Tuesday, January 22, 2013

VIDEO: First Read Minute: Obama, as liberal as Congress will let him be

NBC's Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro discuss President Obama's second inaugural address and what to expect from his second term in office.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

uss this post

Behind everything the President does:
President Obama's priority has long been restoring security for the middle class, after a lost decade of stagnant wages and out-of-control costs for families everday.
The President and Democratic party want to create jobs, help our economy continue to grow, and create ladders of opportunity for all.
President Obama's speech forceful and confident about the America's potential going forward.
  • 18 votes
#1 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:01 PM EST

The recipe is simple and obvious... but there are still way too many contaminants in the ingredient list.
Any idiot knows full well that the middle class is the only reliable long-term engine that drives an economy forward. But restoring that involves prying the sticky fingers of greed off a portion of the "take" that has become the new norm for those at the top. Major corporations crow about how many they employ when the reality is the number of employed is swollen by rationed hours to shift expenses on to the public dole... That ought to be illegal... Maybe avoidance of paying living wages is a good place to start. It's no secret that it's a common practice. It's also no secret that it's a significant drag on the economy. Why not expect large employers to act like normal human people or just go away?
  • 10 votes
#1.1 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:52 PM EST

Anyone who is against fairness and equality, whether tax reforms, pay for women, civil rights, etc. is nuts.
Anyone who is against restoring the American Dream by growing the middle class and improving upward mobility for the working poor is delusional.
Anyone who thinks the deficit is a higher priority than good-paying jobs is brainwashed.
Anyone who wants to cut Social Security instead of increasing the cap on FICA contributions, or wants to raise the age for Medicare instead of cutting spending in defense is unpatriotic.
The list goes on and on... Rightwingers, reject the GOP/TP radical platform and join the majority, the mainstream, the sane.
  • 13 votes
#1.2 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:53 PM EST
Thank God for Congress then!
  • 3 votes
#1.3 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:04 PM EST

TruePatriot - you were going great there until you wanted them to join the sane. They don't understand the concept of sanity - it is totally outside their capabilities and they reject sanity every time!
  • 9 votes
#1.4 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:04 PM EST
Is that why the average household income has gone down over $2500 over the past 4 years...way to go Obama...thanks for looking out for the middle class asclown.
  • 4 votes
#1.5 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:09 PM EST
I seriouslly don't think we can take much more of this Presidents liberal help in any area of the economy or our lives period.
  • 4 votes
#1.6 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:11 PM EST


[Is that why the average household income has gone down over $2500 over the past 4 years]
It is mainly due to underemployment thanks to Republicans obstructing our President’s job creation request.
  • 14 votes
#1.7 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:20 PM EST

SeekingSanity -- Or at least critical thinking. Look at JFK2012 still trying to connect the dot (yes, as in the singular).
Dennis, Columbus, Ohio -- And the Bring Jobs Home Act, and stimulus for education, infrastructure, and R&D, equal pay for equal work, trying to abolish the minimum wage, busting unions including privatization of the US Postal Service and teachers in public schools, etc., etc., etc.
They have surpassed obstruction (e.g., abuse of the filibuster) and gone on to diabolical with our election process (gerrymandering, voter suppression, and now trying to change the electoral college rules). I have nothing but immense disdain for their acts of treason.
  • 8 votes
#1.8 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:27 PM EST

It took me aback when the President made a point of elevating the struggles of gay people with the civil rights struggles of African Americans. I had to think about it, because, although I supported the repeal of don't ask/don't tell, and I support making marriage legal for gay people, I wasn't sure how I felt equating what gays endured, with the history of slavery and discrimination sufferered by Blacks.
But, I decided, that's the point. There cannot be any group that it's okay to discriminate against. The American way is treat people as individuals. The truth is, it's a difficult concept to grasp, when it's a group you don't belong to. It's human nature to assign people into categories. What the President did, in standing up for equal rights for gay people, was brave, and good.
  • 6 votes
#1.9 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:34 PM EST

TruePatriot - they're a sorry lot and it shows more every day. They care nothing about the country - just winning. They really remind me of Charlie Sheen - all hopped up on drugs and no brain cells left!
  • 6 votes
#1.10 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:36 PM EST
If you think that President Obama has been pushing a liberal agenda then there is no need to continue posting it every where because you don't really understand what that word ACTUALLY means.
"You keep on using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
  • 3 votes
#1.11 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:39 PM EST

Actually, the decline in the middle class, the stagnation of wages began with the GOP's hero, Ronald Reagan. Add that to the mentality we began to see in the 80's of shipping jobs overseas for cheap wages--and equally cheap products--as well as introducing the era of money making money. We stopped making products here and opted for the buying and selling of money via Wall Street, investments. The jobs that were created since Reagan took office, outside the military-industrial complex, began to be lower paying, service-sector jobs. It had nothing to do with unions costing jobs--unions were the scapegoat--but rather the new idea that manufacturing in China, India and elsewhere added more to the bottom line. In other words, the era of "greed, for lack of a better word, is good" became the new model for American industry.
Finally, businesses, including Apple, are re-thinking their manufacturing plans and returning it to our shores. They finally realize that the logistics, the high cost of shipping, the energy wasted, the long-distance isn't worth it. They also realize that if Americans don't earn enough money to buy what they make, they've shot themselves in the foot.
  • 11 votes
#1.12 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:41 PM EST
Really Jody, really...didn't we just learn 6 days ago that Jeep is sending its manufacturing to China?
  • 2 votes
#1.13 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:54 PM EST


They are sending manufacturing to China to build cars there to be sold there.
Just like Honda, Toyota and a few other auto makers did here – to build cars in the US to be sold in the US.
  • 9 votes
#1.14 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:58 PM EST
It is mainly due to underemployment thanks to Republicans obstructing our President’s job creation request.
  • 2 votes
#1.15 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:11 PM EST

Jody, Iowa -- Excellent post as always.
However, we must remember that most people are not political junkies like us. Case in point, ask a rightwinger about Mount Rushmore, and which president should be there and why or why not. You will see very quickly that if they even know which presidents are there, they don't know much more in regard to history. I said Nixon will be remembered in history for foreign policy and many other significant achievements more than Reagan in the long run. And then how Eisenhower may have been as good a choice as Teddy Roosevelt. Keep it to Republican presidents. It shuts these ignoramuses down very quickly who don't even know anything about their own presidents and Party.
So in regard to supply-side voodoo economics, this is too deep. We need to keep it simple about fairness, equality, preserving the middle class, etc. Even the most ill-informed rightwinger can understand these basic principles. This is the Democratic platform, but it is indeed the majority position and therefore the American platform that appeals to all.
  • 7 votes
#1.16 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:38 PM EST
Mt. Rushmore faces are those of progressives of their time. George Washington by the standards of his day led the most progressive movement in government to that date. Imagine the idea of a democratic republic. Wow, what a concept. Much of the change came from Thomas Jefferson, also a liberal thinker and statesman of his time. He, after all, wrote the Declaration of Independance which told the British king and parliament to go jump in a lake, thus setting the stage for what was to come later. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president dared to openly oppose slavery. His opposition was a radically progressive idea at the time. While many who opposed slavery did not belive there was anything that could be done to end it, Lincoln took the bull by the horns and did just that. Then there was Teddy Roosevelt the progressive (Bull Moose) who fought against the greedy robber barons of the beginings of the industrial age. The only one of these who was, what would today be a Democrat is Jefferson, the others would be Republicans. Washington dealt with the Revolutionary war, Lincoln the civil war that tore this nation apart and Teddy Roosevelt was most instrumental in helping America go from being isolated and aloof to a major player in the politics of the world. Each of those men on Mt. Rushmore were extrordinary individuals. Sad to inform the righties here that Ronald Reagan was not all that extrodinary.
  • 3 votes
#1.17 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:14 PM EST
Is that why the average household income has gone down over $2500 over the past 4 years...way to go Obama...
is Obama signing the paychecks or are they signed by the greedy CEO's who layoff seasoned workers to hire cheap help?
  • 2 votes
#1.18 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:16 PM EST
And even more sad still, neither would Obama...
  • 1 vote
#1.19 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:33 PM EST

Aim high, aim Left and see where the winds of Congress take us.
  • 11 votes
Reply#2 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:04 PM EST

That is all he can and should any other President is given the prerogative to do.
  • 7 votes
#2.1 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:06 PM EST

Dennis, that's exactly right.
I listened to some chatter earlier this morning asking if President Obama had aimed too high and found myself thinking that was a silly question. We expect our Olympic atheletes to aim for gold medals not bronze so why shouldn't our Presidents aim high.
  • 5 votes
#2.2 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:51 PM EST

I think President Obama is more in touch with the views of the American people than most of the media pundits are. He understands where many of us want to see the country go and shares our vision. The people in Congress who are on the wrong side of the demographics and history can do all the stalling, delaying, obstructionism they can come up with---in the long run it won't change where we're going and it will leave them behind from meaningful decision-making.
  • 12 votes
Reply#3 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:40 PM EST
Steeler Fan-380417
I think President Obama is more in touch with the views of the American people than most of the media pundits are. He understands where many of us want to see the country go and shares our vision. The people in Congress who are on the wrong side of the demographics and history can do all the stalling, delaying, obstructionism they can come up with---in the long run it won't change where we're going and it will leave them behind from meaningful decision-making.
Yet we continue to elect those obstructionists in Congress. We hear people whine about term limits, yet they are ready willing and able to reelect the same Congress critters that are the problem and not the solution. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
  • 2 votes
Reply#4 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:29 PM EST
"We have no one to blame but ourselves."
I don't know if that's true. It seems to me that the Senate did change and a few in the House. If I am not mistaken the only reason the House was held by Republicans is a direct result of gerrymandering. I have personally seen this where I am from but maybe it isn't the case all over the country, although I have a hard time believing that.
  • 2 votes
#4.1 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:46 PM EST
Dan, Austin. You're right. Democrats gained 11 or 12 seats in the House, democrats won more votes for House members but gerrymandering prevented dems from regaining control. Dems also won more Senate seats.
We have term limits, it's called the vote but in order for the vote to work, we need to stop selecting the incumbent just because we recognize the name; need to level the monetary advantage an incumbent has; and we must demand that state redistricting be done by nonpartisan groups rather than by legislatures. Other states should look at Iowa's method. Every ten years Iowa's method is written about as being the gold standard, the model for redistricting. Right now, we have a GOP Governor who would like to eliminate that nonpartisan redistricting law as well as the nonpartisan law for judicial nominations--fortunately for voters, the Iowa Senate remains in democratic hands.
  • 4 votes
#4.2 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:05 PM EST
so there's a consensus that there are some who are still fighting battles that were lost during the election which amounts to obstruction... since our government includes checks and balances; how does the President more his agenda forward?
  • 4 votes
Reply#5 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:39 PM EST
Let's hope the GOP stays guarding the door to the back rooms so he can't.
  • 1 vote
#5.1 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:23 PM EST
I am continually entertained that liberals complain about abstuctionist. They perfected the technique, and complain that we use it better than they did through the Bush years. How many liberals spent eight years claiming Bush was not their president?. How many still refer to the Bush wars, as if Congress had not voted to declair them? How many times have I heard them complain about no child left behind, and not acknowledge that Ted Kennedy wrote that bill? I think they should be called protectionist. When a president can't lead, then I guess he tries to rule by decree. The thing is he is not a king, and we do have recourse in congress and in court. It is working just as it supposed to. Thank you GOP protectionists.
Reply#6 - Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:24 PM EST

No comments:

Post a Comment