Skip Nav
Women
43 Bangin' (and Beautiful) Tattoos
Sex
The 29 Steamiest Movie Sex Scenes of All Time
Books
Get Your Dating Game in Shape With 18 Books by Bachelor Stars

Conservative Imagines Dream Obama Administration

Conservative columnist David Brooks has outlined his vision for an Obama Administration all Americans could get behind. In today's New York Times he painted a picture of an American leadership free from extreme partisanship and ideology:

Walking into the Obama White House of my dreams will be like walking into the Gates Foundation. The people there will be ostentatiously pragmatic and data-driven. They’ll hunt good ideas like venture capitalists. They’ll have no faith in all-powerful bureaucrats issuing edicts from the center. Instead, they’ll use that language of decentralized networks, bottom-up reform, and scalable innovation.

Brooks went on to suggest that Obama appoint Republicans to crucial positions, push policy with broad support such as middle-class tax relief and an energy package, and hold off on health care reform until success in fixing the economy and reducing the budget defect has helped gain the trust of most Americans.

Do you think the Obama Administration can succeed in pleasing both conservative and liberal Americans? What does change you can believe in look like?

Source

Around The Web
Join The Conversation
gemini7827 gemini7827 7 years
he is sooooo far left. I will be shocked (but pleased) if he did something conservative
gemini7827 gemini7827 7 years
he is sooooo far left.I will be shocked (but pleased) if he did something conservative
popgoestheworld popgoestheworld 7 years
Not being snarky here so please bear with me... All I could find online was that Rahm was on the board of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from 2000 to 2002. That seems like a long time ago. Does being associated with them make you unable to serve as Chief of Staff? What are the concerns here?
popgoestheworld popgoestheworld 7 years
Not being snarky here so please bear with me...All I could find online was that Rahm was on the board of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from 2000 to 2002. That seems like a long time ago. Does being associated with them make you unable to serve as Chief of Staff? What are the concerns here?
Michelann Michelann 7 years
That's not what I meant to imply, I'm sorry it that's how it came off.
stephley stephley 7 years
It's equally unfortunate to assume that people only disagree with your point of view because they don't know as much as you.
Michelann Michelann 7 years
Haha, windfall profit taxes on oil. It's unfortunate when people fall prey to the idea that oil companies have profit margins different from most companies. Once people learn the difference between profits and profit margins, I think they won't be so vulnerable to demagoguery.
kranky kranky 7 years
stephley- you are right - it was not windfall gas taxes. That was an error on my part, I got ahead of myself. It was freezing prices that caused the shortages - which happened after prices skyrocketed (due to all those other things going on in the world). Logically, prices would go up if taxes were imposed. In my mind, price freezes would come into the conversation if taxes went too high, causing prices to increase dramatically. And I see where you said they would 'pass on the tax' in post #25 - I took you to mean something else entirely, so thanks for restating your position. I am going out on a limb and saying that I think we both agree that penalizing the company will ultimately penalize the consumer. Feel free to disagree. I'm not sure what you mean about 'diverting funds,' but I certainly agree that we need to find alternative energies. I have to sign off now, but do not want to deny you an opporunity to respond. Feel free to pm me, or leave another post and I'll try to get online at a later time. Have a good one-
kranky kranky 7 years
stephley- you are right - it was not windfall gas taxes. That was an error on my part, I got ahead of myself.It was freezing prices that caused the shortages - which happened after prices skyrocketed (due to all those other things going on in the world). Logically, prices would go up if taxes were imposed. In my mind, price freezes would come into the conversation if taxes went too high, causing prices to increase dramatically.And I see where you said they would 'pass on the tax' in post #25 - I took you to mean something else entirely, so thanks for restating your position. I am going out on a limb and saying that I think we both agree that penalizing the company will ultimately penalize the consumer. Feel free to disagree.I'm not sure what you mean about 'diverting funds,' but I certainly agree that we need to find alternative energies.I have to sign off now, but do not want to deny you an opporunity to respond. Feel free to pm me, or leave another post and I'll try to get online at a later time.Have a good one-
stephley stephley 7 years
Don't need your background, I know about the 1970s gas shortages and they were NOT caused by windfall profits taxes - there were other things going on in the world at the time. And I have said, I know that eventually the companies pass things on to consumers, and that for now diverting funds will have to do. Then we should take back their tax breaks. And then we should cut back on oil usage.
kranky kranky 7 years
Roar - ok, fair enough. You don't want increased spending on the military. Got it. Sorry if I pre-empted you - I have heard the argument plenty that getting out of Iraq would bring lots of money into the government. That is not the case.
kranky kranky 7 years
Roar - ok, fair enough. You don't want increased spending on the military. Got it. Sorry if I pre-empted you - I have heard the argument plenty that getting out of Iraq would bring lots of money into the government. That is not the case.
kranky kranky 7 years
Ummm... stephley, I thought it was common knowledge about the 1970s gas shortages. I am happy to provide background if you wish.Also, my thought process is most definitely NOT locked. I specifically asked you to explain why companies would not pass increased costs onto their consumers. I am open to hearing your thoughts on that, and I haven't gotten any.
kranky kranky 7 years
Ummm... stephley, I thought it was common knowledge about the 1970s gas shortages. I am happy to provide background if you wish. Also, my thought process is most definitely NOT locked. I specifically asked you to explain why companies would not pass increased costs onto their consumers. I am open to hearing your thoughts on that, and I haven't gotten any.
Roarman Roarman 7 years
"Moving the military to other places will not save the government any money." My argument was that we do not need to spend more to beef up our existing military if we stopped exhausting them on wars that have no end or validity. We would have had plenty of military to fight a war in Afghanistan if we had not shifted to Iraq.
piper23 piper23 7 years
Talk about an old argument. I could go on with how Clinton had the chance to take out Bin Laden, blah, blah, blah - but like I just wrote and like you wrote earlier - old argument. Have a nice day - I'm out.
stephley stephley 7 years
Your thought process is so locked in a certain things that I really don't feel conversation is helpful: "windfall profits didn't work in the 1970's" you read that where, you're positive of that how? All you seem to be looking for is affirmation of what you already think. BP, Exxon and Marathon oil reported record profits again in the third quarter of 2008: I'd like to be doing not as well. Eventually, they would pass on the tax, but as we saw this summer, they have no problem boosting costs when it suits their whim anyway, so let's divert a little money our way. And then, let's come up with an energy plan that sends them packing. Our troops are enduring back to back tours in wars that never should have been launched. Had Bush targeted bin Laden who attacked us, rather than Afghanistan, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein and Iraq, which did not attack us, that wouldn't have happened.
stephley stephley 7 years
Your thought process is so locked in a certain things that I really don't feel conversation is helpful: "windfall profits didn't work in the 1970's" you read that where, you're positive of that how? All you seem to be looking for is affirmation of what you already think. BP, Exxon and Marathon oil reported record profits again in the third quarter of 2008: I'd like to be doing not as well. Eventually, they would pass on the tax, but as we saw this summer, they have no problem boosting costs when it suits their whim anyway, so let's divert a little money our way. And then, let's come up with an energy plan that sends them packing.Our troops are enduring back to back tours in wars that never should have been launched. Had Bush targeted bin Laden who attacked us, rather than Afghanistan, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein and Iraq, which did not attack us, that wouldn't have happened.
kranky kranky 7 years
"I think we need to stop taxing them [the military] on useless wars and use them where they are really needed." Moving the military to other places will not save the government any money. This is not an ethical argument about fighting the right war, I am only talking about dollars and cents here.
kranky kranky 7 years
"I think we need to stop taxing them [the military] on useless wars and use them where they are really needed."Moving the military to other places will not save the government any money. This is not an ethical argument about fighting the right war, I am only talking about dollars and cents here.
piper23 piper23 7 years
I think if we had not cut our military so much during past administrations, it would be big enough that the soldiers would not have to endure back to back tours.
kranky kranky 7 years
stephley- You are right - the argument is old. Taxing windfall profits didn't work in the 1970's, so why would it work now? I have yet to hear an argument as to why companies would not pass on the extra cost of taxes to the consumer. The oil companies did do really well in the 3rd quarter. They are not up to par in this one. With a lower performance, you can hardly say they are receiving windfalls, so why would we charge them windfall taxes?
kranky kranky 7 years
stephley-You are right - the argument is old. Taxing windfall profits didn't work in the 1970's, so why would it work now? I have yet to hear an argument as to why companies would not pass on the extra cost of taxes to the consumer.The oil companies did do really well in the 3rd quarter. They are not up to par in this one. With a lower performance, you can hardly say they are receiving windfalls, so why would we charge them windfall taxes?
Roarman Roarman 7 years
I don't think we need to build our military any more than it is right now, I think we need to stop taxing them on useless wars and use them where they are really needed.
piper23 piper23 7 years
Yeah, with the Russia threat a couple of days ago and with Israel on pins and needles over Iran and our future dealings with that country, and with the Taliban rising up in Afghanistan - building our military would be a terrible idea. I mean this stuff has a tendency to work itself out.
Where Obama Family Will Live After Presidency
Down-to-Earth Photos of President Obama
Southside With You Movie Inspiration
Pictures of the Obama Family During Presidency
Best Photos of Obama During His Presidency
President Obama's Best Moments With Kids | Video
What Will and Kate's Home in Kensington Palace Looks Like

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

From Our Partners
Latest Love
X