Will Obamanomics work?

Will populist economics work for America? Democratic candidate Barack Obama thinks so. Expand opportunities for the ordinary working man by giving them a tax break. Another "pillar" of "Obamanomics" or "Obamanism" proposes to "regulate" earnings of the rich to "equalize" opportunities for the poor. 

Eliminate capital gains tax. Create 2 million new jobs. Develop every community. Invest 15 billion dollars for renewable energy to create 5 million new jobs. Eliminate oil imports from the Middle East. Implement health insurance by subjecting insurance firms to scrutiny. End the war in Iraq.

These proposals are everyday, ordinary political speeches from honey tongued politicians. Vote for me and i'll give you the world. But, the fundamental question that everybody is asking-- will it work?

Will six years be enough for Obamanomics to solve the deep US sub-prime crisis through tax breaks and elimination of capital gains tax? Will six years be enough to create new jobs? 

Will six years be enough to even combat the giant oil companies who profits greatly from their exports of oil? And will it be enough to create a society independent of the clutches of the oil cartel?

Adherents of "Obamanism" thinks that everything changes with just a stroke of a president's pen. Obamanists think that America's problems can only be solved by just marching towards the Oval Office and occupy the World's Top Executive post.

The problems of America are serious. It can't be trivialized. It can't be simplified by just telling people that "everything will be alright if you vote for me." Or with such stirring speeches, making people's hopes alive with "change is what we need". 

Promises of "we will win this country and we will change the world" (Barack's recent speech in Minnesota). Those are promises of an ideologically astute politician who just wants to win. And for what? For personal glory or for the people's?

Americans don't deserve mother-hood statements and promises of salvation by a 47-year old idealist who think that change will just take a moment's reflection inside the White House. They need definitive answers. They need assurances that Obama is not just a young politician out to make a name for himself as the "first Black American president". This office, the Office of the US President, is not for dreamers or self-proclaimed messiahs. 

The work of the US President is hard work. It is not a hippie joint.

Americans need a president that's open to compromise. Yes, compromise. America faces real, serious and lethal threats from big oil cartels, terrorist groups and Big Business that it ill affords to make this election a trifling matter. For the first time in his checkered history, the U.S. is at its weakest situation. Having a president that thinks about waging war against Big Business and the Establishment is surely, not the way to go.

The U.S. needs a leader that would strengthen the very democratic institutions that made it the greatest nation on earth. It does'nt need a Messiah. More than ever, it needs the collective unity, a realization if you will, that, unity and being together under tough times will just save them from the impending global financial Armageddon. Americans did it before during World War II. Now, they face certain extinction should they fail to unify under these troubling times.

Serious state business lies ahead for the winner of this elections. But, am I saying that you vote for John McCain? Am I saying that you choose Obama? No.

What I'm saying is for both candidates to cut the fat from their speeches, give us a glimpse of what you can really do and save us from those "messianic" statements. Their speeches are good for the soul. What these two candidates must do is rally the American people, make them realize their traditional values and empower them. Whoever will just do that, wins.

 

So much for the Obama magic

Senator Barrack Obama leads Republican bet John McCain by 8 points. I believe though that McCain has successfully whittle that margin a little bit more. Why? Because Obama looks like a child when he's put side-by-side with McCain.

This last "Great Debate" centers on the economy. Basing on his answers, McCain's economic plan seems more viable than Obama's, because it would center on "trimming the fat", instead of raising taxes. McCain effectively cut down Obama's plan by focusing more on the proposal to rev up the US economy thru reviving traditional ways of doing things ("doing business") instead of just raising taxes.

What I am particularly worried about is the reaction of Obama whenever he hears a disparaging remark against his ideas about the world. He expresses dismay or expresses "anger". It's not presidential, Mr. Senator. Obama needs to consider that other people have better ideas probably, than him. Remember, you're gunning for the chief executive post of a Superpower country, not just some state like Hawaii.

Anyway, what I'm worried is the possibility of the US job market closing down if Obama's elected. Obama told the US public that he wants to create more jobs for Americans (note: Americans only) first, then other nationalities second. He also wants to decrease ties with China. What would happen, Mr. Senator, is the speedy downturn of the economy. If you decrease US economic relationship with China, it would greatly impact on the US economy all the more.

Barack Obama and the Mindanao problem

The Internet is a-buzz of news about Senator Barack Obama's announcement of his running mate. Speculations abound on who'll be his anointed one. This early, some say, whoever Obama chose as his running mate may very well be the next vice president given the high ratings the Obama campaign has been getting lately. Analysts see Obama has just clutched the presidency.

What I'm interested is how Obama would conduct the foreign affairs of America. Early indications point to a full withdrawal of troops in 2011, which Iraqi officials say should be a full withdrawal of troops. Obama has said time and again that US troops will disengage themselves from Iraq, since it is costing the American public billions just to maintain US presence in Iraq. 

However, Obama has yet to address the increasing problems of terrorism in the Asia-Pacific region. We presume that Obama will continue the existing US policy against terror in the region, yet, up to what extent? Yes, anti-terror campaigns will definitely continue under either an Obama or a McCain presidency, but who'll be more vigilant and more vigorous in chasing after these Islamic terrorists? Given the record of Obama, will he be implementing a "softer" approach to this global menace?

Likewise, flashpoints are beginning to emerge in Georgia and possibly in Mindanao Philippines should fighting escalate between Philippine forces and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). The theater of war is shifting, from the desert to the fertile plains of Southeast Asia. Should the Philippine government mishandles the situation in Mindanao, Obama will have his hands full engaging terrorism in other fronts or quite possibly, in multivariate areas. 

So, the US as represented by Ambassador Kristie Kenney should do everything in her power to prevent this conflict in Mindanao from turning into a regional one. I suspect that this war could eventually be the one serious legacy of the Bush administration which Obama would find hard finding a lasting solution.