The National Interest: Daniel McCarthy: 'The Ugly Truth of Barack Obama’s Last-Gasp Liberalism'

The National Interest: Opinion: Daniel McCarthy- The Ugly Truth of Barack Obama’s Last-Gasp Liberalism

I feel a little strange commenting on the Obama presidency and it’s impact on America and the rest of the world when it still has a about a year left in it. There are several president’s who’ve accomplished a lot for good in bad in their last year in office. President George W. Bush for example had to deal with the collapse of Wall Street and the banking system in his last year as president. But with Daniel McCarthy essentially arguing that liberalism American and otherwise is dead, I sort of feel the need to weigh in on this. Since again we still have a Center-Left president who is a Liberal, or Progressive, even if he’s a moderate one when it comes to civil liberties and freedom of choice issues.

When Barack Obama came to office, the American economy was literally collapsing. He inherited a budget deficit of over a trillion-dollars and a national debt that rose seven-trillion in the previous eight years and was a eleven-trillion when he took office. Plus the Great Recession just added to that with an economy shrinking at seven-percent and we were losing seven-hundred-thousand jobs in each of the last two months of the Bush Administration. Which adds to the unemployment rolls which adds to the deficit and debt with so many people who previously had middle-income and better jobs now receiving Unemployment Insurance from the Federal Government.

President Obama, had a lot to deal with in his first days as president, plus weeks and months. Like passing a Federal budget and the appropriations bills that the previous Congress and President Bush failed to pass. He had to get a stimulus bill through Congress to get the economy to stop dropping and buy it time to start recovering again. Which is what happened by the summer of 2009. America started creating jobs again by the spring of 2010. The President had forty-five-million Americans without health insurance and lot of those people simply couldn’t afford it. All of this on top of an economy that was falling. Which were the reasons for the auto bailouts, the American Recovery Act, the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform. All of this legislation in his first two-years as president.

And that is before you get to the President inheriting two wars in the Middle East. With no clear end to when either one would be over and the hundreds of billions of dollars that was borrowed from other countries to pay for those wars. Seven years later is America perfect and is every problem that the President inherited completely solved with nothing left for the future president to have to deal with? Of course not, but that is not how you judge presidencies. You judge them by the State of The Union from which the president inherited to how it was when they left office. Wages aren’t as high as we would like them and the size of the American workforce isn’t as large as it was in 2008. But the economy is no longer falling. The deficit is now 1/3 of what it use to be at around four-hundred-billion dollars. In April we will have seen six straight years of job growth and by the summer seven straight years of economic growth. More Americans now have health insurance than before.

I’ve always seen Barack Obama as a progressive pragmatist. Not as a Socialist, which the Tea Party loves to throw at him, especially the Birthers. Or a Neoconservative/Moderate Republican that actual Socialists like the Noam Chomsky’s of the world see him as. I see the President as Progressive who has big progressive goals and values, but won’t fight to the death for them and come up empty. So of course he’s not Bernie Sanders. He’s someone who goes issue by issue and looks for the best solution to each issue and then looks for the best solution possible. He had a Democratic Congress for his first two years and a divided Congress with a Republican House and Democratic Senate for the next four. And his last two years he’ll have a Republican Congress. So of course he’s had to compromise even with his own party in Congress a lot.

America really at least since the 1960s with the Cultural Revolution and then add the Reagan Revolution of the late 1970s and early 1980s, has always been as Barry Goldwater like to say a big government out of our wallets, bedrooms, boardrooms and classrooms country. Which is why both Center-Left Liberal Democrats (the real Liberals) like Jack Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and yes Barack Obama, have done pretty well politically in this country. And why Center-Right Conservatives (the real Conservatives) like Barry Goldwater, Ron Reagan, George H.W. Bush and you could add Dick Nixon as well, have done well in America as well. Because they’ve tended to know where the people are and share their values and what they can accomplish politically as president. Senator Goldwater, was obviously never president, but he fitted in well with the Center-Right.

Liberalism, is not dead. Assuming Hillary Clinton is the next Democratic nominee for president and she becomes president, whether she governs as a Liberal or a Progressive, she’ll try to move the country forward from the Center-Left. And if she does that she’ll pretty successful politically. As long as she knows where she wants to go and can avoid big government and political scandals and handles issues competently. So in this universe as long as Liberals are actually that and don’t try to govern, or win office as Socialists and even Democratic Socialists, Liberals as long as they stay as who they are and stay in the Center-Left as people who believe in both personal and economic freedom and creating a society where everyone can succeed and use a limited government to help create that, they’ll do very well politically. Which is the politics that Barack Obama has always represented.

The New York Times: President Obama's- '2016 State of The Union Speech'

Source:The New York Times- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois)

"The president delivers his final State of the Union address on Tuesday, perhaps the last opportunity of his presidency to frame the 2016 election." 

From The New York Times 

I believe President Obama, gave one of his best speeches tonight. Because it wasn't a laundry list of issues that he wanted Congress to address and pass bills on. But instead he focused on issues where there's actually bipartisan support in Congress. 

The President talked about criminal justice reform, mental health improvement, addressing poverty (to use as examples) while at the same time laying out the differences between Democrats and Republicans, like gun control (to use as an example) the Affordable Care Act would be another, defeating ISIS, and giving Americans an opportunity to decide for themselves who has the better approach on the issues where Democrats and Republican disagree in 2016 to decide who should be in power next year. Who the next president should be and who should control the House and Senate.

A lot of what President Obama wanted to accomplish he already has and did it in the first two years as president. Dealing with the Great Recession, Wall Street reform, small business tax relief. And the next two years which were about the reelection and foreign policy he was able to address those issues without having to get much input from a divided Congress that still had a Democratic Senate, but with a Republican House. 

In 2011-12 President Obama had to deal with Libya, taking out Osama Bin Laden, ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The last three years really have been all about foreign policy and an expanded War on Terror. That now includes Syria and Libya will be next as ISIS is taking a beating in Syria and will move to Libya. And America will need to respond to that as well.

In 2015 alone he got Congress to end sequestration when it comes to the Federal budget and get that paid for. Was able to get a major trade bill passed out of Congress. Middle class tax relief made permanent. The American economy continues to grow and jobs continue to be produced. Unlike in Europe and even Canada now. 

So President Obama's speech I believe he wanted to focus on a few areas where he might actually get some bipartisan cooperation in Congress. Like criminal justice reform, additional Welfare reform, job training opportunities for the underemployed, unemployed, and low-skilled employed. Mental health reform, so we see fewer shootings that involved mentally impaired people in the future. And even regulation reform. And we'll see what kind of success he has in these areas this year. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState MD, on Blogger.

The Nation: John Nichols:President Obama Is Right- This Unauthorized War Needs to Be Debated by Congress

The Nation: Opinion- John Nichols- President Obama Is Right- This Unauthorized War Needs to Be Debated by Congress

I believe the only impressive point that President Obama made in his ISIS speech on Sunday night, was saying that Congress should be debating this war and passing an authorization for it. If the House and Senate held a vote tomorrow on whether or not America should be involved in the war against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, it would pass overwhelmingly in both chambers. With perhaps just the Progressive Caucus and few Libertarians in the House voting no and perhaps a handful of Senators voting against it as well. If that was the only question and then of course it would have to be worded right where you get clear majorities in Congress behind it.

The original Congressional authorization for the so-called War on Terror was in 2001 for Afghanistan in response to the 9-11 attacks and then they updated it to cover Iraq in 2003. Syria was never part of it, neither were outside terrorist organizations like ISIS. Congress, has to get off their asses frankly and start at least trying to earn their one-hundred and fifty-thousand-dollar a year salaries. Which might not be that much in Washington, but compared with the rest of the country they’re well-compensated, especially if you look at their compensation packages compared with the rest of the country. And the Senate and House need to start trying to earn those benefits.

Congress, is supposed to authorize and say no to wars. The President, can’t do this on their own. They need approval from Congress to go to war and need Congress to authorize the costs of the wars. And I understand with a Republican Congress not wanting to go on the record of even supporting the same weather reports and sports teams as President Obama, because of how their Tea Party would react. But public office is about governing. You run for office to get there and can play all the politics you want on the campaign, but once you’re in office you have a responsibility to govern. Even if that means working with a President from the other party and officially supporting a war that might not be popular.

News Receiver: President Obama's Oval Office Speech on Syria

I watched President Obama's speech on CNN and then saw the so-called experts talk about it. And one of them was Michael Weiss whose written a book about ISIS and is very familiar with that cult of death. I don't think the President's speech was as bad as Mr. Weiss said it was and I don't think the President is ignoring the treat of ISIS, or trying to give a much prettier picture of the situation than what is actually going on. But I do agree with him on one thing that the speech did fall flat. It was basically more of the same talking about what is currently going on in Syria and steps that the President's administration has taken against terrorism since he took office.

Which was not the task of his speech tonight. Tonight's speech should have not have been a status report. But instead, "this is the threat that we're facing and this is what we're doing to address it." As well as laying out what additional steps that need to be taken. And I agree that tightening gun control laws will help reduce gun violence in America, but will do almost nothing if anything at all to deal with ISIS in the Middle East and Europe. But would defeat ISIS and Syria, Iraq and wherever else they are stationed in the world.

And we're going to need an international coalition to do this. President Obama, didn't even mention that now Britain, Germany and France, as well as Turkey and Iraq, are all onboard to taking on ISIS in the Middle East. He didn't call on Saudi Arabia and Jordan to do more n defeating ISIS. It was instead really just a status report about what his administration has already done and what they'll continue to do. I think this speech is memorable only on what he didn't say and what the President left out. Instead of hearing, "this is what we're doing right now. These are the challenges and this is what we need to do in the future to go along with what we are already doing." Didn't hear that from President Obama, which is why this speech was flat and could have been better.

The White House: ‘President Obama Addresses The United Nations General Assembly’

Source:The White House- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) addressing the United Nations in New York City.

“President Obama delivered an address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 24, 2014.”

From The White House

Assuming the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action goes into effect (and the Islamic Republic of Iran has all the incentive in the world to make that happen) I believe this will be an opportunity for the world with the United States leading the effort, but not being the only player in it, where we use international diplomacy and military coalition power to expand human rights and fight authoritarianism and terrorism around the world.

We could see the days of unilateral, preemptive war are over (otherwise known as the Iraq War) and that instead America as the liberal democratic leader in the world works with Europe and even the Arab League to end authoritarianism. And oust dictators who would rather murder their own people than voluntarily leave office.

That military options are always on the table, but never the first option until no better options are available. With the developed and responsible world acting together and many times that is America and Europe we can end the conflict in Syria both with the Syrian dictatorship there and the fight against ISIS.

We don’t stabilize the war by invading Syria and attempting to occupy another country about the size of California. But working with Turkey, Kurdistan and Iraq, to defeat ISIS there and get Bashar Al-Assad out-of-power there and hopefully install a responsible, transitional, government, there with Syrians governing their own country. Instead of the Arab League, or United Nations, European Union, or even United States trying to do that for them.

Liberal internationalism, which is what President Obama was advocating for in this speech, is not about being a hawk at least not in the neoconservative sense. Or being a dove in the social democratic sense, but being smart with all of your available resources that you have including your allies.

What Hillary Clinton and others call Smart Power, where you’re strong not so you are strong enough to police the world and always use military force. And where military force is always your first option if not only option. But you’re strong enough to defend your own interests including your own homeland and help your allies who need it and are trying to do the same thing. As well as potential future allies who are simply fighting for their own human rights.

What President Obama is saying is that the free and responsible world should reject and fight ISIS and other authoritarians. And that the United States will play our special and strong role, but we can’t and won’t defeat ISIS ourselves. That Europe and Arabia, needs to play their role as well, as well as Asian powers like India, Pakistan, Japan, Korea, Australia and others. As well as powers in Africa that are emerging as responsible countries with strong developing economies like the Federal Republic of Nigeria and others.

America is the liberal democratic leader in the world a role that we’ve had at least since the end of World War II, but we’re not the only player when it comes for fighting for freedom and human rights. That other countries need to play their part as well. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You Got News: Video: President Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal Press Conference

Source:The New Democrat

President Obama, once again nailed it, when he said that without this deal, which is of course is a deal, Iran would get the nuclear weapons that they want anyway. There are four choices here and only one of them are good. You do nothing else other than current economic sanctions that are crushing the Iranian economy, but not stopping them from pursuing nuclear weapons. You try to take the Iranian nuclear weapons program out from the air with air strikes. Even though they have nuclear power plants underground. You invade the country, go to war with them and if you’re successful there, then you try to take the weapons out that way. Or you prevent Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons peacefully. Which is what dealmaking and compromise is about.

Compromises and deals, by definition are imperfect. You get something you want, or need by giving up something you don’t need, or value as much. With this deal, we can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, in exchange if Iran complies with the deal, they get economic and sanctions relief that will benefit their economy and their people. Which would make the Iranian Government look better with the Iranian people, but also makes America look better with the Iranian people as well. Who doesn’t like their government, but aren’t fans of the U.S. Government either.

What would the opponents of this deal and President Obama do instead? Invade Iran, a country the size of Saudi Arabia physically, but with seventy-five-million people? Even though they wouldn’t support any resolution that would empower President Obama to take America to war with Iran. Again with the air strikes, Congress wouldn’t support that most likely . And the Iranian Government has nuclear power plants underground. Continue to negotiate for a better deal? What would a better deal be? Iran, is going to have to get something substantial out of any deal, or they aren’t going to sign on to it. President Obama, got the best available deal here that could actually work. And deserves a lot of credit for it.

President Barack Obama: Delivers Eulogy at Charleston Shooting Funeral of Clementa Pinckney

Source:The New Democrat

I can’t imagine anything worst than being murdered in a house of worship. A place, that is supposed to be a house of peace. I mean, if you’re not safe in a church in America, where would you be safe? And yet this is where these members of the Charleston AME Church were murdered. And why, because of the so-called accused murderer Dylann Roof, hated African-American people? His hatred was so strong, his faith in people was so weak, that he murdered people in church simply because they were members of a different race and had a different complexion. These murders, were simply pure evil. Perhaps something that only an Adolph Hitler and his followers would approve of.

I believe that is what President Obama was hitting on here. Yes, remembering Reverend Clementa Pinckney and the fact that he was murdered just perhaps because he was an African-American Reverend. But also acknowledging why everyone was there in the first place. Why they were eulogizing a man of 41 years. When I think of how young Reverend Pinckney was when he was murdered and then add the fact that he was murdered in his church and for no other reasons than the color of his skin, it makes me really angry and wanting to see his murderer get similar treatment. But just not in a peaceful place like a church. But in some hell hole underground, where only Devils are welcomed and expected to attend.

South Carolina, I’m sure has its wonderful qualities and has aspects that make it a great place to live. And I believe Charleston is an example of that, but it has a level of hatred and bigotry that needs to be overcome. So it becomes that state where all Americans who are good productive people are welcome. And it doesn’t become a state where people aren’t even safe in church simply because of their race and complexion. President Obama, didn’t speak to that and to South Carolina as a whole and I’m just adding this myself. But no American should have to even contemplate being murdered in a house of worship. Especially just because of their race and complexion. And gunned down in the prime of their life.

Jared Bernstein: The Supreme Court and ObamaCare: Somehow Commonsense Prevailed

Source:The New Democrat

Jared Bernstein, progressive economist from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, has a very good pice about the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act today. He talks about Chief Justice John Roberts and why he ruled in favor of Burwell, in King V Burwell. U.S. Secretary Sylvia Burwell, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Burwell, being the Obama Administration in King V Burwell. Bernstein, argues that Chief Justice John Roberts and the other Justices who ruled in favor, 6-3 decision by the way, ruled in favor of the ACA and the subsidies, based on Congressional intent.

Chief Justice Roberts, ruled that when Congress passed the ACA in 2010, it was based on three parts.

Better rules and regulations for how private health insurance is given in America. Including protections for patients, so they don’t lose their health insurance simply, because they actually need to use it. Or have a pre-existing condition. Just a couple of examples.

The individual mandate. So everyone is in the system and is covered and paying for their costs of their health care. And not passing their costs onto others. And making health insurance more expensive for everyone involved.

And the last one and perhaps the most important, because it goes to expanding health insurance and health care in America. The tax credits for lower middle-income working class Americans. People who aren’t technically poor and who are working, but can’t afford private health insurance and make too much money to qualify for Medicaid.

The Chief Justice, arguing that Congress didn’t intend to leave the tax credits up to the states that have a health care exchange, or have the Feds handle it. He said that under the ACA, the Feds can give out tax credits to people who don’t live in state with a health insurance exchange. Chief Justice Roberts, wasn’t saying he supports the law, but was simply ruling on the intent of the law and how it was written. And the ACA, clearly tries to expand health insurance in America. Which is what the tax credits are about and why the Feds fund them.

The Week: Jeff Spross: President Obama's Middle-Out Economics is Good, Bottom-Up Economics is Better

Source:The New Democrat

I have several questions that I would ask Jeff Spross. Which is why can’t you do both? Why can’t you have policies that improve the middle class in America so their wages go up and they can get better jobs and also assist the poor working or otherwise so they can get good jobs and leave poverty? And then I would ask how does he judge how safety net programs have cut poverty the last fifty-years.

Does Jeff Spross do that by saying that if you add up all the social insurance programs that one receives in cash dollars, they are technically not living in poverty anymore. When you add up their Welfare if they aren’t working, Medicaid, Public Housing, Food Assistance etc in dollars. Or does he measure reductions in poverty by the numbers of people who are now in the middle class with good jobs and not needing public assistance at all to pay their bills.

The fact is public assistance programs and I’m not talking about Social Security and Medicare, but anti-poverty assistance for non-retired adults and seniors in America are only for people whose income is under a certain level. They are for people who do not earn enough money to take care of themselves. And because of that they are eligible for Medicaid, Food Assistance, Public Housing the Earned Income Tax Credit if they are working, but have a low-income job. So if you need these programs or any of them, you are in poverty by definition. Because you don’t earn enough money to live out of poverty on your own.

And then another question I would have for Jeff Spross. What is wrong with encouraging work, which are what work requirements are about. What is he worried about, that low-skilled unemployed adults will get jobs. Or finish their education as well and get themselves a good job and no longer need public assistance. You don’t judge the success of anti-poverty programs by the number of people who need them. Meaning the more people who need public assistance, the more successful the program is. You judge these programs especially as they relate to education and job training for low-skilled and medium-skilled adults, by the number of people who don’t need them. Meaning the fewer people who need them, the better the program.

You judge public assistance by how many people are able to leave public assistance and poverty all together and now have a good job and are able to take care of themselves. Because now they have the skills and education needed to get themselves a good job that allows for them to support themselves and their families and no longer need public assistance at all. And the fact is we need to expand as well as empower the middle class in America. Because they are the people who drive economic and job growth in America. The real job creators with their spending on their basic and recreational needs. And education and job training and things like infrastructure and energy investment are how you drive down poverty, expand and empower the middle class in America.

New York Daily News: S.E. Cupp: State of The Union a Window Into Obama's Mind

New York Daily News: Opinion: S.E. Cupp: State of The Union, A Window in Obama's Mind

Source:The New Democrat

What I don’t think that S.E. Cupp gets that is of course President Obama was taking a victory lap last night. Which is his right, because the economy is finally moving and moving well. No longer are we talking about one-percent economic growth and creating somewhere around a hundred-thousand jobs per month, with unemployment still well over seven-percent. We are seeing real job growth around three-hundred-thousand jobs per month and economic growth 3-4% and wages finally growing again. And all of this happened under President Obama’s watch and any Republican president would’ve taken the same credit.

The whole point of the State of The Union, well just look at that phrase State of The Union, the President explains the situation of the country. Where we are doing well and things that we need to work on and things that we could be doing better at. And then giving some ideas about what he would do in those areas and where he believes he can work with Congress on. Which is what President Obama did with his version of Morning in America, which was about a year late for a lot Congressional Democrats who are no longer in Congress. He said he believes he can work with Congressional Republicans. He pointed to trade, tax reform and infrastructure.

The President said we meaning Democrats and Republicans in Congress and Barack Obama himself agree for the need for new infrastructure investment. But disagree on how to pay for it. Both sides want to pay for it, but differ on how to pay for it. Which is true and that is why we haven’t had any infrastructure bills come out of Congress since the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The President said they agree on the need for new free trade and that he’s waiting for Congress pass new trade bills. Which is also true that Congressional Democrats, not Republicans especially in the Senate will fight him on.

The President said there’s bipartisan agreement on tax reform. Lower rates and eliminating loopholes, which is also true. The disagreement is where tax reform should be revenue neutral or not. Should rates be lowered to make up for every single tax loophole elimination, which is what revenue neutral is. The President did issue some veto threats and why would that be any surprise to any smart Republican. I mean are they really expecting him to say yes to legislation he disagrees with. The job of the President is not to everything that Congress wants. And for Congress to give the President everything he wants. Whether government is divided or not.

Another part of the State of The Union is to layout what the President wants to do in the coming year and where he believes he can work with Congress on. Especially in areas where they know there’s already agreement on. Infrastructure, trade, tax reform and criminal justice reform are the issues that President Obama has found agreement with Congressional Republicans on. And in the next year or so we’ll see if he has any success with working with them on. Or will this be about 2016 with each party giving the country their agenda. With Americans having the opportunity to give one party a united government.

CNN: President Barack Obama's Post Mid-Terms Press Conference

I believe President Obama did what he needed to do in this conference. Which was to graduate incoming Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans for winning back the Senate for the first time since 2004. And House Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans for adding to their majority. As well to layout where he will be willing and believes he can work with Congressional Republicans in the next Congress that will have a Republican House and a Republican Senate.

I'm not one of these doom and gloom utopian the perfect and compromise is the enemy of the good Democrats. I live in the real world and know that President will have to work with Congressional Republicans as well as Congressional Democrats especially in the Senate if he wants to get anything that is substantial done in the next Congress. So I'm not expecting the President to cave on any of his or the Democratic Party's key agenda items in the next Congress. He said he won't do anything that weakens the Affordable Care Act and I believe him.

But here's where I believe they can work together. The Keystone Pipeline will be one of the first big items that House Republicans will pass in the next Congress. Perhaps within the first month and that will pass with a bipartisan majority. And will be sent to the Republican Senate where it will have bipartisan support and I don't expect Senate Democrats doing much to try to block the bill. As long as they are involved in it and are allowed votes on their amendments.

As far as infrastructure and other energy policies and issues like immigration and tax reform. If anything is done on those issues, it will have to come from Congress first and probably starting in the Senate. Where traditionally it is much easier to get bipartisan bills passed over there than the House. Trade agreements I believe will be big in the next Congress and where President Obama will have bipartisan support in both the House and Senate.

Whatever happens in the next Congress will probably happen in the first seven months or so because the August recess. As far as major legislation and after that Congress will be back in town, except presidential candidates in Congress. And then Washington politics will switch to presidential politics and the major presidential candidates will drive what happens or doesn't happen in Washington. So how productive the next Congress will be will depend on House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and what they want to get passed out of Congress and signed by President Obama.

Los Angeles Times: David G. Savage & Noam N. Levey: Medicaid Could be in U.S. Supreme Court's Sights

Source:FreeState Now

CBS News: Romney & Obama No Difference

Source:Real Life Journal

Trying to tell the difference between "RomneyCare" and "ObamaCare" is like trying to tell the difference between a couple of lemons. You have to feel each of them, look closely, get into the details. But on paper they are essentially the same plans. Expanding private health insurance through tax credits, patient protections and requiring that all Americans pay for their share of their health care.

But other than health care reform, telling the difference between Mitt Romney, depending on which Mitt he decides to be based on what day it is, how the wind is blowing, how the weather is, which clone he decides to be that day, it can be very difficult without x ray vision. They are very different on Iraq and Afghanistan and Iraq. Mitt believes we should stay there, Barack believes we should get the hell out.

Mitt and Barack are different on deficit reduction. Mitt apparently believes that we can cut the debt and deficit, raising taxes on the poor and focusing on around 15% of the Federal budget. Or 555B$, he doesn't want to eliminate all of that by the way. Thats the non-defense and entitlement parts of the Federal budget. President Obama believes everything should be on the table, except raising taxes on the poor.

They are different on growing the economy. Mitt believes in more tax cuts and subsidies for corporate America and rich people. I don't have a problem with the tax cuts, if it comes with eliminating tax loopholes. Which Mitt views as tax hikes, apparently Mitt believes that if you eliminated all taxes on the wealthy and corporate America. And then eliminate all of the tax loopholes as well, Mitt would call that tax hikes, because you would be giving them less money. (Talk about fuzzy math)

 I believe thats what would come under George W. Bush's definition of "Fuzzy Math". The President believes the way to grow the economy is to rebuild the country, its public infrastructure, infrastructure investment. Developing a national energy policy that would expand and create new energy industries in America. Putting millions of Americans back to work, as well as incentivizing people to spend money in the country. Including tax cuts for the middle class that need tax relief. Here a few areas where Mitt and Barack unfortunately are similar and why I'm disappointed with President Obama as a Liberal Democrat and it relates to social issues and civil liberties.

Mitt and Barack both support the Patriot Act, indefinite detention and the War on Drugs. You expect Republicans today to take these Big Government positions. If Mitt Romney was truly a Liberal as critics in the GOP call him and if he's a Liberal, the majority of people living in the Bible Belt are Muslims. If this was the case, then Mitt Romney would be against these things. If Barack Obama was a real Liberal and not a Moderate Liberal he would be against these things as well. And this is where the President has been disappointing and why Liberal Democrats are taking a look at Gary Johnson the Libertarian Party nominee for president.

There's plenty of differences between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama that Ray Charles could see. I just wish there were a hell of a lot more. So to call them twins or clones, is inaccurate. Mitt Romney already has a clone but his name is Mitt Romney as well. And thats the only twin or clone that he needs.

Report All News: President Obama: 'To Setup New Federal and Local Job Training Programs'

Source:Report All News- President Barack Obama: in Wisconsin talking about job training.

"President Obama to Setup New Federal and Local Job Training Programs

President Obama will visit General Electric's gas engine facility in Waukesha, Wis., Thursday to emphasize the importance of strengthening the nation's job training programs.

The plant -- which has operated here for 106 years and was acquired by GE in 2011 -- produces gas engines for oil and gas field operations as well as factories and utilities in the U.S. and overseas. The company has invested $35 million in the operation in the past three years and increased the number of hourly employees from 270 to nearly 400, according to spokesman Gary Sheffer."

"Waukesha is a staunchly-Republican part of the state -- Gov. Scott Walker (R) held his election party here in 2012 when he defeated Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett, and every Republican presidential candidate since 1980 has won the country by double digits.

But the president is venturing here anyway, to highlight GE Energy's job training efforts. The firm works with a state workforce program to bring together employers, colleges, labor unions, and other community-based groups to train workers in advanced manufacturing, construction and other industries, according to White House officials."

"As he did in West Mifflin, Pa., on Wednesday., the president will tour the facility, make remarks and then sign a presidential memorandum. This directive will kick start an across-the-board review of how to best reform federal training programs, which Vice President Biden will oversee, to help Americans get the skills they need for good, in-demand jobs. Obama will also announce that he is directing Biden, along with the White House policy councils, the Office of Management and Budget, the Council of Economic Advisers and the secretaries of Labor, Commerce and Education, to consult with experts from both parties on how to ensure training programs address the needs of employers. In addition, the president will launch a competition for the final $500 million of a community college training fund."

"President Barack Obama turned his focus here Thursday to efforts to improve job training programs nationwide, as he continued his efforts to show he is doing what he can on economic issues without Congress's help."

"The president's stop here kicked off the second day of his post-State of the Union tour meant to continue the momentum of Tuesday's speech, which focused heavily on executive actions.

Obama reiterated his desire to work with Congress but said he's willing to act "with or without" legislation. "I want to work with 'em, but I can't wait for them," he said on the floor of a General Electric plant here, just outside Milwaukee."

"The president then signed a memorandum directing Vice President Joe Biden to lead a "soup to nuts" review of job training programs with the goal of making the system better serve the demands of employers.

"With the economy shored up from the depths of his early presidency, Obama said, he's now turning his focus to efforts to expand opportunity for all Americans, which will be a priority "until I wave goodbye" when leaving office."

"In a letter sent to the president on Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) argues that the House GOP has already passed legislation, the SKILLS Act, that includes a similar overhaul of job training programs and that the president's executive action is duplicative of a 2011 Government Accountability Office review of federal job training programs. "income inequality"  technology science  Syria " gun control"  terrorism Obama "minimum wage" "state of the union address" "state of the union 2014" "human rights" "abc news" "cbs news" "nbc news" "bbc news"

"Wall street digital" "rt news"  "breaking news" "world news" "global news" "latest news" "scientific news" "24 hour news" "apocalypse news" "job training" "white house" "jay carney" biden "jake tapper"

"community college training fund" White House press secretary Jay Carney didn't comment on the GAO report but did say that the president's decision to have Biden lead a review means that it will be done "and it will be effective and that's what the president expects."

Obama heads next to the McGavock Comprehensive High School in Nashville, Tenn. Before he leaves Waukesha, Obama will sit with CNN's Jake Tapper for his first interview since Tuesday's address to the nation. "

From Report All News

There are plenty parts of the Federal budget that I would like to cut back on and reform. Like in defense, agriculture subsidies, corporate welfare, red tape, but one area where I would like to see America spend a hell of a lot more money on as well as reforming the system would be in the areas of infrastructure, job training and education so we are more competitive with Europe, Brazil, China and Japan in these areas. Not to spend a lot more money on a bad system, or just to spend a lot more money. But to reform the system and invest whatever it takes in it to make it as effective as possible.

We could literally have a public education system in America not run by the Federal Government and still run by the states and locals primarily where every student is able to go to a good school. Where none of our teachers are underpaid and where none of our schools are underfunded including in very poor urban and areas. Where educators are paid based on how well their students are learning, not by how long they've been teaching. Where parents would have the choice to send their student to any public school in the district including a charter school. And where schools are funded based on need, not by where they are located.

We could do this by still having the states and locals be the first financial resource to funding schools. But where the Feds step in to provide the financial resources for schools that are in low-income districts so they have the resources that they need to be successful as well. This would require a huge investment probably in the hundreds of billions of dollars and would sort of look like a Marshall Plan but it would be domestic. And it would need to be paid for by not borrowing the money, but is something that we can afford to do.

As far as job training for low-skilled low-income adults. Whether they are working or not if they are collecting any form of public assistance I would make job training a requirement for them in order to receive public assistance. Public assistance would become an investment in human capital and investment in the economy. And no longer public charity, but money spent on improving the economic lives of people in need so they have the skills and freedom to be able to support themselves. Instead of staying on public assistance indefinitely with very little if any hope at becoming successful in life.

I would make job training and education universal not just K-12 or through college, but lifelong. And set up job training centers all over the country including in ever low-income urban and rural area in the country including for United States territories and commonwealths. And make it public-private partnership and bring in the non-profits in the private sector and reward them with grants to set up job training centers and offices for low-income low-skilled adults. Where these people would be their clients and their job would be to find them the right school and educational program for that client so the client can get the education they need to get themselves a good job.

Poverty is not something that we have to accept and put up with. You have to know why people are in poverty and them empower them based on that knowledge to work their way out of poverty. And the person them self has to take advantage of those opportunities that they need to get themselves the skills that they need to get out of poverty. And not just live in poverty with a few extra bucks from taxpayers and private donations.

USA Today: Jonathan Turley: Fighting Pot With Water

Source:USA Today

All the evidence that you need to know that Barack Obama is not a Liberal (even though I wish he was) is to look at his administration's approach when it comes to the failed War on Drugs, marijuana, privacy and civil liberties. It's always security first with this President and his security team. Security always before freedom with them. I'm not saying President Obama is not a Liberal, but certainly not a Liberal in the classical sense. And at best a Progressive in the paternalistic prohibitionist sense when it comes to these personal and security issues. But with clear liberal or progressive leanings when it comes to economic policy.

And the Obama Administration's water policy with their federal water agency when it comes to shutting down marijuana farmers and their water by refusing water to these farmers and saying they can't have water for their marijuana growth is a perfect example of that. They've concluded that taking a big government anti-federalist position when it comes to marijuana and saying that even though two states have now legalized it that they've decided they aren't going to shutdown their marijuana in the old fashion way. By continuing to arrest marijuana users, dealers and growers. Because now they would be on their own and without the help from state police. And politically it wouldn't look good with their own liberal base.

So what the Obama Administration does instead of breaking through the front door to prevent marijuana use of all kinds, they sneak through the backdoor and cutoff marijuana farmers supply of water so they can no longer grow their product that is now legal in their own state Colorado or Washington. And that is where the anti-liberal, anti-federalist, pro-big government leanings of the Obama Administration comes in. To prohibit things they see as dangerous even if they are now legal in some states.

What the Obama Administration could do to help themselves with their liberal base and with Independents and with Congressional Democrats who are facing tough elections in November is to back off on marijuana where it is now legal at least at the state level. Back off technically and in actuality and to say "we are going to see how these experiments go and see them through. Because we know prohibition is not working because people use marijuana anyway regardless if it's legal or not and generally smart enough not to get caught". That would help them with Congressional Democrats who are in tough races because it help bring Democrats to the polls and give them a reason to vote Democratic in November.

The Daily Conversation: President Obama at the 2014 White House Correspondents Dinner

I'm glad that President Obama can laugh at the year that he had in 2013 and perhaps the White House Correspondents Dinner might be the only platform where he can. Because it was really one of the worst years at least in my memory (all thirty-eight years) that a second-term president has had in his first year as a second-term president. I mean you have to go back to 2005 with President George W. Bush or even before I was born in 1973 with President Richard Nixon who was dealing with Watergate.

I like President Obama's line about CNN where he said "that now I have to go to Malaysia to get attention from CNN". Because CNN is too busy covering airplane crashes and missing passengers who probably drowned in the ocean. To actually cover real news. Like I don't know millions of Americans who didn't have health insurance now have it. Or the situation in Ukraine or the economy with the new jobs figures. "Wait we can't report those things because those issues are real news and Americans are only interested in what is not important but what is sexy".

The President also had a good line about MSNBC. "Glad to see MSNBC here which is probably seeing the biggest audience that they've ever had". MSNBC another so-called news network that doesn't have the resources to cover real news even though they are owned by NBC News one of the largest news divisions in the world. Which is why their ratings are south of the toilet because they do not report on things that a large percentage of the country is actually interested in and that is
important.

NPR News: Krishna Calamur- President Obama Seeks $1 Billion to Boost U.S. Military Presence in Europe

Source: NPR News-

Source:NPR News 

I got a crazy idea that may just have people running to the North Pole to escape the summer weather. How about instead of paying Europeans to defend themselves, we have them pay us for their defense? Or here’s a crazier idea, how about Europeans invest in their own defense and national security which would be a big boost to their economies. God knows they need that type of economic growth right now. And they could even buy their defense equipment and other resources from the United States. 

I mention these things for a few reasons. 

1. Europe or at least the countries we are still responsible for defending are made up of developed democracies. Countries that can afford to take care of themselves. Or work together to defend Greater Europe in coalition. The reasons why Europe’s defense budgets are so much smaller than the United States at least as far as percentage of Gross National Product has to do with the fact that they rely on America for their national defense. 

2. Another big reason for President George W. Bush’s National Security Council vision of creating democracy or building democracy in Arabia comes from the vision for Europe with NATO and building democracy in those countries and have an international defense force largely funded by American tax payers to defend democracy in Europe from Russia. A big difference being that America had European allies to help sustain that security including Europeans themselves. Arabia especially with Iraq has been much different where America for the most part has been responsible for the development and security of Iraq. 

In case the latest developments in Eurasia in Ukraine and in Arabia with Syria and Iraq and of course the seventeen-trillion-dollar national debt in the United States aren’t obvious enough. There’s a limit to what America can do by itself financially and militarily which means countries that can afford to defend themselves need to do that. And then we need to work with them instead trying to police the world ourself to make the world as safe as it possibly can.
Ukraine News One: President Obama Rallies Allies in Poland

The Fiscal Times: Report: Eric Planin: President Obama Looks to Tax Reform to Save America's Highways

The Fiscal Times: Report: Eric Planin: President Obama Looks to Tax Reform to Save America's Highways

This would be an interesting way to raise the much needed revenue to rebuild America's infrastructure system but, as I've argued in the past, we wouldn't need to go to this length if we created a National Infrastructure Bank instead. That would prioritize the national infrastructure projects that our country actually needs, real projects that support strong economic and job growth as opposed to pork .

A National Infrastructure Bank was proposed by senators John Kerry (D) and Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R)in the 112th Congress. This would be an independent corporation created by Congress.  It would simply prioritize national infrastructure projects and then find funding for them in the private sector by bringing in investors.  It would make profits from the investments from tolls and fees that users would pay to use the roads, bridges, airports etc.

This is how we should paying for infrastructure improvements, moving past Congress to create an organization that could work on its own without taxpayer funds, collecting revenue from the projects. Our country would have all of the revenue needed to pay for its infrastructure requirements and not need to go to a dysfunctional Congress every year to meet its cash requirements.

The White House: The 2014 State of The Union Address

I thought President Obama gave a very good speech tonight that the American people probably enjoyed hearing. Even if it is the smallest audience to listen to one of his State of the Union’s. But I’m not sure it was a speech that will move the country behind his agenda and get the Republican controlled House of Representatives to move on it or move on anything that will boost the economy. Or something that Congressional Democrats and candidates can use to run on and get elected and reelected in November by itself. That he still has a lot more work to do.

The stuff that Americans tend to agree on that unites us was good. Talking about the troops and the need to support them and the fact we’ve ended our longest war in Afghanistan and one of our longest wars in Iraq. But you expect to hear a president to say these things and they always get good applause. But the test is can the president move the country behind his agenda or not and get Americans that he tends to count on and new Americans skeptical about him to say, “you know what the president is right on these issues and we should help his get these things passed in Congress.” I didn’t hear that tonight.

The Republican House of Representatives position on economic growth is very clear. Anything that requires the Federal Government to spend money that is not business or individual tax relief related is dead on arrival in the House. But President Obama wants new national infrastructure plan and new educational and job training opportunities for the long-term unemployed and for low-skilled workers. Those things cost money, but what he has going for him is the Democratic Senate. And instead of trying to push Congress as a whole on these issues, President Obama should focus on the Senate and see if he can and Leader Harry Reid can get anything done there.

To put it bluntly if the House Republican Leadership wants to take 2014 off as far as doing their day-to-day jobs and sit on their asses and just concentrate on electing more representatives, the hell with them if I’m President Obama. “And I’m going to run against a Do Nothing House in public. As I and Vice President Joe Biden are working very hard behind the scenes with the Democratic controlled Senate to move my agenda there and try to get some things passed that country will support.” And the more they get passed over there, the more they’ll have to run on in 2014. That would be my advice to President Obama and Leader Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

The White House: ‘Making 2014 a Year of Action to Expand Opportunities For The Middle Class’

Source:The White House- Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States.

“In this week’s address, President Obama says 2014 will be a year of action, and called on both parties to help make this a breakthrough year for the United States by bringing back more good jobs and expanding opportunities for the middle class.”

From The White House

Let Congressional Republicans only talk about ObamaCare especially in the Senate. Where that is the only thing that Senate Republicans seem to be interested in right now. Even though more Americans are becoming more comfortable with the Affordable Care Act. And let Democrats offer and economic agenda for 2014 that puts millions of Americans back to work. In the areas of infrastructure, energy policy, trade and immigration. 2014 should be about the American economy for the Democratic Party. About how far we’ve come since the Great Recession, the work that still needs to be done. And what Democrats would do to move the economy forward so millions more Americans can benefit and live in freedom as well. As Republicans continue to bash a law that more Americans are becoming more comfortable with everyday. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.