could be completely wrong. Maybe we should ram it through and then let the results speak for themselves. I don't know.

Which is why I'm not qualified to decide - hence the cop-out answer! :evilgrin:

[Thrill]

7. Go for it. The Repukes have no power. Why should he listen to them