Obama Comes Out Swinging in Weekly Address
In 1936, Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered an important campaign speech in Madison Square Garden, saying among other things:
For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent. [...]
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me‹and I welcome their hatred.
For some time now, I think many progressives have been waiting to hear something similar from Barack Obama. And in today’s edition of the weekly YouTube address, I think we get something like it. Talking about a budget that will cut taxes for most families while raising them on a few, increasing federal aid to college students while reducing federal aid to private sector student loan writers, and boost health care coverage while reducing subsidies to health insurance firms, Obama says:
I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this: So am I. The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long, but I don’t. I work for the American people. I didn’t come here to do the same thing we’ve been doing or to take small steps forward, I came to provide the sweeping change that this country demanded when it went to the polls in November.
I’m not sure whether or not this kind of feisty presidential rhetoric and leadership is actually as decisive as some liberals think, but it is nice to hear.
29 Responses to “Obama Comes Out Swinging in Weekly Address”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 28th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
You missed out the best line!
“I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match.
I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.”
February 28th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
There is simply no cost in fighting against generic “special interests” (a cliche thrown about equally by the left and right). If Obama is serious, he should tell us the specific “special interests” he will fight against, by name.
February 28th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Strikingly, Obama’s weekly address was longer than the single paragraph that MY quoted.
He also said other things, like:
From Steve Benen’s transcription
February 28th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
*sigh*. I would think by now that we would be inoculated from getting all jazzed when our favorite politician promises change.
Bank bailout – more of the same (against progressive economist’s best advice)
Torture, Government secrecy – more of the same, despite the memos he’s signed to throw us a bone.
Iraq – somehow withdrawal has morphed to possibly drawing down a few troops and reclassifying the rest to leave them there indefinitely.
but other than that stuff… yeah, rah, change we can believe in.
February 28th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Phaedrus you can make you case w/out resorting to exaggeration.
February 28th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I guess that banks are not hurting enough. Time to put more regulations on them.
What President Obama did not mention is maybe taking on some of the traditional Democratic Party special interest such as teachers unions, public sector employees, or even the universities that keep raising tuition to keep up with any additional college add.
February 28th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Thanks for the compliment, Micheline, not everyone can or feels the need to
February 28th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
“The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long, but I don’t.”
That would be news to the financial industry, Obama’s biggest campaign contributor.
February 28th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
DivGuy, that’s a start. I would prefer even more specificity: insurance company X paid lobbying company Y this number of dollars to fight against my policies. The more specific, the less room to weasel out later. Granted, this probably isn’t the time for this level of specificity since most of the proposals haven’t been proposed. We’ll see how things play out.
February 28th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
The battle has been joined. I see that most of your commenters are eager to sit on the sidelines and bitch.
February 28th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Iraq – somehow withdrawal has morphed to possibly drawing down a few troops and reclassifying the rest to leave them there indefinitely.
Before you start acting all high and mighty, Phaedrus, you might want to get your facts straight. It’s true that between 35,000 and 50,000 U.S. troops will remain in Iraq after August 31, 2010–an arbitrary deadline picked by the President himself to single a desire to end the war as quickly as possible (more quickly than envisioned under the SOFA). Even this step represents the withdrawal of about 100,000 troops–substantially more than just “a few.” But, more importantly, that step really is just a first step: all American troops are going to leave Iraq, as required by the Status of Forces Agreement, by the end of 2011. Were you not paying attention?
I agree that, as things stand now, bank policy looks very disappointing. It’s very strange, though, that you just happened to pick bank policy as your example to illustrate that President Obama isn’t actually offering “change.” I mean, the President still inhales oxygen and exhales carbon dioxide–JUST LIKE GEORGE W. BUSH–but it would be silly to focus on that similarity to the exclusion of other salient differences between the two. And it’s silly to focus on bank policy to the exclusion of the important changes that the President has made.
In the past five weeks, the President has ordered the swift closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. He’s proposed a budget that articulates the most important progressive program since the Great Society. He’s passed a 787-billion-dollar economic recovery package. He’s expanded S-CHIP. He’s ended the global gag rule. He’s passed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. He’s dramatically increased government transparency and accountability. He’s ended torture.
I mean, really? Does none of that matter to you? And if it doesn’t matter to you, then why should we believe you when claim to care about progressive change?
I agree that we should keep pushing the President to do better. But pushing him to do better in the future means acknowledging and encouraging what he’s actually done right already.
February 28th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Realist (9): I suspect those figures wouldn’t have the desired scandalizing effect. What’s struck me about DC lobbying is that amounts are so trivially small. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of government spending, and regulations that produce or deny hundreds of billions to private interests, are influenced by at most a few billion dollars. That’s part of the reason the culture of influence is so hard to combat: by any measurement it gets enormous results for very little outlay.
February 28th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Good stuff from Obama. And I think that was intended for the GOP as much or more than his supporters. The conservative movement is completely and utterly demoralized and has no clue how to deal with this popular new President.
As I write this I’m watching Rush Limbaugh give the CPAC keynote. The two biggest applause lines so far? Tax cuts and Reagan.
February 28th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
“The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair!”
Hoo boy, that old time religion. It’s good enough for me.
February 28th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
It’s small potatoes compared to what the Treasury and his economic team lead by Summers is doing. There they are clearly and totally in bed with the old leadership of the financial sphere. Not only is is terrible policy keeping Citi afloat is is a political disaster of the highest order.
Think of the bank rescues this way. The banks need to be rescued in order to save the depositors. That is the unstated but totally obvious motivation for all the bank bailouts. All the talk is about the banks being able to lend again and that is not important but the number one thing with banks is making sure the depositors can get their money out.
The thing is every week banks are being taken over by the FDIC and taken out. Sold off or liquidated and the depositors are just fine. Banks do not have to be saved to save the depositors. The FDIC money goes to people, not to the bank to try and prop up their assets. Propping up bank assets is an indirect way of saving the depositors but what is the reason we have to do it indirectly. Here is why. To save the wealth of the wealthy. To prop up the prices of their assets.
Money has two functions. It is a medium of exchange and a store and measure of wealth. Where most people live it is moneys transactional quality which is supreme. We have spent or pledged as much as $10 trillion dollars to prop up bank assets. In the meantime the economy grinds down as households lose income. One logical if somewhat extreme picture of the outcome of this would be banks that are relatively healthy because tens of trillions of dollars have gone into inflating their assets, while tribes of homeless and poor wander America. With no money and few services to help them.
This is insanely bad policy and insanely bad politics. The GOP is riding a faux populist wave now but that wave could become a tsunami. The GOP and conservatives can and will throw the bankers and Wall Street icons under the bus.
Money for people not banks.
February 28th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long, but I don’t.
If I had the time, I’d link each one of those words to an example of BHO doing the bidding of or being linked to “powerful and well-connected interests”. But, how about this? Many people probably aren’t aware of just how powerful and well-connected that interest is.
P.S. I just uploaded a video busting a recent lie from the Center for American Progress, MattY’s employer.
February 28th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
It’s surprising to see Obama fired up after having been subjected to the demotivational effects of Wizards basketball. At close range, no less.
February 28th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Now, here’s one for the “liberals”: the “tea parties” appear to be an astroturf campaign from a very rich rightwing family.
Note: I’m only linking that for your personal use. Please don’t post that to DailyKos or other sites like that.
February 28th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Twisting the testicles of the Swiss until they cough up the names of those 36,000 or so rich Americans with secret Swiss accounts would be a good start.
Especially when the 1040 instructions clearly say you have to report such accounts.
Since I suspect NSA already has those names from monitoring wire transfers, You may see an unusual degree of political support for Obama cropping up in the strangest locations.
February 28th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
rapier @15: What you state in this post appears to make a lot of sense except for one little point you may not be aware of; FDIC is almost broke. As of January 1, there are an estimated 500 banks nationwide which are in trouble while there is currently (IIRC) less than $20B in the FDIC. Yesterday the rates charged to banks to fund FDIC were increased to try to bring up the balance. Why do you think there are about $9T in govt guarantees out there? Even that amount would not be enough to cover the deposits of the 9 largest banks. The reason these banks are too big to fail is because if they fail, so does the world economy.
I don’t like the idea of bailing them out either, but at thijs point, I see no other alternative. I don’t trust Geithner or Summers that much either, but at least they are better than Paulson & Greenspan. Finally, for the first time in the past 5 months since the shit hat the fan, this country’s 19 largest banks are getting thorough audits. Once those are finished, we at least know where we stand & can plan accordingly.
Earlier today, Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffet’s company, declared a drop in profits of 96% in the last quarter of last year. Two of the OOPS problems that Buffet mentioned was buying large holdings in Conoco-Phillips at the peak of oil & gas prices & buying an Irish bank at an amazing bargain only to see it lose over 90% of its value since. My point in bringing this up is that nobody has all the answers; even Warren Buffet can fuck up occasionally. So I guess none of us with much less knowledge is likely to come up with them either.
February 28th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
I like his rhetoric.
He’s not afraid to push back against the special interests and Rethug bullies in their own blunt language. These pricks and viagra-fueled gasbags have scared the Dems for too long. It’s them that will be on the run now.
February 28th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
That’s a great speech from FDR. We don’t get that kind of oratory these days (no, not even from Obama) – it’s been in decline since the 1800s.
rapier’s right about the banks – there’s no change of substance there from what Bush was doing, just throwing more money at them and getting bad deals for taxpayers.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
bob 21
I am well aware that FDIC is broke. I am loosely maintaining that the amounts of money being spent and pledged to support the bank balance sheets, perhaps 10 trillion already per Bloomberg, is no higher than the money that will be needed to make good the deposits of the failed banks.
FDIC guarantees of deposits of failed banks remember will still end up largely being just that, promises. Yes it’s the old confidence game. Yes much of the money that is supplied will have to be printed. I know, it’s an ugly thing but the Fed has already committed to printing at least a trillion just on MBS purchases. There will be plenty of more of that to come. (The Feds assets are now overwhelmingly junk. No longer almost totally Treasury securities it is now full of crap mortgage paper and other CDO’s. The central bank itself therefore is now debased)
The mechanics of disbursing deposits of a giant like C are daunting yes. So are the mechanics, such as they are, of the ever evolving C rescue operation. Then again. hundreds of billions are being spent and promised to C that do nothing in the transactional economy where people buy groceries and go to the movies with. The money or pretend money is just going into buying up financial assets at inflated prices, which in itself ruins the market because it halts real price discovery. In the meantime incomes, cash flow, etc etc in the transactional economy fall and fall making the already damaged debt securities worse. Which in turn make the now slightly damaged debt get worse as the economy shrinks. For every point unemployment rises widely accepted calculations are available for how much more debt will go bad.
As I said. Propping up the banks is an inefficient way to help the economy, and that is being kind. It’s a disaster for the Treasury and the economy. It’s only good for helping those who gained huge wealth and power during the boom to hold onto the hope that they can keep their wealth and power. It is highly probable that the big bank rescues will fail anyway. When that happens it is going to be a political disaster for Obama and the Democrats.
Money for people not banks.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
More on the banks. If your eyes glaze over with this stuff then don’t pretend you know what your talking about. The almost proud willful ignorance of finance by the left created a vacuum which allowed the disaster. Finance is not evil. Banking is not evil. They are systems which can be good or bad and like all systems filled with flaws. We have been told we have to serve the system for a generation yet nobody understood what the hell the system actually was. Now that the system has failed those who engineered the failure are in charge of making us save and serve the system again. The system must be recast. Starting at the foundation.
http://us1.institutionalriskanalytics.com/pub/IRAstory.asp?tag=341
“Remembering that half of the liabilities of C, BAC and JPM are funded out of the bond markets and not via deposits, it should be clear to one and all that the US taxpayers are not in a position to subsidize the bond holders of these three banks, representing some $1.5 trillion in debt, if the deposits of these banks are to be protected. Some people, indeed, many people believe that we must avoid another Lehman Brothers type resolution where bondholders take a loss, but to us the only scenario where depositors of C, BAC, JPM do not take a loss is if we haircut the bond holders.
There are no easy answers here, but the guiding principle left by the Founders that bankruptcy be used to quickly and finally resolve insolvency is instructive. In that sense, Lehman Brothers is the ideal example, not something to be avoided.
What is required in Washington is an adult conversation, between the US government on the one hand and the holders of the bonds of the largest banks on the other. Many of the bond holders of the large banks are foreign governments, central banks and investment funds and not a few of these sovereign names are in really serious financial difficulties. Since the receiverships for Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual, where bond holders took a near total loss, these foreign investors have been vocal in demanding that US taxpayers protect them from further harm.
But to deflect these cowardly, expedient arguments, the US government must be willing to lead by example to show that there really is only one way to restore confidence in zombie banks: use receivership to wipe out the common and preferred shareholders, conserve the deposits and sell the good assets to new investors, and then restructure the remaining operations of the bank to maximize recovery to the bond holders and other creditors.”
March 1st, 2009 at 2:43 am
Rich, it’s not the shaming I care about, it’s the commitment. Saying you’ll fight against special interests is zero commitment, everyone says that. Saying you’ll fight against the health insurance industry is a tiny bit of commitment, maybe–I see how it might get a few people angry. Saying you’ll fight against a particular company and their lobbyists is a real commitment which has potential political costs whether you actually follow through or not. Therefore, it is meaningful.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:24 am
Gut!
March 1st, 2009 at 4:50 pm
You know, Obama’s a powerful speaker, but the comparison of these particular pieces of rhetoric doesn’t come off well for him. “I welcome their hatred” versus “so am I”? The tired phrase “special interests and lobbyists” versus “Government by organized money”? A little fighting spirit is welcome but Obama still needs to step up his game.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Gute Arbeit hier! Gute Inhalte.