Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Would Obama's second term be any different?

hanselthecaretaker

High End Bro
Platinum
A new Wall St. Journal article doesn't seem to think so.


October 24, 2012, 7:11 p.m. ET
The President Sends His Non-Regrets

A revealing interview about his priorities in 2009—and 2013.

President Obama doesn't give many interviews these days outside Comedy Central, so it caused a stir Wednesday when editors at the Des Moines Register managed to pin him down and even elicit some news. Specifically, Mr. Obama said he wants to pursue immigration reform in a second term, as well as a budget "grand bargain" with Republicans that includes tax reform.

This will come as a surprise to voters reading the President's just-released 20-page brochure on his second-term agenda, which makes little or no mention of these priorities. Perhaps that's why the White House first demanded that the interview be off the record, making the transcript public only after the Register editor objected in a public blog post.

But the larger reason to be skeptical concerns Mr. Obama's answer to another Register question: Whether he regrets pursuing ObamaCare and other liberal social priorities in his first two years rather than focusing on the economy.

"Absolutely not," Mr. Obama told the Iowa journalists. "Remember the context. First of all, Mitch McConnell has imposed an ironclad filibuster from the first day I was in office. And that's not speculation."

Whoaaaa there, big fella. Mr. McConnell was then and still is the Senate Minority Leader, and in 2009 he had all of 40 votes. Mr. Obama could have pursued any agenda he wanted, and the Des Moines editors wanted to know why he didn't focus on the economy first. Yet Mr. Obama's instinctive reaction is to blame Republican obstructionism that never happened.

In those first days of progressive wine and roses, Mr. Obama managed to peel off three Republican votes for his stimulus blowout in February 2009. He got five Republicans for the trial-bar gift known as the Lilly Ledbetter bill and nine for an expansion of the state children's health program, both in January. That was some ferocious filibuster.

By spring 2009, when Minnesota's Al Franken was seated, the White House had 60 votes and a GOP-only filibuster wasn't even possible. "We have the votes. F-- 'em," declared then-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, according to the first-100-days chapters of Bob Woodward's new book.

The President is also missing the larger import of the Register's question. As Mr. Obama likes to remind voters now, in 2009 the economy had suffered a financial heart attack and needed to be nurtured back to health. That required careful management and attention to reviving consumer and business confidence.

Yet rather than work with both parties to fashion a growth agenda, he went all-in for a Keynesian spending blowout and subcontracted the details to House Democrats. And rather than wait to see how strongly—and even whether—the economy then recovered, he dove headlong into fighting to pass 40 years of pent-up liberal social policy.

It wasn't merely ObamaCare. The President also tried to impose a cap-and-tax on carbon energy production, end secret ballots for unions via card check, while promising to raise taxes in 2011 until he was stopped when voters elected a GOP House in 2010.

Mr. Obama likes to say he inherited "the most severe economic emergency we've had since the Great Depression," but then he claims that it didn't matter that he staged a two-year fight to remake one-sixth of the economy and threatened to remake another four-sixths.

If recessions following financial crises really are worse than normal, as the President also told the Iowa editors, then why didn't he take special care to postpone legislation that would add new costs to business, undermine confidence and thus weaken the recovery?

Mr. Obama didn't really answer the Register's question, so we will. He didn't focus on the economy because he didn't and still doesn't understand how the private economy works. He doesn't understand that incentives matter, or how government policies and regulation can sabotage growth. He really believes that government is the engine of economic prosperity.

Anyone who thinks the second term will be different should consult Mr. Emanuel's incisive counsel above.

A version of this article appeared October 25, 2012, on page A16 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The President Sends His Non-Regrets.


Review & Outlook: The President Sends His Non-Regrets - WSJ.com



jbeATxn44N0WGG.jpeg


jBGZ0r12q8qoT.jpeg


jHuxcc5jHo6K0.jpeg


jQJkIiXstNhCB.jpeg


jJmfYwZCIeegd.jpeg


jbyUA0oY5Sw0s9.jpeg


jb2vZRTIbOiIdd.jpeg


jbzjD3h8Bm6oXr.jpeg


j0uMX82kcKs21.jpeg


jbvVQ1M2js0VXV.jpeg

jbi9VPAUY5q0fA.jpeg


jbfDKhFTsE9JHP.jpeg


jx0ictnJ12OyE.jpeg


jo6xPcUiBqGF3.jpeg


jUI1NXWAgS2i7.jpeg
 
He will ramp up all the shit hes already done by a larger factor because he has no more elections to worry about.
Just like every other politician.
 
It will be about as different as Bush's second.
 
He will ramp up all the shit hes already done by a larger factor because he has no more elections to worry about.
Just like every other politician.

I completely agree with this. If Obama wins you will see him surrender America's sovereignty to Internationalism through the UN. You will also see congress become ornamental. Obama already often bypasses congressional authority by issuing executive orders.
 
I completely agree with this. If Obama wins you will see him surrender America's sovereignty to Internationalism through the UN. You will also see congress become ornamental. Obama already often bypasses congressional authority by issuing executive orders.

one of primary reasons he needs to be impeached and jailed..
 
one of primary reasons he needs to be impeached and jailed..

He's now engaged in 3 wars without congressional approval: Egypt, Libya, and now Syria, His Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, told congress that the US military now takes marching orders from NATO and The UN.

 
hope and change
forward
yes we can
you guys are racist
romenisa
big bird
binders
bayonets and horses
!!
 
Then why the fk would we reelect nobrains nobama?

The issue with Romney is his thoughts on abortion..etc.
Not trying to get into a debate on that, but the ultimate focus needs to be on economy. I really think if he didn't take certain stances on those issues, he would be a clear winner. But at end of day, ppl still care about social issues as well as economical.
I hope to god we stop having bond buying by the govt n printing this cheap money. No QE4.
You also look at GDP growth n you will see, the 2. Growth is in large part due to govt spending- this quarter, they spent 12% more on defense contracting than previous numbers. Of you take that out, that GDP number is of course going to be more like 1.7%

This GDP number also comes just before election n ppl who don't know better and vote have the false idea that GDP is improving.
Same with unemployment but that's a whole other topic
 
He's now engaged in 3 wars without congressional approval: Egypt, Libya, and now Syria, His Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, told congress that the US military now takes marching orders from NATO and The UN.



Amazing how stuff like this goes untouched during the debates. Proof that our whole electoral process is just a rigged POS.
 
we're not technically at war so no need for approval anyway. I wouldn't call it a war. Many presidents have done similar things.

Sent from my DROID3 using EliteFitness
 
Holy shit. All those pics in the first post made my DAY. Like the all-stars for modern political joke pics. Amazing.

Hopefully people who fucked up and voted for him the first time have woken the hell up and will do what's necessary to get this country back on track.. The opposite will happen if he's given power again.
 
here's what's gonna change if Romney wins. Obamacare will be repealed and all that money that we're not spending on healthcare will instead be devoted to propping up the defense industry for another decade long surge of bloated military industrial complex making shit no one will ever fire. The world still can't beat our Los Angeles class subs, which were commissioned in like the 70's or 80's.....but we're in "desperate" need to build dozens more of the newest model that the pentagon doesn't even remotely feel is necessary. Our current sub fleet could sail undetected into the middle of any of the worlds maritime fleets, surface...have a couple mexicans trumpeters get out on the sail bridge and play a tune.......then submerge and pwn the whole fleet.

So while i'm all for lowering the govt's budget, if all we're gonna do is spend the same amount of cash just in different places....i'll stick with the democrats cause at least some poor people will get help somewhere. Yeah it shouldn't be done that way but it's better than the other side. What we really needed to have done was elect Ron Paul....you wanna talk about fixing our monetary policy? Have either of the two assclowns running for president talked about that? No, because their parties are positioned nicely under the spigots of our credit system. The Fed runs independant of the govt and that's something that has to stop. The president "supposedly" picks the Fed chief....it's likely more he's told who to appoint. But after that the Chief is off the plantation, he shows up infront of congress to explain himself as a gesture of good will. Congress can actually not do shit to him. Watch youtube videos' of Ron Paul working Bernanke over.....but for all the sense he makes in those exchanges, it's all for nothing. Bernanke just sits there and smirks....let the little congressman have his say i'll be out of here in an hour.
 
Top Bottom