Obama Kansas Speech Transcript: Americanism Doesn’t Work – Has Never Worked

Barack Obama in his Kansas speech yesterday said the American Way doesn’t work and has never worked. The man whose Party solely allowed the mortgage/housing meltdown, the man who has hosted in his office, some of the vilest, anti-capitalist, anti-American lobbyists in the country, after promising to jerk the welcome mat, blamed Congress. As he spoke of his disdain at letting the free market work, he failed to mention that his policies and regulations have denied that freedom to the free market. There is so much to say about this speech, but I’ll leave it at Rush Limbaugh’s summary today:

Look, let me just give you a sample summary of Obama’s speech yesterday. The president of the United States, not Fidel Castro, not Kim Jong-il, not Mao Tse-tung, not Lenin, not Stalin, not Gorbachev, not Saddam Hussein, not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, not Hugo Chavez, but the president of the United States said that while a limited government that preserves free markets speaks to our rugged individualism as Americans, such a system doesn’t work and has never worked. The president of the United States said that the United States of America, as founded, “has never worked.” Stop and think of that. Ponder that for a moment. The president. Not the head of the SEIU. Not the chairman of some congressional committee. Not a Democrat presidential hopeful. The elected president of the United States said in Osawatomie, Kansas, trying to be Teddy Roosevelt, that the United States of America has never worked. That is a quote, “has never worked.”

Really? What was the first Thanksgiving all about? What was George Washington’s first Thanksgiving proclamation all about? What was 250 years of the greatest prosperity and standard of living known to exist in all of humanity? The president of the United States said yesterday that it has never worked. But he didn’t stop there. He said that Americans must look to a more activist government that taxes more, spends more, and regulates more if the middle class is to be preserved. I can’t get my mind around this. This is antithetical to me. This is foreign. This is what we have faced from our enemies since our founding, this characterization of our country. If you just substitute the word “proletariat” for every time he said “worker” or “middle class” in his speech, if you subject “bourgeois” or “capitalists” for the rich, this same speech could have been given by Lenin a hundred years ago.

In fact, it is, my friend, and don’t doubt me, the same speech that Stalin always gave, that Mao Tse-tung always gave, that Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong-il still give. Communist leaders around the world give this speech constantly. We’ve heard it all before, because class warfare is the fundamental principle of Marxism. Class warfare is how Marx explained economics and explained history. In fact, class warfare is how Marx explained everything. Now, oddly enough it’s how Obama explains everything now. He blames all of the current problems on the rich. And to think some people still say Obama’s not a Marxist. They won’t even call him a socialist. It’s willful blindness on the part of people who, I don’t know what kind of state of denial you have to be in to have heard this speech yesterday or to have read this speech and to have not heard a call to arms…

The little guy, the supposed beneficiary of all this Marxism. I want you people who believe Obama to go around the world for me. I want you to find any socialist, Marxist, communist country and I want you to find for me a prosperous, thriving, happy middle class. I want you to find for me a country where a wall has not been built to keep them in. Read it all here.

Begin Transcript:

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I want to start by thanking a few folks who’ve joined us today.  We’ve got the mayor of Osawatomie, Phil Dudley is here.  (Applause.)  We have your superintendent Gary French in the house.  (Applause.)  And we have the principal of Osawatomie High, Doug Chisam.  (Applause.)  And I have brought your former governor, who is doing now an outstanding job as Secretary of Health and Human Services — Kathleen Sebelius is in the house.  (Applause.)  We love Kathleen.

Well, it is great to be back in the state of Tex — (laughter) — state of Kansas.  I was giving Bill Self a hard time, he was here a while back.  As many of you know, I have roots here.  (Applause.)  I’m sure you’re all familiar with the Obamas of Osawatomie.  (Laughter.)  Actually, I like to say that I got my name from my father, but I got my accent — and my values — from my mother.  (Applause.)  She was born in Wichita.  (Applause.)  Her mother grew up in Augusta.  Her father was from El Dorado.  So my Kansas roots run deep.

My grandparents served during World War II.  He was a soldier in Patton’s Army; she was a worker on a bomber assembly line.  And together, they shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the Great Depression and over fascism.  They believed in an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried — no matter who you were, no matter where you came from, no matter how you started out.  (Applause.)

And these values gave rise to the largest middle class and the strongest economy that the world has ever known.  It was here in America that the most productive workers, the most innovative companies turned out the best products on Earth.  And you know what?  Every American shared in that pride and in that success — from those in the executive suites to those in middle management to those on the factory floor.  (Applause.)  So you could have some confidence that if you gave it your all, you’d take enough home to raise your family and send your kids to school and have your health care covered, put a little away for retirement.

Today we are still home to the world’s most productive workers.  We’re still home to the world’s most innovative companies.  But for most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded.  Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people.  Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefited from that success.  Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments — wealthier than ever before.  But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t — and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up.

Now, for many years, credit cards and home equity loans papered over this harsh reality.  But in 2008, the house of cards collapsed.  We all know the story by now:  Mortgages sold to people who couldn’t afford them, or even sometimes understand them.  Banks and investors allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off.  Huge bets — and huge bonuses — made with other people’s money on the line.  Regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this, but looked the other way or didn’t have the authority to look at all.

It was wrong.  It combined the breathtaking greed of a few with irresponsibility all across the system.  And it plunged our economy and the world into a crisis from which we’re still fighting to recover.  It claimed the jobs and the homes and the basic security of millions of people — innocent, hardworking Americans who had met their responsibilities but were still left holding the bag.

And ever since, there’s been a raging debate over the best way to restore growth and prosperity, restore balance, restore fairness.  Throughout the country, it’s sparked protests and political movements — from the tea party to the people who’ve been occupying the streets of New York and other cities.  It’s left Washington in a near-constant state of gridlock.  It’s been the topic of heated and sometimes colorful discussion among the men and women running for president.  (Laughter.)

But, Osawatomie, this is not just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time.  This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class.  Because what’s at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement.

Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia.  After all that’s happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess.  In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years.  And their philosophy is simple:  We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

I am here to say they are wrong.  (Applause.)  I’m here in Kansas to reaffirm my deep conviction that we’re greater together than we are on our own.  I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules.  (Applause.)  These aren’t Democratic values or Republican values.  These aren’t 1 percent values or 99 percent values.  They’re American values.  And we have to reclaim them.  (Applause.)

You see, this isn’t the first time America has faced this choice.  At the turn of the last century, when a nation of farmers was transitioning to become the world’s industrial giant, we had to decide:  Would we settle for a country where most of the new railroads and factories were being controlled by a few giant monopolies that kept prices high and wages low?  Would we allow our citizens and even our children to work ungodly hours in conditions that were unsafe and unsanitary?  Would we restrict education to the privileged few?  Because there were people who thought massive inequality and exploitation of people was just the price you pay for progress.

Theodore Roosevelt disagreed.  He was the Republican son of a wealthy family.  He praised what the titans of industry had done to create jobs and grow the economy.  He believed then what we know is true today, that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history.  It’s led to a prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world.

But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can.  (Applause.)  He understood the free market only works when there are rules of the road that ensure competition is fair and open and honest.  And so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for consumers with better services and better prices.  And today, they still must.  He fought to make sure businesses couldn’t profit by exploiting children or selling food or medicine that wasn’t safe.  And today, they still can’t.

And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism.  “Our country,” he said, “…means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy…of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.”  (Applause.)

Now, for this, Roosevelt was called a radical.  He was called a socialist — (laughter) — even a communist.  But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign:  an eight-hour work day and a minimum wage for women — (applause) — insurance for the unemployed and for the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax.  (Applause.)

Today, over 100 years later, our economy has gone through another transformation.  Over the last few decades, huge advances in technology have allowed businesses to do more with less, and it’s made it easier for them to set up shop and hire workers anywhere they want in the world.  And many of you know firsthand the painful disruptions this has caused for a lot of Americans.

Factories where people thought they would retire suddenly picked up and went overseas, where workers were cheaper.  Steel mills that needed 100 — or 1,000 employees are now able to do the same work with 100 employees, so layoffs too often became permanent, not just a temporary part of the business cycle.  And these changes didn’t just affect blue-collar workers.  If you were a bank teller or a phone operator or a travel agent, you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs and the Internet.

Today, even higher-skilled jobs, like accountants and middle management can be outsourced to countries like China or India.  And if you’re somebody whose job can be done cheaper by a computer or someone in another country, you don’t have a lot of leverage with your employer when it comes to asking for better wages or better benefits, especially since fewer Americans today are part of a union.

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune.  “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us.  If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger.  Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers.  But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else.  And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory.  And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government.  That’s in America’s DNA.  And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker.  (Laughter.)  But here’s the problem:  It doesn’t work.  It has never worked.  (Applause.)  It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression.  It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s.  And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade.  (Applause.)  I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history.  And what did it get us?  The slowest job growth in half a century.  Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class — things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security.

Remember that in those same years, thanks to some of the same folks who are now running Congress, we had weak regulation, we had little oversight, and what did it get us?  Insurance companies that jacked up people’s premiums with impunity and denied care to patients who were sick, mortgage lenders that tricked families into buying homes they couldn’t afford, a financial sector where irresponsibility and lack of basic oversight nearly destroyed our entire economy.

We simply cannot return to this brand of “you’re on your own” economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country.  (Applause.)  We know that it doesn’t result in a strong economy.  It results in an economy that invests too little in its people and in its future.  We know it doesn’t result in a prosperity that trickles down.  It results in a prosperity that’s enjoyed by fewer and fewer of our citizens.

Look at the statistics.  In the last few decades, the average income of the top 1 percent has gone up by more than 250 percent to $1.2 million per year.  I’m not talking about millionaires, people who have a million dollars.  I’m saying people who make a million dollars every single year.  For the top one hundredth of 1 percent, the average income is now $27 million per year.  The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her worker now earns 110 times more.  And yet, over the last decade the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by about 6 percent.

Now, this kind of inequality — a level that we haven’t seen since the Great Depression — hurts us all.  When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, when people are slipping out of the middle class, it drags down the entire economy from top to bottom.  America was built on the idea of broad-based prosperity, of strong consumers all across the country.  That’s why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so that they could buy the cars he made.  It’s also why a recent study showed that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.

Inequality also distorts our democracy.  It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and it runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder.  (Applause.)  It leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in Washington is rigged against them, that our elected representatives aren’t looking out for the interests of most Americans.

But there’s an even more fundamental issue at stake.  This kind of gaping inequality gives lie to the promise that’s at the very heart of America:  that this is a place where you can make it if you try.  We tell people — we tell our kids — that in this country, even if you’re born with nothing, work hard and you can get into the middle class.  We tell them that your children will have a chance to do even better than you do.  That’s why immigrants from around the world historically have flocked to our shores.

And yet, over the last few decades, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk.  You know, a few years after World War II, a child who was born into poverty had a slightly better than 50-50 chance of becoming middle class as an adult.  By 1980, that chance had fallen to around 40 percent.  And if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it’s estimated that a child born today will only have a one-in-three chance of making it to the middle class — 33 percent.

It’s heartbreaking enough that there are millions of working families in this country who are now forced to take their children to food banks for a decent meal.  But the idea that those children might not have a chance to climb out of that situation and back into the middle class, no matter how hard they work?  That’s inexcusable.  It is wrong.  (Applause.)  It flies in the face of everything that we stand for.  (Applause.)

Now, fortunately, that’s not a future that we have to accept, because there’s another view about how we build a strong middle class in this country — a view that’s truer to our history, a vision that’s been embraced in the past by people of both parties for more than 200 years.

It’s not a view that we should somehow turn back technology or put up walls around America.  It’s not a view that says we should punish profit or success or pretend that government knows how to fix all of society’s problems.  It is a view that says in America we are greater together — when everyone engages in fair play and everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share.  (Applause.)

So what does that mean for restoring middle-class security in today’s economy?  Well, it starts by making sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success.  The truth is we’ll never be able to compete with other countries when it comes to who’s best at letting their businesses pay the lowest wages, who’s best at busting unions, who’s best at letting companies pollute as much as they want.  That’s a race to the bottom that we can’t win, and we shouldn’t want to win that race.  (Applause.)  Those countries don’t have a strong middle class.  They don’t have our standard of living.

The race we want to win, the race we can win is a race to the top — the race for good jobs that pay well and offer middle-class security.  Businesses will create those jobs in countries with the highest-skilled, highest-educated workers, the most advanced transportation and communication, the strongest commitment to research and technology.

The world is shifting to an innovation economy and nobody does innovation better than America.  Nobody does it better.  (Applause.)  No one has better colleges.  Nobody has better universities.  Nobody has a greater diversity of talent and ingenuity.  No one’s workers or entrepreneurs are more driven or more daring.  The things that have always been our strengths match up perfectly with the demands of the moment.

But we need to meet the moment.  We’ve got to up our game.  We need to remember that we can only do that together.  It starts by making education a national mission — a national mission.  (Applause.)  Government and businesses, parents and citizens.  In this economy, a higher education is the surest route to the middle class.  The unemployment rate for Americans with a college degree or more is about half the national average.  And their incomes are twice as high as those who don’t have a high school diploma.  Which means we shouldn’t be laying off good teachers right now — we should be hiring them.  (Applause.)  We shouldn’t be expecting less of our schools –- we should be demanding more.  (Applause.)  We shouldn’t be making it harder to afford college — we should be a country where everyone has a chance to go and doesn’t rack up $100,000 of debt just because they went.  (Applause.)

In today’s innovation economy, we also need a world-class commitment to science and research, the next generation of high-tech manufacturing.  Our factories and our workers shouldn’t be idle.  We should be giving people the chance to get new skills and training at community colleges so they can learn how to make wind turbines and semiconductors and high-powered batteries.  And by the way, if we don’t have an economy that’s built on bubbles and financial speculation, our best and brightest won’t all gravitate towards careers in banking and finance.  (Applause.)   Because if we want an economy that’s built to last, we need more of those young people in science and engineering.  (Applause.)  This country should not be known for bad debt and phony profits. We should be known for creating and selling products all around the world that are stamped with three proud words:  Made in America.  (Applause.)

Today, manufacturers and other companies are setting up shop in the places with the best infrastructure to ship their products, move their workers, communicate with the rest of the world.  And that’s why the over 1 million construction workers who lost their jobs when the housing market collapsed, they shouldn’t be sitting at home with nothing to do.  They should be rebuilding our roads and our bridges, laying down faster railroads and broadband, modernizing our schools — (applause) — all the things other countries are already doing to attract good jobs and businesses to their shores.

Yes, business, and not government, will always be the primary generator of good jobs with incomes that lift people into the middle class and keep them there.  But as a nation, we’ve always come together, through our government, to help create the conditions where both workers and businesses can succeed.  (Applause.)  And historically, that hasn’t been a partisan idea. Franklin Roosevelt worked with Democrats and Republicans to give veterans of World War II — including my grandfather, Stanley Dunham — the chance to go to college on the G.I. Bill.  It was a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, a proud son of Kansas — (applause) — who started the Interstate Highway System, and doubled down on science and research to stay ahead of the Soviets.

Of course, those productive investments cost money.  They’re not free.  And so we’ve also paid for these investments by asking everybody to do their fair share.  Look, if we had unlimited resources, no one would ever have to pay any taxes and we would never have to cut any spending.  But we don’t have unlimited resources.  And so we have to set priorities.  If we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values.  We have to make choices.

Today that choice is very clear.  To reduce our deficit, I’ve already signed nearly $1 trillion of spending cuts into law and I’ve proposed trillions more, including reforms that would lower the cost of Medicare and Medicaid.  (Applause.)

But in order to structurally close the deficit, get our fiscal house in order, we have to decide what our priorities are. Now, most immediately, short term, we need to extend a payroll tax cut that’s set to expire at the end of this month.  (Applause.)  If we don’t do that, 160 million Americans, including most of the people here, will see their taxes go up by an average of $1,000 starting in January and it would badly weaken our recovery.  That’s the short term.

In the long term, we have to rethink our tax system more fundamentally.  We have to ask ourselves:  Do we want to make the investments we need in things like education and research and high-tech manufacturing — all those things that helped make us an economic superpower?  Or do we want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country?  Because we can’t afford to do both.  That is not politics.  That’s just math.  (Laughter and applause.)

Now, so far, most of my Republican friends in Washington have refused under any circumstance to ask the wealthiest Americans to go to the same tax rate they were paying whenBill Clinton was president.  So let’s just do a trip down memory lane here.

Keep in mind, when President Clinton first proposed these tax increases, folks in Congress predicted they would kill jobs and lead to another recession.  Instead, our economy created nearly 23 million jobs and we eliminated the deficit.  (Applause.)  Today, the wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century.  This isn’t like in the early ‘50s, when the top tax rate was over 90 percent.  This isn’t even like the early ‘80s, when the top tax rate was about 70 percent.  Under President Clinton, the top rate was only about 39 percent.  Today, thanks to loopholes and shelters, a quarter of all millionaires now pay lower tax rates than millions of you, millions of middle-class families.  Some billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1 percent.  One percent.

That is the height of unfairness.  It is wrong.  (Applause.)  It’s wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker, maybe earns $50,000 a year, should pay a higher tax rate than somebody raking in $50 million.  (Applause.)  It’s wrong for Warren Buffett‘s secretary to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett.  (Applause.)  And by the way, Warren Buffett agrees with me.  (Laughter.)  So do most Americans — Democrats, independents and Republicans.  And I know that many of our wealthiest citizens would agree to contribute a little more if it meant reducing the deficit and strengthening the economy that made their success possible.

This isn’t about class warfare.  This is about the nation’s welfare.  It’s about making choices that benefit not just the people who’ve done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefits the middle class, and those fighting to get into the middle class, and the economy as a whole.

Finally, a strong middle class can only exist in an economy where everyone plays by the same rules, from Wall Street to Main Street.  (Applause.)  As infuriating as it was for all of us, we rescued our major banks from collapse, not only because a full-blown financial meltdown would have sent us into a second Depression, but because we need a strong, healthy financial sector in this country.

But part of the deal was that we wouldn’t go back to business as usual.  And that’s why last year we put in place new rules of the road that refocus the financial sector on what should be their core purpose:  getting capital to the entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and financing millions of families who want to buy a home or send their kids to college.

Now, we’re not all the way there yet, and the banks are fighting us every inch of the way.  But already, some of these reforms are being implemented.

If you’re a big bank or risky financial institution, you now have to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you’ll pay the bills if you fail, so that taxpayers are never again on the hook for Wall Street’s mistakes.  (Applause.)  There are also limits on the size of banks and new abilities for regulators to dismantle a firm that is going under.  The new law bans banks from making risky bets with their customers’ deposits, and it takes away big bonuses and paydays from failed CEOs, while giving shareholders a say on executive salaries.

This is the law that we passed.  We are in the process of implementing it now.  All of this is being put in place as we speak.  Now, unless you’re a financial institution whose business model is built on breaking the law, cheating consumers and making risky bets that could damage the entire economy, you should have nothing to fear from these new rules.

Some of you may know, my grandmother worked as a banker for most of her life — worked her way up, started as a secretary, ended up being a vice president of a bank.  And I know from her, and I know from all the people that I’ve come in contact with, that the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals, they want to do right by their customers.  They want to have rules in place that don’t put them at a disadvantage for doing the right thing.  And yet, Republicans in Congress are fighting as hard as they can to make sure that these rules aren’t enforced.

I’ll give you a specific example.  For the first time in history, the reforms that we passed put in place a consumer watchdog who is charged with protecting everyday Americans from being taken advantage of by mortgage lenders or payday lenders or debt collectors.  And the man we nominated for the post, Richard Cordray, is a former attorney general of Ohio who has the support of most attorney generals, both Democrat and Republican, throughout the country.  Nobody claims he’s not qualified.

But the Republicans in the Senate refuse to confirm him for the job; they refuse to let him do his job.  Why?  Does anybody here think that the problem that led to our financial crisis was too much oversight of mortgage lenders or debt collectors?


THE PRESIDENT:  Of course not.  Every day we go without a consumer watchdog is another day when a student, or a senior citizen, or a member of our Armed Forces — because they are very vulnerable to some of this stuff — could be tricked into a loan that they can’t afford — something that happens all the time.  And the fact is that financial institutions have plenty of lobbyists looking out for their interests.  Consumers deserve to have someone whose job it is to look out for them.  (Applause.)  And I intend to make sure they do.  (Applause.)  And I want you to hear me, Kansas:  I will veto any effort to delay or defund or dismantle the new rules that we put in place.  (Applause.)

We shouldn’t be weakening oversight and accountability.  We should be strengthening oversight and accountability.  I’ll give you another example.  Too often, we’ve seen Wall Street firms violating major anti-fraud laws because the penalties are too weak and there’s no price for being a repeat offender.  No more.  I’ll be calling for legislation that makes those penalties count so that firms don’t see punishment for breaking the law as just the price of doing business.  (Applause.)

The fact is this crisis has left a huge deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street.  And major banks that were rescued by the taxpayers have an obligation to go the extra mile in helping to close that deficit of trust.  At minimum, they should be remedying past mortgage abuses that led to the financial crisis.  They should be working to keep responsible homeowners in their home.  We’re going to keep pushing them to provide more time for unemployed homeowners to look for work without having to worry about immediately losing their house.

The big banks should increase access to refinancing opportunities to borrowers who haven’t yet benefited from historically low interest rates.  And the big banks should recognize that precisely because these steps are in the interest of middle-class families and the broader economy, it will also be in the banks’ own long-term financial interest.  What will be good for consumers over the long term will be good for the banks.  (Applause.)

Investing in things like education that give everybody a chance to succeed.  A tax code that makes sure everybody pays their fair share.  And laws that make sure everybody follows the rules.  That’s what will transform our economy.  That’s what will grow our middle class again.  In the end, rebuilding this economy based on fair play, a fair shot, and a fair share will require all of us to see that we have a stake in each other’s success.  And it will require all of us to take some responsibility.

It will require parents to get more involved in their children’s education.  It will require students to study harder.  (Applause.)  It will require some workers to start studying all over again.  It will require greater responsibility from homeowners not to take out mortgages they can’t afford.  They need to remember that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

It will require those of us in public service to make government more efficient and more effective, more consumer-friendly, more responsive to people’s needs.  That’s why we’re cutting programs that we don’t need to pay for those we do.  (Applause.)  That’s why we’ve made hundreds of regulatory reforms that will save businesses billions of dollars.  That’s why we’re not just throwing money at education, we’re challenging schools to come up with the most innovative reforms and the best results.
And it will require American business leaders to understand that their obligations don’t just end with their shareholders.  Andy Grove, the legendary former CEO of Intel, put it best.  He said, “There is another obligation I feel personally, given that everything I’ve achieved in my career, and a lot of what Intel has achieved…were made possible by a climate of democracy, an economic climate and investment climate provided by the United States.”

This broader obligation can take many forms.  At a time when the cost of hiring workers in China is rising rapidly, it should mean more CEOs deciding that it’s time to bring jobs back to the United States — (applause) — not just because it’s good for business, but because it’s good for the country that made their business and their personal success possible.  (Applause.)

I think about the Big Three auto companies who, during recent negotiations, agreed to create more jobs and cars here in America, and then decided to give bonuses not just to their executives, but to all their employees, so that everyone was invested in the company’s success.  (Applause.)

I think about a company based in Warroad, Minnesota.  It’s called Marvin Windows and Doors.  During the recession, Marvin’s competitors closed dozens of plants, let hundreds of workers go.  But Marvin’s did not lay off a single one of their 4,000 or so employees — not one.  In fact, they’ve only laid off workers once in over a hundred years.  Mr. Marvin’s grandfather even kept his eight employees during the Great Depression.

Now, at Marvin’s when times get tough, the workers agree to give up some perks and some pay, and so do the owners.  As one owner said, “You can’t grow if you’re cutting your lifeblood — and that’s the skills and experience your workforce delivers.”  (Applause.)  For the CEO of Marvin’s, it’s about the community.  He said, “These are people we went to school with.  We go to church with them.  We see them in the same restaurants.  Indeed, a lot of us have married local girls and boys.  We could be anywhere, but we are in Warroad.”

That’s how America was built.  That’s why we’re the greatest nation on Earth.  That’s what our greatest companies understand.  Our success has never just been about survival of the fittest.  It’s about building a nation where we’re all better off.  We pull together.  We pitch in.  We do our part.  We believe that hard work will pay off, that responsibility will be rewarded, and that our children will inherit a nation where those values live on.  (Applause.)

And it is that belief that rallied thousands of Americans to Osawatomie — (applause) — maybe even some of your ancestors — on a rain-soaked day more than a century ago.  By train, by wagon, on buggy, bicycle, on foot, they came to hear the vision of a man who loved this country and was determined to perfect it.

“We are all Americans,” Teddy Roosevelt told them that day. “Our common interests are as broad as the continent.”  In the final years of his life, Roosevelt took that same message all across this country, from tiny Osawatomie to the heart of New York City, believing that no matter where he went, no matter who he was talking to, everybody would benefit from a country in which everyone gets a fair chance.  (Applause.)

And well into our third century as a nation, we have grown and we’ve changed in many ways since Roosevelt’s time.  The world is faster and the playing field is larger and the challenges are more complex.  But what hasn’t changed — what can never change — are the values that got us this far.  We still have a stake in each other’s success.  We still believe that this should be a place where you can make it if you try.  And we still believe, in the words of the man who called for a New Nationalism all those years ago, “The fundamental rule of our national life,” he said, “the rule which underlies all others — is that, on the whole, and in the long run, we shall go up or down together.”  And I believe America is on the way up.  (Applause.)

Thank you.  God bless you.  God bless the United States of America.

End transcript.

The Lonely Conservative linked here. Read her comparison of Obama’s rhetoric compared to Marxists like Stalin and Lenin – very interesting.

Thanks to the LA Times

Posted by Maggie @ Maggie’s Notebook

  • James Coley

    You are misrepresenting the president’s speech. He was not saying that American capitalism does not work. He is saying that laissez-faire does not work.

    • James, are you really defending this (Expletive deleted) … sorry I need sleep… I can’t say what I was about to say..

      • James Coley

        David: You have no logic behind your prejudices. You want to call Obama a dirty name, and you don’t even think about the point I am making! The American tradition of capitalism is not laissez-faire. Economic libertarianism and laissez-faire have failed this nation.

        • First of all James, your from Australia.. How about you worry about your country and leave our country to we who actually live here. As far as you saying my I have prejudices? Who the hell are you to try a race card on me? You don’t know me and you certainly don’t know what background I come from. The only prejudice I have are with people who want to erode my freedoms. Maybe the reason your big nose is stuck in our business here is because America is the economic power house in the world. If we go down the world will follow. You can’t vote here but believe me, I want to see our country and in turn the world, free to trade and work and yes gain. This president and his administration wants everyone sucking at the tit of the the government trough.. I ain’t going to let that happen as long as I can vote. Why don’t you put another shrimp on your barbi.. and leave us to our family matters here. Love your enthusiasm, but your misguided if you think defending this jerk of a President is going to improve things here or there. Stick to yours and we’ll stick to ours.

          • James Coley

            The sheer ignorance of your post is astonishing. I’m thinking it must be a joke.

            First of all, I am not from Australia. You have me confused with another poster. I am a proud Southerner from Wilmington, North Carolina.

            But what really betrays your ignorance is that, apparently because I used the word “prejudice,” you react as though I have accused you of racism?!

            Your views about economics are all based on prejudice, which is just a word that means you have pre-judged something without looking at the facts first.

            The facts are plain: laissez-faire does not work, and the true American form of capitalism is one in which there is a balance between government and profit-dependent enterprises. You need both the market and government programs. That is the American Way.

            I hate it when my fellow liberals, or others, accuse someone of racism without good reason. I was not doing that to you, David.

          • David, there are two James commenting on this post. One from Australia. This one is i.d. as James Coley.

  • James, the laissez-faire speech was when he said Americas are lazy. This speech attacked trickle down economics which is capitalism.

  • James Coley

    Maggie, you are a fountainhead of misinformation. Obama never said Americans were lazy. That is a fact. The remark he made about investors from which this myth is taken in no way constituted or even suggested the statement that Americans are lazy. Either you do not know what he actually said, or you have an amazingly low level of intellectual integrity and honesty. Also, it is simply false to equate trickle-down economics with capitalism. Obama is not a socialist, and it is just plain ridiculous to say that he is a socialist. He believes in capitalilsm, and Republicans like Rush Limbaugh believe in capitalism. But they believe in different kinds of capitalism. Obama, like most Americans, believes in a balance between two extremes: pervasive government control of the economy under socialism is one extreme, and the sort of laissez-faire Limbaugh supports is just the extreme at the other end of the spectrum. Finally, does your connection between “laissez” and “lazy” mean that you do not know what laissez-faire means? Learn some American history, Maggie. In the past, when the USA tried laissez-faire, it failed us. And now it has failed us again. Captalism works for everyone, not just the few at the top, when government regulates and supplements it in a balanced way. This is not socialism, it’s capitalism done the American way! That’s a fact.

  • James, Obama said we were a little bit lazy, in the context of seeking foreign investment. This coming from a President who has chased business after business, either out of business or out of the country.

    As to laissez-faire, I was making a joke about your comment. There are areas where we need regulations and some government involvement, but nothing like what we see today.

    Capitalism has worked well for everyone in this country. It is Democrat policy that has failed countless times since we began championing people victimizing themselves. The countless Democrat mayors in depressed cities all across the U.S. has left many in poverty, allowed despicable crime to be foisted on neighborhoods, and participated in voter fraud. The Democrats who caused the housing meltdown, which has taken the only equity some people had. But what about most of those loans made requiring no credit, no down – not even a job in some cases. All Democrats. They all thought it was just a swell idea.

    Capitalism does not guarantee the life everyone wants, and it does not guarantee a job. It guarantees the opportunity to work and do what you can do. First you have to learn to read and speak decent English. Liberals took that out of the picture.

    You can spin Obama’s vision of capitalism all you want, but it isn’t American capitalism.

  • Pingback: Democrat Party Loses Nearly One Million Voters in Battleground States | The Lonely Conservative()

  • Pingback: Rush Limbaugh on Obama’s Marxist Speech | The Lonely Conservative()

  • I didn’t write the following, a friend did and I have his permission to quote it:

    One hundred years ago, a proven leader of men, a vibrant, virile man of decisive action who could well lead and inspire industry within people ventured to a very small town in East Kansas.

    Having been a Calvary Colonel, a Police Chief, a Navy Secretary, a New York Governor, and a Vice President he could relate well to an industrious populace of proud, productive, self-reliant Americans, patriots with the work ethic of a strapping lumberjack.

    Teddy Roosevelt drew a crowd of 30,000 to tiny Osawatomie, Kansas with one high school as he spoke proudly of the unlimited potential of industrious Americans who saw America’s promise as boundless and true, drawing on a book by Herbert Croly, “The Promise of American Life”.

    A century later, what have we now but a President who draws but a mere crowd of 1,200 at the very same Osawatomie, Kansas to hear him speak of his own perceived limits on modern American life, and of his view of American despair.

    A President of such protracted ineffectiveness who will say anything not to lead, a community organizer that rallies popular resentment on industrious folk that earn what they have and save, and wallows in sloth and his own perceived inequality and unfairness in all of American life drawing on the basest of human emotions inciting class envy with authority desperately seeking re-eleciton having no record to run on.

  • James from Australia

    My country, Australia, was founded on an observation of the spectacular success of the United States. The central principle of that success was that it placed individual choice and individual aspirations above the power of the state and the protected privileges of class.

    Individual choices are driven by different mixtures of motives for different people, including greed, as well as creativity, charity, civic pride, the wish to be loved, and so on. These are all parts of human nature, and the United States was the first big political experiment to be based on freeing human nature rather than controlling and reforming it. Of all the big political experiments, it is the only one that has been successful in the laboratory of history.

    In an open and transparent marketplace of goods, services, labour, capital, land, and intellectual property, where citizens are protected from fraud, theft and violence, the best way to better one’s condition is to find a way of selling something to those who want it more than they want what it costs them, and who are therefore willing to make a free exchange.

    In a corrupt, opaque, tariff-protected, unevenly taxed market, the best way to get rich is often to lobby Congress for special concessions, protections, and subsidies. The causes of the GFC are still being hotly debated, but readers may be interested to review Ron Paul’s warning in 2003 about the possibility of a government-induced financial crash in the housing markets (http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html). His warning went unheeded.

    Barack Obama was elected on the slogan “Yes we can” and his Kansas speech goes further in elevating collective aspirations over individual ones. A more American slogan might be “Yes I can”. That would be a slogan that the pioneers who built the greatest country on earth could relate to.

    • James Coley

      There is no conflict between individual and collective aspirations. I suppose you think that the way America pulled together after Pearl Harbor and 9/11 was “Commonism.” But then you do not repect people in the military. I respect people in the military, and the police and fire-fighters. But to you they are “useless government workers.”

      • James, the police and fire-fighters work for state governments. There is a definite conflict between individualism and collectivism. Nice to try to pretend there isn’t, but it isn’t an honest argument.

        Why do you think James from Australia doesn’t respect the military, police and fire-fighters?

        • James Coley

          Not all law enforcement is on the State level, and the armed forces all work for the Federal Government. But why does it matter? You are against government. It does not matter whether it is local, state or national. You are an anarchist, really. Government is in itself a good thing.

          I am making an honest argument when I point out examples of collectivism and individual aspirations working together. It is you who refuse to listen to, or respond to, the argument.

          My apologies to James of Australia if he has been hit by friendly fire. Right-Wingers like Maggie have insulted our President and the government of the United States of America for too long. We Liberals are fighting back in the war of words on these extremist blog sites.

      • James from Australia

        James Coley, collective aspirations are a great way for many people to connect with something larger than themselves. Football teams, armies, orchestras, emergency services, charity organisations, workplace teams, community action groups, are just some of the ways people can do this.
        The crucial point is that every individual joins of his own free will and can leave of his own free will. But when the majority votes for a collective state mission and the minority are conscripted to commit to its goals and pay for it, then you’re saying to dissenters “you’re either with us or you’re against us.” Individual choice is subordinated to majority choice. Big difference.

        • James Coley

          But you can join or leave the USA of your own free will, too. America: Love it or leave it!

          Besides, there’s such a thing a society. You do not choose the one you are born into, but you are subject to its laws, taxes, and so on. Why is this such a hard concept for Right-Wingers?

          • Ok Coley.. maybe your just so much more smarter..lol than me.. but I didn’t understand anything you just wrote. Or maybe, I’m just fried after working all day, at the foundry and here in my studio, that my brain ain’t pickin up what your insulting the Right with.. personaly I have no wingers on my back.

          • James from Australia

            In the US the state is only a part of American society, it is subordinate to society, and does not have unlimited license to interfere with it or impose group missions on it (except of course in emergencies such as when under attack, and if you say it’s under attack by Republicans or something, that doesn’t count).

            You may not like that concept but it’s the covenant your forebears made with each other and it’s been such a success that more and more of the world has been trying to catch up for two centuries. Obama says it failed in the 1920s and the 2000s, which is like saying Mohammed Ali was a failure because he lost fights in 1971, ’73, ’78, ’80, and ’81. Obama sells his country short: America is a roaring success because of the things her people can do, and they can do those things because of the things their government does not do.

            Now it sounds to me as if you’re saying a society is the sum of its laws, its taxes, its government, and its group mission (democratically chosen of course, because majority might is right), and those who don’t agree can choose between submission and exile. Maybe they can get a refugee visa to Australia. Is that what you’re saying?

            • James Coley

              No, I am not saying anythng at all about a choice between “submission” and “exile.” I am talking about responsibilities to the society one is a part of, not “submission.” I am talking about voluntarily leaving a society when one refuses to accept those responsibilities, not “exile.”

              It is simply false that here in the United States the government does not have the right to impose what you call “group missions.” Everyone in the USA has a responsibility to pay taxes, whether they like it or not, for the common good.

              Your Mohammed Ali analogy fails because the President was not talking about winning some and losing some. American Capitalism emerged when laiseez-faire failed the American people.

              It is an unfounded prejudice to say that we can achieve great things in the USA because of the things the government does not do. This prejudice betrays a profound ignorance of the essential role played by government in the very structure of American society. I suppose that public education, transportation infrastructure, research funding, police and fire protection, unemployment and health benefits, loans and grants for higher education, and so much else, have nothing to do with the capacity of the American people for success?!

              This notion that society can exist and flourish without government is not conservatism. It is anarchism.

              So, yes, President Obama is not an anarchist. He is a pragmatist.

        • James from Australia, excellent answer. Thanks.

  • Pingback: Obama Kansas Speech Transcript: Americanism Doesn’t Work – Has Never Worked | FavStocks()

  • James Coley

    Maggie: Are you just misinformed, or a liar? For the last time, Obama did not say that we, the American people, are lazy.

    And you are so out of touch with reality! You write that “Capitalism has worked well for everyone in this country.” Not for the last thirty years or so. The facts are plain. The people at the top of the economic pyramid have seen their wealth increase dramatically while everyone else struggles.

    Obama’s vision of capitalism is the true American capitalism. Again, you need to learn some American history. We tried laissez-faire and it did not work.

    By the way, stop saying “Democrat” (as you defenders of the Plutocracy do) when the word is “Democratic.” Or I and the other defenders of the true American Way will have to start saying things like “Rush Limbaugh does not speak for everyone in the Republic party.”

    And stop blaming the Democratic party for getting us into this recession. While Clinton has to share some of the blame,it is a matter of cold, hard fact that it was the policies of the Republic party that got us into this mess. And then you turn around and blame us for it. You are either sadly misinformed or you have little or no intellectual integrity.

    We will hold on to the White House, and we will win back the House, because we represent the People.

    • James, several years ago I made the decision to NEVER use ‘Democratic,’ (because of people like you, and I love knowing it drives you crazy). If you want me to stop blaming Democrats for the recession, then I suggest you stop coming here. Just stay away. Clinton bears his part of the blame (he’s a Democrat) and none of the housing bubble – NONE can be blamed on Republicans.

      Chatting with you about the top of the pyramid is useless.

      • James Coley

        It does not drive me crazy when you say “Democrat” instead of “Democratic.” It’s just plain wrong. I know it is something Karl Rove or some other Republic llike him came up with a long time ago, and you and others are just following orders by using the wrong word.

        Chatting with me or anyone about the top of the pyramid is useless for one simple reason: You don’t listen. You do not have an open mind and you do not respect the facts.

        The fact is that the Republic policy of laissez-faire is responsible for the recession we are in. Too little regulation of the financial industry resulted in the disaster of October, 2008.

        Obama pulled us back from the brink of another Great Depression. If we followed the policies you bllindly follow, we would beplunged right back into that abyss. You do not understand basic economics, or you simply do not care about the American people, or both.

        • It’s my blog, James Coley. I will use Democrat and there is nothing wrong about it. AGAIN, as to Obama and the word lazy, see this: Lazy

          • James Coley

            You have the right (except for libel, etc.) to say whatever you want on your blog. But the fact remains that the correct term is “Democratic” and not “Democrat.” Again, I am telling you to start using the correct term. Until you do, I will continue to talk and write about the “Republic party.”

            The President did use the term “lazy” but he did not say that Americans are lazy people. You and other extremists have taken this out of context and you are spreading a lie when you say he said we were lazy.

            Stop lying about the President. Show some respect for the office of the presidency and for this great nation of ours. Stop putting down the United States of America and its powerful tradition of capitalism aided by government in serving all the People.

      • John

        Ever Heard of the The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999… This is the bill that repealed the Glass Steagall Act… which prohibited Banks from doing both savings & investments… It IS the Bill that allowed the banks to get “TOO BIG TO FAIL”… Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republicant of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (Republicant of Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (Republicant of Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001…. Funny they are ALL REPUBLICANTS

        Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicants agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November. On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8, and by the House 362-57. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

        In the summer of 2003, leaders of the four federal agencies that oversee the banking industry gathered to highlight the Bush administration’s commitment to reducing regulation. They posed for photographers behind a stack of papers wrapped in red tape. The others held garden shears. Gilleran … hefted a chain saw. John Reich (then Vice Chairman of the FDIC and later at the OTS) and James Gilleran of the Office of Thrift Supervision (with the chainsaw) and representatives of three banker trade associations: James McLaughlin of the American Bankers Association, Harry Doherty of America’s Community Bankers, and Ken Guenther of the Independent Community Bankers of America.

        To absolve the Republicants of ANY responsibility in the financial Collapse of 2007 is to completely disregard history, and to blatantly misrepresent the facts surrounding the issue to the detriment of the American Economy as a whole… but keep up the misrepresentation… The Lies are working

        • John, yes I do know about The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act and I agree with what you said about it. The difference is, 17 attempts were made by Republicans to “fix” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Democrats refused. It did cause what eventually happened. Even with the egregious GLB Act, we could have made a a huge difference. People would not be living in homes they could never afford – and eventually end up on the streets.

          • John

            DId they do Anything to “FIX” GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY… NO! unless you consider more financial deregulation a fix as some libertarians like to espouse… Most serious minded people would consider that adding to the problem though…

            So because the Republicants wanted to make it harder for lower income people to own homes and they did nothing but make it easier for banks to get too big to fail that makes them the Champions Economic policy?

            At least you are willing to Agree that it is NOT Obama “the man whose Party solely allowed the mortgage/housing meltdown” that is Solely Responsible for a financial meltdown that happened a year before he took office…

            Progress can be made!!

            • John

              Either that or you just choose to ignore the facts and cherry pick your information to suit your own political ideology…

              You see I don’t deny that the Democratic party has played a role in the economic calamity… there are many things they could have and should have done better… Fannie & Freddie & advocating lower income families enjoy the benefits of home ownership is at the very least a noble goal at its heart, even though it may have had misguided consequences to be sure

              But to make the patently false claim that “The man whose Party solely allowed the mortgage/housing meltdown” does nothing but absolve The Republicants, a party that played a MUCH larger role in allowing the banks to get too big to fail in the first place, what is the noble goal of deregulating banks and allowing them to get so big they become a serious threat to the economy? Greed?

              ah the ghosts of Ayn Rand would be pleased…

  • James Coley

    Also, there is a blatant inconsistency in your last post, Maggie. You wrote that “Capitalism does not guarantee the life everyone wants, and it does not guarantee a job. It guarantees the opportunity to work and do what you can do.” If laissez-faire guarantees the opportunity to work, then that is a guarantee of a job.

    Freedom is not the absence of government. Freedom is the ability to make one’s own decisions, along with a good variety of opportunities to choose from. Opportunity in the economy requires government involvement.

    A great example of the failure of your silly Ayn Rand laissez-faire ideology is heatlh care. By the way, stop calling it “Obamacare.” It is not the President’s plan or proposal. It is the law of the land, passed by Congress and signed by the President. I repeat: it is the law of the land. Respect that. It is a market-based approach based on private health coverage. It is a capitalist solution to the problem of insurance being out of reach for too many hard-working Americans. Obama is defending the true American capitalism.

  • James Coley

    Maggie: The American people are suffering, and you just turn a bline eye! What the people need is not some abstract “opportunity to work” that makes your breast swell with pride after reading “Atlas Shrugged” for the one hundreth time. The people need jobs! Profit-dependent enterprises see jobs as a cost, and seek to minimize them. But they are a social good. The President wants government and business to work together to create more jobs. You really don’t care about the American people, only your abstract ideology. I am a member of the Democratic party, and thus I am a defender of the people of this great nation. You would have us sink into another Great Depression!

    • James, it is the ‘opportunity’ to work that is guaranteed, and that works until we get a President like Barack Obama. Do you think the idea of energy providing jobs is a new one? It’s not. The industry has provided hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country…until Democrats controlled the Congress for so many years – and the final blow, Barack Obama.

      BTW, job creators see jobs as a way to increase their product, unless…regulations are so restrictive that they can’t make a profit. That’s when the “profit-dependent job creator” has to let people go. Do you know of a single job creator who wants to downsize for any reason other than his profit is down, making it more difficult to meet the payroll, pay the cost of insurance, and turn on the lights every morning.

      James – do you know of anything the government produces? There is nothing other than paychecks to people who actually do anything to stimulate the economy. Government is a drain on all of us, and while we have to have some government, someone has to put a stop to the mammoth growth – which is startling under Obama.

      Now hundreds of thousands of jobs lost. Do yourself a favor and look the stats from 2006 when Democrats took control. You can start with BobF’s comment below.

      While you are busying with “defending” the people, remember this: Every single penny the government spends, daily, is another tax on the people.

      • James Coley

        Maggie: It really is amazing how little you know.

        You made no real reply to my point about your abstract concept of “opportunity.” Again, it is not rhetoric drawn from the bitter polemics of Ayn Rand that people need, it is real jobs! But you don’t seem to care.

        Of course businesses cut jobs to increase their profits, even when they are not having any problems meeting payroll or keeping the lights on. It happens all the time here in the real world. You might try visiting the real world every now and then, Maggie.

        The most ignorant thing you say is that government produces nothing! It is outrageous that you and your minority of government-haters seem to think that a person who works for the government does not contribute to the wealth and welfare of this country.

        Government workers protect this country. The Pentagon is part of the government. The brave men and women in our armed forces, whom you would heartlessly dismiss as useless leaches, desrve our respect and admiration. They work for the United States of America!

        The police, and firefighters, are government workers. I suppose they do not do anything important? I suppose schoolteachers, health and safety regulators, bus drivers, postal workers, and so on, contribute nothing to the economy?! That is ridiculous.

        You seem to think that government spending is inherently wasteful. That shows a profound ignorance of basic economics. Government spending is not “taken out” of the economy. It is part of the economy, and an essential part.

        The government landed on the Moon, built the Hoover Dam, reduced poverty (until laissez-faire re-emerged), protects our people and educates our children. It does hundreds of other good, necessary things.

        I suppose that, if you qualify for Social Security, you ar just going to return the checks when they arrive? You will reject help from Medicare (“socialized medicine”) when you qualify for it? I doubt it.

        A final point: You Right-Wingers play hardball, so we Liberals have to fight back. I actually don’t like saying these insulting things to you, but you insult us every day and have even established a blog for the purpose.

        Look, we liberals love this country. We are not socialists. There is a difference between liberalism and socialism. I would like to have a mature, intelligent discussion with you. But that has to start with a mutual understanding of what we really believe. I apologize if I have incorrectly characterized your views. But you asked for it. Stop this Red-baiting. Calling us Liberals socialists and Nazis does not contribute in a positive way to real discussion.

        For the last time: Socialism is an economic system based on public ownership of business. Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership. Liberalism is the belief that this system must also include government programs to regulate and supplement the market. Liberals and Progressives (like Teddy Roosevelt and Barack Obama) believe in capitalism. We do not believe in laissez-faire because in this nation’s history we tried it, and it failed.

        • Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness = Opportunity.

          • James Coley

            We Liberals are the ones who truly believe in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

            People need jobs to pay the bills, buy groceries and take care of the necessities of life so that we can live. We need jobs, not Ayn Rand platitudes about some abstract concept of “opportunity” you believe in.

            Liberals believe in Liberty, both social and economic. Economic liberty is not the same thing as property rights, and the confusion of the two is the fundamental mistake of libertarianism.

            Liberals believe in the responsible Pursuit of Happiness. For example, we want gay people to be able to get married so that they may pursue happiness in their way.

            • To James, the defender of the american way and member of the democrat party: After viewing the link I gave you, you refuse to admit that Obama said we are lazy? Move on please. There will be no more responses back to you.

              • James Coley

                Comment edited by blog owner, Maggie, but leaving just enough for entertainment:

                Amazing how you are immune to reason and logic. In fact, I said that the President used the word “lazy” but you and others have taken this out of context. You are spreading a lie about the President of the United States of America. For the last time: stop lying!

                Why do you hate America?

                You wrote “Move on please.” I am glad you will not make any more responses. You are not interested in learning anything or having a real conversation.

                We Liberals will re-elect the President, take back the House and save the People of this great nation from the ignorance of those of you who hate the armed forces because they work for the federal government.

                For the last time: The President did not attack Capitalism. He believes in American Capitalism, which is not the same as laissez-faire or “trickle-down.” The fact is that Reaganomics, Supply-Side or whatever you want to call it has been a monumental failure. Look at the mess our economy is in.

      • James Coley

        Just because someone is rich does not mean that they are a job creator. Some rich people live off family money and never work a day in their lives and never start a business.

        Do I hate the rich? No. Is this “class warfare?” No. Income and wealth inequality is a necessary and legitimate part of a market economy when it is part of a system that benefits everyone.

        Occupy Wall Street and other demonstrations draw our attention to the fact that for the last few decades (since Reagan, basically) the growth in inequality has not been part of “a rising tide lifts all boats.” The few in their yachts are riding high. Everyone else is struggling to survive.

        That is what happens when we pursue the silly Ayn Rand policies of laissez-faire and economic libertarianism. We learned long ago that these are not the true form of American Capitalism.

        The President is defending American Capitalism. His Kansas sppech will go down in history as a fine articulation of the philosophy of capitalism as the great engine of wealth that, working together with government, raises the standards for all the people of this great nation.

        Patriotism in these times means raising taxes on the rich. I’m all in favor of a tax credit for wealthy people who create new jobs and businesses with their wealth. Some do. Some don’t. These are the facts. Hard things for you, these facts from the real world. Not the bombastic fantasy world of Ayn Rand.

  • It’s not Democratic Party, it’s Democrat Party. Always been Democrat party. They like to call it Democratic Party to fool the gullible because they have them thinking we have a Democratic form of government when actually we have a Republic.

    Go back 20 years and look at the US Unemployment Rate . The prosperous 90’s didn’t really take place until Republicans took control of the House in 1995. Things continued good until 2001 when 9/11 took place and an economic upheaval occurred and unemployment started to rise, topping off at 6% in 2003 but then started to drop. It hit its lowest point in 2006 at 4.6% when Democrats convinced the American People we needed a change in direction. Democrats took back control of Congress in 2007 while unemployment held at 4.6% but the undoing was in the making. In 2008, unemployment rose to 5.8% and in 2009 when Democrats had full control of both houses of congress with a filibuster proof senate and Obama in the White House, they gave us 9.3% unemployment and 9.6% in 2010. When Democrats control congress, employment in the US suffers.


    • BobF, thanks for weighing on the ‘Democrat Party.’ As I told James, I made a conscious decision to never use ‘Democratic.’ He is just one of many irritated on his side of the aisle, at my little, constant, dig. That’s a great link. If you don’t mind, I’ll put the info in another post, along with the insight from your friend about Teddy Roosevelt and Obama.

      • James Coley

        Astonishing how you blame Obama and those of us in the Democratic party for the high unemployment rate. You seem to think that economic policies have their effects overnight. The fact is that Obama inherited this mess from the laissez-faire policies of the Republic party. Here are the facts, in graphic form:


        • James Coley

          I note that there is no reply to the graph for which I posted a link. The source is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Which Rick Perry would eliminate, I’m sure. If he could remember his talking points.

          Only a member of the Republic party would be so filled with hatred of our American government that he would want to eliminate the agency that keeps track of unemployment and how much our People are suffering under the policies of laissez-faire.

    • James Coley

      No, it is the “Democratic Party.” Start using the correct term!

    • James Coley

      It is a common misunderstanding. Yes, the USA is a repubic. All that means is that it is not a monarchy. It is, in fact, a democratic republic. There is no exclusion of one by the other.

      • Carolyn R

        James, we are a Representative Republic. In speaking of the political party, democrat is appropriate as is democratic. If you look at history though, you will see reference to “Republicans and Democrats”, never “Republicans and Democratics”.

        Capitalism is what made the USA strong; the perversion of Capitalism has weakened it and the elimination of Capitalism will destroy it. Obama is a socialist, and usually makes no secret of it. Just for starters, he said during his candidacy “Judge me by the people I surround myself with.” Lessee … Paul Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones …

        Something that is rarely addressed in these discussions is that Dubbya didn’t do our economy any favors. I support the tax cuts he made, but he also spent like a drunken sailor. Had a true conservative followed him we could have recovered from his spending spree in relatively short order. What we got was a hatred for all things republican, on which Obama capitalized. He has since taken us from bad to worse.

        Maggie, stay strong. Rise above.

        • James Coley

          Carolyn: No, we are a Democratic Republic.

          You are right that when you look at the history of the terminology, it is wrong to say “Republicans and Democratics.” But it is also wrong to say “Democrat party” and “Republic party.” The correct terminology is “Democratic party” and “Republican party.”

          But since a few people are following the Fox Nooz memo or whatever and incorrectly saying “Democrat party,” I will say on this blog and elsewhere “Republic party.”

          I guess that what this all boils down to is that Republicans are so insecure about their right to claim any part of the great heritages of our nation, they want to deny any opportunity to members of the Democratic party to have the words applied to us in a way that shows that we, too, are part of that great heritage of our nation as a Democratic Republic.

        • James Coley

          Carolyn: You are right. Capitalism is what made the USA strong. The President pointed that out in his speech in Kansas.

          The basis of capitalism is the idea, which the President believes in, that a market economy and the profit motive can channel self-interest into productivity that can benefit us all.

          The perversion of capitalism is the Ayn Rand fantasy of economic libertarianism, also known as laissez-faire. This is what Maggie has been defending.

          We tried that earlier in our national history, and it failed to benefit us all. Under Reaganomics (or “supply-side” or “trickle-down”) we once again tried laissez-faire, and again it has failed the nation.

          The great American tradition of capitalism, defended by the President, and in earlier times by the Republican Teddy Roosevelt, is one in which the public and private sectors work in a balanced way to ensure fair equality of opportunity.

          The President is not a socialist. In case you did not get that: The President is not a socialist. There are a minority in the Democratic party who wishes that he were a socialist. But he is not a socialist.

          Socialism is an economic system based on public ownership of business. Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of business. The President believes in capitalism, not socialism. Do you think you could finally get straight on that, please? Once more: the President of the United States of America is not a socialist.

          He is also not a Nazi, secretly foreign or a demon in league with Lucifer.

          He is our President. Please start respecting him and his office.

          Do you really think that him saying “Judge me by the people I surround myself with” is an admission that he is a socialist? He has surrounded himself with capitalists, Carolyn.

          You must really hate the man if your reasoning is so distorted that you would say he makes no secret of being a socialist. Why do you hate him so much?

          How could anyone be so out of touch with reality that they would think that the President of the United States of America is a socialist?

          • John

            Edited by blog owner, Maggie, but a little left to give Conservatives a few grin. I took out the obligatory Liberal chat about Dick Cheney and Ronald Reagan

            Its is quite simple… They know not of what they speak…

            • John

              Point being… Barrack Obama is about as socialist a president as Ronald Reagan is a Communist one!!

            • James Coley

              This comment edited by blog owner, because he’s using those two words he wants to repeat over and over on “extreme” blogs, and because he and John are holding another little soiree together, on my blog. Once again, portions left here for your beguilement.

              “Taxes, one of my teachers here in North Carolina said, are our “social rent.” They are the fees we pay for the common good to live in this society. People who think taxes are theft don’t want to pay their social rent. They are deadbeats.”

        • James Coley

          This comment from Coley to Carolyn edited, but portions remain to remind us who this guy is, and by the way, he left a link to some statistics from…wait for it: Nancy Pelosi:

          “Perhaps the most ridiculous thing in your post is the claim that under President Obama things have gone “from bad to worse.””

          “The President pulled us back from the brink. Don’t you see how unfair that is?”

          Please look at the facts:


        • James Coley

          This comment from Coley to reader and commenter, Carolyn edited, but portions are left to give readers a good belly laugh.

          I don’t actually enjoy this bare-knuckle war of words sort of thing.

          Why did Maggie have to post these lies about our President?

          To say that his speech in Kansas was a condemnation of capitalism is a lie.

          To say that he said Americans are lazy is a lie.

          To say that he is a socialist is a lie.

          I would like for all of us proud Americans to be nice to each other… But how is that going to happen when [when] people like you and Maggie lie about who he is

        • Carolyn R. thanks so much for the encouragement and the wonderfully concise comment.

          • Maggie, who is this james C.? does he even have a blog.. or is he one of those seminar invaders.

            • James Coley

              This comment edited by blog owner, but the following portions remain for the amusement of readers:

              You Right-Wingers are so closed-minded!

              And you are such sore losers.

              The country is turning against your Ayn Rand fantasies. The Occupy movement is just the tip of the iceberg.

              The American people are sick and tired of people like you…

              This minority is the plutocracy.

    • James Coley

      This comment edited to remove the last line, mainly to irritate the commenter because in that sentence are two the favorite words he wants to use on “extreme” blog site.

      You wrote that “in 2009 when Democrats had full control of both houses of congress with a filibuster proof senate and Obama in the White House, they gave us 9.3% unemployment and 9.6% in 2010. When Democrats control congress, employment in the US suffers.”

      First of all, the Dmocratic party never has a filibuster-proof Senate. Neither Bernie Sanders nor Joe Leiberman are members of the Democratic party. It is absurd to hold the President or the Democratic party responsible for the unemployment rate in 2009 and 2010.

  • Sorry.. didn’t get much sleep and I’m a bit cranky.. and I see I jumbled up words in the middle of what I said.. I’m off to the foundry.. Hope your having a great day.

    • David, no need to apologize. I was just clarifying.

  • Pingback: Open Thread: Democrats Losing Voters in 2012 Battleground States « News « @griffinrc()

  • John

    Funny how Republicants can chastise Obama for “Playing the Blame Game” and then they “Blame:” Obama for everything that happened before he even took office… TARP (the Bank Bailout) That everyone hates, was started under BUSH in 2007… and Obama did extend it, but when he did he did something that BUSH resisted… HE ADDED ACCOUNTABILITY… Bush Gave Hank Paulson a $700 Billion blank check with NO OVERSIGHT… OBAMA added the critically needed oversight HE took the Blank Check away, that is when we learned of the $13 million bonuses the banks taking the TARP funds were giving & Tried but failed to reign in on the excessive executive compensation, The republicants argued that it is in the Bank Executives Contracts and we are a nation of laws and we must honor contracts… then in 2010 when they took the House of Representative and the Governorships in a handful of key states, they abruptly turned about face, breached the contracts of public employees, by rescinding their esablished collective bargaining rights… because get this even though their compensation was bargained for and they signed contracts… these middle class state employees “make to much”, so much for being a nation of laws & honoring contracts…

    • John, Bush did do that, and I’ve talked about it many times. I’ve also said that Hank Paulson called at least one Senator and said if TARP didn’t pass, we would have martial law. That Senator did not vote for TARP. Can’t stand Paulson. Government employees make far more on average than those in the private sector. Add their incredibly generous benefits, and it brings America to it’s knees.

      As to TARP, Democrats were in control in both Chambers and TARP could not have passed without their majority vote.

      Don’t come back to talk about Unions.

      • James Coley

        Are you afraid to let people write about unions?

        • James Coley

          This seems to be another example of how on this blog you want to close yourself off from those who disagree with you.

          You are closed-minded and ignorant of basic economics, United States history and the suffering of the People.

          Why do you hate America?

  • John

    You quoted… “The little guy, the supposed beneficiary of all this Marxism. I want you people who believe Obama to go around the world for me. I want you to find any socialist, Marxist, communist country and I want you to find for me a prosperous, thriving, happy middle class. I want you to find for me a country where a wall has not been built to keep them in.”

    Ever think about the successful Socialist Democracies in SWEDEN, FINLAND, NORWAY… All of which Have a Much Lower GINI Coefficients (look it up) than that of America… & They ALL also rank HIGHER than America on the FORBES best places to start a business… HMMMM… Makes you wonder doesn’t it…

    Before you start Downplaying the significance of that by saying “The Economy in the EU is in worse shape than America”… realize this… The Countries dragging down the Economy of the EU are Grease, Italy & Spain… NOT the ones I mentioned… THEN as an added bonus… research the role GOLDMAN SACKS played in the economic turmoil of the EU… Thats right the SAME Goldman Sacks that played a significant role in tanking the American economy…

    Turn off GLEN BECK, Turn off Faux News.. & Educate yourself!!

    • John, Sweden ranks No. 22 in Economic Freedom, Finland No. 17, Norway No. 30, The U.S. No. 9. Meaning, among other things, that that Americans have more freedom with their own money than the other countries list. Thanks to Barack Obama, we are falling lower on the list.

      I know about Goldman Sacks – so don’t yell it at me, and further more, don’t tell me what to do. Move on.

      • James Coley

        Where do you get these rankings of “economic freedom?” From some Ayn Rand fantasy-world libertarian Web site? Economic freedom must include genuine economic opportunity. Not an empty platitude, but real jobs! There is a job shortage now. This is the result of the failed policies of laissez-faire. Luckily for America, we Liberals will save the economy from the savage attacks on the People by the Republic party.

      • John

        OK… So Forbes must be misguided… They rank Sweden & Norway #7 & #8 respectively Based on trade freedom… Above the US at #10 Because as recently as 2011… Forbes must just be another “Liberul Rag” & what would they know about economics?….


        Facts are a funny thing…

        • James Coley

          Facts are a funny thing. They demolish the fantasies of the extremists in the Republic party. And they don’t even realize it.

          • John

            This comment from “John” deleted by blog owner, Maggie. Why? Because he’s blaming Frank Luntz, and thinks I misrepresent “socialism.” Yawn.

            • James Coley

              This comment from Coley to John is deleted. Really guys, give it up, or get a room.

              From Maggie: The goal of James’ comment was to “respond to the lies and distortions Maggie puts out.”

              • John

                This comment is deleted by blog owner because John is now responding to James (these guys have a bad habit of littering). The point was that John was listening to Hannity interview Frank Luntz, and Luntz said that the word “capitalism” does not poll well.

                From Maggie: I heard that segment. That is Luntz’ opinion.

  • Readers and commenters: James Coley has revealed himself to be a Democrat troll. The mission is to comment on blogs he believes are “extreme.” James, get your own blog.

    • James Coley

      This comment by James Coley deleted by blog owner, Maggie, but he wanted me to know that he is not a troll. And really, how many times should any one blog have to put up with being accused of being a follower of Ayn Rand? LOL!

      • John

        Thats how I got here too… I was looking for a transcript so I could quote from it… but then I read how Maggie took & misrepresented the whole speech part & parcel… I had to comment… even though I know it is a wasted effort… Reason has no place in the Republicant Party

        • James Coley

          This comment by James Coley edited by blog owner Maggie. Why? Because it is addressed to “John,” and it’s time they exchange phone numbers, emails or something other than littering my space. But the troll signs off, once again

          From Maggie: once again, the troll asks: “why do you hate America?”

    • James Coley

      By the way, if I were a troll, I would not be a “Democrat troll.” I would be a Democratic troll. The correct term is “Democratic,” not “Democrat.”

    • James Coley

      Maggie: How do you know I don’t have my own blog?

  • James Coley

    This comment by James Coley edited by blog owner, Maggie with these exceptions:

    “This blog spreads lies and misinformation, and disrespects the President of the United States of America.”

    From Maggie, I left the link to the video for James.

  • James Coley

    This comment by James Coley deleted edited to leave the following (readers might get a giggle out of it):

    “We Liberals who love this great nation can not let these lies so unanswered.”

    “Maggie: Why do you hate America?”

  • James Coley

    Maggie: I believe you have access to my e-mail address.

    Please contact me to explain to me why you hate America.

    We Liberals have learned to fight fire with fire.

  • John

    Just admit it… The only reason Maggie HATES Obama so much is because his mom is from Kansas… Or maybe it is because he is an American…

    The Marxism reason doesn’t pass muster… Anyone who knows what Marxism or Socialism or Communism is KNOWS he is pursuing corporate friendly policies & that doesn’t equate to any form of Marxist ideology and actually goes AGAINST Marxist Ideology… Silly Facts…

    What else could be the reason for the vitriol directed at our President?

    • James Coley

      This comment addressed to “John” and Maggie deleted because it is completely inane, and a repeat of every other comment he has left.

  • James Coley

    This comment by James Coley edited by blog owner, Maggie. Why? Because James wants “John” to know they are in solidarity, even though James says he may not return. Sweet. Problem is James keep returning. John even bid us farewell, but, he’s baaaaaaack.

    James is a troll. How long can you plan to keep a conversation going by calling me a liar, because I do not care about “American people?” Here’s the plan from James’ keyboard: “We need to say over and over again that it is laissez-faire that the Republic party defends, not America or capitsalism. We should flood their blogs with the truth…”

    • John

      via con dios

    • Aedigus

      “We need to say over and over again that it is laissez-faire that the Republic party defends.”

      I take it the Republic party is separate from the Republican party, then? If the Republican party is defending laissez-faire, it must be by counterexample.

      It seems that a lot of people here are throwing the term around without knowing what it means. The democrats and republicans are BOTH advocates of crony capitalism or corporatism. The rhetoric differs, and perhaps the exact degrees and targets of intervention differ, but neither party seems interested in saying “let do”. Being pro big-business is NOT being pro laissez-faire. Laissez-faire means no intervention, not less intervention and *NOT* favorable intervention such as bailouts. None. At all. No mainstream politicians advocate this, and to my knowledge it has never been tried, though they were close in parts of the 19th century.

      • Aedigus

        I neglected to add, laissez-faire is a tenet of real liberalism, as opposed to the authoritarianism masquerading as liberalism that we enjoy today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

        • James Coley

          This comment by James Coley to another commenter has been deleted by blog owner, Maggie. Why? For insolence. More conversation of Laissez-faire, which says nothing, in the end.

          Any commenter claiming here, at my blog, that “trickle-down,” or “Reganomics” are not credible, will not have much of a forum.

          • John

            Comment deleted by blog owner.

            • John, you abused your welcome. Note that I left plenty of the thousands of words you had to say.

        • Aedigus, thank you.

  • James Coley

    This comment from James Coley to my commenters, Carolyn, David has been deleted by Maggie, blog owner for asking them to” “Pleae read this part of the speech the President gave in Kansas.” They’ve already read it. It’s in the blog post.

    • Yah know James.. He’s campaigning. He’ll say one thing here and another there, and then another over there. He also changes the way he forms words to match the audience. His record and his past speeches, before he began to run for re-election, well this speech is as foreign to the truth of this President’s real agenda as any he’s ever given. He’s trying to be the Ghost of Roosevelt, as he’s tried to be Lincoln, and even Reagan.. He’s talked with a Harvard voice and a getto voice. Now you ask me if I believe this snake oil salesman.. the answer is Nope. By the way.. Roosevelt wasn’t all that conservative.. If’n my recollection is ringin true.. sorry … in a western talkin mood here tonight. I do appreciate that you have a point of view.. but giving this president slack.. ain’t in my future.

      • John

        That is a silly argument… it is as if you think the Republicants aren’t campaigning… & the Republicants don’t use word to “match the audience” or cater to the audience (Oh wait thats right they screen the audiences so they are like minded)… NEWSFLASH… It is how the game is played… your arguing that the Republicants are free to campaign (for over a year) and use coded language all they want, but if the President does it, he is somehow more disingenuous than the Republicants who are doing the same thing… ALL Republicanst try to evoke the ghost of St. Ronnie, As if St Ronnie could win a Republicant primary in todays “crazy is a virtue” Republicant Party… Don’t you remember Bush used to claim he was a “Compassionate Conservative” (an oxymoron if i ever heard one)… is that somehow different, or are you holding Obama to a much higher standard than you prescribe or those of your political persuasion?

        Your only right about one thing Roosevelt was NOT a Conservative… He was a Proud Progressive…

        “O my fellow citizens, each one of you carries on your shoulders not only the burden of doing well for the sake of your country, but the burden of doing well and of seeing that this nation does well for the sake of mankind. The prime problem of our nation is to get the right type of good citizenship, and, to get it, we must have progress, and our public men must be genuinely progressive.”
        -Theodore Roosevelt

        • It’s the end of our discussion John, I have a living to make and don’t have time with numb skulls… or liberals.

          • James Coley

            Edited by Maggie, blog owner.

            James Coley – after about 200 times, at least, of being wrong, not to mention annoying, and juvenile, when commenting on this blog post, you are wrong again, specifically when you said this: “you will not silence us.” I can and will silence you here.

            You call my commenters “numb skulls,” call me a liar, over and over, and chant “Liberals are the defenders of the American Way.” You are nothing if not ignorant and obnoxious.

            We can do this the nice way – you can stay away, or I can block your IP. Do not comment here again. Anything you post will be deleted, and then blocked.

      • James Coley

        Comment removed by blog owner.

        • I know the reasons you use Republic instead of Republican. It’s not for the reasons you give but it’s because your a slimy trouble maker. I’m at the end with over educated idiots such as yourself who know their their smartest in room.. well your not. That’s the end of my conversation. I actually have a life. I’m getting back to it. Sleep the day away on voting day please.. Best use of your intellect!!!!

          • James Coley

            This comment by James Coley edited by Maggie, blog owner.

            Why, because another stale round of telling me I cannot call his “Democratic” party, the Democrat Party. Of course I can.

            He said: I will fight back by saying “Republic party.”

            I said: Awwwwww. Isn’t that special.

  • James Coley

    This comment by James Coley edited by blog owner:

    Coley said: “I don’t have time to post on this blog any more. Maggie will be crushed. I have given up on her, but…

  • James Coley and John: I’ll close the conversation by saying thanks for the many hits today.

    • James Coley

      Comment by James Coley deleted by Maggie, blog owner.

      • James Coley

        This comment deleted by blog owner.

        • James Coley, what is interesting is that you keep coming back after I have explained my position over and over, yet you want to argue. You have abused my hospitality. Note that I have left enough of your comments so that readers will know your position.

  • This from Walter Williams: The word “democracy” appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution – two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution’s Article IV, Section 4, guarantees “to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”

    Reading Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, it’s no wonder the Democrat Party wants to change the Constitution.

    John, reading what you write, I can only come to the conclusion that you’re a legend in your own mind to the American People.

    • James Coley

      Commented deleted by blog owner.

    • John

      Not a legend… I have no Delusions of Grandeur… I am just a well Researched Well Informed Citizen… I don’t waste my time with platitudes, I can back up everything I say…

      For the record… the party that has proposed to “Amend the Constitution” the most in recent history is the Republicant party… 9 (More if you count how each time the Balanced Budget Amendment is proposed) Amendments proposed by members of the Republicant Party to 5 Separate Amendments proposed by the members of the Democratic Party (Including Zell Miller who political allegiance could reasonably be debated) Since the Dawn of the 21st Century…

      A Balanced Budget Amendment, in which Congress and the President are forced to balance the budget every year, has been introduced many times.

      School Prayer Amendment proposed on April 9, 2003, to establish that “The people retain the right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including schools.”[5]

      Protecting the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and National Motto, proposed on February 27, 2003, by Oklahoma Representative Frank Lucas.

      Every Vote Counts Amendment — proposed by Congressman Gene Green on September 14, 2004. It would abolish the electoral college.[7] Partly a response to the controversy surrounding Al Gore’s defeat in the 2000 election.

      Continuity of Government Amendment — proposed in 2004 by Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. It would ensure the continuity of operations of the United States Congress in the case of emergencies in which a large number of senators or representatives are incapacitated. Such an amendment would allow Congress itself to make emergency appointments to fill vacancies, rather than going through the usual special election process.

      Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment — proposed also by Senator Orrin Hatch. It would allow naturalized citizens with at least twenty years’ citizenship to become president.

      Seventeenth Amendment repeal — proposed in 2004 by Georgia Senator Zell Miller. It would reinstate the appointment of Senators by state legislatures as originally required by Article One, Section Three, Clauses One and Three.

      The Federal Marriage Amendment has been introduced in the United States Congress four times: in 2003, 2004, 2005/2006 and 2008 by multiple members of Congress (with support from then-President George W. Bush). It would define marriage and prohibit same-sex marriage, even at the state level.

      On January 25, 2009, Senator Russ Feingold put out a press release saying that he planned to introduce an amendment to end gubernatorial appointments to Senate vacancies.

      Twenty-second Amendment repeal: proposed as early as 1989, various congressmen, including Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. Steny Hoyer, Rep. José Serrano,[10] Rep. Howard Berman, and Sen. Harry Reid,[11] have introduced legislation, but each resolution died before making it out of its respective committee. The current amendment limits the president to two elected terms in office, and up to two years succeeding a President in office. Last action was in February 2009.

      On January 16, 2009, Senator David Vitter of Louisiana proposed an amendment which would have denied US citizenship to anyone born in the US unless at least one parent were a US citizen, a permanent resident, or in the armed forces.

      On February 25, 2009, Senator Lisa Murkowski, because she believed the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 would be unconstitutional if adopted, proposed a Constitutional amendment that would provide a Representative to the District of Columbia.

      On November 11, 2009, Republican Senator Jim DeMint proposed term limits for the U.S. Congress, where the limit for senators will be two terms for a total of 12 years and for representatives, three terms for a total of six years.(S.J.Res. 21)

      On November 15, 2011, Representative James P. McGovern introduced the People’s Rights Amendment H.J.Res. 88, a proposal to limit the Constitution’s protections to the rights of natural persons, and not corporations.

      You see the “facts” really refutes your “Gut based” assertion that it is really the Democratic Party that wants to change the constitution, when in reality it is the other way around… It is the Republicants who are uncomfortable with the rules as they are already written… But who’s really paying attention to any of that… besides… platitudes are so much easier when facts have a, more often than not, demonstrated liberal bias…

  • Ladies and Gentlemen, we have trawlers who make comments to just aggravate.. They exist on Youtube, and they exist here on this blog. They try to call out Maggie, but you see, she’s got her ducks in a row and she’s not going to mislead, knowingly EVER.
    I use my common sense when it comes to the truth. My common sense is very refined because I use it daily in researching the subject matter for my artwork. I didn’t live in the 1800s Old West, but through my reading, and through my study of old photographs, I can pick out tall stories from true stories.. staged photographs from real.
    I use that same method in dealing with my life and my politics. It’s never failed me. I know the truth, because after reading and after listening, I can tell, using a western vernacular, “A forked tongue liar, from and not so forked tongue liar”.
    Look the full truth is never reported or investigated anymore. If we knew the real numbers of the unemployed in this country, we’d be hangin someone.. another western vernacular.. lol
    Trawlers are vermin and are immediately recognizable. There are seminar callers on talk radio, just as there are seminar bloggers out there who troll conservative blogsites, to distort and mislead, and to down right tell a Whisky Drummer, Medicine Snake oil, lie about the way things are. Or just to cause contention.
    You know who you are, and we do to. Maggie your so right to call them out.
    We call you out and then “We ignore ya…” A Palin Term, who is a woman, a true Western Woman with intelligence and backbone. Allot like our Maggie.
    What Obama says is on record, his lies are seen, and it bits big time, and there ain’t no suckin out that poison son.. It’s just there in your system and if you don’t see that, then it’s collar on your neck and attachment of the government chain you’ll be eventually feelin… I ain’t going down that way. To much heritage in my past in this country. Ain’t handing over my freedoms to any smooth talkin, snake oil salesman… ever. They used to tar and feather them and ride em out on a rail.. well we’re civilized now.. we just vote em out of office.
    One last thing.. I’d love to see Newt debate Obama, Lincoln style.. Oh yeah.
    Sorry, was a bit long winded there.. another western vernacular.

    • James Coley

      We don’t live in the Old West anymore, David. Maybe you do, but the rest of the world had moved forward. You may think you are doing noble work by spreading lies and distortions about the President of the United States, but in fact you are acting in the interests of a wealthy minority and against the interests of the Americn People. We Liberals are the true patriots.

      • Yes Liberals are patriots.. to a socialist platform. They stick their heads in the sand of liberal talking points and all we see is the real end sticking up in the air.. ass up. end of discussion..
        Ok one more.. You just commented and I’ll be danged if I can find it here but here’s what you said to me.

        “Liberals are almost always better informed, better educated and more intelligent than conservatives. How dare you call us “numb skulls?” You are just plain wrong, and you will not silence us.”

        That’s the problem, you think you know it all and all opposing opinions are always wrong. You say your all inclusive but in reality your the racists and the partisan jerks that are like the oil on top of water.. You’ll never change and I’m finished ever talking to you again.. arguing with idiots is a losing game and I’m no loser.

        • David, well said sir!

          No matter what site you go on, Liberals always consider themselves better informed, better educated, and more intelligent. These are their own delusions of grandeur as we see demonstrated by James who is best summed up in Proverbs 26:12

          • Thank you Bob.. I really feel James and John are disruptive for a reason.. I won’t give into them anymore.. Loved the Change for a Dollar video on you website.. brought tears to my old eyes..
            By the way, I’m watching a Best Buy Commecial, and I’m not liking their war on Santa.. sorry got missdirected… lol

          • BobF, OMgosh, I didn’t realize you have a blog. I think in the past when I’ve quoted you, I couldn’t link to you. I’m so sorry!

            • Maggie, it’s not my blog. It belongs to a good friend of mine, Vilmar, who graciously allows me to post there.

              David, you had them nailed dead to right as Trawlers.

              • My feeling is, if they can discredit Maggie, with lies, someone new to the blog would see what they were saying about her, and ourselves.. and without really knowing Maggie or ourselves, they might not come back, and thus diminish Maggie’s following. We who know Maggie and actually use our brains to think with.. wouldn’t be swayed, and we’d recognize the lies and distortions.
                Thanks BobF…

  • James Coley

    Deleted by blog owner.

  • Maggie.. You did something good here.. You may get an award just for the number of comments.. lol

    • David, unbelievable isn’t it.

  • You know John, it’s fun watching an idiot talk to himself.. and that’s what your doing.. You’ll always be right as long as your the only one listening.. That’s the thought that came to me as I read your last comments.. bye John.. Voting day in 12 will be February 7th. Please show up then.. 🙂 Both of you… haha End of conversation John