Skip to comments.What Was the Meaning of President Obama’s Second Inaugural Address?
Posted on 01/22/2013 6:34:58 AM PST by Sir Napsalot
No sooner did President Barack Obama finish his second inaugural address than the liberal pundits proclaimed it to be a speech of unity on behalf of all Americans. ....
Take the enthusiastic response by liberal columnist Matthew Yglesias writing at Slate. ... the presidents speech was not even slightly anti-capitalist, but instead was a defense of economic liberalism tempered by a robust welfare state and select government interventions in the economy. Obama, he thinks, came off not as any kind of socialist or statist, but as a pragmatist in the American tradition who believes that fidelity to the Constitution demands a pragmatic response to changing circumstances.
Thus the president said in his speech that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play. Echoing the progressivism of the age of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, he emphasized that a great nation must care for the vulnerable and protect its people from lifes worst hazards and misfortune.
Few would disagree, including most conservatives. But the devil, of course, lies in the details.
The problem is well spelled out by William Voegeli, who in the current issue of National Review warns Americans about the coming Swedenization of America. He notes the difference between European social democracies and the United States and our welfare state:
"Our deeply rooted, dont-tread-on-me Jeffersonianism means that we cannot be persuaded to buy even a relatively modest welfare state unless a significant portion of the purchase is financed with debt. In this we are unlike the Europeans, who want cradle-to-grave welfare states with enough to pay cash for them.
[The welfare state] creates strong incentives for individuals to have fewer children of their own and rely instead on aggregated financial support from everyones children, thereby putting social-security systems under intolerable strain."
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
If God is so omnipotent, why didn't Jesus promise to eliminate poverty altogether? Instead it has always been the richness of our souls and spirits that counts and that is equal in the eyes of God.
From 'caring for the poor and needy' to 'making us more equal'. This is politicans taking divine power into their own hands.
"The social-democratic project, already sinking in Europe and Scandinavia, cannot work here." These are the words of Ron Radosh, whom I disagree with his centrist stand from time to time, but I heartily agree.
He's going to go for it.
Give me your money.
Give me your guns.
There's your Reader's Digest version.
What I heard was “Like it or not, you are all now living in a Socialist Welfare State. So y’all shut up and eat your peas, cause I WON!!!!!”
...if you thought over 930 Executive Orders was excessive, you ain’t seen nuttin yet...the Constitution in peril.
That was a campaign speech.
I heard it was his coming out of the closet speech.
Just skipping over all of Obama on my daily news that I record early this morning I get an image of Obama sounding like he was touting a speech just like the spiel given of the movie “Hunger Games”.
Most amusing was the comparison of the first wookie to Romulans, extremely accurate!
They say advertising works, and AIDS has been so effective in reducing their numbers even a gay President has to write his phone number on the walls of public toilets.
There's nothing more to it than that.
That poor people, black people, minority people, and illegal are special. And that gays are the most “specialist” of all.
And you’re not. Because your’e white. You’re in the way. Shut up and pay up.
Obama is a trained professional liar. Ignore everything he says and fight everything he tries to implement.
Obama simply reaffirmed “I Won. I will now dictate to you what I want.”, implicitly hinting/threatening with the backing of all Americans.
He also vigorously defended social safety-net programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. GOP leaders have proposed cutting the programs in recent budget negotiations, and some Democrats have worried that Mr. Obama would agree, given that he has said he is open to such changes as part of a broad deficit-reduction deal that includes tax increases.
"These things do not sap our initiative,'' Mr. Obama said of the three programs. "They strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great."
First, the three programs have become a cash cow for takers, documented. Second, Risk-taking is what makes capitalism function, and giving out secure government assistance is not risk-taking, but the very opposite thereof. Those on government handouts are NOT going to leave that behind to take the risk of dealing with a boss, sorry coworkers, difficult customers and real bills. Third, "...these things..." do sap initiative as I posted yesterday that welfare recipients would ask school principals why they wanted their sons and daughters to study and work when the welfare takers "...didn't do shit...." in their own words and still received benefits. These programs are very quickly making American ungreat.
Carbon tax, more faux war on the wealthy as he destroys what's left of the middle class, increased entitlements and an invigorated war on Christianity.