On Monday, Barack Obama took the oath in public on his Inauguration Day 2013. In between highlights such as the Bill Clinton photobomb of singer Kelly Clarkson, the Sasha Obama yawn during her dad′s speech and the Michelle Obama eye roll to John Boehner at the Congressional Inauguration Day Luncheon, we gleaned some idea of what to expect for the next four years. Obama spoke for just over 18 minutes before a crowd estimated to be close to a million people on the Washington Mall. He made a pitch for social justice, to expand the power of the federal government over people′s lives for their own good. Obama also made it very clear that he wants to spend more money we do not have, as well as tax more from those who do have. One thing not mentioned at all was the need to find jobs for the nearly 24 million unemployed Americans.
If not putting the country another $5.8 Billion dollars deeper in debt during his 1st term was not bad enough, adding more debt than the first 42 presidents combined, With the federal budget on auto-pilot for the past 1364 days since the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate passed a budget, we can expect the National Debt to increase further at about the same rate. Obama begins his second term with the nation magically still at an unemployment rate of 7.8%, although there are now some 8 million fewer Americans technically seeking jobs, according to the Obama administration.
So offering nothing but angry, arrogant rhetoric more suitable for a low-office campaign, Obama threw down the gauntlet daring Republicans to just try and block his agenda of not making any real spending cuts and raising taxes on anybody with a paycheck. He is also pushing for another shot at cap-and-trade taxes to fund his climate-change agenda and his new push to add more restrictions of the Second Amendment. Anything to further chip away at the U.S. Constitution. If Congress will not go along, then Obama will use executive orders and federal regulations to achieve his ends.
I may join and imitate the Michelle Obama eye roll, but not at John Boehner but at her husband. During the Barack Obama Inauguration Day 2013 speech, it is easy to see why we saw Sasha Obama yawn during it. The speech had nothing new and zero substance. It is no wonder that Bill Clinton photobomb Kelly Clarkson since he was obviously bored with the festivities. I was also bored. Bored silly! The only thing worse than an Obama inauguration speech is an Obama State of the Union speech, which we will get ′treated′ to come February 12.
January 22nd, 2013 at 9:24 am
“Obama 2nd Term – More Spending, More Taxes, More Regulations”
And that’s exactly what Americans voted for, and need. The alternative (today’s conservative policy) would be “More Austerity, More Corporate Welfare, More Lawless Corporations”.
Your blind binary mindset that kowtows to corporate interests (the present owners of today’s conservatives) forbids you to understand the need of balance.
January 22nd, 2013 at 10:07 am
Ronald, you forgot that Marxists are suppose to say Big Corporate rather than corporate interests, corporate welfare, and lawless corporation. You are slipping, comrade.
January 22nd, 2013 at 10:25 am
Where is the ‘balance’, Ronald, when all we are getting is more spending and taxes? None of the alleged spending cuts passed, or even those proposed by Paul Ryan, are actual cuts. Only minute reductions in the rate of future increases in spending. We’re on a trend that by 2017, the National Debt will be well over $20 Trillion dollars. Probably well over $22 or 23 Trillion.
January 22nd, 2013 at 10:39 am
“Hail to the Chief”
January 22nd, 2013 at 10:39 am
Ronald, Social Justice means= Poverty, Smaller Middle Class, Hospital Closings and Health Care for only the Political Class, more homeless, more crime, more misery, more suicides. I guess that is what America needs accordingto you and the Democrats and the Media. You want America to live a 10th century life style. The Rulling Class and serfs. You may want for yourself and family. I choose free markets where my family, my friends, my neighbors and fellow citizens choose how they want to live and are fat, happy and sassy.
January 22nd, 2013 at 11:50 am
Sue @ # 5, most of the problems you mentioned are a direct result of trying it the “Bush way”. We didn’t see these issues during the Clinton era.
Andy @ # 4, Ryan Paul’s proposals were unhinged and promptly rejected by credible economists as well as the electorate. His budget was a huge gift to corporate donors at the expense of the middle class workers. I didn’t know that one was even still debatable.
I could go into Obama’s near $2 trillion in deficit reduction (not including interest not owed due to less spending and increased revenue) and that he’s willing to pass $1.5 trillion more. And I could rehash how the bulk of our deficit problem has been GOP driven. But that’s straying from my point, which I assume was your intentions. Looking at the alternative, today’s GOP tends to push for more austerity, less corporate taxes (which many are actually corporate welfare recipients) and less regulations on an industrial world gone wild. We’ve tried it your way for over a decade only to see what Sue blames Dems for.
Micky @ # 2, uh wait, Patrick I mean (you 2 sound so much alike it’s hard to tell the difference), never mind.
January 22nd, 2013 at 12:12 pm
“More Spending, More Taxes, More Regulations”
And that’s exactly what Americans voted for, and need. ”
Yeah, hows that been working so far ?
January 22nd, 2013 at 12:25 pm
“Sue @ # 5, most of the problems you mentioned are a direct result of trying it the “Bush way”. We didn’t see these issues during the Clinton era.”
What we saw was Gingrich dragging Barry to congress.
These so called “problems” are not the result of any one presidency.
You can chock our debt and deficit up to decades of socialist spending, the CRA not standing alone.
Weve been thru this before, seen that movie, had that debate.
But, if slipping in Bushs name here and there makes you feel better that just makes you a cheap date.
You’re a riot dude, totally incomprehensible, absolutely stupid in saying that more spending, more taxation, and more regulation is what we need when any retard knows that at least one of those three components you mentioned is exactly what we >DONT< need and got us exactly where we are today.
Fact is Ronald, poll after poll shows that the people are highly aware of our spending addiction and want it dealt with.
So ? I sound like Patrick ?
Nicest thing anyones said to me in along time, thank you.
January 22nd, 2013 at 12:31 pm
“I could go into Obama’s near $2 trillion in deficit reduction (not including interest not owed due to less spending and increased revenue) and that he’s willing to pass $1.5 trillion more.”
You’re really that stupid ?
So far, all of Barrys economic propositions have failed. In 4 years hes not saved a freaking dime and only increased our debt and deficit and you’re gonna believe the same platitudes in round two ?
Just because you say you’re going to the moon at a cost of a trillion bucks and then cancel the trip doesnt mean you saved a trillion you moron.
January 22nd, 2013 at 1:43 pm
An industrial world gone wild
according to this Marxist child.
Perhaps I don’t know what the facts is
But just give me mo’ corporate taxes
Down with the bourgeois’ corporate welfare
Ain’t no power to da people there
The lawless ones, big corporate lie
Now can you guess, who am I?
January 22nd, 2013 at 3:41 pm
To further validate the flawed concept of less taxes, less spending, and less regulation Andy, take a look at Globalpost today. It explains that among developed nations, only Chile, Mexico, and Turkey have higher income inequality than the U.S.
So with with the 99% pretty much going broke and the 1% petty much tax exempt, precisely how does the economically work? Something’s simply amiss.
January 22nd, 2013 at 4:39 pm
Umm yes, but 7-10 are countries with socialist health care models and huge government welfare. Italy, New Zealand, Australia, UK.
The liberal obsession with “income inequality” reveals that they are sick with class envy. What really matters is median incomes because the median income level measures how most people in a country are doing relative to most people in other countries. Last I checked the USA was second meaning average Americans are doing really well.
If only we were all in poverty, liberals would be ecstatic over the income inequality number as they line up for their food stamps.
January 22nd, 2013 at 6:49 pm
“So with with the 99% pretty much going broke and the 1% petty much tax exempt, precisely how does the economically work? Something’s simply amiss.”
Tax the 1 percent 60 percent ?
If 99% percent of us are going broke does that mean you’re acknowledging the last four years for the failure it is ?
“To further validate the flawed concept of less taxes, less spending, and less regulation Andy, take a look at Globalpost today. It explains that among developed nations, only Chile, Mexico, and Turkey have higher income inequality than the U.S.”
The problem with that stupid argument is that we are in fact nothing like Turkey, Mexico and Chile.
Theres obviously a large enough middle class in America for Obama to make his largest talking points with. Its almost all he ever says
Once again.
Are you proposing that we need more of all three, taxation, regulation and spending ?
Are you seriously saying we need more of and not less of these hurdles ?
Wow, you’re a gift
January 22nd, 2013 at 7:31 pm
Less taxes (that one never gets old), less regulation (darn those pesky banking regulations) and less spending (albeit selectively defunding programs that may not be expensive, but really, really, bother us and increasing defense because, well, you can never have enough offen, oops, I mean defense).
Wasn’t that the entirety of the GOP argument (apart from social nonsense that consistently costs them elections)?
January 23rd, 2013 at 8:46 am
@ Buzz,
You seem to forget, Buzz, that it was Clinton’s SecTreas, Bob Rubin from Goldman Sachs, who pushed for the banking laws to be loosened up, such as the elimination of Glass-Steagall. He also was among the creators of the derivatives market, which gave Wall Street a blank check to chaos.
@ Ronald,
Credible economists rejected the Ryan plan? Like Paul ‘Enron’ Krugman? Don’t make me laugh!!!
As Patrick stated, most nations are socialist therefore their citizens are all equally abused. The income divide here is more of a function of crony-capitalism, such as Obama shoveling billions to his pals in the green energy industry, including GE.
As for Obama’s ’spending cuts’, you can only discount what had been spent on Iraq once, not three or four times as Obama has. As for the debt solely a GOP creation, the GAO and other independent reviews all show that Medicare and Medicaid are the main drivers of bankrupting America. I seem to recall that they were Democrat programs started by LBJ.
January 23rd, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Again what matter is median incomes. In our country the 1% are doing spectacularly and the 99% are doing well too. Why do liberals want everyone to be poor?
January 23rd, 2013 at 3:23 pm
“99% are doing well too” yet Obama is an economic disaster? ? ? ? ?
Andy I’ve had a more hectic week than normal so my time is limited. Considering I’ve addressed your nonsense extensively on several occasions (only for you to cover your ears and sing “la la la”), I’m not going to invest the time that your diatribe really doesn’t deserve.
I’d say that Rep. Justin Amash(R) of Michigan pretty much hit the nail on the head today with:
“The public is not behind us, and that’s a real problem for our party”.
January 23rd, 2013 at 4:54 pm
“99% are doing well too” yet Obama is an economic disaster? ? ? ? ?”
Stop trying to turn this around like you do everything.
You’re the one who said the 99% isnt doing well and you’re the one with nothing to back it up.
Please, where’d you get that info ?
Without stats or links its common knowledge that theres a percentage of those living in poverty.
Be it 10 % or 30% in poverty it shows that theres no way the whole 99% can be doing well.
“Were doing fine” simply means the rest of us/middle class have not entered the ranks of poverty…yet.
Roughly 60% of the country says they’ve had to make changes in their household economies but are still not destitute, as you’d have us believe.
“So with with the 99% pretty much going broke and the 1% petty much tax exempt, precisely how does the economically work? Something’s simply amiss.”
This 1% you speak of is who ? (They’re actually members of the top 5%)
Are you trying to say their difficulties are not the same regardless of income ? That major employers and investors,owners of our largest corporations and companies are not facing economic hardships ?
Of course they are ass hole. All one needs to confirm this is to look at the unemployment numbers from the last 4 years.
And this 99%…
How far up your ass did you reach for that figure ?
Are the other 4% you left out from the top 5 % included in this 99% ?
If anyone such as Patrick, says that 99% are doing fine do you seriously believe he or anyone else is suggesting that the largest economic sector, the middle class, is doing fine in the sense they’re accumulating savings,finding jobs, seeing prices at the market go down, participating in a more viable stock market ?
Of course not.
Bottom line is this….
You pulled a couple numbers straight out of your ass in pursuit of winning an argument.
And you failed miserably.
You tried to take the two crucial and well known numbers in this debate and change them from “the 5% (successful/rich) who pay 60% of this countrys bills and the 40-45% (middle class)that pay no fed tax at all, to the rich only being 1% and the not rich being 99%.
How the hell did the 1 become a 5 and the 40-45% become 99% ?
I’m dying to hear you try to make some kind of fcking sense of this !
Middle class families are seeing higher insurance costs due to market place panic over Obamacare.
Middle class families are loosing on average 2000 bucks a year in income while simultaneously paying 10-15% more for food and 25% more for gas.
Property/homeowners owners have been at a loss/under water for the last 4 years.
Jobs are at a minimum for the fourth straight year.
And, as far as your Marxist ass is concerned none of what I mentioned above is the fault of those in power for the last 4 years ?
Its obviously this administrations fault otherwise you wouldn’t be victim of a struggle that demands you come up with such stupid un-confirm-able retarded numbers like 1% and 99%.
January 23rd, 2013 at 6:34 pm
I love how the President is somehow responsible for food and gas deviations.
He shouldn’t get credit for it falling (world market) or blame when it rises as the idea that any one person has any real control over the price of gas is simply not credible.
Food prices are generally related to a variety of factors, including weather, and I don’t think that is under the President’s purview.
I had linked to reports that the United States will be the world’s leading producer of both oil and natural gas within the next 5-7 years.
Did the President do that? Nope.
Will it lower the cost to you at the pump? Not likely.
Why? It is not “our” oil, it is Chevron’s, or BP’s, etc.
January 23rd, 2013 at 8:45 pm
Seems this will not end until the USA is split into different countries according to their dominant political/social views. Then each one will be able to choose their preference to their liking -like spending others’ wealth to oblivion- and carry the consequences for it.
January 23rd, 2013 at 8:49 pm
“He shouldn’t get credit for it falling (world market) or blame when it rises as the idea that any one person has any real control over the price of gas is simply not credible.”
Right, Carter had no influence on gas prices.
LMAO
January 23rd, 2013 at 8:53 pm
“Then each one will be able to choose their preference to their liking -like spending others’ wealth to oblivion- and carry the consequences for it.”
Exactly …
Why do those who did not vote for this jerk have to be a party to the consequences ?
Let those who voted for him pay and reap the benefits/casualties.
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:30 pm
Splitting up the country?
Paying for the consequences?
It is called a democracy.
Were you complaining about the consequences and trying to split the country prior to Obama?
I am guessing no.
Win the next election.
I don’t believe the GOP is dead in national elections by any stretch of the imagination.
They merely have to get off the crazy train during the primaries. It is now a contest on who can steer hardest to the right for the primary and then try to appeal to rest of the electorate during the general election. It is an impossible feat and only gives the opposition fodder.
Not entertaining the likes of a Bachmann or considering a Trump will allow for a focus on a more viable candidate.
I know the far right contributes a lot of money and they demand that they get a “return on their investment”, but a dose of pragmitism may serve them well. You can’t govern if you can’t win.
So who is the “leader in the clubhouse” right now for 2016?
Rubio? Christie? Ryan? Jindal (well, perhaps not Jindal, there is something missing there)?
January 24th, 2013 at 7:15 am
YOU’VE had a hectic week, Ronald??? Well, bless your heart. May you live long and prosper!
The arguments you offer are rather unremarkable. Buzzbee, TA and Snow Crash at least try not to just parrot Democrat talking points.
January 24th, 2013 at 7:17 am
Buzz,
Maybe if Obama had ditched Ben Bernanke when his last term was up and ended this print-your-way-to-prosperity monetary policy, then food and gasoline prices would not be as bad.