OBAMA WANTS TO RUN ON SOCIALISM V CAPITALISM RATHER THAN ON HIS RECORD. TED BELMAN
NEW YORK TIMES
WASHINGTON — President Obama pledged on Tuesday night to use government power to balance the scale between America’s rich and the rest of the public, trying to present an election-year choice between continued leadership toward an economy “built to last” and what he called irresponsible policies of the past that caused an economic collapse.
Declaring that “we’ve come too far to turn back now,” the president used his final State of the Union address before he faces the voters to showcase the extent to which he will try to contrast his core economic principles with those of his Republican rivals in a time of deep economic uncertainty. While many Americans remain disappointed with the state of the economy and the president’s handling of it, Mr. Obama nonetheless tried to bring into relief the difference between where the country was when he took over and where it is now.
“The state of our union is getting stronger,” he declared in time-honored tradition. “In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs.” He pointed to renewed hiring by American manufacturers and — borrowing the “built to last” phrase from the auto industry he helped save — he sketched out, albeit vaguely, what he called a blueprint for economic growth in which the wealthy play by the same rules as ordinary Americans.
Republicans challenged Mr. Obama’s assessment of the economy, and asserted that his policies had made the situation worse. But with their own poll numbers diving, Congressional Republicans were subdued in their response to the speech, careful not to boo or seem disrespectful. And the president disputed their claim that he was practicing the politics of division.
“You can call this class warfare all you want,” Mr. Obama said of his call to create a more even economic playing field. “Most Americans would call that common sense.” He characterized the choice as one between whether “a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by” or his own vision — “where everyone gets a fair shot.”
In returning to his 2008 campaign motif of these being “not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values,” Mr. Obama presented a somewhat modest list of initiatives he could enact through executive authority coupled with more ambitious proposals unlikely to advance in Congress. It was an address meant to show a president still interested in governing and a leader putting the interests of the American middle class at the top of his agenda.
Many of his proposals centered on changes to the tax code, including limiting deductions for companies that move jobs overseas, rewarding companies that return jobs to the United States and increasing taxes on wealthy Americans.
Taking aim at financial institutions that engaged in risky lending practices that many believe tipped the country into financial crisis, Mr. Obama said he was asking Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and state attorneys general to expand investigations into abusive lending. The new unit, he said, “will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.”
Mr. Obama also proposed a new trade enforcement unit that would add to the number of government investigators pursuing unfair trade practices and that would be responsible for filing lawsuits against foreign countries, namely China. He called for new legislation to make it easier for Americans to refinance their homes if their interest rates are above market rates. And he proposed a bound-to-be-contentious way to allocate any savings from ending the war in Iraq and winding down the war in Afghanistan: by using half of the war savings on infrastructure projects and the other half to reduce the deficit.
“We will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt and phony financial profits,” Mr. Obama said. Though his advisers have vowed a campaign against Congress, he expressed a willingness to “work with anyone in this chamber” and said he would “oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place.”
In an emotional moment, Representative Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat who was wounded in the Tucson shooting last year, returned for the speech before her imminent resignation from the House to concentrate on her recovery. Although the president is often criticized for his aloofness, he embraced Ms. Giffords for a long 10 seconds, rocking and almost seeming to be dancing with her.
Mr. Obama again proposed changes to the tax code so the wealthy pay more, a position he has indicated he will continue to press in this election year against Republican opposition. He called for Congress to put into place his “Buffett Rule” — named after the Berkshire Hathaway chairman Warren E. Buffett — whereby people making more than $1 million a year would pay a minimum effective tax rate of at least 30 percent in income taxes.
To illustrate his point, he provocatively used Mr. Buffett’s secretary, Debbie Bosanek, as one of his props, seating Ms. Bosanek — whose effective tax rate is higher than Mr. Buffett’s, he has said — in the chamber with the first lady, Michelle Obama.
Mr. Obama’s income tax proposal on Tuesday night was particularly charged, coming as it did less than 24 hours after Mitt Romney, a Republican presidential candidate, released tax returns showing that he and his wife, Ann, had an effective federal income tax rate in 2010 of 13.9 percent and an income ranking among the top one-10th of 1 percent of all taxpayers in 2010.
Mr. Obama would like the new tax to replace the alternative minimum tax, which was created decades ago to make sure that the richest taxpayers with plentiful deductions and credits did not avoid income taxes, but which now affects millions of Americans who are considered upper middle class.
An upbeat Mr. Obama delivered his remarks standing in the chamber of the House of Representatives, an arena ruled by his political adversaries, given the Republican majority that the president and fellow Democrats have criticized as blocking much of the White House agenda.
But in the official Republican response to the address, Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana said it had been Congressional Republicans who had acted to improve the economy, only to be thwarted by the president.
“The president did not cause the economic and fiscal crisis that continue in America tonight,” Mr. Daniels said. “But he was elected on a promise to fix them, and he cannot claim that the last three years have made things anything but worse.”
While he was addressing Congress and assembled dignitaries, Mr. Obama was trying to reach the far greater national television audience of American voters, and his speech, while deep in policy initiatives, served in many ways as a prime-time kickoff of his re-election campaign.
In fact, most of the first lady’s guests on Tuesday night came from states that figure heavily in Mr. Obama’s re-election plans. Included were North Carolina, from where Mr. Obama selected both a worker and an employer, to demonstrate the benefits of public-private partnerships, and Florida, from where he chose a homeowner who was able to keep her house thanks to Mr. Obama’s housing refinance program.
Mr. Obama said a major part of his agenda would be the expansion of domestic energy supplies, both from traditional fuels like oil and natural gas and from cleaner sources like wind and the sun. He singled out the rapid growth of domestic natural gas production through the technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which the government says has unlocked a 100-year supply that now makes the United States the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.
Reflecting the heavy emphasis on the economy in an election year, the president’s speech was relatively short on national security, where most political observers and indeed his own aides believe his performance has been much stronger than on the economy. In fact, Mr. Obama ended his speech with the American assault last year that finally, after 10 years, killed Osama bin Laden, and talked of that fateful day last May when he monitored the attack from the White House.
He called on the country to emulate the unity of the Navy Seal team that conducted the raid. “When you’re marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you,” the president said, “or the mission fails.”
I watched some of obamas speech before congress, what I came away from it is he was mostly scolding the congress, I will not vote for obama relection, but with that said I still have not changed my position the only republican I still has a chance to beat obama is romney, I certainly do not think newt can beat obama.
rongrand:
The pot calling the kettle…………..
Laura-
Reply: Mitt had virtually no regular Income. Almost all of his income was from Investments comprising capital gains. 50% of 0=0. I don’t know what you do in life but I can say without fear of contradiction. A TAX LAWYER, YOU ARE NOT.
No, he paid somewhere between 13.5% and 50%.
It’s called basic math. Check into it.
Yes.
But then, economically speaking, this guy has always been a fascist.
What she is saying, Stanley, is that investment capital is what is available to play with after earned income is taxed.
If that after-tax, earned income is then invested — and, in turn, also generates income — then it’s taxed AGAIN.
Thus it has been taxed twice.
The so-called Patriot Act was composed BEFORE 911. Some say that it was well before 911, that it was going to be on the cutting edge of effecting tighter controls over many activities normally called “freedom”. I don’t understand how so called informed people can omit calling Obama the most dangerous man on Earth. He’s rapidly destroying this country, making a total mockery of the “legal” system. Nothing good will accrue from having this individual as president. He is capable of knifing anyone in the back with a smile on his face.
Stanley, what don’t you understand.
Laura just explained to you, are you dense? Or maybe your a Obama fan, good grief.
Come again!!!!!!!!!!
Mitt paid his taxes on his regular income and then paid 13.6% on his investment income. His overall taxes amounted to 50% not 13%.
It’s obvious you don’t read my comments. 🙁
It’s obvious you don’t read my comments. 😛
On the Edge with Max Keiser
Clearly the president is running a class warfare campaign.
30% is far too much as it is. Yet Obama thinks that should be the MINIMUM amount. What should be the maximum amount? 100%? Who is to determine that one has made enough money and should give the rest away? Why should someone be punished for accumulating hard earned wealth?
Again, so what? How much has he paid in state and local taxes? It doesn’t say. What has Romney done wrong by becoming successful? Why should someone be punished with a higher tax rate just because they make more? Why not have a flat tax?
Most political observers believe this? Perhaps the observers writing for the NY slimes believe Obama’s performance on national security has been strong.
Nice catch Yamit and excellent article by Lemon Lime Moon. “Never let a crisis go to waste”. Indeed – its both sides of the aisle against those that are governed.
Defense Bill: The End of the Bill of Rights
Lemon Lime Moon Blog
We are watching the death of the United States of America, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights from a front row seat.
I think we will see things get far worse before this is all over.
The National Defense Authorization Bill passed last night and now moves on to President Obama’s desk for signing.
Mr. Obama had refused to sign it if it did not contain the ability for his office to declare US citizens enemies of the state and remove their rights and detain and torture them at will without lawyer, without recourse, without due process. Without all the rights guaranteed to you in the bill of rights.
It passed last night under the $662 Billion dollar defense budget bill.
I listened to Republican after Republican using flagrant emotional and sniffling rhetoric about the military in order to pass a bill that basically removes the rights of any American they wish. Under the cover of this bill is the power for the President of the United States to arrest and hold indefinitely and torture any American citizen he deems to be a threat . If the big boys decide you are a ‘terrorist’ and remember, this is the same government that can’t run a post office or anything else correctly, you will be gone. Without a lawyer you will be hard pressed to prove yourself not guilty as they will decide you are guilty without trial. No more innocent until proven guilty.
What can you be arrested and held forever for? Ammunition, weapons, storing food, having a bad opinion of the President or Congress, taking part in demonstrations, criticizing the government, the list goes on and is not limited to these things.
The definition of your crime is up to the President and the military exclusively.
Do you realize how dangerous this is? Americans will think twice now about saying anything about how the government works as their freedom is now gone.
By the way, if you listen to them vote they are constantly asking to pass something despite not having a quorum. They really do not value the law at all.
Obama stated in his inaugural that we should “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” He has done the very opposite.
He didn’t close Guantanamo, as he should have, he is instead making it permanent and more draconian for all Americans.
But this has been in the works for years , certainly long before 9 11:
“After 9/11 the government drew up the Patriot Act within 20 days and it was passed.
The Patriot Act is huge and I remember someone asking a Justice Department official how did they write such a large statute so quickly, and of course the answer was that it has been sitting in the drawers of the Justice Department for the last 20 years waiting for the event where they would pull it out.” Richard Clarke, Counter Terrorism Czar.
Bank Holiday coming in 212
How to Destroy America
a speech by Colorado’s former governor Richard Lamm.
This is a verified and true account, a real speech and far too important not to run as often as possible.
Dylan Ratigan, Mad as Hell: His Epic “Network” Moment
My comment in response to your comment is in moderation.
Ted I suggest you learn something in that both parties and all of the candidates including Obama are part of the problem and not a solution.:
I seriously encourage everyone to watch or read this interview:
David Stockman on Mitt, Newt and Crony Capitalism
January 23, 2012
Here’s the segment, and the full transcript is below:
In the end it’s the American people who are getting screwed by both parties and their leaders. Gingrich is starting to adopt much of Ron Paul’s criticisms of the FED and the banks/ Wall St. which is smart. He may be guilty of crony capitalism but on a very limited and small scale. Romney will be a disaster in a general election. Just watch the clip and imagine what Obama will do with it.
The choice is not between Obama who is a capitalist of the British labour party variety and the republicans who are capitalists of the Tory variety.
By calling Obama socialist you tend to perpetuate a Big Lie. It is a total insult to intelligence of readers.
The essence of Obama’s “socialism” is to dole out huge amounts of money to artificially create jobs etc, and remember this is money which he does not have, he borrows. it is capitalism of the Keynsian type. But the Austrian school have no answers either.
That is what Brown did. That is what Zapatero did.
But in Spain Rajoy finds that he as a Tory (PP) and equivalent of Gingrich neither has any solution to the deepening crisis in capitalism.
Neither Gingrich not Obama have any solution to the crisis because the capitalist system as a whole is unfixable.
Correction: In the hands of capitalism nothing is ever totally impossible. They will try to fix it through dictatorship over labour costs which IS Fascism.
Jews then get caught in Fascist ideology and the use by Fascism of antisemitism.
The proper Republican response is to say “Look where those policies got us in the first four years.”