E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNational Review’s Rich Lowry: “For the Left, this is what winning looks like.” He calls the speech “a paean to collectivism, swaddled in the rhetoric of individual liberty and of fidelity to the Founding.” Obama, he says, “hopes to reorient the American mainstream and locate conservatives outside it. He wants to take the Founders from the Right and baptize the unreconstructed entitlement state and the progressive agenda in the American creed.”
More: “All in all, it was a brazen performance, as audacious in intent as it was banal in its expression. He used the Founders’ authority to advance an expansive conception of American government that would have been unrecognizable to them. Amid the pomp and the circumstances, Republicans should have heard a direct challenge. The president did them, and everyone else, the favor of enunciating the battle lines and the stakes of the fights to come.”
Bill Kristol focuses on Obama’s foreign policy and takes a hawkish view: “Our forebears were only able to "win the peace" because they first crushed out enemies in war. But under President Obama we're not committed to winning our wars. We're committed to ending them. Does Obama really think we're going to win the peace after not winning the war?”
Kristol called the speech “unmemorable,” yet David Brooks takes a completely different view: “The best Inaugural Addresses make an argument for something. President Obama’s second one, which surely has to rank among the best of the past half-century, makes an argument for a pragmatic and patriotic progressivism.”
More: “During his first term, Obama was inhibited by his desire to be postpartisan, by the need to not offend the Republicans with whom he was negotiating. Now he is liberated. Now he has picked a team and put his liberalism on full display. He argued for it in a way that was unapologetic. Those who agree, those who disagree and those of us who partly agree now have to raise our game. We have to engage his core narrative and his core arguments for a collective turn.”
But Brooks thinks “Obama misunderstands this moment. The Progressive Era, New Deal and Great Society laws were enacted when America was still a young and growing nation. They were enacted in a nation that was vibrant, raw, underinstitutionalized and needed taming. We are no longer that nation.”
Ramesh Ponnuru: “The world will little note nor long remember anything President Barack Obama said in his second inaugural address; still less will it remember any of the gushing encomiums his admirers in the press reliably produce, comparing him variously to Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln and Jesus.” He concludes: “Yes he can ... overcome strawmen.”
Stephen Hayes calls it “an aggressive, unapologetic defense of activist government and to call for a new spirit of unity even as he seeks to move the country even further left.” He adds: “The United States is now $16.4 trillion in debt. We’ve accumulated more than a third of that total since Obama’s first inaugural four years ago, an additional $20,000-plus per citizen during the Obama presidency. Even using White House projections, we’ll have more than $21 trillion by the time his second term ends. Obama doesn’t care. … The lack of attention to the debt from Obama was not an oversight. It’s simply not a priority.”
And: “When historians look back at Obama’s second inaugural, they will reread an impassioned defense of activist government and a plea for more of it. But I suspect they will also look at this address as both a reminder of Obama’s failure to address the debt in his first term and a harbinger of his unwillingness to pay for the entitlement state in his second.”
Leave a Comment:
Interview with Karl Rove, and the Koch bros. "Waaaaa, waaaaa sniff, sniff. Romney, burp, fart, sniff, sniff." were gonna win, Rasmussen told us so, just wait, till all the votes are counted in Fl.
The main reason that the right wing people and the Republican party will NEVER regain the white house is people see right through their lies. If you follow any of these blogs you will see that there is nothing that President Obama can do that will please these people. Educated people understand that all this is hated for the President. Everything he does is wrong?? Give me a break. The moderate American people need to stand up and take back the Republican party. The right wing extremist have destroy the party and unless they are kicked out to form their own party, the republican party is doomed. I did not like voting for the democrats but the far right gave me no choice.
Now I know I will get slammed for saying this and that is part of the problem. Unless you are in lock step with the far right you are wrong. Since when does a person not have the right to disagree without being vilified? As long as this continues the republican party will not get the independent and moderate vote.
When the independents and moderates come on these blogs and see the hated thrown out to anyone that disagree with the far right they are left with no choice but to vote for the left. And I am not exactly happy with the left but at least you can disagree and not get raked over the coals for that.
The far right stance on abortion, gun rights, health care, immigration, the U.S debt, voter rights is that there is no compromise to be found. It is their way or no way. How about working to find some middle ground? But not with the far right it is all or nothing.
Call me whatever you want to call me, but the facts remains the republican party will never recover until they learn that the American people will not blindly follow the far right. Many of my friends did not want to vote for the democrats but they were the best of two evils.
And lastly the independents and the moderates know the value of their votes. They will vote no matter what. Being called names will not stop us. I fought 22 years for my right to vote and I will do that. I will wade through all the B/S from both sides and still vote. So until the far right understands that there is nothing they can say or do that will stop the independents and moderates from voting they will continue to lose the major elections.
Now let the hate responses begin.
Semper Fi
“When historians look back at Obama’s second inaugural, they will reread an impassioned defense of activist government and a plea for more of it. But I suspect they will also look at this address as both a reminder of Obama’s failure to address the debt in his first term and a harbinger of his unwillingness to pay for the entitlement state in his second.”
Here are the 2 biggest problems facing the United States today;
1) - The National Debt is projected to be $20.392 Trillion in 2016 - if Obama gets all of the tax increases he's asked for and the economy suddenly starts growing at 5% per year instead of the 2% of the last 4 years (Source - Obama's 2013 Budget). Presidential Budget projections are very optimistic.
Interest Rates on the Debt over the last 30 years before Obama averaged 4.92% per year.
If history is a guide, we can expect the Interest alone on the National Debt to increase to slightly over $1 Trillion per year in 2016, an increase of over $800 Billion per year above the average of $199 Billion per year paid under Bush. That's an increase of more than $8 TRILLION over 10 years - just for Interest expense. The current 'haggling' over a few hundred $Billion in taxes and spending cuts over 10 years is insignificant compared with this problem.
And Interest expense could increase from 10.02% of Federal receipts in 2008 to 27.6% of Federal receipts in 2016. That dramatic increase in revenues dedicated to Interest expense will crowd out huge amounts of spending that could be used for 'entitlements' and running the government (Austerity). That dramatic increase in money spent for Interest will also require huge tax increases, which will cause a huge drop in consumer spending, which will stagnate the economy and cause high Unemployment.
No matter what happens over the next 4 years, EVERYONE will face huge tax increases – just to pay the Interest expense.
2) - Inflation (and Interest Rates) are poised to skyrocket. Any student of Economics is taught that there is a very simple formula that predicts general price levels (Inflation) – Here it is;
M x V = P x Q
In the preceding equation, M is the money supply, V is the velocity of money, as measured by the number of times the money supply turns over in a year, P is the general level of prices, and Q is the quantity of goods and services available, which changes very slowly over time (w/ productivity).
Applying this simple formula, it's easy to see that a significant change in any of these 'variables' will have a direct impact on Prices, as reflected in the inflation rate. Doubling the money supply (M) ultimately leads to a doubling of prices (P) over a relatively short period of time.
What's happening right now is that the Money Supply (M1) has been increasing dramatically over the last few years ($1.4 Trillion in 2008 vs $2.5 Trillion now) because the Federal Reserve has been 'creating' more money to fund the huge current government Deficits. Ultimately, this will be highly inflationary, and if/when the Federal Reserve has to reverse course to counter inflation by reducing the money supply, it will lead to high interest rates and an economic contraction (recession). Generally, the greater the reduction in the money supply, the greater the contraction. In Milton Friedman's book “Money Mischief” he devotes chapter 8 to this subject – 'The Cause and Cure of Inflation'.
The main reason that we have not experienced an inflationary spiral to date is the recession, which has resulted in a slowing in the Velocity (V) of money, and the 'lag time' between an increased money supply and its effects, but when inflation begins and people start 'getting rid of' Dollars that are declining in value by buying things, Prices (P) will quickly rise ever faster, thus forcing the Federal Reserve to intervene. A classic example of this process in action occurred in the early 1980s, when Paul Volker (former head of the Federal Reserve) reduced the money supply, which forced consumer interest rates up to about 18% per year to combat the 14% inflation rate in late 1980. The result was a sharp recession.
For an interesting 'read' on the relationship between M1 and Inflation, I would recommend the following link;
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation/Money_Supply_and_Inflation.asp
Forewarned is forearmed, and 'Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it'.
During the Bush years, my friends and I had an uneasy feeling that decisions were being made in back rooms that were designed to increase the wealth of a small number of people, at the expense of the nation as a whole. I remember stories in the newspapers about the weakening of labor laws designed to protect workers. It seemed like people weren't getting time and half for overtime, and health insurance and company pensions were disappearing. Come to find out, wages were stagnating during the Bush years, and wealth did move upward to a small band of people.
I remember questioning why our military was deployed to the middle east - was it to protect the interest of oil companies, cause we didn't see how building Iraq was our responsibility?
Against this back drop, President Obama was elected, and I felt like we had gained a champion of the middle class. I felt like sunlight came into D.C. In the last four years, my state has been a laboratory for right-wing policies, and, come to find out, they do favor the rich and the corporations. Our Tea Party governor's first action was to try and overturn environmental protections that had been passed with bipartisan support in previous years. I couldn't believe he thought that was the highest priority in his new administration - taking office in the middle of a recession.
Amy, I didn't come away with the same feelings, however, I am neither a Democrat or a Republican. I have problems with some of the labor laws that favored labor over a business owner (small business, not the multi-million dollar corp). I understand why pensions were phased out since most places couldn't/wouldn't pay their share and it kept people from controlling their own pensions. I worked in a place like that and came away with nothing. I like the 401K's because it allows the person to control their retirement.
As for Iraq, I can't say it was a mistake at this point. Most decisions like this history decides if it was a smart of dumb move. As for protecting the interest of the oil companies, I think that is not true. Iraq controls it's own oil. Do they buy the necessary equipment from the US? Maybe, but then, with or without the war, that probably would have happened. My bigger concern about Iraq was Saddam Hussein started a war with two neighbors, Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He systematically tortured and killed his own people to stay in power and he was training his two sons to take over much like what happened in Syria. And in Syria there is a two year civil war with the threat of terrorists helping to gain a country to operate.
These are all scenarios that we have yet to play out so I cannot say it was wrong to go into Iraq because we'll never know what would have happened if the US did not go in. History will decide one day .
And while I had hoped for change with President Obama, I feel I have been burdened with more than I had before. I care deeply about the ACA and it's effect on me and my family. I have already experienced an increase in health care premiums attributed to ACA (according to my provider). The environmental regulations have swung too far and is hurting the average citizen at the local level. I could go on, but I will say this. I hope I'm wrong and that what our President is doing will eventually prove to the right thing and that history judges him to be a great President, but I have my doubts.
The environmental regulations have swung too far and is hurting the average citizen at the local level???
Examples, please. When he took office, our Tea Party governor sought to rollback a regulation keeping the chemical BPA out of children's sippy cups. Now, why in the world, would you protect the profits of a chemical company over protecting our most vulnerable citizens?
Think, you sound like a reasonable person. The major reason for most wars, are war profiteers. If you check Haliburtons's stock prices during the Iraq invasion, it will give you a good idea.
This country, like most major powers, protects it's own self interests. Cuba is a good example. Castro was a communist, but Trihijo protected the American growers, so we supported him knowing he was vile to his people. We have done this in many countries over the years, that is a major reason we have these festering groups all over the world trying to harm us. Terrorists are not new to the USA, we used to call them anarchists.
Back in 1947 just after WWII the world was focused on soothing the wounds of the Jewish people who suffered much during the war. The United Nations with the urging of UK who controlled the area suggested a large piece of Palestine be given to the Jewish people as a homeland. Needless to say the Palestinians, most of whom are Arabs and Muslims, weren't at all happy. They were already under control of people whom they considered infidels in the first place and now this. No wonder they are "troublesome". Other Arab and Muslim contries saw this as an intrsion into their land. If they take Palestine who's next. Many Arabs wanted to live in the 14th Century as they did during the height of the Ottoman Empire when Islam was on the rise in the world.
With the support of power house countries like US and UK Israel has become strong and powerful, one of the most powerfu, if not THE most powerful country in the region. She has nukes.
Then there is the question of oil. The only reason the West was interested in that part of the world was the abundance of oil found there. Why else would anyone want anything to do with a land of sand and camels unless that is all they knew? The US allied ourselves with various governments over the years. There was the competition against advancements of the Soviet Union that kept us interested in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arabian peninsula. As politics changed within those countries, kingdoms and dictatorships, we were forced to side with one or the other. Finally things came to a head and we found ourselves in two wars we really had no business in. Had we left the people of that region to live in the 14th Century as they desired and merely kept an eye on them so they didn't go beyond their region we wouldn't have the issues we have today and wouldn't have needed to go to war.
Sure, no one should ever doubt that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator who was cruel to his own people but that wasn't our business. After the first Gulf War where we had descimated his army and navy severly weakening him there were the early makings of a Coup to overthow him. The result may have been a worse dictator but probably not. One thing Hussein did was that he was a balance of power in the region against Iran and the militant autocratic rule of the Iatollahs who came to power when the Shah, who we had supported, was overthrown. Remember too, Shah Reza Palavi was a brutal dictator but his country bordered the USSR so he was an ally of the US, in our minds, to serve as a possible buffer or battle ground should we need to keep the evil empire of the Soviets from advancing further.
It was once said that politics makes strange bedfellows. One needs look at our alliances in the 20th Century to see the truth in that statement.
As Gilboagirl points out there is also money to be made in war. Even after President (5 star general) Dwight Eisenhower warned against getting involved with the military-industrial complex we did it anyway and now we see the results. We have a huge deficit. At the time the war was being started and well underweigh leaders in our government made no provisions to spend the kind of money it takes to fight a war. They didn't sell bonds they just put it on the nation's "credit card" and told us that deficits don't matter. In retrospect we can ask ourselves could we have done things better. Sure we could. We should have stayed out of Iraq but kept an eye on things so as to step in as we did with other nations under the UN flag to save Kuwait from the claws of Saddam Hussein. Once defeated leave and stay gone unless needed again. We knew Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks but instead of covert operations that would have taken him down, possibly earlier than we did, we started a war with the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as Iraq. Haliburton, Black Hawk and others made billions, some with no bid contracts all because of what was happening there. Meanwhile American jobs were shipped off shore.
Some in that part of the world saw us as infidels trodding on their sacred soil. Iraq has shrines and holy places for the religion of Islam and they saw us as desecrating that land merely by being there. That is how they recruited fighters for Al Qaeda. Hopeless youth with no apparent future who had only their religion to cling to and a sense of importance if they went with the Al Qaeda. They saw themselves as heroes saving their sacred Muslim lands from infidels. Had we stayed the heck out of there recruiting would have been much toughter.
So what is going on now is something that has been brewing for decades and won't be solved over night. We can work with the countries of the Middle East to mend fences. We can still remain an ally of Israel without kissing her tukas. She's small but mighty and able to defend herself quite well. We should insist Israel leave the Kabutz' behind and let the Palestinians rule their own country as they see fit. We should offer help to the Palestinians but if they don't want our help all we can do is watch them and if they get out of line, we join other UN members and make them behave.
President Obama has been no more successful nor less successful than most presidents in dealing with the Middle East. Nixon and Carter opened doors to that region but we haven't gone through the doors nor has anyone from the other side come through either but we must keep working toward peace. Less dependance of foreign oil is a great step that will get us out and keep us out of that area. That is a whole other diatribe.
Obama can label it whatever he likes, this isn't progressivism. It's piggy backing on the genuine works of those who came before without really doing anything himself. At one point, progressivism might actually have been legitimate change, but currently, this is just liberalism: writing yourself a blank check that someone else has to pay for, because you're entitled to money that isn't yours. How long is this game of smoke and mirrors going to continue?
very predictable... nothing new... just recycled hatred towards fellow men and delusional state of 17th century thinking...
The right-wing neo-cons don't like the black man giving a speech in which the speaker promotes the use of government to actually help real live human beings. Not at all surprising.
I think what you have said is very shortsighted. I work for a black man and find him honorable, helpful and caring of his employees. I feel the right has concerns about how all of the needs outline by our President will be paid. And in the end, it may wind up costing the average citizen more.
But the right may be wrong and hopefully it will not cost the average citizen anything. However, dismissing opposing views is not helpful. Putting forth objective and constructive ideas is.
Putting forth objective and constructive ideas is.
The problem is, the ideas the right-wing proposes are designed to increase corporate profits, they are not in the interests of covering the healthcare needs of the elderly. Paul Ryan's medicare voucher program would have cost seniors approximately $2000.00 more a year in health insurance costs. And, it would have put grandma at the mercy of the private insurance market, which is profit-driven, not grandma's best interest-driven.
No, the problem is that we're not duped as easily as people who want a superhero to believe in. A person who's going to magically make all their problems disappear. So, people want better economical status? How many of those people took the time to educate themselves on better spending practices?
Oh my, Stephen Hayes has also been Brainwashed into believing the Last 10 years never happened.
His Failure to address the the Debt in his 1st Term, WTF !
GWB's 2 Terms were an utter Failure Stephen, We Remember, whether You, Bill Kristol,Roger Ailes or anyone else does.
War is Not a sign of Strength, Unless You can also show The Strength to Pay for IT !
You Betcha!
Occupy SoggyBottom!
I've been calling 2000-2008 "Decade Ought Nought", as in, it ought not of happened & we ought not look back at its results.
Remember how Georgie Boy got into the WH in the first place.
Here we go, the hate fest should commence at any time now--why is the reaction from the right any sort of surprise, it is not. speak of divisive positions, GOPers masters at it and keep attempting to spin, twist, obscure the obvious.
Get over it fellas, it is the era of the Middle Class. The GOP has always been on the wrong side of history on every aspect of American life, they obstruct, attempt to repeal, defund every program even their own. Demographics alone ensure the destruction of the party of No, there is no room for GOP brand governance.
Why does anybody give any credence to Bill Crystal? He's a nut.
Billy Crystal is a comic genius... Bill Crystal is neither.
Translation: We never act absolutely – the GOP does. We never employ spectacle politics – the GOP does. We never name-call – the GOP does. We are known for action; the GOP does nothing but get in the way. We don’t need to think through our legislation carefully and weigh all the potential outcomes – because we’ll be long gone by the time the negative aspects are obvious to everyone. We will shove our agenda down the throats of the American people, because we know what’s best for them, despite the fact that our hallmark legislation (Obamacare) has been woefully unsuccessful at stopping the rise of insurance premiums.
When all else fails, bring up the national debt! Does anyone really care if it is 14 trillion or 16 trillion or any amount? This country has been in debt since it's founding, or has everyone forgotten how France helped us during the Revolution. Did you think they did that for FREE???? But only in the last 4 years has it mattered! Don't for a minute give this President credit for anything; he wasn't supposed to win and Mittens was supposed to be there with Rove and Cheney beaming on! OH, that didn't happen............
"It typically takes about 10 years to correct the type recession we had" - Barack Obama Jan 21, 2013
Say What?
You've got to be kidding - in other words, don't expect me to fix the economy and jobs - 4 more years of stagnation
How long do you think it takes? How long did it take to get out of the depression? It's only the right that seems to think that Obama has a magic wand to fix these things---he just doesn't use them 'cause he hates this country. That is the republican narrative. It took us over a decade to get where we are and yes, it will take time to get out of it.
Thinking a man named Reagan fixed up a tremendous Jimmy Carter 4 year mess and restored the economy and jobs in a single term - but we are talking Barack Obama so understand there's a lot of liberal incompetence to factor in Sue.
My bad
In 2007 and 2008 - a spend happy Democrat controlled Congress - torched a very robust economy
In 2009 and 2010 - they continued with a spend happy Crazy Clown President - burying the future of our children
History - It doesn't lie
I love to see the repressive Republican Party becoming irrevocably irrelevant. Their BIGGEST mistake was not disavowing and OUSTING the RRR Cult -- the [IR]-Religious Radical Right -- immediately, as its hate-agendas began to INFEST it 35 years ago. It took 3-1/2 decades too long, but on Banner Day 11-6-12, the American people finally PINK-SLIPPED the RRR Cult! Now its anti-human-rights agendas will soon join those of the equally-ignorant Jim Crow segregationists -- in EXTINCTION.
And don't forget, folks -- today is the 40th Anniversary of the EMANCIPATION of all American girls and women from forced gestation of unwanted pregnancies. Try to find some way today to affirm that publicly (as I am doing here) and CELEBRATE the 7-2 decision of those heroic and compassionate Supreme Court Justices!
You have to love republicans--war, war, invade, nation build, don't stop the war until you've "won" it (which by their standards means we'd still be in the war of 1812, the first world war, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan)...don't pay for any of this, of course; and, then scream about the deficit and how Obama (by paying for those wars) increased our debt by 1/3!
Oh yeah and according to the GOP we need to invade Iran and Syria....you just gotta love them!
With the second coming of Hitler in DC, did all left wing wackos have their obamagasms?