obama bitch slapping gop

[B-Man]

The Meaning of the Inaugural Address

 

Victor Davis Hanson

 

Prune away the usual soaring rhetoric and purple passages, and there were no serious outlines in today’s speech to restore the economy or deal with the fiscal implosion on the horizon — or even hints to be fleshed out in the State of the Union to come.

 

Instead, the president believes that record near-zero interest rates will allow him to borrow $10–12 trillion dollars over his eight-year tenure, and that the dangers of running up such a resulting gargantuan $20 trillion aggregate debt are well worth the risks.

He apparently believes that, in a postindustrial world, government, or government-owned industries from now on will have to create the majority of jobs, and that such jobs should largely go to those whom he sees as having been traditionally shortchanged.

 

In addition, in just four years, record numbers are now on food stamps, unemployment, and disability, and exempt from federal income taxes, and those percentages will only grow in the next term. Part of the remaking of America is the forging of a new constituency who feel that government employment and entitlements are a birth right and that those who in Washington ensure it deserve unquestioned political fealty.

 

By the same token, the astronomical borrowing will endlessly accelerate pressures to raise taxes on the “rich,” whether through income-tax rates, or the elimination of deductions, or both. The “pay their fair share” and “you didn’t build that” rhetoric will only sharpen, as the public is prepped to expect that “fat cats” can pay an aggregate 60—70 percent of their income in local, payroll, state, Obamacare, and federal income taxes. The only mystery is whether these unsustainable debts are designed primarily to redistribute income through forced higher taxes, or to marry the livelihoods of loyal millions to big government, or so that we can create a sort of centralized EU that actually works.

 

There are three dangers to the new unbound Obamism. One, he assumes the private sector has nowhere to go, and thus that, although it always will B word about higher taxes, serial class warfare rhetoric, Obamacare, and more regulations, at some point its captains have to get back to work, make those hefty profits and so pay what they owe us in new higher taxes. I am not sure that will happen; instead, the present high unemployment, low growth, and crushing debt may be the new European-like stagflating norm.

 

Two, even if inflation and interest rates don’t rise, we have not seen yet the bitter wars to come over gun control and the actual implementation of the details of Obamacare, or blanket amnesty, and they may resemble the tea-party fights of 2010.

 

 

Three, the bitter election wars to achieve and maintain a 51–53 percent majority

(the noble 99 percent versus the selfish 1 percent,

the greens versus the polluters,

the young and hip versus the stodgy and uncool,

the wisely unarmed versus the redneck assault-weapon owners,

women versus the sexists,

gays versus the bigots,

Latinos versus the nativists,

blacks versus the “get over it” spiteful and resentful,

the noble public sector versus the “you didn’t build that” profiteers,

Colin Powell/Chuck Hagel/reasonable Republicans versus neanderthal House tea-party zealots),

in Nixonian fashion have left a lot of bitter divisions that lie just beneath the surface of a thinning veneer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

“We interrupt this orgy of Obama worship to recall that his campaign huddled early in 2012 and reflected that they could not run on his first-term record. Accordingly, the strategy was ‘Kill Romney.’

 

Congratulations. That what we’re celebrating today.”

Edited January 22, 2013 by B-Man

[Bigfatbillsfan]

If this is the "help" you are referring to, I would avoid it.

 

 

http://voices.yahoo....ys-2125290.html

 

You really believe this ****?

[3rdnlng]

You really believe this ****?

 

Why don't you explain what is so bad about it?

[B-Man]

Byron York agrees:

There were plenty of messages in Obama’s speech. He will push for immigration reform. He will push for gay rights. (Obama used the words “equal” or “equality” seven times in his speech, versus just once in his first inaugural address.) He will push on global warming. And he will keep pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into “green energy” projects that have so far yielded little energy and fewer jobs.

But the economy?

Other than declaring, “An economic recovery has begun,” Obama had nearly nothing to say.

That should not be a surprise. Since last November’s election, the president’s supporters, in political office and in the press, have spent a lot of time talking about his second-term agenda. The economy somehow never tops their lists. Obama himself, when asked to name his top priorities on “Meet the Press” recently, put immigration reform at the head of the list.

In Obama’s first term, of course, with unemployment high and economic anxiety even higher, he chose to pursue national health care above all, promising repeatedly to make a “pivot” to the economy at some point in the future. That didn’t really happen until the 2012 campaign. Now, safely re-elected, Obama has put the jobs issue back on the back burner.

In 2010, Republicans made huge strides, won a lot of seats in Congress, by asking, “Where are the jobs, Mr. President?” That’s still the fundamental question today, if someone cares to ask it.

.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

You really believe this ****?

The soft-slavery of dependence is very, very real.

[Meathead]

in your mind

[B-Man]

in your mind

 

and in the electorate....................try and remember back to about 11 weeks ago.

 

 

.

[TakeYouToTasker]

in your mind

Please explain for the class how complete systemic dependence is not soft-slavery. A good start would be speaking to the lack of burdensome social stigmas, lack of imposed social and economic limitations and restrictions, and the lack of any evidence of intergenerational reliance to the point of a shameful legacy.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

I don't think there is 1 single Democrat that thinks the GOP should change anything...

 

That's bad. We want the GOP to turn back towards the center. If it doesn't we'll end up with one party rule and all the things that the conservatives are freaking out about now may actually happen.

 

If every liberal I know would STFU about Huntsman, I'd probably take him more seriously. But his name almost always comes at the end of the stereotypical progressive rant that starts with "The GOP is imploding!"

 

It's only slightly more predictable than the next liberal chiming in with "I don't think there is 1 single Democrat that thinks the GOP should change anything..."

 

Yeah, okay. Thanks for the input, folks.

 

Sorry it's pissing you off to hear that he was their best candidate. You may not like the fact that rats and mice and fleas were one of the chief carriers of the plague. But unfortunately that's just the way it was.

 

Not to mention the fact of members of the other party liking a specific candidate is the thing that makes you take him less seriously speaks volumes regarding your psychology.

 

The soft-slavery of dependence is very, very real.

 

While what you say is very true I don't think it applies in the case of this nations current entitlements.

 

If the only place I had to turn to for money was the government we would have a condition of soft slavery. Right now we have safety net programs to stabilize consumption during times of economic downturn. And while there are people that abuse the system, they are not the target of these programs.

[3rdnlng]

That's bad. We want the GOP to turn back towards the center. If it doesn't we'll end up with one party rule and all the things that the conservatives are freaking out about now may actually happen.

 

 

 

Sorry it's pissing you off to hear that he was their best candidate. You may not like the fact that rats and mice and fleas were one of the chief carriers of the plague. But unfortunately that's just the way it was.

 

Not to mention the fact of members of the other party liking a specific candidate is the thing that makes you take him less seriously speaks volumes regarding your psychology.

 

 

 

While what you say is very true I don't think it applies in the case of this nations current entitlements.

 

If the only place I had to turn to for money was the government we would have a condition of soft slavery. Right now we have safety net programs to stabilize consumption during times of economic downturn. And while there are people that abuse the system, they are not the target of these programs.

 

Can you explain this?

[TakeYouToTasker]

If the only place I had to turn to for money was the government we would have a condition of soft slavery. Right now we have safety net programs to stabilize consumption during times of economic downturn. And while there are people that abuse the system, they are not the target of these programs.

Thanks for responding. While I've still got your ear, I was hoping you might join me in reflecting on something:

 

I'm not talking about you and I. There are many individuals whom, long before any downturns, were victims of this systemic caste system. Perhaps we should talk about what they look like?

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Thanks for responding. While I've still got your ear, I was hoping you might join me in reflecting on something:

 

I'm not talking about you and I. There are many individuals whom, long before any downturns, were victims of this systemic caste system. Perhaps we should talk about what they look like?

 

Here's where you and I might feel the same way. As a former social worker I can tell you that you might be surprised at the people that are or have been on public assistance. When used as a safety net they work very well. When used as a way of life... I'm sure you've seen people who use public welfare that way. It's not a good life. I have yet to see anyone run up a fortune from cash assistance checks.

 

If they are always on the bottom rung of the caste system due to their use of public assistance as their way of life they have no one to blame but themselves.

[Rob's House]

 

 

Here's where you and I might feel the same way. As a former social worker I can tell you that you might be surprised at the people that are or have been on public assistance. When used as a safety net they work very well. When used as a way of life... I'm sure you've seen people who use public welfare that way. It's not a good life. I have yet to see anyone run up a fortune from cash assistance checks.

 

If they are always on the bottom rung of the caste system due to their use of public assistance as their way of life they have no one to blame but themselves.

In a lot of these situations the government is the enabled: the person who brings a dozen big macs to the fatass who can't get out of bed, or gets liquor for the drunk, or gives the smack head money for a fix.

 

Personally I'm okay with a safety net as long as it's really that. Like unemployment insurance, for example. A temporary pick-me-up for hard times. These long term public "assistance" (I.e. Dependency) programs create, enable, & foster a self-destructive culture. Think of the crime associated with public housing projects.

[Gary M]

You really believe this ****?

 

yes, because I see it.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

In a lot of these situations the government is the enabled: the person who brings a dozen big macs to the fatass who can't get out of bed, or gets liquor for the drunk, or gives the smack head money for a fix.

 

Personally I'm okay with a safety net as long as it's really that. Like unemployment insurance, for example. A temporary pick-me-up for hard times. These long term public "assistance" (I.e. Dependency) programs create, enable, & foster a self-destructive culture. Think of the crime associated with public housing projects.

 

If people were using the public assistance they way it should be used you wouldn't see this problem. Generations of people who live in housing projects are obviously not using the system the way it was intended. But that is a facet of the people living there and not the system it self. The target of the system is to set up a temporary safety net for people in need. Not create an underclass caste of people who have been on public assistance for generations. Those that do live that way have no one to blame but themselves.

 

yes, because I see it.

 

I'm sorry that the world is such a terrible place for you.

[3rdnlng]

If people were using the public assistance they way it should be used you wouldn't see this problem. Generations of people who live in housing projects are obviously not using the system the way it was intended. But that is a facet of the people living there and not the system it self. The target of the system is to set up a temporary safety net for people in need. Not create an underclass caste of people who have been on public assistance for generations. Those that do live that way have no one to blame but themselves.

 

 

 

I'm sorry that the world is such a terrible place for you.

 

 

How do you reconcile both of these paragraphs?

[Jauronimo]

If people were using the public assistance they way it should be used you wouldn't see this problem. Generations of people who live in housing projects are obviously not using the system the way it was intended. But that is a facet of the people living there and not the system it self. The target of the system is to set up a temporary safety net for people in need. Not create an underclass caste of people who have been on public assistance for generations. Those that do live that way have no one to blame but themselves.

The system is all a matter of incentives. No system is perfect, but if the incentives are totally out of proportion as they appear in some of our social programs then you don't blame the abuser, you blame those who implemented it. For many of the record number of Americans collecting disability or who've been collecting unemployment for over a year, their choices are either work 40 hrs a week for $300 or sit at home and collect $250 to $300. When the incentives are aligned in such a way, the outcome is obvious.

[TakeYouToTasker]

The system is all a matter of incentives. No system is perfect, but if the incentives are totally out of proportion as they appear in some of our social programs then you don't blame the abuser, you blame those who implemented it. For many of the record number of Americans collecting disability or who've been collecting unemployment for over a year, their choices are either work 40 hrs a week for $300 or sit at home and collect $250 to $300. When the incentives are aligned in such a way, the outcome is obvious.

Or, to borrow a term from the recent financial crisis: perverse incentive.

[Magox]

The system is all a matter of incentives. No system is perfect, but if the incentives are totally out of proportion as they appear in some of our social programs then you don't blame the abuser, you blame those who implemented it. For many of the record number of Americans collecting disability or who've been collecting unemployment for over a year, their choices are either work 40 hrs a week for $300 or sit at home and collect $250 to $300. When the incentives are aligned in such a way, the outcome is obvious.

Holy ****! You are me! I talk about incentives and the government all the time. If you continue to pile up the incentives for doing less, you will get a less productive society. If you apply punitive measures (higher taxes on the wealthy), not for tangible results but in the name of economic "fairness", then you will get less production.

 

Make no mistake, Obama cares more about social justice than having a vibrant economy. Remember the Hillary/Obama debates?

 

Mr. Gibson questioned Senator Obama about the capital gains tax. Mr. Gibson quoted Mr. Obama as talking about raising the tax to 28% from 15%. "But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent," Mr. Gibson said. "And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"

 

Obama replied: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness....[And as to higher rates bringing in less revenue], well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going.... ...And if we can stabilize that market and we can get credit flowing again, then I think we'll see stocks do well, and once again I think we can generate the revenue that we need to run this government and hopefully to pay down some of this debt.

[Azalin]

in your mind

Mr Franklin had a better way of putting it:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world [but England] where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.

 

- Benjamin Franklin, "On the Price of Corn and the Management of the Poor" (1766)

 

http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/management-of-poor.html

 

I think what he said is both reasonable and realistic. it's really just a simple observation on human nature, and I see nothing radical or heartless in it at all.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Azalin