Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Wall Street Journal explains Obama's 20 page second term agenda; Doing the "okey doke"
Topic Started: Oct 24 2012, 12:47 PM (166 Views)
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
A stinging rebuke just two weeks from the election. Most of the issues have been raised on this board in the past. Yep, okey doke it is Mr. President.





Wall Street Journal

A Second First Term
Meet Obama's new agenda, same as the old agenda, only less.



Barack Obama won the Presidency in 2008 as the anti-George W. Bush and in 2012 he's been trying to win again as the anti-Mitt Romney, without elaborating much of a second-term agenda. Two weeks before Election Day, we now know why. His new ambitions look a lot like his old ambitions, except stuck on repeat.

On Tuesday Mr. Obama finally tried to give the future more definition with a new plan, except it isn't new and barely qualifies as a plan. "I've laid out a plan for jobs and middle-class security," he claimed in Delray Beach, Florida, brandishing a 20-page brochure titled "A Plan for Jobs and Middle-Class Security" and going on to invoke his "plan" another dozen-odd times. "I won't be running the okey doke on you," he added.

Voters may okey doke themselves if they believe this document, which is heavy on backward-looking and discredited factoids and light on economic specifics. For example, Mr. Obama wants to spend money to hire 100,000 math and science teachers for public schools. Isn't that what happened in 2009? And didn't his own Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, say that class size barely matters to education outcomes?

The President says he'll use community colleges to train another two million workers "for good jobs that actually exist," perhaps to distinguish these from the jobs he said the 2009 stimulus would create but actually didn't. And he says he'll create a million new manufacturing jobs by 2016 via a new temporary tax credit for U.S. companies that expand domestic hiring.

All of this is merely a kind of Junior Achievement version of the stimulus, trying to create jobs with more government spending that isn't affordable, or temporary tax favors that fail because they are, well, temporary. Businesses hire based on total employee costs, not one-off tax benefits. Since 2009 the country has lost 610,000 net manufacturing jobs, despite such preferences.

The only thing close to a real new idea is Mr. Obama's pose as Cheerleader in Chief for oil and natural gas production. But what's new is Mr. Obama's support, not the production, which he has had nothing to do with. He's now climbed aboard the caboose of this train because he can see that it's been a winning issue for Mr. Romney.

He's doing so even though the single biggest risk to this expanded production is his own Environmental Protection Agency, which is desperate to regulate fracking at the national level. States do the job now, and for the most part very well, but Mr. Obama won't say if he'd stop the EPA in a second term. Want to bet a billion-dollar chemical plant on that?

He also says he'll open up millions of acres for development, but his booklet includes far more discussion of a mandate for 80% of U.S. electricity to come from "clean" energy sources by 2035. Such a renewable portfolio standard, as it's called, would limit demand for the very oil-and-gas surge he wants to take credit for.

Mr. Obama's pamphlet doesn't have the heart to mention immigration reform, perhaps because the President knows he has poisoned the political well and any plan is probably dead on arrival. His rhetorical attacks and lawsuits against Arizona and this summer's executive-order fiat on young illegal immigrants (a policy we support as legislation) have ensured GOP hostility.

Perhaps you've heard that the President wants to raise taxes on the top 2% of U.S. taxpayers. If you haven't, well, the pamphlet mentions that once or twice. Left unsaid is that this plan increases revenue only between $50 billion and $80 billion a year, a rounding error in the $1 trillion-plus deficit era. Mr. Obama does claim to have a plan to reduce the gap by $4 trillion over the next decade. Mostly this comes from unwinding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are already being unwound and assorted budget gimmicks.

But what about a grand budget bargain? Won't that be Mr. Obama's crowning second-term achievement? The pamphlet's sections on health care and entitlements show that his real budget priority is to preserve all of the government he expanded in the first term.

He promises to protect the Affordable Care Act from repeal or Republican amendments. He also says he'll "protect retirement security" by opposing "efforts to gamble Social Security in the stock market"—which no one is proposing—and "stop proposals to turn Medicare into a voucher system." Having thus stopped serious entitlement reform, he'll be left to fiddle around the edges with the usual cuts to providers or reducing benefits for seniors he thinks are "rich."

Mr. Obama's real agenda is to lock in the historic spending levels of 24% or 25% that he achieved in his first term, with ObamaCare spending set to grow by leaps and bounds after he's left office. Taxes and spending are already set to rise unless Congress acts to stop it, and the President won't let House Republicans do that.

One of Mr. Romney's most effective arguments is that Mr. Obama's second term will reprise his first. The President's new-old pamphlet with new-old ideas proves Mr. Romney's point. The guy is tapped out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat, give me a break...

Just how gullible are you?

The Wall Street Journal is just another of Rupert Murdoch's fact-free propaganda machines, along with FOX and dozens of other rags around the world.

This particular piece of trash is 100% devoid of any links to any facts, typical of all these bits from the Right Wing Echo chamber.

Look at this example:
Quote:
 
Mr. Obama's real agenda is to lock in the historic spending levels of 24% or 25% that he achieved in his first term,
Total BS, without a single piece of supoorting evidence.

You have let your ideology short circuit any critical faculties you ever had.
Edited by Brewster, Oct 24 2012, 01:05 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
And good morning to you too Brew. You will be receiving the dry cleaning bill in a week or so, The humor in your last post resulted in my laughing so hard I knocked my coffee over and some is on my new shirt.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Yup, the Wall Street Journal's editorial integrity went right into the crapper when Murdoch bought the paper. He has done the same with his news outlets in GB, attempting sometimes successfully to sway elections and then garnering favors from those he helped elect. The phone hacking scandal though revealed a lot of what was going on. Murdoch IMO should be banned from owning any sort of news outlet.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
:cry:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Poor Nuet, Murdoch has played him for a fool. But, in Murdoch's defense he was a willing candidate. :teeth:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I'm not whining like a wimp, you are.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I don't think Murdoch has ever been directly linked to the shenanigans Tom. Do you have info that supports your allegations?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis