Rose Garden Speech by President Obama on 9-12-12

Last night's debate touched on an array of topics and resulted in a more two-sided debate than the first one. Each candidate did their best to bring out their points and to counter the others assertions. To President Obama's credit he did go more on the attack but Governor Romney didn't waiver from the onslaught. In one exchange on the topic of Libya and the death of  the US Ambassador, President Obama did a masterful job of saying the buck stops here. Earlier in the day Secretary of State Clinton fell on the sword saying that her department, more specifically, that it responsibility and blame fell squarely on her shoulders.

Without having that tag line, Governor Romney attempted to seize on the notion that President Obama and his administration hadn't declared the attack on the Embassy a terror attack. The moderator Candy Crowley informed Governor Romney that President Obama had indeed called the attack on the embassy a terror attack. Afterward on the major channels it was discussed and video was shown of the statement that President Obama made. Yet, the clip shown and the quip used may not have been used accurately in the context of President Obama's speech that day because for the next two weeks after the attack the Administration denied the fact that it was a terrorist attack; rather they blamed it on a spontaneous riot due to a Youtube video. Here is the transcript from the September 12th Rose Garden speech given by President Obama:

“Good Morning. Everyday all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interest and values of our nation.

Often, they are away from their families, sometimes in great, great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador Chris Stevens, as well as his Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.

We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed and today the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns, in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world.
And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people. Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.

We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.

The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts. Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. 

Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’ body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It’s especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi.

With characteristic skill, courage and resolve he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya.

When the Gadhafi regime came to an end Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy. And I think both Secretary Clinton and I have relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there.

He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps. 

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is 

still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. And today the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. 

I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who loved them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourn with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those, both civilian and military, who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. 

Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the very 

best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.
We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory and let us continue their work in seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children. Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost, and may God bless the United States of America.”

Now, President Obama does not call out directly the attack on the embassy as a terror attack nor that it was planned effort by known terrorists. President Obama actually calls the attack a "terrible act". While I am sure that Governor Romney had his talking point on this one, he missed a golden opportunity to set the record straight. What are your thoughts to the parsing of words by moderator last night and the words from the transcript? Did President Obama call out the attack on the US Embassy a terrorist attack or was he talking in general terms?

Buffet rule - Class Warfare or Simple Math?

I received this today from the Obama administration after President Obama announced the "Buffet rule" at a Rose Garden ceremony today:

This morning, the President proposed the "Buffett Rule," which would require those earning more than $1 million a year to pay the same share of their income in taxes as middle-class families do.

This proposal makes sure millionaires and billionaires share the responsibility for reducing the deficit. It would correct, for example, the fact that Warren Buffett's secretary currently pays taxes at a higher rate than he does.

The other side is already saying it's "class warfare" -- that's their rhetorical smokescreen for providing millionaires and billionaires special treatment.

As the President said this morning, "This is not class warfare -- it's math."

The wealthiest Americans don't need further tax cuts and in many cases aren't even asking for them. Requiring that they pay their fair share is the only practical way forward. The Republican alternative is to drastically slash education, gut Medicare, let roads and bridges crumble, and privatize Social Security. That's not the America we believe in -- but many in the Republican leadership actually prefer those policies, which explains their refusal to act.

That's why they'll say "tax increase" over and over again, trying to muddy the waters and trick ordinary Americans into thinking the Buffett Rule will hurt them. And if we don't speak out right now, they just might get away with it.
Of course, the Buffett Rule won't really touch most Americans -- only 0.3% of households will even be affected.

And without it, the only way to reduce our debt is to savage the programs that seniors and middle-class families rely on.

That's exactly what the President refuses to do -- in fact, he's said he'll veto any bill that changes benefits for folks who rely on Medicare but doesn't raise serious revenue by asking the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to pay their fair share.

This isn't just a commonsense approach to cutting the deficit -- it's the only way to make sure we can provide security to people who work hard and play by the rules.

So right now, I'm asking you to say you'll stand with the President on something that won't be easy. Get the President's back today:

http://my.barackobama.com/Buffett-Rule

Thanks,

Messina

Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

My question is why do we distorting the facts? It is true the Warren Buffet effective tax rate is less than his secretaries nominal rate but if his secretary is making under $60,000 there is a very good chance that she pays 0% in an effective tax rate. So why don't we all get on the same page when talking about these rates. That being said it is widely accepted that our revenue, no matter the tax rate, ranges between 16-18% of GDP historically. The other widely accepted truth is that our current spending is north of 22% of GDP.

To get a handle on our deficit spending is not to raise revenue as President Obama would like for us to think; rather we need to get our spending under control. Notice that President Obama is not out there trying to defend the $535M given to Solyndra from the last Stimulus package that has now gone belly up! Perhaps we could use that money to help fix Medicare, Medicaid or SSN. Instead the notion is to raise taxes on the wealthy and claim it is not class warfare.

If we want to get serious about our deficit then start with the tax code. Flatten the tax code to 8% and eliminate all tax credits and deductions for everyone. Eliminate the corporate tax rate, and all tax credits and incentives, as corporations simply pass along those taxes onto the consumer. Then on investment income - raise short term capital gains to 55% while putting long term capital gains at 15% - this will curb some of the hedging that exists and encourage people to think long term as well.

Unemployment Benefit Extension: Stimulus or Increase debt

President Obama took a mini-vacation over the weekend will be holding a Rose Garden press conference this morning to berate Republicans for their filibustering of unemployment extended benefits. During Obama's weekly internet address he stated, "Too often, the Republican leadership in the United States Senate chooses to filibuster our recovery and obstruct our progress. And that has very real consequences" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100717/ts_nm/us_obama_republicans_3). President Obama fails to realize that prior to Sen. Kennedy's death the Democrats had 60 votes to overcome any filibuster Republicans attempted in the Senate. That power in the Senate allowed Obama and Democrats used that power to pass $862 billion stimulus plan last year that was suppose to keep unemployment below 8% and create 8 to 9 million jobs. As we all know unemployment has topped 10% and still hovers around 10%. Now, if one believes the government numbers the Stimulus saved or crated 2.3 million jobs since passing stimulus.

Speaker Pelosi, and was echoed by MSNBC Pundits, are stating that extending unemployment benefits will stimulate the economy. Really? People, on average, are paid just enough money to make the bills. How is just making the bills stimulating the economy? Republicans are right in blocking the extension of unemployment benefits as it does not stimulate the economy. What about President's pledge of "Pay as you Go". It is not the Republicans are against the unemployed; rather they are holding Obama to his own motto. Many economists are stating that the recovery is stalling out.

The Star Tribune ran an article from the New York Times, The Rich are Cutting Back, Stalling Economy's Recovery, on July 17^th. Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Analytics stated in the article, "One of the reasons that the recovery has lost momentum is that high-end consumers have become more jittery and more cautious." To which the article hints that additional stimulus may be required. During the last session of the Minnesota Legislature an additional tax on the richest Minnesotans was floated and a similar tax hike is being floating around Washington D.C. and perhaps this is the real reason why the rich are jittery about spending more money.

Motoko Rich, who authored the above article, stated that the top 5 percent income earners represent 60 percent of the country's economic activity. That being said does it make sense to take more money away from the top 5 percent? The CBO warned late last year that the United States is on a collision course as debt ratio is on a trajectory that will put the United States in the league of Greece. So let Obama slam Republicans in the Rose Garden today as the Republicans are just holding Obama to his own words; "Pay as you Go". Still unsure how extending unemployment benefits will stimulate the economy as I doubt people are using those checks to buy a home, a car, a new TV or going on vacation; rather isn't the money being used to keep the lights on, the roof over their heads, and food on the table?