Frozen in irrelevance

Obama focusing more on re-election than solving U.S. debt crisis

  • Follow Editorials

One thing seemed foremost in Barack Obama's mind during his speech to the nation Monday night: How can I work this whole crisis to my electoral advantage?

As others have noted, he used the term "balanced approach" seven times. It was clearly a re-election speech aimed at winning back wayward independents who are abandoning this president in droves for his failed policies.

"Obviously," The Washington Post's Andrew Malcolm writes about the transparent "balanced approach" refrain, the president's handlers "have been polling phrases for use in this ongoing debt duel, which is more about 2012 now than 2011."

For those of us concerned about the direction and future of this nation, it was sickening.

For Washington politics, it was either irrelevant or counterproductive: Well before the president spent nearly 20 minutes waging class warfare and pressing for higher taxes on national television Monday night, Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill had pretty much agreed to raise the federal debt limit without raising taxes.

The message seemed to be "You can't do this without me and my vespers to higher taxes!"

It seems punishing "millionaires and billionaires" -- oddly enough, starting with those earning $250,000 or more -- is more important to this president than averting a debt crisis or stabilizing and then growing the economy. Why would anyone be surprised? He said as a candidate that he'd raise tax rates even if they brought in less money.

Ironically, in desperately seeking relevance Monday night, the president helped set his own feet in quick-dry irrelevance.

Comments (54) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Insider Information
4009
Points
Insider Information 07/26/11 - 10:45 pm
0
0
I have to give the president

I have to give the president and his fellow Democrats props. They have won the message war.

They went on a drunken spending binge that would make any college kid jealous. Then, they step back and convince the American public (through their messenger - the mainstream media) that we absolutely must borrow money to pay for their binder or...catastrophe - fire and brimstone will rain down from the heavens.

In the end, though, we need a leader and not a reader. Retire the telempropter and let's get to retiring the debt.

carcraft
28619
Points
carcraft 07/27/11 - 04:54 am
0
0
President Ovbama really

President Ovbama really doesn't care about the financial well being of America he is interested in wealth redistribution for "fairness". When asked about raising capital gains taxes and the fact that it REDUCED revenue he was in favor of raising the tax any way. "In 2008, he told ABC's Charlie Gibson that he wanted to raise capital gains rates even if the government got less revenue because of "fairness." Evidently he likes taking people's money away. What he doesn't explain is why this makes anyone better off. " If people had only listened to the Presidential Canidate especially when Joe the Plumber quizzed him about this. Of course the press immediatly attack Joe the Plumber and even printed material that was legally protected and private to savage him. The press could not have been at all interested in Obama wanted could they?

thewiz0oz
9
Points
thewiz0oz 07/27/11 - 05:20 am
0
0
Obama's warped perspective is

Obama's warped perspective is more about what he calls 'social justice' than the economic future of the U.S. Those who supported him in 2008 because he was a silver-tongue one-half black man should feel very foolish & betrayed. Those who support his current campaign to destroy the greatest country in the history of mankind are obliviously non-thinkers and no description is adequate to describe them. They are simply fools.

Riverman1
94390
Points
Riverman1 07/27/11 - 06:26 am
0
0
Two different philosophies

Two different philosophies clash. The Republicans want to run the government like a business while the Democrats believe it's not fair for some to have more and want to redistribute wealth. It's hard to communicate when you are talking apples and oranges.

Techfan
6462
Points
Techfan 07/27/11 - 06:27 am
0
0
The government can't be run

The government can't be run like a business. That's like apples and oranges. I don't see Wal Mart raising an army, attacking K Mart and occupying their stores for 10 years. If so, I'm sure their prices would have to increase (of course with Wal Mart, they would be payed around minimum wage, be part time, and have no benefits).

southernguy08
532
Points
southernguy08 07/27/11 - 06:40 am
0
0
"From each, according to
Unpublished

"From each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need." Barack Obama...I mean...Karl Marx.

Riverman1
94390
Points
Riverman1 07/27/11 - 06:44 am
0
0
Techfan said, "The government

Techfan said, "The government can't be run like a business."

I told you a dialogue about the budget is impossible. Republicans try to balance the budget and run it like a business while the Democrats believe it's impossible.

Riverman1
94390
Points
Riverman1 07/27/11 - 06:38 am
0
0
If you don't understand

If you don't understand Walmart attacked K-mart, you don't get free enterprise.

harley_52
26117
Points
harley_52 07/27/11 - 07:20 am
0
0
Riverman1 is correct and

Riverman1 is correct and techfan proved it. I would differ from Riverman1 only to the extent that I'd replace the word "Republicans" with the word "Conservatives." More precisely than "apples and oranges," it may be helpful to view the difference as being between "practical versus theoretical."

Conservatives deal with issues in the real world. Conservatives see a problem and they ask themselves "how CAN this be fixed? They understand that the solutions to problems are bound by the constraints presented by the real world circumstances. Conservatives look for the FACTS, they look at the possible, practical courses of action, and they make a decision.

"Progressives" and other democrats look at issues from an emotional and theoretical perspective. They look at the same problem, form a committee, commiserate amongst themselves for as long as possible, drag in as many "victims" as they can gather, obtain testimony from as many academics and theoreticians as are available, and finally arrive at a conclusion that makes everybody feel good about the problem. Usually, this means passing a law they know will never be enforced, or spending money they know they don't have. Their perception of "fairness" is far more important than real world "results."

Conservatives say "let's roll," while democrats prefer "kumbaya."

augusta citizen
10075
Points
augusta citizen 07/27/11 - 07:28 am
0
0
harley_52, your post was spot

harley_52, your post was spot on.

Brad Owens
4922
Points
Brad Owens 07/27/11 - 07:37 am
0
0
Life is funny in BizzaroLand

Life is funny in BizzaroLand that congress lives in.

It all of the sudden is considered "crazy" to want to keep your campaign pledges and "dangerous" to want a sound fiscal policy.

It is interesting that the folks standing by their principles and values are being blamed for the problems here.

Seems to me that this is a topsy turvy world in DC.

We are living in strange days.

Brad

Brad Owens
4922
Points
Brad Owens 07/27/11 - 08:07 am
0
0
RM1, You can't run giverment

RM1,

You can't run giverment AS a business, but there are many private sector principles that would help the giverment run much better and provide a superior product to the consumer (tax payer).

I think raising taxes is a bad idea unless we figure out where all the cash goes now.

On a local level, why are we spending so much money on things that have no return?

The Sheriff provides a service for the taxes we pay, the fire dept does too, and when we call them they show up. Now we can argue that there is a lower level of service with certain things, but we get what we pay for and we don't give them all the resources they need most of the time.

But what do we get, as far as a return on investment, for the likes of the many boards and authorities? My favorite whipping boy is the DDA; what do we get for our money from them?

Not much.

So I support looking at returns on investments in giverment, which is one business principle that needs to be used at all times, but more importantly, during lean times.

Brad

Riverman1
94390
Points
Riverman1 07/27/11 - 08:12 am
0
0
Brad said, "RM1, You can't

Brad said, "RM1, You can't run giverment AS a business..."

What's the opposite of not running it as a business?

Brad Owens
4922
Points
Brad Owens 07/27/11 - 08:08 am
0
0
Well, what I mean is they are

Well, what I mean is they are not doing this for profit, so the way it is run is not quite the same.

Brad

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 07/27/11 - 08:50 am
0
0
Wealth envy is eating so many

Wealth envy is eating so many people alive its scary. They focus more on that than going out & earning a good living & succeeding in life. Envy is a basic human emotion and the democrats are experts are bringing it out in people.

Also, I just love the arbitrary $250,000 number. That is hardly "rich". How does someone in that category even compare to a millionaire or billionaire? Answer. They don't.

What we need is a fair tax or a flat tax. Make 100% of adult Americans - rich or poor - pay taxes without loopholes & deductions. That would truly solve all our problems. The poor should pay their fair share too - after all, they, more than any of us, share in the spoils.

We also need to end entitlements. Right now I know of someone who owns about 10 houses (one of which is a lake house, one residence and the rest are rentals), they bought their child a new $20,000 car and they are accepting federal grant money for college. Their net worth is excellent but their income allows them to qualify (how, I don't know, perhaps cash is being collected for rent?). How is that fair?

Too many loopholes all around - for the rich AND the so-called poor. Ending entitlements & implementing the fair tax would fix that. The folks not reporting income would now pay taxes. So would the illegals.

Riverman1
94390
Points
Riverman1 07/27/11 - 08:55 am
0
0
"Well, what I mean is they

"Well, what I mean is they are not doing this for profit, so the way it is run is not quite the same."

Ha, you can say that again. But even a nonprofit has to stay out of debt if it wants to survive.

TrukinRanger
1748
Points
TrukinRanger 07/27/11 - 09:14 am
0
0
Wealth envy, raising taxes,
Unpublished

Wealth envy, raising taxes, etc, etc, etc.... what's that got to do with reinstating the taxes for those making $200,000 single and $250,000 as a couple? It's not raising taxes- it's putting them back to a level playing field. We already know that those $200k+ people aren't creating all those wonderful new jobs everyone had hoped for- instead they're living the high life while others struggle. All I want is that they go back to paying their FAIR share of taxes like the rest of us.

follower
98
Points
follower 07/27/11 - 09:08 am
0
0
Brad, you and I had this

Brad, you and I had this discussion a while back. The basics of business apply to government and private enterprises. Can't spend more than you take in; watch cost closely; negotiate pricing as if it were your money; be accountable; hire wisely, and many others but for space.

The huge advantage of government is that they can closely predict revenue. Private business is not guaranteed squat. A newer or better product and service from a competitor will change your life. Government is the only game in town.

Local Interests
40
Points
Local Interests 07/27/11 - 09:26 am
0
0
The front page of the AC

The front page of the AC today told a clear story: republicans are only fighting the debt limit because they are no longer in power. When they were in power (and controlled where the money went), they had no problem spending it.

No one is talking about "punishing" billionnaires and millionnaires". The talk is about allowing their unfunded tax breaks to expire AS AGREED TO BY A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT. Beyond that, we're wanting tax loopholes for these very rich (who get the most benefit from a structured society) to be closed because, frankly, they don't need them and the country can't afford them.

Considerable spending reductions have also been offered up and that should be passed, but along with the revenue increases.

Every couple of years we should continue to pass bills that both lower spending and raise revenue until such time as this country is out of debt. Then, and only then, we can talk about choosing between lower taxes or increased government services. THAT is exactly how a business or household would fix its books.

follower
98
Points
follower 07/27/11 - 09:30 am
0
0
Local, the decision to raise

Local, the decision to raise taxes on the rich or leave them as they are will be a dividing issue for eternity. Whether it's implemented or not, cutting the waste and streamlining was a big part of Obama's campaign promise. Hasn't happened.

Why should we trust government with more money when they can't manage what they take in now? And I mean both parties.

If a child spends foolishly and runs out of money, do you raise their allowance?

follower
98
Points
follower 07/27/11 - 09:40 am
0
0
And by the way Local, a

And by the way Local, a household or business would balance their books by spending less than they take in. If your wages go down or stay the same, you spend less. As a homeowner and businessman, that is what we did for the last 4 years, because we certainly made less than the prior years.

Little Lamb
49260
Points
Little Lamb 07/27/11 - 09:41 am
0
0
Truckin' Ranger wrote: All I

Truckin' Ranger wrote:

All I want is that they go back to paying their FAIR share of taxes like the rest of us.

The concept of “fair share” when talking about income taxes cannot be defined. It is subjective. What is fair to one is unfair to another.

To want to reform the income tax laws is a good goal. But what is being proposed here is not reform. What the democrats want is to make a minor tweak to raise income tax rates on households and small businesses making more than $250,000 a year, AND they want to tie this tweak to the debt ceiling thing.

Instead, the more sensible thing is a clean debt ceiling bill with no tax changes cluttering it up. Then once the debt ceiling crisis is behind us, they can create all the commissions they want to re-structure the income tax code.

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 07/27/11 - 09:54 am
0
0
All you socialists and

All you socialists and liberals who are so hot to trot to raise the taxes "back to the level they used to be" should also consider supporting reducing entitlements "back to the level they used to be". You know pre-1960 levels. Before "social engineering" grabbed ahold of this nation and literally ruined it, enslaving and breeding the work ethic out of 3 generations of Americans.

What's fair for one group should be fair for another. Go ahead, raise taxes. But end 100% of entitlements at the same time. And by entitlements, I mean things that you have not contributed to: welfare, food stamps, medicaid, public housing, pell grants, free utilities, free cell phones and all the rest of the bullcrap govt giveaways. Including unemployment - after you have used about 3 months of benefits.

This video here will give you a clue as to how entitlement people (in this case mostly foreigners) live in this nation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu6ok5ykyuQ&feature=youtu.be

Let everyone "pay their fair share" or at least go out and get a job and stop living off of the hard work of others.

Shared "sacrifice", right?

shrimp for breakfast
5641
Points
shrimp for breakfast 07/27/11 - 11:08 am
0
0
If the opposite of pro is con

If the opposite of pro is con then the opposite of progress would be...Congress!

KSL
144846
Points
KSL 07/27/11 - 11:26 am
0
0
You nailed it, Chillen.

You nailed it, Chillen.

KSL
144846
Points
KSL 07/27/11 - 11:26 am
0
0
Brad says: Well, what I mean

Brad says: Well, what I mean is they are not doing this for profit, so the way it is run is not quite the same.

There is a lot about giverment that should be run the same. Actually, the City of Aiken used to be required to make a profit or at least not have a loss on the water and sewer side of things. I assume they still have that requirement.

KSL
144846
Points
KSL 07/27/11 - 11:29 am
0
0
Conure, you are preaching to

Conure, you are preaching to people who are not giving Bush accolades and you are ignoring what boy Obama and company has done since then. Remember, two wrongs don't make a right.

Back to Top
loading...
Search Augusta jobs