White House on Occupy Wall Street: `We understand’

[kpete]

Source: Washington Post

White House on Occupy Wall Street: `We understand’
By Greg Sargent

I’m pretty sure this exchange at today’s briefing with Jay Carney represents the first time the White House has been asked to weigh in on the Occupy Wall Street protests — yet another sign of the movement’s astonishing growth in recent days:

QUESTION: Have the “Occupy Wall Street” protests reached a level of the President’s engaged awareness? Is he sympathizing with the protestors? Is he concerned about the protests at all?


CARNEY: I haven’t discussed it with him. I’m sure he’s aware of it because he follows the news. I would simply say that, to the extent that people are frustrated with the economic situation, we understand. And that’s why we’re so urgently trying to focus Congress’s attention on the need to take action on the economy and job creation.

And as regards Wall Street, I mean, one of the things that this President is very proud of is the consumer protections that were put into place through legislation that Republicans are now eager to try to dismantle. We think that’s a bad idea...Because these are common-sense consumer protections that would prevent the kind of abuse that credit card companies engaged in against credit card holders, that would protect against some of the actions that were taken that led to, or contributed to, the financial crisis that we saw in 2008. These were measures that the President felt were very important, and there’s a clear effort within the Congress to prevent the full implementation of legislation by holding up this nomination. We think that’s cynical and a bad idea.




Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/white-house-on-occupy-wall-street-we-understand/2011/03/03/gIQAEIUsIL_blog.html

[MannyGoldstein]

1. "to the extent that people are frustrated with the economic situation

we understand".

Pretty oblique.

[TheWraith]

2. Because you can't say "The economy is shit and people are pissed" on live TV. nt

[fascisthunter]

3. that's true

[Angry Dragon]

5. Those are the words that should be said

those are the words that people understand and sit up and notice

Does anyone understand DC double and triple speak
Not even the ones speaking them

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Which are basically the words that Elizabeth Warren uses, which

is why she was launched from the Obama Administration - and why she's so popular in Massachusetts.

[TheWraith]

8. "Launched from the Obama administration"?

I suppose if by "launched" you mean "given the job she wanted, to set up the agency she designed, then installing her hand picked director, before being hooked up with the DSCC to run for US Senate in Massachusetts," yeah, she was "launched." :)

[hootinholler]

24. I think Launched is apropos :D n/t

[Swede Atlanta]

13. I predict........

She will win over "Playboy" Scott Brown in November. The people of MA aren't stupid. They are steeped in the Kennedy mystique. I think Scott Brown was an anomaly and this seat will return to its rightful place in the "D" column with a woman whose fury the Senate has never experienced.

[MannyGoldstein]

39. This Massachusetts resident agrees.

She's a *real* Democrat, the kind of candidate we've been thirsting for. Brown is toast.

[midnight]

42. This is good to hear...

[No Elephants]

46. That particular real Democrat was a registered Republican.

I am open to people seeing the light.

[red dog 1]

55. Elizabeth Warren vs Scott Brown next month in Massachusetts

I'm sure "the people of Massachusetts are not stupid", as you say; plus the fact that the Secretary of State is a Democrat, William Francis Galvin; however, will Diebold Touch-Screen Voting machines be used in the up-coming election in Massachusetts?

[Kahuna]

17. Or as president say, DOWN WITH WALL STREET AND THE BANKSTERS!!!!

:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

30. K/R --

Step #2 -- FIRE Geithner, Summers and his Wall Street/Banksters team --

Step #3 -- ANNOUNCE he's not taking any more corporate $$S$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Liberalynn]

53. I would like to hear these words said myself:

The President agrees with the protestors' desire to see those members of the Wall Street community
responsible for the economic collapse of this country, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

A dream, I know, but one that I sure wish would come true, but alas my dreams are in vain. It will never happen.

[CoffeeCat]

4. Yeah, they conveniently forgot the part...

...about Americans being disgusted and fed up with corporate interests swallowing our
democracy--because our spineless politicians have allowed it!

Gee, I wonder why the Obama administration would avoid discussing that topic?

:eyes:

[roguevalley]

27. dems are having the convention in North Carolina in a place with

no union facilities. Shows you how much they give a shit about unions in the white house.

[defendandprotect]

33. ... strong message to working Americans/labor/unions -- and the RW ... !!!

:evilgrin:

[defendandprotect]

31. K/R ---

We also need to remember there are two sides to the Citizens United problem --

Corporations buying our government --

Politicians SELLING themselves and our government --


:nuke:

[CoffeeCat]

35. A great point...and so true...

Corporate greedmongers have always wanted to exploit our system. They're like those velociraptors
in Jurassic Park--always testing the fences--looking for weaknesses.

That's what our government is for--to represent "We The People" and their interests while keeping
the corporations in check with regulations, laws and policies that hold corporations accountable AND
keep the people safe.

There will always be sociopaths in corporations testing those fences. They only win when our politicians
don't do their job.

That's the reality. That corporate America is out of control--but it's our corrupt and bought-and-paid
for politicians who handed over the wheel to them, and allows them to drive over "We The People".

You can't address corporate greed without addressing political corruption--because the two are inextricably
intertwined.

[defendandprotect]

38. K/R -- !!! and ....

keep on tellin' it so eloquently -- !!!


:hi:

[emilyg]

15. What do you want him

to say? - he and his ilk are not hurting.

[roguevalley]

26. can't get a billion bucks from the ruling class

if you piss them off.

[defendandprotect]

34. 40% approval rating -- let Obama say he's stepping aside in 2012 -- !! And take his team with him-!!

[DonCoquixote]

43. Nor is

Hillary, nor Nader, nor even Dean.

[emilyg]

45. Correct.

[indepat]

21. And obtuse. And sophomoric. And too little, too late.

:patriot:

[roguevalley]

25. I guess that is the new euphemism for homeless, hungry and

hopeless people.

[xchrom]

6. If you're really proud of consumer protections - then

You fight tooth & nail for ms Warren to head it up.

[TheWraith]

9. Are people around here still forgetting that she did not want the job?

She went in, and did what she intended to.

[msanthrope]

19. Conveniently forgetting--another opportunity to bash Obama. nt

[joshcryer]

32. Not forgetting, intentionally peddling falsehoods. This has been explained in depth here.

Anyone who says it, on DU, if they have been here more than a few months, should be educated on the fact that it's simply not true. She didn't want the job. She wanted the Senate position and she's likely aiming for the Presidency. That's where she belongs.

[MannyGoldstein]

40. Didn't want the job? Do you have a quote?

Thanks.

[OnyxCollie]

49. He's got a quote, but it's from "Russ Feingold."

But give him a minute to change some of the words, attribute it to "Elizabeth Warren," and then you will have it.

[JackRiddler]

10. Hm, cognitive dissonance for the Talking Points squad.

[marions ghost]

11. political sidestepping

"blame the Republicans" :boring:

[Bluenorthwest]

12. That's not what he said at all.

On OWS: we have not discussed it.
Then economic rhetoric pushing the jobs bill. I do not really care for that sort of headline game.

[xiamiam]

51. agreed..we have not discussed it?..really?..nt

[PETRUS]

14. hmmm... nt

[FreeBillClinton]

16. The last thing we need is the Democratic party getting involved and F'ing this movement up

[Bodhi BloodWave]

18. then people need to make up their minds

White House is silent....What do Obama think about the movement etc, etc, etc

White house speaks up...Obama had better not try taking any credit for what happens or why is he interfering in something he shouldn't etc, etc, etc

[defendandprotect]

29. Right -- why put more HEAT on the GOP re Jobs ... ???? Taxes on Rich ... ???? ROFL

Might destroy Obama's momentum on those issues -- ???????

[NBachers]

37. So you wouldn't join the OWS arm of the DLC?

What a watered-down clusterfuck that would be.

Maybe that's who the "Take The Bridge" provocateurs were.

[humbled_opinion]

20. If the President is engaged on this issue then

he should not muddle around the edges. Look BofA just increased its ATM card fee to $5 bucks a month now I will have to close my checking account with BofA and move my money elsewhere but I will have no protection from those banks jukeing me out of money simply so that I can maintain a checking account or an ATM card. This is the B.S. that gives the Cons talking points about regulations.

Today I got hit by the teahdists I work with about this very issue and I had no defense. So your boy Obama and his Democrat cronies go and but these regulations on the banks and guess what those banks just pass down the costs to the Consumers..... So go ahead now and tell me that taxing the rich is a good idea, it will result in the same thing... passed on cost to consumers...

I just sigh...

[sce56]

22. Credit Unions the best choice and you get your say there as a member!

http://www.findacreditunion.com/


I pay hardly anything for my account! I have not used a bank for my money since the early 80's.

[JDPriestly]

44. The fees that banks may charge have been limited by law. They were

just charging an arm and a leg for nothing already.

Find a credit union or other bank. If you read the recently published SIGTARP report, you will understand that BofA and a couple of other banks have special problems. The extra fees are due to mismanagement and the fact that the banks are not investing the money in anything that earns them revenue.

If you have a savings account, you don't get any interest. The banks are in trouble but it has to do with their horrible management and the ongoing banking/mortgage/derivatives crisis, not too much regulation.

In fact, the crisis was caused because the regulations were reduced, not because they were increased. Banks are still far too involved in gambling on Wall Street.

The bankers want to blame the government, but when government regulations were cut back, they abused their freedom, and we are all still paying for their abuse and will continue to pay for their lawless abuse for a long time.

[humbled_opinion]

54. Yes I agree

but it seems that the result gives fuel to the fire of the TEAHADISTS that claim regulation and taxation always get passed on to the consumer i.e.. How can you prove that after you hike taxes on the rich and all of a sudden coca-cola costs a nickle more per bottle that the tax increase was not just put back down to (US) the consumer. It seems like a very good common sense argument that Corporations and businesses will pass all costs incurred by government whether its higher taxes or increased regulation back down to the customer.

The rich are not altruistic because if they were they would not take the tax loopholes and deductions that they do. They would always pay their fair share... sadly none do.

So the conundrum is how do you create an environment where the rich willingly pay more in taxes out of their own bottom line?

[JDPriestly]

56. What if we don't raise taxes on the rich?

What do you think will happen then?

[humbled_opinion]

57. I think it largely depends on which taxes you are talking about.

i.e., the logic that the teaheads use for corporate taxation is that the current U.S. rate of 35% is one of the world's highest rates. That means that a business can move out of the U.S. and effectively increase its bottom line. That is simple logic and I can't argue it because they aren't punished for bringing their goods back into the U.S. and I think if you increased tariffs on the goods coming back in then that would just be passed down to the consumer anyway. So this is a lose lose.

OTOH if we are talking about income taxes, then the argument becomes one of how much should the top income tax rates be and how to manage all of these insane loopholes which are implemented by both political parties to serve one special interest group or another. The teabaggers are in love with a flat tax. I too find it hard to argue against such a flat tax because if you said no loopholes no tax credit, nothing and you will pay a flat 10 percent of your income to the federal govt. Now of course there must be some curve as to when you pay the 10percent i.e., the poorest workers certainly wouldn't be able to pony up 10 percent but I think after 20K individual or 30K family per year then it starts to make sense. Personally I believe that the govt would get more revenue than ever if that happened and probably could pay off the national debt.

OTOH if we are talking about excise taxes, then the argument is that the government is using taxation a punishment or as a means to get people to change a specific behavior i.e., cigarette taxes, gasoline taxes, communications taxes, alcohol taxes, etc. and the teabags say that is not the role of government and that this tax is unfairly borne by the poorest among us and I find that hard to argue against also.

OTOH if we are talking about capital gains taxes (Warren Buffet style) which right now are 15 percent then the arguement becomes raising those taxes IMHO it only helps the rich because it kind of knocks out the small investors who really get socked by a higher pecentage and it discourages investment so that only the super rich can actually afford to purchase stocks. After all, I got taxed when I earned the money now I invested it over a period of time in hopes for it to increase in value (RISKED IT) and then when it does increase in value you tax me again when I take the same money back out of the investment.

So you see the issue is very complicated and I argue it just about everyday but as time progresses I find myself more and more unable to articulate exactly why I am arguing for increasing taxes. Just today one of the baggers I work with said to me, Obama's jobs bill is nothing more than him taking money out of the right side of the room and putting it into the left side of the room all the while proclaiming that somehow there is now more money in the room.

[eilen]

23. What evs, nice deflection.

We have been listening and watching the past 3 years. We really already know where Obama is on this. OWS is not about asking Obama to fight for the little guy, that was the 2008 election when he made his promises.

[xiamiam]

52. exactly..nt

[defendandprotect]

28. "Frustrated" .... ??? ROFL This is beyond greed, this is hatred for humanity, peace, nature -- !!!

Any particular words about Koch Bros/DLC -- or has Obama never heard of them?

[bvar22]

36. That was a lesson on Tip-Toeing- through- a- Minefield.

(Apologies to Tiny Tim)

Tip Toe
Down the Middle,
Neither FOR it,
Nor Against it,
None could disagree.
So Tip Toe
Down the Middle with me.

In the Middle
of the Muddle
Vague on Policy,
Stand for Something
is for others,
Not me!



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity with the 99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[bread_and_roses]

41. that's great bvar - about says it all!

Why am I reminded of Big Bill's "I feel your pain" - while busy dreaming up "free" trade agreements?

[No Elephants]

47. Did you write that? Kudos.

BTW, Tiny Tim did not write that song.


Al Dubin (lyrics) and Joe Burke (music) did. It was first published in 1929.

[nc4bo]

50. Why bvar, you have such a wonderful way with words and the melody is quite

is quite catchy.

Perfect!

[Quantess]

48. Obama does what his filthy rich owners tell him to do.