Archive

Posts Tagged ‘president obama’

Obama’s SOTU: We Must, We Might, I Want

February 13, 2013 Leave a comment

“…and I want a fire truck, and a baseball glove, and a cowboy hat!”

So seemed to go President Obama’s State of the Union wish list. It sounded like Christmas with captive parents in the form of the Congress and a few Supreme Court Justices. Repeatedly, he went so far as to challenge Congress to pass bills, that he would immediately sign.

Interestingly, but hardly surprising to me, was the president’s line that the government should work for the many, not the few.

Why else was this State of the Union such a collassal waste of time for anyone who bothered watching it? Read more here for my thoughts and a few jabs…

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/02/obamas-sotu-we-must-we-might-i-want/

Who’s got a bad case of the “gimmes”?

Political Machination and the Middle Class

December 29, 2011 2 comments

When I mention the “Middle Class”, I would suspect most Americans immediately think, “Hey, that’s me!”, and they pay attention. However, it is an over-used, hackneyed phrase in politics. Whenever a politician wants instantly to grab attention of the American populace, they bring up the “Middle Class”. Since it is usually used by politicians in a “threatened-species” manner, the Middle Class members sit up straight, and listen intently. The Upper Class pays attention, because they are out numbered by the Middle Class (and despite what some people claim, more votes certainly do still count). The Lower Class pays attention because they see the Middle Class as the destination that they are struggling to earn their way into. Politicians, belonging to a class all their own, notice these behavioral tendencies of the three main groups, and smell opportunity.

Something for everyone?

The government is NOT Robin Hood!

For the politicians to use the knee-jerk reaction of the Lower Class, I find their methods very insidious. Usually, what the politicians will do is tell the L.C. that their “gravy train”, their government-granted entitlements, or any other government-dolled goodies are in dire jeopardy because of the actions of the filthy rich. While this will not cause as large a reaction, because the L.C. is less mobile and likely to show up at their Congressman’s office. Anytime someone is given something, and then they are told it is threatened – watch the anger at losing that entitlement explode.

For the politicians to use the reaction of the Upper Class, they can threaten that the M.C. will push for higher wages or take a larger part of the Uppers Class’s wealth in any other number of ways. The U.C., then finding themselves threatened may decide to react by using their money and friendships in Washington to affect change in their favors. Most recently, I think that the more common method of trying to keep goodwill is for the constituents to offer to pay higher taxes (knowing that it will never come to that).  I find it interesting to think that a class so often seen as miserly and “above-it-all”, still seems to be so easily swayed by this type of rhetoric.

The dirty trick is, according to where the politicians put their measuring sticks, the Middle Class could be made to be any group. From an income of $30,000 up to $120,000? You are Middle Class. From $28,000 to $150,000? Boom – you are Middle Class. It is all about political expediency. The politicians constantly play fast and loose with rules, regulations, and our money, so why should their rhetoric be any different? If there is a political point to be made, or some “points” to be earned for their next election, they will paint you in any shade that they need to, to make their point (or to engage fully in their fear-mongering). The Middle Class has to be the most bandied-about segment of America.

These methods of politicians to get various classes to argue and fight with one another, while the politicians get away with murder, creates this huge positive feedback loop. Costs increase with every promise and entitlement given. While it seems to have been this way as long as this blogger can remember, I do not expect it to change (especially since blowing that class-dog-whistle works so well). The government has given goodies to pry support from certain groups, and now it is nearly impossible to reduce it. They need constantly to keep money flowing, while others, seeing these sweet deals, want their “fair share” too. Ever-increasing funds are needed as more and more people join the rolls. Where is it supposed to all come from? Sometimes, I wonder how much a little critical thought is worth – well politicians are attempting to figure that out for us all.

(This post took me forever, due primarily to the fact I started Tweeting, and that’s like Internet crack. I told those responsible that they’d be noted as my distractions): @tamale102280, @iteabellsingers, and @apologyispolicy
They’re good people – follow ’em if you don’t already!

The Little Man In The Big Office

July 27, 2011 1 comment

For the mythical beginnings of a presidency, fully invested in the election rhetoric of “Hope and Change”, the current realities are far short of the promises.  A massively increased deficit, an additional war (yes, I know, it’s not a war – it is a “kinetic military action“), and a highly polarized American public, are some of the things that have been changed, and the hope looks farther and farther away as his term in office rolls onward.  Regular bouts of inaction, frequently follow up by mercurial rhetoric, have also become expected by this president.  It’s almost as though at the exact times he should do nothing, he acts (usually wrongly), and at the times he should act, he does nothing.

"Progress"

If what he does is "progress", would it really be that bad to be left behind?

Proof of the inaction-when-action should be the order?  A few examples come to mind.  First, when the Green Revolution in Iran tried to topple one of the world’s most threatening regimes, in the Middle East, that of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  He could have decried the stolen election itself, or when the electoral opponents claimed widespread vote-fraud, the Iranian government’s violent crackdown.  While protesters were marching in the streets, and shouting at any media that they could find, requesting assistance and aid from the United States or other western powers, our president did nothing.  Perhaps he thought his presidency was too young to risk going to war to help a people struggling for some measure of freedom?  Perhaps he was afraid of unintentionally helping nefarious elements hiding in the Iranian freedom movement?  I doubt that was the case, since a year later, he was faced with a similar situation in Egypt.  Again, the order of the day was nothing.  Even the main stream media began to wonder if the president would even mention the ongoing plight of the thousands in Tahrir (“Liberation”) Square in Cairo.  Eventually, he did speak, and strongly urged the despot-for-life, Hosni Mubarak to step down.  No shots fired, and he can still take credit for “helping” the situation.  Since, he has tried to open diplomatic channels with what appears to be the new Egyptian government, consisting of the Muslim Brotherhood, among others.  Currently, while Syrians march, and face their own military’s live firing at them, the president is wholly silent on the escalating slaughter.

The Green Revolution

A (beautiful) participant in Iran's "Green Revolution"

For whatever reason, his actions seem to come with either little point, or at a major expense of some sort.  I suspect because of his formerly mentioned neglecting to act against a threat that may have been “tough”, he is now overcompensating.  While previously arguing against military actions in Iraq and escalation in Afghanistan, he has opened a new war front in Libya, via NATO.  As it stands, the world now faces a hardened and angry Muammar Gaddafi.  He has already threatened to blow up Tripoli to spite our NATO allies.  This entire military action required a complete “go around” of the United States Congress, but whatever – he’s trying to show the world he carries a big stick, I suppose.  I doubt that casts him in a good light anywhere, especially in the Middle East.

I find it ironic that the little man in the Oval Office seems far more likely to use a heavy hand with his own people than against outside threats.  You should remember his retort to American concerns about his spending, and the legislation happily passed by Congress, that he then signed – “We won”.  This is the same president who had referred to the Republicans as the “party of no”.  This is also the same guy who has rejected every plan that the Republican House has offered to try to rein in run-away spending.  This is the same president who looks into a camera and claims to Americans that he is trying to negotiate “in good faith”.  I for one do not buy it.  I have seen far too much in this still young presidency, to take anything he says at face value.  I caught a show this afternoon that raised the possibility of a Republican landslide in 2012.  Most opinion polls show his approval ratings sliding downward consistently (if you do not count the bump he got for ordering a SEAL Team Six to take out public enemy number one, Osama Bin Laden).  Senator Bernie Sanders has even raised the question of having someone primary the president.  I am heartened to find out I am not the only one who sees this political neophyte and clueless organizer for what he is.  At the same time I realize, we only have two more years of this incompetence, I think, we still have two more years of this incompetence!