President Obama: "I've never believed that government's role is to create jobs or prosperity"

[Better Believe It]

(Excerpt)

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release September 08, 2010
Remarks by the President on the Economy in Parma, Ohio
Cuyahoga Community College West Campus, Parma, Ohio


"Now, we have a different vision for the future. See, I’ve never believed that government has all the answers to our problems. I’ve never believed that government’s role is to create jobs or prosperity. I believe it’s the drive and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs, our small businesses; the skill and dedication of our workers -- (applause) -- that’s made us the wealthiest nation on Earth. (Applause.) I believe it’s the private sector that must be the main engine for our recovery.

I believe government should be lean; government should be efficient. I believe government should leave people free to make the choices they think are best for themselves and their families, so long as those choices don’t hurt others. (Applause.)"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/08/remarks-president-economy-parma-ohio


Now I understand why the Obama Administration won't lift President Reagan's ban prohibiting direct WPA type federal jobs programs. President Obama believes it's not the governments role to lead this nation out of the Great Recession by creating useful public works jobs and demand. A "lean government" stays out of the way and lets Wall Street and corporate America (entrepreneurs) perform their magic.

Some magic.

Well, they did make almost 10 million jobs disappear.

Excerpts from two articles by Alec MacGillis -

By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 8, 2009 and
Monday, November 9, 2009

Why has a White House that talks so much about boosting employment steered clear of the most direct strategy that could keep Americans on the job? .... aside from a small summer employment program for young people, it has not sought to create jobs on the public payroll, something the country did in the 1930s and 1970s.

President Richard Nixon gave jobs programs another go in the doldrums of 1973-74 with the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA).

The program withered under President Ronald Reagan, who added prohibitions against public service employment (except for summer programs and natural disasters) that endure today. That the Obama administration shows little indication of lifting this taboo is a sign of how free-market tenets persist even when financial turmoil has called them into doubt, said John Russo, co-director of Youngstown State University's Center for Working-Class Studies.

As for direct job creation: there's a real nervousness about setting up anything that looks like a WPA-style jobs program. It's that reluctance that my piece is calling into question -- after all, is it really more politically damaging to be seen as doing a jobs program than to be facing double-digit unemployment?

.... we had direct job creation programs in place throughout the '70s, as my article recounts. It was called CETA, and it ramped up under Nixon in '73-'74 recession. Reagan ended the program, and implemented a new federal restriction against federal jobs programs, with exception for summer youth programs and national emergencies.

The Labor Department does have various job training programs in place, such as Job Corps. But the federal government is prohibited against doing direct jobs-program style hiring a ban that Reagan put in place and that the Democrats so far have balked at trying to lift.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110601900.html?sid=ST2009110604712

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/11/06/DI2009110603214.html

[Bluebear]

1. Obama agrees with Reagan's frame that the 60s and 70s were full of 'excesses'

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3263

I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing. - Barack Obama

[TheWraith]

97. Bullshit. He was commenting on a social attitude.

Nowhere in there does he agree with it, he says that that was how people felt.

[grahamhgreen]

155. Actions speak louder than words. nt

[Raoul]

210. Just like a neocon

Your unquestioning defense of what he didn't say or did say is no different than how neocons behave with their leaders. Take a bow!

[ZombieHorde]

229. The fact neocons engage in a behavior does mean the behavior is bad or good in anyway. nt

[liberation]

230. Actually... it sort of does.

If you look, walk, and quack like a duck... you are a....?

[ZombieHorde]

236. Hitler loved dogs, but loving dogs does not make one like Hitler.

Do you understand?

[Joe Chi Minh]

280. Well, part of the Gestapo dog-handlers' training in 'hardness' was to personally kill the

first dog they had trained. Strange way of expressing love for our canine friends.

[ZombieHorde]

283. I believe that is actually a myth. nt

[Joe Chi Minh]

285. Maybe. I wouldn't all together discount it, although on balance, I think it.

much more likely to be true than not.

[Joe Chi Minh]

279. I don't even believe that. The combination of the MSM's noise machine and

your un-election system was the basis of his supposed popularity.

Surely, it was implicit that he agreed with Reagan's politics. Obama has made no secret of his admiration for Reagan, bizarre as that sounds.

[another saigon]

121. really?

that snip is loaded with repuke words for FREE MARKET CAPITALISM/PISS ON YOU ECONOMICS! Ronald Reagan is directly responsible for most of the privatization and corporate greed which has pretty much eliminated the middle class. Clinton did a great job of finishing off what was left of US productivity.

Obama's reagun love makes me ill. I ask again, does he really believe americans are all as ignorant as the teabaggers?

[whathehell]

169. Yes...I really do wonder about him sometimes...I tend to think

that he is basically a liberal republican...Which does, of course, suck.

Ronald Reagan certainly WAS a "transformative" president...He took a prosperous country with a fair taxation system and turned it to shit.

[Joe Chi Minh]

281. Reminds me of a line in a TV series here n the UK. "Actually, I've got a lot of time

for Margaret Thatcher. She found a small nation 'down on its uppers' and reinvigorated its economy. Unfortunately, that country was Japan."

This economic mega-crisis can be traced right back to them. They were the neoliberal corporatist's chosen puppets.

[txlibdem]

188. That's been my sig for months now

You called it as it is. President Obama is a DINO, free market believing center-right Republican in Dems clothing.

What was that stupid political ad with the guy in sheeps clothing with the glowing red evil eyes? Maybe we need to redo that for the 2012 primary season.

[defendandprotect]

237. Amazing how no one knew that before the election or primaries . .. !!!

I'e only learned recently that Obama labelled him a "New Dem" -- had I known,

NO VOTE!!

That's why I wouldn't vote for Hillary -- DLC!!

How can anyone here at DU expect to vote for corporates and get change!!????

:crazy:

[txlibdem]

277. Funny how he said none of that at any point during his campaign

I seem to recall he gave the impression he was going to help the American People.

Not the American RICH people only. Nor the corporations (which are so-called "people" now).

That, of course, is the NewSpeak of the Rethugs: whenever they say "the American People do not want this (or that)" what they really mean is that the WEALTHY American people do not want it.

[NashVegas]

292. Plenty Knew

And their posts saying as much were savagely attacked and mocked on DU boards.

You were so busy looking for reasons to hate Hillary Clinton you missed it when we told you they were the same. Check my journal for "Change? Change, My Big, Fat, White Ass" and this oldie but goodie

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4965104&mesg_id=4965104

[Joe Chi Minh]

282. For a man of Obama's intelligence to mistake Reagan's low cunning

for intelligence tells us something about the nature of worldly intelligence, many in the West would rather not know, since they have a vested interest in its hegemony. Worldly intelligence is a liability, instead of an asset, if it is not based on true assumptions.

Though Reagan's low cunning offset his lack of worldly intelligence, unlike worldy intelligence, which can be soundly based and, hence, very beneficial, a low cunning is always bereft of moral vision.

Obama strikes me as an opportunist demagogue (aren't all demagogues opportunists?). But he's still far and away the best option you are allowed. Given that he would have known the constraints he would be under, I often find myself wondering why he ever sought the job. But it's not really productive.

Better to be grateful for his positive contributions to the country, while continuing to try "to keep his feet to the fire". The way things are looking, government itself, in the future, seems fraught with any number of imponderables, the eventual resolution of which seems likely to be that you will eventually get your country and its government back from thralldom under the super-rich.

[inna]

286. I've been wondering a lot about that lately, as well.

All I can say, either *they* are in a bubble, or we are in a bubble.

Or a third option - it's simply a progression of an escalating (and completely unilateral) class war.

[freebrew]

143. Richard Nixon, many here forget,

Decreed that the US was to go metric. That mandate cost us our jobs and here's why:
This was an unfunded mandate(the repukes love these) that had no enforcement division. The very large corps in this country refused to tool up for that mandate since most of these companies already had external supply lines for interruptions. Metric hardware could not be found in the US, no one was making it as there were no metric tools. Even as late as 2001 you could not get metric size steel for projects or production. It had to come from overseas. This has been in the works for 60 - 70 years. All hidden from view and a case made for it by scientists worldwide. Unbeknownst to them, it was a profit motive all along. A way to start shutting down American labor.

US Corporations do not and did not re-invest in their own US companies. They are our enemy and the enemy of our nation.

[AlbertCat]

201. all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s

Which were......???????


What, going to the Moon? The Cold War?


as opposed to the sensible '80's with Star Wars and 10.5% interest rates :eyes:

[liberation]

231. No kidding. Reagan's decade were the 1980s, which were known for its "moderation" no?

Nothing more milquetoast that cocaine, and runaway spending and selfishness.

The whole 1960s and 70s "excess" narrative is whistle tone for "civil rights" and "social revolution" being "threatening" things. Speaks volumes if Obama as a half black man is willing to go there and adopt that narrative in order to triangulate some votes who he will never get.

[dflprincess]

269. Vietnam?

We wasted a lot of lives and money there - but I don't suppose he was thinking of that as he's taking us down the same path in Afghanistan.

[LWolf]

234. I interpreted that at the time as a speedy distancing from the left, and as

admiration for Ronald Reagan. One of the reasons why I knew he wasn't offering "change I could believe in." I was told here at DU, by many, how wrong I was.

Then the election was over and Obama was inaugurated. I think it's pretty clear that my interpretation was damned accurate based on the actions of his administration, regardless of what tortuous spin some may attempt.

Obama agrees with Reagan on too many damned things, and really doesn't seem to respect the left much at all.

[Drale]

2. I always thought it wierd

that the right wing nut jobs who are against government getting involved in any buinesses affairs except to protect them is bitching that the government isnt creating enough jobs in the private sector.

[Skittles]

16. repuke hypocrisy is widespread

they scream about government staying out of their lives but are all to happy to let the government make end-of-life / women's bodies decisions....they scream about "sanctity of life" while rabidly supporting endless war.....I could go on but why bother? They SUCK.

[bluethruandthru]

3. Wow...I read those two paragraphs of the speech and I thought

I was reading a speech by republican. Especially that part about allowing people the freedom to make the choices they think are best for themselves. It kinda sounds like the right wings "you know how to spend your own money better than the government does" or "you know how to educate your children better than the government does" or "the government needs to stay out of peoples lives" or "you know how to save for your retirement better than the government does"...etc.

Weird (shakes head)

[bvar22]

144. Forshadowing the privatization of Social Security.

YES.
I KNOW he CLAIMED to be against it,
but this quote,
"allowing people the freedom to make the choices they think are best for themselves"
is STRAIGHT out of the Privatizer's handbook.

[Scruffy1]

260. It is a speech by a Republican

[Skittles]

4. yes Obama, that is very clear to us thinking folk

[L0oniX]

296. To Obama: you get us jobs and you can keep yours.

[JoseGaspar]

5. There we go...

That is the money quote.

Now, how long before it becomes a ConservaDem talking point?

"New Deal-style programs are Communism."

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobbolink]

8. Nothing at all in there about poor folk, is there?? You muddlclass get it all

We poor folk can hurl ourselves off a cliff.

Then you wonder why his "base" is dwindling....

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

43. "I also believe that government should do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves."

Seems pretty clear to me.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobbolink]

48. And the clarification of that statement was regulation of the corporations and helping the middle

class.

Yes it is abundantly clear, but you would like for us to forget we are being left out.

Rather than SPEAKING OUT for us, you would rather silence us.

[mzmolly]

139. Who the heck is WE?

That statement was a general statement. It's absolutely shameful that you'd spin it like you are.

The poor have been helped in many ways by this admin. The poor need access to higher education, housing, veterans benefits, medicaid and so on. I know poor people who've been directly impacted by the 'change' in this country. I know of a veteran who fought with the VA for decades to have his PTSD recognized. He used to be a few hundred short of surviving every month. Obama changed that. He now has about $1000 to spare. He can afford a car payment, gas and birthday presents for his grandchildren. Things he could not afford, previously. I know a family who has had their mortgage payment lowered by nearly $300 under the home affordability program. I have siblings who are in school, taking advantage of the expansion of grants and loans, I know people who will qualify for medicaid, who could not before. You're simply not paying attention or your choosing to be a dishonest pessimist.

[bobbolink]

142. Stop attacking. YOU are not paying attention! Can you tell me how cutting FOOD STAMPS has helped

poor people? Can you explain that?

Can you tell me how cutting off disabled people is helping poor people to survive?

YOU insist on talking about middleclass people.... I already said that. Obama is concentrating on the middle class. So, good for all of you for benefitting.

YOU need to pay attention, and understand that poor people are NOT benefitting, and are being hurt. Not that it matters to any of you, but at least be HONESt and quit claiming we are getting all this help, when we are NOT.

Just be honest and say that it is the middle class you are cconcerned about, not poor people.

And stop attacking the messenger. You think by attaking me that you will gain more votes? Quit kidding yourself. If you really believe that I am the only poor person who is thinking like this and feeling like this, then, in answer to YOUR attacks, you are DELUSIONAL.

Obama and the rest of you are responsible for losing the votes that will be lost because you attack rather than understand and then proceed to take action on behalf of those being left out.

Look to YOURSELF for the cause of the drop in the polls and stop blaming the victims and attacking.

Take some responsibility.

[mzmolly]

146. No one has cut food stamps.

Stop buying into the Faux News hype about what "will" happen and look at what has.

Further, I have no idea who made YOU spokesperson for the poor? I also don't know why you assume that you're the only person on this board who has ever lived in poverty. You're not.

[bobbolink]

148. You are very wrong.. the cuts have been made.

I see you insist on attacking.

Do you think that makes Obama proud? Do you think that is a great way of representing him?

I get your personal rage at me... loud and clear. You don't seem to get that I am but one of thousands and maybe millions who are feeling the same thing.

How you think you can convert someone with disdain is beyond me, but certainly to convert thousands with such disdain and dismissal is sadly illogical.

Have fun with your hatred.... I'm sure it is giving you many personal gains. :sarcasm:

[mzmolly]

150. The cut is scheduled for 2014 and there are plans to reinstate.

Democrats convinced two Republicans in the Senate to support the measure in part by ensuring it would not add to the deficit. That was in part accomplished by cutting food stamp payments beginning in 2014 by $12 billion. The cut would bring funding for the food stamp program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, back to pre-stimulus levels ahead of schedule.

Liberal Democrats say they are committed to restoring the funding, the Hill reports.

Also, I grew up in poverty, living in low income housing much of the time, with a mentally ill parent. Don't tell me what I'm concerned about.

[bobbolink]

152. The cuts have been MADE. Just because they won't admit to it, doesn't mean they haven't happened.

I'm sure Obama is very proud of you for castigating people.

That is his way, right? To castigate anyone who has a disagreement with him? He calls them names and belittles them? That is Obama's M.O.?

[mzmolly]

153. Again, as of 2014 and Dems have vowed to reinstate. In the mean time we've

done the things to help the poor, that I've noted above. The reason we had to doctor the books is because TWO republicans refused to keep teachers, firefighters employed without a "paid for" package. Imagine being at the mercy of MORE Republicans.

As for castigation, pot meet kettle. You can't go around brow beating others saying "you don't care about the poor" and not expect to anger people. Especially people who DO care, and have lived it.

[TBF]

181. "vows to reinstate in 2014"?

Seriously that is what you're holding on to? That's your "hope"? With the way things are going he's not going to be president in 2012. You can be as arrogant as you want, and so can he, but that will not propel people to the voting booth.

[mzmolly]

186. I actually noted many things that I'm "holding onto"

in this thread.

[dflprincess]

271. Just another item on the Democrats' "fix it later" list

but it seems the only time they look at that list is when they take it out to add another item.

[Raineyb]

149. Actually, they did cut about 12 billion dollars from the program recently in the bill that was

passed to save the jobs of teachers and firefighters etc.

Say what you will but they took that money out of programs that benefit the poorest amongst us and there's no excuse for that whatsoever.

[mzmolly]

151. I've addressed that above.

Thanks.

[Raineyb]

158. Reinstatement isn't a done deal until it's done. So for all intents and purposes the

fact is that the cuts were made. THOSE passed. Intent to reinstate means shit. Your argument is wrong.

[mzmolly]

159. I'm sorry you don't care for

my argument.

[Raineyb]

191. What do you expect when you argue that a cut in a program for the poor isn't one? I get that

there are people that feel the need to defend the indefensible but seriously did you expect such an argument to pass muster? You can't argue that they didn't cut money from a program for the poor by arguing that they'll reinstate the funds. It's a cut. The reinstatement is happy talk which may or may not actually come to fruition and as I'm not a damn fool I don't count money promised as money in my hand until it's actually put in my hand.

[mzmolly]

202. The cut has not happened and Democrats have said

they plan to overturn it. Regarding your counting money assertion, I don't pay a bill until I get it in the mail.

[Raineyb]

205. Who cares what they said? They CUT it. There's no guarantee that the cuts will be restored.

And there's no reason to believe that they can or will even be bothered to restore the cuts. For all intents and purposes the program has been cut. What may happen in the future is much promise making and speculation. It means nothing.

[mzmolly]

213. The cuts $59 per familly, go into effect in 2014

and presumably that's IF the economy doesn't improve. Democrats bought some time. I find it hard to believe that we will not be able to rectify this. You are free to disagree.

[defendandprotect]

218. Horrific MIC budget W doubled...... Dems could have "bought some time" by leveling that out!!

But, maybe that was what Rahm was worried about when he made his latest vile comments

about liberals/progressives?

[inna]

288. omfg

:palm:

Mzmolly, I'm sure you mean well, but... how can you POSSIBLY defend that monstrosity in good conscience??

Do you even realize what $59 a month (i.e., over $700 a year) MEANS for poor families??


Mind you, they live on $4.50 a day, BEFORE the cuts. And never mind that the actual month-to-month REDUCTION in benefits is UNPRECEDENTED in history of the program.


And dude, I hate to say this but... I have a very nice, brand new bridge in the SFBay Area for you to buy... if you believe that the $12 billion (LOOTED, RAIDED) from the food stamp program will be returned (to the poor). The probability of such an event approaches zero; in fact, further cuts are being considered. ... Austerity (for the peasants/useless eaters), remember?? :sarcasm: Those Multiple Trillions spent on the military industrial complex, corporate welfare, tax cuts for the rich, bankster bailouts - and in general, the further enrichment of the financial elites and the upward transfer of wealth - have to come from somewhere, don't they. :crazy:


How ANYONE (except those who directly benefit) can defend this crap is absolutely beyond me.

:nuke:

[mzmolly]

300. FYI I'm not defending the policy, I'm saying I don't

believe it will be.

Cheers. I'm off for a long DU break.

[Raineyb]

291. The Democrats sold out the poor and claim to rectify it later. There is nothing in their

track record that allows anyone with a working brain to take them on their word for it. They're always promising to "fix it later" they don't fix it. NAFTA hasn't been fixed, welfare reform hasn't been fixed. How many promises does the party have to break before you stop taking every bloody thing they say is gospel?

This is not a matter of mere disagreement, this is about dealing with FACTS and actions something you seem unwilling or incapable of dealing with.

[Recursion]

165. But no benefits have been reduced

If they don't change the law, they will be reduced in 2014. Huge difference.

[Raineyb]

192. How does that change the fact that they did in fact pass a cut in the program? n/t

[Recursion]

199. Because they did not, in fact, pass a cut to the program

Any more than they have "in fact" passed a cut to Medicaid providers.

[Raineyb]

206. Yes they did. That it doesn't take place until later doesn't change that.

It's been passed and there's no guarantee that said cuts will be reversed.

[KakistocracyHater]

272. yes there's NO excuse & the "middle class" is composed of poor people who

have the opportunity to get a better paying job; I have always seen "poor people" as just the first stage of "middle class". Wipe out Raygun's 'ban' on WPA & put America on its proper path.

[Raoul]

211. Get your head out of

your 'you know what'. The last time they reluctantly passed an unemployment extension they dug out the money by CUTTING food stamp allotments to the poor.

[Chan790]

167. Knowing that I'm pretty firmly on your side...

it's always made sense to talk about the middle class exclusively, for both sides. Republicans talk about the middle class and then enrich their wealthy friends. Democrats used to talk about the middle class and then enact policies that helped the poor folk join the middle class. Now Democrats also talk about the middle class and then enrich their wealthy friends.

I don't really give a good goddamned hell who he talks about, we need to start governing like Democrats again. That includes addressing poverty, something no Democratic president has done since Carter and no Democratic president has done well since LBJ.

[mzmolly]

172. Democrats are continuing to help the poor.

I've responded above as to the specifics about home affordability, veterans benefits, student loans, medicaid, union support and so on.

[Chan790]

174. Those are middle class programs for the most part...

student loans and medicaid tends to skew slightly into helping the poor. (Student loans less than ever before, that door into the middle class is being closed by increased restrictions, higher tuition not being offset by increases in loan and grant amounts and the decreased value of a college education.)

No, I'm talking about real poverty abatement programs. No Democratic President has really done a good job of that since Johnson.

[mzmolly]

179. Helping the poor

become middle class is an avenue toward poverty abatement.

[Chan790]

180. But those programs aren't doing that for the most part.

They're programs geared towards the middle class for the (rapidly-shrinking) middle class (as they backslide into poverty.)

There is a fundamental need for Democrats that act like Democrats to step up...we're failing our constituents in favor of the desire of a few to chase the upper-class money.

[mzmolly]

184. I think it's too soon to tell.

Though, I'm for any and all programs that help defeat poverty.

[TBF]

Union Support?

Please give examples of Obama administration support for unions, with examples. And don't tell me UAW likes him - that was one person in leadership - the rank & file understand what he's really doing to them.

[mzmolly]

185. Ah, we still have a US auto industry. And if you don't like the UAW

try the AFLCIO http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/obama_wrights.cfm

http://www.massaflcio.org/barack-obama%2526%2523039%3Bs-record-workers%2526%2523039%3B-rights

[TBF]

187. Your links are campaign promises from 2008 - none of which he has kept. nt

[mzmolly]

189. Given you've ruled out saving the auto industry

as union support, you may have to wait until at least ONE term is over before declaring the President doesn't give a rip about unions?

[TBF]

208. He did not "save" the auto industry - he brought them to their knees.

Just as he is now doing to teachers.

[mzmolly]

214. ROFL

I'm going to defer to the UAW on this one.

[defendandprotect]

221. We didn't have to bail out elites to save auto industry .... just NATIONALIZE it --

and keep workers making cars --

Dump the crooks!!

[defendandprotect]

220. Auto industry should have been taken over by government ...rather than bailed out --

crime, corruption, poor management -- alliance with oil industry --

Should have been NATIONALIZED --

[Scruffy1]

264. The only way we can have a middle class...

Is to have a lower class so no matter how much you screw them they can always feel like they are doing better than someone else. Racism and artificial classes are just tools in the capitalistic playbook.

[EFerrari]

9. This is Obama selling tax cuts for business as a hand up for the middle class.

lol

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

222. Exactly .... hundreds of billions in welfare for elites, food stamp cuts for the poor ...!!!

[Better Believe It]

12. I didn't accidently leave anything out. Who do you think wrote the speech?

I just used a brief quote which helped explain why President Obama is opposed to WPA type public works programs.

That's what my post was about.

Did you read it?

[USArmyParatrooper]

17. "President Obama is opposed to WPA type public works programs" Elaborate

[Better Believe It]

24. That was clearly done in the post but I'll repeat the facts for you.

President Obama has never indicated he supports WPA type federal jobs programs and his comments today reaffirmed that.

If President Obama supported such programs he would do two things:

1. Repeal President Reagan's ban prohibiting direct WPA type federal jobs programs.

2. Propose direct federal jobs programs.

[USArmyParatrooper]

27. By your standard Bill Clinton was also "against" WPA type programs.

In President Obama's speech:

Let me give you another example. We want to put more Americans back to work rebuilding America -– our roads, our railways, our runways. When the housing sector collapsed and the recession hit, one in every four jobs lost were in the construction industry. That’s partly why our economic plan has invested in badly needed infrastructure projects over the last 19 months –- not just roads and bridges, but high-speed railroads and expanded broadband access. Altogether, these projects have led to thousands of good, private sector jobs, especially for those in the trades.

snip

Now, there are still thousands of miles of railroads and railways and runways left to repair and improve. And engineers, economists, governors, mayors of every political stripe believe that if we want to compete in this global economy, we need to rebuild this vital infrastructure. There is no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains or the most modern airports -– we want to put people to work building them right here in America. (Applause.)

Yep, putting people to work building public roads and infrastructure.

[Better Believe It]

54. The transportation plans proposed by Congressman Oberstar and Obama are not direct government job

programs organized along the lines of the WPA and CCC.

You don't understand the difference.

Every year the federal govenments provides funds for transportation infrastructure and have done that at least since Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System project that began in 1956.

However, it's a shame that the Obama administration torpedoed the 500 billion dollar transportation infrastructure plan proposed by Congressman Oberstar last year.

Don't you agree?

Here's more information on that matter:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9098034

[defendandprotect]

224. When Obama overturns Reagan's ruling/law on WPA type jobs ...

THEN he'll no longer be "against" them --

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlueCheese]

33. This reminds me...

... of when Bill Clinton said that "the era of big government is over." He followed that by saying but we can't go back to an era when people had to fend for themselves, and how government could still help people.

But which part does anyone remember?

[USArmyParatrooper]

36. Yeah, the author of this thread is trying to be coy

Just grow some nuts and say, "Obama is a big, fat Conservative!" if that's what you're trying to convey. Being all sly about it doesn't make his accusation any less ridiculous.

[another saigon]

122. not fat

but conservative indeed. In all aspects of his government, from economics, foreign policy, health care (oops, insurance) domestic issues. He has not expressed a new or progressive thought to any of it.

[txlibdem]

197. not fat but getting old

And, yes, absolutely a conservative. Who but a conservative tosses out the public option before even beginning the HCR debate? Why? That was his only bargaining chip. We could have swapped it for a robust public option.

It's a symbol of his political leanings that he has included, and has publicly stated that he will continue to include, Republican ideas into all legislation he will sign. President Obama is a center-right Republican by any measure. Perhaps he is so easily manipulated by the RW psycho media machine that whenever they call him a socialist or yell about government programs being communism he takes another couple of steps toward the right to show that he is neither. Little by little, step to the right, step to the right. So now he is governing as a center-right Republican.

:yoiks:

[defendandprotect]

239. The president's comments speak for themselves ....no one needs to be "coy" ....

but Obama should be ashamed!!

[USArmyParatrooper]

294. "The president's comments speak for themselves"..... even when taken out of context

CLEARLY when you read the follow up he explains private industry creates jobs and prosperity, but the government enforces rules and regulations to make private industry work for the people.

Deliberately taking it out of context is dishonest.

[defendandprotect]

301. This is the government's own writing .... !!

If they haven't provided context who would?

One of the major problems with Obama is that he has FAILED to reregulate capitalism --

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime!

Industry doesn't create jobs -- especially when Obama is subsidizing and spoon feeding them --

and abetting their job cuts!

People's government creates the environment where jobs can be created -- by small business --

and allegedly NOT by monopolies, though the Sherman-anti-trust law seems to be moth-balled!

People's government creates jobs in government -- including Obama's and Congress --

and in all the agencies --

And, government regulations create even more jobs in private industry --

In turn, we also provide security and natural resources -- some at the expense of destruction

of the environment -- for businesses to actually "do business."

One fatal example of that is the overturning of 26 years of a freeze on off shore oil drilling --

and the catastrophe of BP's oil "spill."

Other examples are our paying for our Intelligence and Military used to "protect" American

corporations doing business in foreign countries -- See: Brig. Gen. Smedley Darlington Butler


Capitalism, itself, is the chief creator of environmental destruction since it is based on

suicidal exploitation of nature and natural resources and animal-life -- and even other human

beings!!

[Radical Activist]

7. He's from the anti-authoritarian left.

It was creative to add in the line about staying out of the way of Wall Street even though he passed more regulation against them. They were harming others, so more regulation to stop that harm was necessary.

[EFerrari]

10. What is "left" about what he said?

[Radical Activist]

19. Do you think government should tell people how to live their lives?

How about on abortion? Religion? He stated a textbook definition of anti-authoritarian thought.

"I believe government should leave people free to make the choices they think are best for themselves and their families, so long as those choices don’t hurt others."

Anarchists everywhere agree.

[Luminous Animal]

30. How is regulating corporations telling people how to live?

How is putting democratic limits on a fictional entity telling people how to live?

[Radical Activist]

32. It isn't. That must be why Obama passed more regulation on corporations.

[Luminous Animal]

35. Then what was your point?

[Radical Activist]

40. I was asked what was left about his comments.

I responded with an example. Many of us on the left don't want government telling us how to live our personal lives as long as we aren't harming others and Obama shares that view.

[Luminous Animal]

55. Really? What about gay marriage and restrictions on abortion.

What about the freedom to join a union? He's not moved on that. What about democratic control of capital?

[whathehell]

170. "Telling us how to run our lives"?....

When was that ever a part of a democratic agenda?...Are you sure you don't have your parties mixed up?

[liberation]

233. If you decode his nick as

"reactionary apologist" his posts make all sort of sense.

I think he is going for the "witty ironically opposite" name de plume angle.

[Radical Activist]

47. Just to expand on that.

We have his liberal position on personal freedom clearly stated in the above speech.

But we also see his stated support for more regulation of the economy, which he has done as President. That seems authoritarian, BUT...
He doesn't want government to directly run companies or projects. Instead, he gives out grants for the private sector to do the same work. He supports using the power of government to stop abuses of economic power, but at the same time, he doesn't support centralized management of the economy.

It's a classic anti-authoritarian left viewpoint. This speech is a window into his core set of beliefs. It explains why more authoritarian minded liberals and Marxists will never be happy with his governing style.

[Luminous Animal]

50. So FDR was for centralized management of private corps and Reagan was for freedom?

[Radical Activist]

53. FDR said repeatedly that WPA programs should be temporary.

He was uncomfortable with the federal government overreaching as well.

You're missing the other key part, "as long as they don't harm others." Obama regulates companies that harm others. Reagan enabled them. Big difference. Reagan deregulated. Obama re-regulated.

But Obama will never go the extra step of nationalizing industry and setting up a centralized command economy, as some posters would like him to do.

[Luminous Animal]

56. Obama's "reregulation" did squat. It's wallpaper and you know it.

[Radical Activist]

61. I don't pay attention to empty sloganeering like that.

Especially since I know that certain pundits will make that claim no matter what Obama does. I've already seen new laws impact my life personally in several positive ways.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9100244&mesg_id=9100441

[Luminous Animal]

72. I don't pay attention to summations of government propaganda.

My comments on each paragraph of that piece of pap...

New rules not yet written. And ooh! Consumers get to complain. I'm not a consumer I am a citizen.

Is supposed to! Will it?

And recommendations! What are they?

Will have authority! Will it be exercised?

An audit of emergency lending! And then what?

Directs the Fed! Where are the parameters?

The Volcker Rule... this was too complex for me to understand but my friend, who well known economic pundits have praised publicly, has called this a band-aid on a beheading.

Again, that authority. Heck of a job Brownie had authority, too.

Well. Report their activity. That'll fix it. Reporting.

Ooh! A study!

Nonbinding.



Edited for substituting "m" for "b".

[BzaDem]

81. "And ooh! Consumers get to complain. I'm not a consumer I am a citizen."

:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

242. Exactly . . . . and the Dodd mess that just passed ...will get him a great banking job!!

[Luminous Animal]

73. Yes. In a crisis FDR was FOR management to promote prosperity. Conversely, Reagan was for trickle

down. Obama is for trickle down.

[Radical Activist]

74. You have some new definition of trickle down.

FDR spent federal money on works projects carried out by private contractors just like Obama is doing. More was spent that way than on WPA projects. That's demand-side direct job spending. Not tickle down. Obama raising taxes on the wealthy and regulating every sector of our economy is not trickle down.

[Luminous Animal]

85. Tax cuts for business is trickle down. There is no ifs and or buts about that.

And from professional experience, businesses will screw over current and potential employees to qualify for those tax cuts.

[BzaDem]

88. Last I checked, Obama proposed and pass a 787 billion dollar bill which included

direct spending, aid to states, and tax cut rebate checks directly for 95% of workers.

But you don't mention that, because that wouldn't help advance your bullshit narrative.

[eridani]

114. Or because the tax cuts fucked up the bill and made it way less useful? n/t

[BzaDem]

115. The "tax cuts" were rebate checks to the poor and middle class

those with the greatest marginal propensity to consume them.

[eridani]

163. In amounts too piddling to make a difference to anyone's budget

The money would have been better used for direct job creation.

[defendandprotect]

243. Majority of the money went to banks -- and corporations -- bailouts --

and how many of our states are going bankrupt right now??

How many foreclosures over last two years -- and projected this year?

And next year???

[defendandprotect]

241. New Deal regulations/laws need to be reinstated on capitalism....

including Glass-Steagall --

and pull that Sherman Anti-Trust Act out of moth balls!!!

[defendandprotect]

240. Yippee . . . !!! Obama is for ending the Drug War????

[Radical Activist]

20. Hey, you had already responded to comment 6.

So you really didn't need to ask that question, did you? Assuming you read it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

176. To some, any not to the right of Nixon is 'the left'.

Radical Activist is neither.

[Better Believe It]

14. Regulation? What regulation of Wall Street? They can live with these "regulations" and ....

will have a lot to say about the content of "rules" that will be written over the next decade to implement the "regulations".

[Radical Activist]

18. Clinton, Reagan, and two Bushes deregulated Wall Street.

Obama is changing the trajectory. The trend is reversing. The fact that the bill didn't include everything we would like does not change the fact that more regulation has passed that will benefit the average person. We haven't had a President willing to do that in a generation.

[jgraz]

25. Oh really? Name one regulation that Obama restored.

Even better, name one regulation Obama restored that would have helped prevent the 2008 crash.

(I've got the cricket noise all queued up)

[beforeyoureyes]

198. It is just so discouraging. The rheoteric speech advocating Republican policies

And, making fun of the Republicans for not going along with them is being perceived as some master political stroke by the media and the base.

Apparently, it seems that billions in corporate tax breaks that will help subsidize jobs overseas is cool with the democrats as long as OUR guy is screwing us.

This is just plain weird.

Obama is beating the Republicans by becoming one of them. After two years of constant and continual betrayal, it is amazing that people buy this crap two months before the midterms.

It is going to take a total economic collapse and soup kitchens around the block for this country to wake up.

[westerebus]

209. Can I get some of what you're smoking?

Just a taste. One hit may be? Pleeeeeassssseee.

[USArmyParatrooper]

22. Here's a summation of these regulations that you trivialize by putting them in quotations.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/jul/16/facts-financial-reform/

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Consumer advocates have been pushing for an agency to look out for the interests of everyday Americans. The bureau will be responsible for writing new rules on financial consumer products (mostly loans and credit cards) and enforcing existing bank and credit union regulations. It will also monitor payday lenders and check-cashing businesses. It will also operate a toll-free consumer complaint hotline for individuals to report problems with financial institutions. The agency, which is part of the Federal Reserve, will be led by a director appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Critics point out that the auto-loan industry is exempt from the bureau's oversight and that the agency will only monitor banks with $10 billion or more in assets.

New mortgage rules. Ever inflated your income on a loan application? Good, neither have we. But apparently some people did. That's why lenders are now required to verify applicants' credit history, income, and employment status. There are also restrictions on how many loans the banks can sell to investors. The new rule is supposed to make banks bear more risk, so that they limit lending to people at a high risk of default.

Size matters. The bill creates the "Financial Stability Oversight Council," which is supposed to monitor the U.S. economy for underlying systemic risks. It will make recommendations to the Federal Reserve for how to keep our economy from crashing by keeping tabs on firms that are deeply interconnected within the financial system.

Liquidation authority. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will have a mechanism to unwind "failing systemically significant financial companies." Taxpayers will bear no cost for liquidating large, interconnected financial companies, according to the bill summary.

An audit for the Fed. Owners of the "Audit the Fed" shirts might like this one. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) will perform a one-time review of Federal Reserve emergency lending. The details should be on the Federal Reserve website by December 1, 2010. The GAO will have the authority to conduct more audits in the future, but there is no requirement.

Credit card rules. Ever wonder why some merchants don't allow you to use credit cards on small purchases? Credit card companies charge merchants so-called "interchange fees" for transactions. The bill directs the Federal Reserve to issue rules that ensure that the "fees charged to merchants by credit card companies for credit or debit card transactions are reasonable and proportional to the cost of processing those transactions."

The Volcker Rule. Named after the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, the new rule prohibits banks from engaging in proprietary trading, i.e. trading the bank's money to turn a profit. Advocates for this rule say these kinds of trades tend to put banks into a conflict of interest with their customers. The rules also would limit banks' relationships with hedge funds and private equity funds.

Derivatives. Don't worry folks, no calculus here. A derivative is simply an investment whose value depends on an underlying asset. Here's an example of a good derivative: Southwest Airlines has to buy jet fuel over the coming year to run its planes. If oil prices skyrocket, Southwest loses money. So the airline enters into an agreement that will pay if oil prices increase, lowering its potential for losses. But not all derivatives are so benign, and many blame their misuse for contributing to the financial panic of 2008. The new law gives the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission along with the Securities and Exchange Commission authority to regulate over-the-counter derivatives. Banks would also be prohibited from trading certain forms of derivatives, and most of the trading must occur on transparent exchanges.

Hedge funds. Generally speaking, hedge funds are investment vehicles for selected groups of elite investors. The name comes from hedge funds' tendency to be very careful about managing, or hedging, risk. This means they often buy derivatives or other unusual types of investments. Under the new regulations, large hedge funds would have to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission and report their activities.

Credit rating agencies. The credit ratings agencies are the people who said, before the financial crisis hit, that securities built from subprime mortgages could be great investments. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The bill seeks to address the conflict of interest that arises when banks and financial institutions pay a credit rating agency to evaluate their securities. It calls for a study on the issue, and says that regulators will issue new rules in the future.

"Say on pay." Shareholders of publicly traded companies get to vote on executive pay, though the vote is nonbinding. Translation: The company can choose to disregard the shareholders' vote. (Yes, this doesn't seem like much of a say to us. But experts tell us it's actually progress in the longstanding fight to give shareholders more of a voice in corporate governance.)

[Radical Activist]

31. Facts instead of knee-jerk slogans.

Wow. Thanks.

[jgraz]

51. "Facts" easily debunked by 5 minutes on Google.

Tell me, do you *ever* question anything you're told?

[Recursion]

166. Says the person citing "Google" as a source NT

[fascisthunter]

190. I guess SOmebody should Let You Know Google is Used to Research and find SOURCES

forget... the argument is lost.

[Better Believe It]

65. Facts from the Financial Times: The Capitalist Markets and Bankers Have Won. They Still Rule

Three years on, the markets are masters again
By Philip Stephens
July 29, 2010

It has been three years since the roof started to fall in. And only a year and a bit since the more faint-hearted stocked their cellars with bottled water and canned food lest the financial crash presage a descent into anarchy. So what has happened since? Simple: not much. The markets (and the bankers) still rule.

There has also, of course, been one really big change: hundreds of billions of dollars in toxic assets that once sat on the books of the banks have been piled on top of the deficits caused by the crash-induced recession. Families are paying the bankers’ bills through rising taxes, shabbier public services and higher unemployment.

The rating agencies – remember them? Some may recall that these very same organisations were deeply complicit in the chicanery that saw worthless debt instruments repackaged as top-notch financial securities. I am sure I heard the politicians say they would be cut down to size. It never happened. The rating agencies never repented; and now they are masters again.

Now the policymakers will tell you they have acted to remedy these mistakes. Some governments have imposed windfall taxes on the big banks; the US has legislated for a tougher regulatory regime. The most egregious excessive bonus payouts now include a tenuous link to performance. The Basel committee of regulators is to impose tougher capital requirements – though not, we must understand, until 2018.

Worthwhile as they probably are, such measures look like tinkering when set against the capacity of capital markets to wreak economic havoc. Financial institutions are still extracting large profits from trading activities described by Lord Turner, the head of Britain’s Financial Services Authority, as inherently useless. Lord Turner, however, has been almost a lone voice in suggesting a fundamental rethink.

The crisis in the eurozone shows how the herd instincts of capital markets can destabilise an entire continent. The consequence has been to push European governments into a premature, and risky, race to slash fiscal deficits before economic recovery is assured.

Even if politicians better recognise the risks of interdependence and the vulnerabilities of particular institutions and financial instruments, they are far from any consensus on how to share responsibility for global oversight. So, three years on, things are much as they were – except that most of us are poorer. The markets rule. OK?



Read the full article at:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c0074548-9b47-11df-baaf-00144...

[Radical Activist]

68. Were you expecting Obama to completely dismantle the capitalist system?

:shrug:
Wow, you found someone who thinks the regulations didn't do much and wrote his opinion before the last financial regulation bill is even put in place. How unsurprising. But if we're honest with ourselves then we have to admit that we won't know the full impact of the bill for at least another year. Writing an article proclaiming it a failure even before the FEC determines the final details is arrogantly premature.

[jgraz]

94. I was expecting him to do something to prevent another collapse like 08

Can you name one concrete action he's taken that fits that criteria?

[BzaDem]

98. Despite Obama's rhetoric, financial crises cannot be completely prevented.

The resolution authority/systemic risk council/derivative regulation regime should do a lot to minimize the chances of another one like the one in '08. If (when?) there is another financial crisis in the future, it will likely be very different than the one in '08, since this bill closes a lot of the holes that allowed the one in '08 to happen.

If you actually wanted to prevent all financial crises, you would ban risk taking. Of course, that would also end capitalism. Which many people here would have no problem with.

A better bill certainly would have included provisions to break up the big banks. But this would only have minimized financial crises that were borne out of a single large entity failing. It is easily possible to have a financial crisis that affects many small banks (a systemic crisis) as opposed to one or two big banks. This is what happened in the great depression. It is further unclear whether having broken-up banks before 08 would have even prevented THIS financial crisis.

Just because a bill could be made better doesn't mean it is crap.

[jgraz]

102. OK, what has he done to lessen the likelihood of another collapse?

How, exactly, does the current bill reduce the risk in our economy?

If you actually wanted to prevent all financial crises, you would ban risk taking. Of course, that would also end capitalism. Which many people here would have no problem with.

Completely, utterly untrue. We had a booming economy in the 50s and 60s with no collapses and plenty of risk taking. Of course, we also had a fair tax structure and reasonable regulation of industry.

You seem to not understand the difference between capitalism and finance. Capitalism is a system of making money by producing goods and services. Finance is making money off of money -- preferably other people's money. The capture of our economy by the financial parasites is what led us into this mess. Removing their chokehold by dramatically downsizing their business is the only way to prevent another crash. Obama's bill does not even hint at doing that, so it's, at best, a few nibbles around the edge of the problem.

[BzaDem]

104. "We had a booming economy in the 50s and 60s with no collapses and plenty of risk taking."

I never said there would be a crisis every year. I simply said that preventing ALL bubbles and crises is not possible.

"Capitalism is a system of making money by producing goods and services. Finance is making money off of money -- preferably other people's money."

Making money off money is a side effect of finance. But the purpose of finance in the first place is to allocate resources in a market. If you end finance, and you have the government do all the resource allocating, that is ending capitalism.

"Removing their chokehold by dramatically downsizing their business is the only way to prevent another crash."

As I said in my previous post, dramatically downsizing their business will NOT prevent another crash. The great depression was NOT caused by a single large bank failing. It was the failure of thousands of small banks that partly caused and significantly exacerbated the great depression. Your proposed prescription of breaking up big banks would have done nothing to prevent the great depression.

[jgraz]

105. "Making money off money is a side effect of finance."

Wow, you've never worked in the finance industry, have you? That crap about properly distributing resources is what we would tell our sucker investors. Inside, it was all about stealing as much money as quickly as we could.

Most financial transactions are of no social value. They exist solely for the purpose of enriching the institution in which they take place. Note that I said nothing about the actual parties to the contract. Those saps make or lose money, nobody really gives a shit. The real purpose of a particular instrument is to make money for the institution that is managing it.

And remember: these transactions have no - zero -- social value. They do not help a single worker, prevent a single illness or violent act, and they certainly don't add the overall security of society as a whole. They simply exist to make money for large institutions and the executives who run them.

[BzaDem]

107. I never said all transactions (or even most) have social value.

I think it would be good policy to break up the banks, have a financial transactions tax, etc. I think a lot of things would be good policy that haven't been enacted in a wide range of issues. (That doesn't mean the bills Obama has signed into law have not been incredibly good steps forward.)

I simply said that a financial system is required to allocate resources and is an essential part of capitalism. Deciding when/how much to risk on startups, loans for small businesses, loans for large businesses, loans for houses, etc. is a fundamental aspect of capitalism.

I do NOT disagree that BECAUSE we have a financial system, there will be TONS of money movers that execute TONS of transactions that are not about allocating resources and do not have social value. "Side effect" does not mean small or minimal. I'm just saying the purpose is something else, and the purpose (properly distributing resources) is required.

[jgraz]

108. Sound like we agree an most of the basic points

The only difference is that I think the basic tenets: break up the banks, financial transactions tax should be in the forefront.. Without them, Obama's reform is dead in the water.

[jgraz]

106. "Making money off money is a side effect of finance."

Wow, you've never worked in the finance industry, have you? That crap about properly distributing resources is what we would tell our sucker investors. Inside, it was all about stealing as much money as quickly as we could.

Most financial transactions are of no social value. They exist solely for the purpose of enriching the institution in which they take place. Note that I said nothing about the actual parties to the contract. Those saps make or lose money, nobody really gives a shit. The real purpose of a particular instrument is to make money for the institution that is managing it.

And remember: these transactions have no - zero -- social value. They do not help a single worker, prevent a single illness or violent act, and they certainly don't add the overall security of society as a whole. They simply exist to make money for large institutions and the executives who run them.

[defendandprotect]

244. Like the S&L thefts & embezzlements, these crises are put "in the works" ....

when government regulations are overturned and the cops leave the beat -

capitalistic crime and corruption follows -- theft of Treasury --

moving of wealth from citizens to elites -- OOPS!! Surpirsed that happened?

[jgraz]

46. Crap, crap and then some crap.

Seriously, this site won a Pulizter? :crazy:

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Consumer advocates have been pushing for an agency to look out for the interests of everyday Americans. The bureau will be responsible for writing new rules on financial consumer products (mostly loans and credit cards) and enforcing existing bank and credit union regulations. It will also monitor payday lenders and check-cashing businesses. It will also operate a toll-free consumer complaint hotline for individuals to report problems with financial institutions. The agency, which is part of the Federal Reserve, will be led by a director appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Critics point out that the auto-loan industry is exempt from the bureau's oversight and that the agency will only monitor banks with $10 billion or more in assets.

Currently staffed and led by Timmeh Geithner himself. Wake me up if Obama ever gets around to nominating a head of that agency.

New mortgage rules. Ever inflated your income on a loan application? Good, neither have we. But apparently some people did. That's why lenders are now required to verify applicants' credit history, income, and employment status. There are also restrictions on how many loans the banks can sell to investors. The new rule is supposed to make banks bear more risk, so that they limit lending to people at a high risk of default.

Yawn. Banks are now required to hold back 5% of the loans they make. The amount banks held back before the mortgage crash? 8%.

Size matters. The bill creates the "Financial Stability Oversight Council," which is supposed to monitor the U.S. economy for underlying systemic risks. It will make recommendations to the Federal Reserve for how to keep our economy from crashing by keeping tabs on firms that are deeply interconnected within the financial system.

Not really new regulation but a framework for new regulators. If the staffing goes as well as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, expect nothing to come of this.

Liquidation authority. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will have a mechanism to unwind "failing systemically significant financial companies." Taxpayers will bear no cost for liquidating large, interconnected financial companies, according to the bill summary.

Except the Dems stripped the requirement that banks frontload the liquidation fund with their own money. So now the banks will somehow pay for their own liquidation after they go under. I feel better already.

An audit for the Fed. Owners of the "Audit the Fed" shirts might like this one. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) will perform a one-time review of Federal Reserve emergency lending. The details should be on the Federal Reserve website by December 1, 2010. The GAO will have the authority to conduct more audits in the future, but there is no requirement.

Not bad, but limited. Until we see how far the audit is allowed to go, there's no way to tell what the results will be.

Credit card rules. Ever wonder why some merchants don't allow you to use credit cards on small purchases? Credit card companies charge merchants so-called "interchange fees" for transactions. The bill directs the Federal Reserve to issue rules that ensure that the "fees charged to merchants by credit card companies for credit or debit card transactions are reasonable and proportional to the cost of processing those transactions."

Not part of the financial reform bill, but I am glad that multinational retail giants will now be charged "reasonable and proportional" fees by multinational banking giants. :eyes:

The Volcker Rule. Named after the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, the new rule prohibits banks from engaging in proprietary trading, i.e. trading the bank's money to turn a profit. Advocates for this rule say these kinds of trades tend to put banks into a conflict of interest with their customers. The rules also would limit banks' relationships with hedge funds and private equity funds.

Shot full of loopholes you could drive a truck through. Even Paul Volcker disavows this pale shadow of his proposed reform.

Derivatives. Don't worry folks, no calculus here. A derivative is simply an investment whose value depends on an underlying asset. Here's an example of a good derivative: Southwest Airlines has to buy jet fuel over the coming year to run its planes. If oil prices skyrocket, Southwest loses money. So the airline enters into an agreement that will pay if oil prices increase, lowering its potential for losses. But not all derivatives are so benign, and many blame their misuse for contributing to the financial panic of 2008. The new law gives the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission along with the Securities and Exchange Commission authority to regulate over-the-counter derivatives. Banks would also be prohibited from trading certain forms of derivatives, and most of the trading must occur on transparent exchanges.

So watered down that Dick Cheney is pouring it on prisoners at Gitmo. Banks can simply declare that their own trades aren't covered by the regulations. And if the CFTC or SEC rule against them, the penalty for a bank that continues to defy regulators is... you guessed it: NOTHING.

Hedge funds. Generally speaking, hedge funds are investment vehicles for selected groups of elite investors. The name comes from hedge funds' tendency to be very careful about managing, or hedging, risk. This means they often buy derivatives or other unusual types of investments. Under the new regulations, large hedge funds would have to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission and report their activities.

The same loopholes that apply to banking derivatives apply to hedge funds. In addition, the bill includes a loophole that specifically exempts trades used to hedge other risk. Look for hedge funds to stretch this into an exemption for any trade they make.

Credit rating agencies. The credit ratings agencies are the people who said, before the financial crisis hit, that securities built from subprime mortgages could be great investments. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The bill seeks to address the conflict of interest that arises when banks and financial institutions pay a credit rating agency to evaluate their securities. It calls for a study on the issue, and says that regulators will issue new rules in the future.

Ooh, it calls for a study? Will it be a big, hard-hitting study? I'm filled with confidence.

In reality, no study is needed. The problem with the rating agencies is that they're funded by the banks they regulate. Any real reform would start by changing that.

"Say on pay." Shareholders of publicly traded companies get to vote on executive pay, though the vote is nonbinding. Translation: The company can choose to disregard the shareholders' vote. (Yes, this doesn't seem like much of a say to us. But experts tell us it's actually progress in the longstanding fight to give shareholders more of a voice in corporate governance.)

Even this milquetoast site admits the "say on pay" is garbage. Pass a real Shareholders Bill of Rights and then we'll talk. But that's not gonna happen as long as Timmeh has Obama's ear.



Jesus, a reasonably bright 12-year-old with access to Google could debunk these claims in under two minutes. How the idiots at politifact can still consider themselves journalists is beyond me.

[BzaDem]

87. The problem is that basically everything you said is either not accurate or besides the point.

Some of the individual things you criticize are in fact huge achievements. All you do is write comments that are often not true, and even if they were true don't actually really say anything of substance.

The best you can come up with for the CFPA is that Obama hasn't appointed someone yet? I mean surely you could come up with more credible sounding bullshit than that. The CFPA on it's own would be a huge progressive victory. And then you take your irrelevant criticism about appointment timing and say the Systemic Risk council is ALSO worthless because of it?

:rofl:

You also make blatantly inaccurate statements (like the idea that the swipe fee fix isn't in the financial reform bill). Your comments also include false criticisms that were debunked MONTHS ago. The idea that there are no penalties for failing to comply with derivatives rules wasn't even true in the original Senate bill. The original Senate bill applied current-law penalties to failure to clear derivatives -- the only thing missing was the ability to void a transaction if it wasn't cleared. This was fixed in the conference report that passed, and that was why Maria Cantwell supported the conference report.

Perhaps a 5-minute Google search should ALSO be combined with critical thinking and accuracy? There really seems to be a direct correlation between those that oppose most of what Obama does, and those that don't have the slightest clue what they are talking about on basically every issue.

[jgraz]

93. Really? Everything I've said? Everything?

SInce you're such a stickler for accuracy, you should have no problem showing that these claims are completely false:

+ I said Tim Geithner is currently the acting head of the CFPB. True or false?

+ I said Tim Geithner is currently tasked with staffing the CFPB. True or false?

+ I said banks are now only required to hold back 5% of the loans they make. True or false?

+ I said the "Financial Stability Oversight Council" does not really introduce new, concrete regulation. True or false?

+ I said the FDIC's new liquidation does not require banks to pay up-front to cover liquidation costs. True or false?

+ I said even Paul Volcker was critical of the way the so-called "Volcker rule" was implemented. True or false?

+ I said banks can continue to trade dangerous financial instruments by declaring them to be exempt from regulation. True or false?

+ I said the wording of the hedge fund regulation contains a potentially huge loophole. True or false?

+ I said the banks still fund the credit rating agencies. True or false?


Your post is yet another in a long series of attempts to invalidate an entire argument by finding (or claiming to find) a few inaccuracies. Sure, I forgot that the interchange fees were part of this bill and not the credit reform bill. That doesn't give you license to post some bullshit about "everything" in my post being inaccurate. In the future, if you're going to assail someone's accuracy, you should probably avoid making shit up. Just sayin...

[BzaDem]

96. I said what you said is false OR BESIDES THE POINT.

Whether or not Tim Geithner is currently heading or staffing the CFPB is besides the point, because that will change as soon as Obama appoints a head. The CFPB is a huge part of the bill, and the only criticism you could make of it is completely besides the point.

5% is greater than what they were previously required. Your 8% statistic was what they voluntarily held back, not what they were required to. The key is how the 8% is defined: are you averaging over all banks? All mortgages? Did EVERY mortgage have 8% held back? No. An average usually aggregates higher than normal (perhaps a bank owning an entire mortgage) with lower than normal (mortgages with nothing held back). Huge bank mortgage divisions previously had no requirement or incentive to hold back ANYTHING; the bill clearly changes that with its 5% requirement.

The council can require other regulators to introduce higher capital requirements, which is extremely important to minimize failures. But even if you don't consider this "regulation" (because other agencies are actually doing the regulating on the council's orders), this is besides the point. It is the council COMBINED with the resolution authority that provides them significant power to prevent problems and deal with ones that aren't successfully prevented. The oversight council will have access to banks' books in a way that no agency had before. It combines distinct regulatory powers from different agencies into one. When a bank fails, they can force bondholders to take losses without putting the firm through an economy-crashing bankruptcy. Instead of AIG bondholders being paid 100 cents on the dollar, the firm would have been resolved such that the only payouts would have been required to maintain systemic stability, and eventually they would be paid back.

The fact that there is no pre-fund is true and equally besides the point. The power in the resolution authority comes from what they can do in a resolution process. Whether it is funded before a crisis or after a crisis is not critical to anything the resolution authority does.

Yes, Volcker is critical of the implementation of the Volcker rule, but that doesn't make it useless. He disliked that banks could still invest 3% of tier-one capital, as opposed to the 0% that he wanted. 3% is much better than unlimited, as indicated by JP Morgan's decision to essentially end proprietary trading with their own funds.

Banks are subject to huge penalties if they incorrectly declare their transactions exempt from regulation, among which are VOIDING of the transactions.

Hedge fund reporting requirements apply or don't apply to the entire fund, not individual transactions (whether or not they mitigate balance sheet risk). Small hedge funds are exempted, but this has nothing to do with mitigation of risk.

Banks still fund credit rating agencies, until a study is complete by a defined date that is required to solve the conflict of interest problem. One solution might be for the banks to have their product rated by a random agency. This has nothing to do with who funds the agencies -- it has to do with whether banks fund the rating of their own specific products. It is entirely possible to resolve the conflict of interest problem and still have banks pay for rating agencies in general.



"Your post is yet another in a long series of attempts to invalidate an entire argument by finding (or claiming to find) a few inaccuracies."

That is an interesting sentence. I pointed out from the beginning that there were both inaccuracies and irrelevancies in your post, and substantiated each one. But the interesting part is that the sentence almost completely describes YOUR entire post. You took a 2000 page bill that has a tremendous amount of good, sprinkled on a few irrelevant or inaccurate criticisms, and claimed that it somehow proved that the bill was "Crap, crap and then some crap." How is that not EXACTLY what your sentence describes?

[jgraz]

101. Yeah, that's an even bigger pile of BS

Whether or not Tim Geithner is currently heading or staffing the CFPB is besides the point, because that will change as soon as Obama appoints a head. The CFPB is a huge part of the bill, and the only criticism you could make of it is completely besides the point.

Geithner, the resident butt-boy of Wall Street, is heading and staffing the CFPB. Only someone who's clueless or disingenuous would say that's "beside the point". (Not "besideS the point")

5% is greater than what they were previously required. Your 8% statistic was what they voluntarily held back, not what they were required to. The key is how the 8% is defined: are you averaging over all banks? All mortgages? Did EVERY mortgage have 8% held back? No. An average usually aggregates higher than normal (perhaps a bank owning an entire mortgage) with lower than normal (mortgages with nothing held back). Huge bank mortgage divisions previously had no requirement or incentive to hold back ANYTHING; the bill clearly changes that with its 5% requirement.

This is truly a masterpiece of weaseltry. 5% risk retention is a bad joke. It effectively reboots the securitized mortgage market -- the same market that led the collapse in 08. The fact that the retention requirements are below that which the banks voluntarily used before the crash is anything but "beside the point" (or even "besides the point"). If the markets crashed with 8% retention, how will 5% retention prevent another crash?

The council can require other regulators to introduce higher capital requirements, which is extremely important to minimize failures. But even if you don't consider this "regulation" (because other agencies are actually doing the regulating on the council's orders), this is besides the point. It is the council COMBINED with the resolution authority that provides them significant power to prevent problems and deal with ones that aren't successfully prevented. The oversight council will have access to banks' books in a way that no agency had before. It combines distinct regulatory powers from different agencies into one. When a bank fails, they can force bondholders to take losses without putting the firm through an economy-crashing bankruptcy. Instead of AIG bondholders being paid 100 cents on the dollar, the firm would have been resolved such that the only payouts would have been required to maintain systemic stability, and eventually they would be paid back.

The problem is that any regulation relies on people, not laws. Having Geithner in charge is bad enough, but what do you think will happen to this agency if a Repug gets elected? *Real* regulations can't be thrown out at the whim of an appointed bureaucrat.

The fact that there is no pre-fund is true and equally besides the point. The power in the resolution authority comes from what they can do in a resolution process. Whether it is funded before a crisis or after a crisis is not critical to anything the resolution authority does.

Once again, you're hoping that just because you say something, it will suddenly become true. The fact that bailouts will not be pre-funded is exactly the point (exactlies the point?). How will insolvent banks fund another bailout? (hint: they won't). The taxpayers will once again be left holding the bag.

Yes, Volcker is critical of the implementation of the Volcker rule, but that doesn't make it useless. He disliked that banks could still invest 3% of tier-one capital, as opposed to the 0% that he wanted. 3% is much better than unlimited, as indicated by JP Morgan's decision to essentially end proprietary trading with their own funds.

This is pure excuse-making, done because you can't show how my statement is either inaccurate or beside(s) the point.

Banks are subject to huge penalties if they incorrectly declare their transactions exempt from regulation, among which are VOIDING of the transactions.

Only if the regulators decide they are. There are no clear rules for making such a determination. I guarantee that no bank will ever be penalized for failure to comply with the new derivatives rules suggestions.

Hedge fund reporting requirements apply or don't apply to the entire fund, not individual transactions (whether or not they mitigate balance sheet risk). Small hedge funds are exempted, but this has nothing to do with mitigation of risk.

Are you trying to be disingenuous here? I'm not talking about overall financial reporting requirements, I'm talking about regulation of individual trades. It's entirely unclear how much dark market activity will still be allowed once the law takes effect.

And, of course, the small fund exemption is also a joke. Investors will simply split funds into smaller partnerships to avoid all reporting requirements.

Banks still fund credit rating agencies, until a study is complete by a defined date that is required to solve the conflict of interest problem. One solution might be for the banks to have their product rated by a random agency. This has nothing to do with who funds the agencies -- it has to do with whether banks fund the rating of their own specific products. It is entirely possible to resolve the conflict of interest problem and still have banks pay for rating agencies in general.

My point (not beside or besides anything) is that a "study" is not regulation and will do nothing to solve the problem. Until there's an actual *law*, nothing will change.

"Your post is yet another in a long series of attempts to invalidate an entire argument by finding (or claiming to find) a few inaccuracies."

That is an interesting sentence. I pointed out from the beginning that there were both inaccuracies and irrelevancies in your post, and substantiated each one.

No, you claimed that everything in my post was either inaccurate or irrelevant -- a claim that you have been completely unable to substantiate. You may not realize this, but there's a difference between one or two inaccuracies and a completely inaccurate posting. There's also a difference between your dissembling claims of irrelevance and actual irrelevance.

But the interesting part is that the sentence almost completely describes YOUR entire post. You took a 2000 page bill that has a tremendous amount of good, sprinkled on a few irrelevant or inaccurate criticisms, and claimed that it somehow proved that the bill was "Crap, crap and then some crap." How is that not EXACTLY what your sentence describes?

Really? A "tremendous amount of good"? How so? What, exactly, will change in the financial sector once this law goes into effect? Will the obscene profits of the parasitical banks be reduced in any way? How about the outrageous compensation of the bankers? Will we be less likely to experience another crash? How so? This is just another of your "wish upon a star" claims.

And again, you're being disingenuous. "Crap, crap and then some crap" was clearly referring to the Politif*ct article, not the bill. The bill is far worse than crap, and referring to it as crap would be an insult to all self-respecting crap. I would never do such a thing.

[BzaDem]

103. You are just digging deeper.

If Geithner were permanently running the CFPA, that would be relevant. Unfortunately for your narrative, Obama is going to appoint someone to run it. Given Warren's lack of classes this semester at Harvard, it very well could be her. Under your logic, any new agency is crap, because until a director is appointed, a temporary director is running it.

"It effectively reboots the securitized mortgage market"

How the hell does raising a requirement from 0% to 5% "reboot" the securizited mortgage market? How does that even make sense as a matter of logic? The requirement is being raised, not being lowered. And you still don't address my questions about your 8% figure. If half of all mortgages were held back at 16%, and the other half at 0%, raising the limit to 5% affects half of the mortgages.

"The problem is that any regulation relies on people, not laws. Having Geithner in charge is bad enough, but what do you think will happen to this agency if a Repug gets elected? *Real* regulations can't be thrown out at the whim of an appointed bureaucrat."

Are you kidding me? First you say there isn't regulation related to the systemic risk council. Now, you are saying that regulation is inherently bad because it relies on people. Aside from conceding the point that there is significant regulation with the risk council/resolution authority, you are missing the point that enforcement of hard laws suffers the SAME problem, because enforcement of laws is also done by people. If another Bush gets elected and wants to not enforce laws, there is little stopping him from doing so. Prior to Citizens United, there were actual hard laws with respect to many aspects of campaign finance. Few if any were enforced during the last several years, because the people Bush chose to enforce the laws decided to interpret them into nothingness.

In truth, the executive enforces all laws, and a determined executive can scuttle enforcement of hard laws or regulations (or both or neither). So your solution of just writing it all into law is no solution. Instead, it produces a further problem -- hard laws always have loopholes, and regulators can modify regulations over time to scuttle loopholes. You basically favor leaving enforcement of hard laws (with no loophole correction) up to the executive, rather than allowing the executive to modify regulations over time to make them effective. A non-enforcing executive is a problem in either case.

Though I have to admit I'm glad you finally admit there are regulations with respect to managing systemic risk.

"This is pure excuse-making, done because you can't show how my statement is either inaccurate or beside(s) the point."

Actually, I pointed out that one of the largest prop traders is ending prop trading due to the rule. Given that 90%+ of the current market is run by companies I can count on one hand, this essentially proves the rule is quite consequential and certainly not "crap."

"Once again, you're hoping that just because you say something, it will suddenly become true. The fact that bailouts will not be pre-funded is exactly the point (exactlies the point?). How will insolvent banks fund another bailout? (hint: they won't). The taxpayers will once again be left holding the bag."

The point of the resolution authority is to minimize the amount of bailouts in the first place. With AIG, the government was faced with two choices. Either pay every creditor of AIG 100 cents on the dollar, or have AIG file for bankruptcy and watch the entire world's banking system collapse (nearly all of which was extremely intertwined with AIG).

Under the new system, the government can decide to pay everyone less than 100 cents on the dollar. It could be 0 or more, depending on systemic risk. For example, Goldman Sachs would certainly have not gotten 10 billion if we had a resolution authority with the power to decide something between 100 and 0 for different counterparties (depending on systemic risk).

The only distinction you are making is WHEN the rest of the banking system funds whatever bailout there is left after the resolution authority is used. It will now pony up the money AFTER the crisis, not some arbitrary pre-set amount of money before the crisis. That is an irrelevant distinction, and I know of no progressive economist that really thinks that pre-fund vs. post-fund is going to change much at all.

"Are you trying to be disingenuous here? I'm not talking about overall financial reporting requirements, I'm talking about regulation of individual trades. It's entirely unclear how much dark market activity will still be allowed once the law takes effect."

You should take a look at what you are responding to before you accuse me of being disingenuous. The original post talked about reporting requirements. That is primarily what the hedge fund regulation in the bill is about. You changed the subject to individual transactions of hedge funds, which was not the subject of the original post. The bill primarily regulations systemically important financial institutions. Hedge funds failures would typically not cause systemic failure like major superbanks would, so there is (usually, though not always -- i.e. long term capital management) little reason to prevent their failure if they screw up. The hedge fund regulations are mainly there to aid regulators in detecting interconnections between banks and hedge funds, to help prevent banks from failing (not hedge funds). You saying the bill is "crap" because it doesn't do X or Y for individual hedge fund transactions is like saying the the extension of unemployment insurance was "crap" because it didn't break up the banks. The '08 crisis was not caused by hedge funds failing.

"My point (not beside or besides anything) is that a "study" is not regulation and will do nothing to solve the problem. Until there's an actual *law*, nothing will change."

The law mandates that the study happens within the next few years, and that the result of the study is regulations that END the conflict of interest problem. So there WILL be actual regulation with MANDATED outcomes in the law itself, and it would not have happened if the law didn't pass.

"No, you claimed that everything in my post was either inaccurate or irrelevant -- a claim that you have been completely unable to substantiate."

I actually substantiated it quite well.

"Really? A "tremendous amount of good"? How so? What, exactly, will change in the financial sector once this law goes into effect? Will the obscene profits of the parasitical banks be reduced in any way? How about the outrageous compensation of the bankers? Will we be less likely to experience another crash? How so? This is just another of your "wish upon a star" claims."

The primary purpose of the bill was to increase regulation to make crashes less likely of this form less likely. This is especially true for crises with similar causes. It does this very well, with the resolution authority/risk council/derivative title. You are the one wishing upon a star that this won't happen, so you can further promulgate your narrative.

While the bill will reduce profits somewhat (by increasing regulation dependent on size and systemic risk -- essentially "taxing" bigness), this was not the main purpose of the bill and no one ever claimed it was.

"And again, you're being disingenuous. "Crap, crap and then some crap" was clearly referring to the Politif*ct article, not the bill. The bill is far worse than crap, and referring to it as crap would be an insult to all self-respecting crap. I would never do such a thing."

I'm not sure how to respond. I guess I should apologize for accusing you of calling the bill "crap," rather than "worse than crap?" Both are inaccurate descriptions, so I really don't see the distinction in this case.

[bvar22]

157. Nice Work, jgraz....A+ on this series of posts.

:patriot:

[Luminous Animal]

89. + enough!

[another saigon]

133. Orwellian, no?

If he were serious, all obama needed to do, for a start, was to re-enact Glass-Steigal. If he were serious. But he is not, this is all bullshit wrapped in toilet paper that we are supposed to be grateful for.

[LostinVA]

110. OMFG

:eyes:

To many posters on DU, anyone to the left of Olympia Snowe is the frigging "Left."

And, I hate to tell you this, but most who are on the Left are not "anti authoritarian."

[LostinVA]

111. OMFG

:eyes:

To many posters on DU, anyone to the left of Olympia Snowe is the frigging "Left."

And, I hate to tell you this, but most who are on the Left are not "anti authoritarian."

[notesdev]

11. Oh reaaaaaally?

What was the trillion dollar stimulus for again? Anyone remember?

Or did that get shoved in the rusty cage where they keep the rationale for remaining in Afghanistan?

[JVS]

23. It was to keep the country functioning despite the fact that the state governments had become...

totally insolvent.

But it sounds so much better claiming that it was going to create jobs.

[notesdev]

37. Not so

it was to pay off 16 years of built-up political favors since the last time the party fully controlled the power of the federal purse.

All the states are still insolvent and many of the terms of the stimulus (for those that accepted it) put those states in worse financial position than they were in previously. Illinois is having lawmakers evicted from their offices because the state can't pay the rent. California for the second year running is issuing IOUs in lieu of having actual money and has actually demanded that people pay income taxes on anticipated earnings before they are even earned! Then there's New York, on the brink of bankruptcy itself, with a long line of other states queuing up behind it.

Had it actually been put to use in the way you suggest, there would be enormous tangible benefits we could point to. This is a trillion dollars we are talking about here. Instead we got vaporware "saved jobs" - little comfort to the people who continue to lose jobs in the face of ever-worsening economic conditions.

[BzaDem]

100. "little comfort to the people who continue to lose jobs"

That logic doesn't make a lot of sense. Under your logic, ANY bill that passed, after which people would continue to lose jobs, would be "little comfort."

Of course someone who loses their job is not going to be comforted if millions of others who would have lost their jobs do not lose their jobs. How is this an argument against passing bills that save millions of jobs?

"Saved jobs" is only considered "vaporware" because it is not easy (or often possible) to count the number of jobs saved. Just because you can't directly measure the quantity of jobs saved doesn't mean there weren't millions saved. Republicans often use that argument -- since we can't directly measure it, just call it 0. That is a bogus argument.

[notesdev]

130. "Saved jobs" = total bull

Nobody else has ever used the metric of "saved jobs", and with good reason - there's no substance whatsoever to back up the claim. In fact, there's good reason to believe it is a total fabrication, given that they claimed to have saved jobs in Congressional districts that don't exist.

I could claim that my psychic emanations saved those jobs and I've have exactly as much proof, and I haven't borrowed and spent a trillion dollars to do it.

It's nonsense, most people know it, and that is a huge part of why a massive defeat is on the horizon.

Too bad it's going to take getting thrown out of power for most here to come to share that understanding.

[Pirate Smile]

13. People watched the speech and really liked it. Some people here really don't want things to stay

that way.

[Better Believe It]

15. It was a well written and delivered speech. Who wrote it?

[Pirate Smile]

28. Who do you think wrote it?

[Better Believe It]

58. Possibly Adam Frankel

[westerebus]

207. Pat Buchanan.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[TBF]

116. President Obama always gives a good speech -

he is charismatic and a great speaker.

Then you sit down, read the transcript, and wonder how we elected such a capitalistic loving person to bail us out of a depression. Unfortunately he is not a bit like FDR.

[Lorien]

119. +1. It really does go to show that a few fine words coming out of a charismatic

figure can make a certain segment of society abandon everything they once believed in...which is damn scary.

[Luminous Animal]

34. Odd. I thought that WE are the government. Last time I looked WE wanted jobs and prosperity...

Surely the private sector has failed us.

[USArmyParatrooper]

38. Odd because he took something out of context.

[kentuck]

39. You make a good point..

Out of necessity, he may have to change his opinion on that...

[MadHound]

41. He is flying in the face of economic reality

And doing so with our money. Job creation programs are the best way to stimulate this economy, and tax credits and tax cuts are among the least effective way of stimulating our economy. What he is doing is essentially repackaging trickle down economics in a nice, shiny DLC package and hoping that we don't notice.

[leftstreet]

45. +1

Very well stated!

[JoseGaspar]

49. He is doing much, MUCH more than that...

He is telling you where he stands and what he "believes"... and he is confident in doing so. He will not be contradicted; he will be supported. Look around you.

The Party of FDR is dead.

[MadHound]

67. And all the more shame that it is dead.

Somebody, somewhere, sometime has to turn back this madness of trickle down economics. We've tried it for the past thirty years in one incarnation or another and it simply doesn't work. All we're doing is transferring wealth up the socioeconomic ladder at an ever more rapid pace.

[defendandprotect]

246. True -- if we want FDR, we have to find it elsewhere ....Dem Party is on corporte intravenous -- !!!

We can sit out the death watch until the Dem-Corporate-Frankenstein rises into

full fascism --

or we can stop nourishing it --

[KakistocracyHater]

273. I believe in Resurrection & he's not doing much good

*

[Radical Activist]

52. He has direct job creation programs.

He just doesn't have management of them controlled from a giant bureaucracy in DC. Obama is not an authoritarian. He isn't going to set up a centralized economy run by the government. I know that will disappoint the Stalinists but that's how it is.

[leftstreet]

57. LOL 'Stalinists?'

:rofl:

Why is it when we talk about We the People governing ourselves, it's called the pejorative "giant bureaucracy," but when capitalist owners govern us, it's just fine...

:eyes:

[Radical Activist]

62. Because that's the argument people in this thread are making.

They're stating that it's not enough for Obama to spend federal dollars on public works and job creation programs as he's currently doing. Which, by the way, FDR spent far more on private sector projects like that than he did on the WPA. The issue raised by posters here is that they want those programs run directly by the federal government.
We should be honest about what the complaint being made is and directly respond to it.

[MadHound]

83. So you're essentially saying that FDR was a Stanlinist as well?

Sure sounds that way.

[Radical Activist]

84. FDR often said WPA should be temporary.

He spent more on grant projects for private sector job creation, as is Obama. FDR was frequently concerned with federal government overreaching, which is why many of the New Deal programs were designed to be temporary. What I'm arguing is that Obama is acting more like FDR than people realize.

[girl gone mad]

60. Yes, right, but printing $1,300,000,000,000.00 in the course of 1 year, solely to rescue banks..

from their idiotic greed-fueled toxic asset binge is not the least bit bureaucratic or Stalinist.

:eyes:

[Radical Activist]

63. You're referring to Bush's bank bailout?

[girl gone mad]

66. No. I'm referring specifically to the $1,300,000,000,000 printed over the last 15 months.

[Radical Activist]

70. Does that make Obama's direct job creation grants a bad thing?

[girl gone mad]

78. It's more evidence that he isn't serious about creating jobs.

The banks have been gifted at least 13 Trillion since the start of the financial crisis.

Shall we compare the stimulus allocated to the other 98% of America?

Clearly, the economic head honchos in our government understand how a sovereign monetary system functions. The ineluctable conclusion one draws from the actions of this administration is that they reserve all of the benefits of sovereign fiat currency for a small circle of well-connected financial players while relegating the primary economy to a fictionally constrained system, a la Bretton Woods, which hasn't been our arrangement for some 40 years.

[MadHound]

69. Oh, that fifty billion pop gun he uncorked the other day?

Nice, but nowhere near enough. And to add insult to injury, that fifty billion dollars compromises less than thirty percent of this latest economic stimulus package. The rest is made up of the least effective form of economic stimuli, tax credits and tax cuts.

We've tried this again and again, and it never works. What are you expecting from this round of tax cuts, unicorns and ponies? We would be much better served if the entire 180 billion was put towards job creation, and let tax cuts go the way of Reagan.

[Radical Activist]

71. "Nice, but nowhere near enough."

I'll bet you wrote the same thing after the stimulus bill. Many did. Since that wasn't enough, isn't the addition of more money a good thing? Don't you think it would encourage Congress to do it yet again if we at least acknowledged for a moment that the additional money on infrastructure projects is a good thing we want to see more of? I get the impression that you'll keep recycling the talking point no matter how much more he spends.

[MadHound]

75. You're right, I didn't think that there was enough job creation money in the first stimulus

Especially considering that it was made up of forty percent tax cuts.

Is money spent on job creation good, yes, we need more of it. But instead we are getting more and more money spent on tax cuts and tax credits. Is that the model you want to follow, the Reagan mantra of tax cuts and more tax cuts? That's what we're getting. The first stimulus bill was made up of forty percent tax cuts, this one, over seventy percent tax cuts, what's next.

Why should we have to make a deal with the devil, handing out one hundred thirty billion in tax cuts and credits in order to get a mere fifty billion in job creation. That just continues to transfer wealth up the ladder, increases our debt, and we get little in return. Is that what you want? In times like this, doesn't it make the most sense to get the biggest bang for our buck?

[Radical Activist]

80. What we really need

is a cap-and-trade bill that puts the money toward building a new energy economy. That's the best way to create jobs. But, the Senate is threatening the future of our economy and all of humanity by refusing to act on it. Obama's latest plan is a poor substitute.

However, I don't think it's accurate to compare this to Reagan tax cuts. Reagan-style tax cuts are what will end when Obama let's the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. I view this as a reasonable trade-off. We get rid of blanket tax cuts for the rich and exchange that for targeted changes in the tax code designed to create domestic jobs.
You could compare it to what Clinton did. I wouldn't be surprised if the idea came from old Clinton people. But this is a far cry from Reaganomics.

[MadHound]

82. Sorry, but it is in the same mode, using the same rhetoric

Tax cuts are the poorest form of job creation around, they are the poorest form of economic stimulus around. Handing out tax cuts as a form of job creation simply doesn't work, never has.

If this administration wants to create jobs, then create them, put all that tax cut and tax credit money towards direct job creation. It will get us the biggest bang for our buck. That is basic economics.

[girl gone mad]

86. I think a payroll tax holiday would be very stimulative..

that, combined with a jobs guarantee program could get us where we need to be.

If the government can print $13 Trillion over two years to pump into zombie banks without any real threat from bond vigilantes or any sign of burgeoning inflation or any pressure on interest rates, then they can certainly spend a good portion of that on direct infusions to working Americans.

Leaving a giant segment of our population and our productive capacity idle is a recipe for long term disaster so in my opinion, we can hardly afford not to act. No more inefficient fiddling with tax credits and top-heavy infrastructure projects.

[defendandprotect]

248. $50 billion for jobs . . . and another round of hundredds of billions for corporations....!!!

Kinda like helping the elites break into the Treasury and steal it -- !!

[LostinVA]

113. The "Stalinists"?!

wtf

:rofl:

You either have no fucking idea what you are talking about, or just want to push buttons. Which is it? If the former, you REALLY need to educate yourself on what the Left is.

Stalinists.

:rofl:

[QC]

123. You're just not radical or active enough to understand these things. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

125. Oh is that who it is?

Figures. I hope he's working hourly, not salary.

[LostinVA]

126. Or maybe I am a secret Trot Agent

[QC]

127. See, Hamden had you all figured out.

That's why he suddenly disappeared.

[LostinVA]

128. dammit

[fascisthunter]

193. lol

he's on ignore for a good reason

[defendandprotect]

247. "The Stalinists" . . . ???? Reds under your beds . . . ????

[westerebus]

275. And no freakin pony either!

Two months to go and no pony!! Not a word!

I'm pretty sure some one has to mention pony twice for this to be a DLC sanctioned thread.

:rofl:

[westerebus]

250. So did Uncle Joe.

Uncle Joe could make a dam fine omelet too!

Hell, Joe created millions of jobs. They didn't pay much. Millions starved. Millions went homeless.

This is starting to sound familiar.

It really wasn't his fault. The last administration really blew the budget on a badly fought war.

And their version of crony capitalism and oligarchic opulence.

He did defeat the enemies but he dam near burnt down his own country to do it.

Why does this sound so familiar?

He had the worlds largest prison system. An army that kept the rest of the world stressed out.

He did expanded the role of government wire taping.

His propaganda minister told the serfs to STFU or else!

Does this sound familiar?

He never changed party affiliation. He always voted. Loved veterans.

Did I mention he made a dam fine omelet?

Thank god nothing like that could happen in this country.

We don't have no book burning here.

We don't spy on good citizens here.

We don't control the news here.

We don't start wars here.

We don't let citizens go hungery here.

We don't let citizens go homeless here.

Dam!

This sounds real familiar?

Any body fell like making an omlet?

[Better Believe It]

289. How about supporting Oberstar's 500 billion dollar infrastructure program and direct gov't jobs?

Well, I suppose in this era of casino capitalism we just can't support direct government jobs like the WPA.

Just give a few trillion more to Wall Street.

They'll take care of us.

[girl gone mad]

64. Not only is it the best way, it's literally the only way.

During periods where the private sector chooses to disinvest from the productive economy, the government must spend in the productive economy or else the economy shrinks and people suffer.

[Luminous Animal]

76. Ha! Exactly. Trickle down. A business I know fired their high paid employees

retitled their jobs, hired low wage incompetents in order to qualify for congregate wage based tax credits. Now I am working 60-70 hours a week on salary - no overtime (after taking a 30% wage cut) because I have to clean up their mistakes.

[bvar22]

156. Kudos, MadHound.

"...repackaging trickle down economics in a nice, shiny DLC package and hoping that we don't notice."

The simple truth.
:patriot:

[girl gone mad]

59. How disappointing.

His comments speak to a complete lack of intellectual curiosity about how sovereign economies actually function.

The government's role is absolutely to create jobs when the private sector refuses.

This President is now admitting that he is fine with 20% unemployment as long as the elites are happy.

[area51]

138. +1 n/t

[bullwinkle428]

77. Didn't everyone get upset when Sharon Angle said the same thing

a few weeks back?

[HuckleB]

90. Do you have a quote re: what she said that got everyone upset?

:shrug:

[JVS]

136. Is Sharon Angle the bar that you're setting for Obama's statements?

[smiley_glad_hands]

79. Sure are trying to gin up controversy on a good day for dems. Nt.

[defendandprotect]

249. It's a good day when our president says these things . . . ????

"Now, we have a different vision for the future. See, I’ve never believed that government has all the answers to our problems. I’ve never believed that government’s role is to create jobs or prosperity. I believe it’s the drive and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs, our small businesses; the skill and dedication of our workers -- (applause) -- that’s made us the wealthiest nation on Earth. (Applause.) I believe it’s the private sector that must be the main engine for our recovery.

This is Manna from Heaven for the GOP and elites -- not for any Democrat -- !!

[Bryn]

91. He certainly thought it was the government's job to protect banks and brokers ...

He certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with govt. providing "aid" overseas, and to corporate farms, and giving money to the world bank so we can interfere with the way other govt.'s organize their infrastructure, and providing the means and agreeing to the treaties that send our jobs to other places.

[defendandprotect]

251. We even bailed out foreign banks . . .!!!

I'd love to see some liberal/progessive Dems step up for 2012 . . . isn't too early

right now!!

[depakid]

92. Guess that's one area where he and his "political soulmate" Kevin Rudd differed

and the results of that difference are glaring:

Economy heading for dream run


THE Reserve Bank has presented the incoming government with a glowing picture of the economy, arguing that near-perfect conditions are likely to continue for about a year.

In a statement released after the bank's board meeting yesterday, governor Glenn Stevens said the economy would remain strong as stimulus measures were withdrawn, with private spending taking the place of government spending.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/economy-heading-for-dream-run-20100907-14zlj.html

AND

Jobless rate drops to 5.1%

The jobless rate fell more than expected in August as employers took on new staff, helping to power the economy's expansion and reviving expectations interest rates might increase before the year is out.

The unemployment rate declined to 5.1 per cent last month, from 5.3 per cent in July, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Analysts had tipped a fall to 5.2 per cent.

The data show that 53,100 full-time jobs were created in August - the biggest monthly increase in more than two years - or just prior to the global financial crisis hitting Australia.

The number of part-time jobs dropped by 22,100, leaving a net gain of 30,900. So far this year, the economy had added about 228,200 jobs, raising concerns that skills shortages may ago start to hold back growth.

Australia's jobless rate remains among the lowest in the rich world, and is roughly half the rate in US and much of Europe.

Federal employment minister Simon Crean welcomed the jobs figures as ''outstanding.''

''If one looks at the past 12 months where almost 350,000 jobs have been created, three-quarters have been full-time,'' Mr Crean told reporters in Canberra. ''This is another demonstration of the strength of the Australian economy...despite the still worrying signs in other parts of the world about the hesitancy state of the recovery other there.''

More: http://www.smh.com.au/business/jobless-rate-drops-to-51-20100909-1521k.html

[kenny blankenship]

95. Well that explains a lot.

[Subdivisions]

99. Well, that sounds awfully familiar >:^(

[glowing]

109. sadly it's the one thing even teabaggers want even though they r scared of "socialism".

[maryf]

112. Government of, by, and for the people....

only some people I guess, mostly the upper 5% (and only the second 4% because they don't know they are being used as tools)...K&R

[Lorien]

120. Corporate people

and the top 0.1%



Don't have a few million to donate? No representation for you!

[Panaconda]

117. Privatization

of everything. That's the plan. Austerity measures are already in place and we the people will suffer so that corporate profits can be preserved. He is crystal clear on this and acts accordingly. Ignore this reality at your peril.

"Contrary to the claims of some of my critics -- and some of the editorial pages -- I am an ardent believer in the free market," Obama told the Business Roundtable, a group of CEOs. "You create jobs."

[Lorien]

118. Translation= "No New Deal for you!"

Reaganomics failed the first time. Sad that he didn't learn that. One may as well believe in rainbow colored lily scented dancing unicorns as buy into that "magic hand of the free market" BS.

[Octafish]

124. Exactly.

What separates the GOP from us is we Democrats are willing to use the power of government to make life better for ALL Americans.

PS: The rich, OTOH, don't need much more than protection from all the people they've screwed to get that way.

[whathehell]

171. Exactly.....He's actually already spoken directly to the idea of a "New Deal"

He said (and I may be off by a word or two, but that's all):

"Well, we can't have a "New Deal"..I mean, we have to have businesses annd all".

It was a couple of months ago and I don't know where he said it, but I head it on the radio..It was "public".

I emailed him and told him that the baby boomers grew UP under New Deal policies, that FDR breought millions into the middle class and it was the most prosperous period in America, so much so that it's now referred to as "the golden age of America -- when everyone did well".

I guess I COULD have told him that, duh..We DID "have businesses" curing the New Deal, but I kinda sorta thought he should have KNOWN that.:eyes:

[Better Believe It]

129. Paul Krugman's thoughts on President Obama's transportation proposal

Infrastructure
By Paul Krugman
September 9, 2010

Some bleary-eyed thoughts from Japan on the reported administration proposal for $50 billion in new spending:

1. It’s a good idea
2. It’s much too small
3. It won’t pass anyway — which makes you wonder why the administration didn’t propose a bigger plan, so as to at least make the point that the other party is standing in the way of much needed repair to our roads, ports, sewers, and more– not to mention creating jobs. Once again, they’re striking right at the capillaries.

Read the full blog at:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

[G_j]

131. nobody is talking about the military jobs program?

I noticed a number of young people going in and out of the recruiter this week.

:shrug:

[TBF]

132. That's what they're counting on -

and if a few (thousands, millions...) get killed that's all the better because we don't have to worry about their veterans benefits or social security.

Radical Activist can promote free-love anarchy all he wants, but what we're seeing here is very conservative theory in action. Ronald Reagan would be proud.

[G_j]

135. very convenient

as the 'powers that be' aim us towards third word status.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/wall-street-guiding-ameri_b_700135.html

[defendandprotect]

252. What a pity ... the "Great Recession/Depression" creating more "volunteers" ....!!!

[defendandprotect]

253. Excellent point -- always a way to find another body or an another buck for MIC!!

[LibDemAlways]

134. Obama's job was created by the government as were the jobs of

every member of his administration. People in the military have jobs created by the government, too, as do a vast number of bureaucrats in Washington. At the state and local levels there are even more government created jobs, from librarians to firefighters, policemen, and teachers.

If Obama really meant that, he either wasn't thinking or he was, again, trying to appeal to a segment of the populice who will never vote for him or Dems no matter what. At any rate, it wasn't a very intelligent thing to say.

[Phlem]

160. Spot on

a million points for you my friend.

-p

[Jakes Progress]

137. Someone get a chiropractor.

The poor souls here who have the job of defending Obama's reganesque stance here are twisting themselves into pretzels with convoluted manipulation of partial truths and bending the truth so much is must wreak havoc on the skeletal system of their souls. They know they have no defense. They do their best though. Try this lie. When it is debunked, they just change the subject. Throw out a distraction. Anything.

What we have is a Democratic president who revers the policies of a republican that started the mess we are in now. No defense.

[SammyWinstonJack]

287. +1000!

[DeSwiss]

140. K&R n/t

[OhioChick]

141. K&R n/t

[Jim_Shorts]

145. Obama is very affable

He will go down in history less than average president.Listen to his remarks on labor day, where he has free reign to give his strongest speech to labor.... "their not always happy with me. they talk about me like a dog"

Now heres F.D.R.

"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and........ I WELCOME THEIR HATRED".

Madison Square Garden 1936.. http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3307

[Better Believe It]

147. He's also a handsome, learned and charming fellow and has a nice family. What more do we need?

[Bluebear]

168. Looks great in a swimsuit!

Thud! :loveya:

:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

254. Takes a great picture -- !!! In fact, so does Michelle -- !!

[QC]

298. Bo is one very adorable dog n/t

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dflprincess]

161. I don't quite figure how he thinks the private sector will continue to make us

"the wealthiest nation on Earth" when it's shipping our "skilled & dedicated workers" jobs to other countries. Not to mention the private sector companies that move their corporate offices "off shore" to avoid U.S. taxes.

[defendandprotect]

255. Don't mention trade agreements -- or homeless -- or impoverished children . . .!!!

[KansDem]

162. One word...

"TARP"

Enough said...

[earth mom]

164. Finally the truth! Obama ain't no FDR! How many of us told ya'll so?

What pisses me off the most is how Obama says he believes in the people of this country when what he really means is that he believes in the corporations of this country!

Sure, this country is made up of smart and tenacious people who will survive no matter how much shit the powers that be throw at us.

But what about those who DO need help?! Under the bus they go!!! :argh:

[JoseGaspar]

173. Exactly right...

This is an ideological statement and no mere throw-away line. There is not a single serious Democrat in America who could miss the significance of these words, nor could they ever be said in error.

During the primaries, when Clinton criticized Obama for his Reagan statements, I assumed that it was just aggressive primary rhetoric.

Not so...

[placton]

175. right on, earth mom! n/t

[TBF]

183. In all fairness there are people he believes in -

they happen to be rich people.

You saw this earlier than most, earth mom. He continues to be a disappointment for most of us who were taken in by him.

[quiet.american]

177. What a laugh. Now Obama can't even answer wingnut distortions, w/o "the left" distorting that, too.

Far left and far right - two sides of the same coin as far as I'm concerned. 24/7 distortion and fear-mongering.

[fascisthunter]

194. yuh... that's all it is folks... just far-left extremists

what did you think nobody would read the rest of the thread and make up their own minds? They'd just see your post and say "quiet.american" is right, no need to read other's comments. There are very reasonable comments on this thread and it has NOTHING to do with far right or far left, which was a very disengenous and divisive attack on a lot of folks here. Not everybody who reads DU is a fool... ya might want to consider that before spouting off.

[quiet.american]

216. Yadda, yadda.

Nope, none of those thoughts were mine. And not surprised that they're yours. Just more of the same "let's-take-any-nonsense-for-an-excuse-to-drum-up-fear-and-loathing-of-Obama" junk. Stop and think for a moment? Nope. No need. Let's just jump on the bandwagon. Even if the article linked to in the OP is a year old. Who cares? He don't like Obama, so he's our man!

[USArmyParatrooper]

225. He didn't say far-left extremists. He said "the left" in quotes.

And I agree with him.

[defendandprotect]

257. How come no one here is laughing . . . ????

Obama has never gotten tough with the right wing --

he's compromised with it so far that he's compromised himself --

Let's seen an end to the trade agreements --

Renewal of Glass-Steagall --

And an end to this outrageous pro-corporate and anti-democratic economic game playing--!!

[quiet.american]

270. Most in this thread wouldn't be laughing if Obama handed them a winning Powerball ticket.

Misery loves company.

[defendandprotect]

302. Presume you're saying Obama's progress has been close to "a winning Powerball ticket"???

Obama needs to decide whose side he's on before 2012 --

because right now we have a corporate president many would like to unload!

[JDPriestly]

178. I sat with a group of women of different ages today.

2/5 of them rent. 1/5 owns and is not worried about her mortgage. And 2/5 are facing foreclosure -- but don't know when it will happen.

Meanwhile the government pays the banks to foreclose and take the loss. The system is perverted.

[defendandprotect]

232. It is perversion, indeed -- capitalism/elite perversion being carried our by our

own government -- !!

Read an article the other day that evidently the bail outs included foreign banks!!

[davidwparker]

182. self-delete

(I have reached my quota of Obama realism for this week.)

[defendandprotect]

195. Too bad he didn't tell us that BEFORE the last election -- !!!

Better yet, before the primaries!!

[SocialistLez]

263. Ha, so true. I didn't vote for him but this would have been good to know. NT

[defendandprotect]

267. Just noticed your username . . .

how active are you -- PM me sometime with a little info on what you're doing --

I'd like to know. After all, we're being called "Stalinists" here on this thread!!

I was certainly suspicious of Obama -- but didn't know he was identifying as a "New Dem" --

somehow didn't know that. Wouldn't have voted for DLC Hillary -- and think we need a

new Dem candidate in 2012 -- something more like a liberal/progressive!!

Meanwhile, hard to move on until all liberal/progressives wake up so that we can all move

us an immense voting bloc!!

What's your plan?

[Name removed]

196. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

203. Sing it!

:applause:

[Joe Chi Minh]

200. He's plum wrong on that. This economic collapse is already showing which are the stronger countries.

And the US and the UK don't figure among them. The ones that are, are social-democrats and socialists.

It's not rocket science, so he needs a reality check. Could our hot-shots of the business world be trusted to invest in the social and material infrastructure of our countries. Of course, not. Their shareholders are driven by the same blind, insatiable greed Adam Smith was so withering about, when he remarked: "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."

[depakid]

256. Yep- not really rocket science at all. The maths aren't that hard

All that was required was:

1. Heeding the advice of progressive economists (with a track record of getting it right); and

2. The political fortitude to press the case and put effective policy in place.

Nations like Australia did that. Others, notably the US, did not.

[Joe Chi Minh]

278. The US always seems to have been in the thrall of the violent in high places,

(historically, I believe, including English aristocrats 'on the make'). Of course, their power would have varied in some degree or other, in different epochs, but it can surely never have been greater or more baneful than in the present day.

Still, it really brings you up with a jerk when you read that so many Presidents, including Nixon, tried unsuccessfully to introduce a national health service; and that its defence budget almost totals that of the rest of the world combined.

[Ticonderoga]

204. The left better begin the search for a primary challenge

to Obama for 2012. Kucinich is my choice.

[USArmyParatrooper]

223. A primary challenger just because Obama said......

Now, we have a different vision for the future. See, I’ve never believed that government has all the answers to our problems. I’ve never believed that government’s role is to create jobs or prosperity. I believe it’s the drive and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs, our small businesses; the skill and dedication of our workers -- (applause) -- that’s made us the wealthiest nation on Earth. (Applause.) I believe it’s the private sector that must be the main engine for our recovery.

I believe government should be lean; government should be efficient. I believe government should leave people free to make the choices they think are best for themselves and their families, so long as those choices don’t hurt others. (Applause.)

But in the words of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, I also believe that government should do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves. (Applause.) And that means making the long-term investments in this country’s future that individuals and corporations can't make on their own: investments in education and clean energy, in basic research and technology and infrastructure. (Applause.)

That means making sure corporations live up to their responsibilities to treat consumers fairly and play by the same rules as everyone else. (Applause.) Their responsibility is to look out for their workers, as well as their shareholders, and create jobs here at home.

And that means providing a hand-up for middle-class families –- so that if they work hard and meet their responsibilities, they can afford to raise their children, and send them to college, see a doctor when they get sick, retire with dignity and respect. (Applause.)

That’s what we Democrats believe in -– a vibrant free market, but one that works for everybody. (Applause.) That’s our vision. That's our vision for a stronger economy and a growing middle class. And that’s the difference between what we and Republicans in Congress are offering the American people right now.

Let me give you a few specific examples of our different approaches. This week, I proposed some additional steps to grow the economy and help businesses spur hiring. One of the keys to job creation is to encourage companies to invest more in the United States. But for years, our tax code has actually given billions of dollars in tax breaks that encourage companies to create jobs and profits in other countries.

I want to change that. (Applause.) I want to change that. Instead of tax loopholes that incentivize investment in overseas jobs, I’m proposing a more generous, permanent extension of the tax credit that goes to companies for all the research and innovation they do right here in Ohio, right here in the United States of America. (Applause.)

And I’m proposing that all American businesses should be allowed to write off all the investment they do in 2011. And this will help small businesses upgrade their plants and equipment, and will encourage large corporations to get off the sidelines and start putting their profits to work in places like Cleveland and Toledo and Dayton. (Applause.)

Whoops, sorry about putting it back in context.

[defendandprotect]

258. .... because of the things Obama has done as president-elect and president --

Like eloping into the White House with the DLC/Rahm --

and the rest of Obama's corporate "team."

THAT'S what requires a new Democratic challenger in 2012 --

a real liberal/progressive --

and an end to this anti-democratic/pro-corporate game-playing --

Let's move on to true economic democracy -- and let's begin by overturning

the trade agreements!

Renew Glass-Steagall --

[USArmyParatrooper]

262. All the platitudes in the world aren't going to change the fact that - It's. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Keep trying though.

[defendandprotect]

265. Well, evidently you know EXACTLY what's going to happen ...

so guess I have nothing else to say . . .

:rofl:


Nice of Obama, as well, to offer those reassuring words on Social Security and

Medicare -- Oops! didn't see that? Well, presume we'll have to guess who the

real Obama is on those issues!!

[USArmyParatrooper]

268. I do know he's not going to have a primary challenger. Care to bet on it?

Didn't think so.

[defendandprotect]

274. It's too serious an issue to reduce to a bet --

though I disagree with you --

[KakistocracyHater]

212. so Reagan banned our Freedom to create public service jobs,

that's some freedom you have there. Obama, Free Market DOGMA is not a valid excuse for doing nothing.

[defendandprotect]

259. Reagan -- the destroyer . . .

but actually I hadn't known about that until I read it hear tonight!!

Thanks to whomever posted that !!

[Peregrine Took]

215. Why didn't he clue us in to these fine facts a few years ago!

Never again!

[AllTooEasy]

217. Why didn't Clinton stop the ban?

[USArmyParatrooper]

219. Shhhh! This is supposed to be about flamming Obama.

[ProSense]

227. The entire premise of the OP is flawed

because there is a simliar programs, but it expires at the end of this month.

[Better Believe It]

228. Because the country wasn't in a state of economic collapse and didn't need to create WPA type jobs

That doesn't mean President Clinton would have rescinded Reagan's executive order prohibiting the creation of direct government jobs had the United States faced an economic crisis during his terms.

Maybe he would have and perhaps not.

[ProSense]

238. "rescinded Reagan's executive order prohibiting the creation of direct government jobs "

Exactly which one of Reagan's executive orders supposedly did this?

The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), which authorizes most job training programs for low-income persons, is scheduled to expire at the end of fiscal year 1982. Several proposals for new legislation are now before the Congress.1 Two important issues in the design and operation of job training programs are: whom to serve and what services to provide. To provide background information on these issues, this paper analyzes the effects of CETA training on participants' post-program earnings.

1. The Administration's proposal, the Job Training Act of 1982--S. 2184--was introduced in the Senate on March 9, 1982. The Senate passed the Training for Jobs Act--S. 2036--on July 1, 1982, and the House Committee on Education and Labor reported the Job Training Partnership Act--H.R. 5320--on May 17, 1982.

link

Job Training Partnership Act of 1982

[Raineyb]

293. Because Clinton is DLC and the right winged DLC agree.

You aren't under the delusion that Clinton is a progressive are you?

[ProSense]

226. Good grief

"I’ve never believed that government’s role is to create jobs or prosperity...I believe government should be lean"

There is a huge difference between a governement job, which the President is referring to, and the stimulus package and a jobs program, which is the WPA, which funds projects including public works projects. This is no different from funding infrastructure projects (public works). Those are not government jobs.

Maybe the President should follow NJ Governor Christie's lead and create government jobs that pay over $500,000 per year (prosperity).

[LWolf]

235. He makes it more crystal clear every day:

Barack Obama and I have a very different set of values, ideas, and positions on issues.

[BrklynLiberal]

245. Whatever happened to that man I saw campaigning for President????

You know..that guy who promised so much change and made us all feel so hopeful....I wonder where he is, and what he is doing these days.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9106879

[2critical]

261. Heckuva job, Barack; motivating your base; if this is true

But I have a hard time believing it. BHO could not be this stupid, eh?

[defendandprotect]

266. ... but let's be fair ... his assurances re his support for Social Security and Medicare ...

kind of balance that all out -- right?

Oops! Didn't see those assurances -- ???

Neither did I -- !!

[Name removed]

276. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[readmoreoften]

284. Thanks for re-emphasizing right-wing tripe, Obama.

[elehhhhna]

290. "create"? no. "promote and protect"? YES.

[L0oniX]

295. Gee ...but it's our job to get you re-elected? How about we do a trade...

...you get us jobs and you can keep yours.

[MilesColtrane]

297. Mr. Obama, the government should not just sit back while Adam Smith's invisible hand...

Is balled into a fist and pummeling the shit out of America's middle class and poor.

[Karmadillo]

299. I've never believed it was the voters' role to re-elect the servants of our Corporate Masters.

nt

[johnaries]

303. Ahem.

Let me give you another example. We want to put more Americans back to work rebuilding America -– our roads, our railways, our runways. When the housing sector collapsed and the recession hit, one in every four jobs lost were in the construction industry. That’s partly why our economic plan has invested in badly needed infrastructure projects over the last 19 months –- not just roads and bridges, but high-speed railroads and expanded broadband access. Altogether, these projects have led to thousands of good, private sector jobs, especially for those in the trades.

Mr. Boehner and the Republicans in Congress said no to these projects. Fought them tooth and nail. Though I should say it didn’t stop a lot of them from showing up at the ribbon-cuttings -- (laughter) -- trying to take credit. That’s always a sight to see. (Laughter.)

Now, there are still thousands of miles of railroads and railways and runways left to repair and improve. And engineers, economists, governors, mayors of every political stripe believe that if we want to compete in this global economy, we need to rebuild this vital infrastructure. There is no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains or the most modern airports -– we want to put people to work building them right here in America. (Applause.)

NO, not temporary WPA jobs. But lasting jobs that will do a lot of good in the long run.