Obama to begin new series of economic addresses

[Kolesar]

Source: Yahoo.com

The address Wednesday at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill., will be the first in a new series of economic speeches that White House aides say Obama intends to deliver over the next several weeks ahead of key budget deadlines in the fall. A new fiscal year begins in October, and the government will soon hit its borrowing limit.

The speech comes just a week before Congress is scheduled to leave for its monthlong August recess and is designed to build public pressure on lawmakers in hopes of averting the showdowns over taxes and spending that have characterized past budget debates.

In his economic pitch, President Obama will talk about efforts to expand manufacturing, sign up the uninsured for health care coverage, revitalize the housing industry and broaden educational opportunities for preschoolers and college students. He will also promote the economic benefits of an immigration overhaul.
...
President Obama's focus on the economy comes as he has experienced a degree of success with the Senate, which passed an overhaul of immigration laws and unclogged a Republican blockade against several presidential nominations. It also reflects a belief at the White House that the administration has been able to manage a series of confrontations with Congress over the Internal Revenue Service, phone surveillance of Americans and the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-begin-series-economic-addresses-000143541.html

---

USA Today-- President Obama will kick off a several-weeks long effort Wednesday to barnstorm the country and press resistant Republicans to work with him to bolster the economy.

In the campaign, President Obama will lay out his vision directly to Americans for how Washington and the private sector can put a charge into an economy that is improving only in fits and starts.
...
White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said in an e-mail that President Obama believes Washington "has taken its eye off the ball on the most important issue facing the country." Among the specific topics related to the economy that President Obama will address in the coming weeks are job security, education and health care.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/21/obama-major-speech--midwest-economy/2573369/
***
WKYC news in Cleveland said that President Obama will be speaking in Ohio. The executive department will implement policy that does not require the cooperation of the obstructionist pin heads in Congress. That is what has already been done for climate protection.

[Doctor_J]

1. Hopefully he can channel some of the passion in his "race speech" to the issues

at hand - jobs, health care, the cost of education, the environment, and women's reproductive rights. Although last week's speech was well-delivered, the subject was a slam dunk. If he wants to rally his peeps and his party, he needs to bring the same eloquence and passion to bear on the issues of the daily lives of Americans

[Safetykitten]

2. At this point in the game, he should just coast, as his speeches are enough to make people cry.

As the reality of what the nation has become since he has been President should make him cry.

[JoePhilly]

3. The economy has improved "since" he became President.

That's the reality.

[geek tragedy]

10. Another 'liberal' who misses the days of George W Bush. nt

[matthews]

11. That nonsense about 'missing' bush is gotten a little old and shopworn. No onel

misses bush**. That's a trite and tacky excuse that offers no rebuttal or substance.

PLEASE NOTE: Blue linker in training.


**

Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Growth of Income Inequality Is Worse Under Obama than Bush
Yup, under Bush, the 1% captured a disproportionate share of the income gains from the Bush boom of 2002-2007. They got 65 cents of every dollar created in that boom, up 20 cents from when Clinton was President. Under Obama, the 1% got 93 cents of every dollar created in that boom. That’s not only more than under Bush, up 28 cents. In the transition from Bush to Obama, inequality got worse, faster, than under the transition from Clinton to Bush. Obama accelerated the growth of inequality.

The data set is excellent, it’s from the IRS and it’s extremely detailed. This yawing gap of inequality isn’t an accident, and it’s not just because of Republicans. It’s a set of policy choices, as Saez makes clear in his paper.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/growth-of-income-inequality-is-worse-under-obama-than-bush.html

**

Barney Frank: Obama Rejected Bush Administration Concession to Write Down Mortgages

The mortgage crisis was worsened this past time because critical decisions were made during the transition between Bush and Obama. We voted the TARP out. The TARP was basically being administered by Hank Paulson as the last man home in a lame duck, and I was disappointed. I tried to get them to use the TARP to put some leverage on the banks to do more about mortgages, and Paulson at first resisted that, he just wanted to get the money out. And after he got the first chunk of money out, he would have had to ask for a second chunk, he said, all right, I’ll tell you what, I’ll ask for that second chunk and I’ll use some of that as leverage on mortgages, but I’m not going to do that unless Obama asks for it. This is now December, so we tried to get the Obama people to ask him and they wouldn’t do it.

This is consistent with other accounts. There were policy debates within Obama’s economic team about what to do about the mortgage crisis. The choices were to create some sort of legal entity to write down mortgage debt or to allow the write-down of mortgage debt through a massive wave of foreclosures over the next four to six years. He choice the latter. That choice was part of what led to roughly $7 trillion of middle class wealth gone, with financial assets for the elites re-inflated.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/05/barney-frank-obama-rejected-bush-administration-concession-to-write-down-mortgages.html

**

WASHINGTON — Income inequality has soared to the highest levels since the Great Depression, and the recession has done little to reverse the trend, with the top 1 percent of earners taking 93 percent of the income gains in the first full year of the recovery.

The yawning gap between the haves and the have-nots — and the political questions that gap has raised about the plight of the middle class — has given rise to anti-Wall Street sentiment and animated the presidential campaign. Now, a growing body of economic research suggests that it might mean lower levels of economic growth and slower job creation in the years ahead, as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/business/economy/income-inequality-may-take-toll-on-growth.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

**

Permit me an impertinent question (or three).

Suppose a small group of extremely wealthy people sought to systematically destroy the U.S. government by (1) finding and bankrolling new candidates pledged to shrinking and dismembering it; (2) intimidating or bribing many current senators and representatives to block all proposed legislation, prevent the appointment of presidential nominees, eliminate funds to implement and enforce laws, and threaten to default on the nation's debt; (3) taking over state governments in order to redistrict, gerrymander, require voter IDs, purge voter rolls, and otherwise suppress the votes of the majority in federal elections; (4) running a vast PR campaign designed to convince the American public of certain big lies, such as climate change is a hoax, and (5) buying up the media so the public cannot know the truth.

Would you call this treason?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/an-impertinent-question_b_3582032.html

***


One-Sided Process

The TPP process appears to be set up to push corporate interests over other interests. The TPP is being negotiated in secret, so what we know about it comes from leaked documents. Even our Congress is being kept out of the loop. But 600 corporate representatives are in the loop while representatives of groups that protect working people, human, political and civil rights and our environment are largely not in the loop.

This one-sided participation unfortunately indicates that the interests of giant corporations are likely to override the interests of working people and those who want to protect non-corporate interests. Otherwise there would be more representation by representatives of organizations representing these concerns, and greater transparency into the process.

http://blog.ourfuture.org/20130514/upcoming-trans-pacific-trade-agreement-looks-like-corporate-takeover

***

(Where us Obama's outrage on these issues? That's right, he has none, that's why he never says a word about it.)

**

[geek tragedy]

13. "the reality of what the nation has become since he has been President should make him cry"

This is an explicit statement that the nation was a better place under Bush. That the Bush years were a better time for America than the Obama years.

There are people who believe such things. They are not entitled to respect around here.

[matthews]

17. Neither is anyone who favors putting the safety net up for cuts,

continuing to loot the Social Security trust fund, spending money we so desperately need for the citizens and the infrastucture of our own nation on military forays in the Middle East, or giving 85 billion dollars A MONTH to thugs who created this financial cesspool we find ourselves wallowing in.

We have billions for private contractors to go snooping through the lives of the American people, but we have no money for Meals on Wheels or Head Start. That is obscene.

[geek tragedy]

18. "continuing to loot the Social Security trust fund"

Derp.

[matthews]

20. Real good comeback you got there.

What do you call putting it up for cuts?

P.S. If my two-year old grandchild acted like you, it would be timeout time until they developed some manners and had something intelligent to say instead of some childish nonsense like that 'derp' stupidity.

It's a dead giveaway that you have nothing to bring to the conversation.

[geek tragedy]

21. U mad bro? nt

[matthews]

23. No, not at all. Just disappointed and dismayed at the juvenile level of conversation

of which you are capable of participating in.

I expect better from intelligent, educated adults. I will now lower my expectations.

[woo me with science]

26. Well said.

[Doctor_J]

24. It's wasted on the Fan Club

no amount of factual information will dim their worship for The Savior.

[matthews]

25. Apparently so. Someone asked me for 'proof' the other day that the NSA is

spying on us.

I couldn't type until I quit laughing.

[DallasNE]

4. GDP Growth For The Current Quarter

Is expected to come in at a putrid 1%. Some are claiming that the 4th quarter should show more growth but I don't see where that will come from. Indeed, because of the sequester, I have been saying since it was allowed to kick in on March 1st that in the 4th quarter we would likely see the economy slip into recession during the holiday season. I see no reason to adjust my March prediction. Bernanke has been sending out alarms and the recently completed G20 summit in Russia put out a message of deficit spending to stimulate the world economies so Obama has plenty of tailwind for taking this message out into the country. A new fiscal year starts October 1st and while both houses have passed a budget the two chambers have not agreed to meet to work out the differences. Since Congress will soon go into recess until after Labor Day there will only be 3 weeks to come up with something or face a government shutdown. Normally Congress would pass a continuing resolution to keep the government running and the House could well do that because that would keep the sequester in place, something the President has promised to veto, so a shutdown is more likely than with the recent artificial "cliff" conditions. The other half of the one-two punch is the debt ceiling that will be hit at the same time. How much will Congress dither when staring in the face of a recession? My guess is aplenty.

[matthews]

12. You know what scares me even more than Congressional obstruction?

This just makes my hair stand up on end:


Markets More: Federal Reserve

The White House Search For A Bernanke Replacement Is On, And Larry Summers May Be The Favorite


Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers is indicating to President Barack Obama's Wall Street supporters that he wants to become Federal Reserve chairman, according to people familiar with the matter, as he keeps in touch with senators who would vote on the nomination.

"As a matter of fact, I have a meeting scheduled with him next week," Senator Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat and chairman of the Finance Committee, said July 9. "I don't know what's on the agenda."

Summers, 58, who was Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton and Obama's first National Economic Council director, is one of the potential candidates to succeed Chairman Ben Bernanke, according to two people familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-fed-search-and-larry-summers-2013-7#ixzz2ZoXGJIU0



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-fed-search-and-larry-summers-2013-7#ixzz2ZoVkrJQj

[DallasNE]

16. Summers Know His Stuff

But he also carries a lot of baggage with him so I would rather see someone else but not someone from Goldman-Sachs.

[matthews]

19. NOTHING good has ever come from anything old Larry has ever touched.

Ask Harvard.

***

It happened at least once a year, every year. In a roomful of a dozen Harvard University financial officials, Jack Meyer, the hugely successful head of Harvard’s endowment, and Lawrence Summers, then the school’s president, would face off in a heated debate. The topic: cash and how the university was managing - or mismanaging - its basic operating funds.

Through the first half of this decade, Meyer repeatedly warned Summers and other Harvard officials that the school was being too aggressive with billions of dollars in cash, according to people present for the discussions, investing almost all of it with the endowment’s risky mix of stocks, bonds, hedge funds, and private equity. Meyer’s successor, Mohamed El-Erian, would later sound the same warnings to Summers, and to Harvard financial staff and board members.

“Mohamed was having a heart attack,’’ said one former financial executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of angering Harvard and Summers. He considered the cash investment a “doubling up’’ of the university’s investment risk.

But the warnings fell on deaf ears, under Summers’s regime and beyond. And when the market crashed in the fall of 2008, Harvard would pay dearly, as $1.8 billion in cash simply vanished. Indeed, it is still paying, in the form of tighter budgets, deferred expansion plans, and big interest payments on bonds issued to cover the losses.http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/11/29/harvard_ignored_warnings_about_investments/



**

Let’s go through the last 15-20 years of perfect, brilliant top economist Larry Summers’ career: He joined Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan in their successful attempt to tear down long-standing financial regulations and keep derivatives totally unmonitored as a Treasury official and then secretary during the Clinton administration, directly leading to the 2008 financial collapse; he became President of Harvard, where he was a total failure who was eventually kicked out; he made $20+ million giving bad advice and speeches to gullible financial firms; he returned to government to head President Obama’s economic team, where he was overbearing, crude to his colleagues, and incorrect about the depth and severity of the Great Recession; and then he went back to his plum sinecure at Harvard, where everyone hopes he will stay, quietly, forever. But oh, what’s that, the World Bank is in need of a new president? And who is at the top of the list?

http://wonkette.com/463861/rude-failure-larry-summers-a-leading-candidate-for-another-top-job

***


The Return of Lawrence Summers, Mr. Spectacular Failure

The guy who tops the list of those responsible for sabotaging the world’s economy is lobbying to be the next chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Robert Scheer
July 16, 2013
This story originally appeared at Truthdig. Robert Scheer is the author of The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street (Nation Books).
?
Tell me it’s a sick joke: Former US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, the guy who tops the list of those responsible for sabotaging the world’s economy, is lobbying to be the next chairman of the Federal Reserve. But no, it makes perfect sense, since Summers has long succeeded spectacularly by failing.


Why should his miserable record in the Clinton and Obama administrations hold him back from future disastrous adventures at our expense? With Ben Bernanke set to step down in January, and Obama still in deep denial over the pain and damage his former top economic adviser Summers brought to tens of millions of Americans, this darling of Wall Street has yet another shot to savage the economy.

Summers was one of the key players during the Clinton years in creating the mortgage derivative bubble that ended up costing tens of millions of Americans their homes and life savings. This is the genius who, as Clinton’s Treasury secretary, supported the banking lobby’s successful effort to make the sale of unregulated bundles of mortgage securities and the phony insurance swaps that backed them perfectly legal and totally unmonitored. Those are the toxic bundles that the Federal Reserve is still unloading from the banks at a cost of trillions of dollars.


Summers had condemned Glass-Steagall as an example of “archaic financial restrictions” and called instead for “allowing common ownership of banking, securities and insurance firms.” A decade later, while in the Obama administration, Summers worked to prevent a return to the Glass-Steagall prohibition in the Dodd-Frank legislation.

http://www.thenation.com/article/175287/return-lawrence-summers-mr-spectacular-failure#

[Arctic Dave]

5. Doing what he does best, give speeches.

Other then that...

[forestpath]

9. +1

[dmosh42]

6. He should be on the attack about the filibuster and Boehner's House of Rep being bogged down!

[Doctor_J]

7. Among other things. Here is what I would like to see him do

for starters, right now, to get things moving:

1. Give a speech about the ACA. Tell how many people in the US, in total, will lose their HC if it is "repealed". then tell about the results from NY state vis-a-vis cost savings for less affluent citizens. Finally lambaste the house for spending millions of tax dollars voting 38 times to "repeal" it.

2. Address the Dem congressional delegation, and have every last one of them go to their districts/states and tell their constituencies the exact number of their friends and neighbors who will be fucked if we go back to BushCare. According to ProSense, 32 million additional citizens will get access to HC because of this law. The president and the party need to put a face on every single one of those 32 million - right where they live.

There are certain things that we're out of luck on. The president is anti-labor, anti-public education, and anti-environment. But he might be able to salvage his presidency and the party if he will get to work on the issues where he's an actual Democrat and use his gift of speech-giving to his advantage.

[dmosh42]

8. Agreed, but unfortunately our Dem leaders are pretty passive on the important issues.

[matthews]

14. First think I'd like to see him do is CANCEL all these trade treaties and pacts.

Unless he's trying to finish us off for good.

We ALL can't work for McDonalds or WalMart.

[Doctor_J]

15. He can do that second

the ACA is on EVERYONE's mind right now, and it's his signature thing. I personally think it was half-assed and too corporate, but right now it's what we have and he should put all of his effort into making it work.

As for the trade agreements, he's a Reagan/Clinton devotee on economics. he actually believes in NAFTA and TPP. So that won't happen.

What he should do is focus on the issues where he's actually a Dem, and rally the party around those.

[matthews]

22. And what issue would that be? He's already given a bye to the business mandate

end of the deal. And yet, the individual mandate stands. And employers have been given the amazing option of offering junk insurance, insurance that would be totally WORTHLESS in the event of a hospitalization.

The ACA did manage to make certain that the insurance industry will get a boatload of new business, regardless of whether the insurance is any good or if the deductibles and co-pays are so high you still can't afford to use it. And it guaranteed that we will never be able to negotiate prescription costs in this country. Never.

**

Employers are increasingly recognizing they may be able to avoid certain penalties under the federal health law by offering very limited plans that can lack key benefits such as hospital coverage.

Benefits advisers and insurance brokers—bucking a commonly held expectation that the law would broadly enrich benefits—are pitching these low-benefit plans around the country. They cover minimal requirements such as preventive services, but often little more. Some of the plans wouldn't cover surgery, X-rays or prenatal care at all. Others will be paired with limited packages to cover additional services, for instance, $100 a day for a hospital visit.

Tex-Mex restaurant chain El Fenix is looking to offer limited plans.

Federal officials say this type of plan, in concept, would appear to qualify as acceptable minimum coverage under the law, and let most employers avoid an across-the-workforce $2,000-per-worker penalty for firms that offer nothing. Employers could still face other penalties they anticipate would be far less costly.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324787004578493274030598186.html

***

Such policies would generally cost far less to provide than paying the penalty or providing more comprehensive benefits, say benefit-services firms.

Administration officials confirmed in interviews that the skinny plans, in concept, would be sufficient to avoid the across-the-workforce penalty. Several expressed surprise that employers would consider the approach.

Firms now offering low-cost policies known as mini-meds, generally plans that cap benefits at low levels, could favor the tactic. Companies sought federal health department waivers to cover nearly four million with mini-meds and other similar plans, which will be barred next year. Some employers are "thinking of this as a replacement for the mini-med plan," said Tracy Watts, national leader for health-care reform at Mercer, a consulting unit of Marsh & McLennan Cos.

San Antonio-based Bill Miller Bar-B-Q, a 4,200-worker chain, will replace its own mini-med with a new, skinny plan in July. The new plan... will cover only preventive services, six annual doctors' visits and generic drugs. X-rays and tests at a local urgent care chain will also be covered. It wouldn't cover surgeries or hospital stays.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/may/some-employers-insurers-conspire-on-bare-bones-plans

I worked for a place part-time that offered their employees one of those crap policies. Almost to a 'man' the people who had those policies dumped them while most people never signed up for them anyway. When push came to shove, not only were they paying out money that they needed for crap that was worthless, when something like appendicitis or tonsilitis came along (common illnesses both) the freaking insurance didn't cover it anyway.

[Kolesar]

27. Been here one week, and you already got a post hidden

What was your name last time you joined DU?

[matthews]

29. Well aren't you just the cleverest little thing? I supposed you think that's

intimidating or impressive. I got a thread hidden for doing the same thing you just did.

[Kolesar]

30. Mr. Returnee...eom

[matthews]

32. I'm just crushed sweetie. I just don't KNOW how I'll get along without

your approval.

But to hazard a guess, I'm sure I'll do just fine.

Oh yeah, I alerted and told them that I had a post hidden for the same thing you're doing now. Let's see what kind how honest this place is.

[Kolesar]

33. Nobody is forcing you to participate here

You could be out shooting hoops or doing something useful

[matthews]

36. I am going to improve the way I'm spending my time.

I'm going to quit interacting with you.

[matthews]

38. Do you run this place? Does everyone give a damn what you think?

I don't.

But I sure do like to see you pitch a fit and stomp your little hoof.

[matthews]

34. Bwahahahaha! I must be in Fan Club Central.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Not cool to make the accusation, true though it may be.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: MIRT might wanna take some review time and an IP check maybe
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

_______________________________________________________________

Ah well. That tells me a lot.

Now it's too bad my life isn't invested in this place, because then it would actually matter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=inbox&view=1127889

[Kolesar]

28. Your second paragraph is a lie

a well read WSJ fan should know better

[matthews]

31. NONE of what I said is a lie. And I prefer Bloomberg,

Forbes, Reuters, and the Economist.

I myself steer clear of anything associated to Rupert Murdoch.

[Kolesar]

35. Mr. WSJ

You posted a WSJ URL. You are the one with a WSJ subscription.

[matthews]

37. I'll be damned, I did. But I didn't get it from the

journal. I don't have a subscription. I'll have to go through my history. But its still true. Regardless of the source. Although I do feel dirty seeing that in one of my posts.

You people are threatened by EVERYTHING, aren't you? It must take a lot of energy to stand on guard constantly, all your attention spent looking for every slight, every aspersion, regardless of how little or how big, against your idol. Doesn't that tell you anything? Don't you get tired? Don't you feel foolish? Don't you have the sense to understand if it was wrong when bush/cheney were doing what he's doing now, that it is STILL wrong? Or is there no last scruple that you won't toss into the garbage heap to protect this man and his rather tarnished reputation?

I'll be more careful where I copy from.

OH, I note that you don't have anything of any intelligence to say against what I posted. I've noticed that other than blue links that go around in circles, you people rarely do.