Obama Fundamentally Doubts America Is a Good Country

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Yesterday I posted facts and figures. With links. Is longest Bull Market a “worn out slogans ” or known fact ?
Exactly what did I write that was “Empty platitudes” ?
One word “demagoguery” seems to be your political answer. That and nonsense like “Empty platitudes and worn out slogans ”. Disproving my comment not done. Though I show your comment doesn’t hold water.
There are no “Empty platitudes and worn out slogans ” in my comment. You simple had no intelligent rebuttal. Running true to form for most liberals.

Bill Hedges of MO 3:12PM October 31, 2010

Empty platitudes and worn out slogans are just demagoguery. They are tossed out like empty calories in fast food , soda, and candy. It's amazing how conservatives keep swallowing the same ol' fast food without any thought.

Swoosh of TX 1:18PM October 31, 2010

I showed tax cuts increase rich tax liability. If you read Heritage link. Numbers are there.
barry's agenda is anti-business, why $$$ trillions not invested in private sector.
David Stockman is right, spending needs cutting. THIS IS IN HERITAGE LINK. "Cut spending". I totally agree.
From my link:
“Harmful Spending & Complexity”
“Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.”
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates
David Stockman is not knocking tax cuts for rich, IT'S THE SPENDING...
No conflict here.
Kennedy and Reagan gave us longest BULL Market in our history. Cutting taxes. You mention "trickle-down".

Bill Hedges of MO 1:31AM October 31, 2010

Ronald Reagan's budget director, who once championed the positive trickle-down effects of tax cuts, now says Republicans pushing to extend the Bush tax cuts should be ashamed of themselves. David Stockman tells Lesley Stahl that to continue tax cuts as the debt grows by $100 billion a month and not have the will to cut spending is "demagoguery."

Swoosh of TX 11:43PM October 30, 2010

Muser says
"It was the peak of "American Exceptionalism", before the corporate-stirred worship of a movie actor (Ronald Reagan) started America down a road to economic and social rot."
WRONG. Was John F. Kennedy "economic and social rot" ? Begin from him Muser.
Reagan style tax cuts, no, Kennedy.
For more proof of tax cuts for rich increasing their taxes burden go to this source:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
John F. Kennedy might be a TEA member today.
Now to big bad G.W. Bush. Man that stole Presidency from Al Gore in Florida. Left really hate him over that.
With recession occurring on Bush watch, left may put the blinders on and blame Bush for the financial bust using tax cuts to rich as cause. But CBO BLOWS that idea out of the water:
“According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total“.
“This shift may have occurred because as the wealthy (who are arguably the most industrious and productive citizens) are better-incentivized to be industrious and productive through lower taxes, they create higher incomes for themselves and end up paying more taxes. The Bush tax cuts did shift the tax burden, but not in the direction most liberals think.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html
You ignore longest BULL MARKET. Thanks John and Ronald. Be glad to discuss Bill Clinton's recession we are in.

Bill Hedges of MO 8:25PM October 30, 2010

We need to stop spending tax money on things we do not need and "pet" projects. We need to get rid of earmarks which cause unneeded spending and waste of money. We need not have the courage to raise taxes to support more frivolous spending but have the courage to stop the insanity a get to some serious trimming of the fat.

Nightrain of NV 8:06PM October 30, 2010

Life, and this country, is much more complicated than article suggests.
I am not buying.

H of TX 2:12PM October 30, 2010

Tom Brokaw correctly identified the Depression-era-WWII generation as the greatest in American history. You know WHY those folks acted so great? They faithfully plowed through a period of time (1930's to 1970's) when America conquered great challenges by NOT falling prey to outright lies that high-end tax cuts are good for the country (or the world). It was the peak of "American Exceptionalism", before the corporate-stirred worship of a movie actor (Ronald Reagan) started America down a road to economic and social rot.
Sadly, conservatives today would have you believe something exactly opposite, and the more we follow them, the less "exceptional" we shall be. They'll tell you that Obama is our problem, but he isn't. Our problem is that we no longer have the national guts to levy sufficient taxes where the money actually is going. Do you really think it was okay to prosecute two wars without asking anyone to pay a single dime for them?

Muser of NM 2:04PM October 30, 2010

I was caught by the lines "It reflects the idea that America is, at its core, a bad actor.
"This, Steele writes, 'puts Mr. Obama and the Democrats in the position of forever redeeming a fallen nation, rather than leading a great nation.'"
Essentially that was the premise of Saul Alinsky's call for permanent revolution in "Rules for Radicals. He attacked the ecological damage caused by that great Progressive feat, the TVA and its fellow projects, and the corruption of big unions which were made big and corrupt by New Deal legislation. When Obama said he would fundamentally transform America, it was this call to permanent roiling and dissatisfaction that seems to have inspired him. But he overreached. Alinskyism won't work on a national scale, because it relies on demanding more for his client groups. As we are seeing, the demand for "social justice" is contrary to individual freedom and property rights, and trying to impose it on an economy as large and complex as ours, will result in a freeze up. He still thinks on the scale of Chicago, assuming that "the rich" can always just write a check to get the "community organizers" off their backs. But that won't even work in Chicago any more. The state and city are out of money AND out of jobs, as are California and a number of other "organized" states.

Allen Thorpe of UT 3:09AM October 30, 2010

It's a little different than viewing the country as inherently "good" or "bad". A nation may be good or bad, but that's irrelevant because it's still a nation. It isn't America that they view in a negative light; it is the very concept of a nation-state.
What we're seeing is a social division larger than one country; we're seeing a struggle between nationalists and globalists.
Indulge me.
It's a struggle between those who want the status-quo to continue in a world of nation-states, and those who want to take the next logical step in social evolution by merging nations into superstates (think EU, North American Union) on the way to one, worldwide government.
On a long enough timeline, nationalism WILL result in humans annihilating ourselves. There are approximately 190 countries in the world (the number changes and there are disputes, unrecognized nations, etc.) About 20 either have, could have, or are actively pursuing nukes. It only takes ONE sufficiently armed madman to end humanity, and the other nations have no say whatsoever.
Nations didn't always exist, and there's no reason to believe they should continue to, once their usefulness as a concept has run its course.
The globalists can't raise an army and defeat the nationalists, not in a world full of nations. But they can slowly take power, corrupt the pillars of a society and cause it to either collapse, or lean on/merge with other societies for survival. That is what they seem to be doing, and it's working. See the EU, the South American equivalent on the drawing board, and ever-popular among conspiracy theorists North American Union.
So on the one hand you have a group of people blinded by mindless "patriotism" to support the status-quo until it kills us - and on the other hand you have a group of people intent on doing whatever it takes to end nationalism as a concept, possibly enslaving yet saving the human race.
Or, option 3: the Localists. Too small to bother nuking, generally don't have the resources to make nukes themselves, but they can exert total control over a small area. See Afghanistan for an example - tribal control. This concept saves humanity, but only if it occurse everywhere - and it kills our progress as a species. It also only lasts until one aggressive group manages to take over others, and then we're back where we started.
None are particularly palatable choices, but unless we choose one, the choice will be made by others.
Agree or disagree, it's something to think on for a while.

Rich of CO 12:23AM October 30, 2010