Type to search

Obama’s Other Message: Times Change And Government Changes With Them

Memo Pad

Obama’s Other Message: Times Change And Government Changes With Them


The president didn’t just make a case for big government; he argued that the government must adapt to meet its citizens’ needs.

Almost hidden in President Obama’s second inaugural address was a key idea that received little if any attention. The focus has been on the president’s eloquent defense of collective government, and who couldn’t be gratified by that? Time and again, he used the world “together” to describe the nation’s purpose. Government is about working together, and Obama very nicely made the case for it in the face of 40 years of pronouncements by those who disparage government and want to cut it down, if not out. Democrats, not just Republicans, have been leaders in this quest.

But for me, what was most interesting about Obama’s speech was the emphasis on how we must change with the times. I was interested because I wrote a book about this. I take no credit for Obama’s point, because my book was titled The Case for Big GovernmentI doubt he would be caught even in the privacy of his own bedroom reading a book with that title.

Seeing the title, many presumed I was writing about Keynesian policy. In fact, my argument was that the size of government is not the issue, the need for government is. I cited the work of economists who show that size and high taxes have not automatically deterred growth. But when I published this before the crash, Republicans in particular, but also some Democrats, kept talking about the original intentions of the Founders and were urging us not to go beyond the early purposes of government. That is where I focused my attention: the needs of government change as society, science, social thought,  technology, and expectations advance.

To say government must be small is nonsense. Government must be the size necessary to make a society and economy work, and that is not fixed — nor could it possibly have been known by farmers in the late 1700s.

Here is what Obama said about change on Monday:

[W]e have always understood that when times change, so must we, that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges, that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias.

Let me re-emphasize that this has been said before, but not often enough. Surely it is not part of the media discourse and it is not part of the thinking of those budget writers in Washington who claim the federal government should be a fixed proportion of GDP. I refer of course to the Bowles-Simpson budget balancing plan that so many think is the height of good sense. They’d like to limit federal spending to 21 percent of GDP — no matter that our society ages, that health care is more costly, that we need to educate preschool children and better educate those in higher grades as the world gets more competitive, that our poverty rate is still high, that our ability to create jobs is under severe challenge, and so on.


  1. Dominick Vila January 25, 2013

    Government, like private industry and all of us, must learn to adapt to new concepts, processes, technologies, threats and expectations. Change is not an option, it is a necessity. You should not insist on doing things today, because they worked well 50 or 60 years ago. I still remember my Underwood and Remington manual typewriters, carbon paper, and witeout, I doubt I would get very far trying to sell those relics as a replacement to a laptop or a tablet.
    The issue, and President Obama’s focus, is not on bigger government, but more efficient and effective government. That includes a complete reassessment of policies, regulations, and the way our government functions.
    The same goes for private industry. Companies that fail to adapt to the changes that take place, almost on a daily basis, are doomed and sooner or later go our of business.
    President Obama’s message was right on the money and deserves consideration. Unfortunately, the crowd that is intent on rejecting everything he says, not because his proposals are wrong, but because they may work and help us prosper as a nation, will no doubt erect the usual barriers and continue to bury their heads in the sand pursuing chimeras worthy of Don Quixote.

    1. Dol5 January 25, 2013

      Dominick, you have said it very well. Keep on telling us like it is. Good luck.

    2. Fern Woodfork January 25, 2013

      Very Well Said As Always My Friend !! And This Is Why The GOP/Tea Party Will Keep Having To Cheat, Lie, And Steal Their Way In Any Office They Run For Cause They What It To Be The Good Old Days Where The Rich White Man Rule The World And Whatever He Wants He Gets!! GOP Wants It To Be 1950 And The Tea Party Wants It To Be 1850 Be We Know It’s 2013 And We Are A Rainbow Of People Out Here We Work Hard And We All Want Part Of The American Dream With Decent Housing And A Decent Wage To Live On!! It May Be Years Before They Have Another GOP/Tea Party President Unless They Get Away With Stealing The Election In Which As I Type, They Are Doing And Putting All The Low Down Sneaky Crap They Can Think Of Ln Place NOW!! Now They Want To Steal The Electoral Votes!! These Thugs Haven’t Learn NOTHING!!! 🙁

      1. joeham1 January 29, 2013

        Your a racist hack Fern!

    3. Progressive Patriot January 25, 2013

      I think that we would benefit from taking into consideration, the notion that all of this is made up. As real as it all seems, government systems, the “economy,”… are all creations of our imaginations. With that said, the “Elite,” have a whole lot at stake in keeping things just the way they are, and in continuing to use their tremendous wealth and power to create “the rules,” in their favor.
      We have just as much right as they have, to create a world that works for all of us; not just the rich and powerful. We are every bit as worthy, deserving, valuable, important… No better, but no worse.
      With that said, I hope that we can change the conversation to a more JUST society and government, where business and the wealthy are regulated so that they must live by the same rules as the rest of us (Why have no Banksters seen jail time for their fraud that brought down the economy, and caused many of us to loose our homes and savings? They have written themselves different rules. That’s why.). That is one of the major roles of government; to regulate the Venture/Vulture Capitalists so that We The People are not powerless against them. THEY actually benefit when they have fewer regulations; we do not. Our babies, and we, must drink the polluted water, breath the sooty air of their unregulated industries. It is our families that suffer as we must produce more and more for less and less, while their profits are reaching record levels (and what are they doing with their record profits? Buying our government and writing the rules. That’s What!) It is we who have to pay the price of the rising cost of healthcare due to their unremitting fear that a public option will instantly cause our nation to become a bastion of socialism (please!). The “Elite,” can afford healthcare for profit; we cannot. Wouldn’t removing the burden of providing insurance from (real) small businesses free them to invest their money into their businesses? All we have to do is look at the graphs documenting the exploding income inequality, and the ever increasing numbers of us being forced into poverty, to see who this current system benefits, and who it does not benefit. The rift continues to grow, and THEY WANT MORE OF THE SAME!
      To this point, we find that The Aristocrats have poisoned the collective consciousness against social justice. They have propagandized their philosophies of social Darwinism and Calvinism, and unregulated Capitalism, so as to make us think that we are not worthy unless we are rich. They have created a public reflex reaction against any mention of social safety nets, unions or workers rights… for fear of being branded a communist or socialist (instead of an American who loves this country, and wants freedom and justice for all).
      Trickle Down, Job Creators, Makers and Takers… How condescending, arrogant, self-righteous, sanctimonious (fill in the blanks)… is that?
      We have a right to co-create our world too! We don’t have to leave it to the “rich and powerful.” It’s all just made-up anyway. We just have to unite, and claim it (simple, Huh? 🙂 I’m not saying that we should be given anything. I’m saying that there is value to what we do. That the system does not work without us, and that we need to reclaim our dignity and self-worth. Push back against any message that suggests that our contributions to this fantasy are of any less value that someone’s who is rich and powerful.
      Change seems to be a necessary part of life. Let’s claim our right to have a say in how that change unfolds.
      Protect Internet Freedom! Move 2 Amend!

    4. onedonewong January 25, 2013

      No he wants a bigger govt that controls our lives from birth to death..its the communist way you know. Besides he rather rule via executive fiat rather than actually get legislation implemented

      1. Progressive Patriot January 26, 2013

        Please onedone…,
        You’re killing me here with these bubble talking points. How ’bout something new? And reality based? 🙂

        1. onedonewong January 26, 2013

          Your not trying to deny that barak is a card carrying socialist are you??

          1. Progressive Patriot January 27, 2013


            I frequently get the sense that you are just trying to provoke a reaction. Is that true?
            What is your intention here?

            If The President were actually a “card carrying socialist,” the card would have been revealed by now. The truth is, his recent inaugural address reflects the views of the majority of americans. We spoke, he listened, and reflected backe to us. As I remember, The President’s tone was very different after the 2010 elections. Why? Because he is trying to be The President of the United States.

          2. onedonewong January 27, 2013

            Provoke a reaction? No I’m trying to lend some balance to a whacked out socialist web site
            As for Barak being a card carrying member of the Socialist Party that is a fact. He joined in the 1990’s and its readily available on any search engine. As for the State Run Media not bringing up HELLLLO!!! he’s the Messiah.
            The State Run Media was able to track Mitt;s entire childhood from the day he was 1st potty trained thru elementary school and High School. And yet that same media never seemed to find out anything about barak…. wonder why

      2. MARK January 26, 2013

        How easy it must be to say stupid things about the president and engage in noncooperative behavior rather than to offer any concrete positive help to fix things.

        1. onedonewong January 26, 2013

          That’s easy all he needs to do is resign. We both know he’s in over his head

      3. Independent1 January 26, 2013

        Let’s see, bigger government. Now would you say increasing the size of government by 2,000,000 workers was someone who wanted bigger government?? Well, that’s exactly what Bush did in his disasterous 8 years in office. Now on the other side, Obama has reduced the size of government during his 4 years by over 565,000 workers by streamlining many agencies, getting us out of Iraq and winding down the Afghan war. Remember that the military is part of ‘The Government”, so when Republicans talk constantly about increasing the defense budget and starting wars at a drop of a hat, they’re actually proposing to greatly increase the size of government – JUST LIKE BUSH DID!!!!

        1. onedonewong January 26, 2013

          2,000,000 federal workers?? You must be using barak’s press secretary that’s the same nonsense that’s spewed regarding jobs created during his 1st 4 years when in fact not 1 new net job was created. You do realize that the number you posted is larger than total federal employment that totals 1,900,000 under barak.
          And n0o barak has ADDDED bureaucrats he hasn’t cut 1 job

          1. MARK January 28, 2013

            Why don’t you hang out where people actually like you.You are striking out here.

          2. onedonewong January 28, 2013

            Not looking to be liked just want to make sure the site has some truth posted

          3. MARK January 29, 2013

            Doubtful that I or any others here rely on you or your buddy joeham1 for truth.I won’t get into a pissing match with either one of you concerning the sources of credible info but I dare say that the majority of folks posting comments here get thier news from a wide variety of sources.

          4. onedonewong January 29, 2013

            Last time I looked cable doesn’t run service to folks living under a rock

        2. joeham1 January 27, 2013

          I realize you are retarded. No one can argue that. Your democrats agreed and voted for the wars. I know the facts hurt, but try to tell the truth.

          Obama hasn’t reduced shit! You know it and again the truth escapes you! He couldn’t Streamline a river. Spending is way up with him, in fact: after his second term he will have raised the deficit as much as all the other Presidents put together!

          THERE ARE: 64,000 more federal employess now then there were under Bush! (U.S. Office Of Personnel Management)

          So get your head out of his ass! and stop the bull! YOUR A FREAKING LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          1. Progressive Patriot January 28, 2013

            The fact is that the nation was lied to about W.M.D’s. The growth of spending IS down.
            I understand that underneath Anger there is usually hurt and fear.

          2. joeham1 January 28, 2013

            Well, I realize your clueless so let’s start here: The democrats and Republicans on the intelligence committee All BELIEVED that there was WMD’s. Your problem is you bought the bull crap from the dems who acted like they had no idea!

            Spending is not down! Where ever you got that I have no idea…Here are the facts!

            2008: 488 billion Bush
            2009:1.5 trillion Obama
            2010: 1.3 trillion Obama
            2011: 1.3 trillion Obama
            2012: 1.1 trillion Obama
            2013: 1.4 trillion Projected! (CBO jan 4 2013) Obama

            Underneath dillusion is hope and change!


          3. Nate January 28, 2013

            Obama didn’t inherit a booming economy like you know you and practicaly pushed this country off of a cliff

          4. joeham1 January 28, 2013

            No one can argue that! If you really analize Bush VS Obama there isn’t a lot of difference. They spent on different things, and they both inherited a reccession, but neither one has any regard for the amount of spending they rackes up! theyRemember that from 2006 to 2010 the Democrats ran the house and Senate.

            My Problem is after 5.6 trillion in deficit spending unemployement is the same as when he took office. I would be fine with that kind of deficit if the country was back on it’s feet.

            We all need to realize that both parties suck and they are both owned by special interests.

            Republicans: Big Business
            Democrats: Unions, Big Business

          5. MARK January 28, 2013

            How can you claim that Bush inherited a recession when Clinton left a surplus? Can’t be both ways.

          6. joeham1 January 28, 2013

            Are you serious? At the end of Clinton’s second term we were in a reccession…Look it up! Because of Newt Gingerich and Bill Clinton we had a balanced budget and welfare reform. That gave us a surplus.

            Because we were in a reccession Bush cut taxes on everyone. After we came out of the reccession Bush passed the prescription drug bill but it was not paid for.

            When Clinton left office we were Borrowing: 512 Million a day
            When Bush left office we were borrowing: 1.6 billion a day
            After 4 years of Obama in office we are borrowing 4.4 billion a day

          7. MARK January 28, 2013

            I don’t have to look it up,I was there and we had a record surplus.Given the circumstances no matter who was in office the past four years you can’t possibly think that things would be different .By the way,what is your source for your figures?

          8. Progressive Patriot January 28, 2013

            We see what we want to see, joeham1.

            Looked up dillusion, had something to do with pickles. Hope and change is at the foundation of everything.
            You’re so angry. We know that anger takes us further away from the thinking parts of our brain. Perhaps you should take a breath and be more careful before calling others clueless.
            I’ll respond to your, “facts,” later.

          9. joeham1 January 28, 2013

            What the heck are you blabbing about? The only thing that makes me angry is when clueless people make comments that aren’t true! OK, I took a breath and if you think Obama lowered spending your still clueless!

            I figured you would get back to my facts later…Not one person on this site wants to hear anything bad about the left. They all hate the right but don’t realize the left is just as bad!

          10. Progressive Patriot January 28, 2013

            Well, joeham1,

            I don’t think that the Left is “just as bad.” That’s why I’m so committed to this.

            Perhaps people might be more likely to listen to you if you were a bit more respectful. Nobody likes a bully. You went to name calling (clueless) but didn’t even know that you misspelled delusional. I’m not the greatest speller either, but you know about that glass houses thing.
            I will get to the facts. I wanted to take a look at what you’ve said. So far, everything you’ve said related to growth of the deficit is supported on right wing and corporate sources. You are just as guilty of manipulating the “facts,” to prove your point as anyone else.
            I don’t hate the right. I hate their policies that have contribute to Two Americas and the decline of the middle class, rigged the system for the rich and powerful, threaten democracy, made workers and the poor villains, and are attempting to impose austerity measures on the poor, working and middle classes, and to cut the social safety nets. This without addressing ALL of the corporate and “Elite,” welfare, and despite that fact while our incomes have stagnated over the last 30 years, corporations and the “Wealthy,” have seen record growth.

            With that said, the budget has increased under The President. But you are leaving out some important factors in order to prove your point (which seems to me to be that you hate The President).

            The 2009 stimulus (185 billion) was added on to the Bush drafted budget. Since the budget is always submitted the year prior, The President’s “increases,” start with his 2010 budget, not 2009.

            On the 2010 budget, his spending “increases” have to be considered in light of the fact that The President actually put the Iraq war on the budget ( 130 billion,which Bush did not). We are still paying for those wars, and of course for all the interest on the Bush debt. Then let’s not forget the severe decrease in revenue due to the Bush economy (-420 billion in ’09). So in the 2010 budget, it was not all The President’s spending. 6% of the 2010 budget went to interest on past debt, a lot of it belonging to Bush.

            So here are my Left biased facts (I’m willing to admit that I’m using them to prove my point).
            Ending F/Y ’01, we had a surplus of 127 billion. The deficit for Bush’s ’09 budget was 1.42 trillion.
            The 2010 President’s budget saw an increase of 2% over Bushes 2009 budget (1.45 trillion)
            .Our national debt was increased by 13.8% under The President in 2010.
            Bush increased the national debt by 11.2% in ’08 and 18.8% in ’09.

            The national debt at the end of 2000, before Bush submitted his first budget, was 5.6 trillion. In ’09, for the last Bush budget, the debt went up to 11.9 trillion. A 110% INCREASE!

            Over 20% of our budget is Defense Spending.
            20% is attributed to Social Security.
            Medicare: 13%.
            Medicaid 7%.

            The President inherited the above (did not create them). He is not responsible for the wars, or bases all over the world, or All of the revenue that drains our economy in order to maintain them. He had nothing to do with the 2000 tax cuts (2.2 trillion), was held hostage in extending the Bush tax cuts during his first administration; had nothing to do with Nixon’s HMO that allowed medical costs to skyrocket, contributing to making medicare and medicaid as costly as they are. I’m told that in time, The Affordable Care Act will help to bring healthcare cost under control, of course, the Right, does not want to see that happen, and is doing their utmost to poison that well.

            Let’s not forget that in ’09 we saw a 17% decrease in federal revenue in ’09 compared to ’08.
            The President had nothing to do with the Bush/Wall Street recession; and is far less responsible for the overall debt and deficit than you attempt to attribute to him.

            Lastly, if The President had not faced unprecedented obstructionism, the economy would most likely be much further along, and we might not have to be listening to corporations and the rich telling the rest of us that we must sacrafice, while they continue on their marry way.

            So, as I see it, the growth of the deficit is slowing under The President.
            Why do you hate him so much, joeham1?

          11. joeham1 January 29, 2013

            OMG…You win the prize for manipulating the numbers! As far as your concerned Obama isn’t responsible for anything! lol That’s crazy! (I didn’t say your crazy) Let’s go over your numbers. I won’t assume your lying I will just assume you made a few mistakes. And yes sometimes I spell wrong when I get in a hurry!

            If you really looked at the numbers and policies. You would realize that Obama is at least, as Bad as bush. That’s why I won’t affiliate. Affiliating with a party tends to make you blind!

            Spin it any way you want. Obama has created a whole new level of spending that will end up destroying the country. It can’t go on to much longer and unfortunately he won’t even talk about it seriously! ie Balanced Approach!

            1) In your 2009 number you of course you blame on Bush. You forgot Obamas 800 Billion stimulas.
            2) your wrong that The wars that both parties voted on and agreed to weren’t counted for Bushes spending.
            3) When Bush left Office the deficit was 10.6 Trillion (CBO web site)
            4) The healthcare bill creates a panel that will make decisions on who and how people will get treatment. There is NOTHING in the bill to lower costs! Tort reform and increased competition (buying insurance over state lines) would have accomplished that.

            When you say one party is for the righ and the other isn’t thats just not true. The left is owned by the Unions, and Big Business. The right is owned by Big Business.

            Some Proof is Chicago, New York, LA. and most big cities: The democrats that care about the poor and helpless so much have created a system that can’t be sustained. The cycle of tax and give and tax and give has created a huge amount of poverty and many millionare politicians.

            We have had only 2 good presidents in the last 30 years. Reagan and Clinton…Between them they created almost 50 million jobs. Bush and Obama have been pathetic in their efforts to create an environment to create jobs.

          12. Progressive Patriot January 29, 2013

            First off, thank you for taking the time to share your OPINION with me. I do appreciate that you are obviously a very educated person who wants things to get better. Guess what? So do I. Perhaps we have more in common than you might think?

            That said, I hope you’re able to see that you are doing the exact same thing that you are accusing me of doing; spinning the “facts,” and manipulating the numbers to prove your point. As I look at your numbers, Joeham1, I think that we are trying to make a similar point: The system is broken, and we need to fix it. Isn’t that what The President is saying?

            My experience leads me to my point of view. I’ve been living the numbers, as I see them, for the last 16 years. My experience validates my view of the numbers. Business owns the government (in fact, business likely owns the world’s governments). Corporate and Oligarchic interests have perverted our democracy in order to advance their own interests. If not Fascism, then surely movement in that direction. As I see it, they do not want to contribute their fair share for the privilege of using our citizens, infrastructure, resources, accessing our markets… Instead, as I see it, they want the poor and middle classes to pay them for the honor of being consigned to an ever increasing life of toil, poverty and pollution. What makes corporate welfare or welfare for the rich, any better or more fair than other forms of welfare? I think it’s worse and less fair, because it is inarguably unnecessary.

            As you have said, a balanced approach seems like a good idea to me too. But when I listen to The Right, the only “balance” I see is expecting that more be asked of the poor, working and middle classes. It’s easy for the Blankfeins of the world to ask us to work until 70 when they have, likely, billions in their savings. As I’ve said, I’ve been feeling the squeeze for the last 16 years, while I’ve watched corporate profits soar, and income inequality explode. Until that Fact is acknowledged, I’m not in a very giving mood.

            So here is my response to your points:

            1) Were it not for the Republican diminished stimulus, “Some people say (a Fox News tactic)” that we would have fallen into a severe Depression. And, some people say that the only problem with the stimulus is that it didn’t go far enough. Now why is that? The only ones saying that the stimulus didn’t work are the spinmasters on the corporate owned Right, and those that have been brainwashed with their brand of fear, hate and divisive rhetoric.

            2) My sources on the Left say that Bush didn’t count the wars on his budgets. So you’re wrong! I don’t know what that accomplished. Right back at ya.

            3) Alright! So it was just a paltry 90% blow up of the budget during the Bush administration (I own the fact that I’m a math illiterate). Beware of Tort Reform, I’ve been told that it tends to limit We The People’s access to the courts in favor of the already over powerful corporations. Also, Tort Reform is a pet policy of the Chamber of Commerce, which is a front for giant corporate interests. In addition, since the insurance industry is allowed to be consolidated into what is essentially a handful of companies, I don’t see how that “state line,” “competition” chestnut is going to do anything. That industry (like the banks and Wall Street) needs more, not less regulation. They are just too greedy to do it themselves.

            If, as you say, the Left is owned by big business and unions, then at least there’s one more seat at the table on the Left. I acknowledge that unions have had their fair share of corruption, but they have made every worker’s life better (weekends, holidays, overtime, benefits, better pay, safer working conditions… gone without unions). But as far as “ownership,” of the Left, I disagree with you. The Left is owned by We The People (poor, working class, women, “minorities,” …) The problem is that our government is owned by corporations and The Right; and they’re fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way (corporate media propaganda, voter suppression, attempting to change state assignation of delegates, divide and conquer on “social issues”…)

            To your point on the social safety nets, of course they CAN be sustained. It’s a question of political will. Should they be re-evaluated, sure. But don’t blindly start gutting medicare, medicaid and social security just because some some rich guys and corporations don’t want anybody looking into their own massive entitlement programs. If you want my support for reducing the deficit, start with the entitlements for the wealthy and corporations. I’ve been forced to accept cuts for the last 30 years, and they have manipulated and rewritten the laws for the last thirty years. The tax and give you mention has occurred, but the taxes have fallen on the 99% and the breaks have been given to the 1%. I think you’ll find that those of us on the right also want the deficit crisis “fixed.” I’m not totally schooled up on the subject, but didn’t California recently balance their budget? Blue State, aren’t they?

            I’ll leave your analysis of Presidents Reagan and Clinton to you. I think that assessing their their legacies will be far more complex than simply adding up jobs numbers.

            I will say that the Bush policies (trickle down economics, spending like drunken sailors…) were hurtful to this country, and to me personally. My experience is that The President has been successful. Especially when you consider that The Right chose to exercise all of their resources to do everything within their power to make The President fail. I don’t like that at all.
            I’m skeptical of the Pols just like you, joeham1. We have to watch them closely and hold them accountable.
            But at least The President is speaking my language.

          13. joeham1 January 29, 2013

            I will get right into your points. Blaming the countries issue on the rich is futile. This country (the way it was) created more rich people than the rest of the world! That being said, it’s easy to blame the evil rich even though the corruption in our government, cities and towns plays a part in what i consider the fall of our country.

            1) The Obama stimulas was mostly a payoff to the unions and rich people. It failed because the PEOPLE didn’t get it. The pork and payoffs lead to a cost of 3 million per job. The ones who say it didn’t go far enough are the ones who don’t understand what the deficit will do to us SOON! At that kind of cost per job, anyone telling the truth would say it failed!
            2) Bush didn’t count the wars in his budget. But they were counted as part of the deifcit (CBO REPORTS)
            3) Tort reform is opposed by the trial lawyers. Call your doctor and ask what he or she pays for malpractice insurance. Tort reform would lower medical costs and hurt the left because the majority of them in the house and senate are trial lawyers. Look at the commercials on tv. A good percentage of them on mesthelioma, vaginal slings, call 1800 bad medicine, etc.

            Insurance: It is a fact that increased competition lowers costs. Having more choices will get us better pricing. That has nothing to do with regulating.

            A little more on regulations: The myth told by the left is that the right wants business to regulate themselves. A myth told by the right is that the left wants to regulate us to death. Both are correct. Under regulation leads to disaster and over regulation leads business failure and to high unemployment. Since the president took office thousands of new regulations have taken place. In fact the worse thing about the healthcare bill is the 13,000 pages of regulations.

            What the left won’t tell you is that the Bush tax cuts brought tax rates to “0” for lower income people. It was also huge for the middle class.

            Another myth you have bought into is the voter suppression crap. Requiring an idea is supposedly racist and so on. We need an I.D. for virtually everything. Having an ID to vote would “virtually” eliminate voter fraud. The left doesn’t want that. Ask your self why? The example in Ohio of the man that was registered over 80 times by the DNC is an example. ACORN was registering people muliple times.

            Here’s a scary fact: The states that require voter ID’s were all won by Romney. The states where anyone could vote were all won by Obama!

            If you want to know which way of Governement is better, do oyur own research. Your examples in your post all game form the left. Here is the way to find out which is better. Do you own economic study on Texas vs Caifornia. The results and difference will amaze you.

            Finally, as I said before and you seemed to miss the point. The inner cities for years have supposedly taken care of the poor. They have spent themselves into oblivion and it hasn’t helped. The left claim they care so much and the right want to starve the poor. To me it’s a matter of providing opportunity. In the last 30 years of the dems controlling the innner cities, education is at an all time low, poverty is worse then ever, and taxes are so out of wack that they are virtually bankrupt.

            Remember: from 1945 until 1994 the democrats ran the house and senate.

            My voting record: 1980: Mondale 1984 : Reagan 1988 Bush 1 1992: Clinton

            1996: Clinton 2000: Bush 2004: Bush 2008: Obama 2012: Romney

          14. Progressive Patriot January 30, 2013

            Well joeham1, you’ve convinced me… I’m becoming a Conservative!

            Just kidding.

            Again, thanks for taking the time to share your views. Very interesting. You’re helping me to be an even more educated Progressive.

            I’m going to take a good look at your talking points, do my research, and get back to you. My initial reaction is surprise, because I wasn’t expecting as much Bubble in your reply as there seems to be. I don’t even know where to start, but I’ll figure it out.


          15. joeham1 January 30, 2013

            I’m not sure how familiar you are with the progressive movement. It started around 1910 I believe. It’s been a long time since I’ve studied it. It’s basically a form of socialism. I don’t want to discourage you but it’s a system that seems fair but really isn’t. Take care of the poor and needy and so on. It’s been done and it has the same inherant flaws as most systems. The system still ends up with the haves and have nots. Our inner cities are kind of a type of the Progressive system. they ditribute taxes to the poor for food and clothing etc. The problem is they always remain poor and the ones who distrbute end up with most of the money.

            Some of the reasons true capitalism works better is becuase it creates so much more wealth. The less fortunate aren’t as poor in a true Capitalistic system. An example is that most of the poor in this country still have flat screens and I phones. The rich are able to donate more and job creation is much better. It’s the old saying, teach a man to fish or give him fish.

            No one can deny our country before the progressive (who by the way have good intentions) movement installed itself in our society created more job and therefore more wealth then any other country. Anyone could get rich or at least make a good living. The unions are said to help people become middle class. The truth is the big unions especially the public unions have taken over parts of the democrat party. An example is in Wisconsin the average non union family makes 48,000 a year. The average public Union worker makes 78,000 plus pension. Paid for by the families that makes 48,000. Unions hurt companies by making them not competitive. Therefore companie move manufacturing overseas. The steel industry is the best example of union destroying an industry. There are hundreds of stories that explain how it happened.

            No system is perfect. Greed and corruption are the only things that can take down capitalism. However that’s true for any system.

          16. Progressive Patriot January 30, 2013

            joeham1, I really do appreciate the discussion. But what you are now sharing very respectfully with me, are the same old tired talking points the right has been parrotting ever since I can remember. There is no major or advanced nation that is fully capitalistic. Roads, sewers, schools, police and fire departments, just to name a few are all essential elements of our nation that are part of our nations commons. We all need and depend on them and one could consider them a Socialistic part of our democratic republic, and it is really fair. If you think that unfettered capitalism/libertarianism works, visit Somalia.

            What our current system is trending us to is a form of feudalism with a very privileged few keeping their wealth for generations, and the vast majority living at or near poverty, with very little chance for advancement. Of the advanced nations, our level of upward mobility ranks near the bottom. There are plenty of advanced nations that boast better average standards of living for their citizens than we do. And all of them have a more progressive tax code. The fact is that the nation as a whole does better when revenues are higher than they currently are. Also, that Ayn Rand notion of creating a nation of takers is a myth, and very simplistic at best. Most people benefit from a ladder or hand up when a crisis like the Bush caused recession, or the great depression occurs, and most people do not abuse it. Studies from across nations show that suicide, homicide, depression, substance abuse… all rise under conservative administrations.

            With regard again to true capitalism, whatever that is, the problem is greed. The rich and powerful always rig the system, and the ranks of the poor swell. Democracy needs a strong and vibrant middle and working class in order for the demand driven economy to thrive. Your references to the poor seem based on stereo-types and prejudice.

            Of course anyone CAN deny that before the progressive movement our economy created more jobs and wealth! The New Deal is Progressive, The Great Society is Progressive. Under those progressive policies, the country prospered. The decline of the working and middle classes, and thus of democracy, began under Reagan, and escalated under the Bushes. Sure they generated great wealth, for a very few, and a decline in wages and lifestyle for the vast majority of Americans. Republican policies take us back to the eras of the Robber Barrons, and the Gilded Age. They create an Aristocracy and eventually contributes to great economic crises like The Great Depression, and our current Recession that would most certainly been much worse without our Presidents intervention. That job creation (trickle down) and the donations that you are referring to, don’t happen. They are myth created by the rich, to justify their manipulation of the system. Fortunately, we’re waking up to the lie.

            The Unions are democratic institutions. Corporations are fiefdoms. I’ll take democracy over unfettered vulture/venture capitalism any day. Much better for everyone. Business and the economy of course do better. The middle class thrived under democratic (not democrat) administrations. When you refer to a decline in wages for the non-union family, it seems to me that what your referencing proves the point that workers wages are under siege by corporate interests. Every worker benefits from unions, wether they join or not. It’s obvious that as union membership has declined, wages have declined, and income inequality has skyrocketed. The Steel Industry was impacted by our Free (not Fair) trade agreements, and loss of manufacturing and good paying jobs, as Corporations took advantage of taxes and laws that they wrote in order to profit and avoid taxes by off-shoring, and utilizing cheap, if not slave type labor and conditions. Greed! Bad for workers and people all over the world. And especially bad for the american economy and the Real Job Creators.

            I’m still interested in exploring the facts (real verifiable ones). That’s why I’m spending time engaged in this dialogue with you. But please don’t waste my time with the tired old conservative/libertarian, right wing, Republican talking points. I always feel compelled to “push back,” because of the massive corporate media echo chamber.

        3. Progressive Patriot January 28, 2013

          Great points Inde…
          Under The President, the growth of our budget has been reduced by a greater degree than by any other president in decades.

      4. joeham1 January 29, 2013

        Unfortunately he’s like a 12 year old. If he can’t do it his way he will rip up the constitution to get it done! The biggest problem is that most of the racist hacks on this site are to blind or to dumb to see the damage he is causing.

        If you say anything they act like you just told them there isn’t a Santa Clause!

  2. Charles January 25, 2013

    OBAMA,what ever he saids. I will back him up all the way.

    1. montanabill January 25, 2013

      He said give 20 F-16’s, latest model, and 200 Abrams tanks to Morsi because he knows that by being nice to militant Islamists, they will be nice to us and our friends. He appreciates your backing.

  3. Eleanore Whitaker January 25, 2013

    The major reason badly managed businesses don’t fail is taxpayers. Too much of our tax dollars are handed to businesses who claim profits while exceeding their working capital to provide obscene salaries to their CEOs and Boards of Directors. If these companies can’t function without the aid of tax revenues in the form of cuts, loopholes and actual subsidies, they should be allowed to fail. That’s a natural progression in business. Successful businesses flourish over a longer term when there is balance. Today’s business debts are paid largely through the infusion of tax revenues all while working capital is constantly withdrawn for high risk investments and astronomical salaries, perks and benefits. When a corporation withdraws more in working capital, it’s fundamental subsistence is subject to attack to the minute the markets change.

    All of that risk assessment and risk analysis goes out the window because the fundamental subsistence of reserve working capital isn’t there. Anyone who has ever studied Warren Buffet’s investing style sees clearly his reticence to high risk investing without reserve working capital as insurance. His style is to spend on investments only when and if he has already seen substantial ROI.

  4. Eleanore Whitaker January 25, 2013

    It’s an absurdity that government has been retarded by the lack of state-of-the-art technology that would reduce the costs of government, more than the size. The concept of President Obama some seem to ignore is “Work Smarter, Not Harder.”

    In this immensely computerized age, the operations of some departments of the US government are absurdly backward. But, whenever there is a resistance to change, there’s usually a covert reason. Change in government is often regarded by some as “unprofitable” for cronies.

    Take a good look at what’s happening in some parts of the south where the mining industry is, for all intents and purposes, obsolete. Yet, you have CEOs of these industries collecting huge profits by ramming obsolescence into a hi-tech environment. This is also true of the oil industry. Oil is not a necessity in this day and age. Yet, there is huge resistance to even the remotest considerations of alternative clean energy.

    The Energy Industry is one of the biggest drains on taxpayers when you consider the billions we hand to this obsolete, dying business every year to continue to produce an obsolete product.

    1. sigrid28 January 25, 2013

      Note also that our government itself uses oil in great abundance.

      1. Ed January 25, 2013

        Make that HUGE Abundance. The aircraft that so many politicians like to take jaunts to Iraq and Afghanastan in are huge gobblers of fuel. And are very inefficient. (If you watch any aircraft land at any airport you will see a brown trail following all engines. That is unburned fuel, polltuing the atmosphere.) The M1-A1 tank gets approaxamitely 1 mile to 1 and 1/2 gallons of fuel. And the list goes on.As many civilian owners have learned the HUMMER is NOT fuel efficient.

        1. Independent1 January 25, 2013

          Not only are oil companies getting rich off this (supply our forces during war) so are companies like Haliburton who actually deliver the stuff to the battlefields. A couple years back I remember reading that a clear abuse had been uncovered with Haliburton charging the government $100/gallon for some of the gas the were furnishing to our troops in Iraq.

    2. Dominick Vila January 25, 2013

      Subsidies to oil companies is one of the first items I would eliminate if the goal is to reduce spending without impacting our standard of living. I think it is a real shame to see how focused Europeans are on alternative energy sources, and how much progress they have made, and we are still defending and supporting an albatross that is killing us.
      The fact that we are debating, and that some people are criticizing, President Obama’s focus on change is absurd itself. That should be a no-brainer for anyone with a minimal amount of gray mass.

      1. Dol5 January 25, 2013

        Yes. we are so far behind the curve, we do not seem to even know it exists. Keep on telling us as you very well do.

      2. Fern Woodfork January 25, 2013

        Oil Subsidies Is Welfare For The Wealthy!!! This Should Never Been In Place At All!! They Are Rich Just Like Those Tax Breaks For The Wealthy!! It’s Whats Called Conflict Of Interest!! Crooks Giving Crooks A Free Run!! 🙁

      3. MARK January 29, 2013

        The oil,gas,and coal mining industries have become as fossilized and prehistoric as thier commodities. The subsidies they get are a colossal rip off of America. Even thier profits for just one fiscal year quarter are voluminous enough to illustrate that they are capable of sustaining themselves and yet the subsidies continue while social programs stand in jeopardy. These subsidies are a disgrace and serve as a gross and repugnant example of greedy double dipping. Mr.Vila,I commend you for your consistently conscientious contributions to these discussions and wish that my own were of the same calibre.

    3. montanabill January 25, 2013

      Right you are, Eleanore. It is not that the government hasn’t tried to modernize. It is the way they go about it. I don’t know whether these stories are on the internet or not, but they probably are. Have a look as Social Security’s attempts at upgrading their computer systems, or the FAA, FBI or…, heck, just about any agency in Washington.

      First, the minions sitting behind the desks in the big gray buildings don’t know the first thing about computers. So they go out to industry to get technical support. That industry is typically one or more of many ‘consulting’ companies that line the beltway. They start creating a list of requirements. Eventually, some favored consultant will get the contract to, basically, write the RFP (Request for Proposal) for them. That consulting company will ‘team’ with some other company whom they favor to get the contract. A lot of lunches, dinner meeting, later. A targeted RFP outline is given to the minions. The minions turn it into government gobbledygook adding hundreds of pages of government bidding restrictions and requirements while adding a few unfathomable wish list items. It is then put out to bid. Then the fun begins. The favored vendor knows the RFP is targeted to them, but there are others out there who hope to sneak in and steal it away. More meetings, lunches, dinners, to clarify RPF points, of course. Everyone submits a bid and now the minions must decide which responding company best addresses the solution required by the RFP and, hopefully, is the lowest bidder. Keep in mind, these are usually not the brightest bulbs and usually not technically trained. If the favored company is not the lowest bidder, but gets the award, the real lowest bidder will challenge the award. Eventually, after the expenditure of more money justifying their choice, the minions finally arrive a contract winner. Said winner, will now go out and hire a lot of people who know absolutely nothing about the requirements of the RFP and are usually very low level programmers. They will start to work using more of a wish list than a real set of requirements. After a few months, in which little happens, the contractor will inform the agency that there has been a change of scope and that more money and time will be required. This will re-occur several times before the first demonstration. Finally, a demonstration and, surprise, not only does it not work, but it doesn’t come close to the original requirements. The reason? Change of scope. More money and time is required. This continues for several years. Finally, a delivered system. It really doesn’t do all the things it was supposed to do and is now technologically out of date. But something had to be delivered or everyone would look bad.

      1. Dominick Vila January 25, 2013

        Quite often, the contractor that is awarded a contract is the one that writes the RFP because the civil servants who are supposed to write do not have the qualifications to do so. Another problem involves the bureaucrats resistance to change. The latter is influenced by our tendency, as human beings, to avoid going out of our comfort zone. Once we learn something, and we are accustomed to a routine, we tend to oppose change.
        I support President Obama’s recommendation on this issue. Unfortunately, he will have to overcome two major barriers to achieve his goal: (1) congressional partisanship and (2) civil servant’s resistance to change.
        I was working at NASA when Al Gore convinced the NASA Administrator to shift some operational responsibilities from civil servants to contractors, and reduce the civil servant population to those needed for budget management, oversight, and contracting officers. Contracts were awarded to that effect, but the civil servant workforce found ways to avoid layoffs, and as soon as a change in administrations took place the contracts that gave contractors a higher level of authority were terminated and responsibilities shifted back to civil servants.
        Obviously, the changes President Obama referred to encompass a lot more than functional responsibilities and cultural changes, it also includes the need to modernize, the need to consider different concepts, processes and technologies to reduce spending and be more efficient. Those are worthy goals, it remains to be seen if they can be implemented.

        1. montanabill January 25, 2013

          Since you have some familiarity with government contracting and the beltway bandits, I’m sure you know just how hard that is going to be. I’ve heard that there will be a program on tonight that puts some light on the money flowing in Washington. I believe it may be Hannity, but I could be wrong. I doubt, however, that it will really delve into the incestuous relationships between government agencies and government contractors.

          1. Independent1 January 25, 2013

            Obama began a war on fraud in the defense industry 1st year in office. If you’d like to read a little on that with some of the cases that were prosecuted back in 2009 – do a search on War on Fraud in the Defense Industry. That war has continued since and has recovered billions in fraudulent billings to the government.

          2. montanabill January 26, 2013

            How nice. Did he also do a war on fraud on welfare, or the Attorney General or any other department in government? Every single agency of the government is full of fraudulent billing and spending. You probably didn’t see it, but next time Hannity on Fox runs’ BoomTown’, watch it. It is pretty much non-partisan, which is a surprise given that Hannity is pretty partisan. They spare neither party, but give an eye opening look at the real Washington, D.C. to those who have never experienced it.

          3. Independent1 January 26, 2013

            Yep he did: a war on fraud in the healthcare sector: he recoverd more fraudulently charged payments from doctors and other healthcare providers than the previous 3 presidents. I’m not policing everything Obama does so he may well have been active in checking out fraud in other areas. I’m aware of the fact that he’s recovered billions of fraud dollars in the defense and healthcare sectors because these were in the news. But just like a lot of important issues, these stories were in the back sections which I happen to read – not on the front pages which are devoted to sensational news stories that more often than not, aren’t worth knowing about.

          4. montanabill January 27, 2013

            As a member of the health care industry, if he had war, we never heard about it. It is obvious, that if he did have a war on it, he lost.

          5. Progressive Patriot January 26, 2013

            You lost me at Hannity. 🙂

          6. montanabill January 26, 2013

            I wasn’t sure it was Hannity but that turned out to be correct. I didn’t figure his name would go over very big in this forum, but his program Friday night on BoomTown, was a very accurate portrayal of Washington, D.C. and our government. For the most part, it was scalding to both parties. I was a part of that game for a couple of years, working for a large government contractor. We had a large K St. office and I flew on the corporate jets, enjoyed the dinners at the best restaurants and the drinks at the best watering spots. That was over 30 years ago, and things have gotten a lot worse. As I said, it was a largely non-partisan show, but it very accurately depicted our government and those who live off of it.

          7. Progressive Patriot January 26, 2013

            Thanks for the heads up montana…,
            In looking at your previous submission, it sure seemed like you were speaking from experience. I know that there is corruption on both sides, and I agree that things seem to have gotten alot worse (have we hit on common ground?). Of course, as I see it, that’s ’cause business controls government (follow the money).
            If I run across Hannity’s piece, I’ll do my best to give it an honest look.
            The revolving door between Washington and “Wall Street (Banks, Business and the Markets),” is very disturbing to me too.

            Sincerely. P.P.

          8. montanabill January 27, 2013

            According to promo’s, it will repeat Sunday night.

        2. Progressive Patriot January 26, 2013

          Sure looks like we’ve got our work cut out for us when it comes to bureaucrats, bureaucracies and the like. I have to admit that the government’s reputation is not good; and the marriage of business and government, the revolving door between the beltway and business interests has only made matters worse. The lines have become so blurred. I don’t see perfection down the road coming from either side. Yet if we look back, it was deregulation and tax reduction that allowed for 1920’s Wall Street to bring us to The Great Depression. And it was the government that brought us out. Let’s not forget the efficiency and effectiveness of the U.S. Post Office, Interstate Highways (crumbling though they now may be, but that’s another story), the Hoover Damn, and the very popular Social Security and Medicare. And let’s not forget the sneaky, silent, legislation that ALEC has slipped into our legislative processes (local, state and national). And, if we elect officials that represent We The People, that stand for policies that protect our interests, we can have our say by voting for someone else in the next election, if said elected official fails to deliver. We have no vote when only a handful of banks control our finances, or when a handful of families control a great percentage of our total wealth, and create “Think Tanks,” devoted to shrinking our government, slashing our social safety nets, attacking workers, eliminating unions, and turning the middle class into a pool of cheap labor. Our vote is limited when the majority of the media is controlled by 8 major corporations.When corporations are people, and money is speech, our voice is drowned out in a sea of cash, and our representatives are forced to spend 70 percent of their time rooting for contributions rather than doing their jobs. That’s the Corporate Way.
          I’ll deal with the bureaucracies any day, thank you very much. There at least I have a vote (if we can get big Money out of politics). The CEO’s have proven, they don’t give a damn about me.

  5. frida January 25, 2013

    Anyone who let time leave him behind, is doomed for failure. This is the common sense issue and does not need any dialogue. Think for a moment, do you still wear the same clothes you wore when you were 5 or 10 or 20 years old while you are 50 and above? Time forced you to change, so it should do to the government. Take for example the constitution which was written centuries ago. This was meant for that time and NOT for the future including now. There has been a lot of changes since it was written. If we will continue to stick on that without making alterations needed accordingly, we are cheating ourselves OR we are just bringing the past to be the present.

  6. S-3 January 25, 2013

    To the untrained eye and ear, I just come off as some crazy anarchist – deep down I’m just angry at the way gov’t is… And how it is behind the times and against its people.

    Point made, Dominick. Point made – a gov’t that fails in those regards is doomed to what exactly I suggest as an anarchist theorist… Though I was always told revolt in some form kept things together and under the people’s true and full control – as it was foretold by our forefathers.

    1. thebunt January 25, 2013

      Funnt you would say that. Last week in a pub in Australia I was listening to the conversation at another table. A few of the group were Americans. The point of the debate was that President Obama is making waves with some in the US because he is about 40 years AHEAD of the times.

      1. Independent1 January 25, 2013

        Part of the problem is that conservatives are so caught up with ensuring that every change in government and society ends up favoring themselves in one way or another, that they never focus on the big picture; and hence usually miss the fact that something which may appear to not favor them today, would have brought them great prosperity tomorrow.

        1. Progressive Patriot January 26, 2013

          Ain’t it the truth. Everybody benefits from and strong and prosperous middle class. The Real Job Creators!

      2. roguerunners January 26, 2013

        Obama is right here in 2013. The GOP is 40 years behind! 😉

  7. ObozoMustGo January 25, 2013

    The flies always find the horse’s a$$…… clearly

    Have a nice day!

    “As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” – H.L. Mencken with foresight to the future of Obozo’s election

    1. robert January 25, 2013

      The Secret Service ought to be all over your bitch ass for displaying a picture like that. You sorry pussy, you should be in prison where someone can introduce you to your true calling. You’re a poor excuse of humanity, but you postulate all sorts of ignorant idioms that makes you feel big or important. But you’re a fuck gone wrong, a worthless piece of shit that should have never been born.If your head wasn’t so small, you’d be able to put a hole in your own head, but you’ll miss.

  8. lana ward January 25, 2013

    Flies didn’t land on him this time?? When he was a candidate for pres., he was doing a local news interview, and stopped the interview because flies were buzzing around him. During a speech, a fly landed right above his lip. During a 2010 announcement on healthcare, a fly was zipping around him. June 2009 during a tv interview, he killed a fly that was buzzing around him. Now while announceing two new members of his administration, a fly landed in the middle of his forehead!! If he thinks he is lord of anything–he is lord of the flies!!!LOL LOL!!! And a rat ran across the front of the podium while he was making an announcement!!! As we all know, flies love shit!!!

    1. john m January 25, 2013

      Were you born this ignorant or did you learn it from Faux News or Fat Boy Rush????

      1. lana ward January 25, 2013

        LOL–It’s all true!! Flies love omuslim!! But then flies love shit!!

    2. sigrid28 January 25, 2013

      Sore loser

      1. lana ward January 25, 2013

        Smelly omuslim

    3. ObozoMustGo January 25, 2013

      You just can’t keep the flies away from the sheet, can you Lana? No wonder the flies love Obozo.

      Have a nice day!

      “Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.” ― Mark Twain.

      1. Ed January 25, 2013

        Well, at least you will get your wish. Oboma will go, in just 4 more years!

    4. Elisabeth Gordon January 25, 2013

      Leave it to Lana to degrade any conversation to a level barely above the gutter…get a grip, Lana….Obama won and, guess what? He’s still black….and he’s still brilliant….obviously anyone reading your horse manure can tell that you are not. Have a sparkling day in your world of hatred , bigotry and ignorance. Ciao!

      1. Reddiaperbaby January 25, 2013

        Elisabeth, spell Lana backwards…enough said!

    5. frida January 25, 2013

      And what is your point Iana ward? flies?? If there was award for ignorants, I do think you will emerge as the first top winner.

  9. MARK January 25, 2013

    The only constant is change.From the world at large,to environments,to governments,to men and women,on and on down to the tiniest microbe.The process is known as evolution.That which has become a dirty word to certain people who attempt to live thier lives according to a version of an ancient text that cannot offer a complete and literal word for word translation. We need a new blueprint to move forward.To be sure,the Constitution should and will be amended to suit the needs of the people. “He not busy being born is busy dieing”.”Your old road is rapidly aging.Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hands,for the times they are a changing” B.Dylan

  10. montanabill January 25, 2013

    This guy would think big government is a cure for hangnails.

    1. Ed January 25, 2013

      So you wouldn’t think that a BIG country might need a big government?

      1. montanabill January 25, 2013

        Thought we had just about the right size government under Clinton and Gingrich.

        1. MARK January 25, 2013

          I think a lot of folks would be pleased if we were to have that again but it likely would face an awful lot of opposition from idealists on both sides right now.May be worth keeping on the back burner,though I’m not suggesting we go back but possibly could work with some present day tweaks.

          1. montanabill January 25, 2013

            I got my part done. My taxes are back to Clinton era level.

        2. Independent1 January 25, 2013

          Are you aware that it was Bush that increased the size of government by over 2,000,000 people during his 8 years? And that by making some refinements in how different departments work; and by getting us out of Iraq and winding down the Afghan war, that Obama has actually reduced the size of government by over 565,000 workers?

          1. montanabill January 25, 2013

            Of course I’m aware of it, that is why I listed Clinton/Gingrich. Obama has reduced the size of Obama’s government. It is still 80,000 higher than when he took office.

          2. Independent1 January 26, 2013

            Sorry, your wrong. Due to some streamling and winding down the Iraq and Afghan wars, GOVERNMENT is down by 565,000 since Obama took office. Remember, the miliarty is part of the government.

          3. montanabill January 26, 2013

            I took that into account.

        3. Progressive Patriot January 28, 2013

          Except that Clinton eliminated Glass-Stegal, opening the door for all that risky trading. He also brought us Free Trade agreements (NAFTA?), that did end up contributing to conditions that allowed for off-shoring and the decline of american manufacturing. Great for multi-nationals and those associated. Bad for American Workers in the long run.
          I like President Clinton, but he wasn’t perfect.

  11. Nate January 25, 2013

    I think I mentioned this before. The speech wasn’t about advocating big government or being liberal he’s looking out for everybody not just a few. He’s doing what a president is suppose to do

  12. elw January 25, 2013

    There is a big difference in the way the President views the role of government in our lives and how the Radical Right views it. President Obama is a big picture guy, he looks past the law itself to the scoop of the affect of the laws and the actions of the government on people and the Country as a whole; In contrast, the Conservatives are stuck on tiny little details that blinds them to results and context. President Obama is more like our founding fathers. I believe that although the founding fathers could not have fully imagined how much mankind would advance in a short period, they did understand that government must change with progress; If not, they would never have included the processes for creating new, and changing and deleting obsolete laws and amendments. In other words, they took a big picture view of government and understood it would need to change with the Country and the people in it.

    Of course government must change those that do not, fall. The fact that Conservatives cling to a literal interpretation of the Constitution, the words in the Bible, and the oldest laws they can find to prove their point not only shows their rigidity, but also shows a lack of imagination, creativity and common sense and their inability to lead us into the near and far future. The majority American voters know that on deep, instinctual level; It is also why the GOP will continue to lose its hold on a National level and eventually on a local level. “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time but you cannot fool all the people all the time (Abraham Lincoln, 1864).”

  13. Canistercook January 25, 2013

    Seems to me it worked well under Reagan and Clinton! Under a Dictator who has no room for compromise perhaps it won’t work!

    1. Independent1 January 26, 2013

      You must be referring to Bush. He’s the 1st president I’ve lived under who would send nonsense legislation to congress and the irresponsible GOP representatives there wouldn’t question a think he asked for (until late in his second term); all they would say is Yes Master, how high did you want us to jump ; and then they would rubber stamp virtually eerything he sent them. That’s how we ended up with two unfunded wars, two unfunded, nwarranted tax cuts, an unfunded drug benefit giveaway to the drug industry, and unfunded national mandate to the states called the No Child Left Behind act and much much more unfunded garbage. George bush spend 7 trillion unfunded dollars over 8 years and virtually nothing that was a complete benefit to the country. The only legislation he passed that masqueraded as such was the drug benefit which does help the elderly, but no where near as much as if he hadn’t insisted on including the provision that the government can’t negotiate drug prices just to ensure that his cronies in the drug industry can line their pockets with even more money.

      1. Canistercook January 27, 2013

        And the Democrats in Congress supported Bush! You forget that 9/11 panicked us all. But on the Drug program I agree with you – it is a disaster just like Obamacare!

  14. joeham1 January 25, 2013

    The president says so many things and then somehow does the opposite. Unfortunately we have so many people that consistantly love the message but ignore the results.

    At the end of the Presidents 2nd term he WILL through expanded entitlements, gifts to Unions, corporate wellfare, and many other spending programs, have raised the debt more than all the presidents before him together! In the mean time, if you disagree with the spending you are labeled racist of a right winger, or radical.

    It’s hard to understand how anyone can think this kind of spending won’t ruin the economy. The real test was the supposed “Balanced Approach” to cutting the deficit. We got a tax increase and 4 trillion 4 in deficits.

    It’s one thing to believe in someone, it’s another thing to ignore the reality of the results!

    1. Independent1 January 25, 2013

      Let’s hear all those things he’s said and done just the opposite. You always come out with these nonsense statements and then can never provide one speck of real evidence to support you’re moronic comments

      Do you realize that a study was done recently of all the promises Obama has made over the past years and they came up with over 500 of them. And after a good deal of analysis determined that he has followed through completely on more than 250 of his promises; and has partially followed through on over another 100; and of the 150 or so that he has done very little with, it’s been almost entirely because the GOP has roadblocked his efforts.

      Think back real hard and name for me another politician you know of who has come even close to fully following through on 50% of the promises he made while campaigning.

      1. joeham1 January 26, 2013

        Affordable health care, (not affordable) Tranparency (completely secretive) Examples ( Fast and Furious, Bengazi) close Gitmo ( still open) Reduce deficit, (raised more then any other President) said he would work with other side and Compromise (won’t compromise) Create jobs (unemployment is the same as when he took office)

        The list goes on. I realize his sheep will let all the important things go. It’s amazing to me that as bad as bush was, this president almost makes bush look good. Obama has totally lied about almost everything. His obvious agenda flies by his sheep.

        What’s going on isn’t a left vs right issue. It’s a how long will the blind sheep let him do what he wants without any questions

        1. Independent1 January 26, 2013

          You’re in no position now to judge to affordability of Obamacare; only the portion of the Act that would drive up premiums has taken effect: the part that forces insurance companies to cover a lot more than they used to. The part that will dramatically drive down premiums, doesn’t take effect until next year.

          You’re beating a dead horse with fast and furious and Benghazi; even the congressional witch hunt committee has thrown in the towel on fast and furious – they found absolutely no wrong doing. And how can you even be making a case out of Benghazi, when there have only been two embassy attacks during Obama’s 4 years with 4 people being killed, when during Bush’s 8 years there were 12 attacks on America and our embassies with over 3200 killed (more than 3,000 Americans) and dulng his Dad’s term there were 12 with 60 killed, during Reagans two terms there were 7 with 30 killed (17 Americans) and even during Nixon’s two terms there were 3 with 3 killed. Kind of hypocritcal and nonsense apparent outrage isn’t it??

          And as I’ve mentioned before, Obama inherited a budget from Bush with 1.6 trillion in deficit spending and has reduced that to 1.1 trillion in deficit spending over 3 years – that’s a 1/2 trillion reduction – so where do you get off saying he hasn’t reduced deficit spending??

          And lastly, you can’t compromise with a party that’s come out and publicly said they’re going to do everything in their power to see that whatever you attempt to do it’s going to fail. And by the way, there are millions of us who think he compromised far too much in his first term.

          1. joeham1 January 27, 2013

            You win the most dilusional liar on this site! What exactly will take place next year that will bring down the cost of healthcare?

            Everything you said in your last post was completely made up! Our ambassador was the first one killed since 1979…moron! Hillary’s answer was “what does it matter now”

            Your right about one thing: There is no compromising with you idiots! If the facts don’t work you just make em up! Under Obama regarless of your lies, the deficit has been over a trillion a year and will continue for the next for years.


          2. Progressive Patriot January 28, 2013

            Right on!

      2. Progressive Patriot January 28, 2013

        Love reading your educated responses, Indapendent1!
        Thanks for coaching me up. 🙂

    2. Progressive Patriot January 26, 2013

      Lana, obozo, montana, onedone, joeham,

      Wouldn’t you be happier going on discus at the National Review?

      1. joeham1 January 26, 2013

        Wouldn’t you be happier making a point or debating? Can you complete a sentence?

        1. Progressive Patriot January 26, 2013

          What’s your point here, Joham1?

        2. Progressive Patriot January 28, 2013

          Tell you what. I’ll debate with you, when you respond in a polite and respectful manner.

          1. joeham1 January 28, 2013

            Tell you what..I will debate with you when you don’t make up your figures.

            Here’s where we can start.

            The “Balanced Approach” to CUTTING the DEFICIT that the President campaigned on for over a year turned out to be 660 Billion in tax increases and 4 trillion in new deficits. Knowing that:

            1) did the President lie?
            2) Do deficits Matter
            3) When are you going to see the real agenda?

  15. Recoloniser January 25, 2013

    Those who would take government back to what it was in 1787 should abandon their cars, their houses with central heating, running water, electricity and sewerage. They should hand in their cell phones, disconnect their land lines and do away with their laptops, iPhones, radios and televisions. Any object made of anything other than wood, iron, steel, copper or tin should be thrown away. They should never use a train, an underground, a tram or a bus, let alone an aircraft. They should hand in any firearm that has rifling, and/or a magazine and they should never use ready-made cartridges. They should not have any vaccines against any disease, nor accept anaesthetics other than brandy, rum or laudanum. They should forget everything they have ever learned about hygiene and resort to blood-letting as the main form of medical treatment. They should decide who amongst them should become illiterate and innumerate until they have reached a figure of 50-70% of their number. They should live off produce that was grown within 10 miles or so from their dwelling and transported to them in carts, horse-drawn or hand-pushed.

    None of these existed when the so revered Founding Fathers framed the Constitution and they cannot have catered for the effects these things would have on society. I think that Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and the rest would be turning in their graves if they knew that in 2013 people would regard the product of their labours as written in stone, never to be changed nor deviated from. Why do I think that? Because what they did is the exact opposite of what the Tea Party-ists strive for. The nec plus ultra of Change, with a capital C, is what the Founding Fathers gave to America and to the world: an experiment in government of the people by the people for the people in a form that had not been tried before. What they would tell you now is that the events of 1776 and after are a clear demonstration of what happens if you refuse to change with the times.

    1. Independent1 January 25, 2013

      A current example of people wanting to live in the past are all those (mostly Republicans) who are determined to destroy FEMA and return disaster recovery to the states (a la Mitt Romney). Disaster recovery is handled now by the federal government because 150 years of trying PROVED the states were not capable of handling it on their own. For 150 years from the time the states first joined the Union) disaster recovery WAS the responsibility of the states; but time and time again the states came to the federal government for help because they could not handle serious disasters on their own. Unfortunately, in doing so they often did not approach the same government department for help, and so several federal departments started helping the states. It was acutally a GOP president, Hoover, who came up with combining the efforts of these departments which over the next 40 some years got muddle again until Carter actually created the forerunner of FEMA. So throwing away FEMA and passing back disaster recovery to the states would be simply be turning back the clock almost 8o years – just like you describe.

  16. newsdelight January 25, 2013

    Working for an Aircraft Corporation, in the era of College Recruits, Engineers would send their drawings, to the shop, to be implemented. Suddenly there were classes on “PRIDE” due to the fact the Engineers would not communicate with shop personnel. To eliminate error’s, this was the objective of these classes. When I said to my supervision pride is a satisfaction of one’s achievement ’s, it is not taught, it is instilled with in you, his reply “they don’t follow through”.
    There were a few of us that were given classes to show Upper Supervision’s and Management on how to utilize more office space to cut down on wasted time.
    They were the good-o-boys “this is the way we have always done it, you are not paid to think”.
    These are the facts as I know them to be, after 30 years, it was time to retire.
    Point being, changes were coming fast and furious, it was my pleasure to have the first computer, in my department, this saved my job.
    These days do not exist, in this era, as Dominick say’s “Companies that fail to adapt are doomed, sooner or later they go out of business”.

  17. onedonewong January 25, 2013

    The govt must adapt he’s correct, unfortunately he doesn’t agree that it has to conform with the constitution and especially the 10TH amendment that clearly states that any power not enumerated in the constitution is left for the States to decide

  18. Plznnn January 25, 2013

    You know, our Constitutional Government of the People has worked fine for 250 years. Just because some of you want it to move more Socialist doesn’t mean changing our basic rights & principles. Our Founders had seen and studied other Governments and formed this one with the input of ALL the States and the People, to ensure the a Central Governement would not be too all powerful and infringe on all of our rights. Would you not want the same protection had it went too far in the other direction? We are not a Kingdom, or a dictatorship, or ruled by a Prince, we are a Republic, and the Rights we have are never outdated, they are bedrock principles that ensure our Freedoms.

  19. Progressive Patriot January 28, 2013

    You can use that bubble term (state run media) until you’re blue in the face, onedone…
    You’ll never convince me, because I see the conservative bias on TV, Radio and Print every day. Their stories, leads and talking points are always the same, not news, but punditry that slanders The President and anything that hints of the truth about income inequality, tax fairness, corporate control of the government, climate change, the war on workers… you know, progressive viewpoints. The numbers have been crunched, conservative views are represented over 75% of the time. If the pundits (they have no journalists) on those shows don’t present the conservative line from above, they are soon fired. These corporate “newsfauxtainment,” networks are only state run if you accept the fact that corporations have taken over the state!
    They don’t find anything about The President because there is nothing, except the fact that he is very moderate, and surrounds himself with Wall Street Execs. and Banksters as his advisors. If there was anything at all, it would have been all over Fox long, long ago. That fraud “news,” business (Fox) has one mission, and that is to slander The President and progressive views. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

    As for The President being a member of the Socialist Party, I did a search as you suggested, and the first four results were from Right Wing Wacko sites like Wiki Keys, and Brightbart… I couldn’t stomach looking at any more of that trash. If your sources are Fox, the internet, and those sites, I guess that is why studies suggest that Fox viewers are less informed than most. As for Mitt, even his own party didn’t like him.

    So seriously, onedone… how on earth can you claim “State Run Media,” when the goliath of the industry is Murdoch owned Fox News, and the vast majority of media outlets are corporate owned and conservative?
    Since I was willing to accomodate your recommendation to look up The President’s record related to the socialist party. Why don’t you watch the documentary, “Out Foxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War On Journalism?”


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.