world

Obama asks Americans not to expect too much from gov't; appears on Jay Leno show

51 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

51 Comments
Login to comment

When I read the headline I thought Obama had totally lost it, alter the last 8 years how could anybody in that country expect too much from their government?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“At some point you’ve got to make some choices...”

Yeah - he chooses to do everything now and he isn't going to pay for any of it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If that is the case, then don't promise too much either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

so he is giving up the "hope" and focusing on "change"?

He said the money would be used to buy up and rehabilitate vacant homes, and provide loans to poorer and middle-income families to help with home assistance.

isn't that what lead to housing slide in the first place?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Obama asks Americans not to expect too much from government"

He was promising everybody everything before he won the election. Now this. Well, there goes the big screen TV I was going to ask him for.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

isn't that what lead to housing slide in the first place?

No it wasn't. Weren't you paying attention? It was the selling of mortgages to people who normally would not qualify for them and the low teaser rate that was used to entice these people to buy. When the teaser rate expired the monthly mortgage bill went through the roof.

I would fully expect this administration to provide assistance that reflects the ability to pay. If not, then your question would be spot on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama seems happy to be on the road again, almost like he's more comfortable campaigning for office than actually being the one in charge.

A town meeting on the West Coast followed by an appearance on a late-night show.

The man is spreading himself too thin and is going to have to change course before his presidency starts to mirror Jimmy Carter's.

"Obama asked Americans to back his plans to overhaul health care, change energy policies, and spend more on roads, education and many other areas to boost the stalled economy. The resulting large deficits will be temporary and justified, he said."

No, we can't do everything you want to do, Mr. Obama, and much of it is not justified.

What excuses will he make three and a half years from now leading up to an election he will lose after being a complete failure as president?

Eight years of George W. Bush followed by four years with Barack Obama.

God help us!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I never expected anything from the government.

In fact, I don't even want a government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I never expected anything from the government. In fact, I don't even want a government.

Yeah right! I do not expect you running off to one of the failed states any time soon. You may think democracy sucks, but the alternatives are worse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In fact, I don't even want a government.

Well in the area of financial derivatives you didn't have one. Americans know that government regulation is BAD BAD BAD!!! It's SOCIALISM!!!

That sure worked out great, didn't it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He told Americans not to expect “something for nothing” from their government.

...unless you happen to be in the financial services sector. In which case, kaching!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"questions were more fawning than pressing"

Now those are the kind of questions President Obama likes. Not the kind of questions Joe the Plumber asks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah right! Americans cant expect something for nothing BUT government officials can. Obama can unguiltily give himself a $150 million inauguration party, hand out tax payer money by the millions to AIG, throw in big money in the "stimulas package" to save RATS but to tell a woman who loses her job "dont expect something for nothing", and on and on we could go. Great campaign promises only to find hes just another politician who could care less about the average citizen. Would he take a pay cut to use that money to pay for some of those teachers jobs? NO WAY! Would he give up plans to build a basketball court in the White House to use the money to help someone in financial need? NO WAY, his own brother is living on a $1 in Africa and he could care less so why should he care more about Americans losing their jobs and homes?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama mocked Republican officials who call his plans too costly even though they presided over huge deficits while they controlled Congress and the White House.

“Where have you been?” he said. “What have you been doing?”

Exactly, exactly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Where have you been? What have you been doing?"

The Republicans were trying to reform Fannie & Freddy but were blocked by the Democrats.

Exactly, exactly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What happened to the "can do" American attitude? all the news you get from America now points to so called American values going as pudgy as the waistlines of it's citizens. Now it's whining and blaming and passing the buck and people putting their hands outs expecting something for nothing. Too many people think Obama is the Messiah - the one who is going to save them without them having to left a finger. Snap out of it America!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Too many people think Obama is the Messiah"

"Buoyed by adoring crowds"

There you go!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Don't expect too much... I think it means unrealistic expectations like overnight systemic overhaul, instant market recovery, and painless deficit recovery are only going to disappoint, and are in no way productive. Because he's probably the most vocal and visually accessible President we've had in a long time, people expect that he'll solve all the problems that we ourselves should address to effect change. Right after winning the election he went straight to work (I remember Bush went straight to Camp David) and since then has repeatedly appealed to the American public through forums and town hall meetings to aid in his efforts as he can't do it alone. A former President said it better: "Ask not what your country can do for you..." There are a few things he's said and done that I don't agree with, but as he himself has stated he doesn't have all the answers, and has even offered apologies on his blunders -something Bush never did- and adjusted his stance accordingly. So far Obama has earned my trust.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "The Republicans were trying to reform Fannie & Freddy but were blocked by the Democrats."

Oh that was hilarious; keep 'em coming Sarge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "The Republicans were trying to reform Fannie & Freddy but were blocked by the Democrats."

Oh that was hilarious; keep 'em coming Sarge.

The co-sponsor of the bill to reform Fannie & Freddy in 2005 was a guy name McCain......Ya might of heard of him.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Oh that was hilarious; keep 'em coming Sarge"

When goodDonkey is unable to refute something, this is what he comes up with. Pathetic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey, when is President Obama going to get take up Rush Limbaugh on his offer to transport him, at no cost to the taxpayers ( unlike this trip to Burbank ), to the EIB Building in New York to debate him? Heck, President Obama should be able to easily mop the floor with Limbaugh, right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If they are not to expect anything from government, why is he expanding government like there is no tomorrow, claiming that only government is the solution to everything?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, Limbaugh is in no position to ask for such a debate with any elected official, much less dictate the terms. Limbaugh has his head in the clouds as much you have yours up your....

Limbaugh is clown. The POTUS does not debate with clowns. He has work to do; the POTUS that is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"He has work to do; the POTUS that is"

Yeah, work to do, like joking with Leno, right?

The POTUS is too chicken to debate Limbaugh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, work to do, like joking with Leno, right?

Yes, Sarge. Like joking with Leno ON NATIONAL TELEVISION. It is a constructive thing for the POTUS to do such things to restore the humor and confidence of the American people, not to mention urging them to get real about their expectations of government.

Debating the clown would not be constructive. It would be destructive. Its also not a matter of being chicken. Its a matter of not lowering himself to Limbaugh's very low station.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Debates with Limbaugh?

Don't know much about the shock jock business in the US, but I did have the misfortune of being subjected daily to Limbaugh's verbal diarrhoea courtesy of AFN while deployed to the desert with some US colleagues many years ago (one of whom ended up shooting the radio in disgust). My impression is that Limbaugh (like most bottom-feeding shock jocks) does not debate. He badgers, he berates, he ridicules, he stereotypes, he grandstands, and most of all he tends to see himself as a demagogue. Unfortunately, he doesn't debate.

Moreover, any use of the word, "Chicken" in the same sentence as "Limbaugh" should also include the term "hawk."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama might debate Limbaugh in 2011 if he's a serious contender for president. Until then he's just another disgruntled republican. No different then Laura Ingram or that Savage dude.

I've really been enjoying myself lately. The last 8 years the republicans rarely spoke in contention to what the president was doing wrong. But it's been so sweet that they finally found their voices and cajones.

Didn't Ronald Reagan do some sort of victory tour after he was elected, hype up his agenda and then get some enormous package signed? I'm trying to remember the details. Isn't that what Barack Obama is doing? Then I'm sure that the republicans understand.

I mean I rememeber that george bush pushed through his $4Trillion tax give away to the rich, richer and richest right after he was elected. While he had popularity and before he proved to be an absolute liar. So what Barack Obama is doing is only par for the course of U. U. politics. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

aday: Regan was elected in 80. You could not have been able to make a qualified assessment of what was going at that age.

I think it was good for a President to sit down with a popular show host, at least Leno caters to my age bracket.

But, still, asking Americans not to ask for much is a bit off course of his campaign and for the very young voters.... I still wish he could say to Washington "don't ask too much of Americans as we are already taking too much cash from them - even when taxes were good"!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

for those posters who keep yelling Kennedy's "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" is bs.

As long as I put my cash into their pot so they can live high on the hog, they shouldn't able to ask me for a thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hello..if you throw millions away to save the rich, why would it not be reasonable for starving people to expect at least a meager handout?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good point about Limbaugh! If he wants to debate anybody (the President or those within the GOP with whom he disagrees), why doesn't Rush throw his ample-sized hat into the ring, rather than hiding behind "freedom of speech" and grandstanding to the max.

It is time to put up or shutup Rush baby, you missed your chance to serve your country in Vietnam, however, that hasn't stopped you from wrapping yourself in the flag and slandering real American patriots (those grunts who you claimed were not real soldiers). Now is your chance to change all that, get off the political fence and join the debate, instead of pxssing in the wind. If you are the Furhrer that you claim to be, the American people will embrace you with open arms.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Compared to the moment in time that the elections started the economy has taken a nose dive. The prior administration and his cabinet continued to extol the virtues and the strenth of the economy while keeping the country in the dark about the on-coming recession and the total collapse of the stock market and those companies like AIG, Merrill... and the BOA.

No I don't think that he's off course and I think that attempting to satisfy all his promises along with fixing the economy is a damn big tasks.

Remember the deficits that dick cheney scoffed at and the republicans repeated his inane statement over and over again.

These are those deficits that dick cheney scoffed at. This is the recession that the republicans refused to recognize last year. This is the "R" word that the republicsns refused to allow cross their lips.

Barack Obama isn't crying. He's stating right up front that he's doing his best and that he can't do everything. They will have to be patient.

But I do love how the republicans have gotten their voices, aren't you? Aren't you happy that the republicans now have the forthwith to criticize the administration. Too bad they were mute before, then what they have to say might actually be believed.

2009 the economy will level out and start to slowly pick up.

2010 the economy will make a strong comback.

2011 when the next election season starts to take real big steps, the republicans will be stammering about how they back the country and the comeback was the results of the republicans.

Can't wait. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, Puh-lease. The F-Macs did not cause the economic meltdown, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, SEC chairman Christopher Cox, and former Treasury secretary John Snow all confirmed as much before congress. Fannie and Freddie played their parts in the meltdown, but the first link in the chain was mortgage brokers giving away mortgages to unqualified borrowers, instead of insisting the borrower be able to pay it back. BTW, Fannie's loan performance was actually better than the market in general. Furthermore, the President has no obligation to debate limp-pole, because it's simply beneath a President to answer the challenge of an unpopular talk radio hack. That's right, I said, "UNpopular". A gallup poll taken last month showed twice as many people disapprove of limp-pole as do approve of him. Hypocritical of limp-pole, when he is too chicken cluck cluck cluck to debate Rep. Brad Sherman (D-California). I'll be interested to watch the president's popularity rating over the next few days, currently 62% according to gallup.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can't find Rush mentioned anywhere in the article. Though he does happen to be the Republican villain of the week lately. Wonder who the Dem's will paint next week as the latest incarnation of pure Republican evil after they get all the mileage they can outta Rush, (who has only been saying the same hackneyed partisan stuff for over twenty years now).

I'm guessing they could kick the tires on ole Joe the Plumber once again, or maybe Palin. I hear Bobby Jindal could use a little more loathing also from the Dems.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fannie and Freddie were symptoms not the disease. The disease was an out-of-control, unregulated financial system which found ways around the reserve requirements of the banking system. Once they came up with all this extra money to lend out, of course they gave it to unqualified borrowers. They are lenders, they had to lend it to somebody, so they could sell the debt to foreign banks and then create even more money and imaginary wealth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" is bs.

As long as I put my cash into their pot so they can live high on the hog, they shouldn't able to ask me for a thing."

I will second that one skipthesong! Americans generously give a lot of money to charity and voluntarily do volunteer work (not the FORCED volunteer work Obama is proposing), and Americans do all this on top of working much harder, in much less comfortable circumstances, and with considerably less pay than the fatcats on capital hill that stuff their wallets with tax payers money and then say callus things to unemployed people like "don`t expect something for nothing". I am utterly disgusted with these kinds of attitudes from government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The disease was an out-of-control, unregulated financial system which found ways around the reserve requirements of the banking system" And you think the US government of today, repub or dem, has the answers?

Once they came up with all this extra money to lend out, of course they gave it to unqualified borrowers" No, it became harder for us to refuse. Even gave to recent parolees. No firm of that time wanted to go through court proving a person couldn't pay and on top of that they made it easier for small firms to come up. Much of the problems were those people who borrowed knowing they couldn't pay back.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm quite happy that rush limbaugh is grooming himself as some sort of Shrieksman for the GOP. With any luck it'll split the party and those not adhering to rush's brand of mouth-foaming fundieism will set up a party more in keeping with what the GOP used to be like.

Comparing King Shriek to Jay Leno isn't very honest.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama asks Americans not to expect too much from gov't...

Funny, that's not what he said when he was running for president. Now he's just forking over yet more taxpayer dollars to crooked bankers. Business as usual in DC.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Agree with ca1ic0cat, Obama asks Americans not to expect too much from gov't, in other words: Obama asks Americans not to expect too much from him, who represents the government, in other words: Obama tells the Americans that they chose the wrong president. But anyway in such current mess, its no one can easily and really think of a way to solve the financial crisis. He should have convinced the Americans and give confidence to them instead of saying so. Americans' confidence in its own economy is very important in the current situation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Jay: "Hey, Kev, what's the difference between an AIG executive and a drunken Irishman?

Kev: What's that?

Jay: A drunken Irishman spends his own money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The problems in the Us started decades ago by continually running budget deficits, unfunded stimulus packages and simultaneously delivering tax cuts. Who could run a business like that? The real villain was the average American who for ten years from 1995 refinanced $600 billion a year in home mortgages to pay for holidays, boats, jet skis, mobile homes, consumption and so on. That is why Greenspan had to drop interest rates to 1% to avoid a collapse of the banking system. When he was replaced Bernanke hiked rates to 5% and it all started to unfold. The sub-prime debacle came at the very end when it appeared US interest rates would remain low like they have in Japan since 1991. Behind every financial crisis since the 1970's is a central bank getting it wrong. You put levers in front of them and at some point they always want to try them out. Many people invested through this period by borrowing against their home in fear of being left behind. The only way out of this mess is to start "building on the rock", not the shifting sands that Obama is delivering. Words will not help in this crisis. It will take a strategy from someone who understands money. It seems there is no one left in the US or Europe. On the present course everyone is going to be a loser.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Business as usual in D.C."

Change!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The resulting large deficits will be temporary and justified

that's what they said about income tax over a hundred years ago.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Don't expect too much from government : if government can not deliver ,it is because you expect too much hence it is your fault. Don't expect something for nothing : more taxes? Promise of bighter days ahead: well, it is kind of "hope for change" isn't it? Government will make mistakes here and there :don't surprise if things don't go well. Maybe he now knows that the task ahead is just too much.If during election campaign ,he said something like these, John McCain would be in the White House by now. Gambare...for better or worse, President Obama still has nearly looong 4 years to go.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Jay: "President Obama is very upset with AIG. He said the problems at AIG are caused by greed, to which AIG said, "Well, what do you think the G stands for? Hello!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Right is so inconsequential.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hereandthere quoted:

He said the money would be used to buy up and rehabilitate vacant homes, and provide loans to poorer and middle-income families to help with home assistance.

and then said:

isn't that what lead to housing slide in the first place?

No. that is not what happened but it is what the dumbass conservative commentators keep telling their minions happened and the conservative idiots believe it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Jay: "Did you see President Obama standing next to Governor Schwarzenegger? Didn't the president look like the head of a company who's introducing its latest cyborg model to the world?"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge at 11:52 AM JST - 20th March

/

"Oh that was hilarious; keep 'em coming Sarge"

/

When goodDonkey is unable to refute something, this is what he comes up with. Pathetic.

I got news for you Sarge you can't refute a negative. What you are saying never happened. I can't prove something that never happened, never happened.

sailwind brought up legislation proposed in 2005; just which chamber of congress were the Democrats in charge of then? Executive? Judicial?

sailwind said:

The co-sponsor of the bill to reform Fannie & Freddy in 2005

As usual Sarge you are full of it. The Democrats never blocked the Republican efforts to pass a bill on Fannie/Freddy reform.

Sarge, put up or shut up!

2005 - Why not reform it then? Republicans had control of Congress and the Executive branch.

If this bill had failed a cloture vote in the Senate the Republicans might have an argument - that is if and only if the margin of any Republicans voting against cloture did not bring the threshold below the 60 votes needed.

The vote never even took place so this is just another deception by the conservatives on JT.

Where was the House vote at least?

Conservatives please quit lying. We will find you out and expose you.

The Democrats never ever blocked any bill by the Republicans to reform Fannie and Freddie.

Please stop the lies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites