Obama: GOP Will Move Country Backward

With a victory on the financial regulation overhaul in his pocket—a “key pillar” in his recession recovery plan—President Obama said a Republican plan for the economy would move the country backward to the job-killing policies of his predecessor. “It took nearly a decade of failed economic policies to create this mess, and it will take years to fully repair the damage,” Obama said in his weekly address that aired Saturday, vowing that his policies would move the country forward. That’s expected to be one of the White House’s main messages during this fall’s midterm elections. The president admitted that the growth since the credit crisis two years ago hasn’t created enough jobs, but said the GOP would make things much worse. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) countered that the GOP would promote growth by cutting spending and taxes.

Read more here.

Or, listen to the address here.


Filed under Jobs, President Barack Obama, The Economy

4 responses to “Obama: GOP Will Move Country Backward

  1. wicked

    House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) countered that the GOP would promote growth by cutting spending and taxes.

    Let’s shine the light of truth on Boehner’s quote.

    ‘House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) countered that the GOP would promote growth of corporate wealth by increasing spending off the books, while appearing to cut spending on the books, and by cutting more taxes for the rich.’

    Have taxes been raised? I guess I don’t pay enough attention to that. Ask any successful businessman (or woman), and he (she) will tell you that you have to spend money to make money. Just ask the Wall Street guys.

  2. david B

    Here’s the game plan

    By Lori Montgomery
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Sunday, July 25, 2010
    President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress are setting the stage for a high-stakes battle over taxes in the final weeks before the November congressional elections, betting that their plan to eliminate tax breaks for the wealthy will resonate with voters who have lost houses and jobs to what many see as an era of Wall Street greed.

    Raising taxes is usually a perilous move. But Democrats, facing the potential loss of their majorities on Capitol Hill, believe that the strategy will both force Republicans to defend tax breaks for a tiny, wealthy minority and expose GOP hypocrisy on budget deficits.

  3. Interesting. What do you think?

    Act One is over. The stimulus, Obamacare, financial reform have exhausted his first-term mandate. It will bear no more heavy lifting. And the Democrats will pay the price for ideological overreaching by losing one or both houses, whether de facto or de jure. The rest of the first term will be spent consolidating these gains (writing the regulations, for example) and preparing for Act Two.

    The next burst of ideological energy — massive regulation of the energy economy, federalizing higher education and “comprehensive” immigration reform (i.e., amnesty) — will require a second mandate, meaning reelection in 2012.

    That’s why there’s so much tension between Obama and congressional Democrats. For Obama, 2010 matters little. If Democrats lose control of one or both houses, Obama will probably have an easier time in 2012, just as Bill Clinton used Newt Gingrich and the Republicans as the foil for his 1996 reelection campaign.

    Obama is down, but it’s very early in the play. Like Reagan, he came here to do things. And he’s done much in his first 500 days. What he has left to do he knows must await his next 500 days — those that come after reelection.

    The real prize is 2012. Obama sees far, farther than even his own partisans. Republicans underestimate him at their peril.


  4. tosmarttobegop

    Cut taxes i.e. reduce revenues you do not have as much money to spend as before.
    Reduce spending, not having as much money to spend you can not spend as much so it is the natural result.
    The end result is neither increasing revenue or spending more or less it is to reach the balance of a level income and spending.

    It will be less then before but it also will not be any more then before.