"Obama Is About To Give A Huge Class Warfare Speech"

[Pirate Smile]

Whoops - jefferson_dem already posted a thread on this - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x826284

Obama Is About To Give A Huge Class Warfare Speech



President Barack Obama will travel to Osawatomie, Kansas on Tuesday to emphasize the need for Americans to pay their "fair share."
It's an argument that many in the Republican party reject as class warfare, but Obama will draw on a Republican president — Theodore Roosevelt — to justify his message.

Roosevelt's 'New Nationalism' speech on August 31, 1910 called for new government reforms to level the playing field for average Americans against a class of industrial barons.
"The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows," Roosevelt said. "That is what you fought for in the Civil War, and that is what we strive for now."

Roosevelt called out special interests who pulled the strings of government — a message we'll likely hear Obama adopt.

More from Roosevelt:

"Here in Kansas there is one paper which habitually denounces me as the tool of Wall Street, and at the same time frantically repudiates the statement that I am a Socialist on the ground that is an unwarranted slander of the Socialists."

"I do not ask for over-centralization; but I do ask that we work in a spirit of broad and far-reaching nationalism when we work for what concerns our people as a whole."

"I believe in shaping the ends of government to protect property as well as human welfare. Normally, and in the long run, the ends are the same; but whenever the alternative must be faced, I am for men and not for property."

Roosevelt used his 'New Nationalism' speech to launch his failed bid for the presidency in 1912, and it's safe to say that Obama's speech on Tuesday will draw from Roosevelt to lay much of the intellectual framework for his reelection bid.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-is-about-to-double-down-on-class-warfare-and-echo-a-republican-president-at-the-same-time-2011-12#ixzz1fa7BGV1U

Here's the press release from the White House:

WASHINGTON, DC - On Tuesday, December 6, President Obama will travel to Osawatomie, Kansas where he will deliver remarks on the economy. The President will talk about how he sees this as a make-or-break moment for the middle class and all those working to join it. He’ll lay out the choice we face between a country in which too few do well while too many struggle to get by, and one where we’re all in it together – where everyone engages in fair play, everyone does their fair share, and everyone gets a fair shot. Just over one hundred years ago, President Teddy Roosevelt came to Osawatomie, Kansas and called for a New Nationalism, where everyone gets a fair chance, a square deal, and an equal opportunity to succeed.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. "Make no mistake: the three Bush free-trade bills that I just passed with

the help of my friends on the Right will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, proving that I'm a friend of the 99%"*

*Note to the parody-impaired - this is not an actual quote. But the bills and the jobs are real, except they'll be created in Panama, Korea, and Colombia, and lost from the US.

[bread_and_roses]

2. +++++++++++++++ (n/t)

[saras]

4. Well, yeah, I think there's no expectation that he's actually going to support the 99% in it

The class war speech I want to hear involves using the military to get our money back from the banks. And ensure fair elections. And protect, not violate, civil rights. And break up media monopolies.

You know, THAT class war speech.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

25. YOU ARE RIGHT ON TARGET

:hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts:

[Vanje]

47. Yes! nt

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

19. All free trade treaties are not exactly alike

This has been explained a zillion times.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. Feel free to link to impartial projections showing a net increase in US jobs.

I look forward to seeing what you present.

[treestar]

32. that's been done a zillion times

Yet someone somewhere no doubt whined and sneered about "blue links." :rofl:

[MannyGoldstein]

36. Well, I've yet to see it.

I suppose that I'll not be seeing it now.

[bhikkhu]

54. "Free-trade Pact US Jobs Gains May be Underestimated"

"Oct. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama may create or support more than the 70,000 jobs estimated by economists because service industries will add workers, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-20/free-trade-pact-u-s-job-gains-may-be-underestimated-kirk-says.html

Plenty more if you want to google a bit. Of course, you could always just say that any source that talks about US jobs gains and free trade in the same sentence can't possibly be impartial, and decline to even consider the possibility.

[rpannier]

80. Can't speak to the Colombia or Panama

But it won't increase anything here in Korea

Besides it may not matter.
The ratification of the free trade agreement that happened less than a month ago may be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court here in Korea
1. Because it violates judicial laws
2. It's ratification may have been done unconstitutionally

It's a never ending saga

[MannyGoldstein]

82. How about an impartial projection?

The folks that you cite all get their paycheck from the Obama Administration. You think they'll call out their paymaster as wrong?

How about EPI:
http://www.epi.org/press/news_from_epi_free_trade_agreement_with_korea_will_cost_u-s-_jobs/
http://www.epi.org/publication/colombia_shouldnt_be_rewarded_with_a_free_trade_agreement/

Oh, and remember how Obama said he'd renegotiate NAFTA to make it fair? Still waiting!

[bhikkhu]

88. I can just as easliy say those are hardly impartial!

...but a way around the circular bias accusations is to look at actual numbers, as the results to date of the implementation of the trade policies we have been talking about.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-05/record-u-s-exports-led-by-caterpillar-seen-in-worldwide-markets.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/business/economy/us-exports-rise-to-record-as-trade-deficit-shrinks.html

I like it that Obama's policies are driving economic growth and job growth, expanding exports and shrinking the trade deficit, as we go into an election year. Can we agree that its good news, that he's doing ok?

[MannyGoldstein]

93. EPI has an agenda?

Other than, of course, the economic interest of the 99%? What is it?

Under Obama, things have gotten worse for the 99%, and continue to get still worse. For the 1%, things have never been better. Do we agree on this?

You pint out that exports are growing. Is this due to clever strategy by Obama to help the 99%? Or is it a side effect of driving down US wages, outsourcing labor to microwage countries, and a decline in the value of the dollar? I think that the evidence is pretty clear that it's the latter.

[bhikkhu]

94. Largely it is the monetary policy

If you think about the decline in the value of the dollar, the effect that has is to make US products affordable elsewhere, while making imports more expensive here. Its easy to complain "that just isn't right - the dollar should be strong!" - until you look at the effect of strong-dollar policy which has been the general rule for about 60 years. The effect is to make imports cheap and US products expensive, which destroys US production and jobs.

So that's the one easy thing that has been working well, and yes it is designed to benefit "the 99%", by creating jobs and growing the economy. If you're a holder of great wealth of some sort denominated in dollars, its the sort of policy you'd be up in arms about because it erodes your share of the pie; but for majority it is a good thing.

[Life Long Dem]

23. Not according to Michigan.

Ford Motor Co., the United Auto Workers and the Michigan Farm Bureau praised the final approval by Congress of a free trade deal with Korea.
...

... the three agreements represent almost $2.5 billion in new agriculture exports. Every $1 billion in U.S. agricultural exports supports 9,000 U.S. jobs — including transportation, food processors, packers, longshoremen, and sales and marketing representatives.

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20111013/AUTO01/110130436/Ford--others-tout-passage-of-South-Korea--Colombia--Panama-trade-deals#ixzz1faR16TRy

[MannyGoldstein]

37. Trumka and the AFL-CIO say they're a catastrophe. nt

[rpannier]

79. If anyone in the US honestly believes they'll increase the sales of new cars here in Korea

they're fools.
It ain't gonna happen

[Zorra]

89. Ouch. nt

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tblue]

6. Yeah, I know the drill.

He lays out what he "wants" and then he's pretty much done. He says what people want to hear and then, if we are lucky, he'll repeat certain lines over and over in future speeches. He does have a knack for saying the right thing, I'll give him that. And people do get excited when he does. Unfortunately, speeching alone does not a leader make.

I hope I'm wrong this time, and I do appreciate your post. Once bitten, twice shy though, ya know?

[SixthSense]

7. Speech preview

(insert profound-sounding but semantically meaningless boilerplate campaign retread speech here) + "And now I must go or I'll be late for my Wall Street fundraiser."

[tblue]

11. Lol! But in between the two:

Congress must (insert populist action phrase) to help the muddle class. (Repeat 11 times.) We've accomplished (insert select portions of The List). But if you join me in this campaign, together we will (insert items from previous campaign not on List) and we can change America. Keep hope alive! God bless you and God bless the United Stares of America.

[Pirate Smile]

9. I think this is going to be the campaign. This view vs. the Republican view & Republicans are going

to freak.

This http://blog.loa.org/2010/08/centennial-of-theodore-roosevelts-new.html has more info about Teddy Roosevelt's speech.

"Roosevelt had never before used phrases quite so radical: “The essense of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows.” “The man who wrongly holds that every human right is secondary to his profit must now give way to the advocate of human welfare. . . .” And he quoted Lincoln, “Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”

Westerners cheered the New Nationalism. Conservatives in the east attacked it, calling it socialism, anarchism, communism. Yet much of what Roosevelt outlined here would in effect become the platform for his candidacy as the Presidential nominee for the Progressive or “Bull Moose” Party in the election of 1912. The divisiveness cost the Republicans the election, however, and from then on Progressivism became for Republicans the path not chosen."

Republicans are all about protecting Capital - giving it special tax breaks and privileges. It is why the 1%, Mitt Romney and Hedge Funders pay a 15% tax rate while workers taxed on their labor pay much more. It keeps the rich rich and penalizes those working for a living.

A Romney fundraiser compared President Obama's wanting to increase the tax rate on Hedge funds to the same rate as is paid on regular income to "Hitler invading Poland".

This will be a big part of the entire battle of the campaign.

[treestar]

20. Oh great. Another wannabe dictator.

so a President "wants" something should be it?

Should have gotten your butt out to vote in 2010.

[tblue]

24. I voted in 2010. And stop taking about my butt.

We've been without great leadership for so long, some of us have forgotten what it's like. You don't have to be a dictator to lead. Whining and whimpering and blaming and caving and picking on people who voted and campaigned for you because they feel let down by you is not leadership. I really do not think he's very good at it. But it's okay with me if you do.

[treestar]

31. I don't need a leader

I live in a country that is a government of the people. I am fine with the Constitution, which requires no "leader."

I don't want one. I'd hate to live in a dictatorship. But that Mussolini, he sure could lead, couldn't he?

Face it, this country never had and never will have a leader. No one will get everything they want. That is because no one gets to lead the rest.

[robinlynne]

77. once bitten? make that over and over and over again bitten....

[Lionessa]

8. Yeah, like he gives a crap.. He's only doing this now to get votes. Fool me once,

shame on him, fool me twice,... ain't happenin' to me. But I figure there are still lots of saps out there that don't realize he's just good a speeches about the middle class, not actually giving a shit about any of them and certainly not the lower class at all.

[ProSense]

10. Maybe

Yeah, like he gives a crap.. He's only doing this now to get votes. Fool me once,

shame on him, fool me twice,... ain't happenin' to me. But I figure there are still lots of saps out there that don't realize he's just good a speeches about the middle class, not actually giving a shit about any of them and certainly not the lower class at all.

...he did these things to "get votes"? Apparently, this speech is the determining factor.

[Lionessa]

12. Your propaganda hasn't worked on me yet. Not going to today either.

[ProSense]

13. I know

the stuff the President actually does is "propaganda" the bullshit opinions and speculation are facts.

Still, it wasn't intended to.

[Lionessa]

14. Everything in that list with few exceptions are so ...

Republican in their final presentation, if I were Obama I'd be ashamed to claim them.

[ProSense]

17. Good

"Republican in their final presentation, if I were Obama I'd be ashamed to claim them."

...thing you're not.

[phleshdef]

18. I doubt Obama gives 2 shits about what you find shameful.`

I know I certainly don't.

[Lionessa]

22. Or any of the other 99%ers, which is all I've been saying all along. Thanks for verifying.

[phleshdef]

26. Obama is the only political leader to produce ANY results to help the 99% for the past 3 years.

From unemployment insurance extensions, to middle class tax relief, to keeping vital programs alive that almost every Republican running has blatantly said they want to kill.

You don't give a fuck about the 99%. You just want to tear down Obama and you are trying to use the 99% to do it. Shame on you. Thats where the shame should go.

[Lionessa]

30. I call your Obama and raise you an Elizabeth Warren.

[phleshdef]

40. Yes. Elizabeth Warren. A long time friend of Barack Obama and someone that was deliberately elevated

...by Barack Obama. And someone that designed and contributed a lot to the creation of the consumer financial protection agency, which exists because of Barack Obama pushing for its existence and signing its existence into law.

Of course I like Elizabeth Warren. But beyond her work to create that agency, she hasn't had the power to do much of anything else. Thats not any kind of fault on her, thats just the reality of the situation. At the end of the day, her one huge accomplishment is also President Obama's accomplishment. And he has had the power and has used that power to do much more. Obama has been the one thing standing between this country and the real wolves who wants to tear down all our life saving agencies and utterly destroy every shred of the social safety net.

[Lionessa]

41. You people never end giving all credit to Obama, wow, just wow.

What you've written does not line up with the facts that I've read or heard. Almost the exact opposite as a matter of fact, that it was Elizabeth Warren that had to continually hold Obama's feet to the fire.


Anyway you said only one, I say I agree, but it wasn't Obama.

[BzaDem]

51. Maybe then the problem is with what you have read/heard. n/t

[phleshdef]

56. I didn't give all credit to Obama and Elizabeth Warren couldn't have been an advisor at all...

...without Obama WANTING HER as an advisor. You can't run from that fact no matter how much you'd like to.

[dionysus]

83. .

:nopity:

[Pirate Smile]

16. The perpetually disgruntled are as hair-trigger anti-Obama as the RW.

[tblue]

21. I could say being hair-trigger pro-Obama is like being RW pro-Republican.

I just say be honest and don't sugar-coat. Obama does some good and a lot bad. There's probably no one here who wishes we could believe in him more.

[Pirate Smile]

29. When he does something you don't like, criticize it. But it makes no sense to bash him when he is

clearly going to be making an argument that you agree with - which is what it looks like the Tuesday speech is going to be.

Criticizing both the good and the bad diminishes the credibility of the arguments against the bad.

It looks like the case he is going to make - using the bully pulpit, framing the issue of the 99% vs 1% - should be something all Democrats (except maybe the most conservative Democrats) would cheer. Immediately slamming it seems unnecessary and counterproductive.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Pirate Smile]

34. Wow. I don't know who you are for winning the next election - certainly not Obama.

[BzaDem]

52. I don't think "dupe" means what you think it means.

After all, elections in this country are always between the two major parties. For Obama to "dupe" anyone, he would have to convince a person that McCain was worse than Obama when the truth was the opposite.

But the truth isn't the opposite; Obama was in fact much better than McCain. So Obama couldn't have duped anyone, by definition.

[Number23]

69. These folks have absolutely no qualms about showing their true colors

It looks like the case he is going to make - using the bully pulpit, framing the issue of the 99% vs 1% - should be something all Democrats (except maybe the most conservative Democrats) would cheer.

You would think so, huh?

I just don't understand why the rest of us have to endure them after they've made their continual non-stop, fact-devoid, 24-7 anti-Obama presences known in thread after thread, day after day.

[Sheepshank]

84. 2011-2012 trusim

all in one short sentence too!!

:fistbump: :applause: :fistbump: :applause: :fistbump: :applause: :fistbump: :applause:

[JTFrog]

15. Fail.

Your mission here has never been a secret.

[Ikonoklast]

46. Clock is ticking.

Wonder where all the haters of all things Obama will go after the Republicans get their candidate, as Skinner has already stated that Mr. Obama is the putative Democratic nominee, and will therefore be supported by this site?

[emulatorloo]

64. I think you are projecting n/t

[woo me with science]

44. You can only fool people for so long.

Three years is plenty long enough to know his priorities, and they aren't us.

[bhikkhu]

55. 21 straight months of steady job growth, in spite of all obstruction

and desperate opposition from the other side. His priority since he stepped into office has been to restore health to the economy and get people working. You can disagree with the means, and grumble about the slowness of growth, but I can't see how anyone who's been paying attention would question Obama's priorities.

[woo me with science]

59. Oh for pete's sake.

The spin is dizzying around here. You want to extol those three free trade agreements, too?

http://robertreich.org/

Good grief.

[bhikkhu]

60. Their point is to grow the economy and create jobs

...which is generally what Obama has been doing. Its not spin, its facts and numbers.

I like Robert Reich on most things, but no two economists are likely to agree, and there's not one guy who has all the answers. Obama's record on trade and job creation is pretty solid. Predictions of doom based on some other president's records on trade and job creation don't change that.

[woo me with science]

72. It's not a matter of "liking" Robert Reich or not,

just as it's not a matter of "liking" Obama or not. You know as well as I do that the "facts and numbers" you reference have been debated ad nauseum on this board over the past two days, and that many have provided extensive context, as well as other "facts and numbers," that show what spin this cheering really is. Of course you will ignore all that, but that is to be expected. This board has become an embarrassment in terms of downplaying the serious economic state we are in, in order to defend egregious Republican/corporate policies that will cause a world of further harm.

As I have stated recently in another thread, this is a horrible tactic even politically. Throwing out isolated numbers that obscure the larger picture, while ignoring the context of those numbers and other numbers that belie them, does not fool people into cheering for policies that are destructive. It does not fool them into believing that the criminal bank-excusing, budget slashing, austerity-promoting, and outsourcing-causing status quo is the right track to be on. On the contrary, it insults and enrages people who are living this debacle, and it demonstrates for them a horrifying inability to clearly see and acknowledge the real problems that are drowning this economy.

And that level of denial does not inspire confidence in the ability to SOLVE the problems.

[bhikkhu]

73. Nevertheless, total job numbers are increasing and the economy is growing

Those are facts which are unspinnable, as far as I know.

When you say that the level of increase or the character of the increase indicates a horrifying drowning debacle of an economy, I may be prone to roll my eyes and suggest that you check your perspective. Things could be better - even in the best of times, people still have troubles - but overall the majority are enjoying an improving picture. Of course you likely know, there are innumerable scenarios involving different decisions and policies where things could easily be very much worse.

If good news on the economic front and a caring and effective president don't fit the narrative you are looking for, you can make the best of it, or deny it, or perhaps pursue valid goals by means of a different sort of argument.

[woo me with science]

75. You need to reread the threads.

Not just the parts by the posters you like. :eyes:

[Sheepshank]

92. why are you posting on a pro Dem site? n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. Speech would be more credible if he hadn't waited 2 years, 10 months and 15 days to give it.

[Safetykitten]

35. True, horses out of barn, had little baby horses and baby horses had babies.

[ProSense]

38. Like

"Speech would be more credible if he hadn't waited 2 years, 10 months and 15 days to give it."

...this one: "A strong middle class equals a strong America"?

Didn't have the same effect without Republicans going completely off the deep end and the awareness created by OWS.

Perfect timing.

[Lionessa]

42. He gave speeches 2 year, 10 months and 15 days prior; it's just he didn't

act in the 2 years, 10 months, and 15 days since as he said he would in those speeches.

[lumberjack_jeff]

43. Past performance is a good indicator of future results.

If he's given that speech before, my bad.

If he gave that speech before and didn't follow through, why do we expect he would this time?

[Lionessa]

45. I'm sure it's not exactly the same speech, but I'm sure the gist of it was

spoken in the 2008 election. And I agree wholeheartedly, he says one thing and does another, but we're supposed to fall in line regardless of reality.

[BzaDem]

53. If the reality is that Obama is worse than the other major party candidate, then I don't know anyone

who would say that one should "fall in line."

The point is merely that Obama has never falsely claimed that he is better than the other major party candidate (because that claim has never been false).

[Sheepshank]

85. I'm not sure 2 years, 10 months and 15 days ago Obama would have known

what ultimate obstructionism the Right was capable of doing, what damage to the nation they were willing to enact, in an effort to oust a Democratic President.

I don't understand your statement at all.

[amandabeech]

90. Well, I think that there was a hint in how the Republicans treated Bill Clinton.

They hated him! Newt & the Pukes (a good name for a garage band, really) closed down the government in a dispute with Clinton, and then impeached Clinton over the Lewinsky matter while avoiding Newt's behavior with his second (?) wife. The nation's business stopped during that time, too.

I remember that time, and I see it as fair warning of what the Pukes can do to a Dem president and how Pukes value partisanship over the good of the country.

[Sheepshank]

91. So? You're saying that's how any President should govern from day one of their Presidency?nt

[amandabeech]

96. I think that every President should understand his or her opposition

in Congress. In other words, know thine enemy.

[Sheepshank]

97. Understanding the opposition is one thing...you were espousing governing method....

....for something that hadn't even happened.

Seriously...that is NO WAY to govern.

Sounds more like Bush's philosophical doctrine of pre-emptive strike. One must strike if they "think" something is going to happen...the very question Palin missed on one of a myriad of interviews she biffed.

[lindalou65]

39. The grass is always greener......

on the other side. Someone is always better and will do more..... Sometimes I get frustrated at all the negativity here. I support Obama and think he has accomplished much more than most Presidents in recent history. He cannot please everyone and no president ever will. I have not yet seen a president who can make everyone happy. If you don't want to vote for him, don't. You can always vote Rethug!!!!! Or write in the candidate of your choice. Maybe they will get enough votes. Who knows? Maybe you can run for President and win. Go for it!

[Bluenorthwest]

48. Full text of Roosevelt's speech at Osawatomie can be read

at this link. May Obama remember the high standards he is invoking with that location.
http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/historicspeeches/roosevelt_theodore/newnationalism.html

[Vanje]

50. Yes. Indeed.

[woo me with science]

49. Three years is more than enough time to know his real priorities,

and the lower and middle classes sure as hell aren't one of them.

[bhikkhu]

57. BS, without evidence.

I wouldn't say the opposite without some evidence or link or defined perspective - so how about why exactly do you think what you think?

[woo me with science]

58. We have been here for three years, my friend. Have you been paying attention?

If not, you are welcome to do a search of my posts, and those of many other DUers. I will even give you some keywords for your search:

Obama + settlements + banks

Obama + Hamiltonian Democrats

Obama + Third Way

Obama + Super Committee

Obama + Social Security + Medicare + Hostage

Obama + Tax Cuts + Millionaires + Billionaires

Obama + Chamber of Commerce + Jobs Plan

Obama + Free Trade Agreements

Obama + violent attacks + OWS + silence

[bhikkhu]

62. Ok - I know about all those things

Some are a stretch to use as any criticism of Obama, and many have to with with what one with the responsibility to manage the economy would have to pragmatically (and effectively) do.

The SS/Medicare/Hostage thing is a long-standing hair-on-fire prediction here that Obama is going to slash the most important social programs...many times foretold, but like that guy that keeps predicting the end of the world - at this point its more of a chuckle than even a face-palm.

[woo me with science]

70. "Some are a stretch to use as any criticism of Obama..."

Oh, really? Good lord, what a vapid response. Can you please explain to me how aggressively pushing settlements that will protect corrupt bankers from criminal prosecution is "a stretch to use as criticism of Obama?" These are the criminals who drove millions into poverty, and nothing will improve as long as they are protected and enabled.

And are you seriously saying you have no problem with his using Social Security and Medicare as hostages to slash over a TRILLION from the budget during the worst economy since the Great Depression? Or with multiple new free trade agreements to ship jobs overseas? War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. We have truly reached the age of Newspeak when policies that will result in outsourcing are shamelessly labeled "jobs" legislation.

You do realize that everything I referenced (as well as the shamefully long list I didn't) is classic Republican policy, don't you?

This is the problem with our party now. Too much Third Way enabling of corporate fellatio that is not only not helpful, but DESTRUCTIVE to the already shafted middle and lower classes. I guess you and I differ on what is acceptable behavior from a supposed Democrat.

Chuckle all you like if it makes you feel better, but know that these sorts of actions have consequences that harm real people, every single day we allow them to continue. Betrayals like these, from the President who in 2008 promised to fight for us, are exactly why frustrated, devastated, and furious Americans are now massing in the streets.

[bhikkhu]

74. All of that has been hashed over here, over and over again

People are afraid that the president will sign "free trade" deals that outsource jobs and hurt the economy. One of the historical roles of the president (one of the founding issues behind the constitution itself) is to manage trade agreements. Obama has a goal of doubling the value of US exports, and so far he's done well - exports hit a record level last month and related job creation is supposed to be about 500k. So on trade he's done well, and that's just a part of the job. Fear of bad trade agreements is based on fear of what other presidents did, not what Obama is doing.

The whole story of how he "held Social Security and Medicare hostage" is bull, from republican sources. Supposedly he demanded that they be cut, and the repugs declined. Whatever...His own words on the matter are nuanced and confidence inspiring if you read them in full. Of course you can cut and paste and edit things down if you are looking for something to fear, but why would anyone here do that?

I don't know quite what you mean by Third Way and so forth, but I assume it is objection to policies which in some cases benefit businesses as employers - such as the bailout of the auto industry that saved a whole sector of US manufacturing, and hundreds of thousands of good jobs. Other things are similar - preventing people from losing jobs sometimes means helping businesses. If you look at them as employers rather than CEO's, it might make more sense, but in any case job creation fails if businesses and jobs are going under faster than new jobs are being created. That was the case for months before and right after the election, when millions of jobs disappeared.

Currently the job situation in the private sector has improved steadily for 21 months straight...there's a long way to go, but it is encouraging to see it going in the right direction.

[woo me with science]

76. I will take these one at a time:

Paragraph one boils down to a whole lot of empty verbiage saying essentially, "Yes, trade deals have historically led to outsourcing, but *Obama's* trade deals will be different, I promise." The little lesson on the constitution (sic) was an especially nice bit of pedantic filler.

Yes, we all know that the administration is focusing on exports now. Do you realize why? Because they have determined that recovery will not be driven by Americans as consumers...because Americans don't have any money anymore. Instead, we are looking for nations which rely heavily on their OWN exports, and with which we have always had a trade gap, to rescue the American economy by buying all the things we are not even manufacturing. As many economists have opined in print since the administration announced their focus on exports, this plan is a recipe for continued economic sputtering, trade wars, and continued economic pain for Americans who have essentially been abandoned in the quest to keep corporate profits rolling in.

Paragraph two is flatly false. We were here, remember? I have summarized this whole debacle many times here, and you are welcome to look up my posts, which contain extensive links to the President's own words and media accounts at the time. Just google, "Be careful what you ask for. Here's your reality sandwich," along with my screenname. You are entitled to your own opinions, bhikkhu. You are NOT entitled to your own facts.

Paragraph three: "I don't know quite what you mean by Third Way and so forth..."

Of course you don't. :eyes:

And it gets better: "but I assume it is objection to policies which in some cases benefit businesses as employers - such as the bailout of the auto industry that saved a whole sector of US manufacturing, and hundreds of thousands of good jobs. Other things are similar - preventing people from losing jobs sometimes means helping businesses."

Sometimes? Sometimes? When has he done otherwise?

Classic Republican talking points: "We need to help the job creators." I am surprised you did not throw in the bit about regulations' making businesses "insecure," and the need for tax cuts for them, too.

So this is what we have come to in the Democratic Party: celebration of free trade agreements and austerity/budget slashing, defense of putting Social Security and Medicare on the bargaining table, and an exhortation that we need to help the job creators. Good god.

With a "Democratic" Party like this, who needs Republicans? Thank goodness for OWS.

Good luck to you. With this administration, we are all going to need it.

[bhikkhu]

95. Your replies are well organized, well thought out,

and grammatically correct, (all of which I appreciate) though clearly I don't agree with the conclusions.

At some point one must move on to other arguments and discussions, but it is worth noting that where I write that Obama's policies toward the auto industry were very effective, as they were good for the country and for the working people, you seems to simply dismiss that as Classic Republican. Why should a Democratic president be criticized for good policies which help industries and create jobs? What Obama has done in that arena is hardly trickle-down, and is clearly more effective.

Whether you look at "free trade", or austerity, or social programs, you decline to look at the actual results of the policies Obama has implemented, but rather point to the poor results of other less than effective policies and ideologies from the past. It seems to be a type of hyperbole you can "feel in your gut" versus nuance that you have to sit and think about, and perhaps study with the aid of context and background. I appreciate that you seem to be intelligent, but I don't quite understand an intelligence that turns away from facts, and instead jumps to rapid conclusions and justifies them with narrow perspectives and information cherry-picked for effect, but not necessarily related. Or so it seems to me - I could be wrong?

[emulatorloo]

65. FDL memes and oversimplification don't carry much weight

[woo me with science]

71. Typical eight-word response from you.

I am the only one in this argument who has provided any substance or reference to policies whatsoever. Snarky remarks do not an argument make.

What an embarrassment for Democrats the Third Way spin machine is.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

61. Ummm...is using a speech by a Republican in his failed bid for the Presidency

a good idea for a re-election campaign? Particularly for an alleged "Democratic" candidate?

Bad move, IMO. When he starts using FDR's speeches and policies, then we'll be getting somewhere.

Like Alan Grayson said: " there is no center-left". So who the hell is he pandering to other than his own fence that he refuses to get off of? Fences don't vote. And most people who do vote would vote for a real Repub than a fake Democrat and at this point, he may as well be wearing a neon sign that labels him just that.

:wtf:

[emulatorloo]

63. Teddy Roosevelt did a lot of great things as President

Let's not be a-historical here by pretending Roosevelt was a " typical modern Republican."

[ProfessionalLeftist]

67. True. He puts "typical modern Republicans" (who are batshit crazy) to shame

Just have to wonder - if those nationalist themes didn't work for Teddy Roosevelt...they may be a failure for Obama too. But then again, things are veery different now. :shrug:

[Pirate Smile]

66. "Alleged" Democratic candidate?

Gawd, this place gets especially ridiculous on the weekends.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

68. Well, anyone who advocates for cutting SS ...

... Could hardly be honestly called a Democrat - and that's unfortunately most of them these days.

[Sheepshank]

86. I can't find a reference to those words....

"Obama advocates cutting SS". Advocates? Really? wow

[Marrah_G]

78. I wish Campaign Obama was President, I really like him.

[frazzled]

98. No, I think you wish words could become laws by magic

Look, I believe that you like him. But I also believe that you (and others) believe a president has more power than he/she actually does.

Yes, these are just words. But just words are all that are on the signs at OWS gatherings. Words are all that the pundits and politicians who are so beloved here have. None of these people have fulfilled the promise of their words in any way at all.

To translate those words into laws and action, it takes 100 Senators, 435 Representatives, and/or a Supreme Court. That is how our government works.

There was much in the speech today that has been said by this president many times during the past 3 years--when he was NOT campaigning. He lost on quite a number of the issues he promoted. If you weren't listening, we can't help that.

[hulka38]

81. His team has concluded that it will help him get reelected.

[coalition_unwilling]

87. Oh, pleaee - Obama serves the 1%, not the 99%. Give me

a friggin' break. If Obama actually served the 99%, there would have been no need for OWS.