Wednesday, November 05, 2008

BARACK OBAMA PRESIDEN AMERIKA KE-44

Barack Obama akan menjadi Presiden Amerika Syarikat (AS) KE-44. Majoriti pemimpin dunia mengalu-alukan kemenangan Obama, terutama sekali bila beliau merpakan keturunan African-American yang pertama dalam sejarah memenangi jawatan berkenaan.

Di bawah ini adalah kenyataan Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim ketika mengalu-alukan kemenangan Obama.

Kemenangan Obama Beri Pengertian Besar Kepada Dunia, Kata Rais

PUTRAJAYA, 5 Nov (Bernama) -- Kemenangan Barack Obama sebagai bakal Presiden Amerika Syarikat dalam pilihan raya Presiden hari ini memberi pengertian besar dan meluas kepada bukan sahaja rakyat Amerika tetapi juga kemanusiaan sejagat, kata Menteri Luar Datuk Seri Rais Yatim.

"Kemenangan Obama dilihat sebagai membawa perubahan dan suasana yang menggalakkan dalam nilai dan percaturan dunia antarabangsa," katanya.

Mengucapkan tahniah kepada Obama, Rais berkata Malaysia mengalu-alukan kemenangan beliau sebagai obor baru dalam perjuangan mengisi tuntutan demokrasi.

"Sebagai presiden kulit hitam pertama di Amerika kemenangan beliau memberi pengertian positif yang baru bahawa rakyat Amerika sudah boleh menentukan pemimpin negara mereka tanpa mengira warna kulit, agama atau kepercayaan.

"Kemenangan Obama yang mewakili harapan tinggi untuk rakyat Amerika juga membawa pelbagai kemungkinan baru yang positif dalam bidang hubungan antarabangsa, khususnya hubungan dua hala Amerika Syarikat-Malaysia buat tahun-tahun hadapan," kata Rais. – BERNAMA

http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/bm/newsindex.php?id=369506

9 comments:

jonas said...

obama telah menang besar mengatasi john mccain.ternyata dengan Obama bakal menduduki White House pada Januari tahun depan menandakan rakyat Amerika mahukan perubahan.

namun kita tunggu dan lihat jika Obama mampu menjadi lebih baik dari Presiden-presiden AS yang sebelum ini kesemuanya berkulit putih.adakah dasar luar Amerika akan digubal atau lagi diketatkan?

kita bakal mengetahuinya nanti..

Lembaran said...

Assalamualaikum dan salam sejahtera Dato' Ruhanie dan rakan-rakan bloggers,

Apa yang dinyatakan oleh Dato' Seri Rais Yatim amat bermakna dan amat diharapkan bakal Presiden Barack Obama memperbetulkan persepsi dan polisi, mempereratkan dan memberi kesan-kesan positif melalui rundingan multilateral yang berkesan terhadap hubungan baru Asia-Amerika dan dunia.

Saya sentiasa menyokong kerajaan Malaysia dalam segala usahanya untuk memperbaiki segala hubungan diplomatik dengan kesemua rakan-rakan di peringkat antarabangsa.

Sambil memetik kata bakal Presiden Obama "unyielding hope", semoga harapan itu turut membuahkan suatu titik permulaan baru buat bakal Perdana Menteri Malaysia dan bakal Presiden Amerika Syarikat.

Saya turut bergembira dan mengharapkan perubahan positif buat kita semua dan dunia segajat.

Bakal Presiden Obama membawa obor impian sedunia dan saya untuk kebaikan bersama sedunia. Marilah kita semua berusahasama dan bersatu untuk kemakmuran segajat.

"We are all TRUE FRIENDS".

Saya tiada lagi pandangan mahupun komen peribadi untuk disiarkan selepas ini. Sememangnya harapan baru ini amat menggembirakan. Saya sentiasa menyokong kerajaan Malaysia!

Wassalam.

merantikota said...

Dato Ron,

Walau siapa pun yang akan duduk di Rumah Puteh pasti tidak akan dapat melarikan diri dari tuntutan Para Pelobi yang menjayakan Kemenangan sesaorang Presiden AS!

Justru, ia tidak akan dapat membuat CHANGE seperti yang dijanjikan, mereka akan memenuhi kehendak para pelobi itu dahulu. Soal Israel, soal survaival rakyat Amerika. Ia sudah pasti mengekalkan Dasar Predaternya.

Apa kata dasar mereka.... We need to be crual in order to be kind! Dan...The ends justifies the mean...

Tahniah kepada Mr Obama the first Sun Tan to become President!

wira said...

Assalamualaikum Datuk Ron dan sahabat sahabat bloggers, kemenagan Obama adalah aspirasi rakyat Amerika generasi baru yang sudah faham dan mengerti rasional tentang demokrasi dan kebebasan.

Jika diukur dari umur kematangan masyarakat Amerika sejak dari Presiden pertama, masyarakat Amerika memerlukan lebih dari seratus tahun untuk menjiwai rasional demokrasi dan kebebasan dan semangat tidak membezakan diantara satu sama lain.

Kita harus belajar dari mereka dan tidak ada jalan pintas untuk menjadi masyarakat seperti Amerika kerana mereka memerlukan lebih seratus tahun. Oleh itu kita harus terus berjuang kearah ini dan genarasi yang berjuang tidak perlu tergesa gesa untuk membuktikan perjuangan mereka dirasai sekarang. Memadailah jika perjuangan genarasi sekarang dinikmati oleh generasi yang akan datang mungkin 50 tahun yang akan datang. Pejuang-Pejuang Amerika generasi dahulu tidak tergesa-gesa untuk melihat raykat mereka yang bukan kulit putih menduduki rumah putih.

Oleh itu kita harus belajar bersabar dan insyaAllah Malaysia akan menjadi seperti apa yang berlaku diAmerika sekarang 50 tahun yang akan datang.

Mika Angel-0 said...

Sdr Ruhanie Ahmad,

Same thing but now it comes in a different color tone.

Apa pesanan tok tirinya semasa dia di Tanah Jawa?

Smells the same, too. White House broken.

Mika Angel-0 said...

Sdr Ruhanie:

Tahniah! Amerika Syarikat

Oil's stunning retreat: How long can it last?
By Jad Mouawad

Tuesday, October 28, 2008
NEW YORK: After surging to record levels this summer, oil prices have suffered a dizzying collapse in recent months, echoing the darkening prospects of the global economy.

Within three months, drastic swings drove oil prices from their peak of $147.27 a barrel to less than $65 a barrel. Oil industry analysts at Goldman Sachs, who had raised the possibility that prices could reach $200 this year, now believe that oil could drop to $50 a barrel in the event of a global recession.

While consumers can cheer the drop, producers have been alarmed at the sudden downturn in their fortunes. Fears of a global slowdown have kicked off a down cycle in the oil sector: It is unclear how long it will last and how low prices will go.

As oil gets caught in the wild gyrations of the financial meltdown, three major questions loom over the oil markets for next year.

What will happen to oil consumption in the United States and in China? How will producers respond to lower prices? Can the oil cartel OPEC stop the slide in prices?

In the past decade, economic growth in emerging countries from Asia to Latin America has propelled a surge in oil demand. Consumption in developing nations jumped by more than 40 percent since 1998 while oil producers struggled to increase their output. That disparity severely tightened oil markets and led to a 14-fold increase in prices from its $10-a-barrel trough to its peak in July.

But high prices and a slowing economy have led to a stark reduction in demand across the industrialized world that probably will outweigh growth in oil consumption from such developing nations as China.

After a quarter century of growth, some analysts say it is quite possible that this year global oil consumption could have its first annual drop since 1983.

In its latest outlook, the International Monetary Fund knocked nearly a percentage point off its forecast for global economic growth for 2009, with developed economies barely able to expand by 0.5 percent.

In turn, that means that global oil demand over the next two years may prove anemic, experts said.

"Oil is integral to the real economy," said Jan Stuart, an energy economist in New York for UBS. "If the real economy goes down, oil goes down. The market right now is trading a long recession and literally no growth in oil demand for years."

Didier Houssin, director of the office of energy markets and security at the International Energy Agency, the world's main forecaster, said there were strong uncertainties about how demand will evolve because of the economic and financial crisis. "That remains a big mystery," he said.

Faced with slowing growth, the International Energy Agency has been paring its forecast for global oil demand since the beginning of the year. But its analysts still see oil demand expanding by 400,000 barrels a day this year, to 86.5 million barrels a day. When the year started, they forecast growth of two million barrels a day for 2008. Some analysts say the energy agency's current forecast is still hopelessly optimistic.

"Despite the IEA's wishful thinking, demand is disappearing very quickly," said Lawrence Goldstein, an economist at the Energy Policy Research Foundation in Washington, who said he expected global oil demand to fall this year. It would be the first drop since the energy shock of the early 1980s.

The double impact of record high prices and slower economic growth has been particularly visible in the United States, which accounts for a quarter of the world's total oil consumption and where demand has slipped to its lowest level since June 1999. Americans have been driving less and flying less this year. Automakers are desperate for a government bailout and airlines are losing billions of dollars.

As a result, U.S. oil demand will probably decline by 5 percent this year, said Stuart, the UBS energy economist.

Similar declines are also taking place in most developed economies, which account for 60 percent of global demand. In Japan, for example, oil consumption in August tumbled 12 percent from a year earlier, while oil use in France has declined 10 percent.

"There is no question the physical oil market has weakened," Stuart said. "The credit crisis has dried up commerce and halted trade, and that has effectively pushed down demand for oil. The trouble is that no one can predict when this is going to end."

Where prices go next year hinges greatly on what happens in developing countries, especially China. Over the past decade, Chinese oil demand has surged by 85 percent, or 3.5 million barrels a day, and has been the main engine that has driven up oil markets. China accounted for a third of the world's extra oil demand last year.

But in recent weeks, there have been concerns that the economy may also be affected.

The chief executive of the global mining giant Rio Tinto warned this month that the Chinese economy was headed for a major slowdown. The World Bank's chief economist said it was unlikely that China would be immune to a global recession. And the chairman of the Industrial & Commercial Bank of China said that demand for Chinese goods was declining.

"As the full effects of the financial meltdown continue to unravel, nudging several OECD countries closer or into recession, there appears to be evidence that key engines of China's growth are already feeling the pinch," PFC Energy, a consulting firm in Washington, said in a research note that referred to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

China's manufacturing sector, which contributes to 40 percent of the country's economy, has experienced a "marked decline in activity" for several months as its export markets shrink, for example. Still, that is not to say Chinese demand will fall. PFC says it expects consumption to rise by 330,000 barrels a day in 2009, compared with 490,000 barrels this year.

Global oil supplies have also been constrained - and many experts say that they do not expect the picture to brighten much in coming years.

In the past decade, oil companies and producers have been unable to increase their production fast enough to meet demand. For a variety of reasons, including tougher access to resources, political volatility or violence in many oil-producing states, and steadily rising costs throughout the industry, the growth in oil supplies has been disappointing.

Simply, it is getting harder for oil companies and some producing countries to increase production. Over the next two decades, some experts say, oil production will peak at around 95 million barrels a day.

One big problem is that oil fields have a natural rate of decline as oil gets pumped out. The rate varies widely from field to field, but the global average is about 5 percent a year. So, just to maintain output, producers around the world must find and develop about six million barrels of oil a day. To increase global oil production by 1.5 million barrels a day, that figure rises to 7 million or 8 million barrels a day, or at least 2.5 billion barrels a year - a monumental task that gets tougher as production grows.

"The energy crisis is fundamentally a problem of supplies, not of energy demand," said Frédéric Lasserre, the head of commodity research at Société Générale in Paris.

Meanwhile, big producers are struggling. Russian production has been declining in recent months; Mexico's biggest oil field, Cantarell, is in a free fall; Nigerian output has been curbed significantly by rampant violence; and any increases in Iraqi production are contingent on improving the country's security.

"Global oil supply is also falling short of prior expectations," said Arjun Murti, an analyst at Goldman Sachs. "The problem, though, is that investors appear to be placing greater weight on the demand concerns rather than the supply shortfalls; it may require a clear bottoming in global growth sentiment before supply shortfalls are again recognized as a bullish factor."

As prices fall and demand slows, a new concern in the industry is whether oil producers will reduce their investments as prices decline.

Andrew Gould, the chief executive of Schlumberger, the world's largest oil-field services company, has said that producers will probably reduce spending on field development if low prices persist for more than a year.

That view is widely shared in the industry, especially as the credit crunch constrains the ability of many companies to invest.

Meanwhile, the cost of producing extra barrels of oil is rising. As prices fall, this might cause high-cost producers, like those working Canada's vast oil sand deposits, to shut down production or curb their expenses.

"Investments in exploration and production are very much linked to the price of oil," said Houssin of the International Energy Agency. "What we can fear is that the financial crisis leads to delays in many projects. This would create problems for some operators, while the slowdown in demand would not encourage investments in the short term."

The wild card in the oil deck next year will hinge on what actions OPEC takes. As oil fell below $80 a barrel the cartel called an emergency meeting, agreeing Friday to cut output by 1.5 million barrels a day. Just a few years ago, $80 oil would have seemed improbably high. But many producers are now used to high prices - and larger government revenues - and have been spending accordingly. This makes them acutely sensitive to falling prices.

Yet OPEC, which controls 40 percent of the world's oil exports, is quite likely to find it hard to cut output fast enough to halt the slide, analysts said. After the cut announced Friday the price dropped again, ending the week near $60 a barrel. In fact, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries could face a very tough year ahead if demand remains sluggish.

"The irony is that for OPEC $80 a barrel is a crisis," said Goldstein, the economist. "OPEC members have put on their crisis management hat because they realize that demand is slipping quickly from them."

In the longer term, however, many analysts point out that the world is likely to see prices jumping back above $100 a barrel. Population growth and economic activity are both rising, and with it the demand for oil, for which there is no easy or ready substitute, particularly in the transportation sector.

Given the constraints on supplies in coming years, this means tight markets are here to stay. In fact, some analysts warn, the lower oil prices fall in the next years, the sharper the rebound will be when the economy - and oil demand - finally picks up.

(adakah betul cerita lambakan minyak di dasar laut cina selatan, Sdr Ruhanie; dan kenapa harus dijual murah dan bukankah kenderaan bermotor letrik adalah suatu kemajuan sistem pengangkutan, Mister Preident?)

Mika Angel-0 said...

Sdr Ruhanie Ahmad,

UMNO pun ada Presiden baru?

Downturn, deficit could hinder Obama's economic plan

The president-elect must match spending priorities to dismal conditions.
By Michael A. Hiltzik
November 6, 2008
Barack Obama was elected with a mandate for economic change on a scale that hasn't been seen in decades.

So what does he do with it?

During two years of campaigning, Obama set forth detailed proposals for tax relief and enhanced government benefits for the middle class, the poor, college-bound students and the elderly.

He called for new government investments in infrastructure and "green" technologies, as well as a dramatic expansion of health insurance largely by making a Medicare-style program available to all.

He now faces a challenge familiar to every other newly elected political leader: how to transform ideas tailored to win votes into something suitable for the real world.

And he will almost certainly have to adapt some of his proposals to accommodate the current financial and economic crisis.

The urgency for action was underscored by another sharp drop in stocks Wednesday, with the Dow Jones industrial average plunging 486 points, or 5%. That brings its decline on the year to more than 31%.

"Obviously the agenda's been taken over by economic conditions," said James K. Galbraith, a professor of finance at the University of Texas and an economic advisor to the president-elect. "There's no reason to think these are going away in six months."

But insiders say Obama may have to mediate between opposing camps on his own economic team. Moderates are cautioning against stimulus efforts that might sharply increase the budget deficit, while others are urging the kinds of aggressive measures associated with President Franklin Roosevelt. During the depths of the Depression, FDR implemented a wide-ranging public works program, aid for farmers and homeowners, and social welfare programs such as Social Security.

The recessionary economy, and the expense of the government's financial rescue program, will undoubtedly complicate Obama's efforts to implement his economic plan. But some advisors say he won't be inclined to abandon his key goals.

"It would be very difficult to come in and say, 'That agenda I've been pursuing for a year and a half? Never mind it,' " Jared Bernstein of the liberal Economic Policy Institute said during an interview with The Times last week.

But Bernstein, a key Obama economic advisor, acknowledged that some economic issues may have to be addressed with greater urgency to provide a foundation for others.

"We can't tackle healthcare until we get the economy working," he said. "If the economy is weak, how can you make good on the promises you made?"

Other proposals, by contrast, may move to the front burner. Obama proposed a national infrastructure reinvestment bank to be funded with $60 billion in federal money over 10 years. But congressional leaders have said they may incorporate as much as $150 billion of infrastructure spending in an economic stimulus package that may be enacted before the end of this year.

Such a program is known to be favored by former Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, perhaps Obama's most influential economic advisor, on the grounds that it would have a more lasting effect than simply handing out rebate checks to taxpayers.

That's especially so if the program is designed to make grants to state and local governments that already have bridge repairs, highway improvements and other local projects on the drawing board.

On the stump and in campaign material, Obama laid out an economic program focused on government investment and on strengthening the financial safety net for the poor and middle class.

In addition to the infrastructure bank, Obama proposed investing $150 billion over 10 years in alternative energy by doubling federal research and development funding and providing job training and tax credits for that field.

He also proposed to provide college tuition assistance in the form of a tax credit of up to $4,000 and an expansion of Pell Grants, which aid low-income students.

Obama made the elimination of President Bush's tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers a centerpiece of his campaign, proposing to restore the top marginal tax rate to the Clinton-era 39.6% from the current 35%. The tax cuts are scheduled to expire in 2010, but Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain proposed making them permanent.

Obama has also proposed a tax credit of as much as $1,000 aimed at low- and middle-income households, eliminating income taxes for taxpayers older than 65 earning less than $50,000 a year, and raising the federal minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011 and indexing it to inflation (it is currently scheduled to rise to $7.25 by 2009).

He also plans to strengthen protection for union organizing by fighting state right-to-work laws and employer efforts to classify permanent employees as "independent contractors." The latter is often a device to avoid paying health and pension benefits.

The gathering economic storm prompted Obama to add several emergency measures to his platform. These included rebates of up to $1,000 per family, to be funded from a windfall profits tax on oil companies and pitched as a "down payment on the middle-class tax cut" he had already promised -- although oil company profits are likely to fall if world petroleum prices continue to decline.

He also proposed a $25-billion jobs fund for highway and other infrastructure projects and another $25 billion in revenue sharing to help state and local governments keep essential services afloat in a time of declining tax revenue.

The Illinois senator also began to temper his promise that every spending initiative would be revenue-neutral -- that is, paid for either by a reduction in spending elsewhere or through higher tax receipts.

"It's clear that as events have become more dire, he's become bolder," said Robert Kuttner, founding co-editor of the American Prospect, a liberal journal, and a sometime advisor to the Obama campaign. "This is a race between how bold he's willing to be and how fast the economy is cratering."

The economic slowdown is likely to bring more pleas for emergency spending to the new president's desk, even outside the stimulus package being crafted now on Capitol Hill. As car sales sink, the automobile industry might seek loans or loan guarantees beyond the $25-billion package approved by Congress last month.

With falling home prices and rising foreclosures at the epicenter of the economic crisis, mortgage holders and home builders are likely to be the focus of a broad range of initiatives. Obama earlier proposed a mortgage tax credit for homeowners who don't already receive an income tax deduction because they don't itemize, but more aggressive relief may be sought.

Some advisors argue that a potentially severe recession only underscores the need for a far-reaching stimulus plan focused on infrastructure more than on rebates to spark a short-term bump in consumer spending.

"We don't need more consumption," Joseph Stiglitz, an economics professor at Columbia University and an advisor to the campaign, said recently on financial news channel CNBC. "Infrastructure is where we've starved the economy. This is an opportunity at the national level to say, 'Here are all the things we should have been doing and now have to do to get our economy to grow."

The extent to which the Obama administration should push deficit spending is the subject of a debate bubbling within his economic team, according to people close to the group who requested anonymity. Although most appear to accept the Keynesian axiom that economic stimulus in a time of crisis requires deficit spending, the extent of the budget-busting is at issue. After all, more than $1 trillion in financial bailouts and economic stimulus already has been enacted this year and financed by government borrowing.

At the more cautious end of the spectrum, these people say, are former Treasury Secretaries Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers. The latter is thought to be a leading candidate to return to that post.

The campaign, however, seemed to be attempting to quash talk of a split on the economic team when Rubin and Bernstein, who eagerly backs a stimulus plan, published a joint op-ed piece Monday in the New York Times in which they took note of their policy differences.

Rubin acknowledged viewing long-term deficits "as a serious threat . . . to our economic future," while Bernstein minimized the relationship Rubin cited between the deficit and higher interest rates.

They also acknowledged disagreement on trade policy, specifically on whether trade agreements should include provisions protecting foreign workers as a way to preserve U.S. workplace standards, which Bernstein supports.

But they expressed agreement on most fundamental issues, including the need for public investment in education, healthcare and job training, as well as restoring the income tax rates of the Clinton years.

Another contentious issue, the scale of new regulations on the financial markets, was treated gingerly. The aggressive oversight favored by Bernstein is opposed by Rubin, who made his career on Wall Street before joining government.

"Significant reforms are needed," they agreed, but those should be balanced between consumer protection and mitigating systemic risk on one side, and "preserving the benefits of a market-based system on the other."

Ralph Vartabedian contributed to this report. Vartabedian and Hiltzik are Times staff writers.

(on the "We can't tackle healthcare until we get the economy working," he said. "If the economy is weak, how can you make good on the promises you made?" see

How Obama can save the US economy
What's the best way for the government to stimulate the US economy? Spend money on healthcare
Dean Baker
guardian.co.uk,
Thursday November 06 2008 08.00
GMT

Few presidents will come into office having generated the sort of expectations Barack Obama created over the course of his campaign. The country's economic crisis poses substantial dangers but it also presents enormous opportunities. If President Obama is prepared to seize these opportunities, he will establish himself as one of the countries truly great presidents, alongside Lincoln and Roosevelt.

Specifically, Obama can take advantage of the current economic crisis to announce plans to jump-start national health insurance. Extending health insurance can be an effective stimulus that will provide an immediate boost to the economy. More importantly, it will provide the same access to healthcare that people in other wealthy countries have long taken for granted.

The backdrop is straightforward. Economists from across the political spectrum are now calling for a large stimulus package to limit the economy's decline and the rise in unemployment. The consensus is in the range of 2.0-2.5% of GDP, or $300-400bn a year.

This level of agreement among economists is encouraging, but the reality is that it is difficult to spend $300-400bn a year on short notice effectively. There are some no-brainers that belong in any stimulus package: aid to state and local governments, extended unemployment benefits and extra money for food stamps and home heating oil assistance. This is money that will be quickly spent, boosting the economy, while helping those hit hardest by the downturn.

A stimulus should also include increases in infrastructure spending, which will come about by moving plans forward for projects already on the books. There should also be a substantial green component, involving retrofitting homes, businesses and other buildings, which will reduce our energy use.

However, after we get through this list, the sum total for the stimulus package is probably still in the neighbourhood of $150bn a year, at best half of the targeted sum. This is the gap that will be filled by extending healthcare coverage.

As a basic outline, the government can give a substantial tax credit (eg $3,000) to employers who cover workers for the first time in 2009 and 2010. It can also offer a tax credit covering most, or all, of any additional payments by employers who increase their coverage.

This means that an employer who picked up the workers' share of insurance payments, or got a better plan, would have much of the cost reimbursed by the tax credit. Credits can also be given to individuals who are self-employed, unemployed or not otherwise covered through their employer.

If 20 million workers get coverage through this tax credit, that would cost $60bn. If another 60 million get an average of $1,000 in additional healthcare benefits, this would cost another $60bn. If we also throw in funding to reduce the healthcare burden for Medicare beneficiaries, for example by $1,000 each, this will cost roughly $40bn. The total cost would be $160bn a year, a reasonable target for the stimulus package.

At the same time that this health stimulus is enacted, we should open up the Medicare system, allowing all employers and individuals the option to buy into a Medicare-type plan. This is important, because a well-working public sector plan will be important to controlling costs over the long-term.

After 2010, the tax credits would be cut back, with the goal being a system of subsidies that pay the full cost for low-income people, but phase out at higher income levels. It will also be important to use the Medicare-type plan and other tools to squeeze waste out of the system, since controlling healthcare costs is essential to sustaining a healthy economy over the long-term.

Extending healthcare coverage in this way is effectively eating dessert before dinner, but this is exactly what we want to do to counter the recession. It is important that we spend money now to boost the economy. We will be getting double-value if this stimulus can be spent usefully toward meeting a longstanding goal, like providing national healthcare insurance, rather than just buying things at the mall.

Fixing the healthcare system so that costs are effectively contained will be a long and difficult political battle. Powerful interest groups like the insurance and pharmaceutical industries will use all their power to obstruct this effort. The healthcare system's waste is their profit.

However, we should be reassured by the fact that every other country has managed to contain their costs more effectively. Average per person healthcare costs in other wealthy countries are less than half as high as in the US, and they all enjoy better healthcare outcomes.

Over the long run, the task of containing healthcare costs is clearly doable. The question for President Obama now is whether he is prepared to take the big leap toward being a truly great president. This opportunity may not come again.)

(kenakah Muhyiddin yang harus menjawab dalam hal FTAs?)


Kepada Allah Berserah

AIDC said...

apa yang boleh diharapkan dengan obama?adakah kita akan tertipu lagi.

adibeta said...

Dato' Ron dan rakan-rakan bloggers,

Walaupun ramai yang memperkatakan tentang Obama namun saya lebih tertarik pada 'kegentelman' John McCain...

hayati dan fahmilah:
Ucapan John McCain slps kekalahan kepada Barrack Obama,"Rasa kecewa adalah perkara biasa, tapi esok dan seterusnya kita mesti bekerjasama untuk negara".

Nyata beliau berintegriti,bersifat kekitaan dan bertanggung jawab, w/pun bukan beragama Islam dan Melayu.

Renung-renungkanlah..
Kg Dewan Beta,KB,Kel