Connect with us

Obama Addresses The Nation On Dangers Of Default – Full Video And Text

Published

on

On Monday night, President Obama addressed the nation on the dangers of default. Here is the full video and a complete transcript.

 

https://youtube.com/watch?v=O08VHT6TsRM%3Fversion%3D3%26hl%3Den_US

 

THE PRESIDENT:
Good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we’ve been having in Washington over the national debt — a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans.

For the last decade, we’ve spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.

As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more -– on tax cuts for middle-class families to spur the economy; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit.

Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money -– the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won’t have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do. I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.

The first approach says, let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let’s cut out waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare — and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their breaks in the tax code and special deductions.

This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt. And the cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small businesses and middle-class families get back on their feet right now.

This approach is also bipartisan. While many in my own party aren’t happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared. While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said, “Yes, I’m willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem.” And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks.

The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a different approach — a cuts-only approach -– an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scale, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about –- cuts that place a greater burden on working families.

So the debate right now isn’t about whether we need to make tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask a corporate jet owner or the oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for?

That’s not right. It’s not fair. We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country -– things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research.

And keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98 percent of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade -– millionaires and billionaires -– to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. In fact, over the last few decades, they’ve pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit. The first time a deal was passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this:

“Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer.”

Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan. But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach -– an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, by President Clinton, by myself, and by many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate. So we’re left with a stalemate.

Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling -– a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before.

Understand –- raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it seven times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills.

Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent America’s first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach.

If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills -– bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses.

For the first time in history, our country’s AAA credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet. Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, on mortgages and on car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis -– this one caused almost entirely by Washington.

So defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem.

First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road.

But there’s an even greater danger to this approach. Based on what we’ve seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now. The House of Representatives will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach. Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions. Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare. And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way.

This is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It’s a dangerous game that we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. We can’t allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington’s political warfare.

Congress now has one week left to act, and there are still paths forward. The Senate has introduced a plan to avoid default, which makes a down payment on deficit reduction and ensures that we don’t have to go through this again in six months.

I think that’s a much better approach, although serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform. Either way, I’ve told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress -– and a compromise that I can sign. I’m confident we can reach this compromise. Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before. And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress.

Now, I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and I don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues. But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons. Yes, many want government to start living within its means. And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few. But do you know what people are fed up with most of all?

They’re fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word. They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table. And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington. They see leaders who can’t seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans. They’re offended by that. And they should be.

The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government. So I’m asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.

America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise. As a democracy made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one. We’ve engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: “Every man cannot have his way in all things — without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.”

History is scattered with the stories of those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed. But those are not the Americans we remember. We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good. We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union.

That’s who we remember. That’s who we need to be right now. The entire world is watching. So let’s seize this moment to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth –- not just because we can still keep our word and meet our obligations, but because we can still come together as one nation.

Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Hunting Grounds’: Trump Cancels Biden Ban on ICE Arrests at Schools, Churches, Hospitals

Published

13 hours ago

on

January 21, 2025

By

The Trump administration has canceled President Joe Biden’s ban on federal immigration agents arresting suspects inside schools, churches, houses of worship, hospitals, shelters, and at events such as weddings, funerals, and public demonstrations and protests.

“This action empowers the brave men and women in CBP and ICE to enforce our immigration laws and catch criminal aliens— including murders [sic] and rapists—who have illegally come into our country. Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest,” an unnamed DHS spokesperson said in a statement Tuesday, posted by CBS News’s Camilo Montoya-Galvez. “The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense.”

“The Biden-Harris Administration abused the humanitarian parole program to indiscriminately allow 1.5 million migrants to enter our country. This was all stopped on day one of the Trump Administration,” the spokesperson alleged. “This action will return the humanitarian parole program to its original purpose of looking at migrants on a case-by-case basis.”

CBS’s Montoya-Galvez also reports that the “new DHS team has also instructed officials to begin the process of phasing out programs that allowed certain immigrants to stay in the U.S. under the immigration parole authority.”

“Pro-immigrant advocates had feared the rescission of the Biden-era rules, warning that it would allow the Trump administration to bring its mass deportations plans to churches and schools,” Montoya-Galvez wrote at CBS News.

READ MORE: Rubio Sidesteps J6 Pardons by Declaring ‘I Work for Donald J. Trump’

CNN calls the move “a departure from long-standing policy to avoid so-called sensitive areas.”

Attorney Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, formerly the Policy Director for First Lady Michelle Obama, responded to the news: “Churches, hospitals, and schools all appear to now be hunting grounds for ICE enforcement operations.”

Immigration law attorney Allen Orr Jr. remarked, “It’s never been about safety or national security. It’s about fear—weaponized to isolate and divide.”

In an interview with Fox Business (video below), Trump’s “border czar” Tom Homan was asked on Tuesday, “If and when ICE went into a school to arrest someone, that would be highly contentious, wouldn’t it?”

Homan quickly turned the hypothetical example from a “school,” which could be an elementary school, to a “college campus.”

“Absolutely. But then again, you know, what’s our national security worth?” he replied. “If we have a national security vulnerability that we know is a national security risk, and we have to walk on a college campus to get him, that’s something we have to do.”

Indeed, various Homeland Security officials prior to Trump’s administration have issued similar bans on arrests in sensitive areas. Among them, John Morton, the Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from 2009 to 2013, under President Barack Obama.

In 2021, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued a new memo, focused on how “we impact people’s lives and advance our country’s well-being.”

READ MORE: Trump Defends His TikTok Flip Flop: America Has ‘Bigger Problems’ Than Young Kids’ Privacy

Mayorkas wrote, “When we conduct an enforcement action – whether it is an arrest, search, service of a subpoena, or other action – we need to consider many factors, including the location in which we are conducting the action and its impact on other people and broader societal interests. For example, if we take an action at an emergency shelter, it is possible that noncitizens, including children, will be hesitant to visit the shelter and receive needed food and water, urgent medical attention, or other humanitarian care.”

“To the fullest extent possible, we should not take an enforcement action in or near a location that would restrain people’s access to essential services or engagement in essential activities. Such a location is referred to as a ‘protected area.’ This principle is fundamental. We can accomplish our enforcement mission without denying or limiting individuals’ access to needed medical care, children access to their schools, the displaced access to food and shelter, people of faith access to their places of worship, and more. Adherence to this principle is one bedrock of our stature as public servants.”

Mayorkas had expanded the list of “protected” or “sensitive” areas to include doctor’s offices, vaccination or testing sites, playgrounds, recreation centers, foster care facilities, and school bus stops, to name a few.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Cannon Blocks Classified Docs Report as Trump Targets Ex-Officials Over ‘Sensitive’ Info

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

Rubio Sidesteps J6 Pardons by Declaring ‘I Work for Donald J. Trump’

Published

16 hours ago

on

January 21, 2025

By

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio refused to comment on President Donald Trump’s pardons and commutations of more than 1500 people convicted of crimes surrounding the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol, including the insurrection — despite having denounced the attack in strong terms four years ago.

In three separate interviews on Tuesday — on ABC News, CBS News, and NBC News — when presented with his comments about the 2021 attack, Rubio declared that he would not discuss domestic issues because he is now Secretary of State.

CBS News’ Gayle King told Secretary Rubio, “in February 2021, even you issued a statement and you said the images of the attack stirred up anger in you, the nation was embarrassed in the eyes of the world by our own citizens.”

“How do you personally reconcile those feelings with the pardons that he did yesterday?” she asked. “I understand you have work to do in the job is hard for many things, but on this particular issue, I’m curious about what you’re thinking.”

“Yeah, well, what I’m thinking is that I used to be a United States senator until midnight last night, and now I’m going about to be sworn in as the Secretary of State of the United States,” Rubio curtly replied. “And that’s what I’m thinking is I work for Donald J. Trump, the new president of United States, the 47th president who has a clear mandate to reorient our foreign policy to one that once again puts America and our interests at the center. And that’s what I’m gonna focus on. A hundred percent.”

READ MORE: Trump Defends His TikTok Flip Flop: America Has ‘Bigger Problems’ Than Young Kids’ Privacy

In an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, Rubio would not budge, even when faced with more of his own comments from 2021.

“You called it a national embarrassment, saying we now have third world countries that are lecturing us and we have tinpot dictators that are mocking us,” Stephanopoulos told him. “Of course, you’re now America’s top diplomat. You’ll be speaking with your counterparts around the world. What message does that pardon send to them?”

“Well, I don’t anticipate a single one of our partners will ask about it, obviously, and you know this well, from your time in the [Clinton] administration and my job is to focus on the foreign policy of the United States,” Rubio continued. “I have a different job this morning and a different focus. And it’s one that demands 100% of our attention, and so that’s what I’ll be focused on and won’t be opining on domestic matters at this point, because, frankly, my focus needs to be 100% on how I interact with our, you know, counterparts, our adversaries, our potential enemies around the world to keep this country safe to make it prosperous.”

“That’s the clear mandate from the president,” he added. “It’s what he campaigned on.”

“But as a senator,” Stephanopoulos pressed, “you did say that it affected our standing in the world. Don’t believe that anymore?”

“Well,” Rubio, seemingly somewhat irritated, replied, “as a senator, I had an opinion all kinds of domestic matters, but now I’m focused singularly on foreign policy, on how I interact with our allies.”

President Trump’s pardons of the convicted January 6 attackers, including nearly 90 who committed acts of violence, even against law enforcement officers, were also the subject of Rubio’s interview with NBC News’ Craig Melvin on Tuesday.

According to Fox News, Melvin played video of Rubio saying in 2021, “Vladimir Putin loved everything that happened here today because what happened is better than anything he could have ever come up with to make us look like we’re falling apart.”

Melvin then “asked Rubio what message the pardons send to the rest of the world,” Fox reported.

But Rubio declared that he “would not ‘engage in domestic political debates’ with the media and could not in his role as the head of the State Department.”

READ MORE: Cannon Blocks Classified Docs Report as Trump Targets Ex-Officials Over ‘Sensitive’ Info

“I hope you guys all understand that my days – at least in the time at the Department of State – of engaging in domestic politics will be put aside as I focus on the affairs the United States has around the world and the engagements we have to have to make our country a safer, stronger, more prosperous place,” he said, after refusing to respond.

When pressed again, Rubio apparently expressed frustration.

“I think it’s unfortunate, you know, our first engagement as I agree to come on this morning with you. I’m going to be working on foreign policy issues, and you want to revisit these issues that are going on in domestic politics. I’m just – it’s not going to happen,” Rubio said. “If you have questions for me about foreign policy and engaging in the world, I’d be happy to talk to you about those.”

Watch the videos below or at this link.

READ MORE: Skipping Hand on Bible, Trump Declares ‘We Will Not Forget Our God’ at Inauguration

Image via Reuters

 

Continue Reading

News

Trump Defends His TikTok Flip Flop: America Has ‘Bigger Problems’ Than Young Kids’ Privacy

Published

18 hours ago

on

January 21, 2025

By

President Donald Trump has taken varied stances on TikTok, the wildly popular social media app that experts — including members of Congress and the FBI — warn poses risks to U.S. national security and raises significant privacy concerns for American users. Now, Trump is now disregarding those issues and leveraging his presidential authority to intervene in favor of the Chinese-owned platform, which, under federal law, was to be sold to a U.S. company or banned in the United States by January 19.

“Every rich person has called me about TikTok,” Trump declared to reporters Monday evening, highlighting his newfound relationships with tech billionaires, some of whom were noticeably on stage near him during the inauguration.

About a dozen countries, including the U.S., have banned, fined, or restricted the use of TikTok in various ways, including by children or on government devices, according to a Washington Post report.

Calling it a “national emergency,” Trump in 2020, during his first term as president, signed an executive order aiming to ban TikTok, citing a wide range of issues, including “information and communications technology and services supply chain.”

READ MORE: Cannon Blocks Classified Docs Report as Trump Targets Ex-Officials Over ‘Sensitive’ Info

“Specifically, the spread in the United States of mobile applications developed and owned by companies in the People’s Republic of China (China) continues to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. At this time, action must be taken to address the threat posed by one mobile application in particular, TikTok,” his executive order read.

“TikTok automatically captures vast swaths of information from its users, including Internet and other network activity information such as location data and browsing and search histories,” the order stated. “This data collection threatens to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans’ personal and proprietary information — potentially allowing China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage.”

Trump’s order also cited the risk of censorship by the Chinese Communist Party, and said the app “may also be used for disinformation campaigns that benefit the Chinese Communist Party, such as when TikTok videos spread debunked conspiracy theories about the origins of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus.”

Now, Trump is dismissing all those privacy and national security concerns, going so far as to apparently minimize concerns raised about how TikTok reportedly affects children.

In October, NPR reported that “internal TikTok communications have been made public that show a company unconcerned with the harms the app poses for American teenagers. This is despite its own research validating many child safety concerns.”

“As TikTok’s 170 million U.S. users can attest, the platform’s hyper-personalized algorithm can be so engaging it becomes difficult to close the app. TikTok determined the precise amount of viewing it takes for someone to form a habit: 260 videos. After that, according to state investigators, a user ‘is likely to become addicted to the platform.'”

According to NPR, 14 state attorneys general conducted an investigation into TikTok, spanning more than two years.

Investigators in Kentucky wrote that while 260 videos “may seem substantial, TikTok videos can be as short as 8 seconds and are played for viewers in rapid-fire succession, automatically.”

READ MORE: Skipping Hand on Bible, Trump Declares ‘We Will Not Forget Our God’ at Inauguration

“Thus, in under 35 minutes, an average user is likely to become addicted to the platform,” they alleged.

NPR also reported that “TikTok’s own research states that ‘compulsive usage correlates with a slew of negative mental health effects like loss of analytical skills, memory formation, contextual thinking, conversational depth, empathy, and increased anxiety,’ according to the suit.”

“In addition, the documents show that TikTok was aware that ‘compulsive usage also interferes with essential personal responsibilities like sufficient sleep, work/school responsibilities, and connecting with loved ones.'”

Those concerns did not appear to be on display Monday during Trump’s inauguration.

“TikTok’s CEO Shou Zi Chew was seated next to Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump’s nominee to be the director of national intelligence, at the Capitol as Trump was sworn-in,” The Wall Street Journal reported, noting that “the seating of Chew and Gabbard together comes as TikTok is under scrutiny for national security concerns.”

Later on Monday, reporters asked Trump why he flipped his position on TikTok and now supports it.

“Because I’ve got to use it. And remember, TikTok is largely about kids, young kids.”

“If China’s gonna get information about young kids, I don’t know,” he said appearing to shrug off the implications. “I think to be honest with you, I think we have bigger problems than that.”

“But, you know, when you take a look at telephones that are made in China and all the other things that are made in China, military equipment made in China. TikTok, I think TikTok is not their biggest problem.”

Trump went on to make the case for why he says the federal government should own half of TikTok.

“But there’s big value in TikTok if it gets approved. If it doesn’t get approved, there’s no value. So if we create that value, why aren’t we entitled to like half?”

The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake, responding to Trump’s remarks, noted, “Members of the House Energy and Commerce committee saw the intelligence on this and quickly voted 50-0 in favor of the ban.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump Expected to Target Citizenship of Children With Undocumented Parents

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.