Reich begins: "The President's speech today in Osawatomie, Kansas - where Teddy Roosevelt gave his 'New Nationalism' speech in 1910 - is the most important economic speech of his presidency in terms of connecting the dots, laying out the reasons behind our economic and political crises, and asserting a willingness to take on the powerful and the privileged that have gamed the system to their advantage. Here are the highlights (and, if you’ll pardon me, my annotations):"
President Barack Obama speaks about the economy at Osawatomie High School, in Kansas, 12/06/11. (photo: Carolyn Kaster/AP)
The Most Important Speech of His Presidency
07 December 11
Obama's 99% Speech in Kansas
he President's speech today in Osawatomie, Kansas - where Teddy Roosevelt gave his "New Nationalism" speech in 1910 - is the most important economic speech of his presidency in terms of connecting the dots, laying out the reasons behind our economic and political crises, and asserting a willingness to take on the powerful and the privileged that have gamed the system to their advantage.
Here are the highlights (and, if you'll pardon me, my annotations):
For most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefitted from that success. Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and investments than ever before. But everyone else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t - and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up.
He’s absolutely right – and it’s the first time he or any other president has clearly stated the long-term structural problem that’s been widening the gap between the very top and everyone else for thirty years – the breaking of the basic bargain linking pay to productivity gains.
For many years, credit cards and home equity loans papered over the harsh realities of this new economy. But in 2008, the house of cards collapsed.
Exactly. But the first papering over was when large numbers of women went into paid work, starting the in the late 1970s and 1980s, in order to prop up family incomes that were stagnating or dropping because male wages were under siege – from globalization, technological change, and the decline of unions. Only when this coping mechanism was exhausted, and when housing prices started to climb, did Americans shift to credit cards and home equity loans as a means of papering over the new harsh reality of an economy that was working for a minority at the top but not for most of the middle class.
We all know the story by now: Mortgages sold to people who couldn’t afford them, or sometimes even understand them. Banks and investors allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off. Huge bets - and huge bonuses - made with other people’s money on the line. Regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this, but looked the other way or didn’t have the authority to look at all.
It was wrong. It combined the breathtaking greed of a few with irresponsibility across the system. And it plunged our economy and the world into a crisis from which we are still fighting to recover. It claimed the jobs, homes, and the basic security of millions - innocent, hard-working Americans who had met their responsibilities, but were still left holding the bag.
Precisely – and it’s about time he used the term "wrong" to describe Wall Street’s antics, and the abject failure of regulators (led by Alan Greenspan and the Fed) to stop what was going on. But these "wrongs" were only the proximate cause of the economic crisis. The underlying cause was, as the President said before, the breaking of the basic bargain linking pay to productivity.
Ever since, there has been a raging debate over the best way to restore growth and prosperity; balance and fairness. Throughout the country, it has sparked protests and political movements - from the Tea Party to the people who have been occupying the streets of New York and other cities. It’s left Washington in a near-constant state of gridlock. And it’s been the topic of heated and sometimes colorful discussion among the men and women who are running for president.
But this isn’t just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make or break moment for the middle class, and all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. 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, and secure their retirement.
Right again. It is the defining issue of our time. But I wish he wouldn’t lump the Tea Party in with the Occupiers. The former hates government; the latter focuses blame on Wall Street and corporate greed – just where the President did a moment ago.
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 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 have stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for too many years. Their philosophy is simple: we are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.
He might have been a bit stronger here. The "they" who are suffering collective amnesia include many of the privileged and powerful who have gained enormous wealth by using their political muscle to entrench their privilege and power. In other words, it’s not simply or even mainly amnesia. It’s a clear and concerted strategy.
Well, I’m here to say they are wrong. I’m here to reaffirm my deep conviction that we are greater together than we are on our own. I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, and when everyone plays by the same rules. Those aren’t Democratic or Republican values; 1% values or 99% values. They’re American values, and we have to reclaim them.
Amen.
…
In 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here, to Osawatomie, and 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."
Some background: In 1909, Herbert Croly, a young political philosopher and journalist, argued in his best-selling The Promise of American Life that the large American corporation should be regulated by the nation and directed toward national goals. "The constructive idea behind a policy of the recognition of the semi-monopolistic corporation is, of course, the idea that they can be converted into economic agents…for the national economic interest," Croly wrote. Teddy Roosevelt’s New Nationalism embraced Croly’s idea.
For this, Roosevelt was called a radical, a socialist, 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, the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax.
Today, over one hundred years later, our economy has gone through another transformation. Over the last few decades, huge advances in technology have allowed businesses to do more with less, and made it easier for them to set up shop and hire workers anywhere in the world. And many of you know firsthand the painful disruptions this has caused for a lot of Americans.
Factories where people thought they would retire suddenly picked up and went overseas, where the workers were cheaper. Steel mills that needed 1,000 employees are now able to do the same work with 100, so that layoffs were too often permanent, not just a temporary part of the business cycle. These changes didn’t just affect blue-collar workers. If you were a bank teller or a phone operator or a travel agent, you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs or the internet. Today, even higher-skilled jobs like accountants and middle management can be outsourced to countries like China and India. And if you’re someone whose job can be done cheaper by a computer or someone in another country, you don’t have a lot of leverage with your employer when it comes to asking for better wages and benefits - especially since fewer Americans today are part of a union.
Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there’s been a certain crowd in Washington for the last few decades who respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. "The market will take care of everything," they tell us. If only we cut more regulations and cut more taxes - especially for the wealthy - our economy will grow stronger. Sure, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everyone else. And even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, they argue, that’s the price of liberty.
It’s a simple theory - one that speaks to our rugged individualism and healthy skepticism of too much government. It fits well on a bumper sticker. Here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It’s never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible post-war boom of the 50s and 60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade.
Obama is advocating Croly’s proposal that large corporations be regulated for the nation’s good. But he’s updating Croly. The next paragraphs are important.
Remember that in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history, and what did they 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 years, thanks to some of the same folks who are running Congress now, we had weak regulation and little oversight, and what did that get us? Insurance companies that jacked up people’s premiums with impunity, and denied care to the 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 your-on-your-own economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country. We know that it doesn’t result in a strong economy. It results in an economy that invests too little in its people and its future. 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.
Look at the statistics. In the last few decades, the average income of the top one percent has gone up by more than 250%, to $1.2 million per year. For the top one hundredth of one percent, the average income is now $27 million per year. The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her workers now earns 110 times more. And yet, over the last decade, the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by about six percent.
The very first time the President has emphasized this grotesque trend. Now listen for how he connects this with the deterioration of our economy and democracy:
This kind of inequality - a level we haven’t seen since the Great Depression - hurts us all. When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, it drags down the entire economy, from top to bottom. America was built on the idea of broad-based prosperity - that’s why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so that they could buy the cars they made. It’s also why a recent study showed that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.
Inequality also distorts our democracy. It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder. And 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.
More fundamentally, this kind of gaping inequality gives lie to the promise at the very heart of America: that this is the place where you can make it if you try. We tell people that in this country, even if you’re born with nothing, hard work can get you into the middle class; and that your children will have the chance to do even better than you. That’s why immigrants from around the world flocked to our shores.
And what it’s done to equal opportunity, and how it’s eroded upward mobility:
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. 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 fell to around 40%. 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 1 in 3 chance of making it to the middle class.
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’s wrong. It flies in the face of everything we stand for.
What should we do about this? Not turn to protectionism or become neo-Luddites. Nor turn to some version of government planning.
Fortunately, that’s not a future we have to accept. Because there’s another view about how we build a strong middle class in this country - a view that’s truer to our history; a vision that’s been embraced by people of both parties for more than two hundred years.
It’s not a view that we should somehow turn back technology or put up walls around America. It’s not a view that says we should punish profit or success or pretend that government knows how to fix all society’s problems. It’s a view that says in America, we are greater together - when everyone engages in fair play, everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share.
So what does that mean for restoring middle-class security in today’s economy?
It starts by making sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success. The truth is, we’ll never be able to compete with other countries when it comes to who’s best at letting their businesses pay the lowest wages or pollute as much as they want. That’s a race to the bottom that we can’t win - and shouldn’t want to win. Those countries don’t have a strong middle-class. They don’t have our standard of living.
In 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here, to Osawatomie, and laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism. …
The fact is, this crisis has left a deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. And major banks that were rescued by the taxpayers have an obligation to go the extra mile in helping to close that deficit. At minimum, they should be remedying past mortgage abuses that led to the financial crisis, and working to keep responsible homeowners in their home. We’re going to keep pushing them to provide more time for unemployed homeowners to look for work without having to worry about immediately losing their house.
I wish the Obama administration had made this a condition for the banks receiving bailouts.
But there's far more to the speech. Read it in full. It lays out the basis for what could be the platform Obama will run on in 2012 - increasing taxes on the rich, investing in the rest us, requiring corporations and Wall Street banks that reap benefits from being in America create good jobs for Americans, and protecting our democracy from being corrupted by money - a new New Nationalism.
Here, finally, is the Barack Obama many of us thought we had elected in 2008. Since then we've had a president who has only reluctantly stood up to the moneyed interests Teddy Roosevelt and his cousin Franklin stood up to.
Hopefully Obama will carry this message through 2012, and gain a mandate to use his second term to take on the growing inequities and game-rigging practices that have been undermining the American economy and American democracy for years.
To view President Obama's entire speech, click here.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
http://the-moderates-perspective.blogspot.com/2011/09/idea-is-like-virus.html
which is from the blog The Moderates Perspective: www.the-moderates-perspective.blogspot.com
I assume CandH is referring to the FACT that the Obama talks a good talk but then shoves the banksters in our face (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/19-6) and puts them in charge of the hen house.
We need to show our dissatisfaction big time instead of being put to sleep by a new set of promises.
Anonymous 99 Video - Fight Back Against Corporate/Govt Crime & Lies by The Young Turks, Cenk Uygur:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huAYscv9-ZM
Yes, I voted for him, but my vote is now up in the air.
He has had three years of negatives thrown at him and a thousands no from this Congress of Thugs. Hopefully they will all be ousted and then he can really do much more than he has done.And he has done plenty but no credited given.
I keep reminding myself that probably none of us knows exactly what Obama has been dealing with. There's what we want (fairness, justice, strong advocacy for the people, etc.) and there's the reality of DC: MONEY RULES and so many of our elected officials are simply dancing to the tune of the puppet masters. My cynical side wonders about this new Obama, who sounds suspiciously like candidate Obama, and whether this will last. But realistically, not voting for him is in essence voting for letting the THUGS back into the White House. No, absolutely we cannot do that. I think maybe OWS has stiffened O's backbone, given him the kind of support that has a chance to overcome all the big bucks the K St crowd so freely throw around. We need to vote out every obstructionist ReTHUG and every Blue Dog Dem, put Obama back into the WH with the best congress we can find to elect, keep OWS strong and active. Then maybe we can effect real, lasting CHANGE! NO ONE PERSON CAN DO IT ALONE.
get rid of SS and Medicare
get rid of Obamacare
get rid of Child labor laws
get rid of Roe versus Wade
get rid of all unions
get rid of public schools
get rid of minimum wage
get rid of Fema
get rid of half the government (so stock markets can contol the govenment)
get rid of public schools
get rid of college, poor and blacks from voting.
Get rid of a womans right to choose.
Oh yess I can go on and on.
The President has finally awakend. Thank God.
Last week I and probably thousands of others received a "Merry Christmas" from CitiBank --- recipient of the largesse of U.S. taxpayers. This message was right to the point. The interest on our Exxon card will rise to 24.99 percent the first of the year. I'd had this card since 1977 and never missed a payment. No matter.
The customer can choose to refuse the new terms, the letter said, but refusal ends credit. Considering the vagaries of gas prices, credit can be the difference in getting to work or not.
This is, of course, usury -- an old term that USED to mean something bad. What we see here is that no matter the national anger, the vultures are doing business as usual. It will one day crash in on them, but they'll be so rich off our blood that it won't matter. They think!
Yes, it is time for Obama to say these things again. Above all, it is time overdue for him to MEAN them -- and act accordingly. For me, it means, Up Yours, CitiBank.
Like giving up concessions to the GOP before getting to the bargaining table.
Maybe that era has ended, but I fear it's still in the shadows.
I also hope that this message will ravage the Republican party and the Blue Dog Democrats and give rise to Progressive values.
Does anybody really believe another mandate will actually get mainstream Dems and Obama to match this kind of Progressive rhetoric with real Change? There is a REASON the Congressional Progressive Caucus is a small minority of Dems in Congress...that the mainstream Democratic Party is a Center-Right party, they are GOP-lite...
Don't get me wrong, I'll be voting for Obama because the GOP alternative is by definition going to be terrible. But while Obama is great at Progressive rhetoric, when it comes to apparent courage of convictions in pushing for that better Progressive agenda, he just doesn't seem to have it. I hope I will be pleasantly surprised beginning 2013, but I just don't think so.
With all due respect, I disagree with your assesment and analysis of the President. The President has been steadfast in his support for middle-class growth since day one. He has, since day one, been oppossed by both Republicans, and earlier, "Blue Dog" Democrats, in both the Senate and House. He's been put in a position to compromise with his opponents in order to get something done. In doing so, it seemed as if he was not standing up to them. Quietly, we find most of the "Blue Dog" Democrates gone and in their place, more Progressive replacements. Yesterday I read right here in RNS, that there are laws that kick in now that help the middle-class even more, and that just might turn this health-care law toward the direction of "Single Payer" Insurance. Something the President wanted from the beginning. In "lumping the Tea Party with Occupy Wall Street protesters" he wasn't suggesting that they were one and the same, rather, that even dissperate groups are protesting against the statis quo! And to this end Dr. Reich, the President is right. By November's election, we all will see that the President is on the right side of America's values and history. He IS the voice for our better angels!
He's been "put into a position to compromise"? Compromise? Let's see... he completely caved on the Bush taxes. He completely caved to the banks. He's outdone the Republicans on an aggressive war policy, including indescriminate drone attacks. He reneged on Guantanamo. His Justice dept has not prosecuted one bankster, even as the evidence is mounting that they knew and permitted unsafe lending practices. Obamacare is a joke. I'll believe the medical loss provisions will hurt the insurance companies when I see it. Yes, Obama is the voice for the angels. I would describe him more accurately as the spineless windbag for the angels. Last but not least, I will start to believe in Obama when he actually stands up for a single piece of progressive legislation that isn't tarred over with "compromise" - even if it means political defeat. Obama is not a loser. He is an "afraid to be a loser". In other words, he is a politician.
only how do we get past all of the roadblocks being erected by the privileged
few? Now their's a question that I believed must be addressed. Ira D. York
Sinse he is not going to run again, he can be his own man so to speak.
But to accomplish all on your list he would not need to be president. He would need to be GOD.
Also the republicans are NOT GOING AWAY.
They will be itching to take it all back in 2016, so WE ALL need to do what we can. And try to find talented people to run in 16. This is not over, if we win next year.
It is the beginning of hopefully getting the country in a better shape. To that end we MUST try to get the money out of politics.
This is a case of either----
TOO LATE MR. BIG TALKER.!
OR...
BETTER LATE THAN NEVER TO SAY AT LEAST SAY THIS... I guess...
If Obama loses the election, chances are high that all is lost and the Republic will fold into something else.
If Obama wins the election, maybe all is lost and the Republic folds into something else.
Because, his entire history as a President is one of constant compromise just as if the 'Center' is not ten thousand miles to the left from where he has been operating as Chief Executive (and Chief Compromiser) in his give-away dealings with CONservatives who always come forth with a singular objective
----- Their Panacea------
NO GOVERNMENT. ONLY BIG CORPORATE WANT AND GREED AND HOWEVER THAT ALL WORKS OUT.
His speech could have benefited from the following:
"When I came into office, I inherited an economy that was not just on the brink of Niagara Falls, but headlong plunging almost to the rocks below, driven there by the unbridled greed and reckless deregulation that the Republicans have the gall still today to claim as 'fiscal prudence' and 'the way to get the economy going again.' Yes, it will get the economy going again--right back over Niagara Falls.
"It was only because we put into place extraordinary measures that we stopped the ship of state smashing onto the rocks, and what you have seen in these past three years is the very difficult process of pulling the economy back up the Falls. And, no, we are not yet in some safe harbor miles upstream, enjoying the rapid growth and low unemployment and massive budget surpluses that my Republican predecessor inherited. But remember: the Bush years of greed and recklessness, of his 'trickle-down-t o-the-poor/gush -up-to-the-rich ' policies, pulled us out of the safe harbor and plunged us nearly to the rocks: and they want to do it again. DON'T LET THEM."
One thing is what we would really love, ......another what will WORK.
We want to WIN the election, not make the republicans go crazy.
The Luddites were the Occupy movement of 1811 ... except that they were hung on the gallows for their trouble, not just subjected to perrer spray.
Like Lemmings and Cynics (also consciously misrepresented by the rhetorical right), they merely opposed the inequities of the existing order.
Lemmings do not commit mass suicide. They find themselves in environmentally unsustainable circumstances and strike out for the "other" shore.
Cynics encourage self-reliance, simplicity of life and opposition to political and economic elites; they are the opposite of the misanthropists who the politico-plutoc rats claim them to be. Want a real cynic? Check out the Buddha, Christ (according to some tellings) and St. Francis.
And Luddites? They never opposed technological innovation. They just asked that the benefits of labor-saving devices be equitably spread. At least, they said, hand-loom weavers should be re-trained.
It's time to join hands! Let Lemmings, Cynics and Luddites combine ... not that we'd win, but as Richard Hooker said in the 16th century, at least "posterity may know we did not, loosely through silence, let things slip away, as in a dream."
Did you hear today Massey got off killing 29 coal miners last year. Fishing isstill dead in the Gulf & radiation is falling on the west coast while we plan construction of more Nuke plants & pollution pipelines across the middle of our nation. Talk, talk, talk, talk. I've been listening to people talk for 30 years while they've sent others through the crowd, picking our pockets. I'll only believe this when I see police taking the real thieves to jail, after receiving the same justice the pot smoker gets. Not just more pepper spraying the crowd to distract you from more pick-pockets.
I hope I'm not the first comment.
Obama has known this all along. Yet he has consistently screwed the middle class. He is a little too transparent.
He has known all this every time he agrees to policies making the rich richer and the rest of us paying for their crimes.
He has known all this while he keeps people incarcerated in military gulags around the world with no recourse, for ever.
He has known all this while he allows for suspected terrorists to be tortured under the expanded extreme rendition policies he learned from his predecessor.
He has known all this while he allows for more prosecutions of whistle blowers of governmental wrong doing than ever before.
He has known all this while he allows more illegal immigrants to be deported than ever before, while knowing our "fair trade" policies are destroying their home economies.
Mister double faced politician, you do not have my vote this time. I do not trust you any more.
Voting for the lesser of evils won't work any more. We still get evil "leaders".
Where is truth? We need a strong media that can tell it. But much of the media and talk shows have also been bought and paid for to enhance and preach corporate rule.
I have no money, but I can sign petitions. You can count on me for that.
I also have made available -- a free download on www.fmbr.com -- a plan to get the pharmaceutical drug pushers out of our schools of education, and use bio/neurofeedba ck to give the personal power of health back to the individual. This can cut healthcare costs greatly in the near future.
After three years of abject surrender to the conservatives, of failing to fight for a single progressive idea, of telling liberals to stop whining - now he's decided he wants to try sounding like a progressive. Even then he couldn't do it completely - throwing the Tea Party into a message about restoring the middle class is like throwing a message about the SS into talk about reducing antisemitism. The problem is that if he really meant any of this stuff he'd give Geithner and the rest of his trickle down economists the heave ho. Because he isn't - it leads me to believe this is just more talk and lies. Like the change he promised. He could have been a leader for the 99%, instead he's been a janitor for the 1% - trying to clean up their messes without changing anything.
He can nail the issue in his speech, but that did not mean anything last time and I have serious doubt it will in a 2nd term. I feel betrayed, yes, and while I expect I may vote for him as a "least of the evils" I don't believe anything better will come of it than we have seen for 4 years. Letting Geithner go anywhere but to a jail cell is a crime in itself. Same for Bernanke.
Question is, where is Obama's campaign funding coming from this time around?
Not too long ago I listened to an Obama speech where he said he believed that if Aemricans just worked hard enough they would advance and to basically keep the faith. Now that Occupy Wall Street has revealed gross inequities in America, Obama is singing a different tune.
Next Reich blames government regulators for failing to crack down on banks and Alan Greenspan. Never does he mention that President Clinton failed to ignore the warnings of Brooksley Bourn, his own appointee, (See PBS The Warning) who was attempting to investigate the banks and their derivatives. Instead, Bill Clinton sided with Alan Greenspan, a Goldman Sach's CEO and Citigroup. And let us not forget it was Clinton himself who reappointed Alan Greenspan. All this federal policy happened under Clinton's administration. And that is when Glass Steagall was overturned. Reich blithely skips through the NAFTA's Clinton pushed through which helped to break America's social contract with his workers.
Yes, Reich selectively reports and interprets history in my opinion. First with Clinton and now Obama.
Rather than fighting the corporate corruption that had destroyed our economy, by looting our jobs, our houses and our human dignity, he turned our economy over to the same guys who had done the looting.
Obama and his Justice Department have not put the big looters in jail, but have giving them more free hand-outs from American taxpayers.
Obama, Treasury Secretary Geithner and the Federal Reserve have given trillions to the big banks, while doing virtually nothing to aid the middle class folks who have lost their jobs and homes, thanks to the criminal bankers.
I judge President Obama, not by his eloquent words, but by his past acts. I find that his policies are no different than those of President George Bush, in some cases, they are worse.
Now that he is running for office again, he uses the words of Occupy Wall Street to make it appear he support the 99%. But, at the same time, he looks to his big bank and corporate donors to fill his campaign chest.
The big banks and corporations own President Obama, they bought him. Until we take private money out of our elections, we will never have a president who really represents the 99%.
The current danger is nuclear war, starting in the Middle East, then extending into the area of the Pacific. All those countries that are once again our enemies. When will we learn that the horror of war is no longer an option.
We, as citizens, must realize that we have to back up our convictions on Election Day by turning out and VOTING.
The Republicans have fooled the populace into voting AGAINST these principles with a slick, simple-minded ideology that is endlessly repeated in the paid and public media.
The President is telling it like it really is. Let's all listen... and ACT on it in the upcoming election.
He has chosen to be loyal to his pre-presidentia l convictions, in expectation that we who have been waiting for it during the years of "compromise politics", are having our wishes come true and will thank the Genie coming November
First, the president cannot legislate by himself, our constitution guarantees that Congress, those people we vote into office, has to craft bills and pass legislation. This a duty that Congress has, in large part, been unable or unwilling to do for the past three years. Remember, he is only the President, not a king.
Second, if we don't like the umbilical connection between Congress and K-Street, we need to change the way we fund elections. As long as it cost millions of dollars to run for office, candidates will have to find the money somewhere.
Third, skepticism is a mature and healthy reaction to the dynamics of an uncertain world in which motives are very difficult to ascertain. Cynicism is the reaction of an immature mind to the realization that it is an imperfect world that is often disappointing to the idealist.
Finally, for those of you who really think that a third party is the answer to all our problems, take a look at how that worked out in the 2000 election.
I am not an apologist for Obama--he has made mistakes and I take him to account for those mistakes. But I try to live in and with the real world no matter how imperfect, harsh and illogical it is. At this point in time, Obama is the best hope Liberals/Progre ssives have of seeing any semblance of sanity restored to this Democracy.
He hasn't proposed indicting banksters, that's for sure and less than that means continuing impunity by them.
This is just another Superman Obama theories put out by Idiots Galore. The bailout terms were signed, sealed and delivered by the Bush Administration months before Obama took office. I'm so tired of these American Idiots blaming everything for everybody on Obama. He inherited a shiteload of worms when he took office. I think he has done the best that could be done with the broken-down system the GOP left for the next president, which just happened to be Obama.
What we need is a dark horse candidate who has the charisma and drive to lead this Country away from this Second Great Depression.
What this Country also needs is a preferential voting system to make third parties viable. In that way we can genuinely voice our protest votes.Instead of the nonsense of being forced to vote for a candidate (Obama)as being the lesser of two evils. This is not a good system to express the genuine wishes of the people
With the present system, a third party is a 'splinter party' and the protest votes are lost.In other words, a dissatisfied Democrat who votes for a third party actually takes a vote away from the Democrats in the Republicans favor..
The Democratic and Republican parties know this as a fact of life, hence the political oligopoly of 'business as usual'.
Some of us here are singing praises for Obama's words and, it seems to me, in denial as regards his actions. In September of this year,referencin g the U.S. department of agriculture, CNN reported that in the last two years, in cities like Baltimore, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, and Little Rock, doctors said the numbers of malnourished children had doubled. Obama isn't Santa Claus. He cannot drop sacks of food down chimneys, but his inactions, those speeches he might have made, those cabinet postings he might have insisted upon, those investigations by the justice department into the criminal activities of wall street profiteers he could have requested, or to some degree initiated, are, I think, the proof in the pudding. His speech in Kansas was a stump speech. Stump speeches are the man's forte. He is wonderfully inspirational. He sends thrills up Chris Mathews' leg. But I have come to believe that he, and any candidate of either of our two parties who makes it through the primaries and eventually into the oval office is in the pocket of the corporatocracy. The corporations are running this country. Any vote for either the Republican, or the Democratic candidate is a vote for continued corporate rule. A third party candidate will not win. This is true. This time. But until enough of us demand a real voice, there will be only the illusion of change.
Now it's time to hold his feet to the fire, remind him of this speech every day until and after the next elections, get a huge screen teleprompter with this showing every time he speaks -and at the Repug' appearances and rallies too, until it sticks.
I wonder if the OWS mass has done something to influence this new (hopefully sincere) acknowledgment of the times speech?
I really think this might be a true sign of a good man who has finally had enough of patty-cake with the baddies.
We'll see but keep reminding him and hounding him.
How about starting with huge banners of "LESS MILITARY", "MORE INFRASTRUCTURE" , "HIGH-SPEED RAIL", "GREEN FUEL", UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE" and so on every time he emerges from the W.H.?
Opportunity knocks, what?
It should. His $1Billion campaign chest is paying for all of it, and Otpor's invaluable CIA/bankster backed assistance, of course. Even WH insider Carl Bernstein said on tele "the White House has got something BIG planned for 2012."
One suggestion: reinstate Glass-Steagall, and THAT would have saved him taking $999million from the banksters, making his election a landslide and not a "he's found God" joke.
But alas, it's not just about the US, as Europe, the ME/Asia, and Africa are all on fire per the banksters requests. And he is unconditionally their golden calf in those ongoing endeavors...but shock and awe isn't expected until after the election kids...bumpy hell ahead...
But if a Liberal like Mr. Reich uses the term "New Nationalism" for the good of the working/middle class or common man- it will be demonized. It will be compared,undoub tedly, to more Liberal-Democra t social engineering-onl y because the intent is to HELP PEOPLE with jobs and a way to feed their families. The Repubs are always attempting to fool the working class with their jingoistic rhetoric-their definition of "Nationalism." I hope every day that the common/working class man who has been fooled so often in the past "won't get fooled again."
Our first priority is the guys running the banks that ARE STILL screwing us; second: 'punish' (get even with) the one's that stole our money and try to get some of it back; not go on an "envy crusade" against anyone luckier or smarter than "you/me." That is a DISTRACTION. Are you trying to 'misdirect?'
I can't, try as I might, empathize with the idea that the president should even consider, much less enforce a cap on individual earnings. - at least not below a billion dollars a year, enough to allow for the existence of a leisure class we all could at least aspire to should we choose to engage in "the American Dream?"
So our man really did very well, day by day. Salutes are in order, instead of ideological nitpicking.
We will judge Obama Administration by what it does not what it says.
My feeds got me the Speech at: WhiteHouse.gov, Huffington Post with Reich and Lakoff articles posted, this link supplied by my friend Hank Stone.
Polya, "How to Solve It", says you have to "understand the problem", ask "what is the unknown".
IMO, OWS is spot on: (and witness poor MSMedia coverage).
Also, I believe the reality of AE911 truth that WTC was controlled demolition.
Also, see the reality of foul play by power elite in the Kennedy assassination.
Such cognition --- who shares it? ---
taints my political analysis.
Norbert Wiener wrote of "Belling the Cat"
and the frightful corruption of homeostasis caused by corrupt media -- that in-the-large corporate forces get away with behavior that'd never be tolerated in-the-small.
As to understanding the "unknown":
"We would rather be ruined than changed
We would rather die in our dread
Than climb the cross of the moment
And let our illusions die."
W.H. Auden
Clinton and Reagan are the ones who really had the gift of speaking. Remember when they keyed up the wrong State of the Union speech for Clinton on the tele, and he adlibbed the entire piece - one of his best.
Let me add 2 further insights that Reich misses:
"Only when this coping mechanism was exhausted [...] did Americans shift to credit cards and home equity loans"
-- he's blurring 2 decades of economic history into a simplistic answer. Credit cards only became _widely_ available (and were then pushed) as a mass-debt instrument in the late 70s as a way to "create" money. Home equity loans came out big time in the 90s.
"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."
-- OK, read the sentence people "rightly suspicious"... just suspicious? what other evidence of culpability do we need? The facts are there, are you telling me, mr president, that my suspicions are wrong? That I'M deluded? That washington hasn't sold out? Liar, Liar, pants on fire!
- to paraphrase: "you shall know them by their deeds, not by their words"
I think Obama could help the economy by granting pardons to anybody who defaults on a loan right now. The banks would then be forced to admit that they over leveraged their capital and that people cannot possibly pay back money that literally does not exist.
And even more important than the economy- how about standing up for integrity? Obama could get my vote if he gave a Presidential pardon to Bradley Manning. If Bush can pardon a real honest-to-God traitor like Scooter Libby, then Obama can pardon an honest-to-God hero like Manning.
You might note that during those two years under Obama, when they controlled the entire show - Speaker Pelosi never even allowed a vote to come up on passing a federal budget. The US operated for those two years w/0 a budget (spent like crazy though). This year, under R leadership, the house passed a budget - but Senate Majority leader Morman Reid, refused to allow it to come up for a vote in the Senate. 3 years without a federal budget.
Anyone remember the POTUS pounding on congress to pass a budget?
Nope.
We have to understand that part of the problem lies with us. When Van Jones was forced out by the corporofacists, where were the demonstrations against those who did the forcing? When health care legislation was pushed to the right by the insurance and pharma industries where was the massive response to those actions... responses that should have been directed at the corporations?
Its always going to be harder for the anti-corporate left to be heard. Corporations have been consolidating their media power for decades. Those who serve the corporate agenda, like the Tea Party, will always get preferential treatment and exposure. We, as Leftists, need to work twice as hard to make our presence felt. If we're not willing to work twice as hard and twice as effectively then there is no reason why any politician should listen to us.
His paper, the WaPost, fact checked it a bit (probably should have done more):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-kansas-speech-some-suspect-facts/2011/12/06/gIQAUU45aO_blog.html
Yikes - 3 Pinocchios
The review, there, also includes some rather fair analysis of those issues.
They say Obama is being controlled, manipulated, threatened that his hands are tied and he cannot really be true to his heart and soul because the ones who really rule won't allow it. Then I say if Obama wants to do good work and be true to his mind body and spirit then he should leave the White House to the demons who control it. Let us not forget it is the WHITE house!
RSS feed for comments to this post