Remarks of Senator Barack Obama As Prepared for Delivery Charlotte, North Carolina Sunday, September 21, 2008
The news of the day isn't good.
The era of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington has led us to a perilous moment. They said they wanted to let the market run free but instead they let it run wild. And now we are facing a financial crisis as profound as any we have faced since the Great Depression
But here's the truth:
Regardless of how we got here, we're here today. And the circumstances we face require decisive action because your jobs, your savings, and your economic security are now at risk.
We must work quickly in a bipartisan fashion to resolve this crisis to avert an even broader economic catastrophe. But Washington also has to recognize that economic recovery requires that we act, not just to address the crisis on Wall Street, but also the crisis on Main Street and around kitchen tables across America.
As of now, the Bush Administration has only offered a concept with a staggering price tag, not a plan. Even if the U.S. Treasury recovers some or most of its investment over time, this initial outlay of up to $700 billion is sobering. And in return for their support, the American people must be assured that the deal reflects the basic principles of transparency, fairness, and reform.
First, there must be no blank check when American taxpayers are on the hook for this much money.
Second, taxpayers shouldn't be spending a dime to reward CEOs on Wall Street.
Third, taxpayers should be protected and should be able to recoup this investment.
Fourth, this plan has to help homeowners stay in their homes.
Fifth, this is a global crisis, and the United States must insist that other nations join us in helping secure the financial markets.
Sixth, we need to start putting in place the rules of the road I've been calling for for years to prevent this from ever happening again.
And finally, this plan can't just be a plan for Wall Street, it has to be a plan for Main Street. We have to come together, as Democrats and Republicans, to pass a stimulus plan that will put money in the pockets of working families, save jobs, and prevent painful budget cuts and tax hikes in our states.
So I know these are difficult days. But here's what I also know. I know we can steer ourselves out of this crisis. That's who we are. That's what we've always done as Americans. Our nation has faced difficult times before. And at each of those moments, we've risen to meet the challenge because we've never forgotten that fundamental truth – that here in America, our destiny is not written for us; it's written by us.
But another thing I know is this – we can't steer ourselves out of this crisis by heading in the same, disastrous direction. And that's what this election is all about.
Because while I certainly don't fault Senator McCain for all of the problems we're facing right now, I do fault the economic philosophy he's followed during his 26 years in Washington. It's a philosophy that says it's ok to turn a blind eye to practices that reward financial manipulation instead of sound business decisions. It's a philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise. It's a philosophy that lets Washington lobbyists shred consumer protections and distort our economy so it works for the special interests instead of working people and our country.
We're now seeing the disastrous consequences of this philosophy all around us – on Wall Street as well as Main Street. And yet Senator McCain, who candidly admitted not long ago that he doesn't know as much about economics as he should, wants to keep going down the same, disastrous path.
He calls himself "fundamentally a deregulator," when reckless deregulation and lack of oversight is a big part of the problem.
And here's the really scary part. Now this "Great Deregulator" wants to turn his attention to health care.
He wrote in the current issue of a magazine – the current issue – that we need to open up health care to – quote – "more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking."
According to OpenSecrets.com, from 1989 to 2008, Dodd received $165,400 in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions, including contributions from PACs and individuals, followed by Obama, who received $126,349 in such contributions since being elected to the Senate in 2004.
Now, Johnson has been ousted (after the disaster Obama suffered in the press this past week, and we hear reports that Franklin Raines has only limited ties, and we are supposed to believe that the politician who received almost as much in his short time in congress as someone who had been there, for quite some time...
We are supposed to believe any plan put forth by this man? This man who gained noteriety working for ACORN(an organization noted for committing voter fraud???)
Sorry, but I don't buy the message from Obama.
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 693 comments)
on Sunday, September 21, 2008 at 8:33:09 PM
that is problem #1 with your line of attack against Obama. I suggest you research what Freddie and Fannie do and then you will understand what I am saying and why you are wrong.
Accusing Acorn of voter fraud is just silly.
by
Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments)
on Sunday, September 21, 2008 at 10:11:41 PM
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac DID so lots of things wrong, like contributing to the corruption of a DC Lawmaker, for example... I don't ever recall suggesting, anywhere on this board that Fannie Mae was blameless....
What I am COMMENTING on, is Obama suggesting that he is the one to solve this issue. I am saying is that it is positively LUDICROUS to suggest that Obama can solve the problem given that he is part of the cause.
There are plenty of articles on ACORN committing fraud.. like this one in the Detroit Free Press
The majority of the problem applications are coming from the group ACORN, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, which has a large voter registration program among its many social service programs. ACORN's Michigan branch, based in Detroit, has enrolled 200,000 voters statewide in recent months, mostly with the use of paid, part-time employees.
"There appears to be a sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent applications," said Kelly Chesney, spokeswoman for the Michigan Secretary of State's Office. "And it appears to be widespread."
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 693 comments)
on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 7:41:07 AM
You facts about Obama having people from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as his financial advisors ... again false.
Jim Johnson was on the VP search committee for only a short while until he was removed because of his conflict of interest as a FORMER CEO of Fannie Mae.
Where you Republicans seem to be skewing (or blatantly lying) your facts is that employees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have contributed to the Obama campaign. The funny thing is they have contributed almost equally to both campaigns and McCain's top campaign manager Rick Davis has been Fannie and Freddie's top Washington lobbyist.
But of course you wouldn't want to mention all of McCain's advisors and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
by
E. Nelson (27 articles, 3 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 289 comments)
on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 7:41:26 AM
Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager received $2 million in lobbying fees from Fannie and Freddie. [reference]
Lobbying firm of Charlie Black, one of McCain's top aides, made at least $820,000 working for Freddie Mac from 1999 to 2004. The McCain campaign's vice-chair Wayne Berman and its congressional liaison John Green made $1.14 million working on behalf of Fannie Mae for lobbying firm Ogilvy Government Relations. Green made an additional $180,000 from Freddie Mac. Arther B. Culvahouse Jr., the VP vetter who helped John McCain select Sarah Palin, earned $80,000 from Fannie Mae in 2003 and 2004, while working for lobbying and law firm O'Melveny & Myers LLP. In addition, Politico reports that at least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pocketing at least $12.3 million over the last nine years. [reference]
Good article at the Huffington Post talking about the Republican's new talking points of blaming the entire financial crisis on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Democrats and how backward and ridiculously false this assertion is. [reference]
by
E. Nelson (27 articles, 3 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 289 comments)
on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 9:00:04 AM
from the topic I linked to when I said these folks in DC are an incestuous lot... Now, are you going to sit there and suggest that Obama is a better choice than McCain, because his corrupt advisors are more corrupt than McCain's??? Or are you trying to suggest that Obama's hands are clean? Because I have clearly demonstrated they are not.
The FACTS clearly demonstrate that they are not.
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 693 comments)
on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 10:27:07 AM
He doesn't say a word about cutting military spending.
He is very, very gentle towards Wall Street in these remarks. The only notes of criticism he sounds are indirect -- for example, in the phrase "...we simply cannot afford four more years of an economic philosophy that works for Wall Street instead of Main Street, and ends up devastating both." (This phrasing, incidentally, makes it sound like Wall St is as much a victim as Main St, which is certainly not the case.)
Obama's calls for "unity" are basically euphemisms meant to convince working people that the current crisis has no villains; that no one really committed any terrible crimes, & thus that no one should be held accountable for the disaster. One can certainly see why the villains would find this position attractive. But why any working people would swallow it is an entirely different matter.
On page 1 of this OEN version of Obama's remarks, he lays out 6 specific points in the middle of the page. What these points are worth depends on details that haven't been filled in, yet.
Take #1, for instance: "First, there must be no blank check when American taxpayers are on the hook for this much money." // We'll see in a few days whether the Democrats succeed in challenging Paulson's demand for a blank check; and whether any modification that's adopted has any teeth to it. My bet would be that Paulson gets the blank check, with at most a toothless & purely cosmetic "taxpayer protection" clause.
I like the sound of point #2: "Second, taxpayers shouldn't be spending a dime to reward CEOs on Wall Street."
In point #5, Obama writes, "...this is a global crisis, and the United States must insist that other nations join us in helping secure the financial markets." // -- This is utter baloney. 100% of this crisis is the fault of swindlers in the US financial industry.
And his 6th point means nothing until we see the details.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1232 comments)
on Sunday, September 21, 2008 at 8:51:04 PM
He says this "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
roughly 16 minutes in.
Anyway, I would love to see something that says he did not say that in the video..
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 693 comments)
on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 7:31:11 AM
I dont understand your title at all. We have a crisis in the Mortgage and Lending industry. Even if we zero out military spending, that doesnt negate the crisis or suddenly make it a good idea to spend the money saved on bailing out that industry. The questions of the day would remain as is.
On the rest, I think Obama merits being given a chance to start to govern before he is attacked on whether or not he will do the things he says. It is always so with Presidential candidates of any party including third parties. There is no guarantee anyone will do anything that they say.
by
Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments)
on Sunday, September 21, 2008 at 10:29:13 PM
Steve - in his remarks, Obama doesn't ONLY address the
financial crisis. He also talks about tax policy, accessible health care, & energy policy. He says, for example, "I will also create the jobs of the future by transforming our energy economy. We'll tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power.... to provide every child a world-class education..."
Thus, he addresses in broad strokes many different aspects of his intended program. And my subject title was simply pointing out what I see as an immense failing of his overall program. He is going to try to afford all these things, but is starting out by assuming no decrease in military spending.
Furthermore, the financial crisis is indeed "related" to the issue of military spending. They are not the same thing, of course, but blowing a trillion dollars a year on the military undeniably exacerbates the problems of a Treasury being simultaneously bled by other crises.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1232 comments)
on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 12:38:27 AM
Obama has been pushing for years now to get out of Iraq. Asking for timetables ect..
That alone frees up $12 billion dollars a month. I don't see McCain asking for the same withdrawal and reduction in military spending in Iraq. So yes your accusation against Obama is WRONG.
by
E. Nelson (27 articles, 3 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 289 comments)
on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 7:59:39 AM
That's bunk. He's not "pushing to get out of Iraq."
He's only talking about transferring a limited number of "combat" troops to Afghanistan, while leaving most of the total number of troops (not classified as "combat") in Iraq (for "antiterrorism", protecting US interests, & training Iraq forces). There's no savings when the overall level of military activity is not reduced. Your figure of $12 billion monthly savings is pure hot air, which you just pulled out of your ear. Whatever is saved by having a few less troops in Iraq will be easily offset by increased fighting in Afghanistan/Pakistan.
Obama explicitly plans to increase the overall size of the military. There is no savings with a plan like that. Even his own campaign isn't claiming military savings.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1232 comments)
on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 9:09:34 AM
You said: "Obama explicitly plans to increase the overall size of the military. There is no savings with a plan like that. Even his own campaign isn't claiming military savings."
You truly don't get it do you. There is no way Obama, when running against perceived war hero, could come out on the record and explicitly say he was going to reduce the military budget. That would be political suicide in this current political climate of fear and insecurity that the Republicans and the Bush Administration has created. Wake up. And yes he has repeatedly said he wants to get out of Iraq.
Yes I pulled the $12 billion out of thin air. No actually it has been reported extensively, including by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and here.
Man, don't let the facts get in the way of a good lie. Do you guys read anything other than each other's posts?
by
E. Nelson (27 articles, 3 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 289 comments)
on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 9:22:59 AM
Like most Democrats, you're a shameless liar. The link you
provide (a Raw Story article) doesn't even mention the word "Obama," let alone give a figure for the projected military savings of his plan. It merely says that last March, the US was spending $12 billion a month in Iraq.
Like a typical Dem Party hack, you took this number, and simply assumed that it would become zero under Obama's plan. As I pointed out, since he will leaving most of the troops in Iraq, even after removing combat troops, most of the expense will still be there. And any savings will be more than offset by his escalation of the war in Afghanistan, & by his announced plan to increase the overall size of the military.
When you get into your gibberish about Obama running against a "perceived war hero," you're just flailing around to find excuses for the fact that like 99% of Congress, regardless of party, Obama firmly supports US militarism. He has no intention of reducing the military budget. It's not just a protective posture he's taking to avoid "political suicide."
You are also misrepresenting his position on Iraq. He does not exactly want to "get out of" Iraq. He wants to de-escalate in Iraq, while leaving most troops there indefinitely. He wants to use these troops to fight in Afghanistan. That's hardly an antiwar position.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1232 comments)
on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 10:23:18 AM
You said I made up the 12 billion number and I pointed out that I did not. I also pointed out that Obama wants as you said "de-escalate" the war. I realize it is frustrating for you to argue against the facts.
Do you think McCain has a plan that would "de-escalate" the Iraq war to a greater degree than Obama?
A simple yes or no answer will suffice.
by
E. Nelson (27 articles, 3 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 289 comments)
on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 10:49:42 AM
Actually, the military budget CAN be reduced while increasing the size, quite easily, in fact. Removing privatized military contractors whose pay exceeds that of the soldiers for providing food and laundry, transportation and logistical services are one example, but the most blatant waste and morale-killing policy has been the armed mercenary force, some making more then triple troop pay with no oversight and accountability.
Click http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6Z1tevub9I to see Bush challenged by a college student on contractor accountability and come up lame and stuttering with absolutely no idea what laws govern US-paid armed mercs.
It goes without saying, of course, that these privatized contracts went to Halliburton, Blackwater and crony pals of the administration, without competitive bidding, legal or financial oversight and has been blamed for billions in waste and international bad will.
Expanding the military is an excellent idea when paired with the new GI bill, elimination of crony contractors and ending the current wars. Our current force levels are dangerously low today.
by
Gustav Wynn (67 articles, 44 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 309 comments)
on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 4:58:54 PM
Nice to debate approaches Obama and others may articulate about the "financial crisis" du jour. The roots of the PROBLEM are deeply buried now -- since 1913 -- and the takeover of America is now virtually complete.
I recommend "Endgame", "America from Freedom to Fascism", and "Loose Change" as DVDs for those who can't read or find the time to do their own research.
My recommendation: Get debt free, if at all possible; get to know and band with your neighbors; learn quickly how to provide for yourselves.
Most important:
Ask, and believing, you shall receive.
(Also know as "The Law of Prayer", "The Seceret". etc.)
by
Alan Donelson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 5:20:24 AM
That's right, Richard. Obama is very establishment. He gets enormous amounts of campaign contributions from Wall Street types. He doesn't want to upset them. But he also realizes that the people are up in arms about a bailout, and so he wants to sound sympathetic to the people. So he sounds critical of the Administration, but in a very vague way that doesn't exclude going along with them in the end. McCain has taken a very similar tack.
The Administration has a plan - give enormous sums of money to one man to handle, and let him do whatever he wants with it, with no oversight. Obama has no plan. McCain has no plan. The Democratic Congressional leadership has no plan.
by
Bill Samuel (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 343 comments)
on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 3:08:04 PM
NOW is not the time to meekly go along with "bipartisan" initiatives that are nothing more than collaboration with the enemy. NOW is the time to make a clear statement that the ONLY reason this has happened is because of the gross corruption and mismanagement that has bef
