The New Moderate’s ‘Rebuttal’ to Obama’s 2011 State of the Union Address
One of the burdens of writing for the blogosphere is that the competition invariably beats you to the punch — especially if the competition is 28 years old and happily juiced on energy drinks. Take half a day to ponder the events of the night before, and the train has already pulled out of the station.
I say better a day late than two days late. So here, for your entertainment and edification, is my point-by-point moderate’s “rebuttal” to Tuesday night’s State of the Union Address. Obama’s ideas are in boldface, sometimes quoted directly and sometimes not. My responses follow beneath in humble lightface type.
“We’ve had our differences…”
That’s an understatement. Even a Tea Partier would have to agree with Obama on that one.
“We are still bound together as one people… We’ll move forward together or not at all.”
Wishful thinking, but a valuable idea to keep in mind before we actually splinter into separate sub-nations based on religion, politics, socioeconomic standing and cultural preferences. Conservatives are constitutionally opposed to the notion of moving ahead together, but I’m not. Just don’t collectivize the farms.
On jobs: “The rules have been changed in the middle of the game.”
Way too true. Ask any baby boomer. Ask me. Nothing in our education prepared us for a postindustrial economy, concentration of wealth and the end of upward mobility for most of us. In hindsight, I would have become an investment banker or a Marxist. It’s the people struggling in the middle who have had the rug pulled out from under them.
We need to encourage innovation: “It is how we make our living.”
Constant innovation is already leaving most of us in the dust, but I must concede that America is a shark: we have to keep moving or die.
“This is our nation’s Sputnik moment.”
The most widely quoted line from Obama’s speech is intriguing and probably apt: we’ve been backed into a corner by our Great Recession and the simultaneous rise of China and South Korea as technological powers. We have no choice but to find our untapped strengths and reinvent ourselves if we want to stay competitive.
We need to focus on clean energy solutions: a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015; 80% of our energy from clean sources by 2035.
Of course, the rise of clean energy implies the decline of dirty energy… probably not a bad thing, though the oil and coal lobbies will look for ways to keep us dirty as long as possible.
We need to make quality education a top priority. “It’s not just the winner of the Super Bowl that needs to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair… By the end of the decade, America will have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.”
Hallelujah for the sentiments, and good luck.
We need to take on “undocumented” immigration, enforce the law but make an exception for the children of illegals who are enrolled in college.
Fair enough. We probably shouldn’t be punishing the children for the sins of the parents. But do we round up those parents and ship them south of the border while the kids are in school? It gets complicated.
Let’s renovate our crumbling infrastructure and introduce high-speed rail to most of the country. We’d be creating essential construction jobs.
I love train travel, and we need to put people to work… let’s do it!
Our corporate tax rate is forbiddingly high; at the same time too many companies use convenient loopholes to avoid paying taxes. We need to level the playing field by lowering corporate taxes and eliminating loopholes.
Right on, Mr. President! A long-overdue correction.
On his controversial healthcare program: “Let’s fix what needs fixing and then move forward.”
I like an open-minded chief executive. Obama knows we need universal healthcare by hook or by crook so that nobody has to go bankrupt on account of illness (or prohibitively high premiums). Yet he’s still willing to compromise so as not to alienate the pro-insurance faction in Congress. Let’s hope he knows the limits of compromise.
Push for medical malpractice reform “to rein in frivolous lawsuits.”
Yes! Three times yes! If American doctors didn’t have to fork over $100K annually for malpractice insurance, both healthcare costs and the cost of healthcare insurance would plummet.
Our national debt is out of control; government, like the rest of us, has to live within its means. Propsal: Freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years.
Sounds smart, though we probably need to freeze foreign spending as well.
We can’t afford to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of the population. We wouldn’t be “punishing their success”… we’d be “promoting American success.”
Absolutely. The rich were already opening a huge gap over the middle class before the Bush-era tax cuts. The current gap is undeserved, unconscionable during a debt crisis, and greater than at any time since the glory days of the 1920s. Let the rich heroically surrender a few extra percentage points off the top for the good of the country that made their fortunes possible.
Simplify the U.S. tax code.
Yes! High time, too.
Eliminate redundant federal agencies.
Yes again!
Furnish the public with information about lobbying activity and spending in Congress, and make it available online.
Amen! Of course, I’d go a step further and prohibit any exchange of money between lobbyists and elected representatives.
The president will veto any bill that comes to him embellished with special earmarks (a.k.a. “pork”).
Hurrah! Can this man do anything wrong?
“American Muslims are part of our American family.”
OK, let’s not be so quick to adopt homegrown Islamist fanatics, jihadists and terrorists. All others are welcome.
The Iraq war is coming to an end, and we’ll soon be transitioning to Afghan leadership in the war against the Taliban.
Sounds good to The New Moderate, as long as it’s true.
The U.S. plans to fight Muslim terrorists worldwide and support “the democratic aspirations of all people.”
Noble and righteous… but let’s not overextend ourselves, either. JFK’s similar promise that we’d “bear any burden” got us mired in Vietnam. We can let our words (and our intelligence operations) do the supporting.
Our democracy can be “messy and contentious,” but we wouldn’t trade places with any other country.
Well said. A certain amount of discord is the price we pay for our freewheeling representative government.
We believe in the same promise: this is a country where anything is possible.
I like to think it’s still true. If enough of us agree that it’s true, it will be true.
“America is the story of ordinary people who dare to dream.”
And many of our most successful citizens are very ordinary indeed. No, strike that — sometimes my cynicism gets the best of me. The message here is central to our national identity: we’ve tradtionally been a nation of pioneers, innovators and dreamers. Not poets and philosophers so much as practical dreamers, from all backgrounds and levels of education. This is a tradition worth nurturing, and to nurture it we need to make sure that opportunity doesn’t become the exclusive province of our new upper class.
“We do big things.”
The president borrowed this simple but powerful slogan from the tiny American company that pulled off the miraculous rescue of the Chilean miners last year. Thinking big is part of the American character: part of why we’re so often seen as meddlers and hotshots by outsiders, and part of what makes us truly great. It’s an attitude we need to keep in mind as we recover from the ravages of a demoralizing decade.
You can see that my “rebuttal” looked more like an amen corner. That’s no accident. It was a wise, rousing and inspiring speech — the handiwork of a statesman rather than a politician. Obama clearly sees himself as president of all the people — not the spokesman for his base. His vision is progressive but rational, generous but balanced.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Obama’s hard experience in office has moved him toward the center — not because it’s easy (he’ll be taking flak from both extremist camps for the rest of his presidency) but because he knows it’s the right thing to do.
THE NEW MODERATE 
I agree with the majority of what you said here. The president made some very good points. I think its high time that we put talk into action. We as American’s are sinking under our own good will and political correctness. The laws that we put on the books place un-needed burden and red tape to get anything done. Our forefathers would be rolling in their graves to see what we have become.
Prohibit lobbyists! Act on the tough decisions….before the hole that we are in is too deep to get out!
I wish getting rid of lobbyists was the answer, but it isn’t. We must remember that lobbyists are groups of individuals…like ourselves. The question is what can they get away with our congressmen and congresswomen. Which lobby is important to the future of our country and which one is trying to preserve the past. Which is “moving forward” or not. Which is representing a minor selection of Americans and which are not. Lobbying is legal and in many forms a town hall meeting could be considered a Lobby if most or all agree on an issue.
I back the need for action among all words. I’ve heard too much talk and not enough action. Tough decisions are needing to be made, but I think 200+years of Rep. and Dem. won’t change a thing. At most, we will move along at a “snails pace”.
Here’s my position on lobbying, which I’ve modified over the past few years: Allow them to make presentations to our elected representatives in open-door sessions, but criminalize any flow of money from lobbyists to representatives. Bottom line: lobbyists can educate politicians, but they have no right to buy influence. It should be treated the same as bribery.
I doubt if Congress would ever vote on criminalizing lobbbyist contributions, because (of course) they benefit from those contributions. Maybe the Supreme Court could take up the issue.
How will Congressmen raise funds to finance their campaigns? Prohibit campaign advertising! All such advertising is ridiculously slanted and misleading, anyway. Without massive advertising budgets, politicians could finance their campaigns without huge corporate and lobbyist contributions. Newspapers and internet portals could feature unbiased position statements and dossiers for the candidates.
So there are two pretty bold reform ideas from a “wishy washy” moderate: criminalize lobbyist contributions, and eliminate campaign advertising. Both are probably too radical, unfortunately, to see the light of day.
I have not actually read or heard the state of the union – or even much commentary. Frankly, I am not much interested. What the president does matters more than what he says.
But i can comment on your comments.
We have always had our differences and will continue to do so. We are not homgenous and that is part of what makes us great, we are also not bi-polar – nor are “moderates” the middle, we are not even multi-polar. Each of us has and is entitled to our own opinions. Specific parties at best reflect some of our values. We are a nation of individuals.
We are bound together – but it is that individualism and the freedom to pursue it that is the bond. We rarely move forward together – but we always move forward. It is not societal interests that make us great it is our freedom, it is our individual accomplishments.
The rules have not changed with respect to jobs or anything else. We are in a recession of our own making.
Innovation is distributed. Great innovators tend to acheive more than the rest of us, but even the janitor who figures out how to get his job done faster so that he can loaf the rest of the day is innovating. Our education system compares to the rest of the world abysmally and we must fix many things. But the US still produces a vastly disproportionate percentage of the worlds innovators. Whether it is the schools, the water or the freedom that permeates the air we breathe. We are still doing something better. We are an exceptional nation – something our President all to often fails to recognize.
I can pretty much guarantee that if government pushes it, it will fail. Government has promoted “green” energy since atleast Nixon. We have given “green” subsidies to all kinds of green things. The only thing that has thrived is ethanol – and the only green there is the money. Electric cars will come of age – when they make sense, not when we force them. CO2 is not a pollutant. There is no need for oil and coal lobbies to twist congresses arm. There are no alternatives that are even close to viable. Solar energy will immediately become a Trillion dollar industry the moment it becomes economically viable – and it is slowly closing in on that. But even PV cells have environmental consequences and limitations.
If you want education to work – privatise it. A public education costs nearly as much as an elite private one, but the results are vastly different, It costs more than twice as much as myriads of other private alternatives such as parochial schools that still generally perform better. Education is the greatest demonstration of the failure of government. In 30 years we have doubled the inflation adjusted cost with a negative return on that investment.
We are approaching the point where we could pay for a personal tutor for every student. Regardless the last thing we need is more government.
I support open borders. But regardless of whatever your view is, there is no reason to do to college education what we did to housing and create a false incentive to a college education, in order to acquire citizenship.
I love trains too. But Passenger rail travel is by far the most inefficient and wasteful way to transport people that we have. The passenger mile cost is several times that of busses which are several times that of cars – even single occupancy commuters. There are other reasons that sometimes justify trains and busses – congestion in places like NYC being one. But pretending that that public transportation is ever viable for solely economic reasons is lying. If you are looking for energy or economic efficiency drive.
If you eliminate corporate taxes (and all taxes on investment) you do not have to worry about loopholes – and you will get a very robust economy. But since we are not going to do that. Flat, simple, as low as possible and predictable, biased towards consumption and away from investment – and not just corporate taxes.
In much of the country insurance with a $10,000 deductible is readily available for – drum roll, almost exactly 10,000/year less than insurance with no deductible. If you want health insurance to be affordable. Get the federal government out of it, get the state governments out of it. Make Medicare/Medicaide and HMO’s pay the full cost for their patients, eliminate the health insurance tax deduction for business. Make health insurance work like car insurance. Encourage individuals to purchase their own policies and allow insurance companies to market whatever they can sell. the cost of auto insurance has declined throughout my life – even BEFORE adjusting to inflation. No form of price control has EVER, EVER, EVER worked. If you want affordable prices, nothing works better than the free markets.
The biggest factor in malpractice costs (for all professions, not just doctors) is the failure of the professions to police their own. Even after accounting for the fact that some specialities have higher risks – and should have higher insurance costs, an incredibly small percentage of practitioners are responsible for both the majority and by far the largest claims.
Beyond that when the nightly news rants about the evils of business – and particularly insurance, why would you expect that a jury would not come predisposed to believe that large awards have no real cost. Tort reform is an admission of our personal failure. Our inability to rationally judge the merits of cases. Torts are supposed to be the way that the behaviour of business is regulated – rather than the EEOC or EPA. When administered properly they are far more effective in moderating behaviour than a bevy of regulators. The torts system does not suffer from regulatory capture.
Real government spending cuts would be welcome. Unfortunately I am to jaded by the 3 card monty game our government plays to believe this. An absolute prohibition on earmarks might be a good start – if the veto threat is real, I support it, but I do not beleive it will happen. The portion of the budget is small, but it is the grease for alot of other waste. Eliminating all government subsidies of anything would be another good step. I think we have reached the point where we actually need constitutional constraints on spending. There are numerous possibilities, but congress is unable to rein itself in an few presidents have been willing to try.
Damn straight tax the crap out of the “rich”. Even if the entire economy goes into the toilet, we the rich have to pay their fair share. There is plenty of record to demonstrate that as income tax rates decrease on high wage earners, GDP, tax revenue and the percentage paid by the richest all increase. There is the altogether separate issue that the top 2% of wage earners are with few exceptions not the “rich” in the traditional sense. The largest percentage of high wage earners are the aspiring rich, small business owners – the truly rich do not work, they have no jobs, they do not pay income taxes.
Don’t simplify the tax code – obliterate it – can you say flat tax, no deductions.
Just furnish the public with as much information about what is going on in government as possible. This administration has been more open than past administrations, but not in any significant way, and not nearly in the ways promised during the election. Just implement your campaign promises about open government and you can write off the rest of my rant. Nothing will persuade people to move toward my view more than an abundance of readily available information on their government.
Get out of Iraq and Afghanastan – now. They can manage their own affairs. If they aide and abet terrorists in the future, our military seems to be pretty good at rapid regime change. What we are not good at is nation building. Bush ran against Clinton’s efforts at nation building, and then did did Clinton two better. Obama ran against Bush’s foreign entanglements and has reversed himself on every one.
If the president is moving towards the center because he knows it is the right thing to do then why hasn’t he government there since the begining ? Pres. Obama had the opportunity to permanently shift this country. All that was necessary was to do the job effectively – to get out of the way and let us do what we do best – as individuals. Economic recovery has always been inevitable. The process can be quick, painful and the recovery dramatic, or we can drag out the misery for a decade or so and get a crappy weak recovery.
I did not watch the State of the Union. Pres. Obama is an inspiring public speaker. If I were hiring a preacher he gets the job hands down. But he has been an abysmal leader. He has disappointed the right, the left, and the center. There are many things he promised that could have done that would have been opposed by conservatives that I would have strongly supported. The few he has actually done came late and half hearted. Nearly everything he has done until recently has been totally wrong. In many many instances he continued the same wrong approach of Pres. Bush. In others he found his own new ways to be wrong. Conservatives, liberals, and libertarians all have good cause to be disappointed – in many instances the same good cause.
The more I read your blog the less I can identify what a “moderate” – except maybe socialist lite. I am also bothered because it appears to me that rhetoric matters here more than action. I want a competent president more than an inspiring one. Even on his own signature issues – the stimulus, cap and trade, healthcare. There was no white-house leadership. The president talks about fixing what is wrong with the healthcare legislation. Where was he when it was being written ? We got these disasters because that is what the majority in congress wanted, and by default what Pres. Obama wanted too. Arguing for difficult compromise is fine, but no one can claim this whitehouse forcefully advocated for what it wanted and accepted what it got as the best possible compromise. Further we were promised open public debate. We are angry because this mess was essentially passed behind our backs. There is still new crap in it being discovered all the time. This president was the leader of his party which controlled the entire government. The Buck stops at his desk.
I am tired of speeches – particularly ones laced with promises with no intention to deliver. Call me when something worthwhile actually gets done.
Dave, I support your feelings. I can actually say that I “feel your pain” (Old Clinton saying). I agree with you. The Government has been managing our (people’s) money and has spent all of our money and then borrowed against our our wages. This leaves us with massive amounts of interest to pay back over many generations. The greatest nation owes everyone else a living…so sad!
As a radical Centrist I started replying to this blog as a way to keep Centrist thought alive and well. This is because I went through an enlightenment stage in religion, politics and life in general. All things are balanced in life. It’s only man who makes them unbalanced. Or in other words, the world is based by nature in logic….it is man and only man (women) who makes things illogical.
This blog site makes it possible for those who do not feel connected to the extremes of the left and right political spectrum. Does that mean that the blog site is accurate in Centrist views….the answer is no. Two reasons….It’s for moderates….those that have reason to believe their is balance, but haven’t affirmed what their views are in a political organization party. The other is that “Moderates” is a term as described by Democrats/Progressive’s in the 1990’s as Independent/undecided/wishy-washy unsure idealists. So you will get many “Moderates” or individuals state their views that are kind of balanced, but still containing some left or right “brain-washing” propaganda. It is sometimes hard to cleanse yourself from the propaganda in order to be Moderate. You have to affirm (announce) your ideas that you are different and then logically come to affirmation (conclusion) that they make sense. A lot of “independent” minded people blog here. The blog is affirming your ideas, but not an affirmation they make sense to about everyone. Leave this to a political party website for Centrists. (Which I would love to build).
A Centrist is a person who has affirmed that their is a balance and their is “a way” or “a path” that is available between both political parties and has concluded steps and methods to combat both the left and right propagandas using facts and logic.
I consider thoughts of Centrist myself daily and it is hard to stay “balanced”. It is the “narrow-path”. Just as stated by the words of Jesus himself who was crucified also between the left and right criminals and wore the color purple which is a “Centrist” color. Though I do not consider myself extreme religious anymore. I did come from extreme religion at one time.
I have designed a flag (many of such) on my free time and have wondered if anyone would join a Centrist Political Party website for action, but have been reluctant due to family commitments and that I haven’t met anyone willing to work with me on an agenda. Most people I find are “Moderates” who wish to “wander” through politics with different thoughts. That’s fine with me, but I find action speaks louder than words, but not one man can do it alone….not me. I can do my part, but not all. At least, right now not everything.
This blog is a great tool to use to “sharpen” your mind and open it as well. You are right about the “Socialist Lite” on some issues mentioned by our main man Ryan, but he means well. He has most of what I think “Moderate”. My issue with him.. well, you could read further into this article.
It’s a give and take blog. You put in and some you get out.
What I enjoyed of yours is that you for the most part say most of what i read. The question is what should we do to get the results we seek if neither party gets it right?
Kent (Dave, this is for you, too): You touch on an interesting point: the distinction (if any) between “centrist” and “moderate.” I’ve written about this issue before, and here’s the essence of what I’ve concluded: “moderate” describes a loosely constructed personal philosophy, while “centrist” is more of a political ideology.
There’s plenty of overlap in terms of our beliefs; the difference is in the intellectual styles of the two groups. Do we want to be ideologues? My personal response is to say no, because ideologies tend to lock their adherents into a state of intellectual rigidity. Ideologues seem to be satisfied parroting second-hand opinions, and they’ll quote chapter and verse to make a point on a given issue.
Can we attract people to the political center without defining a centrist ideology? I think so. We have to overcome the perception that moderates and centrists are bland, timid, noncommittal compromisers with no strong opinions. I’m living proof that moderates don’t have to be bland. In fact, we can be radical when it comes to fighting extremism on both sides.
Take my view that our economy is tilted ominously toward the right… toward the entrenched plutocrats who rig the system in their favor (hedge funds and tax loopholes, anyone?) and against the middle class (credit card interest rates, anyone?). Whenever I rail against the plutocrats, I get attacked as a socialist… when I simply would like to see a more balanced system that doesn’t give any one class an unfair advantage. (For the record, I’m also against a free ride for the poor; I’d rather see federal job programs like the WPA than our costly and counterproductive welfare system.)
When I was a kid half a century ago, we certainly had rich people and poor people. But the rich managed to thrive on incomes that were perhaps 20 times the national average — in an age of truly punitive income tax rates!
Today the top-tier earners make thousands of times the average income… with tax rates that are barely above the middle class level. When will enough be enough for these guys? Why shouldn’t media celebrities and professional athletes pay higher taxes, when their fame, like their stratospheric incomes, is artificially enhanced by a vast network of free publicity? We’re heading toward a society reminiscent of Bourbon France, and as much as I resent the new elite, I really don’t want to see their heads roll.
Unimaginably huge deficits, mortgaging our future by borrowing from China, state and local governments on the verge of defaulting on their loans and obligations, housing starts the lowest in 50 years, unemployment steady at just under 10%……..and Obama says that more spending – oh, excuse me, “investment” – is going to be the answer?
I give the man credit, he knows how to sound like a moderate – but at a time when we need a reality check, we hear the President say that he is going to “strengthen” Social Security. And the very next day, it is reported that SS will go cash-flow negative THIS YEAR!
I fear that our politicians, Mr. President included, are without a clue….Chris Christie is one of the few that seems to be able to talk ugly about an ugly situation (but lord, the man needs to lose some weight!): http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid51920168001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAACEcotwk~,gYcGnPAbE5DRD2F-d4EW6eHYmGU1d3p5&bclid=0&bctid=763052194001
Priscilla, You are so right about Chris Christie needing to lose some weight. I could lose a few myself. In a free country, I am guessing he doesn’t care.
The Government has been managing our (people’s) money and has spent all of our money and then borrowed against our our wages. This leaves us with massive amounts of interest to pay back over many generations. The greatest nation owes everyone else a living…so sad!
If I recall correctly his goal is to sound “Centrist”. He doesn’t even have a clue what a Centrist is. I am a radical Centrist. A “Centrist” is a graduated Moderate with an agenda/propaganda in mind.
What he is? ….a Progressive saying Moderate ideas claiming he is a Centrist. As stated in my other comments. A moderate has ideas, but a Centrist works to solidify them. You have to think Centrist, not just say Centrist stuff. I know Centrist….”He’s no Centrist!”
It’s all political fodder because he got his rear-end smacked in the Nov. election and he wants to be re-elected in 2012.
Yes, “Moderates” who wish to “wander” through politics with different thoughts than left and right. Call them Independents if you want. That’s Obama’s agenda since November 2010 to get “Moderates” and Independents. He has no essence of Centrist if he is still wondering as a “Moderate”.
This is all political. He is a Progressive trying to tackle the Independent voters who are true “Moderates” that haven’t solidified themselves as Centrists. They are the easy prey for the Left and Right. The Tea party won in Nov. 2010 and now Obama wants them for 2012. This just P…me off that these two parties are playing mind games with actual human beings for greedy purposes.
Once you are a Centrist you don’t go back to “Moderate”. Also, once your a true “Moderate” you don’t go back to the Progressive/Religious parties. This is because you understand that their is a balance in life in general. Not for political purposes, but for your well being. It’s all “bread and Circuses”.
Ryan, I am 40 years old and I have heard speeches by leaders of all positions. They speak what you want to hear, but the “actions” or the “force” behind the actions are what is important. A politician who says once thing at a rally to generate sympathy, pity or support means that he or she is motivating the crowd. What I heard from the State of the Union was exactly that…an “Emotional ride”.
We aren’t the ones needed to be motivated if we vote. It is the politician! They can say what sounds good, but if they don’t express it strongly via words in private or voting on big issues in Congress. Then they are lying!
He sounds like he is “hitting” a centrist theme. Yeah, right! …in words/speech. He is still the wolf in sheep clothing. He has friends he has to commit to in the Dem. Party. let alone the so-called “special interests”….a.k.a. Unions, big corporate…etc..
He changed his tune after he was crushed in the November election. Obviously, you have forgotten all his “promises” he made as a candidate. Gitmo closing, Civil trials, Ending the Afghan war or at least working to destroy the enemy so the troops could come home early. If he put as much work into any of this as he did his Heath Care program…we wouldn’t be stuck still discussing them.
He is a politician! Not a statesman! Except for Health Care because he stated what he wanted irregardless of what the majority of people wanted at the time.
Again, he changed because of the November election. In short, he changes for political gain and not for what is right. The people in November’s election told him what was right and what was wrong. If he listened over two years ago to the public instead of trying to be the winner of 2008 elections and beating down Bush every time in words for his own political gains then we wouldn’t still be scratching our heads and trying to get what we want as Americans.
He needs to get a high popularity rating for 2012 Presidential elections. Let us not forget that! He needed to start as soon as Nov. 2010 elections ended to build up support. So switching to Centrist sounds great, but he would betray us Centrists as soon as he could to please his secret supporters (Progressives) in a heartbeat. We must take a look at his actions and his attitude toward his secret supporters as he says: “moves forward”.
Another thing “move forward” is a centrist theme. “Progress forward” is a Democrat, Progressive/Marxist theme. Obama is now using “move forward” instead of “progress forward”? Obama used “Progress forward” when he expressed everyone wanted change from George Bush. Yes, we got “Progress forward” and no one really loved it. His “change” backfired and now he is “changed”….Please! Don’t make me laugh. Both political parties are a joke and to stay “Centrist” is to be “Centrist”. Not by actions and words, but also by thought.
The Baby Boomer (Obama) still wants to spend my (Gen X) , my wife’s (Gen Y) and my kids (Gen I) future’s into the dumpster. When he ran for President he said he’s doing the Presidency for the future for his daughter’s ….Hello! he’s rich now…He can still trash all of us while his kids are rich. We must remember he or any politician that is rich can trash our country and “they” can still escape to another country to live in “exile”. I voted for “change/hope” whatever, but all I see are the same “Got fooled again” (The Who) things.
Apparently, as I have said before to others…. a mixed Congress is the best Centrist method currently available in our country. It doesn’t have to be this way!
Another thing! You are so bent up on taking from the rich. You mention the rich “surrendering” their money. Do you believe in using force? That’s not Centrist…that is Communist/Marxist. We need to inspire the rich to give more not for us to take via taxation. The whole tax system punishes for high achievers. Remember, it’s a Progressive Tax Code. What Bill Gates is doing is what needs to be done. Charity/giving ….Not taxing more. The rich will hoard their money if you force it from them. More outsourcing to banks in other parts of the world.
The bigger issue is if you spend all the money that rich people give. How many more times will the government be asking for another “hand out” via “force”? Every ten years a Progressive is saying that the rich isn’t paying their “fair share”. Let me ask you and everyone this….What is the final “fair share”? The kind where we stop asking for more handouts from the rich! Or instead of “handouts’…let’s try “bailouts”.
Is it when there are no rich people? Sounds like Progressive/Marxist… Communist stuff to me.
Also, you have to view rich/poor as what is it that the rich are doing versus the poor. The rich save more, the poor spend more than what they bring in… it is essentially a mental puzzle that can only be solved by inspiration and determination via the individual. The rich do what the rich do to stay rich and the poor do what the poor do to stay poor.
I am telling you we have to think bigger and inspire people who have excess things to contribute not by force, but by building a better community as a whole and inspire people who have little to find a place to save and work to create a better community as a whole. This is a up and down coming together. This is a right and left political coming together. This is what makes Centrist the best position.
My rant for today!
Nice job of recapping his points. Your comments while worthy of someone who has told us the truth in the past are clearly inappropriate for a man who speaks like a statesman, campaigns for a living and in most cases does exactly the opposite of what he says.
I met a woman this morning from New Jersey at my hotel and asked her what she thought of her controversial Governor, whom I don’t always agree with but am inspired by his willingness to speak uncomfortable truth with boldness and courage without regard to people pleasing and voter appeasing. She fixated on one budget cut out of the many. Why? Because it was all about her.
She had no depth of knowledge at all. In fact, she told me how “some other guy” as she intelligently put it, “is really ticked off at him, I saw it in the paper”.
“Who was that?” I asked. “I don’t remember, but he the governor really screw us and the guy is really mad” she said. “What is he so angry about?” I asked. “I don’t know but he really did something bad and everybody is upset” she replied.
Ritz Carlton, seemingly sane person and nice as can be mind you. Within minutes I had the story, it was Sweeney. The story had two sides and she had her mind made up, is willing to tell strangers all about what she knows and even recognized Sweeney’s picture when I show it to her on my iPad about 30 seconds into my search at the lounge table in the common area over coffee.
“Yes, that’s him!” she said with pride about her astute political research on the matter. Well done Diane. Please tell me you are not only an uninformed opinion sharing newspaper headline reader with no time to vet a headline.
Please tell me that you also don’t have time to go to the poll and cancel out my vote.
Ww
Doug: As Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government… except for all the others.” And H. L. Mencken wasn’t nearly as charitable. There will always be dumb, lazy and uninformed citizens, not to mention politicians who speaked with forked tongues.
Indeed Rick, that is why the US is not and was never intended to be a “democracy” as is so warm and fuzzy these days as our leaders help the Muslim Brotherhood into power under that guise in Egypt.
We are a Republic.
Kind regards.