Skip to main content

Of course, there’s been a real debate about where to invest and where to cut, and I’m committed to working with members of both parties to cut our deficits and debt. But we can’t simply cut our way to prosperity. We need to do what’s necessary to grow our economy; create good, middle-class jobs; and make it possible for all Americans to pursue their dreams.

Segueing from his speech announcing a drawdown of troops in Afghanistan to "nation building here at home," President Obama in his weekly address this morning hammered on the need to invest and build out the stagnating economy and focus on job creation. The address was recorded at Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh, where the president announced a new alliance between university research departments, the government and private enterprise.

He used the example of a firm called RedZone Robotics to illustrate the new push for cooperation through the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership and benefits that will come from it:

Their mission is to come up with a way to get ideas from the drawing board to the manufacturing floor to the marketplace as swiftly as possible, which will help create quality jobs, and make our businesses more competitive. But they also have a broader mission. It’s to renew the promise of American manufacturing. To help make sure America remains in this century what we were in the last–a country that makes things. A country that out-builds and out-innovates the rest of the world.

Infrastructure-building, creating new jobs in emerging industries and reinvigorating America's manufacturing base are all tied in with the president's view of how we move ahead.

He closed the address with his signature acknowledgement of tough times but his basic optimism in America's ability to survive:

I know these have been tough years for American manufacturing, and all the workers and families who’ve built their lives around it. But being here in Pittsburgh, I’m hopeful about the future. I’m hopeful when I think about how companies like RedZone are reinvigorating manufacturing or about how what started as a small trade school is now a global research university. We are a people who’ve always adapted to meet the challenges of a new time; who’ve always shaped our own destiny, and I’m absolutely confident that that’s what we’re going to do one more time.

The full transcript can be found beneath the fold and on the White House website.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
June 25, 2011
Pittsburgh, PA

Hello, everybody. Earlier this week, I spoke about our way forward in Afghanistan, and I said that because of the extraordinary work of our men and women in uniform, civilians, and our coalition partners, we will soon begin bringing our troops home, just as we’ve begun doing in Iraq. After a decade of conflict, we’re finally bringing these wars to a responsible end.

That’s in the best interests of America’s security. And it’s also in the best interests of America’s economy. Even though we’ve turned our economy in the right direction over the past couple of years, many Americans are still hurting, and now is the time to focus on nation building here at home.

Of course, there’s been a real debate about where to invest and where to cut, and I’m committed to working with members of both parties to cut our deficits and debt. But we can’t simply cut our way to prosperity. We need to do what’s necessary to grow our economy; create good, middle-class jobs; and make it possible for all Americans to pursue their dreams.

That means giving our kids the best education in the world so they have the knowledge and skills to succeed in this economy. It means rebuilding our crumbling roads, railways, and runways. And it means investing in the cutting-edge research and technologies that will spur growth in the years ahead—from clean energy to advanced manufacturing.

That’s why I’m here today at Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh, one of America’s leading research universities. Behind me is a display from a company called RedZone Robotics. The robots they make are used to explore water and sewage pipes, and find leaks and breaks before they become expensive problems. But the folks at RedZone aren’t just solving problems; they’re working with unions to create new jobs operating the robots, and they’re saving cities millions of dollars in infrastructure costs.

This company is just one example of how advanced manufacturing can help spur job-creation and economic growth across this country. That’s why this week, we launched what we’re calling an Advanced Manufacturing Partnership. It’s a partnership that brings our federal government together with some of America’s most brilliant minds and some of America’s most innovative companies and manufacturers.

Their mission is to come up with a way to get ideas from the drawing board to the manufacturing floor to the marketplace as swiftly as possible, which will help create quality jobs, and make our businesses more competitive. But they also have a broader mission. It’s to renew the promise of American manufacturing. To help make sure America remains in this century what we were in the last–a country that makes things. A country that out-builds and out-innovates the rest of the world.

I know these have been tough years for American manufacturing, and all the workers and families who’ve built their lives around it. But being here in Pittsburgh, I’m hopeful about the future. I’m hopeful when I think about how companies like RedZone are reinvigorating manufacturing or about how what started as a small trade school is now a global research university. We are a people who’ve always adapted to meet the challenges of a new time; who’ve always shaped our own destiny, and I’m absolutely confident that that’s what we’re going to do one more time. Have a great weekend.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Until an engineer who goes to work for (24+ / 0-)

    Caterpillar in Peoria gets paid comparable to an MBA who goes to work for  Goldman Sachs, this is going to be a tough nut to crack . . . .  

    •  They Used To Be. We Know How to Fix That. (6+ / 0-)

      Our own party did it.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 07:35:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wish we did know how to fix that (5+ / 0-)

        the 900 pound gorilla in the room seems to be that our society simply does not value science and technology (or worse, actively works to thwart it).

        If you know how to change that, you're WAY ahead of me!!

        •  We value end user technology, not the work of (4+ / 0-)

          creating something ourselves.

          I think one key solution to consider is using code as a "foreign language" in high school.  While I am all about learning Spanish, French, etc., I think learning to code is really a basic part of education.  And just like a lot of kids say "I'm not good at languages" or "Why should I have to learn this?" we really need to adequately fund the kinds of STEM (Science Technology Engineering Magnet) programs that will help kids learn by doing, not just by sitting down and shutting up.

          What's easy for teachers isn't usually what's best for students.

          Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen. (Oh, and I support President Obama in 2012.)

          by Benintn on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 07:54:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sure, that sounds reasonable (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jm214, Benintn

            but it seems like there are huge shifts that underlie what we've become - like you are saying, happy (and blissfully idiotic) end users of technology.

            For example, for the first time in 20 years or so I visited Radio Shack - instead of being able to buy all kinds of things you could use to build other things, I thought I had stumbled into the Verizon Store or something like that . . . .

            Plus, if you want to do something like have a a home chemistry lab, you're more or less out of luck these days . . . (I hope that link is not behind a firewall)

            •  I've got a 16 year old boy at home (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Roadbed Guy, Flint, Betty Pinson

              He's so tied up with his cell phone, IPod, computer... mostly playing games and music.  I continually have to redirect him to focus on learning to create his own stuff instead of just playing someone else's game.

              I don't care if it sucks.  He's 16, he's learning.  I'd rather have him making mudpies.  He'll get better.

              Becoming fully yourself - self-reliant - is hard work.

              Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen. (Oh, and I support President Obama in 2012.)

              by Benintn on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:11:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It gets better (0+ / 0-)

                Keep pushing and encouraging them, though it may take a while to see results.

                My two sons were the same way at that age.  Now, the 25 yo has started his own business (a technology collective) in open source web development.

                The 21 yo builds recording equipment, microphones and recording studios from scratch.

                At some point they get bored with manipulating products made by others and want to do their own thing.  They suddenly say, "oh I see how they built, designed, created that technology/company, but I can do better".

                "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

                by Betty Pinson on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 09:19:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  That's because (7+ / 0-)
          our society simply does not value science

          they don't understand it.  Kids should be taught to think like scientists.  Cramming content down their throats does not create and understanding of science or even good scientists.

          The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

          by accumbens on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:02:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How does a scientist think? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            enhydra lutris

            Having known quite a few, I would be reluctant to pigeonhole  them - they are quite a diverse group.  For example, NIH director Francis Collins thinks that public dissemination of religous nuttery is a good way to go, many other scientists would disagree with that.

            For a start, I would suggest that society could/should do something as simple as putting sound science into textbooks - not watered down versions of "controversial" subjects like global climate change and evolution (so as to not offend the Christianistas . . . . )

            •  Your example of Collins is not relevant because (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Roadbed Guy

              few scientists would consider any sort of religious thought scientific thought.  Scientific thinking means a certain type of critical thinking.  Understanding the logic of experimental research, and the requirements of good theorizing and hypothesizing.  It means knowing how to design experiments to answer questions and how to interpret results.

              The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

              by accumbens on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:16:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  We're probably talking about different things (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                accumbens

                here - in that you seem be saying (not to put words in your mouth) that a scientific mindset involves an underlying curiosity about things and the willingness to question everything.

                In that regard, I recently had an interesting conversation with an educator how had that was  a huge strength of the US education system in science over Asia (and perhaps our ONLY advantage!).  More specifically, the complete disrespect of American kids for authority (to the extent that it exists anymore) is great for science - they'll go out and prove us oldesters to be wrong!   And invent somethign quite amazing in the process (then, if we could only figure out how to commercialize that domestically, we'd be all set. . . )

                •  I agree with the second paragraph of your comment. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Roadbed Guy

                  In fact, I took on my first graduate student largely on the basis that his adviser, who I knew from grad school, said,when I asked him if the student gave him crap, that "He doesn't believe a word I say."  Unfortunately, many scientists look for the opposite.

                  I don't think that only a scientific mind-set is characterized by "an underlying curiosity about things and the willingness to question everything."  That description could apply to any intellectual endeavor, including theology.  In general, I think students should be taught to think critically regardless of the topic.  But different types of endeavors require different kinds of critical thinking - thinking like a scientist is different than thinking like a historian, artist, carpenter, police officer, soldier, etc.

                  The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

                  by accumbens on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:47:24 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  I hope you'll write about the solutions. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        missliberties

        Keep on truckin.   We're all working on this.  Kossacks, as a general rule, want to see manufacturing jobs coming back to the USA.

        Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen. (Oh, and I support President Obama in 2012.)

        by Benintn on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 07:51:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not sure why we are so in love w/ manufacture (4+ / 0-)

          Manufacturing jobs are not inherently any more high-wage than any other job. In the 20's and 30's, manufacturing jobs were low-wage shit-condition hellholes. They became high-wage in the US only because they became high-union, which forced the wages up whether the owners liked it or not. In areas where unions do not exist, like China or Mexico, manufacturing jobs are still the same low-wage shit-conditions jobs as always.

          We can of course convert our current low-wage shit-condition service sector jobs into high-wage jobs, the same way that low-wage manufacturing jobs were back in the 30's----with a union movement.

          If we want better paying jobs with better working conditions, we don't need "more manufacturing".  What we need is "more unions".

          Manufacturing will always remain a small minority of the workforce, just like agriculture. Depending on manufacturing jobs to power our economy, is an impossible strategy.

          •  The thinking up to the 1990s was that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            raboof, Betty Pinson

            we could keep the high wage engineering and design jobs here in the USA while sending the tedious assembly line jobs to Asia.

            But in practice it turned out that the engineering & design jobs sooned followed the assembly line jobs overseas.  And that process was exacerbated by the fact that our "best and brightest" kids were eschewing science and engineering careers for the much more sensible high wage careers in finance and medicine . ..  

            •  that is because up to the 90's we were a (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wbgonne

              national economy based on national corporations.

              The world has changed since then. Now, the economy is global, made up of huge multi-national corporations located all over the planet. National economies no longer exist--national borders are economically irrelevant.

              That is why "national economic policies" are now virtually irrelevant. The US does not determine its own economic future.  No nation does.  That world is over.

              •  I don't think the world HAS to be over (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TRPChicago

                After all, no one is FORCING WalMart executives to buy all the crap they sell from China - they COULD insource it.

                Similarly, no one is FORCING Apple to manufacture their IPOD in SE Asia - they COULD do it domestically . .. . and instead of it costing $2 for $100 worth of product, it would cost $7 or 8 (i.e., they'd still be massively profitable).

                Will this happen?  No, probably not.  But in theory it could . . . . .

                •  in theory, business owners could all decide to (0+ / 0-)

                  accept only minimum income for themselves and divide all their profits amongst their workers to give them better lives.

                  I wouldn't hold my breath waiting, though.

                  We live in a real world.  Not a theoretical one.

                  •  About once a month I go into Target (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Burned, schnecke21, Bush Bites

                    or Walmart based on the ruse that I want to but a T-shirt or sweatpants - on the off chance I can rouse the attention of a sales associate, I request help in find such clothing the was "Made in the USA" - of course, it never can be found so I make a point of dissapointedly leaving the store.

                    Does that have any effect? Probably not, they get one crank a month who does that, who gives a damn?  But what if they had 10 people a day were doing that?  Methinks that after a few weeks somebody in management might take notice . ..

              •  "Global economy" is another fad (0+ / 0-)

                It isn't permanent due to numerous pitfalls.  

                It's a shallow economy, unpredictable, and heavily reliant on erratic and untrustworthy third world governments and cheap transportation costs.

                It's just another business fad, one that is likely to end soon as the US seeks to find a better economic equilibrium.  

                "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

                by Betty Pinson on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:59:22 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you are quite wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                  The global economy is the inevitable culmination of economic trends which have been operating for almost a century now.

                  We can no more go back to a national-based economy than we can go back to an agrarian pastoral society or a hunter-gatherer economy.

                  •  By its nature, its unstable (0+ / 0-)

                    It's not a level playing field, there's little to no structured regulation or means of pursuing remedies for damages by bad actors and criminal regimes.  

                    Just as every nation doesn't have healthy democracy or stable government, they also don't have healthy or stable economies and business/finance/banking practices.  When one falters, it spreads to everyone.

                    In its current form, its a shallow, flimsy economic system with little oversight or regulation, heavily dependent on cheap energy and transportation.  In its current form, its not sustainable for the long term.  Its ridiculous to think we can grow apples in Washington, ship them to South America to be processed into applesauce, then shipped on to grocery shelves in Asia.  Not sustainable and ridiculous.

                    Nations with healthy economies and regulatory protections need to establish firewalls to protect themselves from the current global economic system of deceit, chaos and crash.

                    "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

                    by Betty Pinson on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:35:16 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  great point (0+ / 0-)

            we should guarantee a living wage for every fulltime worker, regardless of occupation

            and in a rich nation like ours, this means income sufficient to sustain a middle class life

            at this point, labor is probably best-served focusing its energy on unionizing service industry workers

            that is likely more cost effective than trying to revitalize blue collar traditional jobs like manufacturing

            though both -- and more -- must be done because

            the collective power of the working class is the only possible counterweight to the international capitalists and their lackeys who run our government

            labor & the left

            what the democratic party was

            and what it will have to become again to save the country

            blue dogs eat shit

            by wbgonne on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:53:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Stop exporting jobs (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wbgonne, schnecke21, Fossil

          That would take care of most of the problem.

          What's the point in spending $500 mil to spur high tech R&D when companies will inevitably send it all overseas for cheap labor?

          "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

          by Betty Pinson on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:48:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  how. (0+ / 0-)

            How do you force businesses to pay more for labor than they need to.

            Want to stop job exports? Then you have to equalize the wages so it's no longer an advantage for companies to send jobs overseas.  

            There are only two ways to equalize the wages--either we raise their wages to match ours, or we lower our wages to match theirs.

            Which do you prefer?

            No matter how much we wave the flag and sing patriotic songs, the business owners will ALWAYS move their jobs where the wages are cheapest--and there is no power on this planet than can stop them.

    •  if the engineer in Peoria joins a union, his pay (4+ / 0-)

      goes up.

      Wages are not determined by the "invisible hand" of supply and demand.  Wages are determined by the ability and willingness of workers to fight for more pay.

      •  Not sure if engineers are union types . . . (0+ / 0-)

        but, like you infer, maybe they should be.  OTOH, maybe it should be self evident that engineering skills should be held in high regard by US managers/corporations . ...  (gee, do I ever crack myself up sometimes!)

        •  managers/owners don't hold ANYONE in "high regard" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          grrr, Fossil

          We're not people to them--we're equipment. We're just an expense they have to pay if they want to make money, no different than a computer terminal or a pile of raw materials or an insurance bill. Whether we are a line worker or an engineer or a low-level supervisor or a janitor.  We're just an expense.

          And the aim of every business is to cut the expenses. And yes, that includes even the skilled highly-educated "highly-regarded" workers. Their jobs get automated and de-skilled just like everyone else's. They're not irreplacable.

          The AFL craft unions played the whole "these skilled workers are more valuable and highly regarded than those unskilled workers" game for decades.  It led to disaster.  It wasn't until industrial unionism put everyone in the plant into the same union, regardless of job or skill level, that organizing became effective.

          I hope we aren't stupid enough to have to relearn that lesson again, the hard way.

           

        •  They outsource a lot of engineering jobs now. (0+ / 0-)

          Outside firms, outside countries......I was in an industry pretty much run by engineers at one time, and all the companies closed their central engineering departments and outsourced.

          Ideology is an excuse to ignore common sense.

          by Bush Bites on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 09:12:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yes, they do. Just as they eliminated all the old (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bush Bites

            "skilled labor" jobs by either mechanizing them so they could be done by cheaper unskilled labor, or by replacing the high-paid skilled labor with low-paid skilled labor.

            The skilled highly-educated white collar work force has ALWAYS hoped that it was "just too important" to be replaced.  They have always been wrong.

  •  As Someone Manufacturing and Exporting Full Time, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, Benintn, jm214, ferg

    I will just not comment here.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 07:35:03 AM PDT

    •  What, our Leader's words do not make you stand (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fossil

      up and cheer? We are all supposed to be singing "Happy Days Are Here Again," here in the ruins, where all the various forces of consumerism, hedonism, atavism, Gekkoism, militarism, revanchism, dumb-ism and the rest have combined to turn our little corner of the planet into the equivalent of those 4 foot by 4 foot by 6 foot holes that get dug in the fertile soil and have two-holer outhouses drug over them where everybody goes to shit?

      "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

      by jm214 on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:07:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Stop that. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NoFortunateSon

        I swear, this place is full of people who either love the prez to death or hate him the same way.

        I'm in the middle and neither extreme will do us any good, either as a country or a party.

        Ideology is an excuse to ignore common sense.

        by Bush Bites on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 09:26:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hey, this is not even "about" Obama. It's "about" (0+ / 0-)

          this culture, this species, committing a long, painful, drawn-out suicide. But then I bet you know my obscure little comment was a tiny rant about how we humans are acting like locusts and eating up the planet for fun and profit, don't you, with only a soupcon of a swipe at The Only President We've Got At The Moment? And maybe your personal comfort and wealth depend on Business as Usual, and the hope that things will not get really intolerably bad until after your life is over? Like a lot of people who love, or hate, Bush or Obama? Just asking, I don't know you from Adam.

          "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

          by jm214 on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:48:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  This is absolutely the right direction to go in, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, coffejoe, schnecke21, grrr

    but...

    It cannot be done through the private sector alone.  Government has to be a partner, just as it is in every single country we are competing with - in particular - China.

    But as I understand it, the President has already given up on trying to get any substantial additional spending through Congress, and the Democrats only further aid to the economy will come in the form of proposing further payroll tax cuts, this time on the employers' side, which will further weaken Social Security - and put a program not in crisis now into one in the not so distant future.

    The way that the upcoming debt ceiling vote is resolved is crucial. The fact that the Democrats are not trying to build public support to counter the GOP's unreasonable, nearly incoherent demands unsupported by any type of economic analysis is very troubling, as time is quickly running out.  We have to put our faith in secret negotiations, but in the end, if they end up in massive capitulation to extortion, then the President is going to have a real race on his hands in 2012, as the still cratering economy and his almost pathological avoidance of conflict will reap the rewards that the Republicans are presently dreaming of.

    Look, sometimes, it can be very wise not to stand and fight.  But not this time. There has to be a line drawn somewhere.  If the GOP wants to take down the economy, then I say, giving in to their demands will ultimately make things even worse.

    If they refuse to raise the debt ceiling after doing so several times in the Bush years, and after even the Ryan budget requires it, then it will destroy their party. It will not destroy America.  It may bring on hard times, but if they are willing to go that far-  and I'd call what they're doing bordering on sedition, then we will be a far better country for it in the end if we do not surrender to it. They are doing it for their own personal benefit, not for the good of the country, the antithesis of patriotism.

    So I'm saying - the only solution is to stand up to them now, and refuse to concede.  I and most other Americans I believe are willing to make real sacrifices on both the revenue and benefit sides to fix our damaged economy.  But not if those who are able to carry a significant part of the burden instead are allowed to make the burden even heavier, to their benefit.  We will not stand for this.

    "The only thing we have to fear - is fear itself." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

    by orrg1 on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 07:49:22 AM PDT

    •  As long as the whole structure is based on "growth (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      enhydra lutris, Betty Pinson

      ," and "consumption," and we get sucked into the whole notion that "our tribe" is "competing with" those other less-than-humans over there, the fucking Kleptocrats will have us endlessly over a barrel, hung out to dry while the pick our pockets and fill our faces and lungs with the effluvium called "externalities."

      but hey, it's pretty obvious that humans are not smart enough or big enough in spirit and wisdom to do anything else.

      "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

      by jm214 on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:11:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks again, as always, Susan. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, missliberties, Little Lulu

    I appreciate the straight-talk, no-nonsense reporting.  When the President talks, we should take a minute to listen.  And before we start in with the criticism, let's all acknowledge that this is the kind of stuff we all want to see more of.

    Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen. (Oh, and I support President Obama in 2012.)

    by Benintn on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 07:49:54 AM PDT

  •  robotics that's the ticket (0+ / 0-)

    oh and about those wars?

  •  This is something everyone in congress should (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, Benintn, BarackStarObama

    be screaming about at the top of their lungs. Misplaced priorities I guess.

  •  time (0+ / 0-)

    When will he use these broadcasts to coerce/chastise Republicans about the debt limit crisis they're fomenting?  This will be a tsunami that the media will name Obama if our president continues to play softball.

    Apres Bush, le deluge.

    by melvynny on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 07:56:19 AM PDT

  •  What About (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snoopydawg, SuetheRedWA, wsexson

    The approximately 25 million people who are officially counted as unemployed, involuntarily working part time and the jobless who are not officially counted as unemployed?  

    THEY NEED A JOB NOW, NOT IN THE FUTURE!!!

    If I was a communist, rich men would fear me...And the opposite applies. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

    by stewarjt on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 07:57:51 AM PDT

  •  He should do more "on location" addresses. (0+ / 0-)

    But he should be standing.

    Ideology is an excuse to ignore common sense.

    by Bush Bites on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 07:58:21 AM PDT

  •  Yawn .... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grrr

    One good thing about Obama's Advanced Manufacturing Partnerships program, if Congress goes along, is more funding for research.  That will add jobs until, of course, that program runs out and the new grants expire.

    Companies already are crawling all over academic science labs looking for ideas and collaborations.  The tax breaks that are part of the program only work in the short-term if the companies are making a profit, which few new start-ups do.

    One issue perhaps the government could address is the well-known gap between basic research and the patents it generates and the development of that IP.  Funding the work to close that gap would do a lot to advance new technologies.  

    One thing that could be done in that regard is increase funding for SBIR grants, and especially make it easier for companies to apply and increase the funding levels.

    All the rest is "just words" geared toward re-e-lec-tion.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:00:06 AM PDT

    •  Can we just stipulate that everything this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma

      President does "is just words"? Still there is talk that he needs to use the bully pulpit more.... Let's just stipulate that President Obama should just seal his mouth shut for the remainder of his term and just not offer another policy prescription or  not run again in 2012? To be honest there would be great comfort for me to watch the next President accomplish all the great things Obama couldn't do....

      •  Perhaps someone who knows what they are (0+ / 0-)

        doing could look at the history of use of the bully pulpit by US Presidents.  My bet would be that Obama has made less use than most.  I can't recall him ever really stepping up and driving home any policy  - and that means more than just making one speech out in the hinterlands or on his weekly address that few listen to.

        I'd love to see a next President that at least fights to accomplish their agenda - or, at least, what they claimed to be their agenda - as long as it's a progressive one.

        The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

        by accumbens on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:34:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, I remember how his bully pulpit helped him (0+ / 0-)

          with inveterate racist Joe Wilson who yelled out "you lie" in the most ultimate of bully pulpit settings, in front of a vast teevee audience and a Joint Session of Congress.... His bully pulpit did wonders there, right? And yes, his bully pulpit would be sooo effective in front of tea critters and individuals who pledge allegiance to Fox News, because if there is one thing that would bring  these people around is to have the President talk loudly to them from behind a lectern....

          •  Good reasons not to use it ...... not. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            grrr, wbgonne

            Obviously, he would not be appealing to those people no matter what he says or does.  But he might help change sentiment and educate the vast majority who are not so extreme or crazy.

            The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

            by accumbens on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:17:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Educate the vast majority.... OK, use pretty words (0+ / 0-)

              to educate the vast majority who have the vote of the arch Conservatives in Congress.... By the way, I think you'll find that Obama gives speeches to educate people quite frequently.... This is just empty criticsm with strange arguments, because there is no getting around the idea that Obama is being obstructed by the legislative process which is in the possession of Republican tea critters, from Republican tea critter districts....  Just giving a speach won't change their minds or the minds of the people in their districts.... In order to do that we'll have to work hard to get them out of office and more Democrats in.... Hitting Obama everyday to speak up (don't speak up) won't do the job.....

              •  Obviously, we have failed to get Obama to speak up (0+ / 0-)

                and speak up often.  He doesn't do that and he doesn't fight for anything (except getting elected).  The excuse that there is an insufficient majority in Congress simply does not explain his failure to take a stand and fight, which includes using the bully pulpit.   Consequently, the Republicans get the attention.  I believe he likes it that way because then he can use the Republicans as cover to advance his conservative, corporatist, Wall Street friendly economic and health care policies.
                 

                The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

                by accumbens on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 03:54:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  The problem (0+ / 0-)

        is that Obama seems to have a lack of follow through. He says all these things then they seem to go nowhere for the most part. He needs some bullet points and follow through on 4 or 5 ideas.

        It's the policy stupid

        by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:41:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think Obama who has ran the most effective (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          grrr

          Presidential campaign in history, needs no lessens on how to sell an idea.... Here is a man who passed a healthcare reform legislation that no other President had been able to pass in close to a hundred years.... A healthcare legislation that Republicans are trying desperately to repeal as we speak....

          •  LOL! (0+ / 0-)

            "The most effective presidential campaign in history...."

            Reagan won 49 states, so did Nixon.

            Do some reading, man.

            Ideology is an excuse to ignore common sense.

            by Bush Bites on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 09:10:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Reagan is also Black..... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              grrr, BarackStarObama
              •  "the most effective presidential campaign".. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wbgonne

                ....is wrong on so many levels, and I chose the Electoral College as the measure.

                What measure do you have to prove you're right?

                The country was in an economic dumpster, a protected war nobody wanted, and the opponent was an unstable old man with an even less stable veep.

                It would have been gross incompetence for him to lose that election.

                Ideology is an excuse to ignore common sense.

                by Bush Bites on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 09:17:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Barack Obama the defeated the vaunted Clinton (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  grrr, BarackStarObama

                  political machine, no small feat, to even get to McCain.... His campaign effectively utilized grassroot efforts and modern technology, such as social networking that has now set the standard for modern political campaigns....  And, yes, he was the first elected African American President.... Well, actually you're right, Reagan did it better....

                  •  You got nothing. (0+ / 0-)

                    Front runners are traditionally road kill in Democratic primaries -- and I would say that was especially true for one run by an idiot like Mark Penn.

                    But, even then, Hillary should have been put away in Ohio or Texas, but wasn't  because "the most effective campaign in presidential history" spread their resources too thin (which Plouffe admitted but you seem incapable of admitting).

                    Well me personally, was mishandling the Ohio-Texas primary back in March of 08, I think if we focused more on Texas ...

                    http://www.rollingstone.com/...

                    Heck, Hillary's rebound in New Hampshire was a failing for Team Obama -- that's what got her back into the game.

                    Mind you, I think Plouffe is great (though Axelrod's pretty worthless).

                    Anyway, to call it the "most effective campaign in presidential history" doesn't do them any favors because they're going to have to step up their game in a post citizen's united enviroment.

                    Ideology is an excuse to ignore common sense.

                    by Bush Bites on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:00:14 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So let me get this straight, your argument is that (0+ / 0-)

                      "I got nothing" because front runners are road kill in Democratic primaries.... Interesting argument since no Democratic candidate would go on to the Presidential campaign unless he enjoyed, at some point, front runner status....

                      Secondly, Obama allowed Clinton to come back in Texas, so he didn't do so good.... Bottom line, he defeated Clinton, despite the fact that Clinton came back in states like Texas and Ohio where Limbough exhorted Republicans to come out and vote for Clinton to defeat the scary Obama.... I'll just mention this once more, even with all the impressive things he had done throughout that campaign, President Obama happens to be black.... This may not have any bearing for you in this discussion, but if it were easy for a black man to win the Presidency many would have done so sooner....

                      •  Yep, you're still losing. (0+ / 0-)

                        You said it was "The most effective presidential campaign in history."

                        I'm not seeing a lot of evidence of that and, apparently, neither are you.

                        I point out places where they admit they screwed up and you, apparently, believe they're just being overly humble. Would the "most effective campaign in presidential history" let a primary opponent come back for three months of battle after it was on the ropes? I think not.

                        I've named two past presidential campaigns that were more effective and all you got was "they weren't black."

                        Ideology is an excuse to ignore common sense.

                        by Bush Bites on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 11:11:49 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Your argument is full of holes.... Read my reply (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          BarackStarObama

                          again.... Just saying I lose doesn't make it so...well only in your mind.... That is like Romney declaring Obama is weak, just because he says so.... You keep going back to "Clinton almost came back" Almost? Is she President today? ....Nope, guess what? SHE LOST..... It doesn't matter if she almost came back.... She and her team were out manuvered. And then Barack Obama went on to defeat McCain.... And yes, you don't want to touch the race question...because, of course, this country has frequently elected Black Presidents... His race , and the fact that many considered him a Muslim, was such a degree of dificulty that even taken by itself would have been enough to claim he ran the most effective campaign in history..... Well, forget it, I lost, cuz you say so. Right....

          •  Bush ran an (0+ / 0-)

            effective campaign too and....???? So what?

            The GOP are bunch of knee jerk idiots. If they had a clue, they would love that legislation since it came right out of their camp. They're the ones that are always saying you shouldn't get medical treatment unless you have insurance or the means to pay for it and here is legislation that mandates that and what are they doing?

            As far as repeal, it's all a bunch of kabuki theater. They really don't want to repeal it. They only want to campaign against it. They want the campaign donations from the insurance companies as much as Obama does.

            It's the policy stupid

            by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 11:00:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, he didn't (0+ / 0-)

              He squeaked by in both his elections.

              I wouldn't rank that as "the most effective campaign in presidential history."

              Neither would I rank Obama's campaign as "the most effective campaign in presidential history."

              Ideology is an excuse to ignore common sense.

              by Bush Bites on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 11:17:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm (0+ / 0-)

                not saying it was the "most" effective just that it was effective.

                I wouldn't rank Obama's as the "most effective" either just effective. Most effective campaigns would be the ones that are something like 40 plus states in a general election.

                It's the policy stupid

                by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 12:16:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  And so many of those "new technologies" are so (0+ / 0-)

      wonderfully adaptable to what constitutes what, a quarter and rising of our wealth, FUCKING WAR WAR WAR, AND ALL THE REALLY COOLEST NEW WEAPONS AND WAYS TO KILL EACH OTHER.

      Networked Battlespace, autonomous battle robots, nanotech toxins, bioengineered plagues and poisons, everything bent to the services of the Planetary Lethality Project. And yes, I know all about the New and Improved Advances in Feminine Hygiene and Hemorrhoid Products, and Toilet Paper that leaves your peri-anal area feeling like mink...

      Oh, and more efficient solar panels and battery technology, 'n stuff, just in time for the War Department to improve the Troops' Mobility and Cut Reliance On Petroleum Power Generation to Operate the C5 Network and Those REally Cool microdevices and individual shoulder-fired weapons...

      Progress Is Our Most Important Product, right?

      "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

      by jm214 on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:20:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The military funds lots of basic research, some (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        damfino, Bush Bites

        of which has been useful for non-military purposes, but I agree that we could use much less funding for military purposes .  The sad thing is that the military is probably the one branch of government that is willing to fund truly novel lines of basic research.  NIH funds largely what is normal, low-risk science - essentially, you have to already have the data to get funding to generate it.

        The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

        by accumbens on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:38:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agree. (0+ / 0-)

          Frankly, since Defense is the only area of govenrment that can get funding these days, that's how were going to have to do our basic research from now on.

          Fortunately, the fact that the military now considers global climate change a defense issue gives us a lot of leeway to push green science and energy projects through DOD.

          Ideology is an excuse to ignore common sense.

          by Bush Bites on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:03:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do you not get it? What fraction, tiny fraction, (0+ / 0-)

            of all that insane wild-ass "novel lines of basic research" ends up adding to the health and REAL security of all of us, and what huge, deadly, lethal, murderous, explosive, incontrollably violent fraction ends up causing us to just have to turn away to the Matrix, to fog our brains with HDTV, and not think about the enormous drains on our wealth and health (as a Marine about "Semper Fi" at Camp Lejeune,, and people "affected" by depleted uranium munitions and all the rest) and busy creation, every day, of deadlier and deadlier threats to our species' existence?

            You folks who are looking for research grants via the bottomless pit of ARPA and all the Black Commands, do you really think David Petraeus gives a flying fuck about Global Warming and Green Shit except as an excuse to go play war games all over the fucking planet?

            The remedy is to take that fucking money out of the warplayers' hands, and put it to a more directly humane use. But of course that is not going to happen, is it? Too many "scientists" have signed on to the notion that they can pursue their little pets with War Department funding, and either not worry about collateral damage and calamitous applications of their findings.

            All the little cancers, just a-growing slowly, hiding themselves out of reach of the immune system, until gee, guess what happens?

            "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

            by jm214 on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:36:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm just dealing with reality here. (0+ / 0-)

              Money will not come to the government any other way -- you think congress is going to pour money into the DOE, EPA or NIH?

              Good luck with that.

              Ideology is an excuse to ignore common sense.

              by Bush Bites on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 11:13:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think you are basically right. (0+ / 0-)

                The ironic thing is that the huge bloated military budget beloved by both parties is currently the most effective Keynesian stimulus that we have.  It floods billions and billions of dollars into the economy, and produces absolutely nothing except some shiny things that mostly never get used and just sit somewhere and rust until they get replaced by new shiny expensive things.

                It's the only effective weapon against the demand crunch that we have left, and probably the only one that will never be cut by either party.

                If we were crafty, we'd be pushing the Defense Department to enormously expand its program of developing green energy and alternative fuels technology, and quadruple the funding for it. Let's see the Repugs try to cut that.

            •  true, but . . . . (0+ / 0-)
              The remedy is to take that fucking money out of the warplayers' hands, and put it to a more directly humane use.

              in a society like ours where the military budget is the ultimate sacred cow and never gets touched by either party, the NEXT best alternative is to let the warplayers develop all the alternative technology we need---and then not let them use it for wars.

              Alas, that probably won't happen either, since both parties are equally in love with the neocon agenda of The New American Century.

              :(

  •  Our dollars to invest (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SuetheRedWA, Betty Pinson

    are going to war efforts. I noticed the Congress rejected a bill to authorize military operations in Libya but they defeated a bill that limited funding. So it is OK to send money but not troops. The WH didn't respond that they are hypocritical with "debt" but that we shouldn't send mixed messages to our allies.

    We are spending billions in war efforts think of how many jobs would be created by transferring that to cities for so they could hire that robotic company for their pipes.  

    Government isn't the answer to all our problems, but tax cuts, deregulation and greed are the source of many of them.

    by coffejoe on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:08:58 AM PDT

  •  A Buck Short & A Hour Late! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bush Bites, Fossil
  •  Nice little patch, but a more radical approach (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet, schnecke21, grrr, Fossil

    is called for.

    How fucked up does the country need to be for Washington to wake from its stupor and take a more appropriate and energetic approach?

    1.  Quit wasting time on debt cutting.  This is a joke.  We spent $15 billion per month for five years on the Iraq war.  Now, suddenly, at the worst possible moment, the deficit is being cut.  The time to cut the deficit is LATER, when the economy is  recovering.

    2.  Jobs.  If stupid Congress doesn't want to raise taxes, they sure as shit should be focused on job creation.  That will increase tax revenues.  By cutting the deficit, however, Washington is choking economic recovery and will end up increasing unemployment rates and ultimately the debt.

    3.  While this is the WORST time to be cutting the deficit, it is the BEST time to make a concerted effort to switch the country to alternative energy.  The lack of impetus here is shocking.  Washington "rebuked" the President for the continuation of the Afghanistan war.  Yet, they are FUNDING it to the tune of $6 billion per month.  And they only spend piddly-assed hundreds of millions on a scattered alternative energy effort?  WTF.

    These people in Washington dilly-dally while Americans suffer.  It is stunningly criminal.

  •  "We cannot cut our way to (0+ / 0-)

    prosperity."  This is the money quote that needs to be repeated over and over again.  The President understands the situation.  Now he needs to bend Congress to his will.  The right solution for this debt limit issue is to push the GOP to punt the issue until 2012.  The insistence on tax increases is a good start.  It froze the GOP because they didn't think Dems would advocate for tax increases after they shied away from repealing the Bush tax cuts in 2010.

    Now, this theme of how we get to prosperity and cuts won't get the job done needs to be hammered home to take the political momentum away from the GOP.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:18:31 AM PDT

    •  If the President understood the situation... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      damfino

      ...he wouldn't be working with Congressional Republicans and Democrats on deficit reduction, which is actually harmful in this economy.

      The Obama administration has always included people, like Austan Goolsbee, who more or less understood the situation, and people like Tim Geithner, who are basically professional incapable of understanding it.

      And when given the choice, the President has repeatedly listened to the latter group.

      This economy needs stimulation, not deficit reduction.

      •  I'm afraid Goolsbee, who defended and praised this (0+ / 0-)

        President even on the day prior to returning to Chicago differs with you....

        •  It depends on who you listen to. (0+ / 0-)

          Some reporters have suggested that Romer and Goolsbee were the (very relative) left in the Obama White House; others have argued that everyone in Obama's economic team was on the same page.  Certainly the center right won the internal economic debates, if there were any such debates.  And the putative administration "left," at the very least, were team players who stayed on message.

          Ultimately it doesn't matter much whether Obama ignored centrist voices, or merely didn't have them on his team to begin with.

      •  indeed. Both parties seem to have forgotten the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wsexson, damfino

        most elementary principle of economics------every expense is, in turn, someone else's income.

        "Cutting spending" does not expand the economy. INCREASED spending does, by increasing everyone's income.

  •  We can, however, cut our way to recession. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    damfino, schnecke21

    It's not that cutting the deficit isn't enough.

    It's that cutting the deficit is actually harmful to this economy.

    That's Keynesianism 101.

    So long as the President and the Democrats are working on cutting the deficit, they are working on keeping the economy sluggish.

    And that helps neither working Americans nor their electoral chances.

    I just don't get what they're up to.

    •  what are they up to? (0+ / 0-)

      They're both kissing up to the libertarian free-market nutters.

      When it comes to economics, the Dems and Repugs are one.

      •  Disagree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        schnecke21

        The Democrats, as best I can tell, are old-fashioned fiscal conservatives, dogmatically striving to balance the budget by some combination of revenue increases and spending cuts, regardless of the state of the economy.

        The Republicans use the rhetoric of fiscal conservatism to promote tax cuts, regardless of the budgetary consequences, in the hopes that they can force Democrats into cuts in programs that benefit the middle class.

        As Bob Woodward quoted Bill Clinton as saying in 1993, the Democrats are Eisenhower Republicans; the GOP are Reagan Republicans (though in fact, both parties have moved to the right since then).

        Bottom line:  there is a difference between the parties. The Republicans are even worse than the Democrats.  But both are bad and neither is interested in pursuing rational policies calculated to help average Americans.

  •  ? (0+ / 0-)

    It is apples and oranges. What Obama says makes sense if both parts of the Govt want to see the economy and the middle class grow but the criminals that took over the Republican party want to see the economy and the middle class tank so that Obama can be blamed thus paving the way for their return to power although they were the ones the tanked the economy in the first place. The media will not tell the truth because they are bought and paid for.
    The only solution is for Obama to use the presidency to tell the American people on prime time TV what is going on and not try to reason with a bunch of traitors and criminals which the Republicans are.
    Republicans can do more damage to the country than Osama ever dreamed of.
    They all should  be jailed for treason.

  •  President Obama, Show us you're not a machine! (0+ / 0-)

    This is really suspicious. How do we know this "president" isn't really a robot from the future, trying to build more robots to destroy America.

    If he has nothing to hide, show us the x-rays!

    USA #1!!!!! Tea Party 4 life!!!!!!!!!

    When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

    by PhillyJeff on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:56:52 AM PDT

  •  Is this where our national psyche is headed? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wsexson, schnecke21, wbgonne

    http://www.wpxi.com/...

    The administration's plan includes $70 million for a robotics initiative. It also is steering $300 million toward national security industries and $100 million for research and training to more quickly develop advanced materials at lower costs. Some of the $500 million would come from existing allocations to government agencies, but other money would require approval by Congress, where Republicans are more focused on cutting spending than approving new government initiatives.

    I don't much care for where the bulk of this money would be going. I think that obsession with security is bad for America. But maybe it's just a way to get Republicans and security scared Dems to approve the plan.

    Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real. It is time to act. - Al Gore

    by Burned on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:59:24 AM PDT

    •  Here's my theory. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Burned, grrr

      The only part of the government that can get money is the defense department, right?

      So, why not put them in charge of more basic research for energy, science, environment, technology?

      I know, in a perfect or even a good country, you'd put basic research under civilian authority, but we don't live in a perfect or good country.

      Ideology is an excuse to ignore common sense.

      by Bush Bites on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 09:23:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They've been doing great work with prosthetics. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bush Bites

        The only problem with that is that access to that research and to testing and using those innovations is mostly restricted to defense  personnel.
        It would be an evil trick to make people join the military in order to have access to the bulk of that money and to take part in the various areas of research and development.

        Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real. It is time to act. - Al Gore

        by Burned on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 09:50:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They'd have to change some policies. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Burned, grrr

          ...especially as it relates to sharing info with DOE, EPA and HHS.

          But, as I commented above, since the Pentagon has labeled climate change as a defense issue, that gives us some leeway to also push green energy research through the DOD.

          (I think, actually, their already doing some things in that area for their own uses.)

          You know, none of us pictured this country becoming like the old Soviet Union, where all research basically went through the military, but it seems to be the only way to fund these things these days, so you gotta do what you gotta do.

          Ideology is an excuse to ignore common sense.

          by Bush Bites on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:07:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  78 comments. Looks like we are VERY excited. nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  Talk is cheap. (0+ / 0-)

    And so far, regarding American Manufacturing, Obama is all talk, no action.

    Where is industrial policy?
    Where is trade policy that restricts offshoring?
    Where is policy that eliminates labor arbitrage?
    Where is policy for import replacement?
    Where is the EFCA?

    Obama isn't serious about manufacturing or jobs.  He couldn't care less and believes that people will listen to what he says and not believe their lyin' eyes.

    “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” -Aldous Huxley.

    by Fossil on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:36:53 AM PDT

    •  Sigh (0+ / 0-)

      So Obama gives a speech promoting industrial manufacturing and the best we can get is

      OBAMA IS ALL TALK!!!

      Don't you guys always complain about him not using his "magic bully pulpit" to magically convince a majority of teabaggers who think he's a Kenyan Nazi to vote with him? Then he gives a speech and all you can say is "he's all talk."

      I'm also curious how you would get the EFCA through a tea-party controlled house.

      And some of your gripes are pretty ridiculous. "Import replacement?" So we're going to grow America and win the future by building textile mills and cheap, nonskilled low-value-added manufacturing?

      China adds something like 4% of the value added to the iPhone. Our problem is we haven't embraced high-value exporting like Germany. Our problem isn't that we don't have enough T-shirt manufacturing operations.

      When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

      by PhillyJeff on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 01:36:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow - strawmen galore. (0+ / 0-)

        I expect actions, not talk, and, as I said, talk is cheap.  Let's see regulated trade, tariffs, manufacture here to sell here, EFCA (he and the Democrats had two years on that one).

        Stop excusing his failures just because he can give a good speech.  Are you that gullible?

        “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” -Aldous Huxley.

        by Fossil on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:07:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Once again (0+ / 0-)

    Obama trying to square the circle (if he's actually serious).  He cuts the deficit now in this economy and he's not reviving anything.  Quite the contrary.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site