En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.


Qui parle ? Et que dit-il ?

“Bien longtemps même avant que la récession ne débute, travailler dur ne faisait plus aucune différence pour la plupart des gens. Un nombre de plus en plus restreint des personnes qui contribuaient au succès de notre économie bénéficiaient véritablement de ses avancées. Ceux qui vivent au sommet s’enrichissaient plus que jamais, du fait de leurs rémunérations et de leurs investissements. Mais la grande masse des autres s’escrimaient avec des coûts en hausse constante et des feuilles de paie pour qui ce n’était pas le cas – et un nombre toujours croissant de familles s’endettaient toujours davantage, pour ne pas sombrer. […] Le château de cartes s’effondra en 2008. […]

L’histoire est maintenant connue de tous : des crédits hypothécaires accordés à des ménages qui ne pouvaient pas se les permettre, et qui bien souvent n’en comprenaient pas les termes. Des banques et des investisseurs à qui on a permis de reconditionner les risques qui en découlaient et de les revendre. Des paris colossaux – et des bonus colossaux – faits et accordés avec l’argent de quelqu’un d’autre. Des régulateurs dont on supposait qu’ils nous alerteraient quant aux dangers causés par tout cela, mais qui regardèrent ailleurs ou n’avaient même pas le pouvoir de regarder. […]

Les aciéries qui avaient besoin autrefois de 1.000 ouvriers font aujourd’hui le même travail avec seulement 100, et les licenciements sont du coup trop souvent permanents. Et de tels changements n’épargnent pas les cadres. Si vous étiez guichetier d’une banque, réceptionniste ou agent touristique, la plupart d’entre vous ont été remplacés par un distributeur de billet ou par l’Internet. […]

Examinez les statistiques : au cours des dernières décennies, le revenu moyen du 1% au sommet a augmenté de 250% […] Le dirigeant d’entreprise typique qui touchait autrefois 30 fois ce que gagnaient ses employés, gagne aujourd’hui 110 fois plus. Et pendant ce temps-là, les revenus de la grande masse des Américains ont baissé de 6%. […]

Quand les ménages de la classe moyenne ne peuvent plus s’offrir les biens et les services que les entreprises proposent, c’est l’économie dans son ensemble qui coule […] Les pays qui connaissent moins de disparités ont des économies plus solides et connaissent une croissance plus forte et plus robuste sur le long terme.

Les inégalités opèrent des distorsions sur la démocratie. Elles amplifient la voix du petit nombre qui peuvent recruter des lobbyistes excessivement bien payés et se permettre des dons au montant illimité aux campagnes des politiques. Le risque est grand que notre démocratie ne soit mise à l’encan et raflée par le plus offrant.”

Eh oui, c’est bien Obama qui canarde les 1% les plus riches et les banquiers !

Ici le Poster tiré de cette allocution

Et ci-dessous le texte intégral de son allocution en anglais; les parties en bleu correspondent aux extraits donnés ci-dessus. Suivent après, les articles du Monde et de la tribune paru sur ce sujet le 7/12.


Obama’s Speech in Kansas


Following is a text of President Obama’s speech in Osawatomie, Kan. on Tuesday, as released by the White House:

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, everybody.  Please, please have a seat.  Thank you so much.  Thank you.  Good afternoon, everybody.

AUDIENCE:  Good afternoon.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I want to start by thanking a few folks who’ve joined us today.  We’ve got the mayor of Osawatomie, Phil Dudley is here.  (Applause.)  We have your superintendent Gary French in the house.  (Applause.)  And we have the principal of Osawatomie High, Doug Chisam.  (Applause.)  And I have brought your former governor, who is doing now an outstanding job as Secretary of Health and Human Services — Kathleen Sebelius is in the house.  (Applause.)  We love Kathleen.

Well, it is great to be back in the state of Tex — (laughter) — state of Kansas.  I was giving Bill Self a hard time, he was here a while back.  As many of you know, I have roots here.  (Applause.)  I’m sure you’re all familiar with the Obamas of Osawatomie.  (Laughter.)  Actually, I like to say that I got my name from my father, but I got my accent — and my values — from my mother.  (Applause.)  She was born in Wichita.  (Applause.)  Her mother grew up in Augusta.  Her father was from El Dorado.  So my Kansas roots run deep.  

My grandparents served during World War II.  He was a soldier in Patton’s Army; she was a worker on a bomber assembly line.  And together, they shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the Great Depression and over fascism.  They believed in an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried — no matter who you were, no matter where you came from, no matter how you started out.  (Applause.)

And these values gave rise to the largest middle class and the strongest economy that the world has ever known.  It was here in America that the most productive workers, the most innovative companies turned out the best products on Earth.  And you know what?  Every American shared in that pride and in that success — from those in the executive suites to those in middle management to those on the factory floor.  (Applause.)  So you could have some confidence that if you gave it your all, you’d take enough home to raise your family and send your kids to school and have your health care covered, put a little away for retirement.

Today, we’re still home to the world’s most productive workers.  We’re still home to the world’s most innovative companies.  But for most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people.  Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefited from that success.  Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments — wealthier than ever before.  But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t — and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up.

Now, for many years, credit cards and home equity loans papered over this harsh reality.  But in 2008, the house of cards collapsedWe all know the story by now:  Mortgages sold to people who couldn’t afford them, or even sometimes understand them.  Banks and investors allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off.  Huge bets — and huge bonuses — made with other people’s money on the line.  Regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this, but looked the other way or didn’t have the authority to look at all.

It was wrong.  It combined the breathtaking greed of a few with irresponsibility all across the system.  And it plunged our economy and the world into a crisis from which we’re still fighting to recover.  It claimed the jobs and the homes and the basic security of millions of people — innocent, hardworking Americans who had met their responsibilities but were still left holding the bag.

And ever since, there’s been a raging debate over the best way to restore growth and prosperity, restore balance, restore fairness.  Throughout the country, it’s sparked protests and political movements — from the tea party to the people who’ve been occupying the streets of New York and other cities.  It’s left Washington in a near-constant state of gridlock.  It’s been the topic of heated and sometimes colorful discussion among the men and women running for president.  (Laughter.)  

But, Osawatomie, this is not just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time.  This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class.  Because what’s at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement.  

Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia.  After all that’s happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess.  In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years.  And their philosophy is simple:  We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

I am here to say they are wrong.  (Applause.)  I’m here in Kansas to reaffirm my deep conviction that we’re greater together than we are on our own.  I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules.  (Applause.)  These aren’t Democratic values or Republican values.  These aren’t 1 percent values or 99 percent values.  They’re American values.  And we have to reclaim them.  (Applause.) 

You see, this isn’t the first time America has faced this choice.  At the turn of the last century, when a nation of farmers was transitioning to become the world’s industrial giant, we had to decide:  Would we settle for a country where most of the new railroads and factories were being controlled by a few giant monopolies that kept prices high and wages low?  Would we allow our citizens and even our children to work ungodly hours in conditions that were unsafe and unsanitary?  Would we restrict education to the privileged few?  Because there were people who thought massive inequality and exploitation of people was just the price you pay for progress.

Theodore Roosevelt disagreed.  He was the Republican son of a wealthy family.  He praised what the titans of industry had done to create jobs and grow the economy.  He believed then what we know is true today, that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history.  It’s led to a prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world.

But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can.  (Applause.)  He understood the free market only works when there are rules of the road that ensure competition is fair and open and honest.  And so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for consumers with better services and better prices.  And today, they still must.  He fought to make sure businesses couldn’t profit by exploiting children or selling food or medicine that wasn’t safe.  And today, they still can’t.  

And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism.  “Our country,” he said, “…means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy…of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.”  (Applause.) 

Now, for this, Roosevelt was called a radical.  He was called a socialist — (laughter) — even a communist.  But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign:  an eight-hour work day and a minimum wage for women — (applause) — insurance for the unemployed and for the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax.  (Applause.)

Today, over 100 years later, our economy has gone through another transformation.  Over the last few decades, huge advances in technology have allowed businesses to do more with less, and it’s made it easier for them to set up shop and hire workers anywhere they want in the world.  And many of you know firsthand the painful disruptions this has caused for a lot of Americans.  

Factories where people thought they would retire suddenly picked up and went overseas, where workers were cheaper.  Steel mills that needed 100 — or 1,000 employees are now able to do the same work with 100 employees, so layoffs too often became permanent, not just a temporary part of the business cycle.  And these changes didn’t just affect blue-collar workers.  If you were a bank teller or a phone operator or a travel agent, you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs and the Internet.

Today, even higher-skilled jobs, like accountants and middle management can be outsourced to countries like China or India.  And if you’re somebody whose job can be done cheaper by a computer or someone in another country, you don’t have a lot of leverage with your employer when it comes to asking for better wages or better benefits, especially since fewer Americans today are part of a union.

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune.  “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us.  If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger.  Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers.  But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else.  And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory.  And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government.  That’s in America’s DNA.  And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker.  (Laughter.)  But here’s the problem:  It doesn’t work.  It has never worked.  (Applause.)  It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression.  It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s.  And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade.  (Applause.)  I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history.  And what did it get us?  The slowest job growth in half a century.  Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class — things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security.

Remember that in those same years, thanks to some of the same folks who are now running Congress, we had weak regulation, we had little oversight, and what did it get us?  Insurance companies that jacked up people’s premiums with impunity and denied care to patients who were sick, mortgage lenders that tricked families into buying homes they couldn’t afford, a financial sector where irresponsibility and lack of basic oversight nearly destroyed our entire economy.

We simply cannot return to this brand of “you’re on your own” economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country.  (Applause.)  We know that it doesn’t result in a strong economy.  It results in an economy that invests too little in its people and in its future.  We know it doesn’t result in a prosperity that trickles down.  It results in a prosperity that’s enjoyed by fewer and fewer of our citizens. 

Look at the statistics.  In the last few decades, the average income of the top 1 percent has gone up by more than 250 percent to $1.2 million per year.  I’m not talking about millionaires, people who have a million dollars.  I’m saying people who make a million dollars every single year.  For the top one hundredth of 1 percent, the average income is now $27 million per year.  The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her worker now earns 110 times more.  And yet, over the last decade the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by about 6 percent.

Now, this kind of inequality — a level that we haven’t seen since the Great Depression — hurts us all.  When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, when people are slipping out of the middle class, it drags down the entire economy from top to bottom.  America was built on the idea of broad-based prosperity, of strong consumers all across the country.  That’s why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so that they could buy the cars he made.  It’s also why a recent study showed that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.

Inequality also distorts our democracy.  It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and it runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder.  (Applause.) It leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in Washington is rigged against them, that our elected representatives aren’t looking out for the interests of most Americans.

But there’s an even more fundamental issue at stake.  This kind of gaping inequality gives lie to the promise that’s at the very heart of America:  that this is a place where you can make it if you try.  We tell people — we tell our kids — that in this country, even if you’re born with nothing, work hard and you can get into the middle class.  We tell them that your children will have a chance to do even better than you do.  That’s why immigrants from around the world historically have flocked to our shores.

And yet, over the last few decades, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk.  You know, a few years after World War II, a child who was born into poverty had a slightly better than 50-50 chance of becoming middle class as an adult.  By 1980, that chance had fallen to around 40 percent.  And if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it’s estimated that a child born today will only have a one-in-three chance of making it to the middle class — 33 percent.

It’s heartbreaking enough that there are millions of working families in this country who are now forced to take their children to food banks for a decent meal.  But the idea that those children might not have a chance to climb out of that situation and back into the middle class, no matter how hard they work?  That’s inexcusable.  It is wrong.  (Applause.)  It flies in the face of everything that we stand for.  (Applause.)

Now, fortunately, that’s not a future that we have to accept, because there’s another view about how we build a strong middle class in this country — a view that’s truer to our history, a vision that’s been embraced in the past by people of both parties for more than 200 years.

It’s not a view that we should somehow turn back technology or put up walls around America.  It’s not a view that says we should punish profit or success or pretend that government knows how to fix all of society’s problems.  It is a view that says in America we are greater together — when everyone engages in fair play and everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share.  (Applause.)  

So what does that mean for restoring middle-class security in today’s economy?  Well, it starts by making sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success.  The truth is we’ll never be able to compete with other countries when it comes to who’s best at letting their businesses pay the lowest wages, who’s best at busting unions, who’s best at letting companies pollute as much as they want.  That’s a race to the bottom that we can’t win, and we shouldn’t want to win that race.  (Applause.)  Those countries don’t have a strong middle class.  They don’t have our standard of living.

The race we want to win, the race we can win is a race to the top — the race for good jobs that pay well and offer middle-class security.  Businesses will create those jobs in countries with the highest-skilled, highest-educated workers, the most advanced transportation and communication, the strongest commitment to research and technology.

The world is shifting to an innovation economy and nobody does innovation better than America.  Nobody does it better.  (Applause.)  No one has better colleges.  Nobody has better universities.  Nobody has a greater diversity of talent and ingenuity.  No one’s workers or entrepreneurs are more driven or more daring.  The things that have always been our strengths match up perfectly with the demands of the moment.

But we need to meet the moment.  We’ve got to up our game.  We need to remember that we can only do that together.  It starts by making education a national mission — a national mission.  (Applause.)  Government and businesses, parents and citizens.  In this economy, a higher education is the surest route to the middle class.  The unemployment rate for Americans with a college degree or more is about half the national average.  And their incomes are twice as high as those who don’t have a high school diploma.  Which means we shouldn’t be laying off good teachers right now — we should be hiring them.  (Applause.)  We shouldn’t be expecting less of our schools –- we should be demanding more.  (Applause.)  We shouldn’t be making it harder to afford college — we should be a country where everyone has a chance to go and doesn’t rack up $100,000 of debt just because they went.  (Applause.) 

In today’s innovation economy, we also need a world-class commitment to science and research, the next generation of high-tech manufacturing.  Our factories and our workers shouldn’t be idle.  We should be giving people the chance to get new skills and training at community colleges so they can learn how to make wind turbines and semiconductors and high-powered batteries.  And by the way, if we don’t have an economy that’s built on bubbles and financial speculation, our best and brightest won’t all gravitate towards careers in banking and finance.  (Applause.)   Because if we want an economy that’s built to last, we need more of those young people in science and engineering.  (Applause.)  This country should not be known for bad debt and phony profits. We should be known for creating and selling products all around the world that are stamped with three proud words:  Made in America.  (Applause.)     

Today, manufacturers and other companies are setting up shop in the places with the best infrastructure to ship their products, move their workers, communicate with the rest of the world.  And that’s why the over 1 million construction workers who lost their jobs when the housing market collapsed, they shouldn’t be sitting at home with nothing to do.  They should be rebuilding our roads and our bridges, laying down faster railroads and broadband, modernizing our schools — (applause) — all the things other countries are already doing to attract good jobs and businesses to their shores.

Yes, business, and not government, will always be the primary generator of good jobs with incomes that lift people into the middle class and keep them there.  But as a nation, we’ve always come together, through our government, to help create the conditions where both workers and businesses can succeed.  (Applause.)  And historically, that hasn’t been a partisan idea. Franklin Roosevelt worked with Democrats and Republicans to give veterans of World War II — including my grandfather, Stanley Dunham — the chance to go to college on the G.I. Bill.  It was a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, a proud son of Kansas — (applause) — who started the Interstate Highway System, and doubled down on science and research to stay ahead of the Soviets.

Of course, those productive investments cost money.  They’re not free.  And so we’ve also paid for these investments by asking everybody to do their fair share.  Look, if we had unlimited resources, no one would ever have to pay any taxes and we would never have to cut any spending.  But we don’t have unlimited resources.  And so we have to set priorities.  If we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values.  We have to make choices.

Today that choice is very clear.  To reduce our deficit, I’ve already signed nearly $1 trillion of spending cuts into law and I’ve proposed trillions more, including reforms that would lower the cost of Medicare and Medicaid.  (Applause.) 

But in order to structurally close the deficit, get our fiscal house in order, we have to decide what our priorities are. Now, most immediately, short term, we need to extend a payroll tax cut that’s set to expire at the end of this month.  (Applause.)  If we don’t do that, 160 million Americans, including most of the people here, will see their taxes go up by an average of $1,000 starting in January and it would badly weaken our recovery.  That’s the short term. 

In the long term, we have to rethink our tax system more fundamentally.  We have to ask ourselves:  Do we want to make the investments we need in things like education and research and high-tech manufacturing — all those things that helped make us an economic superpower?  Or do we want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country?  Because we can’t afford to do both.  That is not politics.  That’s just math.  (Laughter and applause.)

Now, so far, most of my Republican friends in Washington have refused under any circumstance to ask the wealthiest Americans to go to the same tax rate they were paying when Bill Clinton was president.  So let’s just do a trip down memory lane here. 

Keep in mind, when President Clinton first proposed these tax increases, folks in Congress predicted they would kill jobs and lead to another recession.  Instead, our economy created nearly 23 million jobs and we eliminated the deficit.  (Applause.)  Today, the wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century.  This isn’t like in the early ‘50s, when the top tax rate was over 90 percent.  This isn’t even like the early ‘80s, when the top tax rate was about 70 percent.  Under President Clinton, the top rate was only about 39 percent.  Today, thanks to loopholes and shelters, a quarter of all millionaires now pay lower tax rates than millions of you, millions of middle-class families.  Some billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1 percent.  One percent.

That is the height of unfairness.  It is wrong.  (Applause.)  It’s wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker, maybe earns $50,000 a year, should pay a higher tax rate than somebody raking in $50 million.  (Applause.)  It’s wrong for Warren Buffett’s secretary to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett.  (Applause.)  And by the way, Warren Buffett agrees with me.  (Laughter.)  So do most Americans — Democrats, independents and Republicans.  And I know that many of our wealthiest citizens would agree to contribute a little more if it meant reducing the deficit and strengthening the economy that made their success possible.

This isn’t about class warfare.  This is about the nation’s welfare.  It’s about making choices that benefit not just the people who’ve done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefits the middle class, and those fighting to get into the middle class, and the economy as a whole. 

Finally, a strong middle class can only exist in an economy where everyone plays by the same rules, from Wall Street to Main Street.  (Applause.)  As infuriating as it was for all of us, we rescued our major banks from collapse, not only because a full-blown financial meltdown would have sent us into a second Depression, but because we need a strong, healthy financial sector in this country.

But part of the deal was that we wouldn’t go back to business as usual.  And that’s why last year we put in place new rules of the road that refocus the financial sector on what should be their core purpose:  getting capital to the entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and financing millions of families who want to buy a home or send their kids to college.

Now, we’re not all the way there yet, and the banks are fighting us every inch of the way.  But already, some of these reforms are being implemented.

If you’re a big bank or risky financial institution, you now have to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you’ll pay the bills if you fail, so that taxpayers are never again on the hook for Wall Street’s mistakes.  (Applause.)  There are also limits on the size of banks and new abilities for regulators to dismantle a firm that is going under.  The new law bans banks from making risky bets with their customers’ deposits, and it takes away big bonuses and paydays from failed CEOs, while giving shareholders a say on executive salaries.

This is the law that we passed.  We are in the process of implementing it now.  All of this is being put in place as we speak.  Now, unless you’re a financial institution whose business model is built on breaking the law, cheating consumers and making risky bets that could damage the entire economy, you should have nothing to fear from these new rules.

Some of you may know, my grandmother worked as a banker for most of her life — worked her way up, started as a secretary, ended up being a vice president of a bank.  And I know from her, and I know from all the people that I’ve come in contact with, that the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals, they want to do right by their customers.  They want to have rules in place that don’t put them at a disadvantage for doing the right thing.  And yet, Republicans in Congress are fighting as hard as they can to make sure that these rules aren’t enforced.

I’ll give you a specific example.  For the first time in history, the reforms that we passed put in place a consumer watchdog who is charged with protecting everyday Americans from being taken advantage of by mortgage lenders or payday lenders or debt collectors.  And the man we nominated for the post, Richard Cordray, is a former attorney general of Ohio who has the support of most attorney generals, both Democrat and Republican, throughout the country.  Nobody claims he’s not qualified.

But the Republicans in the Senate refuse to confirm him for the job; they refuse to let him do his job.  Why?  Does anybody here think that the problem that led to our financial crisis was too much oversight of mortgage lenders or debt collectors?


THE PRESIDENT:  Of course not.  Every day we go without a consumer watchdog is another day when a student, or a senior citizen, or a member of our Armed Forces — because they are very vulnerable to some of this stuff — could be tricked into a loan that they can’t afford — something that happens all the time.  And the fact is that financial institutions have plenty of lobbyists looking out for their interests.  Consumers deserve to have someone whose job it is to look out for them.  (Applause.)  And I intend to make sure they do.  (Applause.)  And I want you to hear me, Kansas:  I will veto any effort to delay or defund or dismantle the new rules that we put in place.  (Applause.)

We shouldn’t be weakening oversight and accountability.  We should be strengthening oversight and accountability.  I’ll give you another example.  Too often, we’ve seen Wall Street firms violating major anti-fraud laws because the penalties are too weak and there’s no price for being a repeat offender.  No more.  I’ll be calling for legislation that makes those penalties count so that firms don’t see punishment for breaking the law as just the price of doing business.  (Applause.)

The fact is this crisis has left a huge deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street.  And major banks that were rescued by the taxpayers have an obligation to go the extra mile in helping to close that deficit of trust.  At minimum, they should be remedying past mortgage abuses that led to the financial crisis.  They should be working to keep responsible homeowners in their home.  We’re going to keep pushing them to provide more time for unemployed homeowners to look for work without having to worry about immediately losing their house.

The big banks should increase access to refinancing opportunities to borrowers who haven’t yet benefited from historically low interest rates.  And the big banks should recognize that precisely because these steps are in the interest of middle-class families and the broader economy, it will also be in the banks’ own long-term financial interest.  What will be good for consumers over the long term will be good for the banks.  (Applause.) 

Investing in things like education that give everybody a chance to succeed.  A tax code that makes sure everybody pays their fair share.  And laws that make sure everybody follows the rules.  That’s what will transform our economy.  That’s what will grow our middle class again.  In the end, rebuilding this economy based on fair play, a fair shot, and a fair share will require all of us to see that we have a stake in each other’s success.  And it will require all of us to take some responsibility.

It will require parents to get more involved in their children’s education.  It will require students to study harder.  (Applause.)  It will require some workers to start studying all over again.  It will require greater responsibility from homeowners not to take out mortgages they can’t afford.  They need to remember that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

It will require those of us in public service to make government more efficient and more effective, more consumer-friendly, more responsive to people’s needs.  That’s why we’re cutting programs that we don’t need to pay for those we do.  (Applause.)  That’s why we’ve made hundreds of regulatory reforms that will save businesses billions of dollars.  That’s why we’re not just throwing money at education, we’re challenging schools to come up with the most innovative reforms and the best results.

And it will require American business leaders to understand that their obligations don’t just end with their shareholders.  Andy Grove, the legendary former CEO of Intel, put it best.  He said, “There is another obligation I feel personally, given that everything I’ve achieved in my career, and a lot of what Intel has achieved…were made possible by a climate of democracy, an economic climate and investment climate provided by the United States.”

This broader obligation can take many forms.  At a time when the cost of hiring workers in China is rising rapidly, it should mean more CEOs deciding that it’s time to bring jobs back to the United States — (applause) — not just because it’s good for business, but because it’s good for the country that made their business and their personal success possible.  (Applause.)

I think about the Big Three auto companies who, during recent negotiations, agreed to create more jobs and cars here in America, and then decided to give bonuses not just to their executives, but to all their employees, so that everyone was invested in the company’s success.  (Applause.) 

I think about a company based in Warroad, Minnesota.  It’s called Marvin Windows and Doors.  During the recession, Marvin’s competitors closed dozens of plants, let hundreds of workers go.  But Marvin’s did not lay off a single one of their 4,000 or so employees — not one.  In fact, they’ve only laid off workers once in over a hundred years.  Mr. Marvin’s grandfather even kept his eight employees during the Great Depression.

Now, at Marvin’s when times get tough, the workers agree to give up some perks and some pay, and so do the owners.  As one owner said, “You can’t grow if you’re cutting your lifeblood — and that’s the skills and experience your workforce delivers.”  (Applause.)  For the CEO of Marvin’s, it’s about the community.  He said, “These are people we went to school with.  We go to church with them.  We see them in the same restaurants.  Indeed, a lot of us have married local girls and boys.  We could be anywhere, but we are in Warroad.” 

That’s how America was built.  That’s why we’re the greatest nation on Earth.  That’s what our greatest companies understand.  Our success has never just been about survival of the fittest.  It’s about building a nation where we’re all better off.  We pull together.  We pitch in.  We do our part.  We believe that hard work will pay off, that responsibility will be rewarded, and that our children will inherit a nation where those values live on.  (Applause.)

And it is that belief that rallied thousands of Americans to Osawatomie — (applause) — maybe even some of your ancestors — on a rain-soaked day more than a century ago.  By train, by wagon, on buggy, bicycle, on foot, they came to hear the vision of a man who loved this country and was determined to perfect it.

“We are all Americans,” Teddy Roosevelt told them that day. “Our common interests are as broad as the continent.”  In the final years of his life, Roosevelt took that same message all across this country, from tiny Osawatomie to the heart of New York City, believing that no matter where he went, no matter who he was talking to, everybody would benefit from a country in which everyone gets a fair chance.  (Applause.)  

And well into our third century as a nation, we have grown and we’ve changed in many ways since Roosevelt’s time.  The world is faster and the playing field is larger and the challenges are more complex.  But what hasn’t changed — what can never change — are the values that got us this far.  We still have a stake in each other’s success.  We still believe that this should be a place where you can make it if you try.  And we still believe, in the words of the man who called for a New Nationalism all those years ago, “The fundamental rule of our national life,” he said, “the rule which underlies all others — is that, on the whole, and in the long run, we shall go up or down together.”  And I believe America is on the way up.  (Applause.) 

Thank you.  God bless you.  God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)


L’évènement repris par le Monde du 7 Décembre :

Barack Obama repart à l'assaut des classes moyennes

LEMONDE.FR avec AFP et Reuters | 07.12.11 | 10h12   •  Mis à jour le 07.12.11 | 10h18

Sans y prendre garde, Barack Obama s'est rangé au côté des indignés. Le président américain a prononcé, mardi 6 décembre, un discours à Osawatomie (Kansas), là même où son prédécesseur Theodore Roosevelt s'en était pris, il y a près d'un siècle, aux industries monopolistiques. M. Obama multiplie depuis quelques mois ses déplacements sur le terrain alors que les républicains vont entamer dans un mois les consultations électorales qui vont leur permettre de désigner celui qui affrontera le président sortant lors de la présidentielle du 6 novembre 2012.


"Trop souvent, nous avons vu les firmes de Wall Street violer les lois parce que les peines sont trop légères et que la récidive n'y change rien. C'est terminé ! a-t-il lancé. Ceux qui sont tout en haut se sont enrichis comme jamais grâce à leurs revenus et à leurs investissements. Mais tous les autres luttent avec des dépenses qui ont augmenté alors que la fiche de paye, elle, n'a pas bougé. Ce genre d'inégalités croissantes fait mentir la promesse qui est au cœur même de l'Amérique, à savoir que c'est l'endroit où quand on veut, on peut", a martelé le président.

M. Obama a estimé que le combat des classes moyennes pour préserver leur niveau de vie constituait la "grande inquiétude de notre temps". Il s'est, en outre, engagé à réformer la législation financière pour sanctionner plus durement les auteurs de malversations, mais son message était avant tout adressé aux Américains ordinaires, auxquels il a promis une redistribution équitable des richesses.

Barack Obama réclame depuis plusieurs semaines à ses adversaires républicains en position de force au Congrès d'accepter une prorogation des allègements de contributions sociales expirant à la fin du mois pour la classe moyenne. Barack Obama s'en est pris aux républicains, lesquels se sont opposés à son projet d'augmenter les impôts des plus riches pour financer la lutte pour l'emploi aux Etats-Unis.

En ce moment, a-t-il dit, se décide "l'avenir des classes moyennes et de tous ceux qui se battent pour intégrer les classes moyennes". "Ce qui est en jeu, c'est la question de savoir si les Etats-Unis sont un pays où les gens peuvent gagnersuffisamment d'argent pour élever leur famille, mettre un peu d'argent de côté,devenir propriétaire et s'assurer une retraite", a-t-il souligné.


Ce discours marque une rupture dans la stratégie du président, qui s'attachait jusqu'alors à des points précis de la confrontation avec le camp conservateur.Barack Obama s'est particulièrement attaché à creuser cette veine, qui, selon ses conseillers, trouve un écho de plus en plus grand auprès des contribuables qui alimentent les plans de sauvetage des banques, comme en témoigne la vigueur du mouvement Occupy Wall Street.

En dénonçant plus durement les abus de la haute finance, il risque toutefois de se couper d'une partie de l'électorat centriste dont les voix seront indispensables à sa réélection. Après la défaite démocrate aux élections de mi-mandat, Barack Obama avait, au contraire, tendu la main au monde des affaires.


L’évènement repris par La Tribune du 7 décembre

En campagne, Barack Obama relance la « guerre des classes »

Le président américain a délivré mardi un discours populiste, s'affichant comme le défenseur de la classe moyenne. Il prépare le terrain pour sa réélection.

L'endroit n'a pas été choisi au hasard. À Osawatomie, une toute petite ville du Kansas, en plein cœur de l'Amérique profonde, ici même où Theodore Roosevelt avait plaidé il y a 101 ans pour plus de justice sociale, Barack Obama a délivré mardi un discours qui fera certainement date dans sa présidence. Un discours virulent, souvent populiste, nouvelle illustration de la "guerre des classes" que ses adversaires républicains l'accusent d'alimenter.

"Nous sommes à un moment charnière pour la classe moyenne, a-t-il lancé. Ce qui est en jeu, c'est de savoir si, dans ce pays, des gens qui travaillent peuvent gagner suffisamment pour élever leurs enfants, mettre un peu de côté, posséder une maison et assurer leur retraite". Avant de s'attaquer aux républicains, dont la "philosophie est simple : nous sommes meilleurs quand chacun est livré à lui-même et suit ses propres règles". Et aussi aux firmes de Wall Street, qui ont "violé trop souvent les lois en raison de sanctions trop légères".

Faut-il voir dans ces propos l'expression d'une exaspération exacerbée par les blocages permanents au Congrès ou la volonté de - déjà - préparer le terrain pour sa réélection ? Certainement, un peu des deux. Car Barack Obama n'en finit plus de réclamer aux élus démocrates et républicains de prolonger les allégements de charges sociales, qui doivent expirer à la fin de l'année. Selon les économistes, un échec pourrait amputer la croissance américaine de 0,5 à 1,5 point en 2012. Et plus d'un demi-million d'emplois seraient menacés.

Pour financer cette mesure, les sénateurs démocrates proposent d'instaurer une surtaxe de 1,9 % sur les millionnaires (contre 3,25 % dans leur première proposition rejetée la semaine dernière). Mais ils se heurtent toujours à l'intransigeance de leurs homologue républicains, idéologiquement opposés à toute hausse de la fiscalité. "Allez-vous réduire les impôts de la classe moyenne ou allez-vous protéger les cadeaux fiscaux des millionnaires et des milliardaires ?", leur avait lancé la semaine dernière Barack Obama. "Si le Congrès n'agit pas, une famille de la classe moyenne verra ses impôts augmenter de 1.000 dollars au plus mauvais moment possible".

Le discours de Barack Obama doit également être interprété sous le prisme de l'élection présidentielle de novembre 2012. Même s'il s'en défend, l'ancien sénateur de l'Illinois est déjà en campagne. Et il a bien conscience de la déception qu'ont suscitée les trois premières années de son mandat. Il lui faut donc remobiliser son électorat et s'afficher comme le défenseur de la classe moyenne, de cette Amérique qui souffre quand les républicains cherchent eux à préserver les intérêts d'une élite.

Le président américain ne manque pas de souligner que son plan de relance de l'emploi, présenté début septembre devant le Congrès, a été tué dans l'oeuf par ses adversaires, qui avaient refusé de le financer en demandant aux plus riches de payer leur "juste part". Un moyen de rejeter en partie sur eux la responsabilité de la persistance du chômage. "Barack Obama ne me rappelle pas Teddy Roosevelt mais Jimmy Carter", juge le républicain Tim Pawlenty. En 1980, le président sortant démocrate avait été sèchement battu par Ronald Reagan. Le taux de chômage n'était alors "que" de 7,5 %. Il est aujourd'hui de 8,6 %.

Jérôme Marin, à New York - 07/12/2011, 22:38

17:11 Publié dans Société et Justice | Lien permanent | | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook | |  Imprimer | |


Les Stances du Cid

Acte I, scène 6

Les Stances du Cid sont parmi les monologues les plus glorieux de la littérature française et fondent ce qu'il est convenu d'appeler le « débat cornélien ». Rodrigue y fait entendre à la fois son désarroi et son code moral. A travers un examen de sa situation il prend une décision conforme à son éthique personnelle.


Percé jusques au fond du cœur
D'une atteinte imprévue aussi bien que mortelle,
Misérable vengeur d'une juste querelle,
Et malheureux objet d'une injuste rigueur,
Je demeure immobile, et mon âme abattue
Cède au coup qui me tue.

Si près de voir mon feu récompensé,
Ô Dieu, l'étrange peine !
En cet affront mon père est l'offensé,
Et l'offenseur le père de Chimène !

Que je sens de rudes combats !
Contre mon propre honneur mon amour s'intéresse:
Il faut venger un père, et perdre une maîtresse:
L'un m'anime le cœur, l'autre retient mon bras.
Réduit au triste choix ou de trahir ma flamme,
Ou de vivre en infâme,

Des deux côtés mon mal est infini.
Ô Dieu, l'étrange peine !
Faut-il laisser un affront impuni ?
Faut-il punir le père de Chimène ?

Père, maîtresse, honneur, amour,
Noble et dure contrainte, aimable tyrannie,
Tous mes plaisirs sont morts, ou ma gloire ternie.
L'un me rend malheureux, l'autre indigne du jour.
Cher et cruel espoir d'une âme généreuse,
Mais ensemble amoureuse,

Digne ennemi de mon plus grand bonheur,
Fer qui causes ma peine,
M'es-tu donné pour venger mon honneur ?
M'es-tu donné pour perdre ma Chimène ?

Il vaut mieux courir au trépas.
Je dois à ma maîtresse aussi bien qu'à mon père :
J'attire en me vengeant sa haine et sa colère ;
J'attire ses mépris en ne me vengeant pas.
A mon plus doux espoir l'un me rend infidèle,
Et l'autre indigne d'elle.

Mon mal augmente à le voir guérir ;
Tout redouble ma peine.
Allons, mon âme ; et puisqu'il faut mourir,
Mourons du moins sans offenser Chimène.

Mourir sans tirer ma raison!
Rechercher un trépas si mortel à ma gloire !
Endurer que l'Espagne impute à ma mémoire
D'avoir mal soutenu l'honneur de ma maison!
Respecter un amour dont mon âme égarée
Voit la perte assurée !

N'écoutons plus ce penser suborneur,
Qui ne sert qu'à ma peine.
Allons, mon bras, sauvons du moins l'honneur,
Puisqu'après tout il faut perdre Chimène.

Oui, mon esprit s'était déçu.
Je dois tout à mon père avant qu'à ma maîtresse :
Que je meure au combat, ou meure de tristesse,
Je rendrai mon sang pur comme je l'ai reçu.
Je m'accuse déjà de trop de négligence :
Courons à la vengeance ;

Et tout honteux d'avoir tant balancé,
Ne soyons plus en peine,
Puisqu'aujourd'hui mon père est l'offensé,
Si l'offenseur est père de Chimène.


Stances n. f.
Poème formé d'une série de strophes d'inspiration grave qui témoignent souvent d'une méditation personnelle. Ces strophes sont construites sur un schéma identique.
Les stances peuvent constituer un poème à part entière (par exemple chez Lamartine) ou bien être intégrées dans une pièce de théâtre comme c'est le cas pour les stances du Cid, de Corneille.

20:07 Publié dans Culture | Lien permanent | | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook | |  Imprimer | |


King Africa - La Bomba

Wikio Mots clés : ,
Paroles et traduction de La Bomba

La Bomba (La Bombe)
La bomba (sensual)
La bombe (sensuelle)
Un movimiento sensual (sensual)
Un mouvement sensuel (sensuel)
Un movimiento muy sexy (sexy)
Un mouvement très sexy (sexy)
Un movimiento muy sexy (sexy)
Un mouvement très sexy (sexy)
Y aquí viene el africano con el baile que es una (bomba)
Et voila l'africain qui s'ammène avec cette danse qui est une (bombe)
Para bailar esto es una (bomba)
Pour danser ça c'est de la (bombe)
Para gozar esto es una (bomba)
Pour s'amuser ça c'est de la (bombe)
Para menear esto es una (bomba)
Pour bouger ça c'est de la (bombe)
[Coro 1]
[Refrain 1]
Y las mujeres lo bailan así, así, así, así
Et les femmes le dansent comme ça, comme ça, comme ça, comme ça
Todo el mundo
Tout le monde
Una mano en la cabeza
Une main sur la tête
Una mano en la cabeza
Une main sur la tête
Un movimiento sexy
Un mouvement sexy
Un movimiento sexy
Un mouvement sexy
Una mano en la cintura
Une main à la ceinture
Una mano en la cintura
Une main à la ceinture
Un movimiento sexy
Un mouvement sexy
Un movimiento sexy
Un mouvement sexy
[Coro 2]
[Refrain 2]
Y ahora empiezo a menear
Et maintenant je commence à bouger
Suavecito para abajo, para abajo, para abajo
Doucement vers le bas, le bas, le bas
Suavecito para arriba, para arriba, para arriba
Doucement vers le haut, le haut, le haut
Suavecito para abajo, para abajo, para abajo
Doucement vers le bas, le bas, le bas
Suavecito para arriba, para arriba, para arriba
Doucement vers le haut, le haut, le haut
Bomba (sensual)
Bombe (sensuelle)
Un movimiento sensual (sensual)
Un mouvement sensuel (sensuel)
Un movimiento muy sexy (sexy)
Un mouvement très sexy (sexy)
Un movimiento muy sexy (sexy)
Un mouvement très sexy (sexy)
Y aquí viene el africano con el baile que es una (bomba)
Et voila l'africain qui s'ammène avec la danse qui est une (bombe)
Para bailar esto es una (bomba)
Pour danser c'est une (bombe)
Para gozar esto es una (bomba)
Pour s'amuser c'est une (bombe)
Todas las mujeres lo bailan (bomba)
Toutes les femmes le dansent (bombe)
Todas los hombres lo bailan (bomba)
Tous les hommes le dansent (bombe)
Todas las radios lo ponen (bomba)
Toutes les radios la mettent (bombe)
Las discotecas lo ponen (bomba)
Toutes les discothèques la mettent (bombe)
Toda la gente lo baila (bomba)
Tous les gens la dansent (bombe)
[Coro 1]
[Refrain 1]
[Coro 2]
[Refrain 2]
Sexy, mami (sensual)
Sexy, beauté (sensuel)
Un movimiento sensual (sensual)
Un mouvement sensuel (sensuel)
Un movimiento muy sexy (sexy)
Un mouvement très sexy (sexy)
Un movimiento muy sexy (sexy)
Un mouvement très sexy (sexy)
Y aquí viene el africano con el baile que es una (bomba)
Et voila l'africain qui s'ammène avec la danse qui est une bombe
Para bailar esto es una (bomba)
Pour danser ça c'est une (bombe)
Para gozar esto es una (bomba)
Pour s'amuser ça c'est une (bombe)
Todas las mujeres lo bailan (bomba)
Toutes les femmes la dansent (bombe)
Todas los hombres lo bailan (bomba)
Tous les hommes la dansent (bombe)
Todas las radios lo ponen (bomba)
Toutes les radios la mettent (bombe)
Las discotecas lo ponen (bomba)
Toutes les discothèques la mettent (bombe)
Toda la gente lo baila (bomba)
Tous les gens la dansent (bomba)
Pero este cuento se acaba, acaba, acaba
Mais cette histoire se finit, finit, finit
Acaba, acaba, acábalo
Finit, finit, finit-la
Y acaba, acaba, acaba, acaba, acábalo
Et finit, finit, finit, finit, finit-la
Y acaba, acaba, acaba, acaba, acábalo
Et finit, finit, finit, finit, finit-la
Y acaba, acaba, acaba, acaba, acábalo
Et finit, finit, finit, finit, finit-la

22:09 Publié dans Chanson, Danse, Musique, Vidéo | Lien permanent | | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook | |  Imprimer | |


Comment débattre des nouvelles technologies ?

Surement pas de la façon dont on nous a toujours parlé du Nucléaire.
Surement pas au mépris de la Nature et de ce qui ne se marchande pas !

Quant aux principes, il n’y en a qu’un qui prime “le principe de viabilité”
que je résumerai en ceci :

“Dans quelles limites précises ce que nous décidons est viable, pour nous et nos écosystèmes, jusqu’à quel horizon, quel est le prix à payer, par qui, et pour quoi ? - Comment donc privilégier le développement de nos connaissances jusqu’à des niveaux suffisamment fins, et ne pas continuer comme aujourd’hui, à appliquer des connaissances sommaires et mal dégrossies, ou à fabriquer dans nos écoles, nos universités, et nos entreprises des apprentis sorciers dépourvus de tout humanisme voire même humanité comme les barbares qui ont servi le NAZISME. Et donc aussi, comment remettre au service de l’homme, les méthodes qualités qui sont devenus une tarte à la crème qu’on vous jette à la figure pour éviter de parler des contingences réelles ? Regardons le maître  incontesté des méthodes “Qualité” copiées par tout le monde occidental, Le JAPON, et son FUKUSHIMA !”.

Le pari est pris que ce Colloque n’ira guère au delà d’une bonne publicité pour Pierre Rosanvallon.

Colloque organisé sur cette question par le Premier Ministre et le Centre d’Analyse stratégique.

Depuis la Révolution française, notre société est confrontée à la perpétuelle redéfinition des relations entre la souveraineté du peuple et le pouvoir du gouvernement représentatif.

Certes, l’essence même de notre démocratie réside dans le vote électoral : il n’en reste pas moins vrai que, comme le montre Pierre Rosanvallon, « une "souveraineté plus active et plus complexe" peut conduire à un gouvernement plus fidèle et plus attentif à la volonté générale, sans nier pour autant la formidable ambigüité qui s’attache à ce dernier terme ».

Dans une société que certains disent de plus en plus désenchantée par le politique, mais qui sait se mobiliser lorsqu’elle trouve de l’intérêt aux enjeux qui lui sont soumis, comment notre société peut-elle débattre du développement des technologies et des innovations émergentes, afin d’aboutir à leur développement responsable ? Quels principes doivent nous guider dans l’organisation des concertations correspondantes ?

Quelques références sur le concept de Viabilité en sciences et son étendue :

Jean-Pierre Aubin 1991. Viability Theory
La viabilité
Population Viability Analysis
Evolution of Coalition Structures under Uncertainty

14:58 Publié dans Conférence, Technologies | Lien permanent | | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook | |  Imprimer | |


FNE : Concertation et Receuil de l’avis du public


La démocratie participative est embastillé par des textes règlementaires opaques qui permettent tout et rien. Et en général “le rien perce” comme dit Valéry, surtout quand on brandit le spectre d’une idéologie.

Mais ça avance ! France Nature Environnement a obtenu du  Conseil constitutionnel par une décision rendue aujourd’hui, “qu’une simple information du public ne pouvait pas équivaloir à une participation de ce même public à l’élaboration des décisions ayant un impact sur l’environnement. Il s’agit de la première décision remarquable du Conseil constitutionnel relative à la Charte de l’environnement. Cette décision devrait mettre fin à la pseudo-concertation qui accompagne un grand nombre de décisions publiques

Lire :


Lire l'arrêté  :


01:29 Publié dans Société et Justice | Lien permanent | | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook | |  Imprimer | |