http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/us/politics/obama-to-meet-with-house-gop-over-budget.html?ref=congress&_r=0&pagewanted=all

Our biggest problems in the next 10 years are not deficits,” the president said, according to accounts from the meeting, bluntly rejecting an idea that has become Republican fiscal dogma.

That left many Republicans, who are resisting the president’s calls to close tax loopholes that benefit the wealthy, wondering where they could find room for compromise.

“Well, he doesn’t want to balance the budget in 10 years, and he wants tax increases, and he wants new spending,” Representative Darrell Issa of California said as he left the meeting early. “But other than that, we’re close.”

That should have Been played in TV ads the last 5 years.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/14/obama-meh-the-keystone-pipeline-wont-really-create-jobs-you-know/

Backup for my opinion that he doesn’t like America as it is was his own statements, before and after his election. In 2001, before he first ran for elective office, he expressed his opinion that the Supreme Court should have been forced to address “redistributive change,” and that it was a “traged[y] of the civil rights movement” that the SCOTUS justices viewed the Constitution as a “charter of negative liberties.” He was hopeful they would be pressured into interpreting it in a way to declare “what the Federal government or state government[s] must do on your behalf…” (italics mine). I reminded her that Obama was a twenty-year devotee of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose anti-American (“U.S. of KKKA”), anti-Semitic, and Caucasian-bashing attitudes (the Romans who executed Jesus were “garlic-nose” Italians) were the stuff of legend. I informed her that Obama’s political career was jump-started at a fundraiser held at the home of self-described “guilty as sin” domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. I reminded her that Michelle Obama said in prepared remarks twice in one day that she only was proud of her country now that it was moving toward the “change” to which her husband was leading it.

But above all, the thing that convinced me most that Obama’s priority wasn’t to improve the economy was what he said in a 2008 debate against Hillary (and John Edwards). ABC’s Charles Gibson asked a perfectly relevant question:

CHARLES GIBSON: …[W]hen the [capital gains] rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why [do you want to] raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness…

And there you have a prime example of what HE thinks “fairness” is: extracting more money from rich people EVEN IF the economy helps everybody when they AREN’T heavily taxed. It’s not “math,” as he continually and facetiously insists, it’s a principle that he lives for, damn the torpedoes. As long as Republicans aren’t interested in that definition of “fairness,” he’s NOT interested in helping the economy in the short term. Maybe after he’s put the wealthy in their place and begun the process of bringing the lower classes up by jacking up tax rates, he’ll help out, but not a second before he flattens out what he sees as is a playing field built on the side of a mountain.

As the first “red diaper baby” President, Obama’s goal as Chief Executive is NOT to apply the principles of capitalism to reboot our common fortunes, as has been done so many times from recession to comeback to bubble to recession to comeback, etc. throughout American history. We are all in a petri dish undergoing a live experiment in economics by a man who doesn’t understand national economies. His goal is to force the United States – which became the engine of the world’s economy and the epicenter of freedom on the planet — to become something that it’s never been. Nobody can really say what Obama’s “more perfect” America looks like because he has never been honest about his vision. If he was, he would be able to clearly explain how he’s changing the way America does business, why it will work out fine, and provide an example of when and how it has worked elsewhere. He hasn’t, or won’t, presumably because he can’t. And the members of the mainstream media won’t demand he do so. Why not? In my opinon, because 1. They’re hoping they’re right about him being as smart as they dreamed he was, and 2. Whatever he does wrong, they will always convince themselves Republicans would have made things much worse.

I just grit my teeth and mumble about the economy if it comes up in my mother’s presence. I remind myself that someday — hopefully in the distant future — I’ll be glad I kept my opinion in my mouth.

that’s what I want that for Food Stamp

I want that for him

I want him to have that

just like Julia

In fairness that was Jack Kemp’s and other conservatives’ proposed solution to the long term entitlement funding problems.