17 Questions for Obama

[Tigermike 3,055]

September 30, 2007

Questions for Obama

By George Will

Is it audacious to hope for more clarity from Barack Obama than he has so far supplied? Herewith 17 questions for him:

You advocate leaving in Iraq "some" U.S. forces for three missions -- fighting al Qaeda, training Iraqi security forces and protecting U.S. forces conducting those two missions. Some experts believe that even 60,000 U.S, troops would be insufficient for those functions -- even if the Iraqis were not, as they will be for the foreseeable future, dependent on U.S. logistics, transport, fire support, air support, armor and medivac capabilities.

What is your estimate of the numbers required by your policy? How, and in consultation with whom, did you arrive at your estimate? As to fighting terrorists but not insurgents -- how would soldiers and Marines tell the difference? If, while searching for terrorists, they make contact with insurgents, would your rules of engagement call for a full force response? You say all "combat brigades" should be out of Iraq "by the end of next year." Even if al-Qaeda is still dangerous? Who, after the end of next year, will protect U.S. noncombat forces that you say "will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities" and to "train and equip" Iraqi forces?

In an AP interview you argued that preventing genocide in Iraq is not a sound reason for keeping troops there: "By that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife, which we haven't done. We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done."

Do you think U.S. obligations to Iraq, and to the many Iraqis who have actively collaborated with us, are no greater than our obligations, if any, to the residents of the Congo or Darfur? Would a humanitarian disaster have to threaten to be a strategic disaster for the United States before an Obama administration would intervene militarily?

In his second Inaugural address, the president said: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." You have said: "In today's globalized world, the security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people."

Well. Given that the goals of liberty and security can both generate foreign policy overreaching, and given the similarity between your formulation and Bush's, should people who are dismayed by Bush's universalizing imperative be wary of yours? Does not yours require interventions in Darfur -- where you say "rolling genocide" is occurring -- the Congo and similar situations?

You stress the importance of people taking "responsibility" for their actions. But in a Financial Times column regarding the subprime mortgage turmoil, you said lenders, by "lowering their lending standards," were guilty of "pushing," "hoodwinking" and "driving" low-income buyers into mortgages "they could not possibly afford." The "victims," you wrote, "are the millions of borrowers who followed the rules, whose only crime was in taking out mortgages that lenders told them they could afford." You propose a fund to help these millions of borrowers, partially paid for by penalties on lenders who committed fraud or behaved "irresponsibly."

Puzzles abound. How did lenders "push" these people? Are these "victims" absolved of personal responsibility simply because they were "told" they could afford the mortgages? Could you define -- and defend punishing -- lending that is "irresponsible" but not fraudulent? The foreclosure rate for so-called "jumbo" mortgages -- those of more than $400,000 -- is approximately the same as the rate for subprime mortgages. Are borrowers who seek and receive such large mortgages also blameless "victims" of being told and driven to do something reckless?

In 1978, in a case regarding racial preferences in admissions to a California medical school, the Supreme Court ruled, in an opinion written by Justice Lewis Powell, that race can be considered a "plus" factor for minority applicants. But Powell's biographer, John Jeffries of the University of Virginia law school, writes that when the justices met in conference to deliberate about the case, and Thurgood Marshall said such preferences would be needed for another century, Powell was "speechless." In 2003, the court affirmed the constitutionality of racial preferences in admissions to the University of Michigan law school. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, said such preferences would be unnecessary in 25 years.

How long do you think they will be necessary? By what criteria do you measure necessity? Why are they necessary now, two generations after the civil rights laws of the 1960s?

More questions to come, 17 answers from now. (Mr. Will you might as well throw your questions away, these will never be answered.)

georgewill@washpost.com

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/..._for_obama.html

[autiger4life 3]

In an AP interview you argued that preventing genocide in Iraq is not a sound reason for keeping troops there: "By that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife, which we haven't done. We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done."

Do you think U.S. obligations to Iraq, and to the many Iraqis who have actively collaborated with us, are no greater than our obligations, if any, to the residents of the Congo or Darfur? Would a humanitarian disaster have to threaten to be a strategic disaster for the United States before an Obama administration would intervene militarily?

He said it is not a sound reason, as in we should not go somewhere just because there is genocide. Meaning now Iraq, no Darfur, no Congo. So no, he would not commit 300,000 troops there. If he had answered we should be there because there is genocide(as Bush has said) then you could say, "then why not these places?"

You stress the importance of people taking "responsibility" for their actions. But in a Financial Times column regarding the subprime mortgage turmoil, you said lenders, by "lowering their lending standards," were guilty of "pushing," "hoodwinking" and "driving" low-income buyers into mortgages "they could not possibly afford." The "victims," you wrote, "are the millions of borrowers who followed the rules, whose only crime was in taking out mortgages that lenders told them they could afford." You propose a fund to help these millions of borrowers, partially paid for by penalties on lenders who committed fraud or behaved "irresponsibly."

Puzzles abound. How did lenders "push" these people? Are these "victims" absolved of personal responsibility simply because they were "told" they could afford the mortgages? Could you define -- and defend punishing -- lending that is "irresponsible" but not fraudulent? The foreclosure rate for so-called "jumbo" mortgages -- those of more than $400,000 -- is approximately the same as the rate for subprime mortgages. Are borrowers who seek and receive such large mortgages also blameless "victims" of being told and driven to do something reckless?

From what I understand the irresponsibity has been on the lenders when they say you can afford this 8% variable rate, which the couple will, with the lenders having full knowledge that the rates will be significantly raised and the person won't be able to afford the higher rates.

In 1978, in a case regarding racial preferences in admissions to a California medical school, the Supreme Court ruled, in an opinion written by Justice Lewis Powell, that race can be considered a "plus" factor for minority applicants. But Powell's biographer, John Jeffries of the University of Virginia law school, writes that when the justices met in conference to deliberate about the case, and Thurgood Marshall said such preferences would be needed for another century, Powell was "speechless." In 2003, the court affirmed the constitutionality of racial preferences in admissions to the University of Michigan law school. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, said such preferences would be unnecessary in 25 years.

How long do you think they will be necessary? By what criteria do you measure necessity? Why are they necessary now, two generations after the civil rights laws of the 1960?

Two generations really isn't that much. If you have someone in the 1960's whose parents got a poor education, there is a good chance they dropped out of high school to help earn money, they were given a good education, education was not valued, they were not taught good money management, etc and though legally blacks and whites might have been equal, in the workplace they were not. If a black was going against a white, the white would get a job. And then the cycle continues. Do people break the cycle, yes, but it is extremely difficult and unlikely and takes a lot of time.

As far as how long until it is equal, I think that is a stupid question that cannot be answered. If you asked in 1960, 1968, 1995, and 2005 the answers would be drastically different so there is no way to tell what will happen. But even today there are a lot of prejudice that radiates from society and the cycle is still continueing and until we improve education and give time, it is not going to all of a sudden get better.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

From what I understand the irresponsibity has been on the lenders when they say you can afford this 8% variable rate, which the couple will, with the lenders having full knowledge that the rates will be significantly raised and the person won't be able to afford the higher rates.

I fail to see how this is on the lender. If a lender tells me I can "afford" some rate and tells me it's variable, I ask "what will my payment be?" Then I ask, "ok, on the off chance it goes up to 9%, what would my payment be?" Then I repeat the question for 10%, 11% and 12%. I know my budget and what money I make at my job. If the payment at the higher rates are something I can't afford, then I can't afford the 8% rate either.

If the lender didn't tell the person the rate was variable, that's one thing. But if they did and the borrower was simply hoping that it wouldn't go up or didn't bother to ask what the payment might be if it did, sorry...that's on them. It's known as a Stupid Tax.

[autiger4life 3]

I fail to see how this is on the lender. If a lender tells me I can "afford" some rate and tells me it's variable, I ask "what will my payment be?" Then I ask, "ok, on the off chance it goes up to 9%, what would my payment be?" Then I repeat the question for 10%, 11% and 12%. I know my budget and what money I make at my job. If the payment at the higher rates are something I can't afford, then I can't afford the 8% rate either.

If the lender didn't tell the person the rate was variable, that's one thing. But if they did and the borrower was simply hoping that it wouldn't go up or didn't bother to ask what the payment might be if it did, sorry...that's on them. It's known as a Stupid Tax.

Oh don't get my wrong, I completely agree with you. My friend and I were talking about it the other day because of all the trouble the lending companies have been in lately(finacially, not legally). I was simply trying to give the the answer that Obama would give.

To your response though, I think he would answer that knowing the person is stupid and not pointing it out is bad business ethics and taking advantage of the person. Others may say it is just good business.