How to Create Jobs

Instead of attacking corporations in an attempt to get them to create jobs (as some union thugs have apparently suggested), which won't work, a better idea would be to minimize the impact of regulations and cut spending (to reduce uncertainty and the debt).  

Watching the US economy is like watching a slowly dying animal that is in agony.  The humane thing to do, in that case, would be to kill the animal to put it out of its misery.  Similarly, people in the US are suffering because of the economy.  For these people, the humane thing to do would be to get the recession over with so economic expansion can resume (and preferably not a "bubble" (i.e. artificial economic expansion)).  

When Obama gives his speech on the subject (which is on the 8th, I think), I am guessing his plan will not involve any of what I have said above. 

After I study economics a bit, I will write a post with a detailed plan for the US economic situation (I promise, I think).   

But They're Obviously Racist

Most business economists favor spending cuts over tax increases (h/t Instapundit).  This is not a surprise to me, but it may inspire a few ad hominems from leftists (seeing as how that seems to be their preferred method of "debate").

The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts. 

The survey out Monday found that 56 percent of the NABE members surveyed felt that way, while 37 percent said they favor equal parts spending cuts and tax increases. The remaining 7 percent believe it should be done only or mostly through tax increases. 

As for how to reduce the deficit, nearly 40 percent said the best way would be to contain Medicare and Medicaid costs. Nearly a quarter recommended overhauling the tax system and simplifying tax rates and exemptions. About 15 percent said the government should enact tough spending caps and cut discretionary spending. 

The latest survey by the NABE was conducted in the two weeks ending Aug. 2, the day that the Senate passed and President Obama signed legislation to cut spending by more than $2 trillion and raise the nation's debt ceiling. 

The agreement managed to avert a potential default, but Standard & Poor's downgraded U.S. credit from AAA to AA+, citing the political wrangling over the deal as a reason.

Rhetoric, Fear and REAL Hope and Change

I can't get past Obama's rhetoric.  Many, many other people have pointed out what a hypocrite Obama is.  He promised post-partisanship, but it seems like every speech he makes contains some sort of vilification of Republicans (not to mention "millionaires and billionaires," and my personal favorite, "corporate jet owners").  Obama might have his rhetoric and the obsequious media to rely upon, but the reality of reality should hopefully be enough to evict Obama from the White House.  Obama's and the media's rhetoric cannot be enough to obfuscate the facts (low unemployment, high inflation, et cetera) when so many people are well aware of them, and since they are having such a profound effect on peoples' lives.

Any prosperity loving citizen of a Western nation should support the Tea Party Movement, given how inextricably linked the US's economy is to that of the rest of the world.  I really hope Americans nominate the right Republican to challenge Obama.  I do not believe a RINO like Mitt Romney would be able to effectively curtail government spending, and everyone in the Western world should be paying close attention.  It is too early to determine who the right candidate is, in my opinion, however.  At this point, I would probably support Herman Cain.  I think someone with leadership experience in the private sector may be the perfect person to deal with what the next president will inherit from Obama.  Yes, it would be a risk to elect an outsider, but, at this point, it would be a risk that is well worth taking.  Having said that, I would not support Herman Cain completely at this point.  It is too early.  And, if either Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio enters the running, well, they are just too damn good not to support.  But that doesn't look like it will happen.

I am a concerned Canadian.  I am also a university student with a very tight budget.  I don't need a stagnant economy to make things more difficult than they will already be.  I don't have nearly as much at stake as most Americans, but the prospect of another Obama presidency, which will almost inevitably lead to an economic crisis the likes of which Americans haven't seen possibly since the Great Depression (if my amateur reasoning can be relied upon), and hence one the likes of which Westerners haven't seen possibly since the Great Depression, frightens me.

UPDATE: After re-reading this, I realized the last sentence didn't make any sense, so I fixed it.

Does Obama Know What Fair Means?

President Obama has frequently demanded "the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share."  However, I do not believe Obama knows the definition of the word "fair."  According to the Free Dictionary, "fair" means:

a. Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial: a fair mediator.

b. Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions.

So, if Obama really wanted "the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share," he would propose a flat income tax or a sales-based tax.  Also, taxes aren't really fair in the first place.  Essentially, when the government collects taxes, it is stealing the hard-earned money of hard-working people.  Isn't that also kind of what labour unions do?  

Crisis in Greece

The various debt crises in Europe started in 2008 because of the worldwide late 2000's financial crisis.  Greece has suffered the worst economic crisis.

In 1974, when Greece established democracy after the right-wing military junta fell, the government began running large deficits so it could finance public sector jobs and social services in an attempt to mainstream its left-of-centre population.  Because of widespread tax evasion, corruption, and inefficient bureaucracy, Greece has had to rely upon borrowing to sustain its spending.  In recent years, the cost of borrowing has increased dramatically (because of the debt), so Greece entered an economic crisis and it could no longer sustain its level of spending.  This led to the enacting of severe austerity measures.

The citizens of Greece have been protesting these austerity measures, which has resulted in riots.  My question is, what do they want to happen?  There is no other realistic alternative to these austerity measures (at least, none that I am aware of), so why are they protesting?

The crisis in Greece presents a problem to the entire Eurozone because of how interconnected the economies of each of its member states are.  Measures designed to stabilize the Eurozone have been enacted by many other Eurozone members, most notably Germany.  In 2010, Germany made a multi-million euro payment to Greece and other financially unstable nations.  The constitutionality of the bailout is currently being contested in Germany.

The European nations of Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, and Iceland have also suffered economic crises.

Cut, Cap and Balance

Conservatives in the house have proposed a plan called “Cut, Cap and Balance” that would consist of “substantial spending cuts, ...a statutory spending cap, and Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.” 

Senators McConnell (R-KY) and Reid (D-NV) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have proposed a plan that the conservatives who have proposed the “Cut, Cap, and Balance Act” have deemed the “Cut, Run, and Hide Plan.”

This plan consists of a debt ceiling increase of $2.5 trillion “without any guaranteed spending cuts or reforms.” 

According to Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), the real problem isn’t the debt ceiling, it is the debt.  If the disaster is to be averted, then whatever plan is adopted must have a realistic, long-term solution to the debt problem. 

In my opinion, the only real solution would be harsh budget cuts.  Because of President Obama, the US has immense debt and the best solution would be to cut spending harshly, which would stimulate the economy, which would provide government revenue.  

Marco Rubio's Wisdom

On CBS's Face the Nation, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) says this on the debt problem:

Well, certainly the debt limit is an issue but I think the bigger issue here is the debt and I think what troubles me, Bob, is that no one is focusing on the real problem here. The real-- the real problem here is not the debt limit, the real problem here is the debt and a lack of a credible plan to deal with the debt. And it’s not me saying, it is the rating houses are saying it. If you read the S&P report, they made it very clear that simply raising the debt limit is not enough it needs to be accompanied by some serious effort to credibly deal with the American’s debt problem. And if that is not what we do we’re going to have a big problem, perhaps bigger than anything the administration has been talking about.  

...I think everybody in Washington would like to see more revenues. The question is number one how do you get more revenues? And number two, what do you do with it? I think more revenue should come from economic growth. And I think it should come from that because I think it’s impossible for it to come from tax increases. None of the tax increases the President is proposing solves the problem. They don’t raise enough money. In fact, they make it worse. They kill jobs. And by the way, I don’t trust Washington, because they have shown time and again that any time they get their hands on more money, they don’t use it to pay or avoid debt, they use it to grow the government. So, that’s what I’m in favor of. I’m in favor of-- of more revenue that comes from economic growth, the creation of new jobs. And if you talk to job creators, not politicians, not presidents, you talk to job creators, they will tell you that what they are looking for is a fair and simpler tax code, so I do support tax reform and I think there is a lot of support for tax reform in Washington. And they are looking for some regulatory reform as well because they think these regulations that are being imposed make America a more unfriendly place to do business.

And this on entitlements:

I come from a state that has a massive number of retirees and I’ve stood before cameras like this and made it very clear that if we don’t do something to save Medicare and Social Security they will bankrupt themselves and bankrupt our country. That those-- those programs are unsustainable as they are currently structured, that we are going to lose those programs unless we do something to deal with it. I did that during the campaign and everybody told me I’d lost my mind in terms of talking about these issues. So I think as far as I am concerned and many like me, we have stepped up and talked about some of these issues that face America. I mean, senator, I’m sorry, Representative Ryan, Congressman Ryan has played a terrible political price early on this year for even offering a potential solution to some of these problems. 

...we don’t have to do anything for current beneficiaries, people like my mom or people near retirement. I do think we have to look at the retirement age. I do pe-- do think that people like me, I’m forty, just turn forty a month ago, people like me have to accept the fact that there will not be a Social Security for us, unless we are willing to retire a little bit later. That’s-- that’s-- and people in my generation are going to have to accept that. And I am open to other people’s suggestions. Absolutely, I’m open to people’s suggestions, because I want to save Social Security and I want to save Medicare. As far as our solutions are concerned to the overall problem I think a credible solution to our debt problem has to have two components. It has to have budgetary reforms, in essence a de-- decrease in spending, of at least four trillion dollars or more and it has to come with some sort of growth enhancers, something that helps grow our economy. You cannot get yourself out of this debt problem at nine percent unemployment with over twenty-four million Americans either unemployed or underemployed.

Some Commentary on Obama's Leadership

President Obama has always been confusing to me.  It seems as if he is expecting the Republican-controlled house to to his job for him.  In the first post I wrote for this blog, I said this:

Obama talked about his leadership concerning people that have said that his leadership has been insufficient.  He said that he has had leadership.  He then said, “At a certain point, congress members need to do their job.”  He said he is doing all the work and that congress is not doing anything.  He said they are not making tough choices and not leading.  He said that he has been working on Afghanistan, bin Laden, and Greece, and that congress needs to lead on the domestic front.  This sentiment of his is important, because this part effectively summarizes his entire presidency.  He has relied on others to lead, while he takes credit for the success of others, again reminding America that he was in charge during the death of Osama bin Laden.  He heavily criticized congress for not leading with regards to the economy, while they, unlike Democrats, have put forward a budget. 

The reason Obama confuses me so much is that he says he is a leader but he is always saying that Republicans have the responsibility to lead when it comes to the budget and debt.

Regarding the debt ceiling debate, Obama has repeated ad nauseam his desire for a balanced approach, one that involves both spending cuts and tax increases, and one that reduces the deficit by $4 trillion.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama has not offered specific details on his plan.  Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) says this:

OK, so where’s the plan? Where’s the president’s plan? I’ve never seen a piece of paper with the president’s name on it that’s his plan to solve this crisis. I’ve seen press conferences. I’ve seen lectures that he’s given to the Congress. I’ve seen these press avails where the camera comes in and takes a bunch of pictures. I haven’t seen a plan. Where is the president’s plan?

B. Daniel Blatt adds this:

Oh, and remember that 36-hour deadline the president was giving House Republicans to come up with a plan, a deadline which they wisely did not meet? Why did the president not come up with his own plan in that timeframe?

He was asking Republicans to do something that he himself refused to do. Guess that’s what you call leading from behind?

This Isn't Bush's Fault

Whatever the results of the debt talks in  the United States are, and whatever happens to the US economy as a result of its debt, it is important to remember that it was President Obama and his stimulus that are what got the US in this situation.  Sure, this economic crisis started while George W. Bush was president, but it was Obama's stimulus that caused the US's current debt problem.  He failed to deal with the economic situation, and, if the US does default, and even if it does so because Republicans refuse to raise the debt limit, Obama is ultimately responsible.

Furthermore, since it is Obama's fault that the US is in this situation, I will say that is it Obama who has the responsibility to compromise.

I hope people can see through Obama's rhetoric and fear mongering:

 Let's "set politics aside" and "do some tough stuff," Obama told reporters at a White House news conference. But "if Washington operates as usual and can't get anything done, let's at least avert [uh] Armageddon."

If Obama is so hell bent on averting "Armageddon," then why doesn't he listen to Republicans?  Surely he recognizes the roll he played in the US's debt problem, so, if he's reasonable, he will do what is necessary to prevent "Armageddon."  In addition, he could have raised the debt ceiling when Democrats controlled congress.  Like I said, it Obama's responsibility to compromise here.  He caused the problem, he failed to act when he could have, and he is the one claiming how terrible things will be when the US defaults.

I hope the Republicans don't compromise and demonstrate that they actually have metaphorical spines.

The Person Who Points Out Racism Where There Isn’t Any Is Usually the One Who Is Racist

Representative Shiela Jackson Lee says that the disagreement over the debt limit is because President Obama is black. 

"I am particularly sensitive to the fact that only this president, only this president, only this one has received the kind attacks and disagreements and inability to work. Only this one," Jackson Lee said on the House floor this afternoon. 
"Read between the lines." 
"What is different about this president that should put him in a position that he should not receive the same kind of respectful treatment of when it is necessary to raise the debt limit in order to pay our bills, something required by both statute and the 14th amendment?"

I am pretty sure that whatever disagreements exist between the Republicans and Obama and the Democrats exist because the Republicans refuse to agree to a deal that involves tax increases and the Democrats refuse to agree to a deal that doesn't involve tax increases.   

What is different about this president is that he is an incompetent socialist.  Race doesn't have anything to do with anything.  Any person with the ability to see past their prejudice should be able to recognize that.  

A Riddle Wrapped in an Enigma

The fact that President Obama failed to raise the debt ceiling when he had the opportunity and is now saying how vital it is to do so is confusing.  My hypothesis is either he was expecting the Democrats to keep control of the house in 2010, or that he didn’t think that he would ever have to raise the debt ceiling because he thought his stimulus would have worked and that the revenue the government would have gained because of that would have allowed them to reduce the debt.  Or, maybe Obama has some sort of ulterior motive, or maybe he is just clueless.  

What is even more confusing is Obama's attitude:

When Democrats were in power, they ran up the tab, acting as if they [sic] would never be no consequences to their spendthrift policies.  And now they’ve left the Republicans to clean up the mess they left behind and is now faulting them for not doing it the way the Democrats (claim they) would have done it when they had the chance.  They had the chance but didn’t take it.

Is it just me, or is Obama really, really confusing?  Maybe, in order to understand him, you need to let go of any sense of reason.  Kind of like analyzing abstract art.

Debt Talks Continue

The negotiations between the Republicans and the Democrats have resumed.

 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said afterward that Democrats are "still hopeful for a large bipartisan agreement," one that will do "no harm to the middle class or to economic growth (and) protect Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries."

Is Nancy Pelosi supporting Paul Ryan's proposed budget?

"What is really appalling is to see our Republican colleagues essentially providing a form of extortion -- if you don't agree to deficit reduction the way we want it, we'll put all the jobs at risk, because we will allow the United States to default on its debt," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, on the CNN show "State of the Union." "That's irresponsible."

Wait... what?  The Democrats have been putting jobs at risk since they gained power.  But, I guess it wasn't irresponsible of them because they're Democrats. 


My question is which scenario is more desirable:  the United States defaulting on its debt now, and all the repercussions; or having this economic crisis dragged out indefinitely.  Look how the Democrats have handled the economy thus far.  Their leftist economic policies have failed.  However, the Republicans may have a way to avoid both scenarios.  The leftist approach has proven not to work, so why not try something that has proven to work in the past (see Reaganomics)?  To me, to allow the Democrats to enact their proposals is what is irresponsible.

Debt Talks Stalled

House speaker John Boehner walked out on talks to reduce the US debt and prevent the US from defaulting.  It appears that the Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling (so they can spend more money, presumably) and raise taxes in an attempt to reduce the deficit, while the Republicans want to cut the budget:

The Treasury Department has warned that failure to do so by August 2 could lead to a possible default, which could push interest rates to skyrocket and cause the dollar to plummet. But Republicans, including those controlling the House, have insisted on large-scale budget cuts before raising the ceiling.

Both parties have thus far been unable to reconcile their radically divergent strategies to solve the nation's economic crisis, as Republicans refuse to raise taxes in a weak economy and Democrats denounce proposed cuts to entitlement programs as draconian and unacceptable.

The Democrats want to continue using their Keynesian approach, which so far, has worked out very well.  Or, at least, according to “experts,” has shown unexpectedly poor results.  So, if the poor results were unexpected, then it means that good results were expected, so it follows that the best approach would be to continue using the same approach that failed in the past (what is that called again? Insanity?).  The Republicans want to do something, that according to basic economics, might actually solve the debt crisis and stimulate the economy at the same time.  But, of course, doing so would entail performing unspeakable, evil acts such as pushing grandma off a cliff and not stealing so much money from people who actually deserve it.  How evil and “draconian.”  I mean, they use draconian as if it were a bad thing.  If they weren’t so blinded by their compassion they might actually realize that most people who deserve it would actually benefit from entitlement cuts because of the aforementioned economic stimulation that budget cuts would provide.  People might actually be able to find a job so they would not need to rely on the government to babysit them.

However, it does seem that maybe President Obama is not completely insane:

President Barack Obama had signaled a willingness to include reforms to popular entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare as part of a broad agreement for $3 trillion to $4 trillion in deficit cuts over the next decade, said Democratic officials familiar with the negotiations.

I will reserve judgement until the president actually acts.

But Boehner's announcement Saturday appears to diminish the chances for such a sweeping deal, although he kept open the door for some sort of less grand agreement.

A spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said the group, spearheaded by Biden, has identified "between $2 trillion and $2.5 trillion in spending cuts that could represent the framework of the agreement." But he said that any tax hike cannot, and will not, be part of any deal."A tax increase cannot pass the House, and it is the last thing Congress should be doing with so many people out of work," said Brad Dayspring, the Virginia Republican's spokesman.A House GOP leadership aide said earlier this week that both Cantor and the No. 2 Senate Republican, John Kyl, voiced reservations at a White House meeting Thursday about the prospects for getting a $4 trillion package if it included $1 trillion in new tax revenues. Republicans were hesitant, the aide notes, to agree on any proposals that go much farther than simply closing loopholes.

The republicans should be resolute during these negotiations, given that they seem to have some grasp on reality.  And, if the United States does default, perhaps that would be an opportunity to get things over with so prosperity may resume sooner, rather than later.

While he didn't specify what tax hikes, if any, the president had proposed, Pfeiffer said it was important to spread the burden of any deal."We cannot ask the middle class and seniors to bear all the burden of higher costs and budget cuts," he said. "We need a balanced approach that asks the very wealthiest and special interests to pay their fair share as well, and we believe the American people agree."

Yes, because the evil rich people (some of whom actually earned their money) are always the ones responsible for destroying the country.  If the Democrats really wanted to be fair, they would end the redistribution of money and enact a flat tax across all income brackets or a sales-based tax.  Oh, and since when do budget cuts cost money?  I would think that they would actually save money.  I mean, that is the whole point of cutting the budget.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, meanwhile, said he was "disappointed that Republicans are unable to work with us to take a dramatic step forward that would have dramatically reduced our deficit."

"We asked Republicans to consider a balanced approach that would have required shared sacrifice, but they would not," said Reid, D-Nevada. "We still need to make sure we avert the economic catastrophe that would occur if we were to let America fail to pay its bills for the first time in our history, and I am confident that we will."

Harry Reid is always reliable to offer some sort of twisted logic.  They want to raise taxes to close the deficit, while increasing the debt ceiling?  And they are disappointed in Republicans, whose proposal is much more viable?  And Reid wants the shift the burden from the people who are living off the government to the people who are actually suffering?  Am I not understanding this properly?

President Obama's Press Conference, 06/29/11

I watched President Obama’s press conference on CNN.  While I was watching it, I noticed some things on which I wanted to comment.  The press conference covered numerous topics, such as the budget, the economy, Libya, and gay marriage.  I was watching the press conference while taking notes, so I am relying solely upon my notes and my memory in writing this.  I apologize if I got something wrong or if I left out anything pertinent.

The Budget and the Economy

Obama impugned Republicans for not doing anything about the economy.  Overall, I found Obama’s analysis of the economic situation to be simplistic in that he appeared to equate cutting entitlement spending to eliminating scholarships for students, cutting funding for critical research, and asking seniors to pay more for Medicare and social security (he used these things as examples of what would happen).  He mentioned having a balanced approach, and he stressed the need for Republicans and Democrats to compromise.  He laid out on what, specifically, he was willing to compromise.  In short, his plan is to raise taxes on “millionaires and billionaires,” oil companies, and people with private jets; cut defense spending; increase spending on infrastructure to create jobs; finance small businesses; reduce the debt and the deficit; and reform the tax code.  Overall, Obama stressed the importance of debt and deficit reduction as well as job creation.  Of course, Republicans have laid out a plan.  From what I can tell, these plans seem to be at odds.  It does not seem as though Obama would be willing to compromise further or address Paul Ryan’s common-sense plan to cut spending on entitlements.  My opinion is that the main priorities of the federal government of the United States should be to do what it was meant to do and not cater to the failings of its citizens.   

There is one thing Obama said that I think is important to mention.  I apologize if the quote is incorrect, but it is approximately correct.  He said, “Keep in mind, businesses always complain about regulation” and “businesses will always complain about regulation because they want to be able to do whatever they can to maximize profits” and “it is my responsibility to uphold good regulations that protect the environment and safety” and “lets get rid of regulations that don’t make sense.”  Obama speaks of profits as though they are a bad thing.  Of course businesses are going to do whatever they can to maximize profits.  And if they cannot do that in the US, they will do it somewhere else.  Profit, after all, is the point of having a business.  Again, Obama’s understanding of the economic situation is simplistic.  

Then, he talked about Boeing in South Carolina.  He said that companies should have the freedom to relocate (within the US, I presume), as long as the law is followed, and that companies should be encouraged to create jobs in the United States to maintain competition with other countries.  I agree with his general statement, but I would say that this encouragement should consist of business-friendly regulations that make companies feel as though they (specifically, their profits) would benefit from creating jobs in the country in question.  

Later in the press conference, he started talking about the debt ceiling.  He said that it needs to be raised (before the deadline when the US will reach its borrowing limit, August 2nd) to avoid more problems.  What he said was approximately “August is a hard deadline.  This is a jobs issue.  If the US government cannot pay its bills, if it defaults, the consequence for the economy will be unpredictable.  If the US government does not pay its bills, if the US has to raise interest rates to pay its bills, more people will have to pay higher interest rates which will increase economic worries.”  He then faulted Republicans for “picking and choosing” which bills to pay. 

Now, here is my favorite part.  Obama talked about his leadership concerning people that have said that his leadership has been insufficient.  He said that he has had leadership.  He then said, “At a certain point, congress members need to do their job.”  He said he is doing all the work and that congress is not doing anything.  He said they are not making tough choices and not leading.  He said that he has been working on Afghanistan, bin Laden, and Greece, and that congress needs to lead on the domestic front.  This sentiment of his is important, because this part effectively summarizes his entire presidency.  He has relied on others to lead, while he takes credit for the success of others, again reminding America that he was in charge during the death of Osama bin Laden.  He heavily criticized congress for not leading with regards to the economy, while they, unlike Democrats, have put forward a budget.  The remainder of the portion of his press conference consisted primarily of rhetoric along the lines of “we need to put aside politics to get things done” and “these are solvable problems but it requires us to get out of the short term and selfish approach that politics breeds, we need to think about it long term.”    

Libya

Obama defined the goal of the mission in Libya as protecting the Libyan people, which he said would ultimately necessitate removing Muammar Gaddafi from power.  He made clear that Gaddafi needs to go.  My question is, what about Syria?  Isn’t the situation in Syria worse than that in Libya?  If it is, and if the situation in Libya warrants military action, shouldn’t the situation in Syria also warrant military action?  The people of Syria are being slaughtered under an oppressive regime.  So, the US military (and NATO) should either commit to both Libya and Syria (if the reason for intervening in Libya is to protect the Libyan people, as the president says), just Syria (if Syrians are, in fact, in more danger than Libyans, which it seems as though they are), or neither.  

Gay Marriage

Obama applauded New York for its decision in legalizing gay marriage.  He said DOMA was unconstitutional and that the decision on whether or not to legalize gay marriage should be left up to the states.  I agree with this.  However, he also praised the courts and court decisions granting gay marriage as being “how the system should work.”  With this, I disagree.  Gay marriage should only be legal if the majority of the population agrees that it should or if the majority of democratically elected representatives of the population agree that it should.  He also mentioned how “gays, lesbians, and transgender” (he apparently ignored or forgot about bisexuals) should not be discriminated against (presumably by the government).  However, he also refused to state whether or not he personally supports gay marriage.  I agree that, as long as he is not pursuing an agenda, that his personal view of gay marriage is irrelevant.  He mentioned that he has accomplished more concerning gay rights during his presidency than all other presidents have. 

In conclusion, l found that what Obama said during this press conference was specious.  I agreed with some things he said (for example, he mentioned that he would like to reform the tax code to make it more efficient), but actions are needed to back up his statements. 


UPDATE: I forgot to mention  the "stimulus."  Obama spent hundreds of billions of dollars getting into this mess.  Now he is expecting Republicans to get out of it.  


UPDATE: I missed a quote from Obama's press conference that has appeared in a few places. It is along the lines of "Republicans need to ask their constituents if they are willing to sacrifice their children's safety for a tax break for corporate jet owners."  This demonstrates Obama's specious reasoning and the overall absurdity of this conference.