About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 - 12:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here is the transcript:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/12/06/president-obama-speaks-economy#transcript

Ed


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 - 2:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Reposted from the "Throw them all out" book thread:

Here's the meat & potatoes of it:

We’re still home to the world’s most innovative companies. But for most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefited from that success. Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments -- wealthier than ever before. But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t -- and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up.

Now, for many years, credit cards and home equity loans papered over this harsh reality. But in 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We all know the story by now: Mortgages sold to people who couldn’t afford them, or even sometimes understand them. Banks and investors allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off. Huge bets -- and huge bonuses -- made with other people’s money on the line. Regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this, but looked the other way or didn’t have the authority to look at all.

It was wrong. It combined the breathtaking greed of a few with irresponsibility all across the system. And it plunged our economy and the world into a crisis from which we’re still fighting to recover. It claimed the jobs and the homes and the basic security of millions of people -- innocent, hardworking Americans who had met their responsibilities but were still left holding the bag.

And ever since, there’s been a raging debate over the best way to restore growth and prosperity, restore balance, restore fairness. Throughout the country, it’s sparked protests and political movements -- from the tea party to the people who’ve been occupying the streets of New York and other cities. It’s left Washington in a near-constant state of gridlock. It’s been the topic of heated and sometimes colorful discussion among the men and women running for president. (Laughter.)

But, Osawatomie, this is not just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. Because what’s 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, 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, the worst financial 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 stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

I am here to say they are wrong. (Applause.) I’m here in Kansas to reaffirm my deep conviction that we’re 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, when everyone plays by the same rules. (Applause.) These aren’t Democratic values or Republican values. These aren’t 1 percent values or 99 percent values. They’re American values. And we have to reclaim them. (Applause.)

You see, this isn’t the first time America has faced this choice. At the turn of the last century, when a nation of farmers was transitioning to become the world’s industrial giant, we had to decide: Would we settle for a country where most of the new railroads and factories were being controlled by a few giant monopolies that kept prices high and wages low? Would we allow our citizens and even our children to work ungodly hours in conditions that were unsafe and unsanitary? Would we restrict education to the privileged few? Because there were people who thought massive inequality and exploitation of people was just the price you pay for progress.

Theodore Roosevelt disagreed. He was the Republican son of a wealthy family. He praised what the titans of industry had done to create jobs and grow the economy. He believed then what we know is true today, that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. It’s led to a prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world.

But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can. (Applause.) He understood the free market only works when there are rules of the road that ensure competition is fair and open and honest. And so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for consumers with better services and better prices. And today, they still must. He fought to make sure businesses couldn’t profit by exploiting children or selling food or medicine that wasn’t safe. And today, they still can’t.

And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism. "Our country," he said, "…means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy…of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him." (Applause.)

Now, for this, Roosevelt was called a radical. He was called a socialist -- (laughter) -- even a communist. But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign: an eight-hour work day and a minimum wage for women -- (applause) -- insurance for the unemployed and for the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax. (Applause.)

Today, over 100 years later, our economy has gone through another transformation. Over the last few decades, huge advances in technology have allowed businesses to do more with less, and it’s made it easier for them to set up shop and hire workers anywhere they want in the world. And many of you know firsthand the painful disruptions this has caused for a lot of Americans.

Factories where people thought they would retire suddenly picked up and went overseas, where workers were cheaper. Steel mills that needed 100 -- or 1,000 employees are now able to do the same work with 100 employees, so layoffs too often became permanent, not just a temporary part of the business cycle. And these changes didn’t just affect blue-collar workers. If you were a bank teller or a phone operator or a travel agent, you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs and the Internet.

Today, even higher-skilled jobs, like accountants and middle management can be outsourced to countries like China or India. And if you’re somebody whose job can be done cheaper by a computer or someone in another country, you don’t have a lot of leverage with your employer when it comes to asking for better wages or better benefits, especially since fewer Americans today are part of a union.

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. "The market will take care of everything," they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes -- especially for the wealthy -- our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history. And what did it get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class -- things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security.

Remember that in those same years, thanks to some of the same folks who are now running Congress, we had weak regulation, we had little oversight, and what did it get us? Insurance companies that jacked up people’s premiums with impunity and denied care to patients who were sick, mortgage lenders that tricked families into buying homes they couldn’t afford, a financial sector where irresponsibility and lack of basic oversight nearly destroyed our entire economy.

We simply cannot return to this brand of "you’re on your own" economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country. (Applause.) We know that it doesn’t result in a strong economy.

And here's why it's evil. Obama says that you can't just let a market run free -- that you have to somehow steer it from the top. That you have to have centralized control via heavy regulation and a "fair" redistribution of created wealth and resources. He says that, if you don't at least partially "centrally plan" your economy like this, then you will get disaster. Specifically the disasters that we have gotten up to this point in our history in this country. As he said (of the so-called free market): "And it didn't work when we tried it during the last decade."

But is that true, or is it an outright lie?

Was it a market that had been left to run free which had created the housing crisis (which created the world economic recession)? One of the things that Fannie & Freddie did was to initiate and propagate a program where mortgage firms could get easy money and were granted supra-economic powers. Economic power is the power to produce according to the rules of reality. Supra-economic power is the power to re-write reality -- such as the ability to re-write someone's credit score in a single day. This unprecedented power -- given out to firms in charge of granting loans -- was called "rapid rescore." On Rush Limbaugh today, an accountant at a mortgage firm boasted that if you walked-in with a credit score of 580, she could have it changed to 700 on that very same day. That's supra-economic power, right there. And it's that kind of a thing, that kind of government-initiated/government-backed meddling in the free market, which brought us to our economic knees.

But criticism of Obama doesn't stop there. It doesn't stop with his obvious lie. Obama said that one of the things wrong with the free market was that there was: "Huge bets -- and huge bonuses -- made with other people’s money on the line."

But is that a product of a free market, or is it an outright lie?

Is Obama, himself, one of the guiltiest people in the history of the world regarding the making of huge bets and the handout of huge bonuses with other people's money?

As it turns out, it was not a "free market" which led to huge bets and bonuses -- being made with other people's money on the line. Rich bankers didn't get rich by making extremely-risky loans. Market forces don't support irrationality. Instead, it was a regulatory/redistributive government. Here are 3 examples of huge bets and bonuses -- made with other people's money on the line (from the book: Throw them all out, p. 88-101):

Obama had a National Finance Committee. I'm pretty sure that all presidents have this kind of a thing. What makes Obama special is that if you were a member of his National Finance Committee, then you were almost guaranteed tremendous, perhaps unprecedented, kickbacks in the form of federal grants and loans. Page 89 of the book portrays a graph of the kind of return-on-investment you get when you raise money for Obama. For every dollar raised for Obama's 2008 campaign by a member's company, that company got $25,000. That is a 25,000-to-1 return on investment! You can't get that kind of a deal even if you put your money on the "free market" S&P500! Here are 3 examples, paraphrased instead of quoted.

(1)
July 1, 2009. The DOE awarded $100 million to Basin Electric Power Cooperative in Beulah, ND. BEPC's partner was Powerspan, who oversaw the work. The 3 new investors of Powerspan (2 months before that huge federal grant) supported Obama. One of them was George Soros. One of them was Daniel Weiss (donated $20,857 to Obama). And one of them was Zeb Rice (donated $12,712 to Obama).

Dec, 2010. A government audit revealed that Powerspan (above) had created 8 jobs. That's an award of $12.5 million for every job created -- and that's not how the free market works. Just give me the 12-and-a-half million dollars. I'll create 9 jobs from scratch (actually, I'll just put 9 people on my "personal payroll" at $100,000 a year -- and I'd pay them out of interest-accrued, keeping the change for myself). It would be more efficient to dole-out $100,000 a year to 9 different people (for the rest of their lives) than to have done what Obama's DOE did here. And this is just one of several dozen examples of redistribution.

(2)
A $308 million federal commitment was made to Hydrogen Energy California, LLC (joint venture of BP & Rio Tinto). BP gave $71,000 to Obama in 2008. $71,000 to get about $154 million dollars. The project has created 23 jobs. That's $13.4 million for every job created -- and that's not how the free market works. Just give me the 308 million dollars and I'll create 24 "jobs." I'll pay 24 people $100,000 a year for the rest of my life -- if you only give me the $308 M up front (like the sweetheart deal that BP got).

(3)
I know what you are thinking now. You are thinking that the first example cost US taxpayers $12.5 million for every job created and that the second example cost US taxpayers $13.4 million for every job created -- so you are thinking that it can't get much worse. You are thinking that this next example will show a cost to US taxpayers of, say, $14 million (or $15 million) for every job created. Right? Well, you had better sit down for this one ...

Summit Texas Clean Energy was approved, by Obama's DOE, for $1.5 billion dollars of taxpayer money. STCE's CEO is Eric Redman, former staffer for a Democratic senator and a major DNC donor. The project manager is Laura Miller, a Democrat, the daughter of the former head of Neiman Marcus. She has never worked in the energy industry. As Schweizer's book was headed to the printing press, STCE had created ... wait for it ... no, seriously ... 8 jobs. That's $187.5 million of US taxpayer's money for every job created. And that is not how the free market works.

:-)

So Obama speaks out against making huge bets and granting huge bonuses with other people's money ... when he and his cronies have been one of the guiltiest -- if not the guiltiest -- transgressors of individual rights in this manner. It's like Satan criticizing a comrade for telling a white lie. Politics doesn't get much more fraudulent (and ironic) than that.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/07, 5:38pm)


Post 2

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 - 3:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
These critters are dug in bone deep, and won't let go of the tribal gig until their fingers --and the nation's ass -- are bleeding.

A 'new nationalism?'

How far are we from one of these unapologetic socialists declaring a 'new national socialism' as they pander to 'the true workers' in our state?

Government guns bolted up to commerce = crony statism.

Equals ... for now ... soft-fascism.

This idiot is playing with fire. And if that fire ignites, in the long run, he will have been the worst thing to happen to America ... ever...by far.



Post 3

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 - 3:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The same class warfare fervor that was sweeping the globe last century ... and almost left it in complete ashes ... is flaming up again, fanned by the same opportunists seeking power uber alles, using the same arguments, preying on the same weaknesses.

Nothing much changes.





Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 - 6:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Huge bets -- and huge bonuses -- made with other people’s money on the line."
Considering the huge bets, salaries and bonuses it is pretty clear why people on the receiving end agreed to them but no one seems to stop and think that every deal has two consenting parties and, therefore, some people on the other side chose to accept those bets and give out those salaries and bonuses. All of them also had their self-interest in mind and were using their own money.

Except, of course, there were a lot of cases in which they money did not belong to either of both parties. Whose money was it? The taxpayers's money, of course, sucked into all kinds of government programs, Fannie and Freddie guarantees, pension funds of state(?) and municipal employees. Private investors knew or should have known the risks they took and therefore deserve their losses. In case of fraud, there is a court system that can resolve their claims. But in the case of the public money it is the government that volunteered it to be played in those bets and it is just as responsible for the losses as the private investors. That's what Obama should say.

The crisis would be much smaller and self-contained if the bet money was real, backed by goods and services. Instead, it has been multiplied many-fold by the Ponzi-type economics of fiat currency, fractional reserve banking and the derivatives market. And, government bears at least some responsibility for that.


Post 5

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 - 6:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam:

And to your point, one segment of our economies was functioning under fantastic self-awarded 5000% leverage rules, while the yet remaining few schmucks still trying to play the game in the old school value for value playing field(such as Federal Express, who buys real airplanes and hires real people to provide a real service)must play under more realistic 15% leverage rules.

Carcass carvers and parasites play by gaming the value-proxy world. They stare at a scoreboard for a game played by others, and place bets using OPM. They place those bets using their own self awarded miraculous 5000% leverage rules, they wave outrageous returns in front of the marketplace, and when they ensnare the odd state teachers pension fund manager and so on, they find a way to shed the downside of risk on others by being 'too big to fail.' By way of crony statism, shed risk, and inbred Ivy League connections running well worn paths between Prospect Ave. and Wall Street and K-Street, it is win when they win and win when they lose.

Yet America begs for this treatment. Not a word is said when the POTUS puts his head on the pillow every night with a former Princeton radical feminist, and two of his last two USSC picks are carbon copy Princeton radical feminists.

Is that what 'diversity' means in America these days?

regards,
Fred





Post 6

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 - 6:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Re speech: Deplorable misconstruction. Yawn.

Post 7

Friday, December 9, 2011 - 2:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

"I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money."
Before he was even inaugurated, we had all become inured to the platitudes floating out from the teleprompter. 

He tried to tell us.   Far too few of us were listening. 


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.