President Obama told Osawatomie, Kansas, today that ever since the financial crisis, Americans have been locked in a debate over how to fix the economy and bring back fairness.
Throughout the country, it has sparked protests and political movements - from the Tea Party to the people who have been occupying the streets of New York and other cities. It's left Washington in a near-constant state of gridlock. And it's been the topic of heated and sometimes colorful discussion among the men and women who are running for president.
But this isn't just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make or break moment for the middle class, and all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. At stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, and secure their retirement.
Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that's happened, after the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that have stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for too many years. Their philosophy is simple: we are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.
Well, I'm here to say they are wrong. I'm here to reaffirm my deep conviction that we are greater together than we are on our own. I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, and when everyone plays by the same rules. Those aren't Democratic or Republican values; 1% values or 99% values. They're American values, and we have to reclaim them.
Emphasis mine, reason being that President Obama is folding in the Occupy Wall Street movement and the spin-off 99 percent meme and the Tea Party all in one speech about fairness as an American value. NBC producer Shawna Thomas says this is a new deal for him.
Mr. Obama may not have sounded this populist since his address to the 2004 Democratic convention, the speech where he argued that there isn't a Blue America or a Red America but one United States of America. It's the same formula Elizabeth Warren has been capitalizing on -- we all pay the taxes and build the roads and educate the workers.
E.J. Dionne has a great first look at the speech's roots in Teddy Roosevelt. We'll have a whole bunch more on the show tonight.
Leave a Comment:
Glad to hear it!
Glad to see that he's awakened from his "bi-partisan stupor"....Bravo Mr. President!
Well, if you have been observing this latest political process, (the remix)...we could agree that it has not been typical...unfortunately the White House had to play the game to the end. Manipulating fact and inventing fiction, is the New Truth. We can hope that this new fangled "crap-fest" will end with this election and not darken our doors in the future. (ok...stop laughing... i know we will see this over and over again. a guy can hope can't he?
Vampire! Long time no see! How are you?
Obama couldn't have made the differences between the Dems and the GOP any clearer!!!
Yet, sadly, I'm sure that the conservatives brush aside the words as if it was dandruff on their shoulders.
He already has my vote for next year.
President Obama has made good sense from the beginning. The Republican electorate refuses to understand common sense, and their Party is hellbent on bringing down this Administration at whatever cost to the Country, as is evident in their childish and outrageous behavior.
My respect and admiration for this man has never waned, and I feel strongly that he is the only person to bring this Country back to the top. Reason and rational thinking, plus high intelligence, ultimately trumps spitefulness and ignorance.
It's about time he switched from being a Wall Street darling to the president I voted for.
Absolutely. He also needs to get out of D.C. more. He becomes, as these remarks show, a whole lot more like the guy I voted for when he does.
There's still space on Mt. Rushmore. If Obama fulfills his potential, he's as good as they get.
Agree wholeheartedly!
It's going to be hard to motivate the 99% to vote, with so many folk expressing "disappointment in Obama". I'm even more disappointed in the electorate. In 2008, 61% voter turnout. In 2010, 42% voter turnout (granted, it was higher than the previous 2006 mid-term election). The low voter turnout in the mid-term is directly responsible for this whole TEA Party fiasco in which our nation is mired.
Struck the nail on the head there. It's hard to point fingers at the Administration when the real truth is that 'we the (apathetic) people' are to blame. The coach needs his players or the game will be lost.
I think that the 99% are looking for a reason to take hope again. The fact that the OWS movement is so widespread is due to their incredible energy and awareness of the current political landscape. They have not struck me yet as being composed of people who don't understand the reality of the situation, despite their seeming anti-establishment stance. The 99% know that they need to vote in order to see any change in this situation. Even those who are calling for the creation of a new governmental model understand that until that exists if would be foolhardy to abandon the one that is currently in place.
The real concern at this point ought to be the election of legislators that will actually work for their constituents. That is the point that needs to be brought home now. We cannot afford to let Congress continue to behave as they have been, nor can we be sure even if Obama does get re-elected alongside a Democratically controlled House and Senate that it will be enough unless we can properly vet those we elect. The blue dog Dems are dangerously risky. If enough bought-and-paid-for legislators to keep Congress tied up in grid lock remain, it will still be a disaster.
One thing the American voter lacks is the ability to recognize a good thing when they see it.
Wealthy people pulled strings to put a halt to progress in Washington DC by filibustering the senate and getting a GOP majority in the house, which made change impossible. And people voted for that.
Real change requires commitment and enough intelligence to realize the wealth of a few people is destroying the country.
here, now, today: we are all (berlin'ers) occupiers!
Ich Bin Bekleiden
smiling if my German is still good.
Another Good Job making the case between the ones who are for all of America and ones who are just there for the money.
Hmmm...I wish President Obama would say numerically exactly what is fair? What is the right federal income tax for someone who makes $500,000 in income? What is that number? No one is saying, only we are not there yet.
As long as the tax system is complicated and vast, one can never determine the fairness. The system is we will cut here, raise over here, give a break here, and then add to what's there...tada!
I'm for a graded flat tax. Something along this line...
1. No tax on first $20,000 income.
2. 15% on the next $30,000 income.
3. 20% on the next 50,000 income.
4. 25% on the rest.... (Deductions only for home and charity)
Or something in this frame of "flat." Then you know exactly what everyone is paying. Pilot, what's your thoughts or plan?
That's not flat. One tax rate, 17%. Flat. What you are suggesting is a progressive tax rate. And that's fine, I agree with you, that would be fair. But that's not flat.
And a flat rate is extremely unfair.
17% of $100 is $17.
17% of 1 million dollars is $170,000
Just saying.
I put "graded flat tax" but should have used "graduated flat tax," as defined here:
What ever it is called, it seems to combine simple and fair, IMHO...and I agree, a true flat tax would be "extremely unfair."
The next question is why isn't something like this being proposed? Hmmm.
RobDon, Finally we agree on something. Taxes need to be simplified. I hate doing them so I hire mine out but if one can't afford that one is stuck with tearing hair and cussing because it's toooooo complicated, annoying, and nauseating.
I never mind paying my fair share but that means everyone should. Most of us can't afford tax attorneys to find off shore banks and loopholes to hide money in like the 1% can.
Aye! Part of the benefit of buying politicians is that they can make tax law that benefits you quid pro quo if you pay them enough. Get enough people doing that and you get the mess you have now.
I knew if I hung around long enough we'd find some common ground. Maybe being here is rubbing off, just don't know in which direction yet.
Now the question is how do we totally change the current system? It would greatly reduce the IRS work force and the "hired" tax preparation business, not to mention tax attorneys and tax accounting specialists...I'm fearful this simple fix will never happen.
nice to hear... but at the same time its a little too late in his game.
In whose opinion other than yours? A little late? He has had to try to get anything done thanks to the Republican stuffed House of Republicans and the filibustering by Republicans in the Senate. He tried for the first 2-1/2 years to compromise with them until he found it useless.
He still put them into a corner with the 2% of the agreement for the debt ceiling they passed. They thought they would be able to change the automatic cuts, etc. when the time came. They banked on the possibility that President Obama and the Democrats would cave, just like they had in the past. President Obama has thrown down the glove they didn't expect. He will not accept any effort to change to the automatic cuts and will promptly veto the effort.
When you have tried to work with people and finally have to admit "it ain't happenin" you can only begin to let the world know why it isn't happening. He is doing that. In Diamonds!!!
I still say when his second term is done, we will know that we were living when one of the greatest Presidents there has been in this country was in office. He is morally upright, he is family oriented, he doesn't sink to the lower displays of others in office, he holds the high ground and reminds us what we stand for in America. He is a good role model for our children and a fine man. We will only know how fortunate we were to be here at this time and in this crisis, after his next four years.
Amen to that!!
Well said, gramapoetmn. It still makes me shiver to think of how horrible our lives would have become under McCain/Palin. That bullet passed much too close for comfort, and the present republican wannabe presidents don't do a thing to allay that fear. Any thinking progressive who DOESN'T show up to vote next November....
Obama and the next Democratic president are just reprieves from a Republican Administration wrecking out country. The plane of State sucked an elephant into the engine with Bush/Cheney, Obama is barely keeping it aloft. It would be lovely if we could just throw the obstructionists off, but corporations claim they own the plane and want to cash in on the insurance if it crashes. Old old story.
The American people are not stupid or gullible. Actually, some American people are because they fall into the hype of things. I think the President Obama is really doing a good job of running this country. The republicans think they have not done anything wrong. I hate when someone tries to place blame on someone when it is clearly there fault. Please take responsiblity for your actions. Did the republicans forget who was running this country for eight years. President Obama had to get huge sweeper clean up the mess that they made. Of course it is not going to take four year to clean up half the mess. Republicans need to take their EGO'S out of the picture and actually think about the Middle Class -which is growing smaller- instead for the one percent. President Obama is fighting and I think he is putting up a good fight. Whoever runs against him, you will blown out of the water. You might as well not even waste your time and money on your campaign because you will lose. Sorry to tell you way ahead of the game.
President Obama has been unforgivably absent from work lately. The Occupy movement would seem to be in line with his rhetoric, and yet he seems to be keeping it at a disdainful distance. I can understand. The movement overall seems to be most associated with "dirty hippies". It is unpopular in many circles. Especially the rich circles that make campaign contributions. If I could only get one message across to Mr. Obama it would be this: Our nation is more important than your re-election. You aren't doing us any great service by worrying about votes. Do a good job by fixing some of our big problems and the people will re-elect you. You appear to have been dong little else but focusing on re-election campaign visits. Your attention needs to be focused on solving problems, not on talking about solving them in the future.
Wow. If he stays in Washington working, they say, "He needs to get out of Washington and find out what's really going on out here!" When he gets out of Washington to speak about what is really going on in Washington, they start screaming that he needs to stay in Washington to get something done.
Here is what is really going on. The President of the United States is trying to get a strictly do nothing Congress to do something for the 99% of our population that is at or near the poverty level or at best struggling to survive with their families. He worked diligently in Washington for 2-1/2 years to compromise with a party the only wanted to stop any effort he made so they could ensure his being a one term President. He gave it his best and when he saw that there was nothing he could do to move the immovable object, he made the decision to go to the irresistable force for assistance.
Instead of the consistent fault-finding from both the constant opposition and the presumed supporters, it would be nice if at least the supporters quit castigating him for every effort he makes. Quit expecting him to be Ironman. He is not a dictator, he is a fine man doing a much better job than any other President did under circumstances that were much better than he is fighting.
Just as an aside, Ex-president Bush took 180 days of vacation in the same period as President Obama has been in office, who has taken only 61 days. Don't start screaming about him taking some time off with his family this time. He has earned it much more that Congress, and we ended slavery even for the President..
Please excuse the mis-spellings, I didn't catch them until now. Sorry, folks.
I do not ever say that he needs to stay in Washington or get out of Washington to see what's going on out there. So don't imply that I'm damning him either way. I'm saying he needs to be focused on doing his job and not giving campaign speeches. He can do his job from the airplane, or the hotel. I don't care. He appears to be doing nothing at all in regard to the Occupy movement, and has said nothing about the police brutality. And I think it is because he is intentionally distancing himself from it. Specifically why, I can not say, in large part because he hasn't said anything. But I speculate that it is so as not to alienate potential campaign supporters. I voted for Obama. And I might again. But I'm hoping someone better comes along. I haven't seen anyone yet though.
I love my President but Quit talking and Do Something for us!!!
What have you done for your President lately? At a meeting recently with the activists who opposed the Canadian pipeline project, the President asked, "Where are your people?"
The activists gather their people and they surrounded the White House. The pictures made the evening news. The pipeline was stopped the following week.
The Occupy Wall Street movement allowed the President to make that speech today. Politics is the art of the possible. The President will do what is possible for him to do. We are the ones that enable him.
In Moscow yesterday there was a rally against corruption, it was the first spark of physical action. There had been a lot of Internet blogging that represented the discontent with the current system. The powers that be had laughed at the Bloggers and called them Internet Hampsters'.
Right now, as I write this post and you read it, we are running on our hampster wheels, railing against the system. Perhaps we need to break out of our cage of complacency and go "Do something for Ourselves!!!"
Or not, it's your choice.
Shouldn't Mr. President Barack Obama be condemning the violence? What about the destruction of seized property?
You mean destroyed in raids possibly coordinated by the DHS? Obama is a tough position. On the one hand, it would be beneficial to his re-election campaign if he embraced Occupy in both arms and...ahem! But he's still the incumbent President of the United States and Occupy is a threat to good order. It's a threat in a good and necessary way, but to anyone in a position of authority that's a distinction without a difference.
That doesn't justify Obama. Not really. It just means that the status quo needs to be shaken up more. And spanked.
I didn't see any confirmation of that story of coordination by DHS- I saw the initial speculation due to the comments by the Mayor of Oakland, but didn't see anything after that on the coordination portion. Where is the news story that confirmed coordination?
We'll see. He still is over DHS which coordinated with mayors to put down Occupations. As The Wolf said in Pulp Fiction, "Let's not start s***ing eachother's d***s just yet." Obama has always talked a good game and he has never passed up a chance to sell out his supporters in pursuit of "bipartisanship." When it come right down to it, he's a first rate poet and a 3rd rate horse-dealer. He handled the housing crisis and Wall Street Meltdown the same way he handled Deepwater Horizon. It would have been like Bush leaving the clean up of 9/11 in the hands of al Quaeda so they could dispose of all the evidence against them. He is still weak on regulating Wall Street, still toed the line on federal public union members being to blame instead of unemployment for the deficit.
If he is sincere, he'll be backing the Occupiers and 99percenters over local law enforcement. Personally, I think he'll talk the good game about putting some comfortable shoes on and joining the protests when in fact he'll be using the Dept of Homeland Security against them because there is nothing worse than scared rich people.
Joshua Holland has done a very thorough job of taking apart Naomi Klein's assertion that DHS or the federal government "coordinated" or had anything to do with the spate of takedowns of the Occupy camps.
Just watch.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/06/1042835/-Why-is-the-Federal-Government-Militarizing-our-Police-Departments?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
Charley, would you please give us a link to the site that took this apart?
I generally agree with Don (and think he is terrific) but this time I think he is blaming the President for something unknown. The President doesn't have his thumb on everything going on in the country at every moment. To assume he is the ultimate villain seems to be a bit heavy and out of character. It is distinctly possible that the DHS made the decision on their own.
Just my opinion, Don.
Doubt DHS or the president had anything to do with a coordinated breakup. More likely each mayor did the due dilligence necessary to clear the area, or other scenarios they thought might arise. It only took one or two successful shutdowns to get the ball rolling on the rest.
Its all good Grama. Its the timing and the change of tactics used against Zuccoti Park that stinks. From all reports it looked more like Oakland on Nov 15th. There is alot that we don't know and may never know. But if the president was squarely on the side of the Occupiers, it would be within his purview to insure that their Right to Assemble, to Free Speech, and to have Redress of Grievances would be protected. And I don't see that happening. And I know it'll get downright whacky come next election cycle between the protestors, the voter suppression efforts, and law enforcement.
Hi Don,
Pres. Obama cannot "authorize invasion" of a state to protect OWS protesters without a request from the governor of that state and approval by congress.
The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits that to prevent another civil war.
The US government is a separate sovereign independent from state government, and one cannot interfere with the other for now.
Pres. Obama is limited.
All Pres. Obama can do is withdraw funding that would cripple bankrupt states, speak about the issues in public, and listen to demands (redress grievances with government).
And he is doing all of those things.
I think you're misinterpreting things a little. Consider the instance of the Little Rock Nine. Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent in Federal troops in order to enforce integration of the Little Rock public schools, and did so in defiance of the wishes of the governor, who had been using the Arkansas National Guard to prevent integration.
At issue is the coordination of the president with the Dept of Homeland Security. I'm not saying that federal troops were used. But I do suspect...suspect...that tacts strategies and information was shared among various mayors and local law enforcement agencies through the DHS and that Nov 15th with the appearance of officers in riot gear in New York, heretofore seen in Oakland was part of a coordinated effort.
Where is wiki-leaks when you need them?
It's conceivable that any coordination among the mayors in question and the DHS is more attributable to the Bush administration, since it was under Bush that the DHS was created along with the mentality that just about everything is an existential threat to civilization which requires immediate and maximum force as the default response. The Obama administrations fault in this could be that of allowing this mentality to continue.
Obama adopted all the initiatives created under Bush. In some cases expanded them. We still have Gitmo, though - thankfully - we no longer torture (I sincerely hope.) But now American citizens are killed without due process if it is expedient.
His continuation of Bush initiatives enshrines them.
That's the trouble with presidential powers, isn't it? Every expansion is continued by succeeding administrations. It's got to stop somewhere, somehow.
It's gonna be scary monsters when it does.
It was a very good speech and I'm glad the President took on Republicans face-on. By calling out their defense of the rich, of large corporations and for doing away with the regulations that level the playing field - including child labor; child labor, for Pete's sake! - he forcefully drew a line in the sand between what Democrats and Republicans stand for today. And E J Dionne's piece in WaPo does a nice job of tying what the President said today with what Teddy Roosevelt said way back then.
If this is "class warfare," then bring it on!
It will take a decade or more to clean up this mess, and that will require Americans to stay on topic for a decade which will never happen. These are dark times. There has to be a paradyme shift in values for America to build up the middle class, or we will collapse. I wasn't alive in the 1930's, but from what I understand from those who were that's what it took then too. It takes the whole country falling into disaster to figure it out. and even then, within a decade people will again start dismantling whatever fixed the problem in the name of making 1% more in profits that year.
The problem isn't the 1% really, it's those that think they will be in the 1% someday but are really just one tradgedy away from barely making it. It's those folks who need to get their heads out of their asses and align themselves with the middle and lower classes against the 1% who is doing everything they can to prevent them from succeeding. But they wont. The fancy themselves too clever to ever have tradgedy befall them
If Obama truly believed what he said, then he would not let the people who caused the collapse to walk away with a slap on the wrist and bigger bonuses. He needs to clean out his advisers that came from the banks and Wall Street investment firms. Geitner should have been fired a long time ago. Also, he needs to direct Holder to begin criminal investigations since the SEC has failed to do anything. The Dems need to propose a revamp of the SEC and remove the people who are intimately involved with the people they regulate as well as adequate funding for the agency to do their job. Otherwise, I think Obama is doing the same that the Republicans did with the Tea Party; he is trying to co-opt OWS without showing any sign of good faith.
My own misgivings as well.
Agreed.
Difficulty.
Republicans in congress have prohibited anyone from being appointed to head the Consumer Protection Agency that would have been enforcing wall street laws.
Consumer Protection Agency cannot do any enforcement without an appointment to that office.
Elizabeth Warren should have been appointed, but that was rejected.
GOP wants to appoint someone that will dismantle the Consumer Protection Agency before it has a chance to do any enforcement.
what kills me is the same ones jumping on the wagon to shew away the occupiers, are most proabley the same ones that demostrated in the 60's, ask them if they thought they were doing wrong then..
I wish Obama would do more than just occasionally talk like this.
Hi Chris,
You get a star.
My bet -> there will be a DOJ investigation into civil rights violations after re-election.
The difficulty is that Pres. Obama cannot "invade" a state to protect protesters by interfering with law enforcement (would expose him to risk of in impeachment).
He cannot cut state funds to stop the police because that will cause more unemployment and crime.
All he can do right now is shame the city mayors in public in order to encourage local governments to accommodate OWS participants.
Pres. Obama can influence those local elections by careful choice of words, and that is what he is doing for now.
He could influence FBI to arrest police involved in breaking up OWS protests, but only if those actions were not required for safety or aggression (constitution only guarantees right to protest when it is both safe and peaceful). The safety thing could be an issue with respect to things like sanitation, electricity, and heat.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/05/the_infantile_style_in_american_politics/singleton/
I think the President is speaking in the only way one reasonably can to toddlers having tantrums and throwing things. We have remarked before that he behaves like the only adult in Washington...and if you re-read your Hofstadter, you'll know why that's so.
I just did. I'm incorporating it into my blog.
And while we're at it. Read this and weep:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/06/1042835/-Why-is-the-Federal-Government-Militarizing-our-Police-Departments?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
And Yet He cracks the whip on the protesters.
What a hypocrite.
I Voted For President Obama and will again but only because there is no other option.
Until he condems the police crackdown I have Zero Respect for him.
More ridiculous equivocating.
What exactly would some disaffected Democrats have the President do at this point? He's only got the bully pulpit and I think he's using it very effectively. Sure he compromised too much with republicans. But you think the republicans will work with Democrats on our progressive vision? Think again Democrats. Don't punk out. We need to finish what we started.
The Republican Party stands on the wrong side of history and stands against everything America stands for as a nation. The GOP and their allies in the billionaires club are waging a ruthless and short-sighted class war against the rest of the country, sending inequality to unsustainable levels. If the President can tap into the anger and frustration among working Americans at the fate gleefully assigned to them by the corporate and political elite, he can craft a fair and persuasive argument against the GOP's trickle down fallacy. http://www.sunstateactivst.org
But are the Democrats on the right side?
I think Occupy is one of those rare things which bring the right and wrong sides of the issues into sharp focus. It's much like with the Abolitionists, Suffragists, Freedom Riders...Occupy forces people to pick a side. If only more people, in and out of government, would get that.
"I'm here to reaffirm my deep conviction that we are greater together than we are on our own." Thank you, Mr. President...now would you PLEASE hammer this home? Thank you...lawdamighty....
You can't do anything when two sides have to agree but one of those side absolutely refuses to do so. Obama and the Democrats have not only given the Republicans "things" they've wanted, in many cases they have come over completely to their side actually offering them their own Republican proposed bill in a simple effort to get something done and still the Republicans have refused.
it's funny to me that one day the partisans will say that's weakness. The very next day they will actually say, (and constantly do) that both sides of the isle are so polarized that they are paralyzed. But when one side (the Dems) come so far over to the right that they actually hand the GOP their own plan that is not polarization, that is the very definition of moderate, the very definition of negotiation, in fact that is bending over backward to do so.
These are just beltway narratives, and conservative ones at that, that the media is trying to perpetuate. If we want Obama to succeed, if we want the country to actually start to move in the opposite direction we need to realize that we have to do more than just re-elect Obama. We need to make sure there is an overwhelming majority of Dems in both the House and Senate. Send a message. You have to support ALL Dems if you want change it's as simple as that.
Well said. The only change I would like to see is a differentiation between the Democrats that vote in support of the President and those Democrats that vote with the Republicans.