Students, faculty and parents, it is my honor to deliver a commencement speech today. I am about to do something I have never done as president: tell it like it is.
Back in 2008, I was nothing but an idea — a blank canvas upon which millions painted whatever image they wanted to see.
Americans were frightened then, as the U.S. and the world came frighteningly close to an economic meltdown.
My words reassured millions. I told you I was going to bridge the political divide, bring people together, get America’s fiscal house in order, get the economy going and cut our massive deficit in half by the end of my first term.
You elected me. Suckers!
The first thing I did, under the guise of greatly improving the economy, was the largest stimulus package in world history.
Those ninny Republicans wanted to stimulate the economy through massive temporary tax breaks and credits.
I preferred the old Chicago-Democrat method, using nearly $1 trillion in taxpayer funds to pay off unions and other supporters.
By my own measure — I promised the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent — that program failed.
Still, my poll numbers were high. I could have used my sizable political capital to tackle our real problems — a muddled tax system that holds back growth and an explosion in entitlement spending that will soon cripple America — but I had no time for that.
So I punted. I established the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, co-chaired by Republican former Sen. Alan Simpson and Democrat former Sen. Erskine Bowles, and let them figure out what to do about tax reform and entitlement spending.
After all, I had more important fish to fry: my legacy!
I had Democrat majorities in the House and the Senate and an irresistible opportunity to be the first president to create the crown jewel of entitlements: health care for all!
Sure, I burned through my political capital in the process. Many were unhappy about government meddling with their relationship with their doctors. Now, the Catholic Church is grumbling about government meddling with religious freedom (by me telling it what provisions better be in its employee health policies).
Common people, who cling to religion and guns, will never understand hope and change.
I single-handedly created the tea-party response to my policies. Republicans gave Democrats a shellacking in the 2010 elections and took over the House.
Soon after those elections, the Simpson-Bowles commission released a blueprint for tax and entitlement reform -- solid ideas that both parties could find common ground on.
It gave me a tremendous opportunity to demonstrate real leadership to bring both parties together to reform taxes and entitlements and contribute mightily to badly needed growth.
But I didn’t do it. I couldn’t do it. Truth be told, this is the hardest job in the world and I really have no clue what I am doing.
As the economy stumbles, unemployment is high, revenues are flat, spending is out of control and our deficit is frightening, my only hope of a second term is to confuse, obfuscate, point fingers and change the subject.
In any event, Class of 2012, here is my advice as you enter the worst job market in years: Good luck because you’re going to need it.
And despite the fact that your generation will be saddled with years of high taxation and sluggish economic conditions thanks to my policies, I thank you for your continued support.
Suckers!
Copyright 2012 Tom Purcell. Purcell, a freelance writer is also a humor columnist for the Pittsburgh Tribune- Review, and is nationally syndicated exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. E-mail Tom at Purcell@caglecartoons.com.
VofReason posted at 12:57 pm on Wed, Jun 6, 2012.
How did he get inside President Obama's head? This is truly amazing. I am thankful to get the first post here and will look forward to the normal crew that will point out that none of this is Obama's fualt, it is all Gearge W Bush's fualt, and if we could only tax the rich and Corporations (who pay no tax I am told). They will go on to tell us that President Obama just needs 4 more years to finish it (and us) off. Maybe they will even shake in a little Romney is a businessman and knows nothing of what a real Community Organizer knows about running a country. Sit back folks and watch the hillarity ensue.
chuckles3 posted at 2:40 pm on Wed, Jun 6, 2012.
Nicely done.
dustbowl11 posted at 8:31 am on Thu, Jun 7, 2012.
Actually its the Republicans in Congress that refuse to do anything to help the economy. We already have the Bush tax cuts. Where is the trickle down? Are corporate leaders holding the country hostage until they get one of their own in office? Where is the patriotism when one party lets the country suffer until they get everything their own way? Romney knows an awful lot about eliminating jobs. All one has to do is look into Bain Capital's track record. And why do Republicans refuse to eliminate the tax break for offshoring? At the very least we should not be subsidizing moving jobs overseas. And it isn't just the Democrats that opposed Erskine/Bowles. The Republicans would not accept military cuts called for by that commission.
mnjcpa posted at 10:21 am on Thu, Jun 7, 2012.
Weak argument dustbowl.
Your beloved Democrats had two years unfettered to do whatever they wanted. And we're living their strategy which has crippled the US economy. Romney's record at Bain Capital? 80% success rate contrasted with the Obama's administration of 0. It's not hard to figure out when you don't have one close adviser that has business experience that the strategies are utopian and don't work.
You're right on one thing - where is the patriotism? You'll see that loud and clear in November.
dustbowl11 posted at 12:23 pm on Thu, Jun 7, 2012.
mnjcpa,
It takes 60 votes in the Senate to stop a filibuster. The numbers after the 08 elections were Dems 57 Repubs 41 with 2 independents. And Lieberman might as well have been a Republican. That is hardly unfettered. The economy has been crippled since 08 and was declining before that. If not for the stimulus who knows what might have happened? Bush supposedly had all kinds of business experience yet he intentionally ran up deficits anyway. Clinton had none and balanced the budget. Care to explain?
VofReason posted at 12:44 pm on Thu, Jun 7, 2012.
But wait, we now have the smartest person who may have ever lived as our President and still a Democrat majority in the Senate. Surely with that kind of clout, they can over rule the stimey put up by the House? Why has the Democraticaly controlled Senate not put up a budget in years? Is that the way that fiscally responsible entites work their way out of the morass?
Engaged Voter posted at 2:29 pm on Thu, Jun 7, 2012.
Yes, I realize this article is sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek tripe.
HOWEVER...regarding the comment "Common people, who cling to religion and guns, will never understand hope and change."
This is a factual statement, Peopke who deny change (6000 year old earth, evolution never happened, etc) will NEVER understand change, unless they choose to educate themselves.
mnjcpa posted at 2:40 pm on Thu, Jun 7, 2012.
dustbowl - you need to turn off MSNBC and read some substantive material that's unbiased. This article wasn't about Bush or Clinton - it's a poke at a President that can't seem to tell anyone the actual truth.
The Democratic Congress and Senate both have not provided a balanced budget in over 3 years. Obama recent proposal calls for 11 trillion dollars in additional deficit. I guess that means nothing to you and it's Bush's fault.
We are careening towards a economic cliff and could very well go bankrupt because we cannot pay for the endless programs that the president wants to subsidize. The good news is he's not going to get away with it this time - there's too many people out there exposing liberal policies and the socialist that Obama really is. That's exactly why patriotism will prevail.
dustbowl11 posted at 4:59 pm on Thu, Jun 7, 2012.
But why am I supposed to believe that another businessman will straighten out the economy? That's the argument I keep hearing from Republicans over and over. Is it because this one thinks he is one of God's chosen people? Heard that one before too. I actually watch a lot of History Channel. They are biased toward the past.
mnjcpa posted at 12:05 pm on Fri, Jun 8, 2012.
Romney might not be able to because we're so far gone. But I do know this - count on Greece-like conditions if Obama is reelected. People are finding out the real roots to our problems and why you're seeing the results in Wisconsin and many other states where conservative leadership is reining in fiscal irresponsibility - even if it risks their political career. To me, that takes guts.
Not sure what the God's people thing is about so I'll ignore it because it has nothing to do with the issue. And the History channel is not `substantive` material. Instead of buying in to the `class warfare & envy` your party promotes so well - educate yourself. What you'll find is Romney's business career is exactly what Clinton said it was - sterling. Or that Obama was a member of a `socialist` party in the 90`s - understand what it means to embrace socialism.
The choice is clear.
Engaged Voter posted at 3:41 pm on Fri, Jun 8, 2012.
I'll choose the "socialist" over the "teenage terrorist" who bullied and tortured a gay student.
"Not sure what the God's people thing is about so I'll ignore it "
Just like most people...ignore what you don't understand. And it has EVERYTHING to do with the issue. Romney is a religious nut who thinks he is one of his god's chosen people. Were you really not aware of this?
mnjcpa posted at 5:41 pm on Fri, Jun 8, 2012.
Point out to me one country that has been successful under socialism. Where people are free to build businesses and make a success out of themselves. I don't know of anyone clamoring to get in to countries that purposely choose socialist economic conditions that you're so fond of. They're oppressive by their nature.
And I thought the manner in which people worship is no one else's business? Religion has nothing to do with his leadership abilities and we sorely need a leader - not some Chicago punk. And if you seriously believe and rest your opinion on a 50 year old childhood prank then you're not going to change your mind anyway. Good luck.
REG in AZ posted at 10:31 am on Mon, Jun 11, 2012.
The debate over Republican / Tea Party v Democratic Party or even v Libertarian or Independent goes on with considerable emotion actually blocking objectivity and thereby preventing rational, self-benefiting decisions ... with much of the confusion being intentional from those promoting the propaganda. What are the voters to do? How can they stay emotionally grounded and logically clear?
Well possibly it could serve the majority, the vast middle-class, for argument’s sake to just concede the top 1 - 2 %, "the money", to the Republican / Tea Party and the bottom 6 - 8 %, the poor, to the Democrats and to then put aside the arguments that relate only to those issues and just rationally evaluate who in reality would actually benefit the majority. The Democrats are faulted for "big government", government spending, increasing the deficit and for costly aid policies; addressing those issues is totally important but are they actually costing the majority? The Republicans are faulted for stubbornly and irresponsibly putting their political ambitions above all else, aggressively protecting the interests of 'the few" who strongly support and direct them, and, with the power, influence and money provided, just working at conning the people and manipulating public opinion while faulting and blocking all real efforts; now how does that cost the majority? Neither side will ever be "pure and holy" but answering those questions could provide clarity as to which would best benefit the majority.
I speak only for myself but how I see it is that Bush-Cheney proved beyond any doubt that first, they were completely focused on serving "the few" at any cost and second, that the "trickle down" theory is a costly fraud only making the wealthy wealthier and soliciting political support. Continuing we have seen Norquist, Cheney, Rove, SuperPacs and others completely focused on using the mega-millions provided to first, coerce and intimidate their own to squelch individual consciences and to assure firm unity behind "the money's" interests, next to promote and sell their “puppet" politicians who stand ready to perform as their "strings are pulled" and last, to organize, fund and direct the spread of the propaganda aimed to con the people and control public opinion (as clearly seen with the manipulation of the conservative Christian, with the Swift-boat propaganda, the Tea Party movement and even in the Wisconsin recall effort). Then there are the performances by Boehner, McConnell, Cantor, Ryan, Bachmann and others who have consistently put their political ambitions above all else, contributed nothing and faulted and blocked all real efforts regardless of the costs to the people. With the subterfuge put aside and with emotions checked it seems clear their only benefit is always to "the few" and the costs are always substantial to the majority.
With the faults attributed to the Democrats it has to be remembered they inherited most all of it, that those problems necessitated more spending and that "big money" actually caused the problems that government really had to address. Reality is that "big government", government spending and the deficit are things to get under control but doing so won’t solve the current problems because they didn't cause the problems. Run away greed, gross dishonesty and self-indulgence by "the few", encouraged by favorable policies, excessive deregulation, lax enforcement and little oversight, much like illegal pyramid schemes, resulted in costly exploitation greatly benefiting the few and substantially hurting the majority. We have seen the repeated results with crisis in savings-and-loans, banks, dot.coms, the investment, mortgage and financial industries, with corporate corruption (like Enron) and with industrywide failures. The Republican party not only encouraged all of it by being co-responsible and cooperative agents but they now really want to ignore it and continue with more of the same as they seek to have the people focus elsewhere - which really can't ever benefit the majority.
The Republicans are not all wrong and the Democrats are not all right. As I see it, the Democrats currently offer the only real choice and the only way to ever bring the Republicans back in line, to encourage their honestly and responsibly considering the majority as more than just "pawns" to be conned, used and abused, is to now firmly reject what they have become and thus break the stranglehold "the money" has on them. Last point, whenever government spends on responsible programs to bring the poor up into being productive members of society, it benefits the total economy, including providing profits for the wealthy, and to instead strive to satisfy an insatiable "more" (never enough) appetite for "the few", constantly forcing the country deeper into a two-class society with "the few' competing in having it all while the majority continually looses more, it simply is ludicrously and obnoxiously irresponsible.
Engaged Voter posted at 3:47 pm on Mon, Jun 11, 2012.
"And if you seriously believe and rest your opinion on a 50 year old childhood prank then you're not going to change your mind anyway."
Ah, I see...resting an opinion on a 50 year old childhood prank is juvenile and closed minded...but resting an opinion on a 2000 year old childhood myth is just fine.
LOL@ignorant hypocrisy
Engaged Voter posted at 3:51 pm on Mon, Jun 11, 2012.
"I thought the manner in which people worship is no one else's business?"
You thought correct. However, the manner in which people worship wasn't the issue I brought up, it was his religious beliefs that he CHOSE to make public, and CHOSE to try to introduce legislation that foments those beliefs.
If you cannot see the difference...
mnjcpa posted at 4:57 pm on Mon, Jun 11, 2012.
Engaged - From an article about economic meltdown you've somehow twisted it to how people choose their faith. Way to stay on point. I don't agree with Romney's faith either, but I'm not going to church with the guy - I'm looking for a leader rather than a Chicago thug.
There's a lot I agree with in REG's comments but not the conclusion. You really have to understand the monetary system to understand how deeply in trouble we really are. And while I can see you're a phenomenal Bush basher, he doesn't a hold a candle to the big spender that's in office now.