Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
President Obama refers to 'Trickle Down' economics in his speech to Newspaper Editors - transcript
This was a great speech. What really surprised me is the President actually referred to the GOP's economic theory (so-called) as "Trickle Down" economics. --- there once was a time when he would have considered that too 'partisan' to be used. I'm hopeful he now appreciates the value of candor when speaking to voters. Mincing your words doesn't help you deliver your message. Being President of the U.S. is nothing like being a college professor. When he's speaking to potential voters he shouldn't think he's running a seminar. Get it said, in no uncertain terms, so people know where in the hell your coming from.
Here is an excerpt from the speech. The entire speech is at the link.
all emphases are my own.
transcript of President Obama's speech to Newspaper Editors - April 3, 2012.
~~
In this country, broad-based prosperity has never trickled down from the success of a wealthy few. It has always come from the success of a strong and growing middle class. Thats how a generation who went to college on the G.I. Bill, including my grandfather, helped build the most prosperous economy the world has ever known. Thats why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so they could buy the cars that they made. Thats why research has shown that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.
And yet, for much of the last century, we have been having the same argument with folks who keep peddling some version of trickle-down economics. They keep telling us that if wed convert more of our investments in education and research and health care into tax cuts especially for the wealthy our economy will grow stronger. They keep telling us that if wed just strip away more regulations, and let businesses pollute more and treat workers and consumers with impunity, that somehow wed all be better off. Were told that when the wealthy become even wealthier, and corporations are allowed to maximize their profits by whatever means necessary, its good for America, and that their success will automatically translate into more jobs and prosperity for everybody else. Thats the theory.
[font size="3"]Now, the problem for advocates of this theory is that weve tried their approach on a massive scale. The results of their experiment are there for all to see. At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans received a huge tax cut in 2001 and another huge tax cut in 2003. We were promised that these tax cuts would lead to faster job growth. They did not. The wealthy got wealthier we would expect that. The income of the top 1 percent has grown by more than 275 percent over the last few decades, to an average of $1.3 million a year. But prosperity sure didnt trickle down.
Instead, during the last decade, we had the slowest job growth in half a century. And the typical American family actually saw their incomes fall by about 6 percent, even as the economy was growing.
It was a period when insurance companies and mortgage lenders and financial institutions didnt have to abide by strong enough regulations, or they found their ways around them. And what was the result? Profits for many of these companies soared. But so did peoples health insurance premiums. Patients were routinely denied care, often when they needed it most. Families were enticed, and sometimes just plain tricked, into buying homes they couldnt afford. Huge, reckless bets were made with other peoples money on the line. And our entire financial system was nearly destroyed.
So we tried this theory out. And you would think that after the results of this experiment in trickle-down economics, after the results were made painfully clear, that the proponents of this theory might show some humility, might moderate their views a bit. Youd think theyd say, you know what, maybe some rules and regulations are necessary to protect the economy and prevent people from being taken advantage of by insurance companies or credit card companies or mortgage lenders. Maybe, just maybe, at a time of growing debt and widening inequality, we should hold off on giving the wealthiest Americans another round of big tax cuts. Maybe when we know that most of todays middle-class jobs require more than a high school degree, we shouldnt gut education, or lay off thousands of teachers, or raise interest rates on college loans, or take away peoples financial aid.
But thats exactly the opposite of what theyve done. Instead of moderating their views even slightly, the Republicans running Congress right now have doubled down, and proposed a budget so far to the right it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal. (Laughter.) In fact, that renowned liberal, Newt Gingrich, first called the original version of the budget radical and said it would contribute to right-wing social engineering. This is coming from Newt Gingrich. [/font]
<more>
In this country, broad-based prosperity has never trickled down from the success of a wealthy few. It has always come from the success of a strong and growing middle class. Thats how a generation who went to college on the G.I. Bill, including my grandfather, helped build the most prosperous economy the world has ever known. Thats why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so they could buy the cars that they made. Thats why research has shown that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.
And yet, for much of the last century, we have been having the same argument with folks who keep peddling some version of trickle-down economics. They keep telling us that if wed convert more of our investments in education and research and health care into tax cuts especially for the wealthy our economy will grow stronger. They keep telling us that if wed just strip away more regulations, and let businesses pollute more and treat workers and consumers with impunity, that somehow wed all be better off. Were told that when the wealthy become even wealthier, and corporations are allowed to maximize their profits by whatever means necessary, its good for America, and that their success will automatically translate into more jobs and prosperity for everybody else. Thats the theory.
[font size="3"]Now, the problem for advocates of this theory is that weve tried their approach on a massive scale. The results of their experiment are there for all to see. At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans received a huge tax cut in 2001 and another huge tax cut in 2003. We were promised that these tax cuts would lead to faster job growth. They did not. The wealthy got wealthier we would expect that. The income of the top 1 percent has grown by more than 275 percent over the last few decades, to an average of $1.3 million a year. But prosperity sure didnt trickle down.
Instead, during the last decade, we had the slowest job growth in half a century. And the typical American family actually saw their incomes fall by about 6 percent, even as the economy was growing.
It was a period when insurance companies and mortgage lenders and financial institutions didnt have to abide by strong enough regulations, or they found their ways around them. And what was the result? Profits for many of these companies soared. But so did peoples health insurance premiums. Patients were routinely denied care, often when they needed it most. Families were enticed, and sometimes just plain tricked, into buying homes they couldnt afford. Huge, reckless bets were made with other peoples money on the line. And our entire financial system was nearly destroyed.
So we tried this theory out. And you would think that after the results of this experiment in trickle-down economics, after the results were made painfully clear, that the proponents of this theory might show some humility, might moderate their views a bit. Youd think theyd say, you know what, maybe some rules and regulations are necessary to protect the economy and prevent people from being taken advantage of by insurance companies or credit card companies or mortgage lenders. Maybe, just maybe, at a time of growing debt and widening inequality, we should hold off on giving the wealthiest Americans another round of big tax cuts. Maybe when we know that most of todays middle-class jobs require more than a high school degree, we shouldnt gut education, or lay off thousands of teachers, or raise interest rates on college loans, or take away peoples financial aid.
But thats exactly the opposite of what theyve done. Instead of moderating their views even slightly, the Republicans running Congress right now have doubled down, and proposed a budget so far to the right it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal. (Laughter.) In fact, that renowned liberal, Newt Gingrich, first called the original version of the budget radical and said it would contribute to right-wing social engineering. This is coming from Newt Gingrich. [/font]
<more>
If you think the President should show more candor in his speeches, should not shy away from using terms like "Trickle Down Economics" in referring to the GOP's screwball economic policies send him your thoughts at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
as somebody once said: "Democracy is not a spectator sport."
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 935 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post