Obama talks to the American public
In soaring rhetoric, tonight President Obama assured the nation before a joint session of Congress that we, as Americans, will rebound from the current economic crisis and come back stronger than we were before. He warned that inaction would be far worse than action. From my vantage point, I saw that the President drew more standing ovations from both Democrats and Republicans than in past sessions, which shows that both parties are willing to act in good-faith to serve the American public.
The mark of any Obama speech is his superb oratory, and the picture he draws for his audience by broad strokes is political mastery. The pundits will argue that his speeches lack details, and that there remains much to be desired after listening to a well-delivered speech. Ultimately, the President and his administration will not be judged by soaring words or hopeful tones, but rather by the outcome of his plans to spend unprecedented trillions to steer the country on the right path.
As a young American, there is no secret that the President’s plans to spend billions, and even trillions, concerns me. Many of my fellow students believe that our generation will have to pay for the cost of Obama’s plans. Sooner than later, after we become responsible adults, working full-time, and hopefully after the economy rebounds, the country will most probably ask us to pay higher taxes that will be burdensome on a younger generation of Americans. There is a healthy dose of skepticism that billions of dollars will be wasted in pork by the sheer size of the bill and the largess in government. With over a trillion dollars being spent, by its mere size, it may be rather unrealistic to expect that the President’s vision to hold our budget responsible line-by-line will be achieved.
On both sides of the aisle, there is the genuine hope that our country will rebound sooner than later from the enormous challenges that face us. I sincerely believe that we will. In the meanwhile, we must stay informed and hold our elected officials responsible. The future of our country depends on its citizens, and I remain more hopeful than ever that as Americans we will overcome the obstacles that face us today. We are Americans first. Our democracy was purposefully built to create checks-and-balances, and pit party against party, in midst of debate, to bring out the best ideas. Let the best ideas and solutions prevail, and may we show the world once again that our democracy will always overcome.
Recycling his inaugural speech is not going to achieve anything. The time for talk is over.
I think Nancy Pelosi was standing more than sitting.
I dont’ know how he’s going spend $780 billion, lower tax, AND balance budget. This spending bill will only increase the federal debt and our children and grandchildren will be stuck with the bill.
I agree. Our generation will be paying off this stimulus for a long time. More harm than good. The pork within it is is unbelievable. I’m not impressed. I believe it’s a rash recovery plan to win favor with supporters. I will remain skeptical as well.
Agreed. Much of this was an updated rehash of several campaign stumps. Nothing new other than proposals for his collectivist agenda.
Your generation? My generation? Try my six year olds generation. He will be paying for this with his pay check and possibly his peers blood. I’m not so naive to think that our enemies won’t seize on our economic woes in the future.
The foxes are guarding the henhouse. Obama has no idea what he’s talking about. All of his “investments” are just pork for left-wing groups. Can’t believe he’s still pimping “climate change.” His vision is to put a knife in the weak heart of the US.
Yes, definitely rehash, to the point that I grew bored and my eyes glazed over a few times. What I will say is this: Bobby Jindal had it spot on the money. That was one of the best rebuttals I have seen. In the first minute he had me. His parents came over here poor and couldn’t pay for his birth. His father went out and got a job by looking in the yellow pages and worked with the doctor on payments. Bamm! No government involvement there. That is the future we need. We’ve lost sight people! My grandparents made it through the depression and WW2. How? No benefits. No health care. No bail outs. These are politics of fear.
I feel that we as American’s should stand behind our President no matter who you voted for. Go ahead and keep dividing this country and we definitely will fail, but that seems to be what you want.
Sorry Mary,
Our government works on partisanship. That’s how different ideas are debated, and our representatives get to speak about your ideas and mine, no matter how different. That’s what makes this country great. If you believe everyone should be behind the president no matter what, then you’d probably enjoy life in a country with a fascist government (Wanna move to Venezuela?)
We have to draw a line between standing behind our president and holding him accountable. As Bobby Jindal said (paraphrase), we will support 100% in what we agree upon, but hold him to task on what we don’t. If we all had to agree with the president, that would be called a dictatorship.
In a word: ominous.
Obama spoke last night as if he could — by himself — write every line of every piece of legislation and allocate every dime and every dollar in the most efficient way possible. Sadly, he’s not the one who writes these bills. Pelosi and Reid have already shown they are clever enough to put in about 60% of what Obama wants and 40% of the junk they want.
Do any of us really believe that Obama would veto a bill that say, spent 50% of its allocated cash on his cap-and-trade proposal while completely wasting the other 50% on subsidies to dead-end, “green” pork projects, like ethanol subsidies and fish farms? Obama might have a big heart and a clever mind but he doesn’t have the spine (or really, the will) to veto a bill like that.
Thank goodness for Jindal, he said something that really needed to be said: partisanship reflects a fundamental difference on the proper role of government in society, not a petty game of scoring political points. Obama’s plans fall far outside my narrowly-delineated role for the government in my ideal world.
To Mary K:
People who prefer other policy approaches are not being divisive or not “standing behind our President” or our country. One of the great things about this country is the ability to offer differing views, yet still peacefully have a change to those in power. As someone whose grandparents came from Soviet Bloc countries, I’ve heard too many stories about what happens when citizens lose not only this right but the will to disagree.
Those of us who study the ramifications of Federal spending or (in my case) are old enough to have seen other policies in action are alarmed by the direction we are heading.
A large ship takes time to change direction. Course correcting after this massive government spending spree will take generations.
I didn’t hear anything in his speech that gave specifics on how he intends to turn this economy around. i don’t believe the “stimulus” bill will do it, and it wasn’t even truly his bill but, instead, it was put together by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It seems that he believes he will turn things around by the power of his personality alone because he, so far, has been bereft of new ideas to do it. Spending, tax increases, punishing the successful and business owners won’t work together to fix things. Also, it seems that he is endlessly campaigning, and I wish he’d stop the campaign speechmaking and just do the job. Simply acting out of self-promoting politicking seems so small and petty in dire times like these.
I have a feeling that we will be seeing President Obama address Congress more often than he has press conferences. There was a remarkable difference between his first two Prime time addresses on TV. He seemed to be at a loss without a primed audience that adores him and was ready to applaud at regular intervals when he had the presser. However, Congress provided him with an environment uncannily similar to what he experienced on the campaign trail, though I didn’t hear about anyone fainting. Congress plays to his stregnths, while supprisingly enough the press conference format brought out his weakness.
I was very concerned by the speech, I want to support the President, my girlfriend is a big fan of his, but every time I hear him speak or see his policy choices I just can’t bring myself to agree with him. His language of forcing industries to make changes, his general lack of specifics, and his talk of dropping out of high school no longer being an option all leave me questioning things.
Mr. Jindal’s response in behalf of the Republicans has come under a lot of fire, from staunch Republicans but I appreciated it. It could have done with less at the begining about the historosity of Obama’s Presidency, but otherwise I think he struck the right chords in order to blunt the President’s earlier speech.
Hi I have only posted here once and Im a democrat and this is a great board. Im not all for government spending either only in a crisis (and this is a crisis) does anyone on this board have any better ideas? I think that his stimulus plan should have had more cutting of taxes for small businesses and job training but I didnt read the whole bill so without coming on strong on something I dont know about but I enjoyed his speech and I think we need to stand behind our president. I think we should let Bank of America fall and let the other banks stand they raped the bailout and bought other companies and didnt help with lending. Any bank who refuses to lend should be bought out or let it fall. My favorite conservative is Joe Scarborough and I think Morning Joe is one of the best shows out there. I watch MSNBC but Maddow (whom I think is highly intelligent) is the only lefty out there that has her facts together. Im a conservative lefty who doesnt care for Mr Jindal but I do respect his views. I liked the John McCain of 2000 if he had Romney on his ticket he would have had a better chance of winning.
Obama said himself in that speech that he didn’t believe in bigger government, but he thought you were probably naive if you thought government didn’t play some sort of role in the efforts to rebuild the economy.
“Efficiency”
This is the word of the day, folks. We will always have any sort of government, so the one we deserve needs to be efficient. I think you are forgetting that the government is ultimately the representation of the people. Did you forget that cutting two trillion dollars worth of spending programs over a ten-year period is what Obama is proposing? I’m sure McCain would have done something similar.
Bobby Jindal was sad and <b>nihilistic</b> in his response to this situation. ”Look at me! I pulled myself up from my own bootstraps! Look at me! Government stinks!”. He is the guy that is only taking 90% of the stimulus money, and complaining about the other 10% for those workers that were knocked down to part-time because they got cut back.
Do I think that people should stay on welfare their entire lives and not amount to anything? Certainly not. I think it is important to work hard and that, ultimately, you are the the one that leads your own destiny; I’d be the first to say that the government should not be a crutch for the people. But to suggest that the government will not play a role in helping rebuild and invest in our future is a ridiculous notion. This should be the starting point in the debate if our party is to survive.
Yes, government will always play a role, but how big is the question. As stated before Reid and Pelosi are bad cop to his good cop and with him not strong enough to go against them, it will be like Bush and the Republicans - spend, spend, spend. Obama stated himself that government is THE only one who can fix this. No way is that true. It creates an environment that tells people that there is no solution except the governments. How can he tell us that they are trying to be fiscally responsible after they just pushed the spendulus bill through. Its just whitewashing.
I’m just drinking my first cup of coffee, so it’s a little too early in the morning for political debate.
I liked your article, Steven. Even-handed and optimistic. Good work.
Meredith
I watched this speech thinking that maybe the “great orator” would emerge from his cocoon of blend pleasantries to perchance become this majestic, action-driven butterfly. Alas, his fifteen minute cakewalk, (a word that, despite suggestions, is not a racist Debussy reference– but please, complain for the sheer sake of complaining anyway.) spoke about as loudly as his speech in terms of where I see things heading.
While we’re on the insect analogies…
I keep picturing this ant hill- you’ve got a lot of fighter ants defending their queen and a lot of worker ants confused over why they’re not yet out of the hole they’re digging. They , there’s just nowhere left to put the dirt. Nobody wants to carry three times their weight, but they just keep on digging. That’s okay, though, because the queen still manages to keep getting fatter.
But then… an analogy is no solution, either.
It saddened me to see that President Obama still speaks and acts as if he is on the campaign trail. It’s unfortunate to speak of two things that do not mesh together: spending trillions of dollars but yet hoping to half the national debt by the end of his four year term. I just don’t understand how that is going to be feasible without raising taxes and making responsible Americans pick up the slack for others.
Furthermore, I think it was a big stretch to say that this stimulus bill (the one just passed last week, not the new 410 billion dollar being floated around Capitol Hill) contains “no pork”. We know thats an untruth if you read the bill and the several projects included, and it was a sorry attempt to sell the package to the everyday American.
@Naderade
Government is not the solution. It doesn’t create jobs. It takes/collects money from people and spends it on their behalf(theoretically). A speed rail between Disneyland and Las Vegas does not represent my interests. Disney and Vegas or Cali and Nevada should have payed for that not all of the American people. This sort of spending is the crux of the issue, namely, when the govenment collects our money they set the priorites of spending. It seems that this power corrupts. The private sector through innovation and streamlining is the economic solution. The governments job is to shrink to its Constitutional size.
BHO seems like the person least convinced of his own “I won” statement, sticking to campaign mode; Campaign mode is BHO’s strongest suit; mastering it is the reason for his successful & rapid political ascent which brought him to the Oval Office.
I did not listen to the speech. The inaugural speech was the last of his that I made a point to listen to, and will do the same when he appears b4 a joint session of congress to deliver the State of the Union.
Since BHO’s election, the reality has been….
BHO makes a speech –> market drops.
Hope for near future…
BHO speeches are kept to a minimum!
and…. attendance in Friday’s Tea Parties across the nation
(look for one at place near you…)
I think it is interesting that Wall Street is taking a dump today. Coincidence? I think not.
I think everyone in America would like to see Obama succeed, but there are many things he is doing wrong and these things will prevent him from succeding. A capitalist society is willing to let each individual and company stand or fall on their own merits. Each of us learns through failure. Not allowing people or business to fail will eventually destroy it. Think of the undisciplined child that is prevented from ever experiencing failure by doting parents. Some day the parents won’t be there to prevent them from feeling the pain of failure. They will not know how to handle it.
This is the same way with Obama, he has never experienced failure, so he has no concept of how businesses or the government really works. He is operating on the Keynesian theory which has never worked. The people who believe the Keynesian theory believe that the government is the only thing that can boost the economy and the way to do it is to spend more.
I on the other hand believe that the government is the only one who can boost the economy and they do that by cutting spending and cutting taxes. Jindal had it right but his speech was not the best I’ve heard him make.
@Theophilus
“Government is not the solution.”
I’m sorry if this is going to upset you, but Ron Paul lost. He lost back in the primaries, in fact. He had a revolution, and a blimp, and it failed to satisfy the majority of Americans. He as a person not only lost, but the whole argument of dismantling a government lost as well.
I bet you’re the type of guy that gets up every morning, looks himself in the mirror, and yells, “DAMN GOVERNMENT! I WOULD BE SO RICH IF I DIDN’T HAVE TO PAY ALL OF THESE TAXES!”
Maybe a rail line does not meet your interests, and if I was a betting man, I probably will not see you on it, but don’t you think it may save gas for thousands of other people in the long run? This is not about just you.
So, where are the long-run private sector profits in a rail line? That’s your question. Well, building it will make jobs, that’s a step. Saving gas money for customers that are visiting either attraction… that itself is a step towards energy independence by taking thousands of cars off of the road.
No, the rail line to you should be called the “Socialist Express”. Look at the government trying to be energy efficient… f’in commies! How dare they save people from buying oil that came from Iran!
I’m not here to give you an education, because obviously you will walk away from this discussion only more hardened in your ideology. And trust me, I know how important it is, as a business student, to create private sector jobs. But this is the nihilism I was referring to. That you have everything you have already, and no one is allowed a little boost while still working hard to achieve their ambitions.
And before I go, I was thinking about a woman who got cancer and was booted off of her healthcare plan. She spent her life savings on pills, but was still trying to send her two kids to college.
You’d be the kind of person that would go into her face and tell her that it is her responsibility to have healthcare, and that the government does not deserve to support her poisoned body when no one else wants to.
And I’m here to tell you that your numbers are thinning.
Steven-
You are a great writer. I always enjoy reading your posts.
Some impressions from last nights speech:
1. Obama is not focused on national security and all his planning for social programs, health care and education reform will go up in smoke if we are attacked again.
2. His plans of forwarding an agenda on healthcare, education and economic recovery will have minimal chance of succeeding without Republican support in Congress, as Congress approves spending.
3. It was intersting that he singled out the business man who distributed $60 million among his employees. Distribution of wealth seems to be a priority for Obama. Not a good sign for a country built on capitalist ideology and principle.
4. Nancy Pelosi could not control her exuberance. If she is so happy with Obama, I know that I should be very worried
A few comments on the posts above:
1. We as Republicans should not want Obama to succeed if that means a successful implementation of his ideas and policies (abortion, socialist policy, etc.) We want him to successfully protect us from a terrorist attack and provide a good example for our children.
2. We should not support a stimulus bill that gives money to banks and companies who then use it for sponsoring million dollar parties (Northern Trust Bank, AIG, etc).
3. The better solution is to lower taxes on individuals and corporations. Immediate stimulus and proportional to need.
4. I disagree that Jindal did a good job. He seemed very boyish and weak. I certainly would not support him in a Presidential bid. Anyone think Romney would know how to solve this economic mess?
mp
@Matt
Romney would probably fix this entire mess, but also set the stage for the Mormons to rise to prominence.
Whats wrong with prominent Mormons? This is exactly why he did not get elected…the Mormon issue.
@Naderade
I’ve posted here for several months and my previous comments do not support your characterization of me.
This is not surprising because you also missed the gist of my argument. Namely, government inherently tends towards corruption.
My displeasure with the rail between Vegas and Disney is not that it will stimulate those two entities–it will boost both of them. I dislike my tax dollars supporting private enterprise. Private enterprise can and should support itself. If this rail line is so wonderful, why didn’t the states or companies involved and benefiting from it build it? Why did my money have to be commandeered? I would rather see my tax money support something which I find valuable.
Finally, supporting the unfortunate should be the responsibility of the church and philanthropists. Americans should not have to endure forced generosity for the same reasons we should not endure forced enterprise
@Matt
Really? That one issue single-handedly sunk Romney? There were no other issues? Not even one?
Obama’s speech was as always impressive and forceful. Yet, when he lambasted Wall Srteet and lending bankers, he said nothing about the Barney Frank and the Dems who forced the banks to make risky loans. He said there no earmarks in the Stimulus package (there are). he said nothing about the next slightly less blocakbuster spending bill that is on its way to his desk for signature that has thousands of earmarks.
Say what you will about Obama. He is moving forcefully to advance socialism. Obama’s presidency may turn out to be a failure, but it will not be an insignificant presidency.
I think Obama’s speech was great, and the vision he spoke of for this country is the same one I have for the US as well.
I love his commitment to alternative energy and making our economy green. I agree with his plan to modernize our schools and infrastructure.
What is amazing to me, is that Republicans are just fine with spending a trillion dollars on a useless and unnecessary war, but don’t want to spend money on fixing schools, energy, providing health care. If Republicans only could show as much passion for the common man as they do for protecting the rich from paying a little more taxes.
The only solution Republicans have are tax cuts it seems. Tax cuts will also increase the debt, because the government would be taking in less money.
Yes, we will have to raise taxes and cut benefits in the future. We have a $10 trillion debt, that Obama inherited. So even if Obama didn’t spend a dime, we would still have to make some difficult decisions in the future.
And please stop repeating the high speed rail lie!! The rail extends from the south to northeast to the mid-west. Its not just from L.A to Las Vegas. Just like the Iraq War, please don’t repeat a lie over and over and hope people believe it.
Gary Fouse nailed in in my opinion; let me share his words.
I will highlight what I feel should have been talked about.
“Obama’s speech was as always impressive and forceful. Yet, when he lambasted Wall Srteet and lending bankers, he said nothing about the Barney Frank and the Dems who forced the banks to make risky loans. He said there no earmarks in the Stimulus package (there are). he said nothing about the next slightly less blocakbuster spending bill that is on its way to his desk for signature that has thousands of earmarks.
Say what you will about Obama. He is moving forcefully to advance socialism. Obama’s presidency may turn out to be a failure, but it will not be an insignificant presidency.”
These people talk about responsibility, then they need to proove that action to the American people. People like B.Frank and C.Dodd should not be in the position they are in. If folks like these (and Pelosi/Reed) are going to continue to run our country or make “Executive” decisions for the country; there is nothing that BHO does that will make “Change” to the American people. His motto shoud be “Same”. BHO speaks well, very ‘inspiring’ but words without substance doesnt go very far and transparent.
@Kahlil
Check your facts.
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/02/will-the-stimulus-get-texas-hi.html
Policy-wise, he pretty much said what would be expected, so I’ll focus on the tone: I found it to be depressing and sadly negative. Granted, he put the rhetoric in there about America bouncing back, but so much of it was veiled shots at Bush and Republicans, and negative spin to lower expectations. For example, more than once he spoke of a deficit he “inherited.” No, that deficit is what it is largely because of the bailout he just signed, as well as the previous bailout by Bush that he supported. And when he talked about relating to and empathizing with American’s anger with the first bailout, and its ineffectiveness, I just said, “But you voted for it.”
I was no supporter of Bill Clinton, but I do remember that he was positive and forward-looking. We need a leader right now, not someone who can’t get out of partisan campaign mode…someone who is capable of conveying a sense that he’s in control of the situation.
There was so much talk in the campaign by conservatives about Obama’s associations, and corruption in his background. But right now I’d say his biggest problem is that he just isn’t a leader. And, Democrat or Republican, we’re going to need one in the days to come.
Sorry for a downer of a post…
Would someone please give me an example of a working, democratic non-partisan/bi-partisan political system. There are occasional parliamentary “grand coalitions”, and they generally collapse when the need for agreement passes. Republican democracy is founded on constructive conflict.
Someone also tell me why we are “in a crisis.” Was it precipitated by greedy business or panicked government? Milton Friedman asked: “If you don’t trust greedy businessmen, why would you trust greedy politicians?” Fair question…why?
I about broke my TV last night. I wanted to reach through the TV and strangle that smile right off of Nancy Pelosi’s face. But alas cooler heads prevail :).
Obama is calling for us to be fiscially responsible when he just spent 1 trillion and is looking to spend another trillion?
I am a 30 year old father of 3 and i am afraid for my children when they reach my age. They will have to work much harder to pay off the debt ran up by congress and more specifically democrats or as i like to call “hippiecrats”.
Health care? WHO among us wants the government deciding what procedures we are “authorized” for? “Your too old to get a kidney transplant, we are going to give it to someone younger.” Mark my words things like this will happen. The VA is a perfect example of what government health care will look like. Talk to vets and ask them how they like the VA hospitals/clinics. I know many military persons and i do not know of ONE who likes going to the VA and most get private health insurance so they dont have to deal with the government.
Health care is not a right.
Energy? I am all for renewable energy sources however these sources cannot and will not replace our current forms of energy production. We need more nukes, and ease the restrictions on their construction. If you go all in on renewables it will cost mucho dinero and will have little to nothing to show for it. Cap and trade here we come. How long will it be before we have CO2 monitors on everything which are checked monthly so the government can bill you for your carbon emissions? Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant people. A high abundance of CO2 x# millions years ago spurred the largest “greening” of the earth in its history, look it up. To think WE (humans) have the power to modify the climate of our planet is shear vanity. This planet has seen many warmups and cool downs. Did the cavemans SUV’s cause the last iceage? C’mon people!
Energy is not a right.
Education? The government run education system has been a monatery blackhole for its entire existence. And now Chairman Obama wants to pay for everyone’s education including college?! If you join his ”national security force” he will pay for your education. Hmmm sounds familiar doesnt it? I remember, the Nazis had a little thing called the SS.
Education is not a right, especially when someone else is paying for it.
All of this and cut the deficit in half? Perhaps in Obama’s delusional mind he is applying the mathmatical a minus times a minus is equal to a positive. So lets double down on government spending and perhaps they will cancel eachother out and the market will return.
“There are no earmarks in these bill”. By the immortal words of Mike Myers “Yeah and monkey’s might fly out of my butt.” This is a classic Clintonesque lie.
If you want the truth from Chairman Obama. Listen to what he says, then believe the opposite.
We are quickly becoming a socialist country with the buying up of banks and a stake in the auto companies, among other things. Look around the world and look at all of the socialist/communist “utopias” around the world and look how well they are doing.
With capitalism there are winners and losers, with socialism/communism there are NO winners, only losers.
GOD help us all.
Mike
P.S. I like the site :).
trillions are the new billions
“trillions are the new billions”
Best comment on this article yet. Anybody notice how Democrats are using the word ‘trillion(s)’ more and more? There is purpose to it; get the public used to spending in the trillions, and when somebody says “billions”, the reaction will be akin to that when Dr. Evil demanded a ransom of “one…MILLION…dollars”….embarassed chuckles.
Obama is a talented orator; so was William Jennings Bryan. The substance of the speech, however, could have been given by McGovern, or Carter, or any one of dozens of Democrats going back to FDR, save for the word “trillions”. Plenty of “what”, little or no “how”, although we all know the how…’tax the rich’, ‘tax the evil corporations’. Of course, no one points out that corporations do not pay taxes; they only collect them from their customers, who bear the cost. Absurd claims that they won’t allow bailout funds to go to mortgage deadbeats: if Treasury can’t account for how TARP funds were spent by mere hundreds of financial institutions, how on earth can they claim they can do so for millions of mortgage holders? (Hint: they cannot, and will not).
I’m a young republican primarily if one uses Satchel Paige’s definition. If I were my daughter’s or son’s age, I would be both terrified and furious (both of them are, btw). The debts they, their children, their grandchildren, and so on will be saddled with, along with the Social Security and Medicare tsunamis around the corner is utterly hideous. It will change their lives, and not for the better.
Soaring rhetoric? Absolutely. Full of lies, half truths, and political posturing? Even moreso.
I think that the problem is that many like yourself want to help President Obama suceed. And, he really does not want the help of Republicans and or conservatives. He pays us lip service, but the minions in congress have shown President Obama who is the boss. They certainly have no interest in getting any Republicans onboard. The bottom line is that we have no choice but to offer alternatives and hold President Obama accountable. If that is dissent, then I am a proud dissenter.
Naderade said:
<<Maybe a rail line does not meet your interests, and if I was a betting man, I probably will not see you on it, but don’t you think it may save gas for thousands of other people in the long run? This is not about just you.>>
……and though i agree that it does NOT describe Theophilus in particular, it is a description that fits a good many (……not all) conservatives. And today’s political mood is not a god place for this “I, Me, Mine” attitude.
<<…..not a good place for this “I, Me, Mine” attitude.>>
-Sorry
The Democrat theme of giving to the poor funds earned by others more diligent in their pursuit of prosperity is nothing new, deriving its motivation from earlier southern historical times which literally saw bus loads of voters paid money each time they voted. President Obama’s speech was politically astute, pragmatically challenging, and devoid of details likely to make or break his stated objectives. He appears to genuinely desire bipartisan cooperation, yet seems unable to control the members of his own party, namely Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi, who seem to have relegated him to the status of political newby not yet worthy of being taken seriously when it comes to wielding political power. Failure to achieve his stated lofty goals could futher encourage Clinton Presidential ambitions, perhaps something Pelosi and Reid prefer. One wonders what will motivate him to actually veto bills earmarked with pork.
H.Paul’s comment:
<<The Democrat theme of giving to the poor funds earned by others more diligent in their pursuit of prosperity is nothing new, deriving its motivation from earlier southern historical times which literally saw bus loads of voters paid money each time they voted.>>
-makes two faulty assumptions. One, that somehow, as a matter of fact, those who have more(money) were “more diligent in their pursuit of prosperity”. There are more that a few, who had an edge in gaining their wealth, through many other activities other than diligence. Criminal activity(the peanut guy in Georgia comes to mind….) and inheritance(…..though there is nothing wrong with inheriting money).
The other false assumption is that democrat victories in election is due to fraud.
Further alongH.Paul remarks …….<<One wonders what will motivate him to actually veto bills earmarked with pork>>
I hear this term “pork” quite often from my conservative friends. I wonder if killing the F-22 program (60 aircraft are called for by the air force with each F-22 costing 350 million dollars……)would satisfy your desire to rid the budget of some “pork”.
Obama believes in this too. He wants to “reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use.” Unfortunately, we may still need those “toys” to help what was once called a member of the “axis of evil.” But, according to Forbes, “The North, claiming a right to “space development,” says it will put a “communications satellite,” the Kwangmyongsong No. 2, into orbit with an Unha-2 rocket. Just about everyone believes it’s a ruse and thinks the North will actually test a ballistic missile.” If we give up on complicated weapons, we will be technologically surpassed by some rather devious nations–ie Russia, Iran and N. Korea.
But in this era of deficits both inherited, and due to necessity providing a remedy to the contraction of the market economy…..the question is:
Can we afford F-22’s, B-2’s, or Ford Class air craft carriers?
Could costly weapons systems such as these(and these are but a few)
be delayed or cut?
Can you be 100% positive that none of these weapons are deterring our enemies? If we cut back from your list, will Russia see that as a sign of weakness? Will our allies in the balkans feel a little bit more on their own and be willing to compromise with the more robust power? Will our enemies likewise make cuts?
We shall see, because Obama, if he keeps his vague promise, will indeed make your recommended cuts and the results will be obvious.
<<Will our enemies likewise make cuts?>>-Theophilus asks (among others)……It depends on their financial status. But China may increase development of far more advanced weapons, and sure, this is in the minds of military planners.
But our deployment of a new generation of fighters, bombers, and war ships isn’t exactly imperative at this time. Our present bombers far exceed anything any other air force has, while our fighters at present are at least on par with other airforces.
Nimitz Class carriers are the best at sea today…..not to mention far more numerous…..
“America has twice as many aircraft carriers as the rest of humanity combined…..”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm
We can hold off for now until our economy improves to be able to afford these high priced weapons. More importantly, our present threat will call for more “boots on the ground”…….army and marine combat brigades. These also aren’t cheap to field, but we need them right now!
Again, would cutting weapons programs (or at least delaying deployment)
be considered “cutting pork”?
Is that a tacit admission that the other outlined possibilities are quite likely?
Though I disagree with the decision, we have stopped building Nimitz carriers.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1376961/uss_george_h_w_bush_commissioned_nuclear.html
So why do you bring them up?
Do you not remember the arms race of the last century? Have you not studied the film and realized that the Nazis had superior weaponry? We almost lost the battle of Midway and if the fog hadn’t been thick, who knows what the D-Day body count would have been. Do you think we will be so fortunate in WW3? Surely not. We cannot afford to change our high end weapon strategy–the results are too expensive.
<<Though I disagree with the decision, we have stopped building Nimitz carriers.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1376961/uss_george_h_w_bush_commissioned_nuclear.html
So why do you bring them up?>>
I brought them up because it is not imperative to replace them at this time. Not only that fact, but the fact that all the fleets of the worlds other navies combined do not match ours in numbers or ability to project our military power. Just like the air forces C-130, Nimitz Class carriers can continue to perfor their assigned mission in spite of their age.
Ok, so its a dead issue. Care to respond to the rest of the post?
<<Can you be 100% positive that none of these weapons are deterring our enemies? If we cut back from your list, will Russia see that as a sign of weakness? Will our allies in the balkans feel a little bit more on their own and be willing to compromise with the more robust power? Will our enemies likewise make cuts?>>-Theophilus
-That none of the proposed weapons would deter Russia? Sure they would. But, again…..the immediate threat is against terrorist in and around Afghanistan. We need to deal with terrorists while dealing with an ailing economy simultaneously. We simply can’t do all 3 at the same time (fight terrorist, stimulate our economy, and field a next generation of weapons systems against a possible future threat).
I don’t see any move with respect to Eastern Europe aligning with Russia occurring any time soon. Yes Russia can threaten the Balkans, but the former satellites of the former Soviet Union, with a few exceptions, absolutely HATE Russians.
Will Russia make cuts militarily, or see themselves in a particularly strategic advantage with respect to us? How strong economically is Russia right now?
Even if Russia doesn’t make cuts in it’s military right now, they have a long way to go to regain their military might they enjoyed 20 years ago. If Russia decided to invade Poland tomorrow, they’d have quite a fight on their hands. Russians ain’t stupid.
If we can’t do all three, lets get rid of the stimulus.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1376961/uss_george_h_w_bush_commissioned_nuclear.html
Then we can shoot down these
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1376961/uss_george_h_w_bush_commissioned_nuclear.html
Russia is trying to reassert itself over Europe. East Europe is not ready to fight and West Europe replaced its spine with thirty pieces of silver. We have no choice but to continue to dominate. We must stay strong for the East Europeans. We must not fall behind in this arms race which is once again underway.
It is unbelievable to me that our national debt is in the multi trillions. I’m an old chick and have seen a few presidents, but none that left me fearing for our country the way Obama has. The greed on Wall Street was not good, but socialism is not a fair system either. I hear talk at a major corporation in our city, and the news is not good. High level management expects that Obama’s “stimulus” package is going to make things worse, not better. I read that most of the so called stimulus package will not be helping the economy now. It’s been engineered to help later, when the elections start up again.
So susanjane……what should we do?
Nothing isn’t a very good answer, and more tax cuts for the wealthy seem to be part of what got us to where we are now. Remember, nearly 80 percent of the current debt — about which conservatives now complain — was acquired on the watch of the three most recent conservative Presidents.
The cold war isn’t over.
“Russian bomber neared Canada before Obama visit” via Drudge
I’m not convinced that so called “tax cuts” for the wealthy got us here. I thought the current mess started in the housing market. Fannie and Freddie–lack of oversight, giving loans out like candy, people not reading the fine print on their contracts, people buying houses they couldn’t afford, and so on. Making home loans more available for people was a noble goal, but it sounded like they really relaxed the standards too much.
We pay 40% of our income in state and federal taxes, and never really begrudged it till I heard all the hyenas howl for more because we apparently dont’ deserve to have any wealth. If there was a tax cut for us, I failed to see it. Where does it stop? I get the impression that we will be bled dry. Never mind that my husband worked his way through school, and has worked 70-80 work weeks his entire career. He has earned everything we have. If more people had half his work ethic, I doubt they’d be in the situations they are in.
I’m not wise enough to know all the answers. I think hefty tax cuts to some of the corporations might have helped more than some of the stuff I saw in the “stimulus” package, with the stipulations that people not be terminated or laid off. Not necessarily corporations that took their factories overseas somewhere, but the ones that stayed here. I think Obama should’ve have taken a scalpel to some of the spending currently in place and cut out the fat, before he loaded us up with more. I keep hearing that banks have gotten a lot of bailout funds, but I’m wondering what they did with the money, especially when I hear of bank employees locally that have lost their jobs. Oversight of the current bailout monies would’ve been nice. Those are a few of my thoughts.
Current national debt is at a record high, and while the conditions may have started with Bush and maybe even Clinton, Obama is still the one who took the debt to new levels. I believe he has put our country on a path to socialism.
I agree is SJ. “CBO Predicts Recession Will End in 2009 Without Stimulus”
@David
Apparently, doing nothing would have been the best plan. Of course, the likes of our current administration want a crisis to push their agenda. They are “true believers,” and their view of America may prevail. As Kruthhammer noted this morning “Brussels, here we come.”
About those planes.
“An increasingly belligerent Russia and an ambitious China have been expanding their forces. A Russian-built reactor in Iran has just gone live as the mullahs show their global reach with a satellite launch. North Korea is preparing a launch of its Taepodong 2 intercontinental ballistic missile.
This is not the time to gut missile defense designed to deal with these missile threats or to cancel advanced weapon systems like the stealth F-22 Raptor while the wings almost fall off our aging fleet of F-15s. Yet that is what the Obama administration clearly intends.”
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=320544320518053
Susanjane, tax cuts did not get us here and the real estate bubble was only the 2nd stage.
After the dotcom bubble, this country was due for a recession and a general calming down of the stock market in general. Who knows how long it would’ve taken, but things should have cooled off for several years. Well, that didn’t happen. What happened instead was another bull market; Greenspan slashed credit rates to record lows and in turn, this generated a credit bubble. The ensuing real estate bubble was a direct result of all the cheap credit in the earlier part of this decade. Sure, there was a massive amount of demand which sparked economic activity - but NONE of it was based on REAL wealth. After the late 90s, all our economic activity was fueled by simply credit, borrowing and excess spending.
What started the mess WAS government regulation (fixing the price of credit) and if there’s only one person responsible, it’s Greenspan. All of it was a very quick fix. And it worked, but it came with consequences we are now seeing for the first time.
I suspect that this is one of the main reasons the Democrats are so headstrong in spending and regulation. In their perspective, government regulation created a bull market and for whatever reason, they’re not willing to accept responsibility for today’s recession. In their minds, Clinton equals Bull Market and Bush equals Bear Market. Unfortunately, the Republicans cannot criticize the Democrats without admitting that they were also responsible for keeping credit rates low and encouraging credit spending following Greenspan/Clinton.
David G you hit the nail right on the head!! When Alan Greenspan started talking about “adjustable rate mortgages’” I knew we were in trouble dems and repubs. One of the reasons I came to this forum is I wanted to see the opinions of the new republicans when it came to the “spending part” of this bill. I think that Clinton started our downfall when that NAFTA agreement was put in place and businesses started outsourcing. Hey Im all for govt spending to get us out of this mess but those banks should be held accountable but like Susan Jane said where did the money go? Im not for the Pelosi theory of trillions being spent on STD research or something like that. Its a shame that dems and repubs approved this whole credit thing to the max. Dont get me wrong companies need to operate on credit but I think they should only do that for payroll and office equipment and thats it. Pay and go with supply and demand. At this point the government needs to regulate who and why this money we have sent out now is being spent or President Obama is in for a nightmare. I agree with what he had to do now we have to see if Mr Biden will keep things in check. Susan Jane your husband works hard and I admire people who have worked for what they have I dont want to see the Madoff’s of the world take it away! What these Wall Street thugs have done is dishonorable and they should go to jail. How dare they make ponzi schemes on innocent individuals.
Lefties see all of these guys as being Republican and that is not true there are honest Repubs out there. While blogging and doing what you can on the local level
let your friends know we may agree to disagree but there are dems out there like myself who believe in checks and balances and that we must be conservative and come to a middle ground when it comes to money and morals.
susanjane comments……
<<I thought the current mess started in the housing market. Fannie and Freddie–lack of oversight, giving loans out like candy, people not reading the fine print on their contracts, people buying houses they couldn’t afford, and so on. Making home loans more available for people was a noble goal, but it sounded like they really relaxed the standards too much>>
-The tax cuts contributed to the budget problem, don’t you think? But as for the notion that Fannie&Freddie are the problem with the housing bust is disinformation at best. What was the mechanism that allowed lenders to underwrite and market sub prime loans?
Ever heard of a guy named Phil Gramm? The mechanism which allowed sub-prime loans to be bundled and sold was the Gramm-Leach_Bliley Act……these bundled sun-prime loans were then rated AAA-a real scam that this act legalized.
Theophilus;
“The fiscal 2010 spending plan appears to fulfill a campaign promise that Obama made to the far left group Caucus for Priorities, which called for a further deterioration in the military.“-Defense: A Disarmingly Low Priority
It is a fallacy to assume cutting gold-plated high tech equipment automatically “furthers deterioration in the military.“ Obama is adding army&marine combat brigades to counter the threat we now face. The troops are also getting a much needed pay raise.
Ike had it right in his 1960 farewell speech when he warned America of the undue influence of the military industrial complex. Why do you think he made this point to the American people? Don’t you think he was in a position to know these kind of things.
In my own experience as a paratrooper in the 82nd Abn Div., i saw how weapons systems were foisted on us by arms makers with lots of K-Street clout. Presently, we can not afford any more F-22’s, and Secretary Gates agrees(….not exactly a liberal, is he?).
I was watching Ron Paul’s speech at CPAC today. Can anyone post some links to the 1207 bill he was referring to? He mentioned recently announced legislation to audit the Fed. Then he received a standing ovation from a few members of the audience.
Steven, I read all 66 comments up to 8pm on Fri. & wondered if you are getting what you hoped for when you began blogging in Nov. For the most part people seem unwilling or unable to stop gnawing at last year’s campaign bone or get out of their comfort zone. Some just like to complain or maybe hear themselves pontificate with nothing positive to offer. As a Republican since 1965, including life-time member of the Lincoln Club, I wonder when did the GOP become the party of whiners? All this repeated complaining is a big waste of time, folks!
I was about to move on when David W. Walters’ comments came up. Now he got my attention with questions that make sense, quite likely because he’s had some military & life experiences that helped in form his judgment. So, first, please join me in thanking Mr. Walters for his service to our country, which was & is appreciated more than you’ll ever know. Thank you, David W. Walters!
Second - Mr. Walters’ points are valid & very accurate. I highly encourage people to learn something about our defense spending needs by watching the videos of SecDef Gates telling the Senate Oversight Committee what needs to be done - both when he thought he was resigning & again when he was being reconfirmed. Their tremendous respect for that man was palpable. It was obvious to me he was frustrated trying to do his job with the DOD’s accounting system a chaotic mess. A mess HE inherited, I might add, that the GAO cannot even begin to audit! Kudos to Pres. Obama for being wise & able to persuade him to stay on & to Sec. Gates for staying. He certainly seemed pleased that he had been given the opportunity. That decision sent a powerful message to our enemies wherever found.
Third - Many comments display naivete & lack of knowledge about stock markets. I’ll venture a wild guess a bunch of you here have never had a dog in this fight & those of you who have might have traumatised memories. Look up a 50-yr. charts of the Dow, the S&P 500 & the Russell 5000, and with a little bit of study, you will see patterns of booms & busts. In the last 15 years, equities markets went from investment mode to trading mode due to hedging operations. Its been the “Roaring 20’s” all over again, complete with overleveraging debt, confidence schemes, excess “funny” paper trading (credit default swaps & other derivatives), and massive “white-collar” grand larceny.
We have no one to blame but ourselves for the financial meltdown & subsequent bank bailout. Bank deregulation was one of the first big pieces of legislation the Republican leadership pushed through beginning in Jan. of 1995 - when the GOP took over the majority in both House & Senate to outflank Clinton (Oxford Rhodes Scholar in economics).
Mr. Wilders already mention Sen. Phil Gramm’s role in 1999 getting the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act passed, basically repealing the Glass-Steagall Act of 1934, when the SEC was formed. Since 1995, the SEC wasn’t allowed to examine the books of financial holding companies nor require sufficient equity to meet the SEC’s capital requirements. The SEC needed new legislation to close that gap after a HUGE global hedge fund (Long-Term Capital Management) collapsed in 1998 followed by a stock market mini-crash in 2000. Another crisis, another fix.
So, who was in charge of the henhouse, so to speak? Christopher Cox, JD/MBA from Harvard, was appointed SEC Chairman in 2005, and had served under Pres. Reagan during the rise & subsequent stock market crash the week of Black Tuesday in October of 1987.
In 2004, before Cox took over as SEC Chair, the 5 largest investment banks asked for an exemption to loosen the capital requirements so they could take on more debt - 30:1 debt to equity, greatly increasing profits. They also wanted to use their own computer models to measure financial risk. In exchange, SEC auditors would be allowed to see the holding company books - which was never done.
This financial house of cards would not have been as likely to collapse had the SEC followed the advice of Leonard Bole, software consultant to the U. of Chicago. Bole’s comments were ignored as the sole dissenting opinion in opposition to letting the investment banks use their own computer models to measure variable risk. [Comments of Leonard D. Bole, L.D.B. Consulting, Inc., January 22, 2004 (File name: s72103-9.pdf)]
Fourth - Greed took over common sense & debt loads become so huge they caved in from their own weight. The US financial system has been operating for almost 30 years on Reagan’s “trickle-down” economic plan (mid-1980’s), and NAFTA was another of his plans carried out later by GOP leadership in the mid-1990’s - with Clinton’s blessing. However, our economic system weathered the other debacles like these:
collapse of the country’s immense savings & loan industry,
Chicago’s Continental Bank in 1984 (largest until now),
fallout of the Asian financial implosion in 1997, and
bailout of hedge-fund Long-Term Capital Management in 1998.
Now if that doesn’t give you some comfort in these trying times, then click this Kentucky Math & see if you can do the new math. Then thank whatever higher power you believe in that you don’t have Obama’s responsibilities!
David G.
Well, I thought I was fairly well informed on the causes of the current situation, but I guess I have some more reading to do. Thanks for the information, and giving me something else to research. (smile)
David W.
We pay enough in taxes. It’s the governments duty to be a better steward of what they are taking. This is my main complaint against Obama. It’s very easy to throw scads of money around–especially if it isn’t yours. I think he should’ve cut some waste, or at the very least figured out how to do things better with what he already has. Every corporation I know of, for the past 20 years, has been trying to do more with less. But not our government. Unfortunately, this isn’t the change Obama had in mind, and I still believe he’s leading us down a horrible path.
<<…..Every corporation I know of, for the past 20 years, has been trying to do more with less.>>
Even with executive bonuses and compensation? It seems rather wasteful to hand out
a bonus when the banking firm you are with is failing.
Sure we pay more taxes than we’d like to. Yet it is the government’s responsibility to provide services for our citizens and businesses. I keep saying, the real place to begin to cut is at the pentagon…..this is where the truly industrial sized waste is occurring.
David D.
You don’t work at a major corporation, do you? They are constantly tweaking the budgets to make more money. Executive compensation is something that has gotten out of line–I agree. My husbands company does not pass out bonuses when they haven’t done well financially. Can’t speak for the banking industry–not my area.
While our government should provide some services, it shouldn’t be in the nanny business of taking care of people, lock stock and barrel. It was never intended to be that. While some of us pay more taxes than we’d like, many pay nothing at all, and that number is growing larger yearly.
The Pentagon is another area that I know little about. I’m sure there’s some waste there–it’s government run.
susanjane….
Me? Retired paratrooper……spent a few years as a surveyor managing highway projects. In both fields i’ve seen greed soak taxpayers…..but we need highways and we need national security, so i guess people put up with a bit of corruption as long as the road isn’t bumpy and the enemy gets taken out….
Leave a comment!
Latest Video
Recent Events
View more photos >
Connect On
Subscribe
© 2009 The New Republicans. All rights reserved. By using this site, you accept our Terms of Use.