Deficits are not the only thing that could mortgage America’s future, President Barack Obama told Democratic donors in New York on Thursday. He stressed it would be mortgaging the country’s future if government did not spend money on certain areas.
“There’s more than one way to mortgage America’s future,” Obama said at The Town Hall in New York. “We mortgage that future if we don’t get a handle on our deficit and debt, but we also mortgage it if we’re not investing in those things that will assure the promise of the American Dream for the next generation.”
Obama, in the speech, broadly defined the government expenditures needed to ensure prosperity for the next generation that should not be sacrificed for deficit and debt reduction.
“I’m not going to sacrifice investments in education. I’m not going to make scholarships harder to get and more expensive for young people,” Obama said to a cheering crowd. “I’m not going to sacrifice the safety of our highways or our airports. I’m not going to sacrifice clean air and clean water. I’m not going to sacrifice clean energy at a time when we need to free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, and folks are getting killed at the pump.”
I’ll let others address the strawmen he constructed as to what the GOP position is and say he’d rather sacrifice the country to his ideology. Great.
Yeah.
Those nasty Republicans would close all the schools, let the streets fall to ruin, take us back to the dirty air and water of the Kennedy/Johnson era (OOPS!).
Seriously, Obama?
We spend twice what countries ahead of us on education tests do per student.
It isn’t the lack of money!
It is a UNION system that is NOT ABOUT the CHILDREN at all!
We could do much better on less, if we were led (from the FRONT) by a real leader.
Essentially, he is saying that unless we spend money, on the items HE wants to spend it on, that we, as a country, do not have a future. He knows what is best for us. This, from a man who has never held a productive job in his life, has never achieved a thought that produced an actual commodity, has never been even the smallest part of the engine of our economy.
His presidency has been, and will continue to be, nothing more than a long series of disasters, caused by his edicts and directives, each worse than the preceding one, until there is nothing left but rotting carcasses to scavenge off of. His words have no meaning in them. The only thing that I can’t fault him for is his lack of a “Plan”, as I don’t believe there needs to be a “Plan”. He, and the liberals, simply need to get out of the way, and stop reacting to the failed consequences of their previous orders, by issuing more orders, all more controlling than the last.
Some time ago a few videographers had a fun time asking Obama supporters if Obama were a ”Keynesian,” or not.
Although it was worth a good chuckle, the truth is, Keynesian economic theory is driving Obama’s programs and budget proposals.
And Keynesian economic theory is fatally flawed.
Look at the difference between the 7 quarters following Reagan’s inherited recession of 1981-2 with Obama’s recession that officially ended in the 2nd quarter of 2009…..
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AN477_1GDP_NS_20110428172404.jpg
Lots of growth during the Reagan recovery.
No real growth after the Obama recovery.
The Wall Street Journal article that graph came from asks this:
Imagine if President Obama had introduced his original stimulus in February 2009 with the vow that, 26 months later, GDP would be growing by 1.8% and the jobless rate would be 8.8%. Does anyone think it would have passed?
It is a great question.
@Nan G:
The stimulus would have worked better if that $800Billion were divided evenly, and handed out to every citizen, in the rough amount of $2,500.
And better yet, if it had never been spent, never prompting the mass-printing of dollars by the fed, weakening the dollar. Sometimes, it really is better to do nothing, rather than act wrongly.