Clever speech by Obama

[Gob]

Theodore Roosevelt disagreed. He was the Republican son of a wealthy family. He praised what the titans of industry had done to create jobs and grow the economy. He believed then what we know is true today, that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. It's led to a prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world.

But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can. He understood the free market only works when there are rules of the road that ensure competition is fair and open and honest. And so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for consumers with better services and better prices. And today, they still must. He fought to make sure businesses couldn't profit by exploiting children or selling food or medicine that wasn't safe. And today, they still can't.

And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism. “Our country,” he said, “…means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy…of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.”

Now, for this, Roosevelt was called a radical. He was called a socialist -- (laughter) -- even a communist. But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign: an eight-hour work day and a minimum wage for women -- insurance for the unemployed and for the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax.


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... ernational

[dales]

"Speak softly, carry a big stick."

[Andrew D]

Not just clever; spot-on right. In November we will face a choice: Continue the right-wing insanity that has led us to disaster or elect people who actually want to solve middle-class America's problems.

This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. Because what's at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement.

Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that's happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

I am here to say they are wrong.

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt's time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let's respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes -- especially for the wealthy -- our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn't trickle down, well, that's the price of liberty.

Now, it's a simple theory. And we have to admit, it's one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That's in America's DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here's the problem: It doesn't work.

It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn't work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It's not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn't work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it's not as if we haven't tried this theory.

Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history. And what did it get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class -- things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security.

Remember that in those same years, thanks to some of the same folks who are now running Congress, we had weak regulation, we had little oversight, and what did it get us? Insurance companies that jacked up people's premiums with impunity and denied care to patients who were sick, mortgage lenders that tricked families into buying homes they couldn't afford, a financial sector where irresponsibility and lack of basic oversight nearly destroyed our entire economy.

We simply cannot return to this brand of “you're on your own” economics if we're serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country. (Applause.) We know that it doesn't result in a strong economy. It results in an economy that invests too little in its people and in its future. We know it doesn't result in a prosperity that trickles down. It results in a prosperity that's enjoyed by fewer and fewer of our citizens.

Inequality also distorts our democracy. It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and it runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder. (Applause.) It leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in Washington is rigged against them, that our elected representatives aren't looking out for the interests of most Americans.

But there's an even more fundamental issue at stake. This kind of gaping inequality gives lie to the promise that's at the very heart of America: that this is a place where you can make it if you try. We tell people -- we tell our kids -- that in this country, even if you're born with nothing, work hard and you can get into the middle class. We tell them that your children will have a chance to do even better than you do. That's why immigrants from around the world historically have flocked to our shores.

And yet, over the last few decades, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk. You know, a few years after World War II, a child who was born into poverty had a slightly better than 50-50 chance of becoming middle class as an adult. By 1980, that chance had fallen to around 40 percent. And if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it's estimated that a child born today will only have a one-in-three chance of making it to the middle class -- 33 percent.

It's heartbreaking enough that there are millions of working families in this country who are now forced to take their children to food banks for a decent meal. But the idea that those children might not have a chance to climb out of that situation and back into the middle class, no matter how hard they work? That's inexcusable. It is wrong.

[dgs49]

OK ladies, put up or shut up.

There is not much question that things have gotten worse for - let's call it - the "Working Class," which I will define as people with a high school diploma who share the American Work Ethic. People who are willing to work hard, but ain't much for book larnin' or technical stuff.

The kind of people who, in generations past, would have worked at the local factory or steel mill or gotten a construction job. Maybe they drove a truck or a cab. Those kinds of jobs used to provide a good living, good benefits (for the time), and early retirement.

And those jobs are mainly gone as a result of our embrace of the global economy.

What, exactly, do the Democrats offer these folks?

Barry has promoted, to be honest, more government employment and lots of work on government construction projects. Much of this is by way of "stimulus," which, we are told, is a temporary measure to catalyze economic growth. Barry supports strong unions, and let's give him the benefit of the doubt and suppose that this is NOT entirely political - that actually thinks that unions are a net booster of the economy (a position which is dubious, at best).

Let's hear it. What do the Democrats offer? What does Barry offer, other than packaged and polished envy?

[rubato]

Those 'jobs are mainly gone' because Unions have been demasculated.


From 1940 until 1970 wages for the average male worker increased relative to inflation. From 1975 to the present they have gone down (or been close to zero) because Unions were destroyed.


yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

Nice speech, but Teddy Roosevelt was a fruit-loop.

Refused to help Pancho Villa rise against the tyrannical, wealthy land[slave]owners on the Haciendas, then claimed his 'Rough Riders' repelled the "Mexican Banditos" - who were trying bloodlessly to fund la Revolución, against same.

This was after he cured his depression by killing, literally, thousands of animals on safari.

Nice try, but no thX.

[BoSoxGal]

"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." ~ T.R.

[quaddriver]

or elect people who actually want to solve middle-class America's problems.

We have some of those running? I guess you are advocating a complete replacement of the executive and legislative branches....

[quaddriver]

Those 'jobs are mainly gone' because Unions have been demasculated.


From 1940 until 1970 wages for the average male worker increased relative to inflation. From 1975 to the present they have gone down (or been close to zero) because Unions were destroyed.


yrs,
rubato

Unions create jobs?

And here I thought it was sales of products.

you by any chance dont happen to work for the mob do you?

[dgs49]

So in response I see a collossally stupid response from rubato and nothing from Andrew. Nothing from anyone else.

What, exactly, are Democrats proposing that will substantially improve the prospect of Working Class Americans?

Another Smoot Hawley?

Inquiring minds are dying to know.

[Scooter]

Smoot Hawley was passed under a Republican congress and presidency. And whether or not it had any effect on the economy, positive or negative, is debatable against the cataclysmic backdrop in which it operated.

[Andrew D]

So in response I see ... nothing from Andrew. Nothing from anyone else.

Considering that I just now (well, just a few minutes ago) saw your response, I have hardly been derelict.

What, exactly, are Democrats proposing that will substantially improve the prospect of Working Class Americans?

Lamentably, the Democrats have been reduced to trying to stop the Republicans from screwing middle-class America even harder. Before repairing the damage, one must work to prevent even further damage.

Another Smoot Hawley?

Inquiring minds are dying to know.

Inquiring minds already know at least one thing:

The Republicans in Congress want to impose a tax increase on working Americans.

They have been dead-set against allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for the richest Americans -- those taking in $1,000,000 or more per year -- but now they want the payroll tax cut for ordinary, working Americans to expire.

And that reminds us of an essential feature of modern American politics: The Republican leaders in Congress do not represent even the Republican voters in America, let alone the majority of voters in America. I cannot think of a time when the leaders of an American political party were so divorced from the opinions of their own party's members.

Preventing the Republicans in Congress -- not to be confused with Republicans in America -- from imposing a tax hike on ordinary, working Americans while shielding the richest Americans from any tax hike will "substantially improve the prospect of Working Class Americans". Which is why the Republicans in Congress oppose it.

[quaddriver]

Is that entirely true?

Is not renewing a tax cut (which the democrats have said for years they need to repeal) a tax increase?

Again we are into the semantics.

a) we dont take in enuf revenue
b) the majority of the revenue we do take in comes from the middle class
c) even with this tax cut repealed, about half of americans (read: the poor and lower middle class) wont pay zip

This is why I suggest no one in office, or running has a clue

Each bush era tax cut has been renewed by obama, and the DEM controlled congress since Bush signed them. Depending on the day of the week, the democrats advertise each tax cut is for the wealthy down to $50K per year

The democrats gave $4T to the banks at 100 cents on the dollar to back risky failed instruments made only to influence an election.

The democrats continue to fund questionable social programs at 100 cents on the dollar that create no jobs, send manufacturing, food production and service centers to china and india and prop up banks for the next venture: fee soaking of the poor.

Fix those two items first.

[Sue U]

The democrats gave $4T to the banks at 100 cents on the dollar to back risky failed instruments made only to influence an election.

That plan was hatched by Hank Paulson and George W. Bush. And it was "made only to influence an election" only to the extent that keeping the economy from total collapse was "only to influence an election." (P.S., it was the Republican nominee, slipping in the polls, who wanted to suspend the election campaign "because of the financial crisis.")

I don't know what would fix the US economy, but I'm pretty sure that more tax cuts for the wealthy, gutting environmental and safety regulations, and shutting down the government ain't it. Businesses are sitting on mountains of cash and cash-equivalents; as a starter, they have to be encouraged/coerced to start circulating it back through the economy.

ETA:

BTW, the Obama who gave that speech up the thread? That guy I'd vote for. I wonder where he's been the last three years?

[quaddriver]

The democrats gave $4T to the banks at 100 cents on the dollar to back risky failed instruments made only to influence an election.

That plan was hatched by Hank Paulson and George W. Bush. And it was "made only to influence an election" only to the extent that keeping the economy from total collapse was "only to influence an election." (P.S., it was the Republican nominee, slipping in the polls, who wanted to suspend the election campaign "because of the financial crisis.")

I don't know what would fix the US economy, but I'm pretty sure that more tax cuts for the wealthy, gutting environmental and safety regulations, and shutting down the government ain't it. Businesses are sitting on mountains of cash and cash-equivalents; as a starter, they have to be encouraged/coerced to start circulating it back through the economy.

ETA:

BTW, the Obama who gave that speech up the thread? That guy I'd vote for. I wonder where he's been the last three years?

You misunderstood me, I did not mean to reply that the bailout was meant to influence the election. I meant to say that the events leading to it - i.e. the shady and oft illegal practices the banks and funds undertook to create paper portfolios, use them to bid oil twice the asking price was done to purposefully collapse the economy to redirect the election. It worked and I dont see us ever recovering.

[Rick]

BTW, the Obama who gave that speech up the thread? That guy I'd vote for. I wonder where he's been the last three years?

He was hiding and writing that speech of course...

[quaddriver]

BTW, the Obama who gave that speech up the thread? That guy I'd vote for. I wonder where he's been the last three years?

He was hiding and writing that speech of course...

and killing bin laden. dont forget that.

[Andrew D]

c) even with this tax cut repealed, about half of americans (read: the poor and lower middle class) wont pay zip.

Huh?

Even if the payroll tax cut is repealed, "about half of americans (read: the poor and lower middle class) wont pay zip" in payroll taxes?

[quaddriver]

c) even with this tax cut repealed, about half of americans (read: the poor and lower middle class) wont pay zip.

Huh?

Even if the payroll tax cut is repealed, "about half of americans (read: the poor and lower middle class) wont pay zip" in payroll taxes?

right now, the zero tax margin is such that high 40% to 50% of americans do not pay any federal tax. the repeal of this 'tax cut' will not influence that in any meaningful way. This tax cut affects the middle class the most (I and most of you reading this) got it. It was worth about $1500ish to me last year. while I liked it, I believe I wrote that it was money better held in the US coffers.

[dgs49]

OK, let's define our terms here.

Half of American households don't pay any net Federal Income Tax. But everyone who works for wages or owns a business pays the so-called "payroll taxes," mainly FICA.

For the past twenty years or so, every time any Republicans has suggested a change to the system that feeds the mythical "Social Security Trust Fund," the Democrats have raised holy hell about their bankrupting the system.

But the Democrats a few years ago devised a way to give a "tax cut" to people who pay no Federal Income Taxes: they would reduce the payroll taxes by a couple percent. Curious onlookers wondered why Bush43's suggestion of allowing younger workers to take a portion of their payroll taxes and invest it was going to prematurely bankrupt the "Trust Fund," while allowing EVERYBODY to pay substantially less into it was "no problem," but whatever...

Now, with the payroll tax cut about to expire, the Democrats (as illustrated by Andrew's comments above) wish to present the American voter with a cunning contrast between the Republicans' desire to extend the Bush43 tax cuts for "millionaires and billionaires," and their willingness to allow the payroll tax cut for Working Americans to expire.

The heartless bastards.

The basic points are not really in dispute. The highest earners (often erroneously referred to as "The Rich") are already paying the vast majority of the total income taxes paid, albeit at rates that are somewhat lower than some previous generations of high earners have paid. Parenthetically, some economists have produced data that indicate that the highest earners ALWAYS PAY ABOUT THE SAME PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL REVENUES regardless of the tax rates, because they have the ability to manipulate their taxable incomes from year to year, depending on the expected tax treatment. This is because the top earners are generally investors and business owners, and NOT people like Alex Rodriques (and now Albert Pujols) who get a $2M/mo paycheck.

The Democrats believe that the current fiscal crisis could be greatly improved if only The Rich would pay their "fair share" of the total tax burden. (It is doubtful that any knowledgeable Democrats actually believe this, since they know how high earners can avoid taxes as well as anyone). Thus, they want to increase marginal tax rates on people with taxable earnings above some high number to be determined later.

On the other hand, those same Democrats claim to be willing to couple these tax increases with reductions in spending, but those theoretical spending reductions are rather indistinct and off in the future. More poignantly, the Democrats have shown NO willingness to propose ANY spending reductions in the only budget areas that can provide meaningful benefit: Entitlements. Indeed, they are playing political games in this area by effectively DARING any Republican to suggest any change or reduction in SS, Medicare, or Medicaid, so that they can demagogue the issue for political plunder. The only budget area where Democrats clearly are willing to make "sacrifices" is in Defense. What a surprise.

I truly wonder why Andrew thinks that the Republicans in Congress are out of touch with their Republican constituents. Didn't we vote them in? Is this not the essence of "representative government"? The general public does not have the time, intelligence, or resources to research every issue that comes before Congress, so we vote for people who have a similar political outlook, and rely on them to do the research and vote our interests, even when particular positions they might take seem a little out of step. The MSM has done a good job of supporting POTUS with the fatuous picture of Rich, greedy bastards unwilling to pay a fair amount of taxes, kept aloft by evil Republicans, but really, is this relevant to anything?

Could one not say the same thing about Democrats being out of touch with their constituents? How many Democrats support the nonsense that Pelosi and Reid ahve done over the past couple years? Do they represent anyone besides the NEA and the SEIU?

Republicans know that a broad-based tax increase is the worst thing that could possibly be done right now, and further, that any resulting blip in Federal revenues will be temporary. They also know that the U.S. Federal government does not have a REVENUE problem, but rather a SPENDING problem, that would only be made worse by an influx of new money. History repeats itself, eh?

Quoting Andrew: "The Republicans in Congress want to impose a tax increase on working Americans."

It wasn't that long ago that you used to post rational thoughts, rather than just quoting vacuous Democrat talking points. Allowing a temporary payroll tax cut to expire is a "tax increase"?

How, oh how, will working class Americans endure this $2/wk reduction in their takehome pay? Spam for Christmas dinner?