President Obama's Second Term Agenda
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-01-22/president-obamas-second-term-agenda
President Obama’s second inaugural address outlined a liberal vision for his last term in office. He linked the struggle for civil rights and women’s rights to the debate over same-sex marriage. He also promised to address immigration and climate change. But much of the president’s proposed agenda will require action from an often hostile Congress. And while a new proposal from Congressional Republicans may extend the nation’s borrowing authority for three months, more fiscal battles lie ahead. The president’s speech also suggests the Nobel Peace Prize winner will pursue a modest foreign policy agenda over the next four years. Diane and her guests discuess President Obama’s second term.
Guests
Mark Landler
current White House correspondent and former diplomatic correspondent for The New York Times.
Mara Liasson
national political correspondent for National Public Radio and a contributor at Fox News Channel
Michael Dimock
director, Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
"As President Obama is sworn in for a second term he faces battles over the debt ceiling, gun violence and immigration. Diane and her guests discuss the president's agenda for the next four years." AND WHAT THEY CAN DO TO PUSH IT FORWARD. Selecting guests with known liberal agendas and creating lopsided discussion panels to make republicans look bad. Seeking out statistics and opinions that favor democrats. Putting on a charade of journalism and impartiality.
It is incredible how far the profession of journalism has fallen. Once it was the line between a corrupt government and the people, now it's a propaganda arm of the government to push a liberal agenda, Obama's agenda.
This is going to be a long an miserable four years.
Obama Increased Debt $50,521 Per Household in First Term; More Than First 42 Presidents in 53 Terms Combined
Read more: http://MinuteMenNews.com/2013/01/obama-increased-debt-50521-per-househol...
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the combination of his voting record for government spending while in the U.S. Senate along with his spending record as President makes President Obama uniquely responsible for virtually all the federal government's spending and accumulated debt from Fiscal Year 2007 onward.
And that means that President Obama is uniquely and directly accountable for increasing the national debt burden of American households by $49,129 per household from 2008 through 2012.
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2012/08/accounting-for-nationa...
Citizens United gave us an era of NEVER ENDING campaigning.I hope President Obama gets this. If so,maybe Democrats can retake the House of Representatives in 2014,despite the gerrymandering of Republicans.It`s the only way forward given the T-Party radicals mission to bring down our government. Until the Democrats can repair the ability of government to function as a force and voice of the people,government will not work. It will continue to only respond to the demands of the wealthy,and their big microphone of Fox News.
Anybody who can use a computer can find out which president added to our national debt,and how much. Ronald Reagan,super hero to many,raised the debt from $800 billion to over $3 trillion. That is a 300%+ increase.It was the epicenter of our national debt problem. The "Trickle Down" economy consisting of the middle class having the burden of paying their own way,now forced to pay for the wealthy. Don`t take my word,take Mitt Romney`s. He pays 14% tax,while you and I pay over 30%... Trickle Down at it`s worst. Your children and grandchildren owe for the Mitt Romney`s.The Mitt Romney`s closed our factories,and sent our jobs to China. The Mitt Romney`s made billions more,and hid the money offshore. They demand sympathy.I give them my sympathetic middle finger.
How do the American people pay the way of the elite lazy wealthy Oligarchs ,with our jobs in China?
Even a cursory viewing of Fox this evening reveals THEIR agenda for at least the next four years: obfuscate, contradict, and otherwise oppose every generic theme from the President's speech and beyond. O'Reilly and his guest foil Bernie Goldberg traded jibes about the Inaugural. Could we expect anything else from the utterly bogus "fair and balanced" media arm of the Republican Party?
Roger Ailes' progeny were in full swing.........as anticipated.
As O'Reilly himself put it recently, (paraphrasing) .....there are millions to be made in being contentious and intentionally provocative. Rake in the pot, Bill!
HonestAbe wrote:
"Even a cursory viewing of Fox this evening reveals THEIR agenda for at least the next four years: obfuscate, contradict, and otherwise oppose every generic theme from the President's speech la da la da lada............................
Yea and seeing this joker continuing to raise this deficit with his proposed new spending while deceiving the public that his proposals will get the economy going further. Let not forget what a divider he is with social issues.
There is a lot to criticize this joker Obama on. Glad you watch Fox News tho.
Proof that Obama is not for comprising. Today's write up in the Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732394000457825572397646729...
President Obama's extreme moderation and obedience to wealth power defines him as the greatest Republican president of the 21st Century, so far. His recent appointments demonstrate the second term will be a rerun. I voted for this lesser evil, but I know time is running out.
There will be no recovery because Capitalism committed suicide. It could not have lived under ecological collapse anyway.
Any humanitarian inclination of Obama seems futile as IMF and other elite agreements continue to negate national sovereignty. Oligarchs stash trillions offshore and do their dirty outside the lines. And within this structural nightmare the command to "take personal responsibility" is a cruel epithet. We are like splinters on a tidal wave.
Fascist Oligarchs divide us for control, and encourage the demented gun nuts and religious freaks among us to bully the rest. Maybe this is the New World Order gone Global? Not maybe, it is; until the people say NO.
It;s nice to know that Diannes guests are going to be more well informed than those commenting above.
"Obamas spending" is actually mostly congress' spending. Each president has spent more than the previous, including Ronald Reagan and both Bush's. President Obama has increased the amount of government spending by a lower percentage than any previous president since Hoover when adjusted for inflation. So much for the "minutemen" and their "unbiased" accounting.
Here is a thought, why don't we start trying to find agreement instead of constantly trying to bring the whole country down around our knees? How about some basic fact checking before posting rants on weblogs? And I mean REAL factchecking, not using The Blaze or Breitbart as sources. These sources are not unbiased, they have an agenda.
For anybody that thinks Diannes show is biased I suggest taking a moment and viewing her guest list from previous years. I find liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans and all in between. She almost ALWAYS has various viewpoints represented, her program is THE BEST on the air.
Maybe some historical perspective would be nice. Can anybody find another president that came into office facing two wars, a massive economic recession and a opposition party whose main goal was to defeat their commander in chief?
What we have here on this show is a complete misunderstanding of who Obama is and what he wants. This president cannot be measured in any conventional sense. To put it bluntly he does not appreciate the history of this country and does not like the principals it was founded on. His goals are to fundamentally change it away from individual rights to collective rights, economics are NOT a concern to that larger goal.
One lady asked a question about Sen Moynihan's warning (longtime ago) about President's, Senate's and House's IOUs of Social Security Fund.
The answer given by your so called expert not only didn't address the question, it was vague and anyone dropped out after 3rd grade education already knows what your Pew Institute representative answered with.
No wonder ordinary people and listeners don't like these so called experts.
Please follow up and make them answer the questions or make them admit they don't know the answer.
Vagueness and towing politicians' line without addressing issues objectively is a sure prescription to lose audiences.
Good Luck.
Dan D.- Talk about imposing ideology on our problems, you have cooked the big faqkoodie! The deficit and the debt are a symptom of callous and destructive government policy under corporate, pro-bidness rule and not a result of social spending alone. For instance, had it been possible to curb the national security state and defense spending while curbing job flight (to lower wages and disastrous deregulation), and stimulating domestic job creation with needed infrastructure projects the Entitlements (even Bush's pro -bidness Drug Plan) would have been easily affordable. It is stagnant wages, stingy job creation by the wealthy and insane foreign wars for private profit that destroyed any hope of a healthy economy. Tax cuts for the richest and corporations are the icing on a poisoned cake. Had the things I mentioned been done we would now be able to shift to non-emitting energy. Your short-circuited vision omits mistakes made by the wealthy elite as they seized control by coup. Now we're all aboard a big Titanic and they say "Run for port before she sinks." They ain't gonna make it, so we must depose them.
If the people are sheeple you baa like a Judas Goat. Are you helping the big bad wolf lure us on his little bus with locked doors for a terror and rape session? He'll eat us now, and cook you later.
Dan D. wrote: "economics are NOT a concern to that larger goal"
Fabulous points Dan!
Let me further add that not only are economics not a concern, bad economics and the hardships they bring are DESIRED. Scoundrels throughout history were able to force through in a crisis what they couldn't in good times. In fact a scoundrel in this very administration said " never let a crisis go to waste" even this president made his desire clear for the NEED of higher energy prices to cause change. What hurts the poor more than higher energy prices.
.
I think this website is being deliberately sabotaged by D.R. and her producers.
This has been going on too long to be a "technical" problem.
Don't be a conspiracy theorist, they are simple unable to resolve the problem, possibly due to an outside root cause, such as an issue with the provider.
Pancake Rankin wrote:
Dan D.- Talk about imposing ideology on our problems, you have cooked the big faqkoodie! The deficit and the debt are a symptom of callous and destructive government policy under corporate, pro-bidness rule and not a result of social spending alone. For instance, had it been possible to curb the national security state and defense spending while curbing job flight (to lower wages and disastrous deregulation), and stimulating domestic job creation
I'm so sick of this rhetoric, yes it would be best if we could pay all employees a great wage, and make all products to a higher standard and lower cost then every other country. But you can't have really high employee costs and cheap prices, because people buy many items based on what's cheapest. We can't raise the tariffs on imports due to international law that we agreed to. I tell you what, if we all stopped buying imported goods then the american companies would make more money and be able to pay employees more. Or Americans in general can continue to shop at Walmart(or other low cost retailers) and the American companies can be forced to do what it takes to be competitive. Wake up people we live in a global economy because we buy global goods.
Dan D:
DR must deliver the Democrat line. To do otherwise would jeopardize government/taxpayer support. What could be more natural than you look out for your self-interest. After all, nonprofit doesn’t mean DR and her staff are volunteers.
mnemecek wrote: " possibly due to an outside root cause, such as an issue with the provider."
Yeah, and possibly not.
RightTack wrote: "DR must deliver the Democrat line. To do otherwise would jeopardize government/taxpayer support."
I would tweak that a bit. DR delivers the democrat party line because hers and the parties goals are one in the same. To not claim unbiased political commentary on her part would jeopardize government/taxpayer support.
While I applaud much of what the President said in his speech, I’m often puzzled by the assertion that climate change can be stopped or even reversed. Isn’t that akin to stopping earthquakes? This is massive change on a planetary scale, and I think it odd to suggest our government can do anything to stop it. We’d be wiser to prepare and adapt to these changes vs. “fighting climate change.” The lag time needed to stabilize carbon emissions is at least 1000 years: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090126_climate.html. So what is the real motive here?
CitizenJames wrote: "So what is the real motive here?'
Command and Control!
Command and Control (CAC) Regulation can be defined as “the direct regulation of an industry or activity by legislation that states what is permitted and what is illegal”.[1] This approach differs from other regulatory techniques, e.g. the use of economic incentives, which frequently includes the use of taxes and subsidies as incentives for compliance.[2] The ‘command’ is the presentation of quality standards/targets by a government authority that must be complied with. The ‘control’ part signifies the negative sanctions that may result from non-compliance e.g. prosecution.[2][3]
CAC encompasses a variety of methods. Influencing behaviour through: laws, incentives, threats, contracts and agreements. In CAC, there is a perception of a problem and the solution for its control is developed and subsequently implemented.[4]
Although environmental policy has a long history, a profileration of policy making in this area occurred in the 1970s and continued to today. The CAC approach dominated policy in industrial nations during this decade because the general focus was on that of remedial policies rather than more comprehensive prevention techniques.[5] Whilst many view CAC negatively, direct regulatory control is still used in many countries' environmental policy.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_and_control_regulation
The emphasis our President placed on "Gay Rights" in his inaugural speech
is disturbing to me. There are important issues to be addressed, terrorist threat to our nation, unemployment, gun violence, troops dying every day in Afghanastan, highest suicide rate among military personnel in history and
lack of staff in VA hospitals to address returning veterans with mental and physical problems, some of them suicidal too. I could list dozens of important issues that pose a threat to our well being. Lately, two words "Gay and Straight" seem to be regurgitated in the media, code words for our nation's acceptance of diversity. Politicians pander to homosexuals, why?
On today's show during the first hour, one of your panelist's concluded that citizens are accepting of all "Gay Rights", which, include marriage between people of the same sex, therefore it is a non-issue at this point. I have to differ with the gentleman. I find it difficult to believe that the overall majority of citizens in our country condone marriage between people of the same sex, regardless of individual sexual preference. The main concern of the average citizen is making ends meet and the health and saftey of family
and country, not continous complaints lodged be homosexuals.
Republicans and Democrats can't seem to get anything important done,
they disagree on practically everything. This needs to change, when it does,
our wonderful country will thrive and the quality of life of all citizens will improve.
The emphasis our President placed on "Gay Rights" in his inaugural speech
is disturbing to me. There are important issues to be addressed, terrorist threat to our nation, unemployment, gun violence, troops dying every day in Afghanastan, highest suicide rate among military personnel in history and
lack of staff in VA hospitals to address returning veterans with mental and physical problems, some of them suicidal too. I could list dozens of important issues that pose a threat to our well being. Lately, two words "Gay and Straight" seem to be regurgitated in the media, code words for our nation's acceptance of diversity. Politicians pander to homosexuals, why?
On today's show during the first hour, one of your panelist's concluded that citizens are accepting of all "Gay Rights", which, include marriage between people of the same sex, therefore it is a non-issue at this point. I have to differ with the gentleman. I find it difficult to believe that the overall majority of citizens in our country condone marriage between people of the same sex, regardless of individual sexual preference. The main concern of the average citizen is making ends meet and the health and saftey of family
and country, not continous complaints lodged be homosexuals.
Republicans and Democrats can't seem to get anything important done,
they disagree on practically everything. This needs to change, when it does,
our wonderful country will thrive and the quality of life of all citizens will improve.
meangreen,
This "joker" laid out some straight lines which, hopefully, he will stick behind. His "comedy routine" has been basically cleaning up after the Elephant Act left behind so many noxious remnants.....UNfunded wars, UNfunded Part D, an ignored OBL, a mortgage and banking and real estate popped ballon laying over the economy like over-chewed bubble gum, and the deepest recession since the 30's.
It will be at least four years before the robber barons can start gouging the poor, the elderly, and the disabled again.
That "conservative" mantra about affecting only those under 55 is SO bogus as to be a Henny Youngman one liner in itself. i.e. anybody under 55 has worked at least 25 years........two and a half times the Social Security credits requirement. As if a sane person would blithely toss out that many years of SS and Medicare deducttions.
If Congress continues to block infrastructure repair and education investment, one might as well outsource all US jobs....there won't be much left still standing.
So far the grand bargain has only obtained about 30% of the necessary revenue....1/3rd of that recommended by Bowles-Simpson. And so far NO real cuts in spending have been directed at anything but possible cuts in SS and MCare.....zip in defense, zip in corporate subsidies, nada in agriculture props, diddly in corporate cronyism.
As for having watched Fox, an informed citizen watches, reads, assimilates all possible sources to achieve a personal balance, regardless of media bias and political propaganda.....that is absorb both mainstream and blame stream media.
clifffromparma wrote:
"Anybody who can use a computer can find out which president added to our national debt,and how much. Ronald Reagan,super hero to many,raised the debt from $800 billion to over $3 trillion. That is a 300%+ increase.It was the epicenter of our national debt problem. The "Trickle Down" economy consisting of the middle class having the burden of paying their own way,now forced to pay for the wealthy. "
So let me get this straight, cliff. It's not ok that Reagan spent to bring us out of Carter's recession, but it's ok for Obama to spend in spades to bring us out of the recession started in Bush's term?
By the way, your numbers are inflated. The actual numbers are about 1T ($930,210,000,000 ) to about 2.7T ($2,684,392,000,000 , but I won't nit pick.
As for trickle down, I've got news for you. The idea that the opposite of trickle down is something else, is a fantasy. You've either got trickle down from the private sector or you've got trickle down from the Federal Government. Take your pick. I prefer the private sector.
Dishonest Abe stated
"...UNfunded wars, UNfunded Part D, an ignored OBL, a mortgage and banking and real estate popped ballon laying over the economy like over-chewed bubble gum, and the deepest recession since the 30'.
Abe it goes further back than the Bush years. Countless times when Democrats held majorities they forced laws to make Fairness their issue when it came to ownership. There were penalties imposed on Banks when they did not lend in certain neighborhoods. In other words they also dangled that carrot to reward lending institutions in risking their customers funds with people that were already credit risks.
You forget that up to the mid-60 you could call SS a Trust tell somebody thought up about being able to borrow this large amount of money just sitting there. Yea it was borrowed for the Vietnam and then told it could be borrowed to create the "The Mother of all Anti-Poverty Programs " We were promised back in 1967 by the politicians in power(Democrats) that Medicare would be solvent for decades. Sure look where we are at. In the last 4 years 500,000 people have been added to Medicare. How many of those people have ever paid into the system
Part II
Moving along have you not forgotten that we have already had an Infrastructure Bill called the Recovery Act of 2009. It was supposed to put people back to work building those bridges and roads. It NEVER turn out thanks to the great magician Barrack Hussain Obama. It was pay back for the the Public Unions who had their underfunded pension. We the taxpayer are now stuck with that 900 Billion mistake. And now Liberals want another infrastructure bill. How the hell are we going know if it will go to bridges or the SOS as the first one?
Education Investment: We are all ready on a per capita bases second in what we spend on students. Sweden being first. How much more do you want? Unemployment is 14% among college graduates. There are more applicants than there are jobs. Remember this POTUS said that unemployment would be 5% by the end of his first term. How many low information voters are out there
meaningLESSgreen,
Au contraire, mon ami! Have you forgotten that Ronnie tripled the debt in his reign? And the entire banking debacle occurred under Paulsen and W? And lest ye forget, just WHEN will we get all that Iraqi oil and showers of flowers promised by Dick (aka Lon) Cheney? And if you want abrief bit of history, it was Herbert Hoover who Presided over the start of the Great Depression.
That "infrastructure" bill that did pass under O was so severely watered down with business tac cuts and so bloated with Republican pork that economists (e.g.award winner Paul Krugman) declared it too small and too misguided by half right out of the gate.
I guess all the Elephantiasis over the last four years of total resistance, footdragging, and record breaking obstructionism (ala filibusters-R-us) was somehow part of Obama's master plan too. YOUr ilk would prefer a nation of feudal estates with the Romney Robber Barons in charge and We-the-Serfs footing the bills.
Best suggestion is for conservatives to go back to their beloved middle ages when only the wealthy were valued. You will love those coal fired ovens and outdoor privies.
HA,
Begin with rhetoric, work your way through straw man, right on down to reductio ad absurdum.
You have the pattern down in classic style, HA. Nice going.
I'm not sure where the extreme animus toward Obama comes from. There is much to criticize, but he's not a radical or far-left Democrat. Indeed, some of the principles he stands for, such as equal rights, immigration reform, and energy, are rather centrist and even conservative. In any case, if you're going to bash Obama, you may just as well bash the entire Democratic Party.