All Articles Tagged "Obama"
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 21, 2015
President Obama, who some had expected might deliver a State of the Union address befitting a lame duck, instead touted economic growth and pressed for more policies to help the middle class. Obama used the annual podium to talk about low gas prices (below $2 per gallon), job creation, more Americans getting healthcare, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drawing to a close and high graduation rates. He also talked about the future, a discussion that started a couple of weeks ago when he proposed free community college for those who can maintain the GPA, enhancements to cybersecurity, paid and sick leave for workers, more access to broadband internet and more tax breaks for the middle class. ICYMI, here’s the transcript of his speech. Overall, the theme was one of “middle class economics.”
He challenged the Congress to discuss policies with solutions and compromise in mind. And he hit on some controversial topics, from further opening relations with Cuba to tackling climate change.
But the topic of helping the middle class is where he spent a good chunk of time as opposed to benefits for poor Americans, which Republicans tend to frame as “entitlements” that the country can’t afford.
Still, in order to help the middle class, Obama suggested higher taxes for the rich, which Republicans have a problem with as well. And now they have big wins in the midterm elections to fall back on, saying the people have spoken and it’s their policies that they’ve selected.
“He has ignored the will of the people, instead choosing to offer up the same tired and failed policy proposals we’ve seen unsuccessfully implemented for the past six years,” The Wall Street Journal quotes Rep. Michael McCaul (R., Texas), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
For the President, helping the middle class means enacting laws and benefits that help women, such as help paying for child care and equal pay. He also talked about raising the minimum wage and the struggle to live on $15,000 per year.
“If you truly believe you could work full-time & support a family on less than $15,000 a year, try it.” —Obama pic.twitter.com/MsHkVdUnhM
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 21, 2015
The Daily Beast framed the proposals as a “dare”; that the American people will be looking for a piece of the prosperity that seems to be going almost exclusively to the one percent. And now that the economy is doing better people will start to feel like these are investments we can make. With an approval rating on the rise, the President can afford to apply some pressure.
So even faced with a majority Republican Congress, President Obama gave a confident SOTU. And then there was this epic shade.
OMG… for days. And then VP Joe Biden on backup with the mean mug remix. Also, this.
Obama wink.gif pic.twitter.com/VruDO3g7Vr
— Dave Itzkoff (@ditzkoff) January 21, 2015
The environment. Unemployment. ISIL. Which moment has you talking this morning?
President Obama wants to make broadband available for the masses. He has called for repeal of state laws preventing communities from creating broadband networks. Speaking at Cedar Falls Utilities in Iowa, Obama talked about steps to increase access to affordable, high-speed broadband across the United States.
This has been a mission for Obama, who, for the second time in three months, spoke out against large cable and telephone companies that provide the bulk of the nation’s Internet service.
According to Obama, having access to faster speeds would create jobs and let local businesses to compete in the global economy. “Today high-speed broadband is not a luxury, it’s a necessity,” Obama said.
While 94 percent of Americans living in urban areas can purchase an Internet connection of 25 megabits per second, only 51 percent of Americans in rural areas have access to such Internet speeds, found a new White House report.
On top of this, due to the lack of competition three out of four Americans lack a choice for such Internet service.
“Tens of millions of Americans have only one choice for that next-generation broadband. So, they’re pretty much at the whim of whatever Internet provider is around,” Obama said.
Obama now wants the Federal Communications Commission to “pre-empt state laws that stifle competition and said his administration will work to cut red tape so more communities can get connected,” reports Chicago Tribune.
Obama promises that his administration will give technical and financial assistance to towns and cities that want to improve Internet service for residents. Through this initiative, the White House also announced that the Commerce Department would promote greater broadband access by offering regional workshops and technical assistance to communities. And, the Agriculture Department plans to provide grants and loans of $40 million to $50 million to assist rural areas.
Of course, the industry isn’t too happy about Obama’s stance. In fact, president Meredith Attwell Baker of industry lobbying group, CTIA-The Wireless Association, said in a statement: “The president’s focus today on using taxpayer money to compete with commercial providers, which are pouring billions in private capital every year into U.S. broadband infrastructure and jobs, is the wrong path forward. The wireless industry has invested $100 billion in the last four years alone. In such a vigorously competitive market, government-owned networks would only serve to chill private-sector investment, tilt the competitive playing field and harm consumers.”
Right now, 19 states have restrictions on municipal broadband networks and many have laws encouraged by cable and telephone companies.
“The FCC is already considering requests for Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina, to prevent state laws from blocking the expansion of their broadband projects,” reports the Tribune.
North Korea is experiencing it’s second country-wide internet blackout.
The news comes after North Korea called President Obama “a monkey”, blamed the U.S for their first internet blackout and the release of the comedy “The Interview.” On Saturday, North Korea representatives said, “Obama always goes reckless in words and deeds like a monkey in a tropical forest,” in regards to the release of The Interview. The rep also said the U.S was behind the outages of North Korean websites.
According to the North Korea commission’s spokesman, “the U.S., a big country, started disturbing the Internet operation of major media of the DPRK, not knowing shame like children playing a tag.”
North Korea is believed to have been behind the devastating hack on Sony Pictures. However, North Korea has denied involvement with the cyberattack. Korea has expressed rage against the movie, The Interview, being released and made period.
North Korea has threatened to retaliate against the U.S on multiple occasions. The U.S and North Korea have technically remained in a state of war since the 1950s.
So what were the ratings on such a circumscribed broadcast? According to Deadline, the initial numbers show network primetime ratings were disrupted as people went to other networks to hear the 17-minute speech.. NBC’s Biggest Loser was substantially impacted by Obama’s speech. so too was the start of the NFL game.
Maybe the White House’s social media promotion helped ratings. The White House previewed the address the day before it was to air on television in a minute-long Facebook video post, reports NBC Atlanta affiliate 11 Alive.
“Hi everybody,” the president said while leaning on his Oval Office desk. “Tomorrow night, I’m going to be announcing, here from the White House, some steps that I can take to fix our broken immigration system.”
The video got a whopping 1.5 million views on Facebook in its first four hours.
The actual speech got mixed reviews. The New Yorker praised the speech. “It was direct and to the point; it had some uplifting moments, particularly at the end; and it was relatively short—about fifteen minutes,” reports the magazine.
Bloomberg meanwhile called the speech incoherent.
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) September 11, 2014
A whopping 34 million-plus people tuned in to watch President Obama’s speech on the terror group ISIS on Wednesday night, according to the Nielsen company. During the speech, Obama promised to “degrade and destroy” ISIS. The speech, however popular for viewing, got mixed reviews from the Hill. And, as with most things, responses were divided along party lines.
“The speech was immediately criticized by some of Obama’s fiercest foreign policy opponents. Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz dubbed the speech ‘fundamentally unserious’ on Fox News. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), using another acronym for ISIL, said on CNN that ‘the president really doesn’t have a grasp for how serious the threat from ISIS is,’” reports Politico.
But Senate Democrats praised the speech. According to Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Obama’s plan was a “forceful strategy.”
The particular speech pulled in a larger audience than several previous speeches by the president, even one on Iraq in 2010 and another on health care in 2009. The latest speech was carried on 14 different television outlets.
But it was not Obama’s most popular televised speech. Two speeches he delivered on television in 2009 had more viewers. One he gave on the stimulus plan reached 49.4 million viewers, and another to a joint session of Congress had 52.3 million viewers. The latter was Obama’s biggest audience.
“On the broadcast networks on Wednesday, NBC had about twice as many viewers as its primary news competitors. It averaged 10.4 million viewers compared with 5.4 million for ABC and five million for CBS,” reports The New York Times.
Looking at the cable news numbers, Fox News attracted the largest audience for the speech, with 4.45 million people watching. Surprisingly, CNN, which usually gets a boost in viewers from live news, did not catch up to Fox News’ figures, with 1.83 million. MSNBC even beat them, with 1.9 million, even though NBC was also broadcasting the speech.
Leaders from all over Africa are meeting in DC with President Obama and American leaders for the much-anticipated US-Africa Leaders Summit.
Other countries such as China, Portugal, France, Russia have all taken advantage of business opportunities on the African continent while the U.S. relegated its relationship to one of aid provider. That is until now. President Obama is looking to create that business relationship with the continent.
Of course, as most know, Obama has strong blood ties to Africa as his father was an U.S. immigrant from Kenya. And now he has become the first president to convene a U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit. But Obama’s efforts to make a real impression in Africa have been hampered.
“Meanwhile, Republicans in the U.S. Senate, determined to stop Obama from doing anything rational, have created a diplomatic logjam. More than 30 ambassador candidates, stifled from representing American interests to about a quarter of the world, are frozen in political limbo, their embassies without steady leadership. The candidates are waiting for the Senate to confirm them, but the Senate Republicans won’t vote,” reports The Root.
According to The Root, there are 13 African nations that do not have American ambassadors. Among those are Sierra Leone, Niger, Namibia, Cameroon, Lesotho, Mauritania, Zambia and Algeria.
“It sends the message that the United States doesn’t care,” says U.S. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), co-chair of the Congressional Black Caucus’ Africa Taskforce and a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Meeks says he wants the Republicans in the Senate to “stop playing political games” and give Obama the 60-vote threshold he must have to approve these appointments. By doing so, business opportunities between African and Americans, particularly African Americans, will open up.
According to Moses K. Tesi, a professor in the political science department of Middle Tennessee State University and editor of the Journal of African Policy Studies, ambassadors are more than necessary in foreign relations.
An ambassador, Tesi tells The Root, is an on-the-ground liaison between the business communities of both nations as well as a leader in cross-cultural exchanges. Without an ambassador, Tesi cautions, the US will be unable to leverage a more powerful role in Africa’s 54 countries.
It should also be noted that some African leaders — Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir, Eritrea’s Isaias Afwerki and Central African Republic’s Catherine Samba-Panza — have been excluded from the Summit because of human rights abuses. Experts say they stand to lose a lot by not taking part.
The Summit ends today.
“So sue me,” were the words President Obama said to Republicans last week after explaining his plans to take executive action without the support of the GOP, who he feels are stalling pressing matters such as healthcare reform.
Specifically, Republicans plan to sue President Obama over his decision to delay a requirement in the health care law for businesses to provide coverage to employees. One senior administration official also pointed out that the same lawmakers who are filing a suit against Obama for his action ultimately voted (last July) to do the exact same thing at the exact same time.
House Republicans (led by Speaker John Boehner) plan to move forward with a lawsuit against Obama with claims that he is abusing his executive power. However, it’s been noted a number of times that President Obama has issued far fewer executive orders than other presidents, including those like Ronald Reagan who are highly supported by conservative Republicans.
“That’s not the way our system of government was designed to work. No president should have the power to make laws on his or her own,” Boehner said in a statement.
The GOP has been very open about the fact that they hate the sweeping healthcare law, and claim that Obama changed the law’s employer mandate on his own. By the end of the month, the Republican-led House is expected to have voted on a resolution to have authorized legal action to taken against the President in what would be The House v. Obama. The process began today with constitutional lawyers appearing before lawmakers to explain why the lawsuit should and shouldn’t move forward.
The White House released a statement expressing disappointment in the lawsuit, and calls the action taken by the GOP a “political stunt.”
“As the President said today, he is doing his job — lawsuit or not — and it’s time Republicans in Congress did theirs,” the statement said.
Also pointing out how taxpayers dollars are going to be going towards the lawsuit, the White House press secretary adds, “At a time when Washington should be working to expand economic opportunities for the middle class, Republican leaders in Congress are playing Washington politics rather than working with the President on behalf of hardworking Americans.”
Many disagree with the move, including minority leader Nancy Pelosi, who calls the move “another toxic partisan stunt.”
Others question why the lawsuit includes nothing about the immigration reform the President recently took executive action to implement, even though that has been another area which the GOP and Obama have been butting heads.
Some believe it is based solely on the fact that the Republican party blatantly dislikes the President and his reforms, and not so much about protecting the constitution. The GOP, of course, suggests it’s not.
“It’s not about Republicans versus Democrats. This is about the legislative branch that’s being disadvantaged by the executive branch. And it’s not about executive actions. Every president does executive orders. [It’s about Obama] basically rewriting law to make it fit his own needs,” says Boehner.
Mitt Romney has President Obama’s back?
Robert Copeland, police commissioner of Wolfeboro, N.H., admitted to calling President Obama a “n*****,” but refused to apologize, even after facing fury from town residents and a number of other high-profile names. Romney, also a resident of the small town, called for Copeland step down from his position for using the racial epithet, CNN reports. Those calls have been heard: Copeland is gone.
“I believe I did use the ‘N’ word in reference to the current occupant of the Whitehouse,” Copeland, 82, wrote in a recent email to his fellow commissioners. “For this, I do not apologize — he meets and exceeds my criteria for such.”
Jane O’Toole, a resident who just moved to the predominantly-white community of Wolfeboro four months ago, claims she overheard Copeland use the racial epithet to refer to Obama at a local restaurant in March. “She heard him say he hates turning on that television because every time he does, there’s that ‘f***ing n*****’,” Daily Mail wrote.
O’Toole complained to the town manager, which reportedly led to the aforementioned email.
At a town meeting on Thursday, furious residents demanded Copeland apologize and resign for using the slur against the POTUS. Arms crossed and unbending, Copeland refused to budge.
“Comments like these, especially coming from a public official, are not only inexcusable but also terribly, unfortunately, reflects poorly on our town,” O’Toole said at the meeting.
Romney, who owns a home in Wolfeboro, defended the president and urged Copeland to apologize. “The vile epithet used and confirmed by the commissioner has no place in our community: He should just apologize and resign,” Romney told CNN on Sunday. Scott Brown, the former Senator from Massachusetts who’s running in New Hampshire, also called for his resignation.
New Hamphire’s population is 94 percent white and one percent black. Only 20 black residents live in Wolfeboro, a town with 6,300 people. “None of the town police department’s 12 full-time officers is black or a member of another minority,” the Associated Press adds.
Even though the Great Recession came to an end almost five years ago, in June 2009, the gap between the rich and poor is growing at such an alarming rate that President Obama will highlight economic inequality as a priority during his State of the Union Address on Tuesday.
Amazingly, this is one thing all sides of the aisle agree on. Sixty-one percent of Republicans, 68 percent of Democrats, 67 percent of independents think the gap is widening and has to be addressed, reports USA Today.
And two-thirds of people surveyed in a new USA Today/Pew Research Center Poll, feel the gap is increasing. There is hard evidence: The wealthiest one percent of Americans saw its share of income double from less than 10 percent in 1980 to nearly 20 percent now. Even though the economy is improving, conditions are not improving for Americans across the board. About six in 10 people revealed in the poll that their family income is lagging behind the cost of living. Another third say they are just breaking even. Only seven percent feel they are ahead.
But Americans don’t just want talk. They want action. An overwhelming 82 percent want the government to reduce poverty. The President is expect to lay out his plan during the speech.
Obama says he understands the concerns. Last month during a speech he warned that higher inequality and lessening upward mobility “pose a fundamental threat to the American dream, our way of life and what we stand for around the globe.”
One way to improve conditions would be through an increased minimum wage, which Obama is pushing for and several states have already adopted. Seventy-three of those polled favor the minimum wage boost from $7.25 an hour to $10.10. They–63 percent–also want federal benefits for the long-term unemployed to be extended. Unfortunately, these proposals have both stalled in Congress.
People are divided on government aid to the poor. Some 49 percent agree government aid allows people to escape poverty. But 44 percent, say it makes people too dependent on government assistance.
However, only a third surveyed back the traditional Republican view that the private sector must step up. Instead 54 percent say increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations to support programs for the poor would reduce poverty.
Despite the obvious inequality, Americans still believe in the American dream, found the USA Today survey. Sixty percent continue to believe that if you work hard, you will be rewarded. But a majority complain the country’s economic system “unfairly favors the wealthy.” Still about half say those who are rich are so because they worked harder, not due to more advantages in life.
And Americans don’t blame the poor: “By 50 percent-35 percent, they say poverty is generally a result of circumstances beyond a person’s control, not a lack of effort,” reports USA Today.
Despite the optimism, Americans want the gap closed. Wages have been stagnant for 10 or more years and millions remain unemployed. All of this has hurt Obama’s job-approval rating. Less than half of Americans– 43 percent–approve; 49 percent say he’s doing poorly. This is the lowest his approval rating in the Pew poll since 2009, when Obama was first inaugurated. Just a year ago, he had a 52 percent approval rating.
What do you want to hear in Obama’s State of the Union speech?