Obama To Discuss Inequality With Pope Francis In March

[ProSense]

Obama To Discuss Inequality With Pope Francis In March

President Barack Obama is expected to meet with Pope Francis in March, the White House announced Tuesday.

The President looks forward to discussing his and the pontiff's shared commitment to fighting poverty and growing inequality, the White House said, adding that details of the meeting would come at a later date.

Obama cited the Pope's critical view of trickle-down economics last year in an address laying out his second-term economic priorities, and has repeatedly called growing income inequality the "defining challenge of our time."

The President will travel to Vatican City on March 27 as part of a swing through Europe that includes visiting the Netherlands for the Nuclear Security Summit and Brussels, Belgium for a U.S.-EU Summit.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama_meeting_pope_francis

Wonder if Obama reads DU?

Pope Francis shows Democrats how to take back America
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024226840

Obama Tells New Mayors He’ll Help Fight Inequality

By PETER BAKER

WASHINGTON — President Obama vowed on Friday to join Bill de Blasio, the mayor-elect of New York, and other urban leaders in an effort to combat growing inequalities in American society and pressed Congress to extend unemployment benefits now set to expire.

“What we know is we’ve still got a lot of work to do to deliver a vision that we all share, which is an America where if you work hard, you can make it,” Mr. Obama said as he welcomed Mr. de Blasio and other newly elected mayors to the White House.

The meeting was an opportunity for the president to summon the momentum of Mr. de Blasio’s election as he increasingly makes the themes of disparity between rich and poor a theme of his second term. Many liberals hoped that Mr. de Blasio’s strong victory in November on such a platform signaled newfound public support for policies that would help lower-income Americans left behind as the economic recovery powers a surge on Wall Street.

Mr. de Blasio emerged from the White House enthusiastic about the budding alliance. “There was real passion in the president’s voice,” he said in the driveway outside the West Wing. “We all now know clearly that he will be a partner in all we do.”

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/nyregion/obama-tells-mayors-hell-help-fight-inequality.html

Obama's inequality speech: telling the progressive story of American history
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/05/1260417/-Obama-s-inequality-speech-telling-the-progressive-story-of-American-history

[cali]

1. and this month the administration is beating the drums for fast track as the President

tries to shove the horrendous tpp down our collective gullets.

lip service to the working classes all else to the corporate class. that's our President.

[ProSense]

2. He's also

"beating the drums" for this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024354098

Are you suggesting that he shouldn't discuss inequality with the Pope because the TPP is being debated?

"lip service to the working classes all else to the corporate class. that's our President."

I'd say that comment is part of a pattern: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024356236

Batting zero.

[Katashi_itto]

4. "Batting zero..." This from the person whose flooded DU with Anti-Snowden Pro-NSA propaganda?

"Slight" disconnect there

[ProSense]

5. Here

"This from the person whose flooded DU with Anti-Snowden Pro-NSA propaganda?"

...is a post in an NSA-relevant thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024363075#post3

This thread is about the Obama's meeting with the Pope.

[Katashi_itto]

6. Deflect, sidestep and still "batting zero" see post #4 on that thread, here's your theme song

Its is classy though

[cali]

7. lol. what else is there?

[Katashi_itto]

10. .

[ProSense]

11. Facts? Still, you know the irony

you're constant fawning over the Pope despite his views that disnenfranchise hundreds of millions of people, but you can't accept any positive comments from Obama

Yes, I like Pope Francis. Sue me
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024003860

[cali]

12. bwahahahaha. I love it when you get all agitated

sorry, but I think it's funny. Oh, and the Pope isn't pushing the tpp, pro.

[ProSense]

14. "Oh, and the Pope isn't pushing the tpp, pro."

Does that mean you're cool with his comments disenfranchising hundreds of millions of people?

I mean, how does that kind of inquality compare to TPP? Is this better than TPP:

Arizona bill allows businesses to discriminate against unmarried women, non-Christians
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024366004

[ProSense]

8. LOL!

"Deflect, sidestep"

"This from the person" who posted about Snowden in a completely unrelated thread.

[Katashi_itto]

9. See post number 4 on that thread, seems you were doing that too

[phleshdef]

49. Its not deflection or sidestepping when you are the one trying to change the subject.

Some of you folks are exactly like the teabaggers when it comes to a debate, you try to change the subject to your advantage to avoid being wrong on the subject at hand.

[Number23]

106. What does that have to do with anything in the OP of THIS thread?

[Katashi_itto]

3. Agree!

[pampango]

17. Everything is not about the TPP (which is probably not going to pass anyway). Obama should

talk with anyone and everyone about inequality. Besides inequality is much more about taxes, unions and the safety net than it is about trade or 'partnership' agreements.

[JaneyVee]

13. OMG RWNJ HEADS WILL EXPLODE!

[ProSense]

15. Not just the RW.

[ProSense]

16. Kick! n/t

[cali]

18. what on earth will you do when President Obama's term is over?

somehow I don't imagine that your adoration will be so easily transferred, but who knows?

[ProSense]

19. Don't you

"what on earth will you do when President Obama's term is over? somehow I don't imagine that your adoration will be so easily transferred, but who knows?"

...think that question and comment are weird?

Given that you admitted to trying to destroy his credibility (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024356236#post22), probably not.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Financial inequality, but not equality for women or LGBT people

They will discuss shit they can not really deliver on 'the end of poverty' while ignoring actual changes they could both instantly make to create a more fair and equitable world, such as permitting birth control and then making it available to all who want it.
They claim they can ease poverty while continuing to insist on no choice for women and no condoms to prevent disease and no other birth control. Which is delusional.

[ProSense]

21. If by

Financial inequality, but not equality for women or LGBT people

They will discuss shit they can not really deliver on 'the end of poverty' while ignoring actual changes they could both instantly make to create a more fair and equitable world, such as permitting birth control and then making it available to all who want it.
They claim they can ease poverty while continuing to insist on no choice for women and no condoms to prevent disease and no other birth control. Which is delusional.

..."they" you mean the Pope and Catholic organizations, then you are correct. President Obama is not the Pope.

Obama's Lawyers Shoot Down Catholic Groups' Objections To Birth Control Mandate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/obamacare-catholic-birth-control-mandate_n_4536754.html

“With the stroke of a pen, President Obama has lifted the stranglehold on women’s health across the globe. His repeal of the global gag rule ends eight long years of policies that have blocked access to basic health care for women worldwide. No longer will health care providers be forced to choose between receiving family planning funding and restricting the health care services they provide to women.

“Expanding access to family planning is not only good, basic health care; it saves women’s lives. In some parts of Africa, women have a one-in-10 risk of dying in childbirth, a sad fact only exacerbated by the gag rule. Women’s health and well-being are the bedrock of freedom and independence for individuals, families, and entire communities. Avoiding disease, having access to clean water and nutritious food, deciding whether and when to have children, and being safe in pregnancy and childbirth make women stronger and improve the quality of life for families and communities.

“Planned Parenthood thanks President Obama for taking immediate action on this critical health issue. With President Obama, women in the U.S. and around the world have a president who puts protecting and strengthening women’s health first. Just a few days after he’s taken office, we can clearly say that thanks to President Obama, it truly is a new day for women’s health.”

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/planned-parenthood-president-cecile-richardsstatement-president-obamas-executive-order-overturn-23615.htm

In turnaround, U.S. signs U.N. gay rights document
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/18/us-rights-gay-usa-idUSTRE52H5CK20090318

Obama administration calls on United Nations to support gay rights
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/23/nation/la-na-obama-gays-20110323

[dbackjon]

48. Great post!

[Glassunion]

22. What the hell are they going to discuss?

Obama: Hey Pope!
Pope: Obama!
Obama: How are you doing?
Pope: Not bad... You?
Obama: Ok... Hey, this whole income inequality thingy sux!
Pope: No shit! I don't like it either.
Obama: What should we do?
Pope: I dunno. Maybe write a letter or something?
Obama: Nah. I'm busy. I gotta get out there and talk about getting TPP passed.
Pope: What's that?
Obama: Not sure, but it makes campaign donors happy.
Pope: What's it do?
Obama: Keeps the price of electronics down or something. Hey! That reminds me. I got a new PS4, you wanna play Call of Duty?
Pope: Fuck yeah!
Obama: What's your PSN name?
Pope: HolySeeULaterz... You?
Obama: Upp3rManag3m3nt.

[ProSense]

23. What

"What the hell are they going to discuss?"

...you don't like the Pope?

Yes, I like Pope Francis. Sue me
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024003860

Pope Francis shows Democrats how to take back America
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024226840

President Obama could do this (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024354098 or this (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024351972)

You know, he has a little more power than the ability to "write a letter." Of course, Congress could help to advance this agenda.

[Glassunion]

24. "Of course, Congress could help to advance this agenda."

But that is not Congress' agenda.

I'm not saying they do not have honorable agendas. I like Obama, and the pope. However, I fear it will be little more than talk.

[ProSense]

25. Sure, Congress

"But that is not Congress' agenda. "

...is an obstacle, but my point was that the President can act on somethings. For example, an executive order on the minimum wage moves the policy forward, but only Congress can increase it across the board.

The overtime issue is another example.

[NCTraveler]

26. Seriously?

One of Clintons biggest failures was NAFTA. One of NAFTA's biggest supporters is Obama. Did NAFTA create income inequality? Sometimes things are just laughable.

[ProSense]

28. You're

"One of Clintons biggest failures was NAFTA. One of NAFTA's biggest supporters is Obama. Did NAFTA create income inequality?"

...right, "Sometimes things are just laughable."

Thanks for demonstrating. Ergo! LOL!

[NCTraveler]

29. Appreciate the backup.

It is sad that the last two democratic presidents would support such a trade agreement, then in a great display of hypocrisy, go around the world talking about income inequality.

[ProSense]

30. I see,

"It is sad that the last two democratic presidents would support such a trade agreement, then in a great display of hypocrisy, go around the world talking about income inequality."

...the point you made is that Obama shouldn't talk about income inequality because of a leap of logic about NAFTA?

[NCTraveler]

31. Your post here needs to just stand on its own.

It speaks volumes.

"I see, ...the point you made is that Obama shouldn't talk about income inequality because of a leap of logic about NAFTA?"

There is truly no leap in logic on my part. The only leap being made is in you defying logic. I have had very few conversations with you on this board. Your ability to twist is not impressive. Neither is your passive aggressive behavior.

[ProSense]

34. Don't worry

"There is truly no leap in logic on my part. The only leap being made is in you defying logic. I have had very few conversations with you on this board. Your ability to twist is not impressive. Neither is your passive aggressive behavior. "

...I didn't find that twist on NAFTA "impressive" either.

I mean, some apparently think that being opposed to NAFTA means they have the authority to dismiss everything by attributing rising income inquality to it. I mean, it didn't help, but trying to dismiss any attempts to talk about the problem or push other policies to address it because NAFTA exist is beyond absurd.

That's what's really driving the TPP debate (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024365795#post24) for some, not a real concern for the effects, but simply to have the ability to dismiss anything positive.

You know what came before NAFTA, this:

The "Welfare Queen," The "Homeless By Choice": Reagan's Toxic Legacy
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/06/1243243/-The-Welfare-Queen-The-Homeless-By-Choice-Reagan-s-Toxic-Legacy

He managed to convince some people that he stood up for Social Security.

Reaganomics was/is a failure
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022096027

[NCTraveler]

35. Your whole post is extremely strange. I wish you the best. nt.

[ProSense]

36. No, it isn't, and in fact

you know what was a bigger contributor to rising inequality than NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

The economic crisis damn near singlehandedly wiped out the middle class.

[NCTraveler]

38. It took a little bit, but the hypocrisy is so blatant you couldn't hide from it forever.

"you know what was a bigger contributor to rising inequality than NAFTA"

What you once said was against logic, is now logical. You have come full circle all in the same thread.

[ProSense]

39. No,

It took a little bit, but the hypocrisy is so blatant you couldn't hide from it forever.

"you know what was a bigger contributor to rising inequality than NAFTA"

What you once said was against logic, is now logical. You have come full circle all in the same thread.

...that comment has nothing to do with my point about the logic of your first response. Nafta didn't help (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024365935#post34), but it is not responsible for the drastic rise in income inequality, not even close.

There is no "hypocrisy" in my point: The leap of logic is this: "One of Clintons biggest failures was NAFTA. One of NAFTA's biggest supporters is Obama. Did NAFTA create income inequality?"

[NCTraveler]

40. Good on you ProSense. I learned a valuable lesson here.

I am sure it is not the one you were hoping for, although you did work hard in teaching it.

[ProSense]

42. Huh? LOL! BTW

nice Hillary avatar.

[NCTraveler]

43. Thank you. nt.

[polichick]

27. Good photo-op.

[ProSense]

32. Bully pulpit. n/t

[polichick]

33. Which one is the bully? :)

[Vashta Nerada]

37. I think Francis would be the last person one should talk to about inequality.

[ChangeUp106]

41. Yea because he's taking action

Not just talking like our President

[Vashta Nerada]

44. What action?

Francis is all talk.

[dbackjon]

47. When he takes action and removes hateful bigoted Cardinals

Like this ASSHOLE, then get back to me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024367691

Until then, Francis is a bunch of hot air.

[treestar]

45. Wow Pro this post drew out the one issue wonders

Obama bad! Obama bad! Of course we "adore" Obama, since we think it's cool he's going to talk to the Pope.

[Armstead]

88. Not one-issue wonders--- It's a whole host of things Obama has done

If Obama would "walk his talk" more -- instead of supporting and/or acquiescing to the Corporate Agenda in his actions -- his critics here would probably give him more slack.

As it is, I hope the Pope knocks some progressive sense into Obama.

"Mr. President, why are you trying to ram through a phony "trade deal" that is designed to intensify the problems I have been talking about?"

[ProSense]

89. No

"If Obama would 'walk his talk' more -- instead of supporting and/or acquiescing to the Corporate Agenda in his actions -- his critics here would probably give him more slack."

...it wouldn't and hasn't.

"As it is, I hope the Pope knocks some progressive sense into Obama. "

I'm hoping it's the other way around:

Obama's Lawyers Shoot Down Catholic Groups' Objections To Birth Control Mandate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/obamacare-catholic-birth-control-mandate_n_4536754.html

“With the stroke of a pen, President Obama has lifted the stranglehold on women’s health across the globe. His repeal of the global gag rule ends eight long years of policies that have blocked access to basic health care for women worldwide. No longer will health care providers be forced to choose between receiving family planning funding and restricting the health care services they provide to women.

“Expanding access to family planning is not only good, basic health care; it saves women’s lives. In some parts of Africa, women have a one-in-10 risk of dying in childbirth, a sad fact only exacerbated by the gag rule. Women’s health and well-being are the bedrock of freedom and independence for individuals, families, and entire communities. Avoiding disease, having access to clean water and nutritious food, deciding whether and when to have children, and being safe in pregnancy and childbirth make women stronger and improve the quality of life for families and communities.

“Planned Parenthood thanks President Obama for taking immediate action on this critical health issue. With President Obama, women in the U.S. and around the world have a president who puts protecting and strengthening women’s health first. Just a few days after he’s taken office, we can clearly say that thanks to President Obama, it truly is a new day for women’s health.”

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/planned-parenthood-president-cecile-richardsstatement-president-obamas-executive-order-overturn-23615.htm

In turnaround, U.S. signs U.N. gay rights document
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/18/us-rights-gay-usa-idUSTRE52H5CK20090318

Obama administration calls on United Nations to support gay rights
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/23/nation/la-na-obama-gays-20110323

President Obama's statement on Roe v Wade anniversary
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024371407

The President's record is not overshadowed by the Pope's rhetoric.

There is no question that Dodd-Frank was a strong bill—the strongest in three generations. http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/AFR%20Roosevelt%20Institute%20Speech%202013-11-12.pdf

Elizabeth Warren: Cordray Vote ‘A Historic Day For Working Families’

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) took to Twitter on Tuesday in praise of the Senate's vote to advance Richard Cordray's nomination to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, calling it a "historic day for working families."

Elizabeth Warren ? @elizabethforma

I couldn't be more pleased that Rich Cordray will finally get the vote that he deserves. This is a historic day for working families!
1:11 PM - 16 Jul 2013

47 Retweets 26 favorites

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-cordray-vote-historic-day-for-working

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau gets busy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023372682

SEC Will Require Companies To Report CEO-To-Worker Pay Ratios
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023694931

Regulators Finalize Stricter Volcker Rule - Reuters/HuffPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024158305

NLRB to Prosecute Wal-Mart For Violating Workers’ Rights (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024053560

Ally Bank To Pay $98 Million For Charging Higher Interest To Non-White Borrowers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024208931

U.S. orders mortgage servicer Ocwen to help borrowers with $2 billion

By Emily Stephenson

(Reuters) - U.S. officials on Thursday ordered the largest nonbank mortgage servicer to provide $2 billion in help to underwater borrowers to resolve allegations of misconduct that led to thousands of people losing their homes.

Ocwen Financial Corp must reduce loan balances for struggling homeowners and refund $125 million to foreclosed borrowers under an agreement with the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and officials from 49 states and the District of Columbia.

Ocwen failed to account for borrowers' payments, gave false reasons for denying loan modifications and robo-signed legal documents, the consumer bureau said.

In many cases, after Ocwen began servicing loans, it did not respect trial modifications that had already been agreed to by the lenders, consumer bureau Director Richard Cordray said.

- more -

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/19/us-financial-regulation-ocwen-idUSBRE9BI0ZT20131219

Sen. Warren Praises New CFPB Mortgage Rules that Make Families, Economy Safer

Jan 7, 2014

Video of Senator Warren’s Remarks Available Here

Text of Senator Warren’s Remarks Available Here

WASHINGTON, DC – In remarks delivered on the floor of the Senate this afternoon, United States Senator Elizabeth Warren applauded the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) new mortgage rules, which will go into effect on Friday, January 10.

Under the new rules, a lender must determine that a borrower has the ability to repay a mortgage before issuing the loan. The rules will also prohibit brokers from being paid by lenders to steer customers into higher-cost loans and strengthen the mortgage market by improving mortgage servicing practices.

"Thanks to the consumer agency's new rules, families will be safer, pension funds and other investors will be safer, and our whole economy will be safer," Senator Warren said in her remarks. "And the rules will reshape the mortgage market for the better. They will give people a better chance to buy homes and a better chance to keep those homes, and they will force mortgage lenders and servicers to compete by offering better rates and customer service, not by tricking and trapping people. These rules will help markets work better, and they will reduce the risk that the economy will crash again."

Senator Warren highlighted the success the CFPB already has had helping consumers, including returning more than $3 billion to consumers who were cheated and resolving tens of thousands of complaints against financial institutions. The new mortgage rules will affect millions of families who own or plan to purchase a home.

"The consumer bureau's new mortgage rules show once again that government can fix problems," said Senator Warren. "Sure, we have to work hard, we have to fight against those who benefit from the broken system, and we have to stick with it even when the odds are against us. But when we do those things, real change is possible in this country. We're seeing that up close this week."

For more information about the new mortgage rules, a fact sheet is available at the CFPB's website here.

http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=309

Pres. Obama to provide minimum wage, overtime protections for nearly 2 million in-home care workers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100222439

Medicaid Expansion Has Already Cut The Number Of Uninsured West Virginians By A Third
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024366112

[Armstead]

93. Ah the old cut-and-paste machine back in gear

President Obama is good at tweaking around the edges on some things. And he is obviously more progessive on social issues like gay rights and repreductiuve freedom than the Catholic Church.

But little tweaking is not what is truly needed in this day and age. Too often he continues to support the policies and corporate infrastructure that has hijacked government and the economy.

I'm not gonna forget how he helped to shut down things like the Public Option in healthcare, how he put out feeklers to reduce SS benefits, has appointed many lobbyists and corporate insiders to important posts, how he is fighting for Really Awful Trader Bills, etc.

[ProSense]

95. No,

"Ah the old cut-and-paste machine back in gear"

...it wasn't just "cut-and-paste," I responded:

You: "If Obama would 'walk his talk' more -- instead of supporting and/or acquiescing to the Corporate Agenda in his actions -- his critics here would probably give him more slack."

Me: No, it wouldn't and hasn't.

You: "As it is, I hope the Pope knocks some progressive sense into Obama. "

Me: I'm hoping it's the other way around.

Now, the information was provided to back up my point, but you seem to want to use it to deflect, labeling it "cut-and-paste."

I mean, why wasn't my response sufficient?

"President Obama is good at tweaking around the edges on some things. And he is obviously more progessive on social issues like gay rights and repreductiuve freedom than the Catholic Church. "

On what issue is the Catholic Church more "progressive" when they seek to deny hundreds of millions basic equal rights?

[Armstead]

96. I made that distinction

The Catholic Church is awful on many social issues.

But on the economic issues, at least the current Pope gets it and seems to be using his bully pulpit to get a more progressive message out.

I mentioned the ways that I find President Obama's performance on those economic issues disappointing.

I only jumped on the "curt-and-paste" thing from prior experience with your using that as the all-purpose response, with very little personal input. You seem to be also speaking your own mind more these days, which is good. So if I jumped on that inappropriately I apologize.

[ProSense]

98. And

"The Catholic Church is awful on many social issues. But on the economic issues, at least the current Pope gets it and seems to be using his bully pulpit to get a more progressive message out."

...you object to the President using the "bully pulpit" to discuss inequality?

[Armstead]

99. I object to his actions that are contrary to his words

I'm not saying Obama is bad. But his actions have the results of further entrenching bad things in the system.

[ProSense]

100. This is

"I object to his actions that are contrary to his words"

...an OP is about speaking on the issue of inequality. You don't seem to mind that the Pope is addressing the issue, and his rhetoric is often inconsistent.

I mean, what about the President's actions that aren't "contrary" to his words? You don't have to approve of everything he does, but why does that cause you to object to him speaking out against inequality?

"I'm not saying Obama is bad. But his actions have the results of further entrenching bad things in the system. "

Like what, and specifically related to this issue?

[Armstead]

102. In a nutshell...

He has often appointed advisers and other high officials who come from the same Elitist and Corporate Swamp that has caused these problems. The same Wall St. Crowd that brought us financial deregulation, the same lobbyists who have screwed over the media, the same...etc.

He threw truly universal health care under the bus, did not even support the public option and put in place a system that further enslaves us to the health insurance industry.

He floated the idea of a chained CPI to SS, and has bought into the whole Austerity Uber Alles mantra of the conservatives.

He has negotiated bad trade agreements and is now trying to push through an awful one, the TPP.

I'd feel a lot better about him if he was consistent in favor of liberal/progressive goals and his deeds matched his rhetoric more often.

[ProSense]

104. Wait

He has often appointed advisers and other high officials who come from the same Elitist and Corporate Swamp that has caused these problems. The same Wall St. Crowd that brought us financial deregulation, the same lobbyists who have screwed over the media, the same...etc.

...what does your opinion of his advisers have to do with policy? The President signed pushed for and enacted financial regulation.

There is no question that Dodd-Frank was a strong bill—the strongest in three generations. http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/AFR%20Roosevelt%20Institute%20Speech%202013-11-12.pdf

He threw truly universal health care under the bus, did not even support the public option and put in place a system that further enslaves us to the health insurance industry.

So he shouldn't discuss inquality because the health care law didn't go far enough? I'd say providing tens of millions of Americans with access to health care, expanding Medicaid, qualifies as addressing a critical related issue.

ACA Signups: KA-POW!! Medicaid Overhaul Posted, CA Updated, Grand Total approaches 12M!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024368026

He floated the idea of a chained CPI to SS, and has bought into the whole Austerity Uber Alles mantra of the conservatives.

OK, now you're saying talk matters, your citing a proposal that hasn't been enacted, and likely never will be. As it stands now, the President strengthened the safety net.

MEDICARE’S FINANCIAL CONDITION

Medicare’s financial condition is measured in several ways, including the solvency of the Part A Trust Fund, the annual growth in spending, and growth in spending on a per capita basis. Average annual growth in total Medicare spending is projected to be 6.6% between 2010 and 2019, but 3.5% on a per capita basis (assuming no reduction in physician fees).

The Part A Trust Fund is projected to be depleted in 2024— eight years longer than in the absence of the health reform law—at which point Medicare would not have sufficient funds to pay full benefits, even though revenue flows into the Trust Fund each year. Part A Trust Fund solvency is affected by growth in the economy, which directly affects revenue from payroll tax contributions, and by demographic trends: an increasing number of beneficiaries, especially between 2010 and 2030 when the baby boom generation reaches Medicare eligibility age, and a declining ratio of workers per beneficiary making payroll contributions (Figure 4).

http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-06.pdf

The ACA increased the Medicaid rebate percentage.
http://www.medicaid.gov/AffordableCareAct/Timeline/Timeline.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024309532#post2

He has negotiated bad trade agreements and is now trying to push through an awful one, the TPP.

This is, again, an opinion without evidence. I mean, you say they're bad, but can you point to the effects? Also, the TPP hasn't even seen the light of day yet. I understand protesting the potential negatives (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024365795#post24) in the proposal, but it has yet to impact anything.

I'd feel a lot better about him if he was consistent in favor of liberal/progressive goals and his deeds matched his rhetoric more often.

Given your objections, that's never going to happen.

[dbackjon]

46. What about the INEQUALITY that the Catholic Church spearheads against LGBT's?

Add that to your agenda, Mr. President.


The Catholic Church is a leading supporter of HATRED and INEQUALITY WORLD WIDE against gays and lesbians.

[pampango]

97. "The Catholic Church is a leading supporter of HATRED and INEQUALITY WORLD WIDE against gays and

lesbians."

I suspect there are some radical Islamists and fundamentalist Protestants that will give the Catholic Church a run for its money. In some cases the former are worse but they are, to be sure, smaller more disjointed actors than the Catholic Church.

Most of us would acknowledge that the Church has made some strides in the right directions in the recent past. Given the number of issues on which it was inhumane, however, it has a long, long way to go. I suppose overhauling all of its reactionary policies in one fell swoop might have caused it to implode or, perhaps more likely, for the Pope to have suffered an early unfortunate 'accident' with an unmistakeable message sent to his successor.

All the Catholics I know, well all those who still feel any connection to the Church and still call themselves 'Catholic' anyway, are happy about the direction the new pope is taking. (I'm sure there are conservative Catholics who are aghast at the new policies and pronouncements.) They all want him to expand the changes to include policies about gays, lesbians and women and in other areas. After a lifetime of little if any positive change in the Church, they are happy about the new direction. They want it to continue and expand but, of course, no one knows if it will.

[ProSense]

50. Kick! n/t

[frwrfpos]

51. Id like him to address poverty here in America

In addition to inequality ive yet to hear Obama speak about the abject poverty millions of americans endure everyday. For that matter extremely few politicians ever address poverty. Why is that?

[ProSense]

52. Senator Sanders:

<...>

Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) said in an interview Tuesday that the Vatican meeting is significant because Francis has made “wealth and income inequality a moral issue.”

“Clearly, the pope and the president have their differences,” but widening inequality clearly troubles both of them, Sanders said. “It is a moral issue, and once we begin to look at those issues from a moral perspective, it demands political solutions.”

<...>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/01/21/9274631e-82bf-11e3-9dd4-e7278db80d86_story.html

[polichick]

54. imo we should start looking at political and church corruption as moral issues too...

Both institutions are far more about money than people.

[ProSense]

56. Yeah, start

"imo we should start looking at political and church corruption as moral issues too..."

...with Citizens United and the Koch brothers.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/citizens-united-01-21-2014

[polichick]

57. Or you can look at the conflicts of interest our leaders have, or how...

our system of drawing up voter districts has become perverted, or at the fact that we don't actually have verifiable voting - there's corruption at every level of politics and in both parties.

And don't even get me started on the church - just the fact that such a top-down system exists is disgusting. The only thing served by setting popes, bishops and priests between the people and their God (whatever that is perceived to be) is the power of the church itself.

[ProSense]

58. Why "or"? I mean, Citizens United creates the worst "conflicts of interest." n/t

[polichick]

61. The problem existed decades before Citizens United. We have members of Congress...

who are invested in for-profit prisons, members whose families are military contractors, a continuous revolving door between industry and the regulation of those industries. It's endless.

[ProSense]

64. Really?

"The problem existed decades"

I thought Obama created the "problem"?

In any case, this is a big country and a lot of bad shit has been happening for "decades."

End Near for Shackling of Pregnant Women
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024368667

Positive changes are welcomed, and you can believe that the more significant effects of such changes aren't going to be noticed immediately.

Republicans keep fighting to undo progress and to add even more harmful policies.

Judge rejects forced ultrasounds in N.C.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024361824

People will keep pushing, and with any success, the positive changes will pile up. That's just how it works.

You're right, the struggle is "endless."

It would help if we could drive every Republican out of office. I can dream.

[polichick]

66. Make that every Republican and every Third Way Dem.

[ProSense]

67. OK by me. Here's a list

<...>

So who else is enabling Third Way's destructive agenda? Why, let's name names!

House members
James Clyburn (Southern South Carolina)
John Dingell (Ann Arbor, Detroit's western suburbs, Michigan)
Ron Kind (Southwestern Wisconsin, La Crosse, Eau Claire)
Joseph Crowley (NYC, Bronx, Queens)
Allyson Schwartz (Northeast Philly, eastern Montgomery County, Pennsylvania)
Jared Polis (Boulder, Colorado)

Senators
Thomas Carper (Delaware)
Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
Mark Udall (Colorado)
Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire)
Kay Hagan (North Carolina)
Chris Coons (Delaware)

<...>

Daily Kos will not enable those who enable Third Way
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/05/1260388/-Third-Way-s-congressional-enablers

So-called Democrats at Third Way share consultants with the Chamber of Commerce

by Laura Clawson

Third Way is supposedly a Democratic organization. Conservative Democratic, to be sure, but not actually Republican. But Lee Fang dug into their records and found that one of Third Way's fundraising consultants also does a whole lot of work for the Chamber of Commerce. The result:

While the Third Way op-ed made a point of claiming economic progressive economic policies wouldn’t play well with voters in Colorado, in 2008, their fundraisers’ client ran nasty attack ads against a Third Way leader in the state. In 2008, when Third Way co-chair Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) first ran for the Senate, the US Chamber sponsored an advertisement against him on energy policy, declaring, “Every time he’s blocked American energy production, he’s made the tyrants and sheiks happy. But we’ve paid the price.”

Last year, Third Way co-chair Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) faced a barrage of attacks from the Chamber. One ad during the election last year instructed viewers, “Call Claire McCaskill. Tell her Missouri doesn’t need government-run health care. Support the repeal. We need jobs!”

This is Third Way in a nutshell: The less-important client of one of the Chamber of Commerce's top lobbying firms. It's pathetic. It's also not a great argument for the media's "centrist Democrats" label for Third Way.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/06/1260744/-So-called-Democrats-at-Third-Way-share-consultants-with-the-Chamber-of-nbsp-Commerce

[polichick]

68. Giffords, Sebelius, Salazar, Harman, Durbin, Daley - most out of office now...

If you're talking about "enabling" you'd have to include the WH.

[ProSense]

69. So you want to remove people from office who are already "out of office"

"If you're talking about 'enabling' you'd have to include the WH."

You can talk about anyone you want to, but the fact remains that administration officials aren't elected.

When I said "remove" Repbulicans from office, I meant elected officials...who are still in office.

[polichick]

70. Being selected instead of elected does not make it better...

Why not get rid of them all?

[ProSense]

71. Well,

"Why not get rid of them all? "

...go ahead an launch a campaign to fire people in the administration. No one is stopping you.

Again, I was speaking about elected Republicans. You added Third Way Dems.

I gave you a list of elected Third Way Dems (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024365935#post67), and you went off on a tangent.

[polichick]

72. You seem a bit nervous - don't want to finger your pals huh?

[ProSense]

73. WTF?

You appear to have some issues. I mean, how did you go from my wish to remove every Republican from office, your suggestion that Third Way Dems be included, and my agreeing with you and providing a list to: "You seem a bit nervous - don't want to finger your pals huh?"

The only thing I can come up with is you're dealing with some issues.

[polichick]

74. Nice try. You said to name names of those "enabling" the Third Way agenda...

I named names - you just don't like that your guy chose some of these folks.

[ProSense]

76. Explain what that has to do with the issues you're dealing with related to your last comment? n/t

[polichick]

79. Your attempt to deflect ain't working. It's obvious you can't...

admit that selecting Third Way people is no better than electing them because it's your guy in charge of the selection.

[ProSense]

81. You know what this sounds like

"It's obvious you can't admit that selecting Third Way people is no better than electing them because it's your guy in charge of the selection."

...Obama is a Muslim socialist! It's about as fact-free as that.

The only one attempting to "deflect" is you. Let me recap: You appear to have some issues. I mean, how did you go from my wish to remove every Republican from office, your suggestion that Third Way Dems be included, and my agreeing with you and providing a list to: "You seem a bit nervous - don't want to finger your pals huh?"

Now, I don't have to "admit" shit because your point is irrelevant and nonsensical. It is in fact more significantly damaging to have Third Way Dems screwing up the legislative agenda than working for the President.

The problem with having issues is that it blinds one to the facts.

[polichick]

82. Okay, electing Third Way BAD; selecting Third Way GOOD. LOL

[ProSense]

84. LOL!

The fact that you made that point shows that you don't understand the difference. Congress writes laws. You do know that, don't you?

"Okay, electing Third Way BAD; selecting Third Way GOOD. "

[polichick]

105. I know you have nothing - but even so, that's beyond lame...

To pretend the executive branch is inconsequential is just flat-out silly.

Maybe you should let everyone know that they can close the WH now - along with all cabinet departments.

[ProSense]

107. LOL!

"To pretend the executive branch is inconsequential is just flat-out silly. "

You still can't grasp the point, huh? Officials in the "executive branch" don't vote on bills, and they serve at the pleasure of the President.

You are the one applying "inconsequential" to the equation. When it comes to voting on bills, executive branch officials don't have a vote.

The more progressive the Congress, the more progressive the bills. So you can rail away at Third Way Dem officials in and "out of office," but the ones with the most impact when it comes to getting legislation passed, are the ones in Congress.

I provided a list (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024365935#post67), but you seem more interested in railing against some other group.

[polichick]

108. Third Way needs to go - whether elected or selected. (Hopefully you can grasp that.)

[ProSense]

109. Do you

"Third Way needs to go - whether elected or selected. (Hopefully you can grasp that.)"

...just enjoy saying that? I mean, I gave you the list of elected officials (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024365935#post67), agreeing with an earlier point you made. Somehow, you seem to want to take a stand about "selected" officials, even after I made the point that you have no control over "selected" officials.

Like I said, you are free to launch a campaign to demand "selected" officials be fired.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. Inequality? Such as the Pope getting 80 million in 'Peter's Pence' donations

while Obama just gets 20 million for his book advance? Two really rich powerful men have a chat about those with less. How charming. Another mutual excuse for inaction while the Pope actively opposes actual equality for women and for gay people.
Pope 'now when you say 'equality' you don't mean for sinners do you, you mean just for us, right? Equality means more for me, right?'

[ProSense]

55. That makes no sense

"Two really rich powerful men have a chat about those with less. How charming."

Your premise would have no President talking about inequality and poverty.

You'd have probably protested similar talks by FDR and LBJ.

Absurd.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. If they were meeting with a preacher who preaches legal inequality for millions

and claiming the talk was about equality, yeah, I'd take issue with it. On opposing equality for millions of gay people, Francis has taken great action. On economic issues, he's done some chatting with his Princes of the Church and other very rich people, but action? He has not and probably will not take any actual action.
I protest homophobic lies, sexist dogma that seeks to control women, the abuse of children and the lack of protection of them by others. That bothers you? Can you specify which parts offend you? That I favor my own equality, that I am opposed to institutional child abuse? That I am pro choice? I should not, you say, protest against bigotry, in support of choice and to advocate the safety of children? Not sure I get what your beef is.

[ProSense]

62. Again,

"If they were meeting with a preacher who preaches legal inequality for millions and claiming the talk was about equality, yeah, I'd take issue with it. On opposing equality for millions of gay people, Francis has taken great action."

...as I said here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024365935#post21), if by "they" you mean the Pope and Catholic organizations, then you are correct. President Obama is not the Pope.

Obama's Lawyers Shoot Down Catholic Groups' Objections To Birth Control Mandate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/obamacare-catholic-birth-control-mandate_n_4536754.html

“With the stroke of a pen, President Obama has lifted the stranglehold on women’s health across the globe. His repeal of the global gag rule ends eight long years of policies that have blocked access to basic health care for women worldwide. No longer will health care providers be forced to choose between receiving family planning funding and restricting the health care services they provide to women.

“Expanding access to family planning is not only good, basic health care; it saves women’s lives. In some parts of Africa, women have a one-in-10 risk of dying in childbirth, a sad fact only exacerbated by the gag rule. Women’s health and well-being are the bedrock of freedom and independence for individuals, families, and entire communities. Avoiding disease, having access to clean water and nutritious food, deciding whether and when to have children, and being safe in pregnancy and childbirth make women stronger and improve the quality of life for families and communities.

“Planned Parenthood thanks President Obama for taking immediate action on this critical health issue. With President Obama, women in the U.S. and around the world have a president who puts protecting and strengthening women’s health first. Just a few days after he’s taken office, we can clearly say that thanks to President Obama, it truly is a new day for women’s health.”

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/planned-parenthood-president-cecile-richardsstatement-president-obamas-executive-order-overturn-23615.htm

In turnaround, U.S. signs U.N. gay rights document
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/18/us-rights-gay-usa-idUSTRE52H5CK20090318

Obama administration calls on United Nations to support gay rights
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/23/nation/la-na-obama-gays-20110323

[Bluenorthwest]

78. Are you serious? 'They' in my post would be the FDR and LBJ of your imagination

if they were meeting with an inequality advocate. The Pope is an inequality advocate. FDR and LBJ did not meet with any Popes. But if they had, I'd have protested the meeting because of the anti gay and anti choice rants the RCC engages in, which Francis himself indulges in when he feels the need.
Calling those who actively preach inequality advocates of equality takes some real denial and contempt for those subjected to that inequality. Obama should not claim the Pope is for equality, nor should you or anyone who gives a fuck about honesty.

[ProSense]

83. Wait

"The Pope is an inequality advocate. FDR and LBJ did not meet with any Popes. "

...didn't you criticize the President and the Pope as: "Two really rich powerful men have a chat about those with less."

Also:

October 4, 1965

New York City[4][5]

Lyndon B. Johnson

Pope Paul VI

First visit to the United States by a reigning Pope.[6]


December 23, 1967

Vatican City[7]

Lyndon B. Johnson

Pope Paul VI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_meetings_between_the_Pope_and_the_President_of_the_United_States

Also:

http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/psf/box51/t465b03.html

[Vashta Nerada]

59. Yeah. Their talk will be as useful as a fart in the wind.

[ProSense]

63. This may come as a surprise

"Yeah. Their talk will be as useful as a fart in the wind."

...when the President talks or takes action, it matters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023101179
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/01/19/3183431/obama-pot-dangerous/

People do listen, and the reaction, including protest by those who should be allies in progress, is an acknowledgment that it's more than just a "fart in the wind."

[Vashta Nerada]

65. I was talking about from the Pope's side of things.

At least Obama has gone past more than just talking when it comes to issues. He has actually done something. The Pope hasn't.

[lumberjack_jeff]

75. ... in other people's countries. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

80. For straight males in other countries.

nt

[Baitball Blogger]

77. Dang. This is working out better than I expected.

[ProSense]

85. The hilarious thing

is the knee-jerk reaction to seeing Obama's name. I posted a link to this OP as a comment in a thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024369785) about a statement by the Pope.

[Baitball Blogger]

86. Well, I can see why some of them are skeptical.

When you look at the failures of NAFTA, if Obama doesn't get his Global economic strategy straightened out, then using a Pope who is attracting the attention of the people for saying the right things, is to co-opt him and his message.

[ProSense]

87. Well,

"When you look at the failures of NAFTA, if Obama doesn't get his Global economic strategy straightened out, then using a Pope who is attracting the attention of the people for saying the right things, is to co-opt him and his message."

...that's obvious, not wanting Obama to "co-opt" the Pope's message. I mean, it's not like Obama has a record to stand on.

Elizabeth Warren:
There is no question that Dodd-Frank was a strong bill—the strongest in three generations. http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/AFR%20Roosevelt%20Institute%20Speech%202013-11-12.pdf

Elizabeth Warren: Cordray Vote ‘A Historic Day For Working Families’

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) took to Twitter on Tuesday in praise of the Senate's vote to advance Richard Cordray's nomination to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, calling it a "historic day for working families."

Elizabeth Warren ? @elizabethforma

I couldn't be more pleased that Rich Cordray will finally get the vote that he deserves. This is a historic day for working families!
1:11 PM - 16 Jul 2013

47 Retweets 26 favorites

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-cordray-vote-historic-day-for-working

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau gets busy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023372682

SEC Will Require Companies To Report CEO-To-Worker Pay Ratios
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023694931

Regulators Finalize Stricter Volcker Rule - Reuters/HuffPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024158305

NLRB to Prosecute Wal-Mart For Violating Workers’ Rights (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024053560

Ally Bank To Pay $98 Million For Charging Higher Interest To Non-White Borrowers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024208931

U.S. orders mortgage servicer Ocwen to help borrowers with $2 billion

By Emily Stephenson

(Reuters) - U.S. officials on Thursday ordered the largest nonbank mortgage servicer to provide $2 billion in help to underwater borrowers to resolve allegations of misconduct that led to thousands of people losing their homes.

Ocwen Financial Corp must reduce loan balances for struggling homeowners and refund $125 million to foreclosed borrowers under an agreement with the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and officials from 49 states and the District of Columbia.

Ocwen failed to account for borrowers' payments, gave false reasons for denying loan modifications and robo-signed legal documents, the consumer bureau said.

In many cases, after Ocwen began servicing loans, it did not respect trial modifications that had already been agreed to by the lenders, consumer bureau Director Richard Cordray said.

- more -

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/19/us-financial-regulation-ocwen-idUSBRE9BI0ZT20131219

Sen. Warren Praises New CFPB Mortgage Rules that Make Families, Economy Safer

Jan 7, 2014

Video of Senator Warren’s Remarks Available Here

Text of Senator Warren’s Remarks Available Here

WASHINGTON, DC – In remarks delivered on the floor of the Senate this afternoon, United States Senator Elizabeth Warren applauded the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) new mortgage rules, which will go into effect on Friday, January 10.

Under the new rules, a lender must determine that a borrower has the ability to repay a mortgage before issuing the loan. The rules will also prohibit brokers from being paid by lenders to steer customers into higher-cost loans and strengthen the mortgage market by improving mortgage servicing practices.

"Thanks to the consumer agency's new rules, families will be safer, pension funds and other investors will be safer, and our whole economy will be safer," Senator Warren said in her remarks. "And the rules will reshape the mortgage market for the better. They will give people a better chance to buy homes and a better chance to keep those homes, and they will force mortgage lenders and servicers to compete by offering better rates and customer service, not by tricking and trapping people. These rules will help markets work better, and they will reduce the risk that the economy will crash again."

Senator Warren highlighted the success the CFPB already has had helping consumers, including returning more than $3 billion to consumers who were cheated and resolving tens of thousands of complaints against financial institutions. The new mortgage rules will affect millions of families who own or plan to purchase a home.

"The consumer bureau's new mortgage rules show once again that government can fix problems," said Senator Warren. "Sure, we have to work hard, we have to fight against those who benefit from the broken system, and we have to stick with it even when the odds are against us. But when we do those things, real change is possible in this country. We're seeing that up close this week."

For more information about the new mortgage rules, a fact sheet is available at the CFPB's website here.

http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=309

Pres. Obama to provide minimum wage, overtime protections for nearly 2 million in-home care workers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100222439

Medicaid Expansion Has Already Cut The Number Of Uninsured West Virginians By A Third
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024366112

I mean, who is he to "co-opt" the Pope's message?

[Baitball Blogger]

90. I know. He could be a drover.

I've seen too many of them in my lifetime.

[ProSense]

91. It just seems that

for some, anything Obama proposes should be met with a basic reaction that implies he shouldn't talk about anything.

I think it's bizarre.

[pampango]

92. Better than "Bush To Discuss How to Increase Inequality With Pope Benedict In March".

That would have been the headline a few years ago.

[lame54]

94. Finally - someone to give it to Obama straight

[ProSense]

101. I know, right?

"Finally - someone to give it to Obama straight"

Only good can come from this, but by some of the reaction, one would think this was pointless.

Obama's inequality speech: telling the progressive story of American history
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/05/1260417/-Obama-s-inequality-speech-telling-the-progressive-story-of-American-history

[bklyncowgirl]

103. Wow! A thread which unites the Obama Haters and the Pope Bashers. A remarkable achievement.nt

[woo me with science]

110. Obama is aggressively pushing to *increase* inequality

as long as he is pushing to fast-track the TPP. As Manny put it so well, pushing the TPP and caring about inequality are VIOLENTLY MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. As long as TPP is still on his agenda, this much-trumpeted meeting must be considered a viciously dishonest PR attempt.

And our utterly corrupt, utterly craven media will comply and assist. They will report this meeting breathlessly without even mentioning the TPP.

Pretending to care about inequality while pushing forward this predatory trade agreement is like pretending to care about forest fires while pouring gas on the forest and lighting a match.

The messaging is Orwellian. There is no other way to put it. War is Peace. The chocolate ration is being increased. 2 + 2 = 5. Our government and our media are deeply, deeply corrupted by corporate money, and we are to smile and pretend none of it is happening.