Bring Back the Square Deal

I have to say, this warms my heart — President Obama will speak in Osawatomie, Kansas, on Tuesday. Osawatomie is where Theodore Roosevelt delivered his great New Nationalism speech to a group of Civil War veterans in 1910.

“Just over one hundred years ago, President Teddy Roosevelt came to Osawatomie, Kansas and called for a New Nationalism, where everyone gets a fair chance, a square deal, and an equal opportunity to succeed,” the White House release states.

“The President will talk about how he sees this as a make-or-break moment for the middle class and all those working to join it. He’ll lay out the choice we face between a country in which too few do well while too many struggle to get by, and one where we’re all in it together – where everyone engages in fair play, everyone does their fair share, and everyone gets a fair shot,” it states.

Teddy would agree.

Share Button

18 thoughts on “Bring Back the Square Deal

  1. This sounds as if it could be a good speech. Waiting to hear it and the expected response.

  2. A square deal sure sounds good after all the rest of us have been encircled and trapped by the rich.`
    Start breaking up the monopolies. Or, at least for now, stop them from getting larger. Stop Verizon and AT&T from merging into a telecommunications “Engulf & Devour.”
    And we learned a harsh lesson only a little over 3 years ago – that there were companies in various industries that were “too big to fail”:
    Brokerage Houses.
    Automobile manufacturers (think back to the long gone days when GM and Ford hadn’t yet sucked up and spit out smaller auto makers).
    And yet, as of today, it appears as if we’ve learned nothing from that near disaster.
    If it’s too big to fail, then don’t let it. Start by breaking it up into component industries, and start selling them off. Congress can create the needed anti-monopoly legislation (AGAIN!!!).

    Also, too: Get the money out of politics!
    Though with our current Supreme Court, I don’t think there’s a Popsickle’s chance in a blast furnace that if Congress passed anything, up to maybe even a Constitutional Amendment (though I doubt that’ll pass – too many rightie rubes and suckers across this once great nation), that Roberts and the other 4 members of his evil clown posse would allow it to stand. They’re “Originalist’s,” and “Strict Consructionists,” and God damn it, if they have to ‘originate’ and ‘construct’ reasons, they’ll do it!

  3. One progressive plank would makes the ‘job creators’ culpable for their failure to create jobs. We agree that the private sector is where job growth must come from. Here’s a provision – simpler than ObamaCare.

    For any company with sales (gross revenue) in excess of 100 million, the employees who are making more than 100 times the average wage of their employees (measured globally) are in the 50% tax bracket. Unless that company is creating jobs in the US. There would be a tax break for companies who actually create jobs in the US on a sliding scale

  4. Please allow me to edit… My editor submitted prematurely.

    There would be a tax break for executives of companies who create domestic jobs, related to the number of jobs relative to the revenue of the company. The ‘job creators’ have utterly failed. So lets give them incentive to be more productive.

  5. I’m afraid that Obama will be talking to a different America than Teddy did – an America where non-access to health-care for 40 million of us meets with a so-what: an America which hung Japanese soldiers for water-boarding American prisoners of war and now the leading Republican candidate for the presidency advocates water-boarding: an America where for the first time in recent history children can no longer look forward to being better off than their parents (that ‘honor’ has gone to Europe.)

    How far we have fallen.

  6. maha,
    WAAAAY OT here – but here goes, anyway – since I think you know more about the President’s ACA bill than almost everyone except those who wrote it, or whose SOLE business is understanding and writing about it, I’m interested in your opinion on “karoli’s ” take on Rick Ungar’s “Forbes” article, basically saying that that 15/20% cap on the health insurance companies padding of their bills is the “poison pill” that may well lead to “single-payer.”

    Now THAT might turn some Liberal Obama-haters back around, no?

  7. gulag ….Let me add my 2 cents to your question.. That 15 to 20% cap will only apply to a certain portion of the insurance bill.. Namely direct patient care and established procedures where the plan for recovery of the patient is pretty much known. But by changing the billing nomenclature on procedures and processes those cap limits can be circumvented so that the insurance companies can continue on their merry way with old billing practices ( $100.00 aspirins).. What I’m saying is that the 15/20% cap sounds good for being workable, but as it stands now the insurance companies have a whole bunch of wiggle room to shed any restrictions the ACA will put on them.. You can’t trust the insurance companies to willfully relinquish potential profit.

  8. For some real incoherent fun, read today’s Ross Douthat column in the NY Times, where this insipid imbecile takes and labels his quiver of arrows with anti-Liberal meme’s, and loads them up on his string and shoots them all off in one flurry from his little mental bow, hitting nothing, and making the usual ass of himself.

    You’d better back off, Ross. You’re treading on the ‘stupid turf’ that Brooks makes his living off of. Next thing you know, you’ll be telling us about the conversations you had with “Heartland Americans’ at the salad bar at Applebee’s, or watching the Redskins on Sunday at the bar at your local “Chick Fil.”

    Fat, sober, unlaid, and stupid is no way to go through life son.

  9. Swam- While I agree, a lot of slimy characters lacking in ethics are busy looking for ways to circumvent AHC, it’s going to be difficult without engaging in outright fraud to make salaries, commissions or bonuses, rent or utilities, advertising, etc look like medical expenses. The rules also require a level of transparency in accounting. While I think its premature and optimistic to predict the end of commercial medical insurance, I predict things are going to get very interesting.

  10. Wow. Sounds like he’s going to be firing Tim Geithner!

    Or, it’s all just words.

    • As usual, the campaign Obama sure beats the governing Obama.

      That’s mostly because Congress hasn’t figured out a way to obstruct his campaigning.

  11. That’s mostly because Congress hasn’t figured out a way to obstruct his campaigning.

    Amen to that, Maha. It don’t matter if they destroy our country..just so long as they take down Obama..

    I’m out of rolling papers this morning so I’m gonna contemplate the logic of building a fence along the entire lenght of the Mexican border…Now that oughta spin my thought processes around enough to achieve the equivalent of a good buzz… The concept of building a wall between the US and Mexico is insane on it’s face and gets crazier the more you contemplate it.

    • I say if there’s a need for a fence between the U.S. and Mexico, the Free Market (hallowed be Its Name) will build it.

  12. Chalk another one up for OWS. Granted, he was going to pivot his rhetoric leftward in any event, but he’s doing it a lot sooner and more forcefully than he normally would.

    Meanwhile, speaking OWS — the Occupy Our Homes officially kicks off today:

    And in Portland, even as Occupiers get arrested, their work with other groups on the November “move your money” campaign is bearing fruit, as Portland is not only moving its money from big banks to community banks, but also targeting the whole concept of corporation-as-legal-person, a big issue with Occupiers:

    • Chalk another one up for OWS. Granted, he was going to pivot his rhetoric leftward in any event, but he’s doing it a lot sooner and more forcefully than he normally would.

      He already was moving in that direction before OWS existed, but it’s probable the increased focused on income inequality is helping.

      Re the rest of your comment — in other words, OWS finally is adopting specific goals. Ahem.

Comments are closed.