Obama: "I Reject Those Theories"

by: David Sirota

Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 13:48


Finally, at his press conference today, President Obama begins to rise above the Church of Broderism that fetishizes bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake, and instead offer up a little bit of good old fashioned commonsense:

In the past few days, I've heard criticisms that this [stimulus] plan is somehow wanting, and these criticisms echo the very same failed economic theories that led us into this crisis in the first place, the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems, that we can ignore fundamental challenges like energy independence and the high cost of health care, that we can somehow deal with this in a piecemeal fashion and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject those theories. And so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change.

More like this, please.
David Sirota :: Obama: "I Reject Those Theories"

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Obama: "I Reject Those Theories" | 45 comments
Indeed (4.00 / 8)
Remember the guy who said this on September 19th:

We did not arrive at this crisis by some accident of history. What led us to this point was years and years of a philosophy in Washington and on Wall Street that viewed even common-sense regulation and oversight as unwise and unnecessary; that shredded consumer protections and loosened the rules of the road. CEOs and executives got reckless. Lobbyists got what they wanted. Politicians in both parties looked the other way until it was too late. And it is the American people who have paid the price. The events of this week have rendered a final verdict on that failed philosophy.

Maybe he'll get back to the message than won him the election. When all else fails, might as well tell the truth.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

"Remember the guy who said this..." (4.00 / 3)
Remember the other guy who said this on October 4?

Driven by fear we are moving quickly to pass a bill, which may produce a temporary uptick for the market, but nothing for millions of homeowners whose misfortunes are at the center of our economic woes. People do not have money to pay their mortgages. After this passes, they will still not have money to pay their mortgages. People will still lose their homes while Wall Street is bailed out.

We should have created a mechanism for our government to take a controlling interest in mortgage-backed securities and use our power to work out a new deal for the homeowners. We could have done this. We should have done this. But we didn't.

Now the government will have to borrow $700 billion from banks, with interest, to give banks a $700 billion bailout, and in return the taxpayers get $700 billion in toxic debt. The Senate "improved" the bailout by giving tax breaks to people in foreclosure. People in foreclosure need help paying their mortgage, they do not seek tax breaks.

The other guy is Dennis Kucinich, and he voted like he talked.

But Barack Obama made a fine speech on September 19th, and then sold us out two weeks later by endorsing the ridiculous give-away for Henry Paulson and his friends at the megabanks who created the meltdown.

[ Parent ]
Well, sure (0.00 / 0)
But we're talking politics here, are we not?
[ Parent ]
He needs to remind them who won (4.00 / 6)
You have people who were completely discredited in the campaign like Mitt Romney and John McCain now claiming to be the champions of common-sense and voicing the concerns of the American people. Completely ridiculous, do people not remember what John McCain looked like when talking about matters of the economy??  They've become emboldened and are starting to act like the elections in November vindicated them and discredited democrats, and not the other way around.  
you have people that were completely (4.00 / 3)
discredited in the economy like Geitner, summers, Bernacke, and Rubin now running it. I think that is a bigger problem than teh Repubs mouthing off. Putting the people who fuck up the eceonomy in charge of fixing it is ridiculous.
[ Parent ]
they aren't the faces of the problem (4.00 / 1)
the faces of the problem are bush and the republicans

if we attack them, and do it viciously, we win

[ Parent ]
Attacking Bush is useless (4.00 / 3)
But I'm with you on tearing down the GOP approach.

The only time Obama should mention Bush is when he introduces Mr. Holder just before he brings indictments.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I agree. (4.00 / 5)
More like this, please.
Tax Cuts are not the solution (4.00 / 3)
Tax cuts are not solution. He's correct. It just gives us bigger deficit and contributes to the national debt. If we didn't have the Bush Tax Cuts, we have a surplus even while fighting the Iraq war.
finally! (4.00 / 4)
no more mr. nice guy

let the chicago street-fighter come out barack

Like others .. (4.00 / 4)
I am wondering what took so damn long ... I hope he knows when the time for making nice is up .. and when the time for using the hammer is .. because hammer time is getting very near ... given the Rethugs would rather obstruct everything
"So Damn Long..." (0.00 / 0)
14 days.

I don't know why hammer time needs to be near. You hammer someone who is important. In the house, bluster all they want, Republicans are not important. They can't stop anything and can wrangle out only the most minimal concessions and those come not out of fear but ever diminishing goodwill.

In the Senate, Republicans may be important enough to hammer. They have enough votes, in theory, to filibuster.

But Obama may well lose by going after them hard. It is difficult to maintain discipline on cloture votes.

Hammering too hard could make that discipline a lot easier for Republicans to maintain.

Obama has a high sixty to mid seventy approval rating. He has supermajorities in both chambers. He reaps all the benefits of political inertia.  

[ Parent ]
explanation (0.00 / 0)
Obama has a high sixty to mid seventy approval rating. He has supermajorities in both chambers. He reaps all the benefits of political inertia.

can you explain me please how obama benefits from political inertion?

you mean if congress doesn't pass a stimulus bill? ok

but what if they pass a bad-one?

can he afford not to sign it?

[ Parent ]
What I mean by "he reaps all the benefits" (0.00 / 0)
Which was poorly phrased, in that I didn't mean inertia as in "nothing happens" but inertia as in "things continue as they have been going."

Obama has the political capital, and Republicans don't. He just won. They lost.

They are spending political capital without getting a whole lot out of it.

To answer your questions:

If Congress does not pass a stimulus bill, he (and the country) are probably hurt, although the Republican party is devistated. If politics is a zero sum game, Obama wins. I don't think politics is a zero sum game.

That said, I think it would take a major shift in political momentum for a stimulus bill not to pass. Even if it is blocked, the fallout would be substantial enough that a new (probably scaled back) bill will get through.

I think a "bad" bill is unlikely. Now "bad" for a Democratic administration is possible, but even then, after the past 8 years, is probably "good". It would be almost impossible for a "bad" stimulus package to get out of this Congress (and the bar, in some ways, is low - any spending or tax cuts will probably stimulate the economy, however inefficiently, and the economy really needs some stimulating so any stimulus bill will at least have that going for it).

He could probably afford to veto a "bad" bill. He may not be able to afford to veto an "imperfect" bill, but I don't see why he would want to - I mean he wanted to govern.

[ Parent ]
thanks for the reply (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
IT'a about time. Now he needs to get rid of (4.00 / 3)
the people in his cabinet who also brought ou those SAME FAILED POLICIES.
Weak tea, I'm afraid, this new common sense of President Obama's (2.00 / 2)
When a President says this, I might listen:

George W. Bush killed more Americans than Mohamed Atta. Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, Phil Gramm, Robert Rubin, Henry Paulsen, et al. did more damage to our country than Osama bin Laden could ever hope to do.

Until we face up to these truths, there's not much hope of fundamental reform. A patch here, a patch there, is about all we can expect. This is going to be a very long struggle....

Heard this before (4.00 / 6)
Wake me when there's action behind those words.
Obama & Offshore Outsourcing (4.00 / 1)
Is Obama the Offshore Outsourcing President?.

This is a must read by offshore outsourcing expert Ron Hira.

If they do not tie that Stimulus to U.S. workers for U.S. jobs....not only is it highly questionable a Stimulus would even work, but even more U.S. taxpayer dollars, now funded entirely by debt, will go offshore.

There are projected 1 million IT jobs...well, that is 25% of the projected jobs in the Stimulus....this means that offshore outsourcers, body shops will be lying up for that money and contracts and they do not hire U.S. citizens, especially older workers, they use offshore outsourcing and guest worker Visas.

Outsourcing cannot even get lip service while they are talking about spending $900 billion dollars!

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

What is troubling (4.00 / 1)
is that we no IBM advised Obama on the IT spend.  This is the same company that is building its offshoring capability.

I do not believe that the current Buy Aermica provision extends to IT.

[ Parent ]
does not (0.00 / 0)
and I did not know IBM is advising Obama but with that....we can guarantee those supposed 1 million IT jobs that are claimed to be created, will be offshored to India or they will use H-1B, L-1 guest workers and import foreign labor and not hire Americans.

IBM is well documented to be doing this.  

So, call your Senators, reps. white house and demand those jobs be for U.S. citizens only, perm residents only...

I see no other way to stop this insanity.

IBM already has an incredible reputation for getting billions in incentives from state, federal government, often on the promise of creating jobs in that state....to either never create a single job.....or bring in imported cheap labor.  Unreal.  States and the Federal government should demand their tax and other incentives back from IBM.  Hell they should sue them!

So, having IBM in on the Stimulus package....for sure we know what's going to go on.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
have you contacted this organization (0.00 / 0)
http://www.brightfuturejobs.com/ they are working on insourcing.
[ Parent ]
uh (4.00 / 1)
they are not in alignment will all policy changes but yes, WashTech, the AFL-CIO, CWA, Programmer's Guild etc. are very aware of this information.  The problem is this is occupational specific....for some reason and partly it is because IT, STEM are not unionized, or have organized representation for their professional career interests....

screwing over these occupational categories gets "no love" and gets "no press".

IT is the canary in the coal mine and thus if they are flattening entire career occupational areas...it is only a matter of time until yours is next.  

This is also a critical finding in Blinder's offshore outsourcing study....jobs, occupational areas are not subject to the level of skills or education, experience, training.  In other words, it is just as easy to offshore outsource advanced research & development, which requires a PhD and the ability to innovate....as it is to offshore outsource a call center job.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
obama needs to address the nation primetime (4.00 / 3)
with gregg now abstaining his vote how does this bill pass?
obama needs to do a natl address-use the bully pulpit and mobilize america behind the measure asap. the stim bill feels liek the immigration bill. libeals have a lukewarm feel to it, gopers dont like it. with gregg now not voting, franken not seated, kennedy not voting on the amendments im not sure what is next. reid of course could ram it through like he did so often under bush-cut off amendments and go. but he has not. i can see congress going back and breaking up the bill and pass it that way.
When's he going to address the criticism (4.00 / 1)
that the stimulus is wanting because it's not big enough? That it has too much tax relief? That useful spending on family planning was cut to pander to the Grand Old Party of Public Prudes? That there's more that could be invested in infrastructure upgrades?

Oh yeah - he already conceded all those points.

If he rejects the theory of tax cuts, why did he include so much of them?

Damn politician.

hopefully he understands now that there can't be any mr. nice guy in washington (0.00 / 0)
that if you try to pander to the gop, they walk all over you

play hardball barack

plain and simple: the gop doesn't want you to succeed

[ Parent ]
walk the walk not talk the talk (4.00 / 2)
Considering what I just discovered on offshore outsourcing and Obama...

ya know, move me to Missouri and plain show me the money!

I'm just glad so many Progressives/Populists/Netroots people are willing to look at the actual policy details, actions these days.  

I cannot pay my bills with words.  I cannot cash a paycheck made up of words.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

Too bad he (4.00 / 4)
didn't give this little speech before he put together his initial Republican-appeasing stimulus plan, which completely boxed in any real movement in the critical numbers.

Every "good" thing Obama (and his best buddies, like McCaskill) does seems to be a case of scraping the toast after he already burnt it. Problem is, it still tastes like sawdust and won't stanch the hunger.  

yes (4.00 / 1)
but if you don't get burnt once, you don't learn

hopefully he learned his lesson

if not then we're screwed

[ Parent ]
Except that (0.00 / 0)
the stimulus legislation in particular is likely to make his Presidency - not to mention, far more importantly, the economic well being of millions of Americans.

I think that when people once upon a time talked about experience as being important in a President, and that he/she needs to be ready for the job on Day One, this is exactly the sort of thing they had in mind.

Learning on the job really isn't a good idea for a President who comes to office in a crisis -- if it's ever a good idea.

[ Parent ]
Ack, (0.00 / 0)
I meant

make or break his Presidency

[ Parent ]
Knowing when to hold them and when to fold them (0.00 / 0)
President Obama, unlike some recent presidents we could name, seems willing to learn. He knows as well as we do that leadership means exposure to political risks. He can't help but know also that managing those risks successfully is what's demanded of Presidents who expect to accomplish anything in office. So what is it, exactly, that he needs to learn?

If I had his ear, I would tell him that the uncertainties the country is facing today make hedging those risks even more dangerous than accepting them. After watching the Republicans in action these past two weeks, it's questionable that there actually is a way to hedge them; certainly empty rituals of bipartisanship don't look much like a hedge at this point.

Uncritical Obama supporters seem to worry that a bolder and more partisan President Obama might condemn himself to becoming Dennis Kucinich -- much admired but never listened to. I would say that such fears are overblown; a lot will depend on how he goes about the task. In the present political context, some things assuredly have to be finessed -- Israel, and the Pentagon budget are only the most obvious ones. The failed narrative of free-market fundamentalism is definitely not one of them.

[ Parent ]
I reject those theories (4.00 / 4)
now that I've accepted them into my stimulus bill.

Instead of such public grand-standing, perhaps President O should have made such a statement when he was meeting with GOP Reps behind closed doors.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

Too little, too late... (4.00 / 1)
He needed to be out there weeks ago...  The current package is doomed or going to be shredded so that there is nothing liberal left in it...  The country can't seem to understand that spending is stimulus, so any hope for a new new deal is completely dead...

Maybe Obama can rescue it... He's managed to pull himself out of the political grave before... maybe he can pull it off again...

But, I think it is too late.  I hope he learns his lesson about the stupidity of bipartisanship....

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

bipartisanship is not the issue (4.00 / 2)
to me.  They are having non-debate debates...

The issue is what will actual work and what violates Keynesian economic theory....

I mean they are arguing over tax cuts which has been proven not to work and temporary "throw money at it" which also did nothing....

They are completely ignoring the reality that some of US domestic GDP is phantom, and should actually be attributed to other nation's GDP because the production is offshore outsourced...

They ignore the flattening of wages due to bad trade deals and global labor arbitrage and most importantly, they are ignoring the fact that huge amounts of money of this stimulus will go to.....India, China and not U.S. workers.
As far as I understand the entire "bang for the buck" on Keynesian economics, that money must go into the hands of U.S. workers, U.S. income in order to boost a domestic economy through temporary deficit spending (government expenditures).

So, can we get some experts and Congressional representatives based in sound economic reality here?

I mean the real issues are not even being discussed and they have zero business doing more multinational corporate lobbyists' agenda since that is precisely why we are in a collapsing economy at this time.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
If this is true: (4.00 / 1)
"The current package is doomed or going to be shredded so that there is nothing liberal left in it...  "

Why keep supporting the bill?  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Well, I don't know what the final thing will look like.... (4.00 / 1)
...but, if it sucks badly, then I won't.  We're better off without it and let the country stuffer a bit more so they get their heads out of their asses worrying about new furniture at the energy department when the country is going down the shitter!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Oh God Yes! It has been so long waiting for it! (0.00 / 0)
I was hoping that he would FINALLT set the wingnuts straight. Not that they would pay any attention, but it sure as Hell made me feel better.
Where's the sense of urgency from Democrats,starting at the top? (0.00 / 0)
There is a lot to be said about the cues one gets from non-verbal communication.....all the 'urgency' is coming from the Republicans in working to stop it.

From the White House we get the message that there is time enough to listen and ponder and tweak  and bend over backwards to show concern to Republican 'urgency'( tax-cuts and prudishniess)......where is the Democratic urgency?

That report that showed the MSM turning to Republicans for reactions disproportionately over Democrats in discussing  the Recovery and Re-Investment Act( language does matter and once again we are losing the linguistic war or words with the GOP when they can get nearly all to call it a 'spending bill' that vene now has a sneer to it)and those Democrats that get face time on tv are seldom ones that can do the job of 'selling' effectively or even communicate a sense of urgency.

The alligience to 'bipartisanship' that Obama cannot seem to quit is actually hurting Americans who NEED this Recovery and Re-Investment Act PASSED


grr (4.00 / 1)
jesus christ i've been reading the news since that cq item was posted and this is the first place i've even seen it mentioned that obama had a press conference today addressing the single most important piece of legislation happening right now that it seems like no one can stop covering. top stimulus-related item on nytimes.com: "Obama Woos G.O.P. With Attention, and Cookies." top stimulus-related item on yahoo is about gop criticism of the plan. wtf media? seriously, wtf?

why isn't obama scheduled to be on the teevee at 800pm eastern tonight looking straight into the camera for half an hour and explaining why this stimulus bill is important so that we don't all end up riding the rails and eating out of tin cans in 3 months? why haven't the 3 bajillion people on his fabulous email list gotten 3 bajillion emails about how they should go yell at their senators to support this bill? i know this is practically puma-esque heresy but i'm wondering if all that crap about obama being too lilylivered to stand up to the guys with the R's behind their names maybe had something to it...

I've gotten 3 bajillion e-mails about advocating for the bill (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Passive-Agressive Bully Pulpit (0.00 / 0)
I knew he had it in him. Obama couldn't leave all his leverage, holdover from the election, unused. It's simple: who will America side with, the charismatic Pres. with high approval ratings, or recalcitrant Republicans -- sorry, that's redundant -- Republicans? Bipartisanship is an admirable goal, but when the opposition draws a line in the sand (and sticks their head in it), it is not bipartisan to merely accommodate them by respecting their wishes when those same wishes are to the contrary of public opinion. The Republican party is a lot like Hamas. I don't mean to be inflammatory or provocative; allow me to explain. Both make unreasonable demands from a position of weakness, and both pat themselves on the back when exercising their adolescence. I don't think the bill is perfect; I like debate; I don't think the Pres. is infallible; but there is a fine line between reasonable opposition and obstruction; Republicans better put on their reading glasses and makes sure they're on the right side.
Obama was not only elected by the Left (0.00 / 0)
 I have seen no obstruction .  I have seen reasonable ideas debated and discussed the way the founders intended. Lets remember we have a President who prior to his campaign never handled a budget larger than Michelles weekly grocery shopping list.  I think he is not firm because he is unsure and thats OK.  
[ Parent ]
I am a union rep for (0.00 / 0)
pros ata university and the H-1b issue is huge. It is far worse in our institution in research than IT but i'm sure it will increase there also
we get ONE CHANCE to Spend 1 Trillion (0.00 / 0)

 How many chances will we get to spend 1 Trillion to boost the economy? My guess is 1 and we better get it right. Handing 850 Million to Amtrak who has never made a profit is a waste. 150 Million for Honeybee Insurance will not stimulate the economy.  I REJECT those theories too.  
Obama: "I Reject Those Theories" | 45 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox