631.) President Obama delivered the 2012 State of the Union address on January 24th 2012. I can honestly say that he has learned much from his previous two attempts. He remember to focus on the nation, not just brag about himself, and best of all he remember to tell us what the state of the Union actually is. There are parts where i agree with him in theory, but ultimately differ on execution. There are also areas where I cannot remain silent.
The speech began by President Obama issuing the usual good will statements, he stated how our soldiers are finally coming home from Iraq. He used them as an example, he raised how they put aside their differences and achieved greatness, “they don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.” I agree with the President completely, if we can learn from our fighting men and women, how to put aside our differences and work together there is nothing, we private ordinary Americans, cannot do. It was not the government that won World War II, it was not the government that toppled Bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein, it was hard working American Son’s and Daughters fighting for their families back home. It was not government that brought us the air plan, or the light bulb. These are all products of engineering free minds unbound by federal restrictions free to strive for their dreams. We are free people, and when allowed to we are capable of great deeds. This is when the first issue I took with the speech came up. President Obama cannot stand on a stage and not take that chance to further the political divide. The State of the Union, being one of the largest speeches in the nation, is a great chance for him to do some politicking. He chose this moment to bash political opposition, spread lies, and place his progressive ideology on a pedestal. He claims he wants people to put politics aside, yet in the same breath he makes no qualms about bashing political opponents. Hypocrisy is a deadly thing in the field of public sector.
Time for a fact check, President Obama said, “The Taliban’s momentum has been broken and some troops in Afgahnistan have begun to come home.” Unfortunatly this is not true. The latest National Intelligence Estimate on Afgahnistan wards that the Taliban will grow stronger, using fledgling talks with the U.S. to gain credibility wand stall until the U.S. troops leave, while continuing to fight for more territory. According to the Associated Press the same documents predicts the Taliban and war lords will largely control the country side. That doesn’t sound like they have been broken. Just saying.
President Obama then went onto discuse how his parents believed in the basic American promise, “thhat if you work hard you can do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.” When did the promise of America become so little? When did that basic promise represented by the golden shores of the last refuge of man’s freedom become so limited, defined, confining? Why does this President give so little credit to the promise that this nation provides? The promise of America is a promise to dream. A promise of a chance at a better future. A simple house, wage, and retirement is not enough to bring entire families to risk their lives attempting to enter Lady Liberties protected harbor. it was the promise of a land where you were free to make your own way in the world, a land where the government did not limit or control your station in life. The promise of America is that you are free to dream and if you work hard enough no one, no t event he government will stop you. To hear what President Obama believes the promise is, is quit frankly depressing. His version of the promise represented by this free lands of our great nation is as dry and discouraging as his monotone speeches.
President Obama then outlined what the most urgent issue of our time, “the defining issue of our time is how to keep this promise alive. No Challenge is more urgent.” This is is yet another statement that I agree with the President on. all other issues feed into this one. As Ronald Reagan said, “We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.” The stakes could not be higher. If we allow America to become a lesson in world history, where else does the promise of Freedom exist? There are two sides both trying to prevent the end of America. On the left President Obama and the progressives who seek to change the nation, stand those on the right who stand with men like George Washington and Ronald Reagan. You either believe in the dry struck promise of this nation, as the President does, OR you believe as George Washington and Ronald Reagan did in the grand vastness of unlimited possibilities that freedom creates. If you are only setting out to ensure that people have a house, job, and retirement the use of federal force is easily justifiable. However if you are taking a stand to protect freedom, preserve it for the next generation the existence of an intrusive government is an idea that is akin to killing someones sainted mother. This is the cause for tension in the government. One side wants force, one side wants liberty.
President Obama offered an either or scenario “we can either sttle for a country where a shrinking number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.What’s at stake aren’t Democratic values or Republican calues, but American values. And we have to reclaim them.” President obama is right, what is at stake are the values that have built America into the greatest nation on Earth. Values that united our for fathers in the struggle against tyranny. He claims we can either choose between an economy of imbalance and an economy of fairness, but the true choice is, now and has always, been between liberty and tyranny. President Obamaseeks a system where everyone has a fair shot, pays their fair share, and plays by the same rules. These are impossible goals to achieve without forsaking liberty. When the President speaks of paying their faire share, he is taking away the concept of fair shot and playing by the same rules. Lets make no qualms about it, we all know PResident Obama desires deeply to redistrinute the wealth of this nation, he has said so himself, and paying their fair share is code for take the money form the succesfull and reqard those who were not. How is it playing by the same rules when the succesfull have to pya and the unsucessful get paid? What he is peaking of is government force, marxism. think back to when you were a child. When you played a game such as basketball, in the Obamian world it was not fair that one team got several tall kids and yours did not. So clearly to make it fair some of the other teams points must be given to yours to offest this inequality. How was this fair, one team better suited for the game was punished, while the other team who was ill suited for the game was reqarded? This is what President Obama calls “fair”. Punish those designed to compete and reqard those who aren’t. This is the core of the progressive idealogy and the beginnings of the tyranny inherient in the teachings of Marx. If he believed in the princibles of Free Markts, of Personal Liberty, and the greater promise of America these coals would look a little different. He would be pushing for an economy where everyone gets an equal chance, earns their way, and plays by the same rules. At first it might appear as though these simple changes in word choice tell the same story, that I am just trying to nit pick the words of the President, but the truth is that these small changes highlightthe difference in our prespectives. The word FAIR and the word Equal are not the same. EVeryone has an equal shot means that they by the very fact of being human beings have just as good of a shot of overcoming the challenges before them arrive at their desired station in life. That does not mean that everyone will be billionairs, some will fall short, that does not mean that everyone can be an actor, what it means is that you get an equal chance to be what you want to be so long as you are willing to work for it. The word fair means teh rules are changed to “level the playing feild”, when used by the government the concept of fair is a falacy equivalent in its lunacy as a honest politician. When used by the government the concept of “fair” punishes people for strengths and reqrds weaknesses. It robs us of our right to succeed or fail. The concept of “Earns their way”, very different then the concept of “ays their fair share” everyone must, in order to succeed earn their way to top. They must pay their dues, give away their sweet, blood, and tears in order to earn their way to their goal. To pay their fair share imples that some people owe more for some strange reason, whats fair, who determines fair, why must I pay something to someone else? The quest for success is mine to earn, my success is 100% my responsibility. I have to spend money to get to where I want to be, which inturns funds others journey, that is how the system works. “Pay my fair share” is based on what I consume, in the eyes of President Obama means that I don’t deserve the money I have so therefor I am obligated to give it away. The question there is who is he to tell me what is fair? Can you say we live in a free nation if the government determines what is fair for me to earn, fair for me to have? “Everyone plays by the same rules” both President Obama and I stated this. In a free market this is assumed, everyone must provide a product that is worthy of consumption or they don’t survive, those who have great products go further than those who don’t. THe concept of playing by the same rules only applies when the government does not pick and choose whinners. In the name of fairness, playing by the same rules, is thrown out the window as the rules only hinder those who are downtroden. Lets apply the concepts of a free economy to the basketball game referenced earlier. The teams are the same, one has short kids one has tall kids. The odds seem stacked against the short kids, unless you stop and think about it. There are two teams, each with a 50/50 shot at winning, or losing. The Tall kids may be closer to the hoop, but if the small kids practice, use good team work, each preforms to the best of their ability, they can beat the tall kids. If they aren’t able to, they need to rethink the game they play. Maybe they should play soccer or baseball. They may find they like those sports better. If President Obama’s system is fallowed the short kids would never find these different sports, or improve their skills. No, they would be forced to merely continue to exist in the status quo. No one would improve, the judges would continue to promise the short kids a greater chance to win, at the expense of the tall kids. Eventually the tall kids are going to get tired of the insane rules and leave. That has already happened in America, for an example I would recommend you take a trip to northeastern Ohio. What is more American? Government force, or free liberty, bending the rules to cover up a problem, or applying our minds and over coming challenges? Being lazy and wanting someone else to solve your problems, or working hard and letting nothing stand in your way?
President Obama shifted to a “history lesson” playing off his progressive outlines previously stated. ” Lets remember how we got here. long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. Technology made businesses more efficient, but also made some jobs obsolete. Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before, but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that weren’t, and personal debt that kept piling up.” He makes it sound as if this change was technology driven, as if it was driven by greed. It was not new technology that led to the creation of the rust belt. The basic principles of business did. The plain and truth of it is that the cost of doing business in America passed a point where the extra cost supported the quality of labor. Federal regulations, high taxes, and an ever increasing cost of labor driven by over zelus and uncontroled labror unions, priced American workers out of the realm of practicality. When that happened our jobs went out the door.
He brought up the 2008 crisis, ” The house of cards collapse. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other peoples money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behavior.” This sounds like a parent chastising a child, an unwise move for an employee to slap the employer. He acts as if private banks sold those loans because they wanted to. They sold them because they had to. Progressive actions such as the affordable housing act, the creation of government backed entities such as Freddy and Fanny, forced backt to take risks they would not normally, in order to stay in business. Its funny how the whole “level playing field” that the progressives try to create ends with the collapse of peoples lives. Sure some banks may have acted out of greed, there is a bad apple in every bunch, but the majority took these risks because if they didn’t they would have been sued for discrimination, fined, and priced out of existence. It was the corrupting of the system caused by government intervention, that brought the 2008 crisis upon us. Regulators did look the other way, WE regulate government power and we let it over run its consitutional bounds.
“It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt, and left innocent, hardworking Americans holding the bag.” It was wrong, wrong for the government to interfere with the marks, it was wrong for progressives like Barney Frank to lie about their stability. If they had left well enough alone the markets would have been fine.
President Obama had the audacity, the raw nerve to being touting the survival of the American Auto industry as proof positive that his policies have saved our nation. “On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die.With Millions of jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. Plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.” This is one of, if not the most frustrating statements by President Obama in this entire 18 page speech. This simple paragraph is nothing more than a straight face lie, no ifs and of buts. It is an attempt to cover up the mind boggling debocal that the Automaker Bailout was.
- First off lets begin with the concept that people wanted the Auto Industry to die. This is a Lie no one wanted GM to die, and GM would not have died. GM would have filed for bankruptcy, restructured, and come out better equipped to compete in the industry. Oh wait that is exactly what happened after the tax payers bought GM. The Only reason, THE ONLY REASON, that the government bought GM was because Progressives get billions of dollars from Unions. If GM was allowed to file for bankruptcy it would have been able to change its contracts with the Unions, which would cut their power, make the company profitable, and cut of the supply of cash that the unions so desperately relied on. This could not be allowed. So what did President Obama do, he bought GM, then he broke the law, yes he broke the law, he paid off the Unions and before the Bond Holders (many of whom aren’t wall street fat cats but rather grandmothers, and grandfathers.). Yes the Unions got the Gold Mine, and the bond holders got the shaft.
- GM was never out sold by Toyota. The idea that fueled the bail out argument was that the big three where in trouble because they built cars that no one wanted. Big gas guzzling trucks and suv’s, things that no one could possibly want to buy. Unfortunately the truth is that they sold plenty of Cars, GM outsold Toyota in 2007 (the year everything came crashing down). The issues was that thanks to bad deals with the Unions they did not make any money off the cars they sold. The Average Toyota Employee made 30 dollars an hour and cost Toyota 54 dollars. The average GM Employee made 28 dollars an hour and cost the company over 80 dollars an hour. That is a big difference.
- He claims that he demanded that the automakers be responsible, yet under the government leadership GM is ramping up production of the Volt, it is selling like a lead balloon, yet because it matches the progressive green agenda they are producing it in large numbers…. That is not responsibility that is more government insantiy.
- FORD WAS NOT A PART OF THE BAIL OUT! No part of Ford’s success can be attributed to the Automaker bail out. Ford took no Federal Money from the Obama Administration, it is a shining example of FREE MARKET SUCCESS, not the illegal results of government intervention.
- GM only managed to pay its debt to the government by using tarp funds, to we paid ourselves by using our own money. That is a great idea.
President Obama called for tax hikes, this came as no suprise, what did suprise me was that he has decided to take a play out of Herbert Hoover’s play book. You see President Obama wants to raise taxes in a rough economy, in order to fund his redistributive policies. He wants to levy taxes against multination compnaies, and enter a state of protectionism. When Progressive President Herbert Hoover tried this, it did not end well, 1929-1941 if memory serves correctly was not a time of economic prosperity in America. The concept that you can use to drive industry is one born of ignorance. It is this idea of picking winners and looser that has our economy so messed up. The purpose of taxes is to raise revenue to fund the functions of the government as laid out in the constitution. They are not meant to be a tool for progressives to manipulate industry and pay off campaign donors. President Obama said, “if you’re an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you’re a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making your products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers.” This sounds great on paper but in the end is nothing short of the government trying to force the markets to travel in the way the political elite want it to. There should be no tax cuts for making things here, or making things in the way the government wants you to. All this does is move the markets in ways that they are not headed. IT is like trying to walk up Niagra Falls. If the markets want high tech, they will support high tech and that is how things will go. Cut taxes for everyone and let the markets decide, this has been proven multiple times. It is not until the government tries to pick the winner that the system comes crashing down.