Wednesday, April 04, 2012

I think they take their responsibilities very seriously

Obama gave a speech yesterday to the Associated Press Luncheon.

BOY, THAT GUY’LL BE KIND OF FUCKED, WILL HE? HATE TO BE THAT GUY. “Whoever he may be, the next president will inherit an economy that is recovering, but not yet recovered, from the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression.”

“TOO MANY,” HE SAYS, BUT HE NEVER TELLS US HOW MANY IS JUST THE RIGHT NUMBER: “Too many Americans will still be looking for a job that pays enough to cover their bills or their mortgage. Too many citizens will still lack the sort of financial security that started slipping away years before this recession hit.”

AND LET’S FACE IT, WE DON’T MAKE ANYTHING IN THIS COUNTRY ANY MORE: “I believe this is a make-or-break moment for the middle class”.

ALSO, TRYING TO IMPRESS CHICKS: “I believe deeply that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history.”

RUPERT MURDOCH? “Show me a business leader who wouldn’t profit if more Americans could afford to get the skills and education that today’s jobs require.”

THE ENTIRE ECONOMY? WHAT ABOUT THE CAR ELEVATOR BUSINESS? “What drags down our entire economy is when there’s an ever-widening chasm between the ultra-rich and everybody else.”

He says the “trickle down theory” has been tried and failed, and that Paul Ryan’s budget (he never mentioned Ryan by name) is “so far to the right it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal.” He notes that Romney (he does invoke the Mittster’s name) called the Ryan budget “marvelous.” He calls it “a Trojan Horse” and “thinly veiled social Darwinism.” So it’s social Darwinism in a wooden horse which is wearing a veil.

OBAMA WANTS TO BE JUST LIKE REAGAN, IF ONLY THE REPUBLICANS WOULD LET HIM: “Ronald Reagan, who, as I recall, is not accused of being a tax-and-spend socialist, understood repeatedly that when the deficit started to get out of control, that for him to make a deal he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases. Did it multiple times. He could not get through a Republican primary today.” The deficit didn’t “get out of control,” Reagan and the Republicans cut taxes drastically on the rich, then pretended to be shocked at the increase in the deficit.

NOTE HOW HE ZOOMS RIGHT IN ON THE IMPORTANT THING ABOUT “SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO ENTITLEMENT”: THE EFFECT ON DEMOCRATS’ POLITICAL INTERESTS. “I’ve got some of the most liberal Democrats in Congress who were prepared to make significant changes to entitlements that go against their political interests, and who said they were willing to do it. And we couldn’t get a Republican to stand up and say, we’ll raise some revenue, or even to suggest that we won’t give more tax cuts to people who don’t need them.”

He goes on to point out that all of his current positions are the past positions of Republicans: cap & trade, mandatory insurance, etc.

I DIDN’T LEAVE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY LEFT ME: “So as all of you are doing your reporting, I think it’s important to remember that the positions I’m taking now on the budget and a host of other issues, if we had been having this discussion 20 years ago, or even 15 years ago, would have been considered squarely centrist positions. What’s changed is the center of the Republican Party.” Although to be fair I don’t think they’d have liked the idea of a black president back then either.

WILLING? WE ARE TOTALLY SCREWED. “And that’s part of what this election and what this debate will need to be about, is, are we, as a country, willing to get back to common-sense, balanced, fair solutions that encourage our long-term economic growth and stabilize our budget.”

SO TOTALLY, TOTALLY SCREWED: “So I don’t anticipate the Court striking [health care reform] down. I think they take their responsibilities very seriously.”

1 comment:

  1. The Republican party left Obama! That's perfect.

    The man is a stone cold deceiver. He's like a date raper trying to talk you into removing your pants. Obama's positions would not have been "centrist" decades ago. These were the right-wing positions even decades ago.

    Cutting Social Security and Medicare to pay for tax cuts for the rich is centrist? For-profit, insurance-based, medical care, where pharmaceutical and insurance cartels enjoy extra-legal protection and a government mandate to purchase their defective products? This is "centrist"?

    No, try fascist, you lying punk.

    We face no discernible threat but have to expand the military, both secret and overt, to insane levels? We are waging war after war without declaration of war or other legal basis. This is clearly fascist, not centrist.

    Obama is also expanding the war against Americans at home by expanding the police state--a fascist force that imprisons the most people on earth, mostly poor people and black and brown men.

    Obama is an evil fascist that will have more blood on his fangs than even Bush did. Not that it's a contest--they are both war criminals and fascists--it's only a matter of differing style and magnitude.