Obama's weekly radio address: austerity edition

[neverforget]

It's time Washington acted responsibly

A few months ago, I received a letter from a woman named Brenda Breece. I wanted to share her story because it speaks to what a lot of families are going through – and it offers a good example of the kind of responsibility that’s needed in Washington right now.

Brenda is a mom and a special-ed teacher from Missouri. Her husband, David, was employed at the local Chrysler plant for nearly four decades. They’ve worked hard their whole lives. But like a lot of folks, they’ve taken some hits over the past few years. When the Chrysler plant closed, David had to take early retirement. His pension helps, but it’s half of what he earned before. Meanwhile, because of budget cuts, Brenda has had to buy school supplies for her students out of her own pocket – because it’s her job and she cares about those kids.

Money has been tight, but they are doing the best they can. And like so many families, they are sacrificing what they don’t need so they can afford what really matters. This is what Brenda told me. “I feel my family is frugal,” she said. “We go to the movies…once a month, but usually we just wait for them to come out on TV… I watch the food budget… We combine trips into town use coupons … and we trim each other’s hair when we need a haircut.”

So Brenda and her husband know what they can do without. But they also know what investments are too important to sacrifice. Their daughter, Rachel, is a sophomore in college with a 4.0 grade point average. The tuition is a big expense. But it’s worth it, because it will give her the chance to achieve her dreams. In fact, Brenda is looking for a second job to ensure, as she told me, “the money is there to help Rachel with her future.”

more...

[rurallib]

1. where is the part about tax cuts for the rich?

And the widest wealth gap ever?
And cutting LIHEAP?
And the union busting binge that repug governors are on.....
And about how colleges are raising tuitions again ........

[Enrique]

4. Biden said it best

he was talking to the GOP, but maybe he's laughing in Obama's face now

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x497884

Biden to GOP: "Forgive me if I laugh in your face"
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?artic...

“How can Perry or the Republican Party talk with a straight face about fiscal responsibility? Give me a break,” Biden said. “Next time a Republican talks to you about fiscal responsibility, tell them, ‘Forgive me if I laugh in your face.’ It’s bizarre. It’s bizarre. They have no credibility.”

[obxhead]

8. He's explaining how we should live to cover all of that for his friends.

[Catherina]

23. +1 n/t

[Deep13]

2. Military imperialism and tax cuts for the rich--

Sorry, sir, but you have no credibility on this issue.

[closeupready]

32. +1, The anecdote is poignant, but since it doesn't dovetail with his apparent ideology,

I'm not sure what his point is.

[Angry Dragon]

3. And how long before duncan takes away her teaching job

because she is not doing a good job of teaching these children
and a TFA teacher can come in and do it better??

[Newest Reality]

5. So, now we are down to

using an example of how families are struggling and doing without while they are poised on the edge to justify cutting services?

Then we get ambiguous references to roads, high-speed rail and broadband? Who will be able to afford to drive much, pay for services or take a train anywhere? No details, though. No mention of the millions of jobs that will be created from those programs.

The deadbeat rich, bankers, Wall Street, CEO's, et al, are exempt from the belt-tightening while the President picks a family who is not yet homeless and whose Daughter may be going to college, (and hopefully might find a job after graduation, though it may be in the service industry) to illustrate how we must tighten our belts even though we are out of notches.

That's telling us that things are pretty bad and will get worse. Wait until the President tries to enact his ideas in any of the areas proposed.

Tragicomedy!

[whattheidonot]

12. drinking the kool -aid

obama is not even challenging these ideas and assumptions. He is not explaining the history of how these ideas have become popular. he does not defend an alternative to these policies. he bails out the banks, gives tax cuts to everybody and fights wars that give us enemies, comes out in praise of egyptian democracy while widening the gap in our's. For this President to come across as a progressive is disingenuous.

[neverforget]

6. a minute after i posted this, our power went out and still is

The wonder of a smartphone!

The poor and middle class get to sacrifice while the rich get off scot free.

[cali]

7. this crap makes me sick. How fucking dare he?

[BzaDem]

22. ... how fucking dare he what?

Make the same analogies he has been making for years?

[KoKo]

60. Cali...He's playing that Chess Game. The more he Moves to the Right the easier it is for him to

Co-Opt their Message and get RE-Elected. It's the Master Strategy we were told he would do to beat the Right Wing at the Game they have been playing.

That is seems to be backfiring is probably because he didn't have the "center" we thought he had. He listened to much to the Power Brokers and relies too much on COURTIERS of the POWERS THAT BE.

I don't think he's ever had a clue about all of this, though. Sad.....:-(...for US OUT HERE IN AMERICA who are not RICH and have no hope to be...and who aren't PRIVILEGED and have no hopes of ever being....

just saying. Obama see's everything through his own lens......he can't quite get beyond that and his close group of advisors that he trusts who tell him what he wants to believe about himself and how he needs to "Realign" our American Government and Economy. He just doesn't get it....is what I think.

[boston bean]

9. That is obscene.

[Catherina]

24. Worse than obscene. I can't even think of a word for this n/t

[StarsInHerHair]

78. I can, it's very Republican of him

nt

[Better Believe It]

10. So should make good decisions on what cuts we will make in our living standards.

Thanks for the advice
Now that's leadership!

But, we won't have a lot to say in such matters. The politicians will decide what they will take away from us in order to make their lives better.

I'm willing to make the same cuts that President Obama and his friends are making.

[neverforget]

11. which would be?

I know. I can't think of anything either.

[bobbolink]

16. "I'm willing to make the same cuts that President Obama and his friends are making." AMEN!

:applause:

That would be a good button, and a good rally headline!

[onethatcares]

13. well, that's uniquely American,

having two jobs in a three working person household in order to pay for tuition.

I wonder where I heard that phrase before?

[neverforget]

14. bootstraps and all

[Hello_Kitty]

15. Ah jeez, he's comparing the Federal budget to a family budget? Really?

I know that facile bullshit plays well in Peoria but it's helping to contribute to the woeful ignorance of the American populace on economics. For shame, Pres. Obama.

[leftstreet]

17. I'm personally budgeting less for military contractors this year

Unbelievable comparison

[BlueCheese]

34. Haha. Good one. n/t

[neverforget]

18. Where's the talk of sacrifice for the wealthy and the military?

[Brickbat]

19. I've cut back on my military budget and have raised taxes on the corporations in my family.

Looking forward to having Obama lead this country like I lead my household.

[Danger Mouse]

20. What....the...fuck...?

:puke:

[Catherina]

25. Indeed. Make that #WTF n/t

[BzaDem]

21. The newfound anger over this is quite amazing. He has been saying the same thing since the debates,

since his first address to Congress in Jan 2009, and again since his state of the union in Jan 2010.

And despite the political climate, he is fighting for large increases in spending in key areas.

Yet people are still furious, as if with a Republican House we are going to somehow avoid cutting the budget at all. Apparently, acknowledging the make-up of Congress while proposing further spending "makes people sick." In a way people apparently weren't when he made the same general points before his election.

If people wonder why they don't think Obama listens to them, they should look no further than this thread. There is no point to trying to satisfy people who will not be satisfied regardless of what he says or does.

[neverforget]

26. When is he going to ask the wealthy and military to sacrifice? He's accepted the

Republican framing of the deficit debate (something needs to be done now instead of when we are on our feet again economically).

[BzaDem]

27. Actually, his budget will include 78 billion less in defense over 5 years, and the expiration of the

tax cuts for the top (350 billion over 5 years).

[neverforget]

29. The tax cuts expire in 2 years. The budget cuts are now. There's also the

little bit of 2 unpaid wars.

[BzaDem]

30. The budget is actually a 10 year document.

He is proposing that the tax cuts end now. Of course, I doubt the Republican House would oblige, just as I doubt that they won't accept any of Obama's proposals (and instead return ones with much deeper cuts). Obama's budget is not very relevant in any case. But since people seem to be so angry about it, they may as well acknowledge that the same budget that they are angry about raises taxes on the rich and reduces defense spending.

[neverforget]

31. Are upset that people are mad about the budget cuts?

[BzaDem]

39. I'm not upset about their point of view. I just think their POV is naive in the extreme.

And this isn't about being upset about "budget cuts." I'm upset about budget cuts, as is everyone else.

What I find a naive point of view, is being upset with Obama for acknowledging the reality that no budget is going to pass the House of Representatives without budget cuts.

[neverforget]

40. it's naive to think a Democratic President is making cuts to the poor?

Why didn't he ask for sacrifice from the wealthy in his radio broadcast today? Obama is acknowledging the cuts but the cuts are coming out of the poor and middle class first and not the wealthy and military.

[BzaDem]

46. Do you seriously not know how many times he has asked for sacrifice from the wealthy?

Does the fact that he didn't mention it in one address mean he didn't mention it hundreds of other times, including in many similar radio addresses?

The budget will include tax increases for the wealthy AND cuts in military spending.

[neverforget]

48. Then why does he focus on the poor and middle class?

[BzaDem]

51. He ISN'T focusing on cuts to the poor and middle class.

The existence of a cut does not mean he is "focusing" on that cut. The budget is huge, and it will have cuts in some spending, increases in others (resulting in flat spending for the next 5 years), and tax increases for the wealthy.

[neverforget]

56. Tax increases for the wealthy? You mean tax cuts for the wealthy signed

in December and then, in his State of the Union address, his call for corporate tax cuts? I'm a little underwhelmed with Obama's call for sacrifice from the wealthy.

[BzaDem]

59. No, I mean tax increases for the wealthy.

He will propose raising the tax rate for the top bracket to 39.6% in his budget. That's an increase.

In his state of the union, he didn't call for one dime less of corporate tax revenue. He called for lowering the rates, and paying for it by removing the deductions. The net result is EXACTLY the same corporate tax revenue as before.

[Hello_Kitty]

64. So if it's revenue neutral than what's the point?

[BzaDem]

71. Because the current system benefits the wrong companies. Why should the tax system favor oil corps?

The current corporate tax system is ridiculous. The current system acts as a subsidy from smaller corps to larger corps who organize their business (and their lawyers) around ways to pay no tax. It benefits companies who outsource jobs by taxing at a higher rate companies that don't outsource them. It is incredibly counterproductive.

[neverforget]

66. Do you have a link to those tax increases for the wealthy?

[BzaDem]

72. Sure.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41492165

[neverforget]

81. Thanks.

[watercolors]

82. It's like talking to children here, They do not want to

try to understand. We are such a me... me society and don't understand that sometimes things have to be sacrificed. I for one am proud of the fact that Obama is stepping up and willing to do what is not favored by so many here. We have made some changes in our life style, cut back on many things to help of some grandchildren in college. I'm thinking of the future for my family, we decided that the travel & plans we made for our retirement were not as important as their future!

[Hello_Kitty]

49. And cuts to programs he "cares deeply about".

Translation: Get ready to be screwed, poor people.

[BzaDem]

52. As opposed to what?

Do you really think there is something Obama can do to prevent all cuts to programs that affect poor people?

[Hello_Kitty]

54. Well he could stop calling for them, for one thing.

You are seriously defending cutting services to poor people when rich people HAVE NOT had to sacrifice anything yet?

[BzaDem]

58. I am not defending the enacting of cuts at all.

That doesn't mean that the choice to not enact cuts is an actual option.

Domestic spending INCREASED when Democrats were in control of both Houses of Congress. Significantly. Why would Obama allow domestic spending to increase if he was the cut-monger that you keep claiming he is?

The optimal option (no discretionary spending cuts, actually a discretionary spending increase) is NOT AN OPTION with a Republican House. The election of a Republican House means the level of spending will be set by the party that wins the government shutdown, which in turn depends on who the media reports as acting "reasonable." The choice is between some cuts and 10 times that number of cuts.

[Hello_Kitty]

63. Oh, now we're playing that game.

"It's not really a cut because we raised spending on that area so much 2 years ago! We're just rolling it back to where it was before!"

Right, the poor people losing heating assistance can comfort themselves with the memories of the heat they had in 2009.

[BzaDem]

70. You misinterpret what I'm saying.

I am not saying it is good to cut spending now because we raised it in the past.

The reason I brought up the fact that he raised it in the past was because you keep acting as if Obama wants to cut the budget. The fact that he increased spending significantly in the past, when he had control of Congress, goes against your interpretation. If he liked cutting budgets, he would have done so for the last 2 years. Not just when a Republican Congress took over.

[Hello_Kitty]

75. Obama just said in his radio broadcast that he wants to cut the budget

Doesn't mention the Republican Congress once.

[BzaDem]

76. See post #50. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

80. Yeah, I know. 12 dimensional chess.

Yawn.

[Hello_Kitty]

44. So why the fuck is he introducing a WH budget with so many cuts?

Knowing that "compromise" with the GOP will require cutting what he proposed even further? What kind of shitass negotiation strategy is THAT?

[BzaDem]

50. The budget is a media game. That's it. There will be no "compromise" over the budget -- the GOP will

ignore it entirely, and pass their own.

The budget isn't even law. It isn't subject to a veto. This is all a dance to try to sound reasonable in the media.

Why is that important? Because there will likely be a government shutdown. The winner of the shutdown will be decided based on how the media reports the shutdown. If the Democrats sound unreasonable (no cuts in anything), the media will report that the reasonable Republicans are fighting with an unreasonable Obama, and the Republicans will win the shutdown and force through 10x the cuts Obama is proposing here.

[ReggieVeggie]

67. 78 billion over 5 years, defense budget about 650 billion per year

650 times 5 is 3250 billion or 3.25 trillion

78 billion into 3250 represents a 2 percent cut over 5 years....what a cut!

[closeupready]

33. If you feel there's no point in trying to satisfy us, then you must agree there's no point in voting

for him, correct? Or at least, there's no point in feeling obligated to be a team player in return, in terms of money, GOTV efforts, correct?

[BzaDem]

38. There are different orders of magnitude in levels of dissatisfaction.

If one feels that there is absolutely no difference between their level of dissatisfaction under Obama and their level of dissatisfaction under Bush, then sure.

However, that is generally not the case. The tiny group of liberals who oppose Obama might convince themselves that they are equally dissatisfied with Obama as they were with Bush, but that is just because they have collective amnesia about the Bush years, and take far too much (under Obama) for granted. The second a Republican enters office, they change their tune considerably and start remembering reality (see Nader voters during Bush years, and the 90% drop in Nader's support in 2004).

So to answer your question, just because one will always be dissatisfied with any President they will ever have in their lifetime, doesn't mean that the level of dissatisfaction between the choices is the same. In reality, it will never be the same.

[closeupready]

61. You seem to have a great deal of knowledge about Obama's campaign promises. Or at least,

it seems as though you are competent to confirm the veracity of statements attributed to him. Can you confirm, to the best of your knowledge, that he said this:

>>We must form grass-root structures that would hold me and other elected officials more accountable for their actions.<<

Are you familiar with that statement?

[BzaDem]

62. Sure.

Does that statement mean that people should allow a Republican to win, because Obama wasn't able to do everything he wanted?

[Hello_Kitty]

65. I thought the dirty hippies were too irrelevant to affect an election.

Have you elevated us to election-outcome-shifting importance now?

[closeupready]

69. Thank you, my thoughts exactly. One minute, he can't be bothered to satisfy us whiners.

The next minute, we have the power to "allow" a Republican to win.

Which is it?

Further, the quote implied an FDR-type, "I want you to MAKE me do it!" That's part of our role here, the complaints and such.

[BzaDem]

73. My point is that certain people won't be satisfied no matter what.

Now, if these people want to play with fire and maximize their dissatisfaction by allowing some Republican to win in a close election, more power to them. We'll see how long that lasts (or rather, how short a time it is before they deeply regret their actions and see reality by the next election).

Of course, by the time they see reason and start voting for the Democrat again, the damage might have already been done (and Medicare voucherized, etc). But as they say, they get the democracy they deserve. They can't say they weren't warned.

[Hello_Kitty]

43. Oh he's just "acknowledging the make-up of Congress" is he?

He didn't say jack crap about Congress in that radio speech. It was about HIS budget. What HE wants to do.

[Tatiana]

28. Brenda's looking for a second job? Hell, Brenda may be looking for a FIRST if Arne has his way.

Depending on how long Brenda has been teaching and how much she makes, Brenda's school district may find it more cost-efficient to replace her with a TFAer.

What kills me is the complete obliviousness... the sheer magnitude of how out of touch the President seems to be with the typical American family. Brenda's situation is nothing to be pleased about. Brenda's working hard, has raised a good kid with great grades and finds herself in a position where she has to take on a SECOND job to help support her daughter's higher education. That is a travesty in itself and I find it shameful that this poor family is being trotted out as some sort of "success" story.

I'd say supporting higher education for qualified and capable students was more important than bailing out banks, high-speed rail, military incursions, and tax breaks for the wealthy.

[BlueCheese]

35. Who on earth takes that letter...

... and decides that the key takeaway is that the federal government should spend less on public services?

The backdrop, of course, are the Obama-McConnell tax cuts for the wealthy that were just extended. The extent to which our party has abandoned its ideals is nothing short of horrifying.

[closeupready]

36. But apparently, since they've been promising to abandon their ideals since 2008, that makes it OK.

:sarcasm:

[Hello_Kitty]

45. People who pander to the view that everything is poor people's fault, that's who. eom

[JVS]

77. Herbert Hoover

[Canuckistanian]

37. Interesting - most of her hardships are because of government policies

That Chrysler plant didn't need to close - but NATFA made sure those jobs went to Mexico.

The husband's pension should have been federally protected.

The school budget cuts went too deep.

College tuitions are no longer subsidized by ANY government.

There are no more manufacturing jobs, only service industry jobs - at minimum wage.

And Obama praises her FRUGALITY?

[Hello_Kitty]

47. 'You work 3 jobs? Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that!"

I was reminded of Bush in 2004 when I read this awful transcript.

[BlueCheese]

68. Get any sleep?

[Safetykitten]

41. Ewww. Just ewww.

[MasonJar]

42. Perhaps Obama could forgo his salary. And cut the heat and electricity to

the White House. John Yarmuth, my incredible representative, doesn't take his salary. He gives it to charity. John Yarmuth is a true statesman, one of the few I can name in DC. Perhaps John Kerry might make my list and Barbara Boxer.

[ProSense]

53. Or the WH understands

how to make a strategy argument better than most.

HOW TO USE THE WRONG COMPARISON THE RIGHT WAY....

The headline on the new White House weekly address raises a familiar refrain, which I've never liked: "It's time Washington acted as responsibly as our families do."

<...>

But in this morning's address, President Obama managed to use the comparison that rankles in a way that resonated. He noted having received a letter from Brenda Breece, a mom in Missouri who works as a special-ed teacher. Her husband worked at a local Chrysler plant for nearly 40 years, but took early retirement when the plant closed, and his pension check goes quickly.

<...>

The president explained in his address, as he prepares to release his new budget on Monday, "Families across this country understand what it takes to manage a budget. They understand what it takes to make ends meet without forgoing important investments like education. Well, it's time Washington acted as responsibly as our families do."

This is an important pitch. Next week, Republicans are going to say, "Families are cutting back in these hard times, and they expect Washington to do the same." Obama is trying to turn this around, arguing in effect, "Families are cutting in some areas, but are still investing in areas like their kids' college tuition, and there's no reason Washington shouldn't do the same."

It's a compelling way to frame the argument. Congressional Republicans think the way to prepare for the future is to scrap investments in education, infrastructure, transportation, law enforcement, medical research, and environmental protections. The White House is laying the groundwork for the defense -- some cuts make sense, cuts that forgo important investments do not.

<...>

WEEKLY ADDRESS: “It’s Time Washington Acted as Responsibly as Our Families Do”

WASHINGTON – President Obama used his weekly address to preview his budget saying that it will help the government live within its means, while still investing in the future. In addition to stripping out waste, his budget includes a freeze on annual domestic spending over the next five years—even for programs he cares deeply about—which will reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade. And, it will make investments in the future, by supporting what will do the most to grow the economy in the years to come. This means investing in things like infrastructure, research, and education.

The audio and video of the address will be available online at www.whitehouse.gov at 6:00 a.m. ET, Saturday, February 12, 2011.


Remarks of President Barack Obama

As Prepared for Delivery

February 12, 2011

Washington, DC

A few months ago, I received a letter from a woman named Brenda Breece. I wanted to share her story because it speaks to what a lot of families are going through – and it offers a good example of the kind of responsibility that’s needed in Washington right now.

Brenda is a mom and a special-ed teacher from Missouri. Her husband, David, was employed at the local Chrysler plant for nearly four decades. They’ve worked hard their whole lives. But like a lot of folks, they’ve taken some hits over the past few years. When the Chrysler plant closed, David had to take early retirement. His pension helps, but it’s half of what he earned before. Meanwhile, because of budget cuts, Brenda has had to buy school supplies for her students out of her own pocket – because it’s her job and she cares about those kids.

Money has been tight, but they are doing the best they can. And like so many families, they are sacrificing what they don’t need so they can afford what really matters. This is what Brenda told me. “I feel my family is frugal,” she said. “We go to the movies…once a month, but usually we just wait for them to come out on TV… I watch the food budget… We combine trips into town use coupons … and we trim each other’s hair when we need a haircut.”

So Brenda and her husband know what they can do without. But they also know what investments are too important to sacrifice. Their daughter, Rachel, is a sophomore in college with a 4.0 grade point average. The tuition is a big expense. But it’s worth it, because it will give her the chance to achieve her dreams. In fact, Brenda is looking for a second job to ensure, as she told me, “the money is there to help Rachel with her future.”

Families across this country understand what it takes to manage a budget. They understand what it takes to make ends meet without forgoing important investments like education. Well, it’s time Washington acted as responsibly as our families do. And on Monday, I’m proposing a new budget that will help us live within our means while investing in our future.

My budget freezes annual domestic spending for the next five years – even on programs I care deeply about – which will reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade. This freeze will bring this type of spending to its lowest level as a share of the economy since Dwight Eisenhower was president. We’ve stripped down the budget by getting rid of waste. For example, we’re getting rid of thousands of government-owned buildings that sit empty because they aren’t needed. I’ve also proposed freezing salaries for hardworking government employees, because everyone has to do their part. And I’m going to make sure politics doesn’t add to our deficit, by vetoing any bill that contains earmarks.

And yet, just as the Breece family is making difficult sacrifices while still investing in the future – by helping their daughter pay her tuition – my budget does the same. I’m proposing that we invest in what will do the most to grow the economy in the years to come. This means job-creating investments in roads, high-speed speed trains, and broadband. This means cutting-edge research that holds the promise of creating countless jobs and whole new industries, like clean energy and biotechnology. And it means improving our schools and making college more affordable – to give every young person the chance to fulfill his or her potential, and receive the job training they need to succeed. Because it would be a mistake to balance the budget by sacrificing our children’s education.

So, after a decade of rising deficits, this budget asks Washington to live within its means, while at the same time investing in our future. It cuts what we can’t afford to pay for what we cannot do without. That’s what families do in hard times. And that’s what our country has to do too.

Thank you.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KoKo]

55. Obama and Michelle are doing well. Their clothing is lovely and their children are lovely.

What else is important? :shrug:

[Scottybeamer70]

74. No person in this country

should have to make ANY sacrifice as long as this coutry is spending billions
and billions to continue wars and embassies around the world, sending billions
to other countries for their military purposes..........It is just insane!!
The millionaire politicians couldn't care less what people go through just to
survive. I doubt the majority of them even have a clue. It's all about being
re-elected so they can remain on the public dole. Do politicians take second
and third jobs just to survive?
Sorry for the rant.

[socialist_n_TN]

79. Wouldn't a non Empire, socialist country.......

pay for Rachel's schooling?