« Remembering Scott Stream | Obama's first Address to Congress, and the Nation. » |
Obama's address to Congress. Broken Down...
Before I get started here I wanted to bring this bit to the forefront.
I think about Leonard Abess, the bank president from Miami who reportedly cashed out of his company, took a $60 million bonus, and gave it out to all 399 people who worked for him, plus another 72 who used to work for him. He didn't tell anyone, but when the local newspaper found out, he simply said, "I knew some of these people since I was 7 years old. I didn't feel right getting the money myself."
I take the most issue with this bit. Sure this man Leonard Abess gave away $60 million. He said, I knew some of these people since I was 7 years old. I didn’t feel right getting the money myself”. The important thing here is that Mr. Abess gave the money away, he did not have it taken from him in the form of taxes. Obama talks of spreading the wealth around. There is a large difference in charity, and government mandated REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!
The weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this nation.
Notice the use of the word crisis again. This is right at the beginning of the speech.
A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future.
This implies that it is the government’s role to transfer wealth. Since when has this been an American concept? The wealthy are wealthy because they earned it Mr. Obama. By this standard all of the current wealthy people are wealthy because of government. The opposite is true.
People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway.
Lenders can’t “push” anyone into a loan that they cannot afford. Lenders lend, they help with an idea; that started with the borrower.
Now is the time to act boldly and wisely - to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity. Now is the time to jumpstart job creation, re-start lending, and invest in areas like energy, health care, and education that will grow our economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down. That is what my economic agenda is designed to do, and that's what I'd like to talk to you about tonight.
I do not like when he uses fraises like “build a new foundation”. Without any specificity, given his track record this could not be a good thing.
So the recovery plan we passed is the first step in getting our economy back on track. But it is just the first step. Because even if we manage this plan flawlessly, there will be no real recovery unless we clean up the credit crisis that has severely weakened our financial system.
I called this one. I was sure that he was going to lay the groundwork for future spending. The “stimulus bill” just passed was the largest in history. The economy is not going to rebound by increasing the countries debt.
Second, we have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and re-finance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values - Americans who will now be able to take advantage of the lower interest rates that this plan has already helped bring about. In fact, the average family who re-finances today can save nearly $2000 per year on their mortgage.
There absolutely no way to, “make sure that the responsible families” get the money. Responsible families don’t need the money. To say, "I will bail out the responsible families" is an oxymoron.
Third, we will act with the full force of the federal government to ensure that the major banks that Americans depend on have enough confidence and enough money to lend even in more difficult times.
This is, again, opening the door for more government control of the banks.
I intend to hold these banks fully accountable for the assistance they receive, and this time, they will have to clearly demonstrate how taxpayer dollars result in more lending for the American taxpayer. This time, CEOs won't be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over.
Once again, more government control exerted over private industry.
I will not spend a single penny for the purpose of rewarding a single Wall Street executive, but I will do whatever it takes to help the small business that can't pay its workers or the family that has saved and still can't get a mortgage.
There is absolutely nothing in the “stimulus bill” that has anything to do with helping small businesses.
The recovery plan and the financial stability plan are the immediate steps we're taking to revive our economy in the short-term. But the only way to fully restore America's economic strength is to make the long-term investments that will lead to new jobs, new industries, and a renewed ability to compete with the rest of the world. The only way this century will be another American century is if we confront at last the price of our dependence on oil and the high cost of health care; the schools that aren't preparing our children and the mountain of debt they stand to inherit. That is our responsibility.
If there is a problem with education; Obama needs to get with Ted Kennedy on that. Ted Kennedy wrote the last education bill. It was a deal under part of Bushes failed “New Deal”.
Given these realities, everyone in this chamber - Democrats and Republicans - will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars. And that includes me.
But that does not mean we can afford to ignore our long-term challenges. I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves; that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity.
Government has no role in laying a foundation for anything. Freedom is the foundation of this country! Obama has little understanding of The Constitution, or despises it.
But to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy. So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market- based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America. And to support that innovation, we will invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America.
The introduction of a “cap on carbon pollution” is a sure way to hurt the U.S. economy. There is absolutely no proof that man has anything to do with the current climate. There is no proof that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. This is absurd.
This budget builds on these reforms. It includes an historic commitment to comprehensive health care reform - a down-payment on the principle that we must have quality, affordable health care for every American. It's a commitment that's paid for in part by efficiencies in our system that are long overdue. And it's a step we must take if we hope to bring down our deficit in the years to come.
Health care does not need to be reformed. The government needs to get out of its way. When the government proposes an alternative to traditional health insurance; it is an investment in SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. There is no other way to look at it. It’s simple, regulate the private sector out of business, and what are you left with?
I suffer no illusions that this will be an easy process. It will be hard. But I also know that nearly a century after Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform, the cost of our health care has weighed down our economy and the conscience of our nation long enough. So let there be no doubt: health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year.
Roosevelt also admitted that his “New Deal” didn’t help at all.
We have made college affordable for nearly seven million more students.
When the government increases tuition assistance, it simply guarantees more government money for colleges. Colleges in turn increase their tuition rates. People not using government assistance get the shaft, because they have to cover the newly increased tuition. People in turn will look at the government option instead of grabbing the ankles.
I'm proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities.
The entire bill was an earmark. There is no way the "stimulus bill" would have passed in a normal political climate. That is exactly why Obama set out to scare everyone into believing that the government had to do “something”.
In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you'll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut - that's right, a tax cut - for 95% of working families. And these checks are on the way.
Those on the left still are pushing this idea that if you get money from the government that you are receiving a tax cut. You can’t cut something into the negative. Also the Congressional Budget Office predicts that the "stimulus bill" will cause a REDUCTION of revenue to the government". How is this plan going to cut the deficit?
Anyone that doesn't think that Obama is a socialist should be sure now that he is.
5 comments
One point that comes to mind is "health care" which differs from "health care coverage." The first refers to the patient/provider relationship while the second refers more to the provider/insurance carrier relationship. Obama is careful to reference "care" not "coverage". I see where you are headed though.
This post seems to be more of a let's-bash-Obama rant. If you want to disagree with him on every point, you need to be prepared to provide an antithetical SOLUTION of your own on these points. All your "that won't work" stuff was getting old!
Does anyone know what the stimulus bill actually includes? (Isn't that the 1000 page document that no one read?)
So do you propose that the gov't should do nothing? I do not want it to redistribute wealth, but it does receive and spend OUR money and needs to use those funds for the common good. Now, what defines "common good" IS debatable!
Also wondering - Was there anything you LIKED about his address?
watch this video clip...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
Obama is speaking of health care coverage. That is why he prefaces everything with the 40 million Americans are without access to health care. Which in itself is a false statement. Anyone can go to the Hospital and get treatment. It happens all day long. Bums get medical treatment... What do you think happens when someone from out of the country is visiting. From what Obama is telling us - foreigners would not be treated at the hospital, because they don't have "access to health care" any more than anyone here without insurance. My point is that they have argued both sides of the issue. Coverage and access.
The federal government is not supposed to use tax revenue for the "common good". That is a dangerous thing to say. As you just mentioned; how do you determine what the "common good" is? That is why the Constitution is not written that way.
As far as what I think the government "should do". I think they should look more at the cause of the problem, before trying to throw money at it. Don't you think it's strange that you have heard nothing about how this came to be? All you get is the obligatory evil bank B.S. I do not think that the government should do what they have in the past (which DID NOT work), exactly what they are doing now. How does anyone expect the end effect is going to be different now? Why not find out what caused this so we can avoid it in the future?
How come we had a 9-11 commission to find out what happened, why we were attacked, how we can avoid it in the future? Now we have a "crisis" that almost causes a global recession. We almost crashed the world economy from what the news, and politicians are telling us. Economic collapse was the stated goal of Al Qaeda! The reason for the 9-11 attacts.
Funny how nobody in government seems interested in how this current situation came to fruition. Where are all of the head hunting commissions trying to place the blame?
It is not wise to attempt to correct a problem; which you have not even identified.
"The fact is, our economy did not fall into decline overnight. Nor did all of our problems begin when the housing market collapsed or the stock market sank. We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before. The cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we keep delaying reform. Our children will compete for jobs in a global economy that too many of our schools do not prepare them for. And though all these challenges went unsolved, we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before.
In other words, we have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election. A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.
Well that day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here."
So Obama is saying that there was no single cause to blame. It was more like 3-way tie between energy dependence, health care, and education (amongst other unmentioned things). We've messed up for decades as a nation, and that's why we're here - complacence.
Besides, few people care about prevention when they're about to have that illegitimate child that they can't afford, ya know? I used to think the same thing at work (prevent the same mistakes) until someone told me that I needed to just focus on solving the problem at hand. I think that if Obama had talked about committees, people wouldn't have gotten the lift they needed. He provided a much-needed lift -- a plan for a long-lasting solution -- whether he was right or wrong about the overall cause. Now, once things are going better, they can possibly step back and examine things more closely.
About the health care:
I know that any bum or illegal can be treated at a hospital. But there are entire regions in the US with no OB in practice because the insurance for the physicians is so high. Where do these pregnant ladies go for care? The whole system is whacked, you see.
ONE FINAL THOUGHT:
Just a thought OK?
You stated that the government has no right to lay the foundation for anything. It should stay out as much as possible so that INDIVIDUALS can do the job as per the Constitution.
Did you ever think of this? These are - for the most part - the same INDIVIDUALS who chose our current president? Yes, the masses CHOSE GOVERNMENT over freedom. Complacence.
Vive la France! If they had any balls (which they don't, see WWs 1 and 2), I'm sure they could conquer us just as easily as they have been conquered.
Actually, vive la China! I was watching a show today called "Koppel: People's Republic of Capitalism" and I think those bastards got it figured out. The government goes to this business owner for taxes. The owner says, "I don't need this business, I could just pull out and move to another country, leaving thousands of people out of work and you still wouldn't get your taxes." So they left him alone. See, government should work for us, not the other way around.
And that my friends, is the state of the onion. And you know who likes onions, right? Frenchies. Stinky Frenchies.
Here is where you are missing my point. All of the three things you mentioned were run – in large part, or completely – by government.
The education system that spits out ignorant people, who don’t even know what this country was founded on. We have a President, who on multiple occasions, has said, “I feel that the Constitution limits government too much”. The Constitution of The United States was written to limit government; that’s what makes it special.
Energy production has been blocked at nearly every turn, by liberals. Coal is too dirty, nuclear is too dangerous, we can't drill off of our own coast (but China can). The libs have stopped every chance of increasing our energy production. Sorry but that is one dead argument. The libs (including Obama) have been on the wrong side of history for the past 50 years!
Health care:
The Social Security Act of 1965 resulted in the passing of two bills: Medicare and Medicaid. The act provided federal health insurance for the elderly (over 65) and for poor families. While Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) was responsible for signing the bill, there were many others involved in drafting the final bill that was introduced to the United States Congress in March 1965.
The fight for national health insurance began in the early 1900s and greatly caught the public’s attention during Truman’s presidency. Between 1958 and 1964 controversy grew and the bill was drafted. The signing of the act, as part of LBJ’s Great Society, heralded in an era with a greater emphasis on public health issues.
The idea of national health insurance came about around 1915 when the group American Association for Labor Legislation attempted to introduce a medical insurance bill to some state legislatures. These attempts were not successful and as a result the controversy about national insurance came about. National groups supporting the idea of government health aid included the AFL-CIO, American Nurses Association, National Association of Social Workers, and the Socialist Party USA. The most prominent opponents of national medical insurance were the American Medical Association (AMA); others included the American Hospital Association, the Chamber of Commerce and the Life Insurance Association of America.
Look at who was pushing for this mess back then. Isn’t socialism grand!
My point is that by passing this ridiculous bill, which Congress knows is not going to stimulate anything, is morally wrong. The American people are being lied to. You also might want to read more about the economist who theorized the “corrections” they are implementing.
John Maynard Keynes:
Keynes argued that the solution to depression was to stimulate the economy ("inducement to invest") through some combination of two approaches: a reduction in interest rates, and government investment in infrastructure. Investment by government injects income, which results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.
A central conclusion of Keynesian economics is that in some situations, no strong automatic mechanism moves output and employment towards full employment levels. This conclusion conflicts with economic approaches that assume a general tendency towards an equilibrium. In the 'neoclassical synthesis', which combines Keynesian macro concepts with a micro foundation, the conditions of general equilibrium allow for price adjustment to achieve this goal.
The New classical macroeconomics movement, which began in the late 1960s and early 1970s, criticized Keynesian theories, while New Keynesian economics have sought to base Keynes's idea on more rigorous theoretical foundations.
More broadly, Keynes saw his as a general theory, in which utilization of resources could be high or low, whereas previous economics focused on the particular case of full utilization. However, after reading Hayek's criticism, The Road to Serfdom, he agreed that "the theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the [General Theory], nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state [eines totalen Staates] than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire."
The American people voted for "Change", not socialism. I blame our sorry education system, which doesn't teach people about the founding of this country. How else can you go from Capitalism to Socialism over-night.
The implementation of this plan is going to lead to EVERYBODY'S quality of life being decreased... Obama said as much in his speech. Where's the hope in that?
p.s. You need to check out my post on the "tax cut".