Now, it's important to remember that this crisis didn't happen overnight and it didn't result from any one action or decision. It took many years and many failures to lead us here.
Senator Dodd? Representative Frank? I think he's talking to you. Or at least he should be...
The first step we took was to pass a recovery plan to jump-start job creation and put money in people's pockets. This plan's already saved the jobs of teachers and police officers. It's creating construction jobs to rebuild roads and bridges.
Really? I thought this money wasn't supposed to hit the economy until 2010? I somehow doubt he's able to point to a specific teacher, officer, or bridge.
we're also beginning to see signs of increased sales and stabilizing home prices for the first time in a very long time. ... Secretary Geithner announced a new plan that will partner government resources with private investment to buy up the assets that are preventing our banks from lending money.
How are home sales up if no one is lending money?
Finally, the most critical part of our strategy is to ensure that we do not return to an economic cycle of bubble and bust in this country. We know that an economy built on reckless speculation, inflated home prices, and maxed-out credit cards does not create lasting wealth. It creates the illusion of prosperity, and it's endangered us all.
There are a few things wrong with this paragraph. Bubble-to-bust is what capitalism does. There is a cycle of economic growth, and at some point competition and the free market will determine that some companies have overexpanded; some products are obsolete; some markets have changed. That leads inevitably to a "bust." But these have typically been small busts. And they are good busts. It is the market correcting itself and reacting to changes in consumer needs and wants. After each "bust" the economy is stronger. Unless, of course, the government gets involved too much and mucks things up. In the probably over-used analogy, should the government have stepped in to save the horse and buggy industry?
And...what a government with maxed out credit and overbearing debt? It's somehow good if the government is spending trillions of dollars it doesn't have?
His faux outrage of AIG and the bonuses is just plain laughable. He specifically allowed those bonuses.
So we've got a regular mechanism whereby we deal with FDIC- insured banks. We don't have that same capacity with an institution like AIG.
Yes, actually, we do. It's called bankruptcy. Bankruptcy allows a company to "renegotiate contracts, get rid of bad assets, strengthen capital requirements, resell it on the private marketplace." So why exactly does government need to step in here?
And I think that there's going to be strong support from the American people and from Congress to provide that authority: Yet, according to Rasmussen 45% of adults want to stop all bailouts for the financial industry. And 67% think politicians should give back contributions from AIG. Do you hear that Mr. President? Give the money back.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. At both of your town hall meetings in California last week, you said, quote, "I didn't run for president to pass on our problems to the next generation."
But under your budget, the debt will increase $7 trillion over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office says $9.3 trillion. And today on Capitol Hill, some Republicans called your budget, with all the spending on health care, education and environment, the most irresponsible budget in American history.
OBAMA: Yes.
Finally! Some honesty!
Oops. Gone now.
Now, the alternative is to stand pat and to simply say, "We are just going to not invest in health care. We're not going to take on energy. We'll wait until the next time that gas gets to $4 a gallon. We will not improve our schools. And we'll allow China or India or other countries to lap our young people in terms of their performance. We will settle on lower growth rates, and we will continue to contract, both as an economy and our ability to -- to provide a better life for our kids."
So it's spend a lot of money RIGHT NOW, the way I say to do it, or nothing? The implicit message here is that everyone is just criticizing and not offering any alternatives. This is, obviously, bunk. There have been plenty of alternatives, including ones from Democrats. Some that immediately come to mind: ANWAR; school choice; flat tax; federal income-tax holiday. Hardly standing pat.
"It took us a couple of days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak." ie: Someone had to write my response for me and put it up on the teleprompter. And it took a couple of days to get that nifty new LCD screen setup and in place.
Regarding embryonic stem cells: "what I don't want to do is predetermine this based on a very rigid ideological approach"? Really? Then why ban cloning? Isn't that a "rigid ideological approach"? And then he says "there's always an ethical and a moral element that has to be -- be a part of this". Why? Why are you bringing up rigid ideology again? That's what ethics and morality is, you know? An ideology. So, basically, he's saying he does not want to be constrained by morals or ethics, yet he wants them to be taken into consideration?
Does he ever listen to anything he says?
Oh wait. Of course not. He just says what TOTUS tells him to say.
