Już 62 429 użytkowników uczy się języków obcych z Edustation.
Możesz zarejestrować się już dziś i odebrać bonus w postaci 10 monet.
Jeżeli chcesz się dowiedzieć więcej o naszym portalu - kliknij tutaj
Jeszcze nie teraz ZAREJESTRUJ SIĘlub
Zaloguj »
ZAREJESTRUJ SIĘ
Nie masz konta?
President Obama Addresses Business Roundtable (February 2010)
Poziom:
Temat: Biznes
The President:
Thank you all.
Welcome to Washington.
It is wonderful to be back here
with the men and women of the
Business Roundtable.
Over the last year, we've worked
together on a number of issues
-- from economic recovery and
tax policy to education and to health care.
And more often than not,
we've found common ground.
This is important,
because we meet at a time,
as all of you are aware, a time
of great economic anxiety and
sharp political divisions.
We're still emerging from the
worst economic crisis since the
Great Depression.
Eight million Americans have
lost their jobs over the last two years.
Home values in too many parts
of the country have plummeted.
And too many businesses are
still reluctant to invest and expand.
And what's more, this recession
follows what some have called
the "lost decade" -- a decade in
which the average family income
fell while the costs of health
care and tuition skyrocketed;
a decade in which a continued
erosion of America's
manufacturing base hollowed
out many communities around the
country and put too many good
jobs out of reach.
It's no wonder, then, that
people are frustrated.
They're frustrated with
government and they're
frustrated with business.
They're angry at a financial
sector that took exorbitant
risks by some in pursuit
of short-term profits,
and they're angry at a
government that failed to catch
the problem on time.
They're angry at the price they
paid to prevent a financial
meltdown that they didn't cause,
and they're angry that recovery
in their own lives seems to be
lagging the recovery of bank profitability.
They're angry at the lobbyists
who use their influence to put
their clients' special interests
ahead of the public interest.
And although both parties are
predictably scrambling to align
themselves with
people's frustrations,
neither the usual answers from
the left or the right seem to be
inspiring much confidence.
So we've got some
big challenges ahead.
And I think all of us know that
we can't meet them by returning
to the pre-crisis status quo
-- an economy that was too
dependent on a housing
bubble, on consumer debt,
on financial speculation,
and on growing deficits.
That's not sustainable
for American workers,
and it's not sustainable
for American businesses.
Instead, we need an economy
where we borrow less and produce more.
We need an economy where we
generate more jobs here at home
and send more products overseas.
We need to invest and nurture
the industries of the future,
and we need to train our workers
to compete for those jobs.
And nations around the world,
from Asia to Europe,
have already realized this.
They're putting more
emphasis on math and science.
They're building high-speed
railroads and expanding
broadband access.
They're making serious
investments in clean energy
because they want those jobs.
These countries know what's
required to compete in the 21st century.
And so do we.
As I said in the
State of the Union,
I do not accept second place for
the United States of America.
We did not achieve global
leadership in the last century
by luck or by happenstance.
We earned it by working together
to define our own destiny and
seize the future.
And to maintain our leadership
in this new century,
we must summon that
same resolve.
A thriving, competitive America
is within our reach -- but only
if we move forward
as one nation;
only if we move past the old
debates and the crippling
divides between left and right,
between business and labor,
between private enterprise
and the public sector.
Whatever differences we
have in this country,
all of us have a stake
in meeting the same goal,
which is an America in which
a growing prosperity is shared
widely by its people.
So today I want to spend most
of my time talking about the
specific steps we need to take
to build this more competitive America.
But before I do, I want to
talk a little bit about the
relationship between business
and government in promoting
economic growth.
Now, contrary to
the claims of some of my critics
and some of the editorial pages,
I am an ardent believer in the free market.
I believe businesses like yours
are the engines of economic
growth in this country.
You create jobs.
You develop new products and
cutting-edge technologies.
And you create the supply chains
that make it possible for small
businesses to open their doors.
So I want everyone in
this room to succeed.
I want your
shareholders to do well,
I want your workers to do well,
I want you to do well -- because
I firmly believe that America's
success in large part depends on
your success
internationally.
Now, I also believe this: Government has a vital, if limited,
role to play in fostering
sustained economic growth and
creating the foundations
for you to succeed.
Throughout our history,
government has done so in three ways.
First, government has
set up basic rules of the
marketplace -- from the
enforcement of contracts and
managing the money supply,
to maintaining airline safety
standards and creating
federal deposit insurance.
And on balance, these rules have
been good for business, not bad,
for they ensure honest
competition and fair dealing and
a level playing field.
Second,
only government can make those
investments in common goods that
serve the general welfare but
are too expensive for any
individual or firm to purchase
on their own.
Our Armed Forces is the
most obvious example.
But government has also built
infrastructure - from roads and
ports to railways and highways
that enabled commerce and
spurred entire industries.
Government has invested in basic
research that led to new crop
yields for farmers
and the Internet.
Government has
invested in our people,
through land grant
colleges and the GI Bill.
And finally, government has also
provided a social safety net to
guarantee a basic level of
security for all our citizens.
Now, this last role has been
obviously a source of great
controversy over the
last several decades.
But I think most Americans and
most business leaders would
agree that programs like Social
Security and Medicare and
Medicaid and unemployment
insurance haven't just saved
millions from poverty, they've
helped secure broad-based
consensus that is so critical
to a functioning market economy.
Now, the Business
Roundtable has always understood
that in each of these instances,
government hasn't stepped in to
supplant private enterprise,
but to catalyze it,
to create the conditions for
entrepreneurs and new businesses
to adapt and to thrive.
But I take the time to make
these points because we've
arrived at a juncture in our
politics where reasonable
efforts to update
our regulations,
or make basic investments
in our future,
are too often greeted with cries
of "government takeover" or even
"socialism."
Not only does that kind of
rhetoric deny our history,
but it prevents us from asking
hard questions about the right
balance between the
private and public sectors.
Let me give you some examples.
Too little investment in a
competitive infrastructure or an
education system that works for
our children and we risk falling
behind countries that are making
these investments right now.
On the other hand, if we just
throw money at poorly planned
projects or failing schools,
then we'll remain in debt to
those same countries
for decades to come.
If we don't pass
financial reform,
we can expect more crises in the
future of the sort that we just saw.
On the other hand, if we design
the new rules carelessly,
they could choke off the supply
of capital to businesses and families.
If we allow our safety
net to be weakened,
or lose a sense of
fairness in our tax code,
then we can expect more anger
and frustration from citizens
across the political spectrum.
And at the same time, if an
exploding entitlement state is
gobbling up more and
more of our tax dollars,
there's no way we'll retain
our competitive edge.
So rather than hurling
accusations about big-government
liberals or mean-spirited
conservatives,
we're going to have to
answer those tough questions.
And getting that balance
right has less to do with big
government or small government
than it has to do with smart government.
It's not about being
anti-business or pro-government;
it's about being
pro-growth and pro-jobs.
And while there are no simple
formulas or bumper-stickers that
can encapsulate all the work
that has to be done here,
I do want to discuss a few
specific areas where we have to
get things right.
Now, our first
and most immediate task is to
complete the economic recovery
by taking additional steps to
bolster demand and
keep credit flowing.
Along with our efforts to
unfreeze credit and stabilize
the housing market, the
Recovery Act helped to do this,
and it's one of the main reasons
our economy has gone from
shrinking by 6 percent to
growing by nearly 6 percent.
But we need to do more.
We should make it easier for
small businesses to get loans,
and give them a tax credit for
hiring new workers or raising wages.
We should invest in
infrastructure projects that
lead to new jobs in the
construction industry and other
hard-hit businesses.
And we should provide a tax
incentive for large businesses
like yours to invest in
new plants and equipment.
That would make
a difference now.
And we need businesses
to support these efforts.
The Business Roundtable
supported the Recovery Act,
and for that I'm grateful.
But I think one of the reasons
businesses haven't been as vocal
about their support is a belief
that extraordinary measures like
the Recovery Act or our
financial stability plan somehow
represent a lasting increase
in government intervention.
So let me assure you, let
me be clear, they do not.
One year ago, we were looking
at the possible end of General Motors.
Today, GM has
increased production,
is paying us back
ahead of schedule.
Yesterday, we learned
they're hiring
1,200 more workers in their
Lordstown, Ohio plant.
One year ago, there was a chance
we would lose most of the
$700 billion we were given to
rescue the financial system.
Today, most of that
money has been repaid.
The financial fee we've proposed
would recover the rest and close
the books on
government's involvement.
And let me say a word
about compensation here.
Most Americans -- including
myself -- do not begrudge
reasonable rewards
for a job well done.
What's outraged people are
outsized bonuses at firms that
so recently required
massive public assistance.
Once that money is fully repaid,
I don't believe it's appropriate
for the government to be in the
business of setting compensation levels.
I do believe that shareholders
should have a say in
compensation packages
given to top executives,
and that those packages
should be based on long-term
performance instead
of short-term profits.
And I think that's particularly
important in the financial
industry, where reckless risks
in pursuit of short-term gain
helped create a crisis that
engulfed the world economy.
But here's the larger point
that I'm trying to make.
The steps we took last year were
about saving the economy from
collapse, not about expanding
government's reach into the economy.
The jobs bill working through
Congress right now are similarly
designed to be
targeted and temporary.
And I'm pleased that a few hours
ago the Senate just passed a
series of tax cuts for small
businesses that hire more workers.
This is an important step
forward in putting more
Americans back to work
as soon as possible.
Now, the larger question is
this: Beyond the immediate
requirements of recovery, how do
we lay the foundation for a more
competitive America?
How do we help you succeed?
Now, I believe it starts with
investments in innovation,
in education, and a 21st
century infrastructure.
To build the
infrastructure of tomorrow,
we're investing in expanded
broadband access and health
information technology, clean
energy facilities and the first
high-speed rail
network in America.
To spur the discovery of
services and products and
industries we have
yet to imagine,
we're devoting more than 3
percent of our GDP to research
and development -- an amount
that exceeds the level achieved
at the height of the space race.
We've also proposed making the
research and experimentation tax
credit permanent -- a tax credit
that helps companies like yours
afford the high costs of
developing new technologies and
new products.
To train our workers for
the jobs of tomorrow,
we've made education reform
a top priority in this administration.
We are not interested in just
putting more money into our
schools; we want that
money moving toward reform.
And last year we launched a
national competition to improve
our schools based on a simple
idea: Instead of funding the
status quo, we will only invest
in reform -- reform that raises
student achievement and inspires
students to excel in math and
science, and turns around
failing schools that steal the
future of too many
young Americans.
I just met this week with
the nation's governors,
and education reform is one of
those rare issues where both
Democrats and Republicans are
enthusiastic.
And to achieve my goal of ensuring America again has the
highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020,
I'm urging the Senate to pass a
bill that will make college more
affordable by ending the
unnecessary taxpayer subsidies
that go to financial
intermediaries for student loans.
It's a bill that will also
revitalize our community
colleges, which this
organization has recognized are
a career pathway to the children
of so many working families.
And just as government needs to
support young people eager to
learn, I'm very pleased to see
that the business community has
already begun to bet on the next
generation of American talent.
Just yesterday, 17 high-tech
companies announced plans to
hire over 10,000 college
graduates this year.
That's good news.
That's the kind of partnership
that we need.
Finally, we're investing in
innovation that will lead to a
more efficient, affordable
and consumer-friendly federal government.
Almost all of you have harnessed
new technologies to build
thriving businesses and
provide better services to your customers.
There's no reason government
shouldn't do the same,
and give taxpayers a better
bang for their buck.
With new technology, we're creating a single electronic medical record
for our men and women in uniform
that will follow them from the
day they enlist until the day
that they are laid to rest.
We're cutting down the time it
takes to get a patent approved
by cutting out unnecessary
paperwork and modernizing the process.
And my Secretary of Commerce,
Gary Locke, is here today,
and is doing an outstanding
job leading that effort.
We're working to give people the
chance to go online and book an
appointment at the Social
Security office or check the
status of their citizenship
application -- services
countless businesses
already provide.
Government should be doing the
same.
So in all of these areas --
in infrastructure, in
research, in education,
and in government reform --
we're making investments that
will lead to new products and
services that will help America
compete on the world stage.
It means increases in
productivity and increases in
efficiency, and that's where
we're going to need to be competitive.
Now, winning that
competition also means we need
to export more of our goods and
services to other nations --
something that supports more
jobs here in the
United States
of America.
Unfortunately, the federal
government has not done a great
job advocating for companies'
exports abroad.
That's why, in the State of the Union,
I set a goal of doubling our exports
over the next five years, an
increase that will support 2 million jobs.
And to help me meet this goal,
Gary Locke recently announced
that we're launching a National
Export Initiative where the
federal government will
significantly ramp up its
advocacy on behalf of U.S. exporters.
We're substantially expanding
the trade financing available to
exporters, including small
and medium-sized companies.
And while always keeping
our security needs in mind,
we're going to reform our
export controls to eliminate
unnecessary barriers.
So some of the sectors where
we have a huge competitive
advantage in high-tech areas,
we're going to be able to send
more of those products
to markets overseas.
And we're going to pursue a more
strategic and aggressive effort
to open up new
markets for our goods.
Now, I know that trade
policy has been one of those
longstanding divides
between business and labor,
between Democrats
and Republicans.
To those who would reflexively
support every and any trade
deal, I would say that our
competitors have to play fair
and our agreements
have to be enforced.
We can't simply cede more jobs
or markets to unfair trade practices.
At the same time, to those who
would reflexively oppose every
trade agreement, they need to
know that if America sits on the
sidelines while other
nations sign trade deals,
we will lose the chance to
create jobs on our shores.
In other countries, whether
China or Germany or Brazil,
they've been able to align the
interests of business, workers,
and government around trade
agreements that open up new
markets for them and
create new jobs for them.
We must do the same.
And I'm committed to making that
happen.
That's why we launched the
Trans-Pacific Partnership to
strengthen our trade
relations with Asia,
the fastest-growing
market in the world.
That's why we will work to
resolve outstanding issues so
that we can move forward on
trade agreements with key
partners like South Korea
and Panama and Colombia.
And that's why we will try to
conclude a Doha trade agreement
-- not just any agreement, but
one that creates real access to
key global markets.
A competitive America is also
America that finally has a smart
energy policy.
We know there's no
silver bullet here.
We understand that to reduce our
dependence on oil and the damage
caused by climate change, we're
going to need more production in
the short term, we're going
to need more efficiency,
and we need more incentives
for clean energy.
And already, the Recovery Act
has allowed us to jumpstart the
clean energy industry in America
-- an investment that will lead
to 720,000 clean energy
jobs by the year 2012.
To take just one example, the
United States used to make less
than 2 percent of the world's
advanced batteries for hybrid cars.
By 2015, we'll have enough
capacity to make up to
40 percent of these batteries.
We've also launched an
unprecedented effort to make our
homes and businesses
more energy efficient.
We've announced loan guarantees
to break ground on America's
first new nuclear plant
in nearly three decades.
We're supporting three of the
largest solar plants in the world.
And I've said that we're willing
to make tough decisions about
opening up new offshore areas
for oil and gas development.
So what we're looking at is
a comprehensive strategy,
not an either/or strategy but a
both/and strategy when it comes to energy.
But to truly transition
to a clean energy economy,
I've also said that we need to
put a price on carbon pollution.
Many businesses have embraced
this approach -- including some
who are represented here today.
Still, I am sympathetic to those
companies that face significant
potential transition costs,
and I want to work with this
organization and others like
this to help with those costs
and to get our policies right.
What we can't do is stand still.
The only certainty of the status
quo is that the price and supply
of oil will become
increasingly volatile;
that the use of fossil fuels
will wreak havoc on weather
patterns and air quality.
But if we decide now that
we're putting a price on this
pollution in a few years,
it will give businesses the
certainty of knowing they
have the time to plan for the transition.
This country has to move
towards a clean energy economy.
That's where the world is going.
And that's how America will
remain competitive and strong in
the 21st century.
We will also be more competitive
if we address those costs and
risks that are preventing our
economy from reaching its full potential.
I'll list three critical areas:
outdated financial regulations,
crushing health care costs,
and a growing deficit.
Right now we have a financial
system with the same
vulnerabilities that it had
before this crisis began.
And as I said in the
State of the Union,
my goal is not to
punish Wall Street.
I believe that most individuals
in the financial sector are
looking to make money in an
honest and transparent way.
But if there aren't rules in
place to guard against the
recklessness of a few, and
they're allowed to exploit
consumers and take
on excessive risk,
it starts a race to the bottom
that results in all of us losing.
And that's what
we need to change.
We can't repeat the
mistakes of the past.
We can't allow another AIG or
another Lehman to happen again.
We can't allow
financial institutions,
including those that
take your deposits,
to make gambles that
threaten the whole economy.
What does that mean?
It means we've got to ensure
consolidated supervision of all
institutions that could
pose a risk to the system.
It means we have to close
loopholes that allow financial
firms to evade oversight and
circumvent rules of the road.
It means that we need more
robust consumer and investor protections.
And I ask the Business
Roundtable to support these efforts.
There are lobbyists on the Hill
right now trying to kill reform
by claiming that it would
undermine businesses outside of
the financial sector.
That is not true.
This is about putting in place
rules that encourage drive and
innovation instead of
shortcuts and abuse.
And those are rules that
will benefit everybody.
Now, another undeniable drag
on our economy is the cost of
health care.
And I appreciate the willingness
of the Business Roundtable to
work with us on
health care reform.
When you've had concerns about
specific measures or policies,
we've listened and in many
cases we've made changes.
But I know that there are many
who have been skeptical of our
reform efforts -- because in the
wake of extraordinary measures
that we took to
rescue our economy,
it's been an easy political
tactic to characterize any
effort at health reform as
a "big government takeover."
But let's look at the truth,
because the truth is just the opposite.
We have not called for
the elimination of private insurance.
We have not -- we've been
extraordinarily careful not to
in any way undermine the
employer-based system.
What we've called for is
an insurance exchange where
individuals and small businesses
can pool together in order to
get a better deal from
their insurance companies.
In return for getting
more customers,
we would require insurance
companies not to discriminate on
the basis of preexisting
conditions or arbitrarily jack up premiums.
We've also incorporated almost
every serious idea from across
the political spectrum about how
to contain the rising costs of health care.
As a result, our proposal would
reduce the deficit by as much as
a trillion dollars
over the next decades,
and would directly affect your
bottom lines -- each and every
one of you who are already
providing insurance to your
employees -- by a
significant amount.
All these steps would provide
more certainty for your
businesses, not less.
Because there's no certainty
in a future where premiums rise
without limit; there's certainly
no certainty where companies are
forced to drop coverage
or cut back elsewhere.
That can't be good for business.
Our proposal contains good ideas
from Democrats and Republicans
and health care experts
across the spectrum.
And tomorrow, I look forward to
a good exchange of ideas at the
Blair House with some of
the legislative leaders.
And I hope everyone comes with
a shared desire to solve this
challenge, not just
score political points.
And I hope the roundtable
supports our efforts to finally
pass reform that works for the
American people and for American businesses.
Now, one of benefits of health
care reform is that by bringing
down the cost of
Medicare and Medicaid,
it would significantly
reduce our deficit.
And I know this is an issue of
great concern to many of you.
My OMB Director, Peter Orszag,
will be here soon to give you
the scary numbers.
I promise you this is on
my mind each and every day.
I walked into office
facing a massive deficit,
most of which was the result
of not paying for two wars,
two tax cuts, and an expensive
prescription drug program.
Keep in mind the budget
was balanced; in fact,
we were running a
surplus in 2000.
When we walked in, we had a
deficit of $1.3 trillion and
projected debt over the course
of a decade of $8 trillion.
The lost revenue from this
recession put us in an even deeper hole.
And the steps we took to save
the economy from depression last
year have necessarily added
to the deficit -- about
$1 trillion, compared to the
$8 trillion that we inherited.
Now, I've said we intend
to pay for what we added.
So my administration is doing
what families and businesses all
across the country are doing
during these difficult times --
we're tightening our belts
and making tough decisions.
We're investing only in what we
need and sacrificing what we can do without.
We've gone line by line
through the federal budget and
identified more than 120
programs for elimination -- a
total of $20 billion in
savings just for next year.
Starting in 2011, I've proposed
a freeze on non-security
discretionary government
spending for three years --
something that was never enacted
in the last administration.
I'm also grateful that Congress
responded to my request and
restored a simple budgeting rule
that every family and business
understands, called
pay as you go.
And I've established a
bipartisan fiscal commission
that will provide a specific set
of solutions by the fall to deal
with our medium- and
long-term deficit.
Of course, as many of
you have reminded us,
budget cuts aren't the only step
we've proposed this year to help
bring down the deficit, which
brings me to everybody's
favorite topic -- taxes.
You'll notice I've
saved the best for last.
Now, I want to set the record
straight on this issue,
because it's been one of the
largest sources of tension
between our administration
and the business community.
During the campaign, I promised
a tax cut for 95 percent of
working Americans.
I kept that promise.
We've provided over $150 billion
in tax cuts to small businesses
and to families.
We haven't raised anybody's
income taxes by a single dime.
This year, I expect to sign into
law another $70 billion worth of
business tax cuts for 2010 and
2011 --
a more than 10 percent
cut in corporate taxes.
Now, that may not jibe with what
you're hearing or what you're
reading, but those
are the facts.
They're indisputable.
Now, I've also made two other
promises during the campaign.
I promised that folks
making over $250,000 a year
-- meaning everybody
in this room plus me -- would go
back to paying the marginal tax
rates they did in the 1990s -- a
time when businesses
did pretty well;
a lot of millionaires were made.
I'm not doing this to be
punitive or because I love paying taxes.
I'm doing it because at a
time of two wars and massive
deficits, I can't justify
continuing to give millionaires
or billionaires big tax cuts.
The other promise I made during
the campaign was to ensure that
our tax code doesn't provide
relief and a competitive
advantage to companies that move
jobs and investment outside of
the United States relative to
companies that are investing
here in the United States.
Now, a number of you have made
the point that we shouldn't
discourage anyone from keeping
headquarters and operations in
America and that we have to
balance your needs to compete overseas.
I'm sympathetic to that.
And after listening to you,
we've made some modifications to
our proposal.
But as President of
the United States,
my interest is to reward -- or
at least not disadvantage --
companies who are creating more
jobs and doing more business
within the borders
of this country.
That's not anti-business;
it's pro-America.
And I don't apologize for it.
On all these issues -- from
education to health care to
taxes -- my first question can't
be, "Is this good for business?"
or "Is this good for labor?"
It can't be, "Is
this good politics?"
"Are folks going to tag me as
a liberal or a conservative?"
The only question I
have to ask myself is,
"Is this good for America?
Does it help us compete?
Does it grow our economy?
Does it create jobs for
middle-class and those trying to
join the middle class?
Is it fostering innovation
and creating new business
opportunities?"
That's my job as President.
Having said that, I also know
that government can't meet all
of these challenges on its own.
Ultimately, the success of this
economy is going to depend on
you and people like you
all across the country.
And it's going to depend on
our workforce and our families.
You know, when it
comes to education,
we need parents who are willing
to read to their children and
help with their homework
-- regardless of how much
government is going to reform
the school system -- if we're
going to compete.
When it comes to energy, we need
consumers who are willing to buy
more efficient appliances
and automobiles,
and conserve where they can.
And when it comes to an economy
that works for every American,
we need business leaders like
you who understand that private
enterprise also entails
some public responsibility.
Andy Grove, who most of you
know was the CEO of Intel,
once gave an interview
where he said,
"Those of us in business have
two obligations in my opinion.
The one that's undebatable
is that we have a fiduciary
responsibility to...the
shareholders who put us in our place.
There's another obligation
that I feel personally,"
is what Mr. Grove said, "given
that everything I've achieved in
my career and a lot of what
Intel has achieved in its career
were made possible by
a climate of democracy,
an economic climate and
investment climate provided by
our domicile, the
United States."
Now, it's undoubtedly in
the short-term interests of
individual corporations at any
given moment to pay less in
taxes, to deal with fewer
regulations -- I understand that.
But it's in the long-term
interest of all companies to do
business in a nation that
maintains the world's best
research facilities
and universities;
a nation with public schools
that graduate highly skilled,
highly educated young people; a
nation with functioning railways
and airports; a nation that's
not dragged down by crushing
debt; a nation in which
families are getting good jobs,
and when they work hard they
can support those families.
If you pay your workers a salary
they can raise a family on,
they're going to feel more
loyalty to your company.
And if we have rules of the road
that guard against recklessness
in our financial system, it
will protect the interests of
everyone from the wealthiest
CEOs to the lowest-paid workers.
If we give that kid in the
Bronx a world-class education,
it doesn't just
benefit that child;
it benefits the company that
might hire him down the road and
it benefits the country
that child lives in.
To put it simply, we are
all in this together.
I am a big booster of
each and every one of you.
And I will go to bat for you
every time as you compete in a
tough international environment.
But we're going to have
to do this together.
And we face some very
big challenges right now.
The only way we're going to get
through them -- and the only way
we ever have -- is if we align
the interests of workers and
businesses and government
around a common purpose;
if we all pick up an oar
and start rowing in the same direction.
At a time of such economic
anxiety, it's tempting,
and maybe it's easier, to turn
against one another and to find
scapegoats to blame.
So politicians can rail against
Wall Street or against each
other, and businesses
can fault Capitol Hill,
and all of it makes for
easy talking points and good
political theater.
But it doesn't
solve our problems.
It doesn't move us forward.
It just traps us in the same
debates and divides that have
held us back for a very long
time and forced us to keep on
punting down the road the same
problems we've been facing for decades.
And I believe we can't afford
that kind of politics anymore.
Not now.
But we know the way forward, and
we know what the future can be.
And I am confident
we can get there.
And I'm confident because
we have the hardest-working,
most productive
citizens in the world.
I'm confident because our
universities and research
facilities are second to none.
And I'm confident because of
the caliber of the leaders and
businesses represented
in this room.
We're not going to agree
on every single issue,
we're not going to support
the same policies every time,
but I promise I will never stop
listening to your concerns and
your ideas, and I will never
stop rooting for your success --
because we are in this together.
And whether we rise or fall as
a nation doesn't depend on some
economic forces that
are beyond our control.
It depends on us -- on the
ingenuity of our entrepreneurs,
the determination
of our workers,
and the strength of our people.
I've always believed in
that strength and I remain
extraordinarily hopeful
about our future.
So thank you very
much, everybody.
(applause)
