Historian Rates Obama 1st Congressional Speech Among Best Ever

[Hissyspit]

Run time: 05:31 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjZD7dHhnEQ   Posted on YouTube: February 25, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: February 25, 2009 By DU Member: Hissyspit Views on DU: 1516

 
MSNBC Special Coverage w/ KEITH OLBERMANN - February 24, 2009: Historically, how did Obama do? NBC News Presidential Historian Michael Beschloss talks about how President Barack Obamas first address to the Congress compared to that of other presidents.

[elleng]

1. Prof. George Lakoff discusses Prez O's tecnique.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x428169

[opihimoimoi]

2. He set the fucking bar so high the GOP will have to use HOT AIR BALLOONS

to reach him....they are TOAST

[Liberal_Christian]

3. When are Republicans going to open up a History book????

-Hoover (the republican who turned a recession into a depression) coined the term "trickle-down" -it failed- but did we learn? NO! Sure enough, 50 years after that the GOP revived it calling "trickle-down" supply-side or "Reganomics" that just kept giving the upper percentile the largest tax-cuts and guess what; IT STILL HASN'T TRICKLED (unless you believe the right-wing induced idea that all the prosperity this country's ever experienced since the 80's miraculously originated with Ronald Reagan ). I love how the same people that tell you the president doesn't hold any sway or influence over the economy are the same individuals that will give Reagan credit for our prosperity and ending communism in Russia. Republicans keep trying to pass the same tired cool-aide speech about how Democrats want to raise taxes for YOU yes YOU! But if YOU are like most of the citizens in this country and aren't making over $250,000 a year than YOU aren't the "YOU" republicans are talking about. If you keep them 100% honest; the "YOU" republicans are speaking to are a very small minority of the selfish wealthy class of americans that believe in financial institutional anarchy (they call it "free markets" yet they cost everything). Think about it; more republicans voted "YES" on a bailout for banks and wall-street but EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM VOTED "NO" ON A BAILOUT FOR THE WORKING CLASS AND INFRASTRUCTURE.

-Barak Obama is doing what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did during the great depression. Government spending has not only saved our asses (The New Deal) but has caused many scientific and technological advances that have made our lives safer and easier from the space program, internet, computers, to the peace corps, health codes, and worker safety.

-Also, check our history, numbers don't lie, The Unted Sates Economy has always done better under a democratic president (by always, I mean ALWAYS). To add, the stock market has also done better under a democratic president since Dow Jones 1901. Again numbers don't lie, LOOK IT UP. There is no reason why anyone who is informed and has a conscience should ever vote Republican.

[tclambert]

5. Good post. Welcome to DU.

I've been complaining about Republicans wanting to re-argue things that were settled in the 1930s, too. They haven't learned. They're losing the same arguments, and it will cost them in the next election cycle. The disturbing question for me is, Are we so stupid we can expect to have these same arguments in another 50 years?

[Liberal_Christian]

14. Thank You.

According to someone else who replied to my comment; it goes further back than Hoover's Trickle-Down ( back to 1890 and it was called "Horse and Sparrow" economics) The answer to your question; in my opinion, it depends. It depends how many more Carl Roves there will be in the future and others who sell out morality and human decency for greed and pride. It depends how progressive our nation becomes. Leave it up to republicans to repeat history- look at the war; replace communism with terrorism and you have the same sales pitch for war. What do you think? Do you think we'll keep repeating history?

[rambler_american]

7. Trickle dow = Horse and Sparrow Economics

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory". He wrote, "Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: "If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows." Galbraith claimed that the horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

[Liberal_Christian]

15. Thanks! I never knew.

LOL. Sadly that's more accurate. So the lower classes get the dribbled crumbs left from the horses main food supply even though without the lower to middle classes, there would be no food supply for the horses. When did "just being rich" create jobs? I thought labor and other faucets in the workforce created prosperity, not the fat cats reaping the benefits. Am I wrong?

[onlyadream]

8. well said.

I'm going to borrow your words for a debate with my republican friend!

[Liberal_Christian]

16. Wow. Thanks.

Another replier informed how it goes back even further. 1890 "Horse and Sparrow" economics. Reagan never introduced anything new. I can relate to you having a republican friend. My mother's a Republican and father's a Libertarian (which is an angry Republican and in some ways even more right wing)

[underpants]

10. "supply side" was actually a pejorative that Nixon used to make fun of a naive idea

Welcome to DU :hi:

[Liberal_Christian]

17. LOL. Nice. ... and how Bush Senior called it "Voodoo" economics.

Thanks. I appreciate the welcome. It's a great site.

[demwing]

11. It's Just Plain Logic (and a tight little analogy).

The reason you infuse capitol into the economy is to oil the machinery. Compare it to that - adding oil to your car. It lubricates the parts, removes friction, and maintains the health of the system. Cash and credit infusions do the same for the economy.

The trick is figuring out where to put the oil.

You can put the oil in wherever your car can best use it (probably under the Add Oil Here cap!), where it gets distributed everywhere that it can help. Or you can open your trunk, and pour (or store) the oil there. Where it sits... Maybe, if you poured it, some of the leaking oil might get where you want it, but not much, right?

So - distribute cash and credit to the points where it gets maximum value, delivery, and effect. Where is that? The economy doesn't have an Add Cash Here hole anywhere ;) That's actually an easy one - direct the infusion toward those who will spend it most quickly. Who will spend it more quickly?

If you're like my family, you probably have a relative, or a friend, who has accumulated some amount of wealth.

I have two aunts that married wealth. I love them both. But if either of them came across an extra 5000 bucks, they would hardly notice. It would go into their bank accounts and help collect a wee bit more interest, where their real fun money comes from. No worries, they are good people. They are just fortunate.

If an extra 5000 dollars came to me, I would not have the luxury to sit on it. I'd spend immediately. Clothes, food, bills, car maintenance, dentists, etc...

That 5k just got spent (distributed), not stored.

But trickle-down doesn't manage the infusion. It doesn't regulate the flow. Isn't deregulation what helped us get into our economic messes?

Republicans want you to believe the trickle-down effect works. Well, let's all play like Republicans. Put an R next to your name for a moment ;)

We already know that if you pour oil in to your trunk, it may trickle down a bit, so we'll all pour oil all over our cars. It will sure as hell trickle-down. We'll have so much trickle-down that we'll have a damn puddle of trickle-down sitting in the driveway.

Ok, end of the game. You can take the R down now. Enough with the oil analogy, as well.

Trickle-downs benefits only the wealthy. It's been tried and tested. It does not work. Why anyone is still peddling this snake oil (oh cripes, I said oil again) is beyond imagination. Yeah, there's a LOT of money to scam from the situation, but cant you guys come up with anything new?

Hey, what's the name of that theater group that wears Reagan Bush masks, dresses in tuxedos, and openly mocks the habits of the oily rich?

Get them dressed up in their Sunday best, give them Tin Cups and cardboard sign begging for a little trickle-down, sit them out on the corner of Wall Street and Broad. I'd laugh, at least.

[Liberal_Christian]

13. Awesome analogy

I think the "add money here cap" is the lower and middle class. Like you said, "direct the infusion toward those who will spend it most quickly". Democrat or republican, you have to agree that spending stimulates the economy and a wealthy individual that doesn't provide jobs because he/she is paying high taxes is just selfish. Most small businesses make under 250k a year anyway so the ones that really can't afford a tax hike won't get it. But for the big businesses that are sustained through tax-cuts AND tax-hikes alike; for them to refuse or minimize jobs for a political ideology is just disgusting.

[EFerrari]

4. Don't kill me but I think they had Obama go too long.

Of course, he did a great job. I can't think of anyone who could do as well. But it was a little long for most attention spans.

I did love how they milked his entrance. The Republicans must have HATED that. :evilgrin:

[ejpoeta]

6. it's hard when people keep breaking out in applause.

he had to keep stopping while they applauded. and it seemed to take forever with all the clapping at the beginning too. and then when pelosi announced him, it started all over. I would have loved it if obama would have said something about they'd be there all night if they didn't stop clapping or something. It' was great. I think everyone is glad to have a new president and not have dubya.

[onlyadream]

9. It was great to watch him

I kept pinching myself.

But the applause thing is out of hand. Then they stand and clap, and then sit...he says one sentence, then they do it all over again.

[avaistheone1]

12. Too bad in Obama's great speech he calls out for escalation in Afghanistan,

and for clean coal - which is a misnomer.

The speech was definitely good on alot of levels. However, Afghanistan is going to be Obama's dirty, bloody war and this speech is another marker of him calling out for this hell to unfold further. I think that is pretty sad.

I also think it is ridiculous when Obama is calling for clean coal when there is no such thing. Coal is literally killing us and our environment. Obama, I stopped dancing at your party last night when you hit on both your war in Afghanistan and clean coal schemes. It's terrible you are squandering the good will we have extended you in this way.