Obama’s Startling Second Inaugural Admission

President Barack Obama’s second inaugural address on Monday was mostly what one would have expected: A paean to the wonders of statism and how great America could be if we would just overcome our unhealthy legacy. In Obama’s world, we would all be so much better if we could get over obsessions like rugged individualism and the true meaning of the words contained in our nation’s Constitution, and let a benevolent, all-knowing government take more control over our everyday lives.

But in the midst of his “we know better” exercise, Obama made the most stunning admission of abject failure I have heard a president utter in my lifetime. I’ll have more on that shortly.

In his speech, Obama made a pretense of paying homage to our Founding Fathers, but followed it with a clear indication that he believes their wisdom is passé by claiming that “preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.” Other than our involvement in wars, which he falsely claims will soon be coming to an end, I can’t imagine what he could be thinking of. Obama even added a dose of coldly calculated and contemptuous ridicule to the mix by including an insulting reference to the modern wartime inadequacy of “muskets and militias.”

Though it was indeed, as the Politico’s Glenn Thrush correctly noted, “the most liberal speech he has delivered as president,” it clearly disappointed some of those in the establishment press who wanted to hear Obama go for his opponents’ jugulars. That group includes John Dickerson, who has been Political Director at CBS News since November 2011.

Dickerson put on his best game face at Slate after the speech, but it’s clear from reading his previous 2,000-word battle plan disguised as a column on Friday that Obama didn’t go as far as he would have liked.

The column’s headlines called for Obama to “Go for the Throat!” and “declare war on the Republican Party.” In his content, Dickerson claimed that Republican recalcitrance meant that “Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize,” and that the president “can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP.” Slate was so thrilled with the piece that it amped up its “most popular” tease list title to read: “Why Obama Should Seek To Destroy the Republican Party.” Dickerson’s occupation of such an influential perch at CBS and the presence of so many others like him at other news outlets largely explain why last year’s establishment press coverage of the GOP primaries and the general election was so ruthlessly biased against Republicans and especially conservatives.

Given the content of the rest of his speech, it was astonishing to hear Obama say the following five words: “An economic recovery has begun.”

Wow.

We’re just three weeks shy of the fourth anniversary of the passage of the February 2009 “stimulus plan.” It was supposed to turn the economy around after the evil George W. Bush ruined everything. Obama’s Keynesian economists told us that without the stimulus plan’s immediate implementation, unemployment would rise to an unacceptable 9 percent by the summer of 2010. But if we would just pass this monstrosity which nobody read, unemployment would peak at 8 percent in just a few months and gradually fall to 5.2 percent by the end of 2012.

What really happened is that despite the plan’s passage (actually, largely because of it), the unemployment rate hit 10 percent before 2009 was even over, stayed above 8 percent for a post-World War II record 43 months, and is still at 7.8 percent. The Obama government, set into fiscal motion by the Democratic Congress of 2009-2010 and running on autopilot ever since, has run up $5 trillion in supposedly stimulative budget deficits and has been the beneficiary of four years of supposedly stimulative near-zero interest rates courtesy of Ben the Betrayer Bernanke’s Federal Reserve.

Now, after all of that ruinous stimulus, the best our president can say is: “An economic recovery has begun.” It’s almost as if he wants us to believe that this strange, uncontrollable beast called the economy has finally decided to get better on its own.

Unfortunately for those who are unemployed, under-employed, and discouraged, there’s still reason to believe that the economy, after so many false starts during Obama’s first term, is once again sputtering.

Economists have been wearing out their erasers and “delete” keys writing down their estimates of economic growth during the fourth quarter of 2012. The rough consensus is that gross domestic product will grow by an annualized 1.5 percent, down from 3.1 percent in the third quarter – if we’re lucky.

Seasonally adjusted job growth has only averaged 130,000 during the past ten months. That’s below the 150,000 jobs needed just to keep pace with growth in the adult population. Additionally, in a sign that the trend is in the wrong direction, the raw number of jobs changes before seasonal adjustment has been lower than that seen in the same month of the previous year during three of the past four months.

Finally, in perhaps the most ominous sign of decay, last week’s report on initial jobless claims told us that the raw number of claims filed (i.e., before seasonal adjustment) was greater than the comparable week a year ago — the first time this has happened in a truly comparable non-holiday week since October 2009.

The way things are going, Obama’s successor may very well use those same five words — “An economic recovery has begun” — in his or her inaugural address four long years from now.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    What must be understood is that lexicon has different meanings for those whose plans are not "kosher". In other words, yes, an "economic recovery has begun", but only if one means that its deconstruction is on its way, soon to usher in a "new/fair economy".

    Everything put in place, during his first term, is a building block for the second term, described herein – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/19/shoring-up-ba

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel – http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      They always say they can only usher in utopia if they sweep aside the current system.

      But they never usher in any utopia, if they had one they could just segway into it without all the destruction.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Yes modern updated Doublespeak was at play. It was a BO speech. We expected it.

  • American Idiot

    The political right fails to grasp one crucial fact: Namely, that the Gimmedat Party of Looters and their henchmen in the "impartial" Malevolent Socialist Media have determined that The Affirmative Action Hire in Chief is Too Black To Fail™. Together, they'll see to it that the Blight Bringer's pathetic "presidency" is flogged as a smashing success, no matter what it takes. That's why bald-faced lies are no big deal at all to them, and why the Runt in Chief's miserable performance doesn't matter in the slightest. To paraphrase a famous anti-totalitarian socialist:

    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
    OBAMMUNISM IS DEMOCRACY

    • EarlyBird

      "The political right fails to grasp one crucial fact: Namely, that the Gimmedat Party of Looters and their henchmen in the "impartial" Malevolent Socialist Media have determined that The Affirmative Action Hire in Chief is Too Black To Fail™. Together, they'll see to it that the Blight Bringer's pathetic "presidency" is flogged as a smashing success, no matter what it takes…"

      Gosh, I wonder why the Republican Party can't seem to win the White House?

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Let each of us now embrace, with solemn duty and awesome joy, what is our lasting birthright. With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history, and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.

    Thank you, God Bless you, and may He forever bless these United States of America. But don't forget, I don't have to honor a single word I've ever said. I'm Barack 0'Bama and I'm entitled to rule the world.

    PS: You all know I meant Allah curse all infidels. The future must NOT belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

  • tagalog

    Obama claims "muskets and militias" are insufficient to today's military needs. Well maybe he's right. But that statement, coming from a monarchist like Barack Obama, just tells me how wise our Founding Fathers were to be suspicious of a standing army, even though we've had one for a long time.

    • Jim_C

      Well, those soldiers are sworn to uphold the Constitution first and foremost. I'm really not seeing the paranoid fantasy of a monarchical power grab–it's logistics escape me. And I also am 100% certain that when it doesn't happen, the ones here comically and seditiously claiming they'll 'stand against Obama no matter what' won't acknowledge their paranoia–they'll just be on to the next boogeyman manufactured by rightwing puppeteers.

      But if you want to talk about the ills of a standing army, you have my attention. Practically speaking, I think having one is probably a must in today's world. But having one has certainly led to some distortion of those founding ideals.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "…those soldiers are sworn to uphold the Constitution first and foremost"

        Which is a prime reason why leftists must distort and lie about every aspect of the facts about the US constitution.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "And I also am 100% certain that when it doesn't happen, the ones here comically and seditiously…"

        You misunderstand, per usual.

        "…claiming they'll 'stand against Obama no matter what' won't acknowledge their paranoia–they'll just be on to the next boogeyman manufactured by rightwing puppeteers. "

        You're silly. If it doesn't happen, that means we won politically you silly person. Don't be so simple-minded, even thought it's part of the sickness of leftism. You've spent enough time here you ought to be showing progress in recovery but I discern none.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "I'm really not seeing the paranoid fantasy…"

        All appeasers and dupes say that. Yet no aggression ever occurred against a peaceful nation. Maybe you, Chamberlain, 0'Bama, maybe you're all correct and the "paranoid" are wrong about these schemes from Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. Ask Oliver Stone for the details.

    • EarlyBird

      Tagalog, what exactly makes Obama a "monarchist"? Really, please explain what you mean by that. Did he get into power via a coup d' tat? Did he enact martial law? Has he taken over power extra-Constitutionally? Does he sit in a throne?

      Really, what makes him a "monarchist"? Have you really thought that through, or is it just another general epithet which has become meaningless on this site like "communist"?

      • tagalog

        It's just another general epithet which has become meaningless on this site like "communist."

        • EarlyBird

          Thanks!

  • BLJ

    Obama is a self-absorbed lying piece of you know what. How in the hell he ever got re-elected is anyone's guess with the horrible job he did in his first term (I believe he stole the 2012 election). He can graze at the altar of Stalin and the Muslim Brotherhood all he wants.

    This American citizen isn't going down without a fight. He is not, never was and never will be my President.

    • EarlyBird

      Funny. You remind me of a guy they were interviewing in the Midwest during the election. He was a white male forklift operator making a bit above minimum wage in some big box store and he was practically in tears, crying, "I just want the government off my back!" It was hysterical.

      HOW is government on his "back"?! He wasn't a businessman getting taxed and regulated to death. He was a virtually un-taxed (given his income rate) blue collar guy who had paved roads, schools to send his kids, emergency health, paramedics and police at his disposal, reliable sewage and electricity infrastructure – all either wholly or massively subsidized by the government – and you'd think he was being enslaved. Why? Because Obama was in the White House, and he's been told that he's a "communist." God, the stupidity! This guy is exactly who Obama's big government ideas would help the most!

  • stevef

    Obama doesn't nedd to go after the GOP's throat…they are commiting suicide by not labeling O for the extremist he and his appointments are in evocative, effective sound bites: e.g…No longer the MSM, but the ….DPM-=Democratic Party Media.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Obama doesn't nedd to go after the GOP's throat…they are commiting suicide by not labeling O for the extremist he and his appointments are…"

      100% correct.

  • ApolloSpeaks

    OBAMA BLOWS IT

    His last inauguration and the "new JFK" still couldn't rise to the occasion and find his Kennedy moment to stir our souls and impress the ages with greateness. Not one inspired line or moving thought that posterity will remember and cherish with gratitude and pride. A forgettable speech by a mediocre commander-in-chief flat like his never ending recovery appropriately followed by Richard Blanco: a dull, spiritless, depressing poet BLANK like O's inaugural.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Not one inspired line or moving thought that posterity will remember and cherish with gratitude and pride."

      Posterity will remember him as a lying incompetent president at best.

    • EarlyBird

      Very few inaugural addresses are memorable or stirring. JFK's, Lincoln's second…what others do we remember off hand as being great? Most are about laying out one's agenda for the term.

  • Jim_C

    There's a spin going around that Obama's second inauguration marks, as Charles Krauthammer puts it, "the end of Reaganism."

    I don't really believe it, but it does provide warmth on these chilly days….

    "Government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem" was the single most effective slogan of the American 20th century. It was also the most divisive and misleading, and one the man, himself, only occasionally lived by.

    Can it really be true? I might need to pinch myself!

    • BLJ

      Reagan actually loved this country. Your Marxist Muslim prez does not. I am sure you will fire back one of your "I am so much smarter that everyone else" responses but it doesn't matter. You picked your side, tread carefully when you approach me.

      • Jim_C

        I respect the real Reagan, not the myth, in many ways. I believe he, like our President Obama, loves this country.

        I have a hard time believing the average conservative does, though. There sure isn't much they seem to like about it, at any rate.

        • tagalog

          The differences between Reagan and Obama can be compared and contrasted when one considers the Reagan-era catastrophic health care issue and the Obama-era national health care issue. What each did about those issues speaks volumes for the concern of each for the overall health of our nation.

          • Jim_C

            You also have to consider their respective political environments, as well. I don't mean to minimize Reagan's opposition, but Reagan could work with Tip O'Neill. Obama had a very short window within which to act, and the health care plan he provided is essentially a Republican idea, born in the Heritage Foundation and proposed by Nixon. Don't forget that Obama left out the public option and was generally excoriated by the Left for not going single payer. Add in the b.s. about "death panels" and "government takeover" that helped the opposition into power in the mid-terms, and it's a pretty remarkable achievement, and a big reason he won re-election.

            I've said it before, and will continue to say it: Obama is for most intents and purposes an Eisenhower Republican.

          • BLJ

            Barry an "Eisenhower Republican"? Man, for a guy who seems pretty intelligent your sure post some stupid things. Open your eyes before it is too late.

            Obama is a divider, Ike was never a divider. Obama hates the military (unless it suits his political purposes), Ike was the military. Obama is a Muslim. Ike was not.

            Should I continue?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Ike fought tyrants, 0'Bama appeases, empowers and arms them.

          • Jim_C

            Well, he hasn't sold arms to Iran, yet, like Reagan…but hey, there's 4 years left.

          • Patscholar

            You are too ignorant to be posting on this website. Obama is a communist pure and simple, he is also a fascist and a socialist. Let's face it he is a totalitarian monster who has deceived the LIV (Low information voters) of this country to the nth degree. Obama is not an Eisenhower Republican by the greatest stretch of the imagination ever imagined. Go back to Media Matters or the Daily Cos and quit polluting this website with your propaganda.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You are too ignorant to be posting on this website. Obama is a communist pure and simple, he is also a fascist and a socialist."

            Half the quotes from him today could only come from a troll. Is he that thick that he reads what the trolls write and then accepts these "opinions" as his own? It's mind boggling. I want to meet this guy and look him in the eye to see if he's serious, or seriously insane.

            0'bama is like Ike. Just like manure is like food. The former were each elected president and the latter are both organic.

          • Jim_C

            Look at tax rates under Eisenhower. Look at government spending. Look at domestic spending and programs. What's Obama's biggest achievement? A health care plan devised by the Heritage Foundation and attempted by Richard Nixon.

            Get your head out of the right wing media's @ss and evaluate it for yourself instead of being told what to think day in and day out.

          • EarlyBird

            "Go back to Media Matters or the Daily Cos and quit polluting this website with your propaganda."

            In other words, "I can't tolerate being challenged by a well expressed idea with which I disagree. All dissent must be shut down, every idea that doesn't toe the line must be crushed. I'm terrified of thinking or considering that I may not have all answers."

            Fear, fear, fear, fear.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You also have to consider their respective political environments, as well. I don't mean to minimize Reagan's opposition, but Reagan could work with Tip O'Neill."

            Here we go again. Jim from the Huff Post is publishing all of the Democratic Party talking points. "It's not 0'Bama's fault, it's those racists who can't get over his 'blackness.'"

            "I've said it before, and will continue to say it: Obama is for most intents and purposes an Eisenhower Republican"

            You're depraved. If you believe that, there is hardly any reason to expect you to listen to anything rational. You've proved yourself to be quite a lunatic, or an especially verbose troll.

          • Jim_C

            I never said anything about race; on your mind, is it?

            Yep, Obama is essentially a liberal Republican. Foreign policy ("realist"), domestic policy (liberal)…least government spending since Ike, too.

          • Mary Sue

            that's because Thomas P. Tip O'Neill wasn't a complete raving lunatic.

          • EarlyBird

            Exactly, Jim. Obama is sort of an old school liberal Republican when you place him in history, not some dangerous something we've never seen before.

            You'll notice that the rump end of any very successful movement, like today's right wing, never really appreciates how successful its movement has been. For better and for worse, the US is utterly soaking in Reaganism. It was the most complete transformation of US politics probably in history, in as much as it has completely set the tone in foreign, fiscal, monetary and social policy, but perhaps importantly personal attitudes, for the past 30+ years. Reagan won.

            Unfortunately, those "principles" have become a religion. We have moved SO far to the right that the slightest adjustments back to pre-Reagan normalcy looks like "communism!" to nuts on this board.

        • BLJ

          You actually believe Barry loves America? Can I interest you in a multi-level marketing business?

          Never use the word "Our" around me when discussing that turd.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "I respect the real Reagan, not the myth, in many ways. I believe he, like our President Obama, loves this country. I have a hard time believing the average conservative does, though. There sure isn't much they seem to like about it, at any rate."

          Jim, you've been informed over and over again that your leftist indoctrination has you accepting Doublespeak as literal English. You've never actually tried to refute this. Why not start there rather than ending every conversation you lose by pretending it didn't take place so that you can start all over again as if you haven't been corrected so many times?

          Conservatives hate those who attack the country. Conservatives hate the enemies of this country. That is not inconsistent with love of this country and love of this country is a reasonable guess as to motive for hating its enemies.

          Grow up a little please. You claim to be a father. We really need to worry about future generations if you consider yourself conservative in any way, and you broadcast these leftist ideas to anyone who might take them seriously as coming from a supposed conservative.

          • Jim_C

            No, it is you who need to grow up. I never claimed to be conservative. There are a few strains of conservative thought I respect. But they are few, and these days, very far between.

            Why? Because conservatives these days are typically whiny, spoiled, blinkered, frightened little children for whom every political loss is a "catastrophic" event that spells the downfall of this country. After eight years of one of the most disastrous presidencies, which brought us ill-planned wars conceived in a pipe-dream factory (whose opponents you labelled "traitors" before Obama was elected, when it became OK to be against them, again), the worst attack on our soil in history, and the worst economic meltdown since the Depression, you fools bat at liberal pinatas in an attempt to deflect blame. And instead of helping fix your mess, you pout, you filibuster, you stamp your widdle feet. The words treason, tyranny, communism have all but lost their meaning thanks to conservative's dimwitted willingness to slap them on anything with which they don't agree.

            You wallow in fear. You monger fear. You sow fear. And you've managed to turn the government of we, the people into an "enemy." Shame on you.

            You love this country? If you say so. But you haven't liked a single thing about this country for what…30? 40? 50 years? Since WW II? Knock it off, you can fool each other but you can't fool me. The fact is, if Reagan were alive today, you'd call him a RINO. You like his speeches, but his actual actions governing? I'd hate to see what you'd really think of Eisenhower, with the tax rates under his administration, the domestic spending, and that pesky military-industrial complex he was kind enough to point out for you to ignore.

          • tagalog

            I admit it, I pout and filibuster all I can these days. As long as I don't have to watch TV's endless adolescent love affair with Barack Obama as if he's Justin Bieber, and the right wingers squirming as they contemplate another Obamaesque four years.

            I figure if we're going to live in a society where the distributive justice mantra is going to be "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs," I'm going to be among the earliest of the needy. It's the rational thing to do in Obama World.

            That way, like Hayduke throwing his beer cans out of his Jeep in an effort to precipitate environmental crisis ASAP, I figure I can do my small part to cause the collapse of Obama-ism in as short a time as possible.

            Call me selfish and shortsighted if you must. I see myself as acting with clear eyes and mind.

          • Jim_C

            You are actually one of the few conservatives, here, who actually thinks for himself and doesn't allow others to do it for them.

            But you certainly wouldn't be the first conservative to jump on the "entitlement train," take advantage of it, and then rail against it. Paul Ryan is famous for talking about how gov't benefits allowed HIM the freedom to pursue his dream–and then call everyone ELSE "takers."

            And I don't know about you, but there's plenty here who are oh-so touchingly concerned about a Benghazi coverup, where four people died in the line of service…but not about how the Iraq War got pitched. Not about who was in charge of the country when Sept. 11 occurred. They make pretentious statements about Obama's non-existent "gun grabs" and pay lip service to freedom, but the Patriot Act? Sure, why not! What principles? Hey, my party's in charge!

          • tagalog

            Well you're right of course about taking what is offered under the law, then complaining about it being wrong, but of course again we all do that with one social allocation or the other, don't we? Conservatives may be the most obvious but they're hardly the only ones.

            My particular aspect of "neediness" is that I'm on Medicare and drawing Social Security. One argument that I COULD make is that I've contributed large amounts of money to Social Security annually since I was about 14 or thereabouts and that the money I'm getting is my own Social Security taxes coming back to the person they rightfully belong to, but given the U.S. Supreme Court decision on who actually OWNS our Social Security money in the case of Nestor v. Flemming, I'm not that naive.

            And on the subject of Social Security, by the way, how the hell does the IRS get away with taxing that money as income? They already long since took the ability of that money to draw interest if it had been invested, and now they tax the return of taxes as income. Beats me all hollow.

            Then, after taking our FICA taxes, they browbeat us about how we're all living longer and will use up all that we paid before we die. Well, it would be good if when they tell us how greedy we are, they told us how much we would have if we'd been able to invest the amount we paid in investments and earn interest on it for 40 or 50 years and on top of that, tell us why they don't have the stones to raise the age for eligibility for Medicare and Social Security Old Age bennies. They're such fakes and cowards. I despise them all.

            I have no excuse for the Medicare thing, anymore than Hayduke has an excuse for throwing his beer cans out of the car onto the highway.

          • Jim_C

            If all conservatives argued the issues, as you do here, I doubt our country would be so divided. That is not to absolve my "tribe" of its own shrillness.

            As I've said before, you may not need SS or Medicare, but you are perfectly entitled to them because you have paid for them. However, many more depend on these programs.

            Raising the age eligibility strikes me as reasonable and as far as I know that is still a possibility that is on the table.

            Another possibility is extending Medicare to all ages. That is not what I would endorse, but it presents an alternative solution.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      ""Government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem" was the single most effective slogan of the American 20th century. It was also the most divisive and misleading, and one the man, himself, only occasionally lived by. "

      False.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Can it really be true? I might need to pinch myself!"

      End of Reaganism?

      "Government is not the problem, the problem is the government doesn't have enough power. Big government is the panacea." From the O'bama speech summary.

      • Jim_C

        False.

        I don't need to make up quotes to make my point; I just quote the guy.

  • polnick

    No longer does the president have to be concerned with re-election, the need to be swayed by the wishes of others is gone. His executive powers make him a king whose credit card is unlimited. The famous Obama grin will soon disappear, his permanent snarl will demand respect and he will get it.

  • Cathy

    C-SPAN: President Reagan 1981 Inaugural Address
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpPt7xGx4Xo

    Barack Obama 2013 Inauguration Speech
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zncqb-n3zMo

    George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 5

    “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?… Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?… The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking-not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "George Orwell, 1984"

      I doubt this book has been assigned in class for many decades. This is the book everyone in the West needs to read again or for the first time.

      The leftist replies, "But dogmas only come from religion, like Christianity especially. We're not dogmatic, we're right…all the time."

      • Fritz

        They need to read the Road To Serfdom, it applies mostly to postwar Britain but there are parallels between the actions of Clement Atlee's government of the late 1940s and the Obama administration, except that Atlee (unlike Bary) didn't have an streak of authoritarianism that surfaces from time to time.

  • charlie4darwin

    "How in the hell he ever got re-elected is anyone's guess" No guess required; Obama won by default. The Republican party has gone completely off the rails and into la-la land of religious extremism; honestly, so much lunatic rhetoric and stupidity ensured the GOP had zero chance.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "honestly, so much lunatic rhetoric and stupidity ensured the GOP had zero chance."

      Not without refuting the leftist liars of the Democratic Party who authored that stupid lunatic rhetoric.

    • EarlyBird

      Romney, with all of his faults, was a serious, pragmatic and competent manager-leader. He was too good for his party.

      The Republican base has becomes so ridiculously extreme, that he had to contort himself into a "severe conservative" just to get the nomination. By the time he got it and moved to the middle and became himself, the "real Romney" looked plastic and the fake, nomination-getting Romney looked like a loon.

      Obama most definitely won by default. Romney can blame the nutjobs who've taken over the GOP, many of them here on this site.

  • Adolf Hitler

    The media of america are nothing more than propagandists for barack hussain usama bama. I know these things.

  • Ghostwriter

    Actually,President Obama simply played Santa Claus. He said "I can give you free stuff if you vote for me." Many Americans did just that. What those who voted for him don't know what their vote cost them,like their kids' future.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Actually,President Obama simply played Santa Claus."

      At least Santa Claus doesn't use class warfare as a tactic to remain popular. Santa has no need to create a sense of victimhood. Entitlement, yes, But then again, Santa Claus is not totalitarian either.

      I'll take Santa any day over any leftist politician. At least Santa knows his place most of the year.

      • Fritz

        Not to mention that Santa Claus is purported to have a "Means test" naughty children get a lump of coal in their stocking, in some countries Kris Kringle had a sidekick who caned naughty children.

    • EarlyBird

      Here's the problem: the Republican Party plays Santa Claus too, but to corporations and wealthy individuals. Simply cutting taxes on the highest earners does NOT lift all boats. We know that because we've been doing that for the past 30 years.

      Newsflash everybody: The right wing won! The Reagan Revolution was fully enacted. We've been living it. As a result of his trickle down economics – which I too used to be a believer of – wherein politicians said, "You can have low taxes AND serviceable government AND prosperity!" we are now behind most of Western Europe in terms of upward mobility. The rich are fewer but much, much richer, the middle class poorer and much smaller, our kids are less educated, our government less capable, our companies less competitive, our infrastructure crumbling.

      "Lower taxes, reduced spending, fewer regulations" is not always the answer to greater prosperity and freedom for all. Reagan was a man for his time, but not all times. His economic theory said, "You can have it all!" and it's as much of a lie as the left's which says "Government can do it all!"

      • Ghostwriter

        Sorry,EarlyBird,but Europe isn't doing well right now. Places like Greece have sky-high debts. Is that what you want for America,EarlyBird? Sky-high debts?

        • EarlyBird

          First of all, get a map. I talked about "Western Europe." Greece is in fact in Southern Europe. Oh a quick pointer to save you time: Europe is that big land mass above Africa.

          Secondly, I didn't say that Western Europe is "doing well", but that "we are now behind most of Western Europe in terms of upward mobility." The US has rightly admired itself for its citizens' ability to move up in financial status, but we've been falling behind for a long, long time, not simply since Obama came around four years ago.

          Here is a link whichs lays out these hard facts. Sorry to show you that America isn't Number 1! in everything. If we were a European nation, we'd be eighth in terms of upward mobility:
          http://business.time.com/2012/01/05/the-loss-of-u

  • Len_Powder

    From "New Deal or Raw Deal" by Burton W. Folsom, Jr.:

    "Unemployment lines, for example, were long and steadily lengthening during Roosevelt's second.
    term. From November 1937 to August 1939, monthly unemployment numbers always ranged from 17 to 21 percent—the highest in U.S. history except for Roosevelt's first term, one year in Hoover's presidency, and one year in the 1890s."

    "After almost two full terms of Roosevelt and the New Deal, here are Morgenthau s startling
    words—his confession—spoken candidly before his fellow Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee:

    'We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong.. , somebody else can have my job, I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job.'

    "I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…. I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started.,.. And an enormous debt to boot!'

    "In these words, Morgenthau summarized a decade of disaster, especially during the years Roosevelt was in power."

    Comment: FDR's unemployment numbers were 2 times worse than Obama's (of course the calculation rules have changed since FDR was President). What did people do about it then? Answer: Elected him to a third term and sucked it up!

    • AnOrdinaryMan

      Good post, but the true unemployment rate under Obama is about 14%; and more important, FDR and his department heads WANTED Americans fo get back to work. Obama and his gang don't. And back then, American manufacturing was on the rise; and in 1942 WWII increased demand for manufactured products. Today our private sector manufacturing capability is like Superman with a bad case of kyrptonite poisoning–just about dead. So the American people may have sucked it up back then, but they went on to a bigger and better situation. Bigger and better isn't in the cards, at present.

  • leeward

    so what are we going to do about it, out the socialists at every level, track down school teachers commie blogs and out them….local officials anyone got any ideas

  • EarlyBird

    Tapson writes as if there was some obvious magic bullet the president could have used, which he refused to. He also doesn't give enough credit to the fact that the Stimulus has turned us around, however slowly, and that corporations (you know, those entities which "communist" Obama supposedly hates?) have never enjoyed bigger profits.

    The question is: what would the economy look like a.) by doing nothing, or b.) enacting a Stimulus by another name, i.e., a massive tax break which would have had the very same effect on the economy and the same effect on the debt?

    Any president coming in at 2008 would have had an extremely difficult time on his hands. Remember too, the choice was between Obama, or McCain/Palin (shudder).

  • Ghostwriter

    I didn't vote for Obama. I voted for the other guy,EarlyBird.

    • EarlyBird

      Thanks for your support, Ghostwriter.