Obama vs. the Republicans

[babylonsister]

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/77530/obama-v-the-republicans-here-we-go


Obama vs. the Republicans (With Full Speech Text @link)
Jonathan Cohn


I think it's safe to say that President Obama has given up on bipartisanship, at least for the foreseeable future.

The White House just released prepared text of his economic speech to the City Club of Cleveland. A few weeks ago, House Minority Leader John Boehner gave a speech there, outlining his economic agenda (or, at least, what he claimed to be an economic agenda). Today, Obama is using the platform to remind people of what he wants to do for the country, as well as what he's already done, and why he thinks it's superior to the Republican approach.

He's not mincing words:

A few weeks ago, the Republican leader of the House came here to Cleveland and offered his party’s answer to our economic challenges. Now, it would be one thing if he admitted his party’s mistakes during the eight years they were in power, and was offering a credible new approach to solving our country’s problems.

But that’s not what happened. There were no new policies from Mr. Boehner. There were no new ideas. There was just the same philosophy we already tried for the last decade – the same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place: cut more taxes for millionaires and cut more rules for corporations. Instead of coming together like past generations did to build a better country for our children and grandchildren, their argument is that we should let insurance companies go back to denying care to folks who are sick, and let credit card companies go back to raising rates without any reason. Instead of setting our sights higher, they’re asking us to settle for a status quo of stagnant growth, eroding competitiveness, and a shrinking middle class.

No, this isn't the first time Obama has attacked Republicans. But, as far as I can tell, this argument is more emphatic than it has been at any time since the presidential campaign. I haven't done a word count. But it looks like a third of the speech, maybe more, is an explicit critique of Republican policies.

That includes, by the way, a vow to hold firm on opposing tax cuts for the wealthy:

...he and his party believe we should also give a permanent tax cut to the wealthiest two percent of Americans. With all the other budgetary pressures we have – with all the Republicans’ talk about wanting to shrink the deficit – they would have us borrow $700 billion over the next ten years to give a tax cut of about $100,000 to folks who are already millionaires. These are among the only folks who saw their incomes rise when Republicans were in charge. And these are folks who are less likely to spend the money, which is why economists don’t think tax breaks for the wealthy would do much to boost the economy.

So let me be clear to Mr. Boehner and everyone else: we should not hold middle class tax cuts hostage any longer. We are ready, this week, to give tax cuts to every American making $250,000 or less. For any income over this amount, the tax rates would go back to what they were under President Clinton. This isn’t to punish folks who are better off – it’s because we can’t afford the $700 billion price tag. And for those who claim that this is bad for growth and bad for small businesses, let me remind you that with those tax rates in place, this country created 22 million jobs, raised incomes, and had the largest surplus in history.

Note the phrasing here: He's accusing Republicans of holding the middle class tax cut "hostage" to their insistence on tax cuts for the wealthy.

I have no idea if this is good politics or bad politics. But I'm certainly happy to see him framing the political debate in such stark terms.

[Better Today]

1. Wake me when he completes something, I'm tired of listening to him just to

find out he ends up reversing himself and putting standard repub crap in place, like say tax cuts... OH! that's right his new plan is primarily tax cuts, again.

[ProSense]

2. He provided $26 billion in aid to states a few week ago.

It keeps happening.

[Mimosa]

4. I'm getting it now.

It's your job to tell us the good stuff.

Only it isn't so good. I really like you, ProSense. I think you have to keep harping on these out of tune messages which nobody is buying. I wanted Obama to deliver on health care. Not just for me but for everybody who needs basic health care. If Americans didn't have to WORRY about going bankrupt if we get sick think how much energy we'd all have.

[Better Today]

6. Which equates to very little per state, and as mentioned often when you

try to promote that, it was too little too late for most teachers, who are some of the worse hit.

[ProSense]

8. You think $26 billion in aid to state is very little?

That's an average of more than $500 million per state. You know what $500 million once represented to a state like VA? It could have, had there been no other stimulus, wiped out nearly a third of its deficit. That's true of many states.

Some states received more than $1 billion.

[Better Today]

9. Yeah, when banks get trillions, that's pittance.

[ProSense]

13. Can you provide a link showing that the Obama adminstration gave banks trillions?

Domestic spending on the other hand has increased under this administration.

[impik]

12. Naa, i rather you stay asleep.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. He should have eaten them alive at the beginning!

[smiley_glad_hands]

5. I prefer positive news. Keep up the good posts and ignore the negativity.

[flamingdem]

7. I prefer fighting the Rabid, Relentless, Rapacious, Right wing thank you Prosense nt

[Ramulux]

10. Its good politics

[BigBearJohn]

11. K/R