Obama

“Are You Better Off? Well Are Ya, Punk?”

http://www.stonekettle.com/2012/09/are-you-better-off-well-are-ya-punk.html?m=1

<blockquote>

I think the question says more about the questioner than the answer does about Obama. 

Are you better off?

To which you’re supposed to ask yourself reflectively, “Well? Am I better off? Am I?”

Not, are we better off?

Not, is the country better off?

Not, is the world better off?

Not even, is business better off? Or Is the economy better off? Both of which would be more useful questions in an election year.

No the question is, are you better off?  Am I better off?

Am I better off?

What better question than “Am I better off?” to summarize an intellectual and morally bankrupt worldview?

It amuses me that people who claim to embrace a religion of selflessness, who loudly and persistently claim that the United States itself is a county based on that same religion of supposed love and shared sacrifice, who profess to follow in the footsteps of a prophet who supposedly preached selflessness above all else, would use “Am I better off” as their political compass.

“Am I better off?” so perfectly describes the self-centered, win at all costs and damn the consequences tactics of political parties and their PACS and their legions of bitterly blind followers. 

…..

</blockquote>

[ thanks to Kate Ducey Hanson for the link ]

Michelle Obama: “When you’ve walked through the door of opportunity, you do not slam it shut behind you…”

Finally getting around to watching the DNC speeches. Michelle Obama is spectacular. Just like with Barack, it’s so hard for me to understand how anyone can dislike her — yet there are people who passionately HATE her. It’s crazy.

The Problem With Conservatism, In One Graphic

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/10/the-problem-with-conservatism-in-one-graphic-image/

A recent study determined that conservatives are more likely to make up facts to justify their beliefs, and this image is proof positive of that.

…..

The underlying issue here is that conservatives have such an aversion to the facts that they’re completely willing to overlook them in an attempt to make a salient point. It doesn’t matter if their claims are baseless, as long as they get the chance to throw out the word “socialism” to scare people.

…..

Why the tax returns matter


How a person manages their own finances reflects on how they would manage the finances of our country. They tell you what a candidate stands to gain, and lose, from a variety of policies — like changes to our tax code. They tell you about a person’s ethics, their priorities, and their commitment to transparency.


[Romney’s] 2010 release raises more questions than it answers:

Why did Romney keep millions of dollars in a Swiss bank account? Why does he have a shell corporation in Bermuda? As voters, we shouldn’t just be curious. We should be outraged about this. Because you know that as Romney vetted his new running mate, Paul Ryan, he asked for several full years of disclosure on his financial history. And when you play by two sets of rules before you even make it into office, it doesn’t bode well for what’s to come.


–Jim Messina, Obama campaign manager

FACT: unless you’re a billionaire, Obama’s plan is better than Romney’s, which is “Robin Hood in Reverse.””

A non-partisan report compares President Barack Obama’s tax plan with that of the GOP.

In every instance President Obama offers lower taxes for the poorest citizens, while the GOP offers lower taxes on the richest among us.

Meaning unless you are a billionaire, the president’s plan is more favorable than Romney’s.

Read the actual report

[ via Justin Anderson via We survived Bush. You will survive Obama. ]

HOPE

Criticize #Obama all you want, but every thing he says in this speech is right on

Remarks by the President at the Associated Press Luncheon | The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/03/remarks-president-assoc…

Lots of great quotes from this speech but a few that stood out…


This congressional Republican budget is something different altogether. It is a Trojan Horse. Disguised as deficit reduction plans, it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It is thinly veiled social Darwinism. It is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everybody who’s willing to work for it; a place where prosperity doesn’t trickle down from the top, but grows outward from the heart of the middle class. And by gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that’s built to last — education and training, research and development, our infrastructure — it is a prescription for decline.

. . . . . . . .

I guess another way of thinking about this is — and this bears on your reporting. I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing, then they’re equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and an equivalence is presented — which reinforces I think people’s cynicism about Washington generally. This is not one of those situations where there’s an equivalence. I’ve got some of the most liberal Democrats in Congress who were prepared to make significant changes to entitlements that go against their political interests, and who said they were willing to do it. And we couldn’t get a Republican to stand up and say, we’ll raise some revenue, or even to suggest that we won’t give more tax cuts to people who don’t need them.

. . . . . . . .

So as all of you are doing your reporting, I think it’s important to remember that the positions I’m taking now on the budget and a host of other issues, if we had been having this discussion 20 years ago, or even 15 years ago, would have been considered squarely centrist positions. What’s changed is the center of the Republican Party. And that’s certainly true with the budget.

. . . . . . . .

So the American people’s impulses are absolutely right. These are solvable problems if people of good faith came together and were willing to compromise. The challenge we have right now is that we have on one side, a party that will brook no compromise. And this is not just my assertion. We had presidential candidates who stood on a stage and were asked, “Would you accept a budget package, a deficit reduction plan, that involved $10 of cuts for every dollar in revenue increases?” Ten-to-one ratio of spending cuts to revenue. Not one of them raised their hand.

Think about that. Ronald Reagan, who, as I recall, is not accused of being a tax-and-spend socialist, understood repeatedly that when the deficit started to get out of control, that for him to make a deal he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases. Did it multiple times. He could not get through a Republican primary today.
. . . . . . . .

2 of 3
123