Obama Calls for 'Grand Bargain' on Economy: 'Everybody's Going to Have to Give'

Source: ABC News

In my exclusive interview with Barack Obama airing tomorrow on This Week, the president-elect told me that fixing our economy over the long term will require sacrifice from every American and scaling back some of his campaign promises.

"Our challenge is going to be identifying what works and putting more money into that, eliminating things that don’t work, and making things that we have more efficient. But I’m not suggesting, George, I want to be realistic here, not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace we had hoped," Obama told me in his first interview since arriving back in Washington, DC as president-elect.

-----

"And when will that get done?" I asked.

"Well, right now, I’m focused on a pretty heavy lift, which is making sure we get that reinvestment and recovery package in place. But what you described is exactly what we’re going to have to do. What we have to do is to take a look at our structural deficit, how are we paying for government? What are we getting for it? And how do we make the system more efficient?"

"And eventually sacrifice from everyone?" I asked.

"Everybody’s going to have to give. Everybody’s going to have to have some skin in the game," Obama said.



Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/01/obama-calls-for...

I can't believe we have to wait until a week from Tuesday to rid ourselves of the filth that is George W. Bush. What a legacy he has left us.

It might have been nice to have waited until at least the day after he was inaugurated to discover this new president of ours who is "engaged and telling the truth."

As for the truth, well, the truth is there will be no change and those who have the most will sacrifice the least and those who have the least will sacrifice the most. The same old, same old.

But let's be realistic. What on earth would happen to this country if the CEOs had to forego more taxpayer-funded bonuses this year? Not to mention all the cronies of the politicians in our state capitols who will get the contracts for the "infrastructure improvement projects" and who are already dividing the next $750 billion among themselves. Why, the economy might collapse. Their economy anyway.

Our economy already collapsed. But we do have $500 coming. Maybe.

big vacations, bonuses etc...???

Now they want me with my 50k a year job with 4 kids to feed to sacrifice....

fuck that!!! make the big cooperations sacrifice some of their millions, and help me out.

If he's going to "scale back" on "some" of his campaign promises because of this economic downturn, that means that as little as 6 months or more ago Obama either knew SQUAT about what was coming down the pike or he was outright lying to get elected.

Either way, it churns my stomach.

mmmmmmm......do I smell tax increases or is it just my imagination. Appears every Democratic President that follows a bush presidency is forced to increase taxes to cover the deficits.

for years. It's time for the upper middle class and rich to sacrifice.

My wife and I already in the bottom income group, and things are getting kinda desperate here.

Pretty broke myself.

I'm hoping for the middle-class tax cut promised to us, but I said in these forums quite some time ago that there wouldn't be one. If I can just not have my taxes increased, I'll be happy. If I have to withstand a significant tax increase, I'm in deep shit.

and sales tax. St Louis City has a high sales tax. I prefer to shop in St Louis County where the sales tax is lower.

So unfair to stop payroll taxes at 100K.

considering the benefits cap at 100k as well.

Social Security is evil for two or so big reasons:

1) it's a ponzi scheme not unlike the one Maddoff got arrested for, except the government is running it instead of a corrupt billionaire. If you are a relatively young worker, don't count on the system being solvent by the time your ready for retirement.
2) the benefits kick in such a way that it excludes a large number of minorities that have paid into the system. Full SS benefits for a person born after 1960 kick in at age 67...life expectancy for black males in 1993 was 65 years. White males, 72.

But, of course, it's not just minorities. The poor don't live as long as the wealthy, for a litany of reasons (poor lifestyle choices, less equitable access to quality health care, etc). The tragedy (or scam, if you prefer) isn't that the rich don't have to pay taxes after 100,000, it's that the poor, by and large (unless they are disabled), WILL, ON AGGREGATE, NEVER COLLECT SOCIAL SECURITY in any significant amount...because they will be dead or dying off rapidly.

Life is so short yet the right-wing memes still come flying in. O well, here I go again...

Social Security is fiscally sound, it is the general budget that is in crisis. And why is the general budget in crisis? Two GWB tax cuts that primarily benefitted the top 1%, cost $2 trillion by 2010. One immoral, illegal, and unnecessary war in Iraq, cost $1.2 trillion. One unregulated economy so we see again the collapse that follows the excesses of the Guilded Age and Roaring Twenties, costs $10 trillion in evaporated wealth. Shock Doctrined, post-collapse benefits to the financial elites on Wall Street, cost $700 billion plus $8 trillion in taxpayer-backed loans by the Federal Reserve. Take all these and more and presto we have a crisis in the general budget.

Social Security meanwhile continues yearly to generate a surplus. The surplus is invested in Special U.S. Treasury Bonds. The yearly surplus was Greenspan's idea in 1983, so we've been building this surplus for many years. It will reach $2 trillion at its peak. That surplus will pay for full benefits until, depending on which conservative economic assumptions you adopt, either 2042, 2052, or through the entire planning period ending in 2075.

If GDP grows at 1.8% over this period (as opposed to its historical average of nearly 3%), then the social security "crisis" begins in 2042; if GDP creeps up to 2.5%, then the crisis begins in 2052; if it creeps up to its historical average, then there is no crisis and in fact benefits can be increased along the way.

So all this talk about reining in "entitlement spending" (as if, by inserting the word "entitlement" ahead of "spending" it is somehow morally diminished) is a ruse, a shell game played by elites to save their financial position on the backs of everyday Americans. Don't fall for it! If too many younger Americans drink the kool-aid, then yes indeed they will steal the trust fund for their own benefit.

There are problems once we need to start redeeming bonds from the trust fund to meet payment obligations. If you take that $2 trillion surplus, ignore the 2% interest paid on the bonds, and assume straight line redemptions, then if you assume a GDP of 1.8% this will require raising an additional $80 billion in general revenue each year. If you assume a GDP of 2.5%, then only $60 billion will be required. Not much in a general budget topping $2 trillio yearly.

Cutting benefits as a way to trim this incremental commitment amounts to defaulting on the Special U.S. Treasury Bonds purchased all these years with real cash extracted from our paychecks. These Bonds are just as real as the Treasury Bonds sold to the Chinese and Japaneses, to the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia, to the top 1% of Americans who own 68% of all the Bonds sold. Why default on Bonds held in trust for everyday American people and not those held by financial elites around the world? The answer is because it is easy. We rarely bite. We drink the kool-aid and settle into our comfy sofas to watch the latest episodes of "reality" TV. We are anesthesized into inaction, hypnotized into dry sponges, asleep with eyes open, exceedingly ready to absorb right-wing memes that enable the already advantaged to take further advantage.

Perhaps instead we insist that our government raise the $60 - $80 billion in additional funds -- STARTING in 2019 -- by raising the top marhinal FIT rate to 50%, by reducing the exemption of the estate tax to $1 million, by reining in some of the 750+ military garrisons we maintain around the world. We spend $650+ billion on the military, HSA, and myriad security programs (e.g., the CIA, DIA, etc.). Can $60 to $80 billion starting in 2019 be found somewhere in that fat budget?

So I don't believe for a second that we can't continue Social Security as now planned. You shouldn't believe otherwise, too. It has been and should be the third rail in American politics, even for newly elected Democratic Presidents.

The demographic challenges by class and raise are other matters (interesting to me because I haven't thought of it that way) and tell me we should also insist on a reduction of the retirement age, not elimination of the program.

You mention a lot of ways to get "there" (solvency) from here. Problem is, we haven't taken any of those steps. Ever. People have been talking about the impending insolvency of Social Security since the 1970s. The end date hasn't really changed because every government has looked at the date and said "that's far enough away where I don't have to worry about it". And in the meantime, since implementing programs that our grandchildren will have to pay for is so popular, let's add a few more to the books.

Yeah, cutting social spending is a right-wing meme, but fiscal responsibility isn't. As America is finding out, financing your lifestyle with debt isn't sustainable in the long run. There is no Social Security trust fund sitting idly by for the day we start withdrawing to pay out benefits to retirees and the disabled. It's been looted to pay for guns, bombs, Federal prisons, and prescription drugs for the elderly (nice program, would've been nicer if they would've allocated money & taxes to pay for it).

I'm not saying we should cut Social Security or privatize it or increase the age at which benefits start. If anything, I think we should lower the age so that minorities and the unhealthy poor aren't unfairly discriminated against when it comes to the collection of benefits. But, as a thirty-something year old, I have no expectation that Social Security will be around or that the benefits will match current promises in 33 years when I'm set to receive full nominal benefits.

Now, where the latent right-winger in me (just kidding mods!) does come out is Medicaid and Medicare. These are financial ticking time bombs. Unfunded liabilities approaching $70 trillion, and benefits growing 3 times faster than inflation. We can't really tax our way out of it (technically we can, but we would have needed to have started oh, like 5 years ago). This is one of the critical reasons why we need single payer or socialized medicine. Our current government system is insolvent (by GAAP standards) and provides substandard quality and coverage vis-a-vis socialized medical programs in Europe or Japan.

However I gave you the math for Social Security. Social Security is solvent, using very conservative (pessimistic) assumptions, until 2042 (1.8% GDP growth per year). Bump up those assumptions just a bit, to 2.5%, then Social Security is solvent to 2052. If we do nothing, and the pessimistic ecomonic assumptions hold, we can still pay benefits on a pay-go basis at 70% after exhaustion of the Trust Fund, and that's in around 30-40+ years. Hardly seems like a crisis to me. Yet the rightwing would have us believe it's in crisis.

Medicare is geniunely a different problem. I am 150% behind your call for single-payer universal healthcare (for many reasons, not just fiscal). It will markedly improve the delivery efficiency of healthcare to all Americans, not just the lucky who can afford it.

There is a crisis in the general budget, but NOT because of Social Security. Rather it is because GWB, just ahead of the retiring baby-boomers, decided irresponsibly to gut the Treasury. His two major tax cuts cost our Treasury $2 trillion (by 2010). That's just short of the projected shortfall of social security funds in the period after the Trust Fund is exhausted (2042-2052 to 2075). It also happens to match what the Trust Fund will peak at ($2 trillion by 2019). So if GWB just chose to leave the Clinton tax rates alone, we would have had more than enough tax revenue by 2010 to redeem the entirety of the Trust Fund through 2042-2052. Instead a political decision was made that benefitted a few (the top 1%) at the cost of many. And add to that the costs of the unnecessary Iraq War and the destruction of value inherent in the policy decisions to further retrench regulation. We have a crisis, but it is in the system outside of Social Security.

Yes, our current government system is insolvent by GAAP standards (as you say). However, solving the general budget crisis by failing to meet the obligations represented by the Special Treasury Bonds of the Trust Fund amounts to selective theft. If the U.S. is going to default, then default on all Bonds, not just those held in trust for everyday American people. If the U.S. is going down (if we are past the point of no return), then make sure we go down on top of the shoulders of those responsible for gutting the American system. Raise top marginal FIT rates to 90%, tax all inherited estates above $1 million at 90%, increase corporate taxes to the same share of overall revenue evidenced in the fifties and sixties, close 90% of the military garrisons around the world and slash the military budget -- etc. etc. -- don't renege (certainly don't just renege) on the obligations of Social Security, the most popular government program there ever was.

There is a tendency for what we firmly believe to come to pass in actual life, so if your generation (33 years away from retirement) believes there will be no social security for you, then there probably won't. It will be because you didn't maintain the pressure on our political system to maintain this program that has kept generations of people out of destitution, and kept others relatively comfortable in retirement. There are many things we as a society can decide to do for ourselves; this is one of the better ones. But relax and, poof, it is gone. It is an intergenerational choice. We have the power.

Is economic growth projections. I'm in the "overcapacity funded by debt" camp which views our current little financial crisis in terms of a depression, not a recession. I think we are in for a rough 5 to 10 years, and the government is going to be forced to step in and spend like crazy to keep things afloat.

And the milestone dates I've been throughing around are fluid, have changed over the last 20 years cof commentary, they are not fixed by any means. However, to date the changes have been beneficial; the need to draw down the Trust Fund and the date where the Fund is exhausted have consistently been revise out in time. Perhaps the impact of the Great Depression II will draw those dates in a little.

EOM

This is because lower income people tend to spend most of their income on necessaries which are subject to the tax.

and decide what I want to "pay taxes" on. I get to manipulate my money, not the government. I see that as progressive.

Most lower income persons have little to no Federal Income Tax liability, at any rate.

"and decide what I want to "pay taxes" on. "

The decision to eat or not eat, for example, won't be affected by such a calculus.

The current plan that has been introduced would send every person/family a check each month for basic monthly expenses, like food and clothes. So the decision of whether to eat or not is a non-issue. There would still be a decision of what to eat and what to wear, but that is a much different decision.

I expect I am confused. To which "current plan" do you refer? The working poor in the US most certainly do not receive such a stipend every month, and I have heard of no Obama proposal to this effect.

so that is why no one receives anything now. I believe it is HB 25.

that takes imagination!

Mr. Obama, with all due respect, sir, I gave at the office.

There has to be some women and children somewhere that need those bullets shot at them..

Do you have time to do volunteer work? Could you spend one afternoon per month at a nursing home giving comfort to lonely seniors? Could you provide a foster home for abandoned or lost pets? There are so many things that can be done.

And between Boy Scouts, youth group sport etc Im a little busy.

Who also has alzheimers. I don't have 'spare time'

"I have no more to give Mr. President..."

I imagine that despite one's income, that will become a most popular refrain.

We all want to see things get better-- until that "ask what you can do for your nation" bit looks us in the face...

n/t

short memories. But, I don't think anyone thinks that raising taxes now is a good idea.

the wealthiest Americans. They've had a free ride on our backs for far, far too long.

remember, some of our biggest corporations actually have "negative tax years" (when they get a check, instead of writing one).

I'd love to see corporate "personhood" ended, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime.

have set the wrong tone.

Oh, you're FUNNY.

(I mean, I agree, but it'll never fucking happen.)

I could invite another homeless person over to me and my wife's cardboard box once we get it furnished.

.

Obviously, everyone doesnt include congress, since they just gave themselves more of a raise than I have gotten in 10yrs of cumulative raises.

And every president since has signed on to continue it (with compliant Congresses).

Bush and the Congresses of 2001 until now have taken it to a level even Gordon Gecko ("Wall Street" movie character) would've found jaw-dropping. Lots of necks oughta be in guillotine right now. A few ghosts too.

has given for years - no real wage increases, increased local taxes, outsourced jobs, you name it.

I am going to give Obama a slight benefit of doubt here, that he feels he has to say such things as "everybody" will have to give for political palatability. But it is nonsense, and I think he'd be seen as stronger if he came right out and said that we can't balance the budget on the backs of school children and elders, and that the rich have benefited for years and it's time for them to pay a fair share. There is a dawning understanding out here among the hoi-polloi that we've been had, there is real anger at the excesses and unaccountability and exploitations of corporations. I think he's missing the boat on what would be politically palatable to the people who elected him.

Because what does "everyone" giving really mean? What do school children have to give - worse schools? What do elders have to give - decreases in their social security and higher local property taxes to push them out of their homes. It is nonsense. Having ignored or trompled on the working class (among which I include most of those who call themselves "middle class"), the infrastructure, spending on education, health care, and every other social "commons" good since Reagan while the upper few % took more and more and more, WE are now to give more? Like I said - nonsense.

give back their ill-gotten tax gains accrued from the Reagan years to the present day. Sugaring the pill. After all, you'll be more like one nation, instead of two. But it's less scary to the rich to put it that way.

as there are other ways folks can sacrifice to work towards the common good. It may be that Obama wants us to become more energy conscious, changing those lightbulbs when the old ones burn out. that we are working with our children at home by reading and talking with them or that we are commuting in the most efficient way possible. That young people choose to enter into a life of service, or at least volunteer some of their extra time doing good where they can. Sacrifice may simply mean donating our time for worthwhile causes, like giving blood, or staying plugged in to the political system and following what is going on in order to participate all the while making sure that we are intelligently informed.

It is too bad that we, as a nation, are starting to equate sacrifice solely as monentary as opposed to participating in the betterment of this nation, bit by whatever bit, block by block, city by city, etc......

Judging from some of the reactions here, it is sad too that many of us here no longer ponder a more profound meaning of any given message and instead act as superficial and simplistic as the MSM does. It is also too bad that as much as Obama has campaigned listing some of the sacrifices and actions I posted above, folks still need a map in order to "get it".

people here are not interested in solutions.

is going to mean energy taxes, higher ones and new ones. As for the rest of it, vounteerism and donating have been encouraged for quite a while and in my case, working two jobs, it won't happen.

With all due respect, no matter what other ideas are thrown in, money is the focus. This is one instance where the MSM has actually stumbled on the gist of things. Any notion that what Obama is really looking for might be other than money is simply naive.

you'd think we just reelected bush the way people are throwing fits.

what more do you want from us, Mr. Obama?

edit: the shirt off our backs?

How so?

is going to be your BFF - Best Buddies Forever

How about your Senators and Representatives? Do they count?

And we all saw what happened - or didn't happen - with that money.

ability.

They are working for Wall Street. we've had a financial coup. It was the mother of all October Surprises, brilliantly executed by Bush, Palson, Reid, Pelosi, Obama, et al helped along by bs reporting from the so-called liberal media of MSNBC and CNN

Larry Summers and Robert Rubin are in the White House writing up the Skin the middle class and poor stimulus plan.

I know of said it had to be done. It was NOT done in the smartest way, however, starting with Bear Stearns. We practically nationalized everything, but without getting enough controls and financial advantages from nationalization. We got a lot of the worst of both worlds without getting enough of the upside.

There were Nobel-prize winning economists who warned AGAINST this bailout. Something like 75% of the nation's economists said not to do it that it would be putting money down a rathole. Then to add insult to injury, I just love the part where they'll make them accountable later on. Now they have no idea what happened to most of the money and they can't even get a response from the Treasury much less an explanation. Face it. This bail out was the biggest Ponzi scheme ever and WE paid and our grandchildren will be paying for it and President Change was all for it.

We damned well better start holding our elected representatives accountable or we will continue to spiral down into a two-tiered society.

NT!

I listened to most at the time, probably because he was one of the few voices saying anything. I won't presume to know all that is involved in that deal. As far as a 'financial coup' that happened generations ago. I hope all your dreams come true about the stimulus plan.

"What we have to do is to take a look at our structural deficit, how are we paying for government?"

How cool is that? He wants to look at (and fix, perhaps?) the problems that result in the systematic underfunding of our government.

That's the kind of sacrifice Obama's Gang of Economists are looking for after their support for him.

Let's hope Obama is strong once he's inaugurated and can start to "Kick Butt" and if he has to ...reshuffle the "hand picked" Guardians that were foisted on him before he became the President and could be in charge of who "HE MIGHT WANT!" I hope to heaven that what Obama wanted was not what was forced on him in these past weeks and that he's left some "room to maneuver."

I'm losing hope and he's not even Prez, yet.

It all looks like the same old thing to me, under a different veneer of shiny shit.

There ain't anything left to give, and the kids are not negotiable.

Afghanistan is the new Iraq

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Instead of giving them more tax breaks and laying more of the burden on the middle class?

and who benefitted the most from short-term policies that have plundered the economy over the long term taking the hit? They need to pay their fair share.

n/t

So what skin will be required from 95% of working Americans if "everyone is going to have to give?"

By the way, "giving" is something nobody "has" to do, "giving" is voluntary. If this is, as I suspect, going back on the tax cut promise and actually increasing taxes on most Americans with jobs, I REALLY want him to stop using the word "give."

At 57 years of age, without health insurance, and no job...what in the hell is left to give up?

Oh, and my gas was shut off in October and I had to come up with a $600 deposit to get it turned back on. I am still reeling from that one. I told them my water heater is about to bust and I needed the money to put towards that happening, but they did not care.

Now I have personal property taxes to pay on my car, which is late.

Oh, and my latest is my toilet is leaking from the intake hose at the tank. I guess I am going to have to try to fix it myself. I placed a jar under it in the meantime to keep the water off the floor.

Can I have a job, please? It would be my pleasure to bitch about taking so much of my money that I would have to cut down on eating out at restaurants or the cost of my co-pay for doctor visits.

We've had such an imbalance in the re-distribution of wealth toward the already wealthy in the last 20 years. Maybe now is the time to at least think about and analyze the feasibility of taxing wealth - cash assets, property, collector and luxury assets might be considered for tax like this.

At this point we officially have trillion dollar deficits for years to come and our usual creditors are becoming uncomfortable and even unable to extend further. Even if we do make radical reductions in spending we're still in a nasty trend as far as deficits for the next 30+ years.

The low tax party is over IMO, yes I'll get hit too but I don't see any other responsible way to stay current with our obligations. The top 1% and even the top 10% have had an extraordinary amount of grace for an entire generation. The bill has finally come due and only one class has the assets to pay it. It must be paid or the social guarantees the wealthy have relied on will start to break down rendering their wealth worthless anyway. The wealthy should probably get used to the idea of "taxes" because the relatively new social and political taboos of taxing the wealthy will start to peel away as the budget gets sucked further a black hole and the futility of budget cuts becomes apparent.

for a century because of the Bailout(s). With money we don't actually have anyway. So please make more sense, Mr. President-Elect!!

new meaning though. And, may I say, OUCH!

how's that?

It's about the players, the people involved in making money in this country.

I can read what he's saying. He's saying, "if you gain from being in this country, you'll have to give a bit back, and fast, to keep it going."

make bushCo pay.

Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Medicaid?

Of course, the rich aren't like everybody else, so they don't have to give diddly squat or have any "skin" in the game.

They got their BILLION No, TRILLION dollar bailout, now didn't they? So it's ALL good.

Hell, it doesn't even need to be as big as those golden Parachutes AIG was using their bailout to pay for.

50K per family. I'll even lay odds that any money given to the unemployed that may allow THEM to start up businesses, or pay off the debts they've incurred under the *trickle down equals piss on the middle class* policies would probably HELP the economy a lot quicker than handing over money to corporations who will wire it overseas to keep their customers happy.

What the hell -- make it 100K per family. You found a way to pay the wall street bailout -- find a way to help the ones taking it on the chin BECAUSE of Wall Street.

I seem to recall that's the portion of the existing national debt owed by every single American. I might have the numbers wrong-- it's quoted from memory, and I didn't pay much attention at the time.

Still, haven't we already saddled ourselves and our children-- and their children-- with enough scraped skin to last a lifetime?

It's not enough to simply tax the wealthy into a more equitable wealth distribution-- which we MUST do, I think. But government has to be part of the solution, too. We MUST scale back the defense budget and stop being global imperialist bullies. Chop the MIC off at the knees as a first step toward reducing the REAL burden of government on the people.

How about the fat cats giving more? I think they have been given the $$$$ in the TARP program and have shown very little from it! What the H was this suppose to do for our country? Make sure the Billionaires get to keep their mansions?

Obama made his 'everybody will have skin in the game' remark in response to a leading question from Stephanopoulos. (Similar to Pelosi's infamous "impeachment off the table remark" which was actually a response to a leading question from Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes.) If Obama had said, 'no, everyone won't sacrifice; only the rich,' then he makes himself vulnerable to charges of class warfare.

We'll have to wait and see, but given some of the other things he's scaled back and some of his appointments, I'm very discouraged.

An us versus them mentality might not cut it given all of the problems that we face. Yes, the rich can afford to give more but those of us who are not rich might be able to help and sacrifice in other non monetary ways.

This is the reawaking of America and it scares the shit out of people.

America is in deeper shit then they could imagine. I think people are truely scared for the first time in 30-40 years that America is in a fragile state thanks to Republican rule.

Obama is not going to be able to do this alone. We as American citizens are obligated to support him when he does things right and we are obligated to criticize him and point out when he makes mistakes.

We don't have to be lockstep but we need to evaluate every decision he makes on it's own merit and then make our decision on if it is right or wrong.

Lithos had a good point too (#40) but it's not about class, Obama said the E-word: "Everybody".

Let's see what happens; some action will be swift, others will be more thoughtful. I think he is honest and has been thoughtful.

What I am worried about is that the country is in much more trouble than meets the eye. When Obama's people start looking at the books of al major organizations they will find catstrophic incompetence and criminal negligance.

What the average American does not understand is that our system has already failed. However, the machine that forms our government is never going to go down quietly. As long as the people choose to go along with the façade then there will be no major changes.

Our family has already "given" it's jobs, retirement fund, savings and health insurance so that a shitty Wall Street holding company could add a penny to it's stock price.
There is nothing left for us to give.

How about raising the capital gains tax on John Paulson?
The hedge fund guy who made $10 million a day (every day) in 2007 by shorting mortgage securities.
Let him pay.
We're done.

during your campaign. But now you say,..."not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace we had hoped."

So, let me get this straight, the changes you promised our country in order to elect you to the highest office in the land, ain't gonna happen. Yet we still have to give more?

You can't get blood from a turnip, nor can you take more from those who have little to nothing.

What an incredibly stupid remark from a supposedly intelligent man.

Meet the new boos, same as the old boss.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Economy/story?id=6619291...

-----

Viewer questions for Obama came in by the thousands prior to the interview, the overwhelming majority of which focused on the economy. When asked if he feels he will be able to repair the economy, Obama said, "I think we can fix this. But it's going to take some time. It's not going to happen overnight."

"It's going to take some time to fix it. But what we tried to do was put forward a plan that says 'let's act boldly, let's act swiftly.' Let's not only provide a jumpstart to the economy and immediately or save 3 million jobs, but let's also put a down payment on some of the structural problems that we have in our economy," he said.

Obama has received some pushback on the tax break portion of his economic stimulus package, particularly the effectiveness of business tax cuts in stimulating economic growth and job creation. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, expressed concerns that Obama's plan amounted to "trickle-down" economics.

"Well, let's look at the package as a whole. The bulk of the package is direct government spending... Now there is no doubt that that probably gives you the most bang for the buck in terms of stimulus, in terms of getting the economy started, putting people back to work," he said. "But there are only so many projects that you can do quickly of that sort. And so then the question becomes, do tax cuts also provide a stimulus? Do they also help? And they may not help as much as some of the direct spending projects do, but they still provide a stimulus, especially if they are targeted towards people who are really in need."

Comrades

During the election, Comrade Obama distanced himself from his progressive collectivist roots and denied that he was a true socialist.

Instead his handlers built a cult of personality and his managed speeches were only platitudes where we heard what we wanted to hear. It should have been an indicator when the only time Comrade Obama spoke truthfully about the reactionary forces in fascist Amerikkka was in front of a secret meeting with billionaires and industrialists on "Nob Hill".

The cadres in the media sold themselves to this flashy cult of personality and failed to examine why a committed progressive socialist denied his mentors - revolutionary heroes like Comrades Frank Davis; Bill Ayers; and Bernadine Dohrn - and his roots as a enemy of the plutocrats in order to curry favor with class enemies like the Wall Street blood suckers Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines.

Consider that Comrade Obama rejected public financing and his handlers deliberately set up his web site to allow fictitious donations. Who bought the election? Who bought our HOPE so they could derail CHANGE and make sure it was MORE OF THE SAME.

We have been sold a Stalin where we believed in a Lenin, comrades.

International financiers like Soros are manipulating the progressive popular front to ensure that the working classes are kept in slavery to the plutocrats. Obama is a class traitor.

nice shtick "comrade"

Source: Bloomberg

By Edwin Chen

Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama said reviving the U.S. economy will require scaling back on his campaign promises and personal sacrifice from all Americans.

“I want to be realistic here, not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace we had hoped,” Obama said in an interview on ABC’s “This Week” program broadcast this morning. “Everybody’s going to have to give.”

Obama also said in the interview recorded yesterday that he wants stricter guidelines and greater transparency in spending the remaining $350 billion in the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Obama takes office Jan. 20 and is pressing Congress to act quickly on a two-year economic stimulus plan of about $775 billion that includes new government spending and tax cuts. As part of his campaign to build support from lawmakers and the public, Obama has been speaking about the economy every day over the past week, warning of a deeper and more prolonged recession without government action.

Though some Democrats have resisted elements of Obama’s plan, recent economic data have helped him make his point. The Labor Department reported Jan. 9 that the U.S. lost almost 2.6 million jobs in 2008 and that the unemployment rate jumped to 7.2 percent in December, the highest level in almost 16 years. The losses were widespread, with manufacturers, builders, retailers and temporary-help agencies axing positions.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3Y...

maybe the upper class can sacrifice some crumbs from their tables...ask them barack

If he raises taxes on the middle class, he's going to have trouble. And so is Congress.

No shooting the messenger.

Even if he tells everyone in the country to chip in five bucks, that's how it will be played.

And of course, no matter what he does, the states will start finding ways to get that money from their constituents, one way or another. If they don't raise their own income taxes, they'll do it with property taxes, or sin taxes, or gas taxes....one way or another, someone will come after that dough!

"Everybody’s going to have to give"