Obama promises up a storm, but haven't we heard all this before?
E. Thomas McClanahanPresident Obama’s big speech Thursday night had an odd feel. At times, he sounded as if he were running for his first term, not his second. Out flowed the sort of rhetoric you’d expect from someone fresh and new, offering, yeah, hope and change.
But there wasn’t much change on offer here. We heard the usual bashing of millionaires and oil companies, while at the same time he bragged that America’s oil imports had gone down. Sorry, but you can’t attribute that to the tooth-fairy energy policy that drives this president.
He served up the same tired blather about “investing” in wind and solar and clean coal. If past is prologue, this means more taxpayer-backed loans to bankrupt solar-panel and battery makers.
He offered the now-familiar bloated promises: a million manufacturing jobs, a 50 percent cut in oil imports by 2020, a 50 percent cut in the growth rate of college tuition over 10 years, 100,000 math and science teachers over the next decade…
Oh yeah, he would reduce the deficit. Remember when he was going to comb through it line by line? The budgets he actually produced were laughed out of the Senate, which is controlled by his own party.
Much of Thursday’s speech was recycled from 2008. Back then, he also promised to recruit “an army” of new teachers, cut the deficit and end U.S. dependence on Middle East oil.
Thursday night, he promised to “reform and strengthen Medicare” but under his policy, Medicare’s growth will be cut by more than $700 billion to help fund Obamacare. He said he’d strengthen Social Security, but didn’t say how.
A key admission came early on, when he said “Our problems can be solved. Our challenges can be met” — an acknowledgement that he has not solved them or met them. In large part that’s because he has recoiled from the tough choices.
A real laugher came when he said, “Now, I’m still eager to reach an agreement based on the principles of my bipartisan debt commission.” He had his chance and missed it. The moment and the opportunity were there.
Two key members of that panel from opposite ends of the spectrum, Sens. Dick Durbin and Tom Coburn, endorsed the concept of carving out deductions and lowering the top marginal tax rate. The plan would not have been revenue neutral; it would have brought in more money for the Treasury. It would also have been a true compromise, of the sort Obama praises in rhetorical gesture but is reluctant to approve in reality.
Mark Hastert
8 months, 2 weeks agoWe hear a lot of promises repeated e.g. Tax cuts create jobs. That one’s been knocking around since 1980 and there are still people foolish enough to buy it but the arithmatic doesn’t work…..Markets are self regulating so we don’t need oversight. Why yes they are if you don’t mind losing your IRA, 401k and home every few years when the market “regulates” itself.
Kent Mueller
8 months, 2 weeks agoMark, is truly tiresome is how your repeatedly make misstatements. The Republicans do not say that no oversight is needed. I know you like to say that, even though it’s not true. It’s a Democrat talking point that you all have memorized. It’s called reasonable oversight.
Can you tell me why the Democrats did not reinstate Glass-Steagall? The Democrats passed over 2,000 pages of financial reform when they had the WH and majorities in both houses. No Democrat has ever told me why they didn’t reinstate Glass-Steagall. Would you tell me?
Who lost their IRA or their 401k? No one did, unless of course they were so greedy to be in ridiculously risky investments.
Steve Alleman
Kansas City
8 months, 2 weeks agoHaven’t we heard No from the Party of No before?
Mark Hastert
8 months, 2 weeks agoUmmm— Er…..
The Greenspan Doctrine – a view that modern, technologically advanced financial markets are best left to police themselves. “All of the sophisticated mathematics and computer wizardry essentially rested on one central premise: that enlightened self interest of owners and managers of financial institutions would lead them to maintain a sufficient buffer against insolvency by actively monitoring and managing their firms’ capital and risk positions,”
Greenspan and radical free marketeers see a market unfettered by any oversight.
Mr Greenspan has had to eat that crow since 2007.
The fact is that the opponents of regulation (both Pubs and Dems) respond to any regulation is the same consistent knee jerk manner; it restricts growth, it’s a “job killer”, it stifles innovation, the underlying premise being; we’re big boys let us do what ever we want.
Well we did and here we are.
“Who lost their IRA or their 401k?: I know retiress that have significant losses in their retirement income, some have had to go back to work, others have lost their homes. Maybe they didn’t lose the whole bundle but enough to hurt them badly. I’m sure you’d agree that for a retiree a drop of 20-40% in your asset and a 1% interest on deposits will tarnish their golden years. Their only constant is their Social Security and Medicare and thank God for that.
Steven Fetter
66223
8 months, 2 weeks agoI’ll take my chances in self-investing over a government promise any day. If you truly believe in the government, buy US bonds.
Our elected officials feel the same way. They are not in SS and have options on how to invest their funds in their retirement account.
Perhaps Rev Cleaver may wish he was in SS.
Kent Mueller
8 months, 2 weeks agoMark, tell me again how a retiree is down 40% while being prudent with their retirement account? I’m not saying it has been a bed or roses, because of course it hasn’t been. But this crying over devastated retirement accounts is a ruse for more regulation.
You also take great liberties to talk out of both sides of the investor’s mouth. You mention losses that most likely are associated with substantial allocations in equities, and risky ones at that, but then you refer to 1% interest. That level of interest is associated with FDIC deposits and short term government bonds, neither of which have provided the losses you mentioned.