Presidential Weekly Address March 7 2009

President Barack Obama
Weekly Address

Saturday, March 7th, 2009
Washington, DC

The full text of the Presidents speech is below the video.

Yesterday, we learned that the economy lost another 651,000 jobs in the month of February, which brings the total number of jobs lost in this recession to 4.4 million. The unemployment rate has now surpassed 8 percent, the highest rate in a quarter century.

These aren't just statistics, but hardships experienced personally by millions of Americans who no longer know how they'll pay their bills, or make their mortgage, or raise their families.

From the day I took office, I knew that solving this crisis would not be easy, nor would it happen overnight. And we will continue to face difficult days in the months ahead. But I also believe that we will get through this -- that if we act swiftly and boldly and responsibly, the United States of America will emerge stronger and more prosperous than it was before.

That's why my administration is committed to doing all that's necessary to address this crisis and lead us to a better day. That's why we're moving forward with an economic agenda that will jumpstart job creation, restart lending, relieve responsible homeowners, and address the long-term economic challenges of our time: the cost of health care, our dependence on oil, and the state of our schools.

To prevent foreclosures for as many as 4 million homeowners -- and lower interest rates and lift home values for millions more -- we are implementing a plan to allow lenders to work with borrowers to refinance or restructure their mortgages. On Wednesday, the Department of Treasury and Housing and Urban Development released the guidelines that lenders will use for lowering mortgage payments. This plan is now at work.

To restore the availability of affordable loans for families and businesses -- not just banks -- we are taking steps to restart the flow of credit and stabilize the financial markets. On Thursday, the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve launched the Consumer and Business Lending Initiative -- a plan that will generate up to a trillion dollars of new lending so that families can finance a car or college education -- and small businesses can raise the capital that will create jobs.

And we've already begun to implement the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -- a plan that will save and create over 3.5 million jobs over the next two years -- jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges, constructing wind turbines and solar panels, expanding broadband and mass transit. And because of this plan, those who have lost their job in this recession will be able to receive extended unemployment benefits and continued health care coverage, while 95 percent of working Americans will receive a tax break beginning April 1st.

Of course, like every family going through hard times, our country must make tough choices. In order to pay for the things we need -- we cannot waste money on the things we don't.

My administration inherited a $1.3 trillion budget deficit, the largest in history. And we've inherited a budgeting process as irresponsible as it is unsustainable. For years, as Wall Street used accounting tricks to conceal costs and avoid responsibility, Washington did, too.

These kinds of irresponsible budgets -- and inexcusable practices -- are now in the past. For the first time in many years, my administration has produced a budget that represents an honest reckoning of where we are and where we need to go.

It's also a budget that begins to make the hard choices that we've avoided for far too long -- a strategy that cuts where we must and invests where we need. That's why it includes $2 trillion in deficit reduction, while making historic investments in America's future. That's why it reduces discretionary spending for non-defense programs as a share of the economy by more than 10 percent over the next decade -- to the lowest level since they began keeping these records nearly half a century ago. And that's why on Wednesday, I signed a presidential memorandum to end unnecessary no-bid contracts and dramatically reform the way contracts are awarded -- reforms that will save the American people up to $40 billion each year.

Finally, because we cannot bring our deficit down or grow our economy without tackling the skyrocketing cost of health care, I held a health care summit on Thursday to begin the long-overdue process of reform. Our ideas and opinions about how to achieve this reform will vary, but our goal must be the same: quality, affordable health care for every American that no longer overwhelms the budgets of families, businesses, and our government.

Yes, this is a moment of challenge for our country. But we've experienced great trials before. And with every test, each generation has found the capacity to not only endure, but to prosper -- to discover great opportunity in the midst of great crisis. That is what we can and must do today. And I am absolutely confident that is what we will do. I'm confident that at this defining moment, we will prove ourselves worthy of the sacrifice of those who came before us, and the promise of those who will come after.

The Big If

England’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown is in Washington this week. That is no major news there as he and President Obama have met 3 times now and spoken several times on the phone. What is news is why he is here.

Prime Minister Brown is here to ensure that England’s interests in the global economic future are not forgotten or over looked. He intends to discuss this at length with President Obama and the Obama administration as well as speaking directly to the US Congress about the dangers of protectionism or reducing international trade from the United States.

It is a widely held belief that if the US were to start limiting the international trade as a protectionist act, or to implement a buy American policy that other countries would follow our lead and start to reduce trade as well and institute there own buy home grown policies. The fear is that this would spark a more intense global meltdown as each countries economy depends on trade with foreign entities.

Both leaders have dumped massive amounts of money into there countries markets. President Obama has dumped trillions of dollars into the market. His latest influx was a $787 trillion dollar stimulus injection, which amounts to nearly 5.5% of the US Gross Domestic Product, or GDP as it is known. In contrast Prime Minister Brown injected an amount equal to almost 1.1% of Great Britain’s GDP as an economic stimulus. Members of the British Conservative party are echoing the sentiment of the United States Republican party. They both claim this is too much to spend, to great of an amount. Some members of the British Labour Party, of which Prime Minister Brown belongs, are saying that this is not enough. That perhaps England should follow President Obama’s example and inject the equivalent of 5 to 5.5% of Great Britain’s GDP into the markets as a stimulus. It is a gamble either way. But is it a gamble that the Prime Minister will be willing to take?

President Obama is a relative new comer to the financial turmoil that engulfs our world today, but Prime Minister Brown is not.

Before ascending to the position of Prime Minister in June of 2007 as a result of the resignation of then Prime Minister Tony Blair, he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A position that is similar to the US Secretary of the Treasury, but with more power. Mr. Brown held this position from 1997 until 2007 during the Blair / Bush years.

Mr. Brown is 10 years deep in the current economic mess, but if he is willing to take the gamble and both the Prime Minister and President Obama guide the international economy out of its current danger in a joint manner, both there political parties control and there career longevity may well be assured.

But the key is working together, and doing so very publicly. On his current trip Prime Minister Brown has been extolling the international willingness to cooperate and work with the United States to stem the tide of the current global economic storm. “Now, more than ever, the rest of the world wants to work with you,” “Never before have I seen a world so willing to come together. Never before has that been more needed. And never before have the benefits of cooperation been so far-reaching.”

On April 2nd England will play host to a G-20 Summit. Prime Minister Brown and President Obama are both hinting that this will be a chance for G-20 leaders to plot a course to economic recovery, of course with President Obama and Prime Minister Brown at the helm. Prime Minister Brown’s Labour party needs him to be in the public eye and to be perceived as one of the main leaders in control as they have an election cycle in the next 18 months that could remove him from power.

It is a risky gamble for Prime Minister Brown to take, but with the British General Elections so close the gain could be immense.

In the end I will look to M. A. for the perspective from England.

Gordon Brown visits Obama and adresses congress

So You have now met Gordon Brown, I noticed in the address to the camera's that Obama talked 75% of the time and Gordon did the other 25% maybe it was done pro rata for country size. I feel the visit was more business like rather than the warmth that seemed to exist between Blair and Bush or Thatcher and Regan. This is because maybe it would not be productive to establish a relationship with the man who is on his way out. I feel the person Obama will be talking to next year is the leader of the Conservative party David Cameron.

The people of United Kingdom feel that a lot needs to be changed. All that has happened is not so much Gordon Browns fault, but the labour party as a whole, the public feel betrayed, losing jobs homes and standards of public services.After all I feel that Brown is Blair's fall guy, Tony Blair stepped down when everything looked fine and Rosy, knowing that underneath the wall paper there were some major cracks in the walls.

Brown and Obama talked about a special unbreakable bond, well we have been through so much together, in some way it like a father son relationship, part of America was born from the British, that is why we have so much in common, like a teenager you rebelled and became your own person and America grew up, then you had your own identity. But since then we have fought together and stood tall difficult times.


Gordon Brown talked about protectionism, this is different for America than the United Kingdom, as we have the European union to deal with. If we build a strong economy by sourcing employment solely within our own country, we will have a economic migration problem. I think we have been having anyway, European workers legally have right to work and live anywhere within the European Union, but what has happened they earn their money, then sent out of the country due to the cost of living being far cheaper in their own countries, whilst the same people still drawing resources from our National Health Service not only for themselves but by bringing family member from home over as well, and when times are not so good they are entitled to benefits as well. Companies know they can get away with paying a lot less in wages for European workers and that forces down wages, until your nationals can not afford to take the job as it becomes impractical for workers from that nation to work and there is more financial benefit to stay on government hand outs, this is without the added factor of top illegal working.

In the United States apart from the problem of illegal workers you do not have that, the one danger you do have is that if you do not share the wealth, as in cash flow you could isolate yourself, and no other countries will be able to afford your products, once again you will have a boom and bust syndrome. So a careful balance is required.

One thing is right that both Obama and Brown have said we have to embrace opportunities as it is better to something rather than nothing at all, this is setting a base line for the future, and there is no other way than up.

President Obama expected to break a campaign pledge

Just after the selection of the first weekly WTF we now have a nominee for the second weekly WTF right out of the gate.

President Barack Obama is expected to break a campaign pledge of not passing congressional earmarked bills.

What bill are we speaking of?

Nothing big, just a $410 billion spending bill.

The House passed legislation last week that is designed to keep the government running through the end of the fiscal year which ends Sept. 30.

According to the AP, "Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, identified almost 8,600 earmarks totaling $7.7 billion; Democrats say the number is $3.8 billion."

Eric Cantor said "Listen, I mean, the president was elected by the people of this country to institute change in Washington and to finally demand a federal government that is accountable to the people," he said. "The fact that there are 9,000 earmarks in this bill and the fact that the vetting process just doesn't take place the way it should, we ought to stand up and draw the line right now and stop the waste."

T - If this one passes, I think we have week #2's WTF first Nominee.

Weekly WTF Week ending 3/1

Elsewhere posted on 1,461 is this on McCain's recent "change of heart" regarding President Obama's plan for troop removal in Iraq.

Repeatedly during his campaign, Sen. McCain would chastise Obama for his plan to remove troops from Iraq. Doing everything he can to make our (now) President's plan look , well, like it had been handcrafted by a 5th grader. Citing a lack of understanding in the ways of military tactics among other things..

Now lets look at this for a moment, shall we?

Sen McCain picked Palin as his running mate, and lets face it, no one would know more about "military tactics" than a soccer mom from Alaska. The reality is that should McCain have been elected, she would have had to deal with troop withdrawl.

I dont think I ever heard her plan on the matter...

Now something else that slightly bothers me is McCain's use of the term "Military tactics" in regards to the Presidency. The definition of tactic is "a plan, procedure, or expedient for promoting a desired end or result". With that in mind, is troop withdrawl so much a military tactic, or is it more a political tactic conversation piece for McCain.

I would have to say that in Obama's case, the troop withdrawl may be more of a diplomacy tactic. An attempt at creating and solidifying a "peace friendly" enviroment in Iraq.

But now, Sen. McCain has changed his mind... Siding with the President and even praising the plan he once scorned saying "Senator Obama's strategy could easily reverse all the hard-fought gains we made. If we do what Senator Obama wants us to do, we will risk having to come back and risk a wider war and defeat in the first major war since 9/11 " (Quote taken from ABC News interview )

So now I have to ask the question to Sen McCain: Why The Flipflop ?


~TMX