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.
Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 07/28/11 - 09:10 am
0
0
magerman. The percentage is

magerman. The percentage is irrelevant. It's the total amount paid that matters - you are paying for a fixed service.

magerman, you still haven't answered the burning question. Why is it fair that one person only has to pay $1600 for something and someone else has to pay $9000+? When the item is identical? If you agree that this is fair, please, I beg you, lets go buy a car together the next time I need one. I'll pay $25,000 for mine and you can pay $55,000 FOR THE SAME CAR!

burninator, I did some poking around online. It seems that the jury is out on the project. Some people say one thing, some say another. But what is clear is that the vast majority of the funding is public (and even the private funding was TAX DEDUCTIBLE so it has a public element) and the vast majority of the residents are welfare moochers. And, you too have not answered the burning questions. Why do some people get something for nothing in a country where opportunity abounds? Why is it fair for the govt to use force to take money that I earned from me and give to people who refuse to work or make good life choices?

Two lessons to be learned here:
1. Social engineering is a miserable failure and has darn near ruined America. No one wants to work!!!
2. Wealth envy will eat you alive. Focus on your own backyard please.

burninater
9396
Points
burninater 07/28/11 - 10:57 am
0
0
Chillen. Look at the actual

Chillen. Look at the actual real numbers this time. $64 million was public funds. 27% is not the "vast majority". $70 million was tax credit equity, an incentive passed by Republicans in 1996 to involve the private sector in low income housing development. How many times have you said a tax credit wasn't a giveaway? How can the gov't give back money that was yours in the first place? NOW its public money in this case? And the rest of the funding was private.

The reason why I oppose you on these points about welfare abuse is because you are presenting false evidence. You post a video showing how fancy welfare life is, but the video was taken in a predominantly working class community, built with 73% PRIVATE funds. Yes there are cars there. Because the people that live there work!

I would be much more swayed by truth than distortion. If this is such a pressing and pervasive problem, why would someone need to falsify evidence to prove the point?

You still haven't addressed why Republicans and Tea Partiers in the House can't seem to find this pervasive and wealthy welfare subculture's funding to cut the debt in a substantial manner. It seems like if even the spirit of your false evidence were correct, that would be a tremendous opportunity to cut waste.

burninater
9396
Points
burninater 07/28/11 - 11:20 am
0
0
Correction, the tax credit

Correction, the tax credit was passed in 1986 as one of Reagan's tax reforms.

burninater
9396
Points
burninater 07/28/11 - 11:44 am
0
0
As to your question of why

As to your question of why welfare at all:

Do you know of any time in human history when 100% of the population were productive citizens? Me neither.

How do unproductive citizens eat? They beg or they steal. So a society has a choice: let them beg and steal, and deal with the associated social disruptions, or institutionalize charity to try to curb instability.

This is a pragmatic view, and doesn't even consider the "should" of feeding those that don't feed themselves.

The question is how to produce such an institution to curb abuse?
Here's where we disagree:

I say look at the 1996 welfare reforms. REALLY LOOK AT THEM. There are pretty tight controls, employment requirements, and a five year LIFETIME maximum for cash benefits. Pretty good control.

You say watch this video to see how out of control welfare is. But the video is of a mixed income community, not a welfare community. You're saying "look at these working class people, and pretend they're 100% on the dole."

Can you even see the problem with this? Can you see the problem with being motivated to fight something that doesn't actually exist? Do you even begin to wonder who is manipulating you, and why? I sure would.

fiscallyresponsible
141
Points
fiscallyresponsible 07/28/11 - 11:51 am
0
0
"How do unproductive citizens

"How do unproductive citizens eat? They beg or they steal." Many take the money the government gives them and they do that anyway. End welfare, its just a vote buying scam.

owensjef2
0
Points
owensjef2 07/28/11 - 01:46 pm
0
0
Oh Boy all this from the

Oh Boy all this from the people who elected Paul Broun, That guy is Special

EEreader
27
Points
EEreader 07/28/11 - 03:17 pm
0
0
If, as I've heard, his goal

If, as I've heard, his goal was to get us involved, I guess he accomplished that--he got an editorial from the Chronicle staff, in any case. By the way, just how many card-carrying Demobrats are on the Chronicle's staff (care to guess?) How many Republicants? RinoTTer's?

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs