Which problem does he tackle?

Ok, President Obama has a full plate.
How do you prioritze the critical items he must tackle?
economy?
Immigration?
Oil spill?
Iran?
Afghanistan?
Upcoming elections?
We're broke?
North Korea?
Health Care? ( still bugs in this plan)
Gaza?
Iraq ( that is not completed yet )

What would your priorities be?

Mine would be budget cutting. I think the people in the USA see the writing on the wall, and are not spending, but saving as they should be.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
Ok, President Obama has a full plate.
How do you prioritze the critical items he must tackle?
economy?
Immigration?
Oil spill?
Iran?
Afghanistan?
Upcoming elections?
We're broke?
North Korea?
Health Care? ( still bugs in this plan)
Gaza?
Iraq ( that is not completed yet )

What would your priorities be?

Mine would be budget cutting. I thi ...[text shortened]... ple in the USA see the writing on the wall, and are not spending, but saving as they should be.

Being President is not easy!

The economy is probably #1. Everything else comes from our amazingly powerful economy.

A president can change more than one policy at a time.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
Ok, President Obama has a full plate.
How do you prioritze the critical items he must tackle?
economy?
Immigration?
Oil spill?
Iran?
Afghanistan?
Upcoming elections?
We're broke?
North Korea?
Health Care? ( still bugs in this plan)
Gaza?
Iraq ( that is not completed yet )

What would your priorities be?

Mine would be budget cutting. I thi ...[text shortened]... ple in the USA see the writing on the wall, and are not spending, but saving as they should be.

I think the main thing to keep in mind is that you can't have your cake and eat it too; how can you reconcile "budget cutting" with say, the wars, healthcare, immigration, etc?

obama needs to take more vacations and play more golf and quit messing with stuff.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
obama needs to take more vacations and play more golf and quit messing with stuff.

Only if he takes the senate and house members with him.

Originally posted by badmoon
Only if he takes the senate and house members with him.

i wouldn't even mind if it was government-funded. it'd be a net benefit to us.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
Ok, President Obama has a full plate.
How do you prioritze the critical items he must tackle?
economy?
Immigration?
Oil spill?
Iran?
Afghanistan?
Upcoming elections?
We're broke?
North Korea?
Health Care? ( still bugs in this plan)
Gaza?
Iraq ( that is not completed yet )

What would your priorities be?

Mine would be budget cutting. I thi ...[text shortened]... ple in the USA see the writing on the wall, and are not spending, but saving as they should be.

1) Reduce or eliminate the budget deficit
2) Employment
3) Preventing Iran from getting nukes (if possible)
4) Stabilization of Iraq and Afghanistan in preparation for withdrawal
5) Middle East peace

Originally posted by sh76
1) Reduce or eliminate the budget deficit
2) Employment
3) Preventing Iran from getting nukes (if possible)
4) Stabilization of Iraq and Afghanistan in preparation for withdrawal
5) Middle East peace

I think getting people back to work, helps in a small way with the budget,, more taxes.....
The burden that illegals put on states has to be dealt with too, and fast. So lets build a wall like the one in China, that we can see from space.... all the illegals that want a pass, can spend 1 year carrying stones to build the Magnificent Wall

I am quite certain the middle east situation is not a "solveable problem"
Stopping Iran from getting a nuke is going to be tough, and here is where I get scared. If Israel strikes, we are involved. If you think Afghanistan and Iraq are bad,, wait a few more months.

I'm glad you left the oil spill out, I want BP to fix it, and pay for their mistaken judgement.
And no being a President is not easy, that is why you delegate.... I wonder about firing the general at this point in the game, but he may not have had a choice.....

Originally posted by sh76
1) Reduce or eliminate the budget deficit
2) Employment
3) Preventing Iran from getting nukes (if possible)
4) Stabilization of Iraq and Afghanistan in preparation for withdrawal
5) Middle East peace

I have to say that number 3 is the last thing he should be worried about, if they want to have their weapons they should be able to, period. Its a waste of time to try prevent them from doing it, they'll get them eventually.

Obama should be more focused on problems at home rather than what happens in the middle-east, the region is full of nutcases, to expect obama to realistically being peace to the region is to ask for too much.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
I think getting people back to work, helps in a small way with the budget,, more taxes.....
The burden that illegals put on states has to be dealt with too, and fast. So lets build a wall like the one in China, that we can see from space.... all the illegals that want a pass, can spend 1 year carrying stones to build the Magnificent Wall

I am quite ce ...[text shortened]... der about firing the general at this point in the game, but he may not have had a choice.....

Yes, immigration is a big issue.

As for ME peace being impossible and unsolvable, etc. etc. It's like everything else. It's impossible until one day, it is possible.

Originally posted by generalissimo
I have to say that number 3 is the last thing he should be worried about, if they want to have their weapons they should be able to, period. Its a waste of time to try prevent them from doing it, they'll get them eventually.

Obama should be more focused on problems at home rather than what happens in the middle-east, the region is full of nutcases, to expect obama to realistically being peace to the region is to ask for too much.

I assume you say that because you have confidence that Iran would never use a bomb on, say, oh, for example, London, if the British were ever to grossly offend Iran somehow in the future.

I'm glad you're so confident.

I'm not.

The biggest problem remains the depressed economy beyond any question; we'll never get a handle on the deficit as long as the economy is bad. I agree with Paul Krugman:

But if we need to raise taxes and cut spending eventually, shouldn’t we start now? No, we shouldn’t.

Right now, we have a severely depressed economy — and that depressed economy is inflicting long-run damage. Every year that goes by with extremely high unemployment increases the chance that many of the long-term unemployed will never come back to the work force, and become a permanent underclass. Every year that there are five times as many people seeking work as there are job openings means that hundreds of thousands of Americans graduating from school are denied the chance to get started on their working lives. And with each passing month we drift closer to a Japanese-style deflationary trap.

Penny-pinching at a time like this isn’t just cruel; it endangers the nation’s future. And it doesn’t even do much to reduce our future debt burden, because stinting on spending now threatens the economic recovery, and with it the hope for rising revenues.

So now is not the time for fiscal austerity. How will we know when that time has come? The answer is that the budget deficit should become a priority when, and only when, the Federal Reserve has regained some traction over the economy, so that it can offset the negative effects of tax increases and spending cuts by reducing interest rates.

Currently, the Fed can’t do that, because the interest rates it can control are near zero, and can’t go any lower. Eventually, however, as unemployment falls — probably when it goes below 7 percent or less — the Fed will want to raise rates to head off possible inflation. At that point we can make a deal: the government starts cutting back, and the Fed holds off on rate hikes so that these cutbacks don’t tip the economy back into a slump.

But the time for such a deal is a long way off — probably two years or more. The responsible thing, then, is to spend now, while planning to save later.

As I said, many politicians seem determined to do the reverse. Many members of Congress, in particular, oppose aid to the long-term unemployed, let alone to hard-pressed state and local governments, on the grounds that we can’t afford it. In so doing, they are undermining spending at a time when we really need it, and endangering the recovery. Yet efforts to control health costs were met with cries of “death panels.”

And some of the most vocal deficit scolds in Congress are working hard to reduce taxes for the handful of lucky Americans who are heirs to multimillion-dollar estates. This would do nothing for the economy now, but it would reduce revenues by billions of dollars a year, permanently.

But some politicians must be sincere about being fiscally responsible. And to them I say, please get your timing right. Yes, we need to fix our long-run budget problems — but not by refusing to help our economy in its hour of need.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/opinion/21krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
I am quite certain the middle east situation is not a "solveable problem"

They said the same thing about Northern Ireland.

Originally posted by FMF
They said the same thing about Northern Ireland.

And it remains "unsolved".