Follow this blog:
RSS

Obama inaugural emphasizes innovation, risk taking

By | January 21, 2013, 8:32 PM PST

President Obama's official swearing in happened over the weekend in a private ceremony in the White House's Blue Room.

President Obama's official swearing in occurred on Sunday in the White House's Blue Room.

U.S. President Barack Obama kicked off his second term today, and between the pomp and circumstance, offered a spirited defense of progressive ideals. The President used his inaugural address to champion the rationale that a social safety net encourages risk taking and entrepreneurism as well as renewing his pledge to invest in infrastructure, education, and science, and encouraging skilled workers to emigrate to the U.S.

Mr. Obama’s argument was pure kitchen table politics aimed squarely at middle class families. It distills down to the economic benefits of enabling people to take risks such as starting a business or sending a child to college knowing that if all else fails they will be spared from extreme poverty and entitled to medical care.

Or, in the President’s words: “The commitments we make to each other - through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security - these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.” That is fairly self explanatory, and a not so subtle take down of his opposition’s (i.e. Paul Ryan’s) embrace of Ayn Rand’s philosophy on governance.

The President stated that it was necessary to make investments in the public sector to create the right environment for a “modern economy” to function. That was followed by an explanation that regulation is necessary because “a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.”

Those words were balanced by a validation of free enterprise, and acknowledgment of the limits of government intervention. “We have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character,” However, the President noted that individuals alone cannot meet the demands of today’s world.

No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people,” Obama said.

Other callouts struck a familiar chord. The President reiterated that the U.S should continue to invest in sustainable energy sources, which he said would, “power new jobs and new industries.” Obama also stated that addressing climate change would become a top priority of his second term in office. Failure to respond to the threat of climate change would be a betrayal of future generations, he reasoned.

Another focus of the speech was on establishing a smoother path to citizenship for foreign students that study engineering, math, and science at U.S. universities. “Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country,” Obama said.

Obama is clearly hopeful he will be capable of achieving big things during his second term in office. His speech laid down a marker for a more progressive posture going into budget negotiations, and has been deemed by some pundits to be a bookend on former President Reagan’s insistence that “government is the problem.”

(image credit: Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

David Worthington

About David Worthington

David Worthington is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

David Worthington

David Worthington

Contributing Editor

David Worthington has written for BetaNews, eWeek, PC World, Technologizer and ZDNet. Formerly, he was a senior editor at SD Times. He holds a degree from Temple University. He is based in New York.

Follow him on Twitter.

David Worthington

David Worthington

David does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what he covers. Occasionally he consults for other companies; should David cover a topic in which a client is involved, he will disclose this fact in his writing. His views do not represent those of his employers.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
24
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
Whose land?
The children can learn about the land if they know how to take care of the indigenous plants and animals....The next generation maybe?
Posted by Elrandy
22nd Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
offered a spirited defense of progressive ideals
The Soviet Union and China and Cuba and North Korea, all offered the same kind of ideals that this idiot in the White House is now offering. Perhaps this time around, after so many failures of socialism, things will be different? I'm 100% certain that, it's just another country, the U.S., being set up to fail, just like all other socialist societies have in the past and present.

No entrepreneur or businessperson is going to take risks in a society and in a country which is hostile to business, and where the rewards, if any, are punished with high taxation. Why work and be productive when the benefits are few and small, and mostly, not worth it.

The only people that might benefit from Obama's policies, might be the poor, but, with an economy that is shrinking and/or being increasingly unproductive, those benefits will disappear, since, socialism has always proved to be not self-sustaining. Why work when government provides? Why create a business when you will be punished if you become successful? Why work hard, when the product of your work will be used to provide for others?
Posted by adornoe
22nd Jan
0 Votes
+ -
"The poor" will hardly benefit.
Are "the poor" and the "middle class" any better off than they were even 12 years ago?

Stagnating (or falling) wages combined with inflation is decimating the very people he claims to be saving. And with the Fed's stated "QE Forever" policy, it's going to get worse before it gets any better.

But the bigger threat, even more so than high taxes is unpredictability and the abandonment of "rule of law"; formerly hallmarks of the American economy. Until politicians stop imposing unpredicability by trying to fix everything that mostly they themselves created in the first place, there will be no improvement. This is the "new normal".
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
22nd Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
The President doesn't know history
This public sector strengthening and empowerment has been tried before here and in Russia, China, and others. It doesn't work.

If most people are given a choice to work a 14 hour day for no promises and no potential to better their lives or their children's, or work a 4 hour day and be well taken care of, what choice will be the choice of most? Look around, you can see the choices being made: France, Greece, Russia, China, and the list goes on. What's a full time, work-week in Greece or France now? Here it's still 40, France is mandated to 35.

And don't point to China. If it weren't for enterprising Americans driving technological advances, their economy would look very different.

We can also blame our own government for China's economy through increased regulation (control) on rare earths mining. For those who want to take a risk and increase the public's good, our government is slow to grant the necessary mineral/land leases, if they do at all (thank you Ken Salazar). Now that China has realized there is a supply limit, they won't undercut Molycorp again, but we'll see if our government will be favorable to Molycorp reopening and allowing them to profit. But that's another discussion.
Posted by GuntherGump
22nd Jan
0 Votes
+ -
just another example...
...of this web site rising to support the liberal agenda.

If this is going to be an editorial site, why then does it show no opposing points of view?

It would seem to me that if smartplanet really wanted to be 'smart', it would present both sides of each argument and let the humble reader decide. I guess it is easier just to present their biased opinion as fact instead of being real journalists.
Posted by Cabo Wabo Addict
22nd Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Here here!
.
Posted by GuntherGump
23rd Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
Minimize the individual, promoting nationalizm
That's how the communistas do it. nationalizm, socializm.. "one person can't do anything, only the Nation (the people's republik of the state of Amerika..)" .. "you didn't build that".. It's all about control, and about removing the best individuals from their self-earned positions, removing the ability for smart, non-lazy people to make money, and installing ignorant people into power structures to insure loyalty to the great spewer of pablum! Destroy the influence of corporations in order to make sure the government is in full control. President Obama and his administration is a destroyer, not a builder. They won't rest until everything has been reduced to the least common denominator.
Posted by opcom
Updated - 22nd Jan
0 Votes
+ -
He also emphasized
Class war fare, tweaked racial tensions and promoted the ongoing redistribution of wealth and expanding the welfare state.

All noble beliefs for a US president. Gag.......

I heard many of the same promises he made in 2007 that he never acted on. Top of the list were gay rights and immigration reform.

And do not tell me he ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

That disgusting Clinton created act of injustice imposed on the military by Congress and President Clinton was brought down by a group of gay REPUBLICANS who were on track to win all the way to the US Supreme Court. Rather than trust that Congress and the President would act they pursued their lawsuits to ensure the courts ruled it unconstitutional to prevent Congress and the President from changing their minds later.

Obamas hand was forced to act on that issue. He was perfectly content to leave it alone to be a campaign issue in 2012. The media allowed it to be an issue in 2012 as he took all the credit for ending it when he deserved none of it.

Notice CNN was careful not to name the group behind filing the lawsuit.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-09/us/dont.ask.dont.tell_1_alexander-nicholson-lesbian-ruling?_s=PM:US

At least the Huffington Post had the integrity to name the republican group behind the lawsuits.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/01/military-ban-on-gays_n_944645.html
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 22nd Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
Re: "... promoted the ongoing redistribution of wealth ..."
I hope you mean the top few percent keep getting wealthier while everyone else is losing ground because that's what has been happening. Trickle down economics just produces a nation of pee-ons.
Posted by riverat1
24th Jan
-2 Votes
+ -
Or...
...is it "trickle-up poverty", where the state keeps promising "equality" while promising unsustainable benefits and passing out cheap freebies, and the rent-seeking rich get more so while the wealth-producing rich stop trying?
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 24th Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
Why are all of you so concerned with the corporations?
I'm really not sure what some of you are getting at with all the comparisons to communist countries. Policies that give a break to working class individuals and the poor are not communism or socialism. get real! Why do you continue to advoocate breaks for corporations but never for actual people. It seems to me that every time a Republican has been in office during my lifetime all breaks went to the corporations at the expense of individuals, with promises that the benefits would trickle down, and invariably we had horrible results. Why not call that "despotism" or "tyranny," rather than call a system that benefits real people "communism."

Why are you so concerned with giving more tax breaks and money to corporations? They wouldn't think twice about poisoning your water, throwing you out of a job, or allowing you to die before giving you health coverage. Giant corporations are the ones who caused this mess to begin with. They took as much as possible for themselves, made sure there was little left for others, and then expected the rest of us to fix their mess. If the rest of us are expected to pay our share I don't see why corporations shouldn't.
Posted by sparkynyc
22nd Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
Well, for one thing, you can't actually tax corporations.
Taxes paid by corporations are merely a pass-through to ultimate consumers.

2nd, where have you been for the last 7 years since the Democrats have controlled most of the government? The Democrats have been so generous, that many of America's largest corporations have gotten away with paying absolutely no income tax at all.

In fact, the Obama administration has been so generous to corporations that it not only promulgates tax credits, but actually backstops loans for business plans that are so bad that nobody else will fund them.

I'm all for eliminating tax breaks and hand-outs. But if the last 7 years are any indication, it's sure not going to happen with the Democrats in charge.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
22nd Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
You're talking about G.E. and Solyndra right?
.
Posted by GuntherGump
23rd Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
Where were you?
I don't know where you were 11 years ago when President Bush passed the first of his tax cuts. It never got widely reported that it freed 4% or 5% of lower income earners from paying any federal income tax, or that it created a new lower 10% income tax bracket for the lowest income earner, or that it did things like get rid of the "marriage tax" and increased the deductions for children. It was the Democrats in 2001 and 2003 that kept them from being permanent. President Obama in 2010 was dragged kicking and screaming to extend them for the last two years. The President was only too willing to kill these taxes for 98% of the people -- his cherished middle class -- unless he got tax increases for the upper 2%. Those tax increases will only bring in about $65 billion per year, or about 6% of the annual federal deficit.
Posted by zackers
22nd Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Reality exposed!
sparkynyc:
After reading your post I thought to myself - it is actually nice and refreshing to see some (not so often thought) sober thinking and analysis in retrospect to the usual desperation in blindly defending all things Capitalist, which on every occasion is prescribed as cure for all political and economical inbalances.
I often mention the word greed in these discussions and immediately get labeled as a socialist or a communist who supports the notion of full power to the government and all things centralized. Funny I even say such things!

You however, managed to put the true and undisputable facts on the billboard.

And to add my own opinion to the discussion:
If the rich forget to care about the poor (the way it happened during the feudal epoch and in the early stages of Capitalism), we will surely see the return of Bastille day, The Great October Socialist Revolution, or any other similar and related event. Don't get fooled thinking that the society today cannot become as cruel and uneducated as they were during those dark times. They are all well and ready to pick up a myriad of blunt instruments to demand what they think they deserve. It is written that all men are born equal, and that alone, is what they will remember when the sea of Kalashnikovs (the modern day pitchfork) meets the greedy and often illustrated as highly overweight industrialists at the gates of their sweat built fortresses.

The question is how can we avoid the bloodshed? Perhaps, by introducing more social programs paid by the rich, allowing them - in return - to peacefully stay rich indefinitely. Perhaps someone already found out that this works well for both sides and that is why in Europe the violence problems are mostly ethnical. Who knows!?
Posted by fo128
23rd Jan
-1 Votes
+ -
Seriously?
From what planet are you visiting us?

Europe is bankrupt. People there are rioting.

And quite frankly, the most "greedy" people I know are the socialists and communists. They wish to use the force provided by government to seize wealth created by others for their own benefit. If that isn't "greed", then I clearly don't know what is. The irony is that what you describe already largely exists; the rich rent-seeking socialists (think people like Soros and Al Gore) already have co-opted the system so that they can "peacefully stay rich indefinitely" while those who create the real wealth and who are not politically connected are made to pay the actual bill.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 23rd Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
Indeed...
I am sorry McGrew I do not mean disrespect as you seem to be an educated individual whom somehow is failing to reason with simple facts. The rich - on both sides of the fence - will always put themselves first (read greed) as will most rulers, presidents, ministers etc. And yes, this is valid for both sides The despicable Reds, and their counterparts, the egocentric Capitalists. It makes no sense to blame the one side hoping to defend the other as a result of it. My kids try to adopt such approach in blaming their friends for their own wrong deeds, and hoping to evade a deserved punishment while taking my attention away from the real facts. But this is nave dont you agree?

The rich Capitalists are greed driven, unless of course they are socialists and do it for the good of their employees? What a twister that is even I get lost in its whirl.
I hate to be nasty because it just creates an incendiary which leads nowhere, but please, stop defending and praising blindly everything related to Capitalism. There are other truths beside yours, known to most men but you (apparently).

Also, I do not understand why you even point to Europe to prove your stance. The model used by the Scandinavian countries has an extremely powerful and successful social system, about which, many had said that was better even the Eastern European countries. Oh wait, I forgot that Sweden and the other lot around there are also from another planet. Mind you - My bad. So lets return back to Earth. Which Europe is bankrupt? Why the generalization? I dont see Germany, nor France, not even the Dutch being very broken. Yes the Greeks (you mentioned) and perhaps Spain and Italy are bailed out, but have you ever thought that this was done on purpose, and again, greed driven!? How about impoverishing these states so that the real Capitalists can come and occupy the infrastructure of those countries the same way they took over (in exchange for crumbs) all the manufacturing in the Eastern block after the fall of the Berlin Wall! There are a lot of details which are omitted, and repeating what others say does not make it a truth, as many have pointed it out around here. Yes those factories were not optimally exploited during their former masters, but the end result is still the same as we see today. Please, no one is trying to take away your craved Political and Economic system, we all live in it some more some less, but to praise the feudal roots of 18th Century Europe as the best model for the 21st century, makes you almost a Capitalistic fundamentalist, which, being inherent to most undamentalists, is surely blinding your sight without you often realizing.

If we don't improve or change the models we have, we die as humans and cease to develop further as species. The problem as I see it, is that greed is our greatest drive, and at the same time, our greatest obstacle or drawback. This is what we need to work on and around if we want to improve ourselves.
Posted by fo128
Updated - 24th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Your memes are very dated.
It's ironic that you present Scandinavia as your example of socialist success. You might have been able to say much of that in 1985, but that's certainly not the case today:

"The model used by the Scandinavian countries has an extremely powerful and successful social system, about which, many had said that was better even the Eastern European countries."

Scandinavia was always the model of success espoused by fellow students in the '80s. But predictably, it didn't last. Your impression is very dated. Scandinavia today does not resemble the supposed social-democracy utopia that it supposedly was a quarter century ago. Today, these countries are transitioning to what we used to be; much more free market based. (It's really telling when northern European leaders scold a US President on being profligate!) Starting in the '90s, telecommunications, public transportation and even their postal services were deregulated. Moribund state monopolies were abolished. Highly regulated and state-owned industries are being feed and privatized.

In Sweden, public school children get vouchers to attend the schools of their parent's choice!

All of the above is considered "radical right wing extremism" when proposed here. Ironic, isn't it? Perhaps we should be emulating them!

As for "greed": Today, a US President proudly asserts that he's acting upon a supposed mandate from 51% of Americans, most of which pay very little, if any, income tax to raise taxes on people wealthier than they are in order to fund benefits they like. That's not "greed"?

"I hate to be nasty because it just creates an incendiary which leads nowhere, but please, stop defending and praising blindly everything related to Capitalism. There are other truths beside yours, known to most men but you (apparently)."

First, I never said any such thing. For example, I certainly don't endorse "capitalism" as the Chinese communists practice it, without regard for anything other than their narrow political and economic agenda.

I don't see "capitalism" as a "system", per-se. It's more of a state of being. The only question is to what degree any particular government is going to intervene within it. During the Soviet era, I used to argue that the purest form of capitalism on the planet wasn't found in the United States, but behind the Iron Curtain, where the black market was frequently the only market that worked at all.

Second, I suspect that you are less than sincere when you say that you "hate to be nasty". But that just may be due to limitations of the medium.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 24th Jan
-1 Votes
+ -
The Scandinavian model...
McGrew:
Thank you for taking the time to reply.

Because you only mentioned the Scandinavian portion of my post, I take it that you agree with the rest of it or at least do not dispute / refute it.

I cannot however agree with you on the Scandinavian point you brought up! The model does still exists today and it is definitely not outdated. These are still the countries with the highest level of social programs - correctly applied. What you probably meant to say in your reply was that it all started in the 80's, but it is surely still felt today.

I apologise for perhaps being moot in my exaple and the above so I will try to explain. By bringing these countries as a reference, I was actually emphasizing on their strong social doctrine which is also based on taxation of the wealthy, and yet, manages to distribute the collected wealth proportionally and astutely, helping maintain a high level of living standard for its citizens. If (as you say) there was a privatization of state owned parts of the country infastructure (which was not my point of emphasis) - nothing wrong or against that.
The lesson learned from these nations is that is that when the corporations don't stick their dirty greasy fingers where they don't belong, and at the same time the State actually does look after the interests of its people (rather than the industrialists), life for all fellow country men can be happier, cheerfull, and in comparisson to other nations, of higher quality. When I last looked at the Scandinavians - that is the still the picture I saw!

It is all stll there, on the Old Continent (as some call it), from where Enlightment originated and emanated, spreading its cultural rays around, for the rest of the world to absorb. They are ahead, and probably always will be, and not the other way around as you may believe!
Posted by fo128
11th Feb
-1 Votes
+ -
The Black Market - a short history!
I am sorry I skipped that point in my previous reply.

Black Markets in Eastern Europe were to a large degree an urban myth and this point brings nothing to the discussion. If you take the illicit trades in the Western world as a comparison, it clearly beats down dead whatever illegal market existed in these countries. Just take a careful look around you! You shall see all the illegal "merchandise" sold on the streets in your very own town / city. So the counter question is - what is wrong with our own system spurting such an anomaly that is supposedly reserved and a characteristic of the Reds? And who regulates these trades? Yes they are self-regulated often by brutal techniques and gun toting. Exemplary Capitalism present on all levels of life!


After the October Socialist Revolution in Russia, there were grounds for the creation and the existence of the black market in USSR, simply because many lazy people plainly refused to work for their earning and found an easy way out by stealing what the farmers put in or sowed. However, after the WWII everything was available (perhaps not entirely so in Russia), albeit often of very low and poor quality, thus the craving for Western "quality" goods and the creation of the so called "Black Market". But there was nothing to regulate here, because this market emerged and existed simply for the purchase of a different product from the one provided in the state shops. But even if we agree that Black Market existed for Western merchandise in these parts of the world, anything else was available in abundance and was sold in the shops the same way as in any other country around the globe.

The Black Markets you are talking about - I have seen them, but for your information - they are in Africa. They are overinflated and very paradoxal. Partially due to ignorance, you can buy a bottle of fine French Cognac VSOP cheaper than a bottle of Mineral Water, the primary reason for this is because in those parts of the world clean water is scarcer and more valuable than liquor.
Posted by fo128
11th Feb
-1 Votes
+ -
Higher education
Dear President

The solution for best higher education in the USA and in the world is just in front of you waiting your support and endorsements.

That is edx ONLINE by MIT Harvard Berkeley Uni of TEXAS Georgetown
They are able to provide all HE needed in the USA.

They do not need money, they have vision to selffinancing.

They need only official support to educate 20 million in the USA at nill cost .
EDX can charge only $ 10 per course and educate whole USA with the BEST HE available in the world .
Best regards . mgozaydin@hotmail.com
Posted by mgozaydin
Updated - 23rd Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Comments here are depressing
While this article was a well-written report on the (lawfully elected, BTW) President's inaugural address, the comments here are depressing. Is this all the right has to offer? Yelling "Commie" at the top of your lungs? Pathetic.
There's a reason Mitt Romney lost - at it's staring at you in the mirror each day. Until the Republican Party realizes that the world has changed, that it isn't going to be run by a bunch of old white guys yelling "Commie" at everyone who doesn't agree with their world-view, it will continue its decline into oblivion. And while some Democrats might like watching that happen, most understand that America needs a Republican Party that can articulate alternative solutions rather than just yelling "government sucks" or "you're a bunch of pinko commies".
Grow up all of you, and start articulating solutions other than the same "cut government, cut taxes" cliches - and BTW, I'm an entrepreneur taking risks in this economy. Real entrepreneurs never look for excuses, particularly ones made up by nuts-jobs on the far right...
Posted by esenunas
23rd Jan
-1 Votes
+ -
Interesting.
You talk about the depressing comments, yet do not counter a single argument point as factually inaccurate.

The pathetic part is those sad facts about the Presidents behavior, lack of performance and the true impact on the poor and middle class are true and he still got reelected.

The question then becomes how?
Posted by Hates Idiots
23rd Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
You are right.
The GOP has become little more than a weak opposition party, unable or unwilling to clearly articulate an agenda. The fact that after 2000 they behaved much like the Progressives they today scorn certainly didn't give them any credibility after the meltdown.

Romney's big mistake was timidly backing away from his "47%" remark, which was very accurate. Actually, the situation is even worse than that; not only do roughly half of Americans today depend upon the government for at least some of their income, others are entrenched in the cycle of crony capitalism. I'd be happy to pay a supposed 60% of my income in taxes, if in return the government was feeding me tax breaks, free loans, contracts and other favors that made me a millionaire. In that scenario, the only "risk" taking is speaking out against the government.

Example? Al Gore just made over $100-million dollars, and yet did not add any value to the economy. Is this the future we want?
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 23rd Jan
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!