楼主:周面诊 时间:2019年08月20日 16:39:04 点击:0 回复:0
For the past three and a half years, we’ve been fighting our way back from an historic economic crisis – one caused by breathtaking irresponsibility on the part of some on Wall Street who treated our financial system like a casino.在过去的三年半中,我们一直在与一场历史性的经济危机战斗——而其原因之一就是一部分人惊人的不负责任致使我们的金融系统华尔街像一家。Not only did that behavior nearly destroy the financial system – it cost our economy millions of jobs, hurt middle-class families, and left taxpayers holding the bag.这样的行为不仅几乎摧毁整个金融体系——这是我们的经济数以百万工作岗位的成本,还伤害了中产阶级家庭,而且让纳税人自掏腰包。Since then, we’ve recovered taxpayer dollars that were used to stabilize troubled banks.从那时起,我们已经恢复了纳税人的被用来稳定陷入困境中的钱。And we’ve put in place Wall Street reform with smarter, tougher, commonsense rules that serve one primary purpose: 而且我们将华尔街进行改革,使其更睿智、更严谨,常识性规则提供的务是为了一个主要目的:to prevent a crisis like that from ever happening again. 防止这样的危机再度发生。And yet, for the past two years, too many Republicans in Congress and an army of financial industry lobbyists have actually been waging an all-out battle to delay, defund, and dismantle Wall Street reform.然而,在过去的两年里, 国会中有太多的共和党人和一大批金融行业的说客们实际上已经开始全面的行动以延迟,撤资及拆除华尔街改革。Recently, we’ve seen why we can’t let that happen.最近,我们已经看到了为什么我们不会让这种事情发生。We found out that a big mistake at one of our biggest banks resulted in a two billion dollar loss. 我们在我们的一家最大的之一发现一个造成二十亿美元重大损失的错误。While that bank can handle a loss of that size, other banks may not have been able to. 同时,这家可以处理这种规模的亏损,而其他可能不行。And without Wall Street reform, we could have found ourselves with the taxpayers once again on the hook for Wall Street’s mistakes.没有华尔街改革,我们发现自己与纳税人会再次重蹈华尔街错误的覆辙。That’s why it’s so important that Members of Congress stand on the side of reform, not against it;这就是为什么它是如此重要,国会成员站在改革的一边,而不是反对它,because we can’t afford to go back to an era of weak regulation and little oversight;因为我们不能回到一个监管软弱和缺乏监管的的时代;where excessive risk-taking on Wall Street and a lack of basic oversight in Washington nearly destroyed our economy. 那里在华盛顿华尔街过度冒险的行为和缺乏基本的监督几乎毁了我们的经济。We can’t afford to go back to that brand of ‘you’re-on-your-own’ economics.我们不能回到那个“你就是你自己”的经济中去。Not after the American people have worked so hard to come back from this crisis.美国人民不能再次吞下辛辛苦苦再次从这次危机中恢复的苦果。We’ve got to keep moving forward.我们必须继续前进。We’ve got to finish the job of implementing this reform and putting these rules in place.我们必须完成实施这一改革并使这些法规到位的工作。These new rules say that, if you’re a big bank or financial institution, you now have to hold more cash on hand so that if you make a bad decision you pay for it, not the taxpayers.这些新规则称,如果你是一家大或金融机构,你现在必须持有更多的现金,所以,如果你做的是一个糟糕的决定,你就必须为自己买单,而不是纳税人。You have to write out a “living will” that details how you’ll be wound down if you do fail.你需要写出一份“生前遗嘱”,详细说明如果你失败了,你会平静了下来。The new law takes away big bonuses and paydays from failed CEOs,新的法律从失败的CEO们身上撤除巨额红利和发薪日,while giving shareholders a say on executive salaries.而给予股东们一个管理人员工资的说法。And for the first time in our nation’s history,而且首次在我国历史上,we have in place a consumer watchdog whose sole job is to look out for working families by protecting them from deceptive and unfair practices.我们已经有了消费者权益保护人,他唯一的工作是为家庭排忧解难,使其免受欺诈和不公平待遇。So unless you run a financial institution whose business model is built on cheating consumers, or making risky bets that could damage the whole economy, you have nothing to fear from Wall Street reform.所以除非你运行的是一个金融机构,而其商业模式就是建立在欺骗消费者的基础上,或进行可能会损害整个经济的高风险投资,否则你就没必要害怕华尔街改革。Yes, it discourages big banks and financial institutions from making risky bets with taxpayer-insured money. 是的,它会阻止大型和金融机构用纳税人投保的钱进行高风险投资。And it encourages them to do things that actually help the economy – like extending loans to entrepreneurs with good ideas, to middle-class families who want to buy a home, to students who want to pursue higher education.而且它鼓励他们做实际上帮助经济的事情——像为有好创意的企业家,为想买房子的中产阶级家庭,为想要追求更高教育的学生延长贷款。That’s what Wall Street reform is all about – making this economy stronger for you. 这就是华尔街改革的一切,使我们的经济更加强大,而这一切都是为了你。And we’re going to keep working – to recover every job lost to the recession; to build an economy where hard work and responsibility are once again rewarded; to restore an America where everyone has a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules.我们将继续工作——为了恢复每一份衰退的工作;为了建立一个努力工作和责任再次将得到回报的经济;为了恢复一个每个人都有公平的机会,每个人都做自己份额,每个人都遵守同样规则的美国而努力。I believe the free market is one of the greatest forces for progress in human history; that businesses are the engine of growth; that risk-takers and innovators should be celebrated. But I also believe that at its best, the free market has never been a license to take whatever you want, however you can get it. 我相信自由市场是人类历史进程中最伟大的的力量;商业是增长的引擎,风险承担者和创新者应该被庆祝。但我也确信,在其最好的状态,自由市场从来都不是一种授权,并不是无论你想要什么,无管怎样你都可以得到。Alongside our entrepreneurial spirit and rugged individualism, America only prospers when we meet our obligations to one another; and to future generations.只要有我们的创业精神和顽强的个人主义,美国才能发展,当我们履行一个接一个的义务;而且对未来的世世代代负责任,美国才能繁荣。If you agree with me, let your Member of Congress know. 如果你同意我的观点,让你的国会成员知道。Tell them to spend less time working to undermine rules that are there to protect the economy, and spend more time actually working to strengthen the economy. 告诉他们花更少的时间致力于破坏规则来保护经济,花更多的时间用于增强经济的实际工作。Thanks and have a great weekend.谢谢大家,周末愉快。201205/182952}Download Video: mp4 (118MB) | mp3 (12MB) PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good morning. Mr. Secretary General, on behalf of us all, thank you for convening this meeting to address a task that must be the work of all of us -- supporting the people of Libya as they build a future that is free and democratic and prosperous. And I want to thank President Jalil for his remarks and for all that he and Prime Minister Jibril have done to help Libya reach this moment.To all the heads of state, to all the countries represented here who have done so much over the past several months to ensure this day could come, I want to say thank you, as well.Today, the Libyan people are writing a new chapter in the life of their nation. After four decades of darkness, they can walk the streets, free from a tyrant. They are making their voices heard -- in new newspapers, and on radio and television, in public squares and on personal blogs. They’re launching political parties and civil groups to shape their own destiny and secure their universal rights. And here at the ed Nations, the new flag of a free Libya now flies among the community of nations.Make no mistake -- credit for the liberation of Libya belongs to the people of Libya. It was Libyan men and women -- and children -- who took to the streets in peaceful protest, who faced down the tanks and endured the snipers’ bullets. It was Libyan fighters, often outgunned and outnumbered, who fought pitched battles, town-by-town, block-by-block. It was Libyan activists -- in the underground, in chat rooms, in mosques -- who kept a revolution alive, even after some of the world had given up hope.It was Libyan women and girls who hung flags and smuggled weapons to the front. It was Libyans from countries around the world, including my own, who rushed home to help, even though they, too, risked brutality and death. It was Libyan blood that was spilled and Libya’s sons and daughters who gave their lives. And on that August day -- after all that sacrifice, after 42 long years -- it was Libyans who pushed their dictator from power.At the same time, Libya is a lesson in what the international community can achieve when we stand together as one. I said at the beginning of this process, we cannot and should not intervene every time there is an injustice in the world. Yet it’s also true that there are times where the world could have and should have summoned the will to prevent the killing of innocents on a horrific scale. And we are forever haunted by the atrocities that we did not prevent, and the lives that we did not save. But this time was different. This time, we, through the ed Nations, found the courage and the collective will to act.When the old regime unleashed a campaign of terror, threatening to roll back the democratic tide sweeping the region, we acted as united nations, and we acted swiftly -- broadening sanctions, imposing an arms embargo. The ed States led the effort to pass a historic resolution at the Security Council authorizing "all necessary measures" to protect the Libyan people. And when the civilians of Benghazi were threatened with a massacre, we exercised that authority. Our international coalition stopped the regime in its tracks, and saved countless lives, and gave the Libyan people the time and the space to prevail.Important, too, is how this effort succeeded -- thanks to the leadership and contributions of many countries. The ed States was proud to play a decisive role, especially in the early days, and then in a supporting capacity. But let’s remember that it was the Arab League that appealed for action. It was the world’s most effective alliance, NATO, that’s led a military coalition of nearly 20 nations. It’s our European allies -- especially the ed Kingdom and France and Denmark and Norway -- that conducted the vast majority of air strikes protecting rebels on the ground. It was Arab states who joined the coalition, as equal partners. And it’s been the ed Nations and neighboring countries -- including Tunisia and Egypt -- that have cared for the Libyans in the urgent humanitarian effort that continues today.This is how the international community should work in the 21st century -- more nations bearing the responsibility and the costs of meeting global challenges. In fact, this is the very purpose of this ed Nations. So every nation represented here today can take pride in the innocent lives we saved and in helping Libyans reclaim their country. It was the right thing to do.Now, even as we speak, remnants of the old regime continue to fight. Difficult days are still ahead. But one thing is clear -- the future of Libya is now in the hands of the Libyan people. For just as it was Libyans who tore down the old order, it will be Libyans who build their new nation. And we’ve come here today to say to the people of Libya -- just as the world stood by you in your struggle to be free, we will now stand with you in your struggle to realize the peace and prosperity that freedom can bring.In this effort, you will have a friend and partner in the ed States of America. Today, I can announce that our ambassador is on his way back to Tripoli. And this week, the American flag that was lowered before our embassy was attacked will be raised again, over a re-opened American embassy. We will work closely with the new U.N. Support Mission in Libya and with the nations here today to assist the Libyan people in the hard work ahead.First, and most immediately: security. So long as the Libyan people are being threatened, the NATO-led mission to protect them will continue. And those still holding out must understand -- the old regime is over, and it is time to lay down your arms and join the new Libya. As this happens, the world must also support efforts to secure dangerous weapons -- conventional and otherwise -- and bring fighters under central, civilian control. For without security, democracy and trade and investment cannot flourish.Second: the humanitarian effort. The Transitional National Council has been working quickly to restore water and electricity and food supplies to Tripoli. But for many Libyans, each day is still a struggle -- to recover from their wounds, reunite with their families, and return to their homes. And even after the guns of war fall silent, the ravages of war will continue. So our efforts to assist its victims must continue. In this, the ed States -- the ed Nations will play a key role. And along with our partners, the ed States will do our part to help the hungry and the wounded.Third: a democratic transition that is peaceful, inclusive and just. President Jalil has just reaffirmed the Transitional National Council’s commitment to these principles, and the ed Nations will play a central role in coordinating international support for this effort. We all know what is needed -- a transition that is timely, new laws and a constitution that uphold the rule of law, political parties and a strong civil society, and, for the first time in Libyan history, free and fair elections.True democracy, however, must flow from its citizens. So as Libyans rightly seek justice for past crimes, let it be done in a spirit of reconciliation, and not reprisals and violence. As Libyans draw strength from their faith -- a religion rooted in peace and tolerance -- let there be a rejection of violent extremism, which offers nothing but death and destruction. As Libyans rebuild, let those efforts tap the experience of all those with the skills to contribute, including the many Africans in Libya. And as Libyans forge a society that is truly just, let it enshrine the rights and role of women at all levels of society. For we know that the nations that uphold the human rights of all people, especially their women, are ultimately more successful and more prosperous.Which brings me to the final area where the world must stand with Libya, and that is restoring prosperity. For too long, Libya’s vast riches were stolen and squandered. Now that wealth must serve its rightful owners -- the Libyan people. As sanctions are lifted, as the ed States and the international community unfreeze more Libyan assets, and as the country's oil production is restored, the Libyan people deserve a government that is transparent and accountable. And bound by the Libyan students and entrepreneurs who have forged friendships in the ed States, we intend to build new partnerships to help unleash Libya’s extraordinary potential.Now, none of this will be easy. After decades of iron rule by one man, it will take time to build the institutions needed for a democratic Libya. I’m sure there will be days of frustration; there will be days when progress is slow; there will be days when some begin to wish for the old order and its illusion of stability. And some in the world may ask, can Libya succeed? But if we have learned anything these many months, it is this: Don’t underestimate the aspirations and the will of the Libyan people.So I want to conclude by speaking directly to the people of Libya. Your task may be new, the journey ahead may be fraught with difficulty, but everything you need to build your future aly beats in the heart of your nation. It’s the same courage you summoned on that first February day; the same resilience that brought you back out the next day and the next, even as you lost family and friends; and the same unshakeable determination with which you liberated Benghazi, broke the siege of Misurata, and have fought through the coastal plain and the western mountains.It’s the same unwavering conviction that said, there’s no turning back; our sons and daughters deserve to be free.In the days after Tripoli fell, people rejoiced in the streets and pondered the role ahead, and one of those Libyans said, “We have this chance now to do something good for our country, a chance we have dreamed of for so long.” So, to the Libyan people, this is your chance. And today the world is saying, with one unmistakable voice, we will stand with you as you seize this moment of promise, as you reach for the freedom, the dignity, and the opportunity that you deserve.So, congratulations. And thank you very much. (Applause.)201109/154628Edward M. KennedyFaith, Truth and Tolerance in America[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio.]Thank you very much Professor Kombay for that generous introduction. And let me say, that I never expected to hear such kind words from Dr. Falwell. So in return, I have an invitation of my own. On January 20th, 1985, I hope Dr. Falwell will say a prayer at the inauguration of the next Democratic President of the ed States. Now, Dr. Falwell, I’m not exactly sure how you feel about that. You might not appreciate the President, but the Democrats certainly would appreciate the prayer.Actually, a number of people in Washington were surprised that I was invited to speak here -- and even more surprised when I accepted the invitation. They seem to think that it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a Kennedy to come to the campus of Liberty Baptist College. In honor of our meeting, I have asked Dr. Falwell, as your Chancellor, to permit all the students an extra hour next Saturday night before curfew. And in return, I have promised to watch the Old Time Gospel Hour next Sunday morning.I realize that my visit may be a little controversial. But as many of you have heard, Dr. Falwell recently sent me a membership in the Moral Majority -- and I didn't even apply for it. And I wonder if that means that I'm a member in good standing. [Falwell: Somewhat]Somewhat, he says. This is, of course, a nonpolitical speech which is probably best under the circumstances. Since I am not a candidate for President, it would certainly be inappropriate to ask for your support in this election and probably inaccurate to thank you for it in the last one. I have come here to discuss my beliefs about faith and country, tolerance and truth in America. I know we begin with certain disagreements; I strongly suspect that at the end of the evening some of our disagreements will remain. But I also hope that tonight and in the months and years ahead, we will always respect the right of others to differ, that we will never lose sight of our own fallibility, that we will view ourselves with a sense of perspective and a sense of humor. After all, in the New Testament, even the Disciples had to be taught to look first to the beam in their own eyes, and only then to the mote in their neighbor’s eyes.I am mindful of that counsel. I am an American and a Catholic; I love my country and treasure my faith. But I do not assume that my conception of patriotism or policy is invariably correct, or that my convictions about religion should command any greater respect than any other faith in this pluralistic society. I believe there surely is such a thing as truth, but who among us can claim a monopoly on it?There are those who do, and their own words testify to their intolerance. For example, because the Moral Majority has worked with members of different denominations, one fundamentalist group has denounced Dr. Falwell for hastening the ecumenical church and for "yoking together with Roman Catholics, Mormons, and others." I am relieved that Dr. Falwell does not regard that as a sin, and on this issue, he himself has become the target of narrow prejudice. When people agree on public policy, they ought to be able to work together, even while they worship in diverse ways. For truly we are all yoked together as Americans, and the yoke is the happy one of individual freedom and mutual respect.But in saying that, we cannot and should not turn aside from a deeper and more pressing question -- which is whether and how religion should influence government. A generation ago, a presidential candidate had to prove his independence of undue religious influence in public life, and he had to do so partly at the insistence of evangelical Protestants. John Kennedy said at that time: “I believe in an America where there is no religious bloc voting of any kind.” Only twenty years later, another candidate was appealing to a[n] evangelical meeting as a religious bloc. Ronald Reagan said to 15 thousand evangelicals at the Roundtable in Dallas: “ I know that you can’t endorse me. I want you to know I endorse you and what you are doing.”To many Americans, that pledge was a sign and a symbol of a dangerous breakdown in the separation of church and state. Yet this principle, as vital as it is, is not a simplistic and rigid command. Separation of church and state cannot mean an absolute separation between moral principles and political power. The challenge today is to recall the origin of the principle, to define its purpose, and refine its application to the politics of the present.The founders of our nation had long and bitter experience with the state, as both the agent and the adversary of particular religious views. In colonial Maryland, Catholics paid a double land tax, and in Pennsylvania they had to list their names on a public roll -- an ominous precursor of the first Nazi laws against the Jews. And Jews in turn faced discrimination in all of the thirteen original Colonies. Massachusetts exiled Roger Williams and his congregation for contending that civil government had no right to enforce the Ten Commandments. Virginia harassed Baptist teachers, and also established a religious test for public service, writing into the law that no “popish followers” could hold any office.But during the Revolution, Catholics, Jews, and Non-Conformists all rallied to the cause and fought valiantly for the American commonwealth -- for John Winthrop’s “city upon a hill.” Afterwards, when the Constitution was ratified and then amended, the framers gave freedom for all religion, and from any established religion, the very first place in the Bill of Rights.Indeed the framers themselves professed very different faiths: Washington was an Episcopalian, Jefferson a deist, and Adams a Calvinist. And although he had earlier opposed toleration, John Adams later contributed to the building of Catholic churches, and so did George Washington. Thomas Jefferson said his proudest achievement was not the presidency, or the writing the Declaration of Independence, but drafting the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. He stated the vision of the first Americans and the First Amendment very clearly: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.”The separation of church and state can sometimes be frustrating for women and men of religious faith. They may be tempted to misuse government in order to impose a value which they cannot persuade others to accept. But once we succumb to that temptation, we step onto a slippery slope where everyone’s freedom is at risk. Those who favor censorship should recall that one of the first books ever burned was the first English translation of the Bible. As President Eisenhower warned in 1953, “Don’t join the book burners...the right to say ideas, the right to record them, and the right to have them accessible to others is unquestioned -- or this isn’t America.” And if that right is denied, at some future day the torch can be turned against any other book or any other belief. Let us never forget: Today’s Moral Majority could become tomorrow’s persecuted minority.The danger is as great now as when the founders of the nation first saw it. In 1789, their fear was of factional strife among dozens of denominations. Today there are hundreds -- and perhaps even thousands of faiths -- and millions of Americans who are outside any fold. Pluralism obviously does not and cannot mean that all of them are right; but it does mean that there are areas where government cannot and should not decide what it is wrong to believe, to think, to , and to do. As Professor Larry Tribe, one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars has written, “Law in a non-theocratic state cannot measure religious truth, nor can the state impose it."The real transgression occurs when religion wants government to tell citizens how to live uniquely personal parts of their lives. The failure of Prohibition proves the futility of such an attempt when a majority or even a substantial minority happens to disagree. Some questions may be inherently individual ones, or people may be sharply divided about whether they are. In such cases, like Prohibition and abortion, the proper role of religion is to appeal to the conscience of the individual, not the coercive power of the state. But there are other questions which are inherently public in nature, which we must decide together as a nation, and where religion and religious values can and should speak to our common conscience. The issue of nuclear war is a compelling example. It is a moral issue; it will be decided by government, not by each individual; and to give any effect to the moral values of their creed, people of faith must speak directly about public policy. The Catholic bishops and the Reverend Billy Graham have every right to stand for the nuclear freeze, and Dr. Falwell has every right to stand against it.There must be standards for the exercise of such leadership, so that the obligations of belief will not be debased into an opportunity for mere political advantage. But to take a stand at all when a question is both properly public and truly moral is to stand in a long and honored tradition. Many of the great evangelists of the 1800s were in the forefront of the abolitionist movement. In our own time, the Reverend William Sloane Coffin challenged the morality of the war in Vietnam. Pope John XXIII renewed the Gospel’s call to social justice. And Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who was the greatest prophet of this century, awakened our nation and its conscience to the evil of racial segregation. Their words have blessed our world. And who now wishes they had been silent? Who would bid Pope John Paul [II] to quiet his voice against the oppression in Eastern Europe, the violence in Central America, or the crying needs of the landless, the hungry, and those who are tortured in so many of the dark political prisons of our time?President Kennedy, who said that “no religious body should seek to impose its will,” also urged religious leaders to state their views and give their commitment when the public debate involved ethical issues. In drawing the line between imposed will and essential witness, we keep church and state separate, and at the same time we recognize that the City of God should speak to the civic duties of men and women.There are four tests which draw that line and define the difference.First, we must respect the integrity of religion itself.People of conscience should be careful how they deal in the word of their Lord. In our own history, religion has been falsely invoked to sanction prejudice -- even slavery -- to condemn labor unions and public spending for the poor. I believe that the prophecy, ”The poor you have always with you” is an indictment, not a commandment. And I respectfully suggest that God has taken no position on the Department of Education -- and that a balanced budget constitutional amendment is a matter of economic analysis, and not heavenly appeals.Religious values cannot be excluded from every public issue; but not every public issue involves religious values. And how ironic it is when those very values are denied in the name of religion. For example, we are sometimes told that it is wrong to feed the hungry, but that mission is an explicit mandate given to us in the 25th chapter of Matthew.Second, we must respect the independent judgments of conscience.Those who proclaim moral and religious values can offer counsel, but they should not casually treat a position on a public issue as a test of fealty to faith. Just as I disagree with the Catholic bishops on tuition tax credits -- which I oppose -- so other Catholics can and do disagree with the hierarchy, on the basis of honest conviction, on the question of the nuclear freeze.Thus, the controversy about the Moral Majority arises not only from its views, but from its name -- which, in the minds of many, seems to imply that only one set of public policies is moral and only one majority can possibly be right. Similarly, people are and should be perplexed when the religious lobbying group Christian Voice publishes a morality index of congressional voting records, which judges the morality of senators by their attitude toward Zimbabwe and Taiwan. Let me offer another illustration. Dr. Falwell has written -- and I e: “To stand against Israel is to stand against God.” Now there is no one in the Senate who has stood more firmly for Israel than I have. Yet, I do not doubt the faith of those on the other side. Their error is not one of religion, but of policy. And I hope to be able to persuade them that they are wrong in terms of both America’s interest and the justice of Israel’s cause.Respect for conscience is most in jeopardy, and the harmony of our diverse society is most at risk, when we re-establish, directly or indirectly, a religious test for public office. That relic of the colonial era, which is specifically prohibited in the Constitution, has reappeared in recent years. After the last election, the Reverend James Robison warned President Reagan no to surround himself, as president before him had, “with the counsel of the ungodly.” I utterly reject any such standard for any position anywhere in public service. Two centuries ago, the victims were Catholics and Jews. In the 1980s the victims could be atheists; in some other day or decade, they could be the members of the Thomas Road Baptist Church. Indeed, in 1976 I regarded it as unworthy and un-American when some people said or hinted that Jimmy Carter should not be president because he was a born again Christian. We must never judge the fitness of individuals to govern on the bas[is] of where they worship, whether they follow Christ or Moses, whether they are called “born again” or “ungodly.” Where it is right to apply moral values to public life, let all of us avoid the temptation to be self-righteous and absolutely certain of ourselves. And if that temptation ever comes, let us recall Winston Churchill’s humbling description of an intolerant and inflexible colleague: “There but for the grace of God goes God.”Third, in applying religious values, we must respect the integrity of public debate.In that debate, faith is no substitute for facts. Critics may oppose the nuclear freeze for what they regard as moral reasons. They have every right to argue that any negotiation with the Soviets is wrong, or that any accommodation with them sanctions their crimes, or that no agreement can be good enough and therefore all agreements only increase the chance of war. I do not believe that, but it surely does not violate the standard of fair public debate to say it. What does violate that standard, what the opponents of the nuclear freeze have no right to do, is to assume that they are infallible, and so any argument against the freeze will do, whether it is false or true.The nuclear freeze proposal is not unilateral, but bilateral -- with equal restraints on the ed States and the Soviet Union. The nuclear freeze does not require that we trust the Russians, but demands full and effective verification. The nuclear freeze does not concede a Soviet lead in nuclear weapons, but recognizes that human beings in each great power aly have in their fallible hands the overwhelming capacity to remake into a pile of radioactive rubble the earth which God has made. There is no morality in the mushroom cloud. The black rain of nuclear ashes will fall alike on the just and the unjust. And then it will be too late to wish that we had done the real work of this atomic age -- which is to seek a world that is neither red nor dead.I am perfectly prepared to debate the nuclear freeze on policy grounds, or moral ones. But we should not be forced to discuss phantom issues or false charges. They only deflect us form the urgent task of deciding how best to prevent a planet divided from becoming a planet destroyed.And it does not advance the debate to contend that the arms race is more divine punishment than human problem, or that in any event, the final days are near. As Pope John said two decades ago, at the opening of the Second Vatican Council: “We must beware of those who burn with zeal, but are not endowed with much sense... we must disagree with the prophets of doom, who are always forecasting disasters, as though the end of the earth was at hand.” The message which echoes across the years is very clear: The earth is still here; and if we wish to keep it, a prophecy of doom is no alternative to a policy of arms control.Fourth, and finally, we must respect the motives of those who exercise their right to disagree.We sorely test our ability to live together if we ily question each other’s integrity. It may be harder to restrain our feelings when moral principles are at stake, for they go to the deepest wellsprings of our being. But the more our feelings diverge, the more deeply felt they are, the greater is our obligation to grant the sincerity and essential decency of our fellow citizens on the other side.Those who favor E.R.A [Equal Rights Amendment] are not “antifamily” or “blasphemers.” And their purpose is not “an attack on the Bible.” Rather, we believe this is the best way to fix in our national firmament the ideal that not only all men, but all people are created equal. Indeed, my mother, who strongly favors E.R.A., would be surprised to hear that she is anti-family. For my part, I think of the amendment’s opponents as wrong on the issue, but not as lacking in moral characterI could multiply the instances of name-calling, sometimes on both sides. Dr. Falwell is not a “warmonger.” And “liberal clergymen” are not, as the Moral Majority suggested in a recent letter, equivalent to “Soviet sympathizers.” The critics of official prayer in public schools are not “Pharisees”; many of them are both civil libertarians and believers, who think that families should pray more at home with their children, and attend church and synagogue more faithfully. And people are not sexist because they stand against abortion, and they are not murderers because they believe in free choice. Nor does it help anyone’s cause to shout such epithets, or to try and shout a speaker down -- which is what happened last April when Dr. Falwell was hissed and heckled at Harvard. So I am doubly grateful for your courtesy here this evening. That was not Harvard’s finest hour, but I am happy to say that the loudest applause from the Harvard audience came in defense of Dr. Falwell’s right to speak.In short, I hope for an America where neither "fundamentalist" nor "humanist" will be a dirty word, but a fair description of the different ways in which people of good will look at life and into their own souls.I hope for an America where no president, no public official, no individual will ever be deemed a greater or lesser American because of religious doubt -- or religious belief.I hope for an America where the power of faith will always burn brightly, but where no modern Inquisition of any kind will ever light the fires of fear, coercion, or angry division.I hope for an America where we can all contend freely and vigorously, but where we will treasure and guard those standards of civility which alone make this nation safe for both democracy and diversity.Twenty years ago this fall, in New York City, President Kennedy met for the last time with a Protestant assembly. The atmosphere had been transformed since his earlier address during the 1960 campaign to the Houston Ministerial Association. He had spoken there to allay suspicions about his Catholicism, and to answer those who claimed that on the day of his baptism, he was somehow disqualified from becoming President. His speech in Houston and then his election drove that prejudice from the center of our national life. Now, three years later, in November of 1963, he was appearing before the Protestant Council of New York City to reaffirm what he regarded as some fundamental truths. On that occasion, John Kennedy said: “The family of man is not limited to a single race or religion, to a single city, or country...the family of man is nearly 3 billion strong. Most of its members are not white and most of them are not Christian.” And as President Kennedy reflected on that reality, he restated an ideal for which he had lived his life -- that “the members of this family should be at peace with one another.”That ideal shines across all the generations of our history and all the ages of our faith, carrying with it the most ancient dream. For as the Apostle Paul wrote long ago in Romans: “If it be possible, as much as it lieth in you, live peaceable with all men.”I believe it is possible; the choice lies within us; as fellow citizens, let us live peaceable with each other; as fellow human beings, let us strive to live peaceably with men and women everywhere. Let that be our purpose and our prayer, yours and mine -- for ourselves, for our country, and for all the world. 200806/41006Transcript of the Prime Minister's Broadcast on the NHS Plan Friday 28 July 2000 The creation of the National Health Service back in 1948 lifted a massive worry from people's lives. For the first time, health care did not depend on wealth. Need, not ability to pay, was what mattered. Every family in Britain - and certainly mine - has its own reasons to thank the creators of the NHS and the expertise and dedication of its nurses and doctors. But while support for the NHS remains strong - and in particular for its founding principles - in recent years there's been increasing concern. Concern, for instance, about growing delays and patchy standards of care. About why health funding has not kept pace with other comparable countries. And these concerns, in turn, have fed fears about the very survival of the Health Service in the new century. I understand these fears but I don't share them. I believe the values and principles behind the Health Service are as relevant today as they were 50 years ago. But I also accept that only by renewing and modernising our health service fundamentally can we re-assure the country that the Health Service will continue to meet its health needs This has meant confronting two problems which have hamstrung the effectiveness of the Health Service over decades - chronic under-funding number one, and two, the shortcomings of a system designed really to meet the health needs and ambitions of 1948. We tackled the under funding first. Because we've taken steps as a government to restore stability to the economy, public finances being put back in shape and because we've created the conditions where there are now a million fewer people in benefit and a million more people in work the country can now afford the record - and sustained - investment that the NHS needs over the next few years. This year's Budget delivered an annual funding increase of more than 6% above inflation for those four years - twice the real-terms increase that the NHS has received over its history. But past lack of investment is not to blame for all the shortcomings in the Health Service. It can't explain for instance, why services in one hospital can be so much better than those in another in the same town. Indeed, sometimes the whole debate about shortage of money has helped mask other serious failures in the health service which risk wasting the extra investment that we now want to put in. So the challenge we laid down when we announced the extra money is that the Government would deliver the investment but the money had to be accompanied by modernisation and reform of the chronic system failures of the NHS. That's what the first ever National Plan for the NHS, published on Thursday, delivers. It's ambitious but it is realistic. Its a plan rooted in the experience of patients and thousands of front-line NHS staff, at every level and in every part of the country who have helped draw it up. I know, because I've had dozens of meetings with them over the last few months as I've worked to help draw this up. And together we've produced this plan for the future of our health service. It's a clear strategy, with sustained investment, to deliver real improvements for the patient. At every level, there will be radical change. And every reform will be driven by the goal of redesigning the NHS around the needs of the patient. We will tackle the shortage of staff through 7,500 more consultants and 20,000 extra nurses. And by recruiting more staff, removing unnecessary barriers between professions, modernising contracts for doctors and rewarding and encouraging excellence, we will improve the service for patients and end the culture of waiting in the Health Service. By 2004 patients will be able to see their GP within 48 hours. By 2005, the maximum waiting time for an out-patient appointment will be three months, for in-patients six months. By 2010 we will have 100 new hospital schemes. We will see modern matrons to ensure high standards on the wards Patients' champions in every hospital And a new agreement with the private sector so that we can use their spare beds and operating theatres for NHS patients where appropriate. There will also be a guarantee for patients whose surgery is cancelled at the last minute that the operation taking place quickly. Better care for patients at home so that they don't block beds unnecessarily and can recuperate better is also part of the plan. As is regular inspections of hospitals to ensure they are meeting new national standards on care and treatment In essence we are trying to reform and modernise every aspect of the Health Service. In addition we need to provide through the Health Service Dignity, security and independence in old age. It will take time, of course, to achieve all this. But a whole range of people who work in or value our health service believe it offers, this plan, a genuine opportunity to re-build the Health Service for the 21st century. If we meet this challenge - and this Government is determined we will - the health service will continue to be a source of pride and security for the people of this country for decades to come. ENDS 200705/13315REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT TOWN HALLConcord Community High SchoolElkhart, IndianaFebruary 9, THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you so much. Well, let's -- everybody can have a seat. Make yourselves comfortable -- we're going to be here a while. (Applause.)It is good to be back in Elkhart. (Applause.) And it's good to be back in Indiana. You know, the last event we had on the campaign was Indiana. And the first time that I'm traveling outside of the White House to talk about the economy is back in Indiana. (Applause.)And I want to start by thanking Ed for coming here today and sharing his family's story with all of us. Ed was terrific -- give him a big round of applause. (Applause.)There are a few other special guests that I just want to acknowledge very quickly. First of all, your own senator, my former colleague, a outstanding legislator and public servant, former governor here in Indiana -- give it up for Senator Evan Bayh. Where is he? Where's Evan? There he is. (Applause.)A guy you may be familiar with, your own member of Congress, Joe Donnelly. (Applause.) We brought a few other members of Congress here to get in on the fun: Representative Baron Hill. (Applause.) Representative Brad Ellsworth. (Applause.) Representative Fred Upton. (Applause.) Representative André Carson. (Applause.) Former Representative Tim Roemer. (Applause.) Former Representative Lee Hamilton. (Applause.) We've got Mayor Dick Moore of Elkhart. (Applause.) And we've got the new Secretary of Transportation, a former member of Congress from my own home state of Illinois, Ray LaHood. (Applause.)I don't know if you guys have been noticing, but we've had a little debate in Washington -- (laughter) -- over the last week or two about the economy. You know, we tend to take the measure of the economic crisis we face in numbers and statistics. But when we say that we've lost 3.6 million jobs since this recession began, nearly 600,000 in the past month alone; when we say that this area has lost jobs faster than anywhere else in the ed States of America, with an unemployment rate of over 15 percent, when it was 4.7 percent just last year; when we talk about layoffs at companies like Monaco Coach, and Keystone RV, and Pilgrim International -- companies that have sustained this community for years -- we're not just talking numbers, we're talking about Ed. We're talking about people in the audience here today. People not just in Elkhart, but all across this country. We're talking about people who have lost their livelihood and don't know what will take its place.We're talking about parents who've lost their health care and lie away at night, praying their kids don't get sick. We're talking about families who've lost the home that was the corner -- their foundation for their American Dream. Young people who put that college acceptance letter back in the envelope because they just can't afford it. That's what those numbers and statistics mean. That is the true measure of this economic crisis.Those are the stories I heard when I came to Elkhart six months ago, and those are the stories that I carried with me to the White House. I have not forgotten them. And I promised you back then that if elected -- (applause) -- I'd do everything I could to help this community recover, and that's why I came back today, because I intend to keep my promise. (Applause.)I intend to keep my promise. But you know, the work is going to be hard. I don't want to lie to people -- that's why we're having a town hall meeting -- because the situation we face could not be more serious. We have inherited an economic crisis as deep and as dire as any since the Great Depression.Economists from across the spectrum have warned that if we don't act immediately, millions of more jobs will be lost. The national unemployment rates will approach double digits not just here in Elkhart, all across the country. More people will lose their homes and their health care. And our nation will sink into a crisis that at some point we may be unable to reverse.So we can't afford to wait. We can't wait and see and hope for the best. We can't posture and bicker and resort to the same failed ideas that got us into this mess in the first place. (Applause.) That was what this election was all about -- the American people rejected those ideas because they hadn't worked. (Applause.) You didn't send us to Washington because you were hoping for more of the same; you sent us there to change things -- (applause) -- the expectation that we would act quickly and boldly to carry out change. And that's exactly what I intend to do as President of the ed States of America. (Applause.)That's why I put forth a recovery and reinvestment plan that is now before Congress. At its core is a very simple idea: to put Americans back to work doing the work America needs to be done. Ed -- Ed said it better than anybody could. He said, look, folks in Elkhart, they want to work. Nobody is looking for a handout. Everybody just wants to be able to get a job that supports a family. And we got the most productive workers on Earth. (Applause.) We've got the best workers right here in Elkhart -- (applause) -- who are willing to put hard time and do whatever it takes to make sure a company succeeds.But they've got to have a chance. The plan that we put forward will save or create 3 to 4 million jobs over the next two years. But not just any jobs -- jobs that meet the needs we've neglected for far too long, jobs that lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth; jobs fixing our schools; computerizing medical records to save costs and save lives; jobs repairing our roads and our bridges and our levees; jobs investing in renewable energy to help us move towards energy independence. (Applause.)The plan also calls for immediate tax relief for 95 percent of American workers, so that you who are being pinched, even if you still have a job, with rising costs while your wages and incomes are flat-lined, you'll actually have a little bit of extra money at the end of the month to buy the necessities for you and your children.Now, I know that some of you might be thinking, well, that all sounds good, but when are we going to see any of this here in Elkhart? What does all this mean to my family, to my community? And those are exactly the kinds of questions you should be asking your President and your government. And today, I want to provide some answers -- and I want to be as specific as I can.Number one, this plan will provide for extended unemployment insurance, health care and other assistance for workers -- (applause) -- other assistance for workers and families who have lost their jobs in this recession. So if you've lost your job, for example, under existing law you can get COBRA -- some of you have heard of COBRA -- but the only problem is it's so expensive, it doesn't do you any good. (Applause.) So what we've said is -- what we've said is we will help subsidize people so that they can keep -- at least keep their health insurance while they're out there looking for a new job. (Applause.)This plan will also -- and what this means is, from the perspective of unemployment insurance, you will have an additional 0 per month in unemployment benefits that will go to more than 450,000 Indiana workers, extended unemployment benefits for another 89,000 folks who've been laid off and can't find work, and job training assistance to help more than 51,000 people here get back on their feet. (Applause.) Now, that's not just our moral -- that's not just our moral responsibility to lend a helping hand to our fellow Americans at a time of emergency; it makes good economic sense. If you don't have money, you can't spend it. And if you don't spend it, our economy will continue to decline.Now, for that same reason, the plan includes badly needed tax relief for middle class workers and families. (Applause.) Folks all across the country are under siege. We need to give you more of the money you've earned so that you can spend it and pay your bills. Under our plan, families -- working families will get a thousand dollars, providing relief for nearly 2.5 million workers and their families here in Indiana. The plan also will provide a partially refundable ,500 per student tax credit to help 76,000 Hoosier families send their kids to college. (Applause.) This will benefit your household budgets in the short run, and it will benefit America in the long run.But providing tax relief and college assistance, and helping folks who have lost their jobs, that's not enough. A real recovery plan helps create more jobs and put people back to work. And that's why between the investments our plan makes, and the tax relief for small business it provides, we'll create or save nearly 80,000 badly needed jobs for Indiana right here over the next couple of years.Now, you may have heard some of the critics of our plan say it would create mostly government jobs. That is not true. Ninety percent -- more than 90 percent of the jobs created under this recovery act will be in the private sector; more than 90 percent. (Applause.) But it's not just the jobs that will benefit Indiana and the rest of America. It's the work people will be doing -- rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our dams, our levees; roads like US 31 here in Indiana -- (applause) -- that Hoosiers can count on -- that connects small towns and rural communities to opportunities for economic growth. And I know that a new overpass downtown would make a big difference for businesses and families right here in Elkhart. (Applause.)We'll also put people to work rebuilding our schools. (Applause.) This school is a terrific school, but I know there's work to be done here. We should do it so that all our children can have the world-class classrooms -- the labs, the libraries -- that they need in order to compete in today's global economy. (Applause.)We should be investing in clean alternative sources of energy. (Applause.) We should be investing in the electric grid we need to transport this new energy from coast to coast. So if you build a windmill here in Indiana and it generates energy, that energy can get to Chicago and can get to St. Louis and can get to other places all across the country. (Applause.)We can help make Indiana an energy-producing state, not just an energy-consuming state. (Applause.) The plan calls for weatherizing homes across Indiana; installing state-of-the-art equipment that help you control your energy costs; building new, high-speed broadband lines; reaching schools and small businesses in rural Indiana so they can connect and compete with their counterparts in any city of any country in the world. (Applause.)Those -- those are the kinds of projects that we're looking at -- that put people to work, that allow us to train people for jobs that pay a living wage, and that end up being a gift that keeps on giving, because not only are we creating jobs now, but we're creating the infrastructure for the jobs of the future. (Applause.)Now, let me be clear, I'm not going to tell you that this bill is perfect. It's coming out of Washington, it's going through Congress -- (laughter) -- you know. Look, it's not perfect, but it is the right size, it is the right scope. Broadly speaking, it has the right priorities to create jobs that will jumpstart our economy and transform this economy for the 21st century. (Applause.)I can't tell you with a hundred percent certainty that every single item in this plan will work exactly as we hoped. But what I can tell you is, I can say with complete confidence that endless delay or paralysis in Washington in the face of this crisis will only bring deepening disaster. I can tell you that doing nothing is not an option. (Applause.)So we've had a good debate. Now is the time to act. That's why I'm calling on Congress to pass this bill immediately. Folks here in Elkhart and all across America need help right now. They can't afford to keep waiting for folks in Washington to get this done.Even with this plan, the road ahead won't be easy. This crisis has been a long time in the making. We're not going to turn it around overnight. Recovery will likely be measured in years, not weeks or months. But we also know that our economy will be stronger for generations to come if we commit ourselves to the work that needs to be done -- commit ourselves today to the work that needs to be done.And being here in Elkhart, I am more confident than ever that we will get where we need to be, because I know people are struggling, but I also know that folks here are good workers and good neighbors -- (applause) -- who step up, who help each other out, who make sacrifices when times are tough. (Applause.) I know that all folks here are asking for is a chance to work hard and to have that work translate into a decent life for you and your family. (Applause.) So I know you're going to be doing your part. I think it's about time that government did its part, too. (Applause.) That's what this recovery plan is all about. That's why I hope it passes as soon as possible, so we can start creating jobs and helping families, and turning our economy around. (Applause.)Thank you, Elkhart. Thank you. (Applause.)02/62098

  • 泉州市人民医院附属一院是不是医保定点
  • 泉州无痛保宫人流手术搜医爱问
  • 洛江区 人民医院上下班时间家庭医生中文
  • 福建省第二人民医院电话多少
  • 泉州南安市医院正规吗?怎么样39爱问
  • 泉州新阳光医院正规吗京东信息泉州治疗月经不调手术费用
  • 爱报泉州第一医院妇科
  • 365解答福建省妇幼保健医院开住院证明管解答
  • 泉州洛江宝爱妇科
  • 泉州妇科天涯专家
  • 泉州人流检查医院69对话泉州医院阴超多少钱
  • 泉州人流最安全医院
  • 爱活动泉州那种无痛人流好
  • 石狮新阳光不孕不育研究所
  • 365卫生泉州市新阳光女子医院正规中华新闻
  • 城市优惠泉州哪里看妇科病
  • 泉州治疗盆腔炎那家医院好百科知识晋江妇幼保健院是公立医院么
  • 妙手新闻晋江市人民医院体检收费标准养心常识
  • 泉州治疗肿瘤哪家医院便宜当当中文
  • 福建省医科大学二院咨询电话
  • 洛江区中心医院预约电话
  • 咨询专家安溪妇幼保健院无痛人流收费标准
  • 周健康晋江市中医医院预约四维彩超
  • 泉州新阳光过年百度时讯
  • 泉州阳光女子医院
  • 泉州哪个医院治疗尿道炎好
  • 福建泉州新阳光女子医院电话多少
  • 晋江市儿童医院院长是谁咨询专家
  • 99口碑丰泽新阳光妇科
  • 泉州阳光女子医院怎么样
  • 相关阅读
  • 瞒天过海!集体耕地上建厂房!村民:相关部门集体哑火(三)
  • 暮影战神武灵攻略大全
  • 唐嫣赵丽颖吴昕林允儿李易峰和谁最有感(图)
  • 酒类电商双罢斗
  • 南京查处违规补缴社保证明份购房证明被注销
  • 内蒙古自治区政协原副主席赵黎平一审被判处死刑
  • 近日李念与刚斩获年北京青年电影节影帝的巩峥出现在街边
  • 徐娇穿白袜撑伞古典韵味十足邻家有女初长成
  • 单机斗地主下载:首存优惠
  • 小学生作业本开口说话曝光盗伐林木团伙
  • 相关推荐