NBC's Matt Lauer Urges Obama to Prevent Unfair 'Income Distribution'
Update [12:20 ET]: More analysis and full transcript added.
In an interview with former White House press secretary and Obama campaign advisor Robert Gibbs on Thursday's NBC Today, co-host Matt Lauer fretted over a report showing "the rich are getting richer" and pleaded: "So what responsibility does President Obama have in terms of dealing with income distribution in this country?" [Audio available here]
Lauer began his push from the left by explaining: "Some of these young people are the same young people who are occupying parks across the country and they're out there protesting Wall Street. They're also protesting the White House." [View video after the jump]
Update:
Gibbs used the opportunity to tout Obama's student loan program:
What's the best way for somebody to get ahead into the middle class and to get a better paying job? It's to go to college. We know that works. And that's why the President was so forceful in rolling out something that's going to help more and more people get to college. If people work hard and get the right to go to college, get accepted, we shouldn't make it – we shouldn't impede that by saying they can't afford it.
After asking if Obama could win reelection despite the bad economy, Lauer then invited Gibbs to tear down Republican presidential candidates one-by-one: "So while you've said Barack Obama has run against the perfect person so far, soon he will run against a Republican nominee. Clearly suggesting that no candidate is perfect. Take them one at a time. Mitt Romney. What are your chances against Mitt Romney, if he's the nominee?"
As Gibbs proceeded to attack Romney as a flip-flopper, Lauer chimed in: "Do you think you'll have a field day against Mitt Romney?" Gibbs replied: I think that Mitt Romney is going to have a tough time explaining what Mitt Romney was for in the past and what Mitt Romney is for now."
After Lauer asked about Herman Cain being the nominee, Gibbs argued: "I think if you look at what he has had to offer and quite frankly what all the Republicans have had to offer, they think a mix of more tax cuts for the wealthy and letting Wall Street write the rules....those are the very things that got us into this mess..."
Here is a full transcript of Lauer's October 27 interview with Gibbs:
7:14AM ET
MATT LAUER: Robert Gibbs served as President Obama's White House press secretary and is now an advise to the President's re-election campaign. Robert, good to see you, good morning.
ROBERT GIBBS: Good morning, Matt. How are you?
LAUER: I'm fine, thanks. Let's talk about those young voters. They turned out en masse in 2008 to sweep Barack Obama into the White House, in part because of the whole hope and change idea. Here we are four years later. Some of them are now second-time voters. They've graduated from college. They may be swimming in debt and they can't find a job. Why should they support him?
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: "We Can't Wait"; Will New White House Mantra Help Obama?]
GIBBS: Well, look, I think initiatives like the President announced yesterday are a good reason, quite frankly, for the American people to support Barack Obama, because it helps the middle class, Matt. The average person comes out of college with a $22,000 debt. In most households it's the second largest debt that they have. And we know that the unemployment rate for somebody who graduates from college is half what it is for somebody who doesn't. So let's not wait for Congress. Let's get on the side of the middle class and give these guys a chance to pay back their student loans in a way that works best for them.
LAUER: Some of these young people are the same young people who are occupying parks across the country and they're out there protesting Wall Street. They're also protesting the White House. In a new report from the Congressional Budget Office this week, confirmed the rich are getting richer. Between 2005 and 2007 the top 1/5 of earners in America earned more money than the bottom 4/5. So what responsibility does President Obama have in terms of dealing with income distribution in this country?
GIBBS: Well, look, Matt. What you identified and what the CBO identified is a problem that has not just happened in two or three years. It's actually happened for 30 years. That's – we've had income inequality and we are seeing now a lot of anxiety and frustration. What's the best way for somebody to get ahead into the middle class and to get a better paying job? It's to go to college. We know that works. And that's why the President was so forceful in rolling out something that's going to help more and more people get to college. If people work hard and get the right to go to college, get accepted, we shouldn't make it – we shouldn't impede that by saying they can't afford it.
LAUER: You said a second ago what the President's proposing now, those are good reasons for people to re-elect him. Do you see a scenario, Robert, under which we've got something like 9% unemployment in November of 2012, gas prices are about $3.40 to $3.50 a gallon. The housing market is still in the dumps. Do you see a scenario where he gets re-elected?
GIBBS: Absolutely. Because I think – and I think what's going on in this country with frustration around income and quite frankly frustration around Wall Street, look at what every one of the Republican candidates wants to roll back Wall Street reform, right? Wants to put Wall Street back in charge of writing the rules that quite frankly got us into a lot of this most current mess. Barack Obama on the other hand is out fighting for the middle class and making sure we can send our children to college. I think that's a pretty good contrast, even in a bad economy.
LAUER: The President has got a new slogan, "We can't wait while Congress does nothing." A lot of Republicans have coopted it already, saying "We can't wait until November of 2012." So while you've said Barack Obama has run against the perfect person so far, soon he will run against a Republican nominee. Clearly suggesting that no candidate is perfect. Take them one at a time. Mitt Romney. What are your chances against Mitt Romney if he's the nominee?
GIBBS: Well, look. I think Mitt Romney has had an extraordinarily difficult week, and he's very much defined exactly what I think most people think of Mitt Romney in the six years that they've seen him on the national stage, and that is he takes a position one day and wait a couple days and he'll probably take a different position.
LAUER: Do you think you'll have a field day against Mitt Romney?
GIBBS: I think that Mitt Romney is going to have a tough time explaining what Mitt Romney was for in the past and what Mitt Romney is for now.
LAUER: What if the nominee is Herman Cain?
GIBBS: Well, you know, I think he is certainly the surprising entry right now into this field, but I think if you look at what he has had to offer and quite frankly what all the Republicans have had to offer, they think a mix of more tax cuts for the wealthy and letting Wall Street write the rules is the way to get us back on track. And I think many people in this country feel a frustration that those are the very things that got us into this mess and I think that's a recipe for how anybody is going to run against any of these Republican candidates.
LAUER: Robert Gibbs joining us in the studio this morning. Robert, it's good to see you.
GIBBS: Happy to be here.
LAUER: Thanks.
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Uh hoh geez....listen to Matt.
Submitted by NeoKong on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 9:43am.
I bet he makes at least ten times the combined total income of everybody who works on his show and here he is all worried about income redistribution.
He probably earns the yearly salary of an average camera man in just one day.
One short day.
Probably correct
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 5:28pm.
I would pose to Lauer that the men who collect my trash each week should earn more than he. Afterall, they keep me from wallowing in garbage, and that keeps my family healthy. Lauer serves no useful function. If I were President, I would pay him minimum wage.
That's logical income distribution, Matt Lauer. Same goes for the folks that stock shelves at my supermarket, and deliver gasoline to my local service station, and respond to my emergency calls if I need help. They should all make more money than Matt Lauer, because President Galvanic says so.
Please! Someone tell Matt
Submitted by hobie on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 9:51am.
That there is no income distribution clause in the POTUS employment contract or job description.
Matt is a socialist!
Or, if no one will tell this buffoon what would result from redistribution of income; let income be redistributed from him to someone else!
Lauer has always been concerned with unfair distribution.
Submitted by KyWriter on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 9:53am.
He received much less than his share of brains at birth.
Solitary Synapse Atrophy Syndrome
Submitted by Pilgrim1949 on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 12:10pm.
I wholeheartedly agree!
Dear, sweet, gentle, ever-compassionate-for-the great-unwashed-(and woefully underpaid, in comparison to him)masses Matt wonders aloud: "So what responsibility does President Obama have in terms of dealing with income distribution in this country?"
The numerical percentage "responsibility" just happens to match your IQ, Matt.
ZERO!
Matt's solitary, atrophied-from-underuse synapse is spastically twitching again and plaintively begging for some attention from anyone else with equal or greater cranial capacity.
What an insufferable, pompous, Obama-turd-polisher.
"Ye canne change the laws of physics....." but some politicians believe that with the right legislation you can pretend they don't really apply to your own pet projects...
Lets Start With Matt
Submitted by Utherpend on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 9:57am.
I agree lets make sure Matt is the first person to have his pay lowered to what everyone else on the show makes.........yeah I see that happening.
Income distribution
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:06am.
In other words, income is not earned, it's merely distributed by the government. Or, maybe that's what Lauer would prefer. The problem is, how do we make the switch allowing the government to take control of the entirety of the money supply?
I guess we could start by saying, "Let's eliminate the $1 bill and replace it with a $1 coin." This would make everyone's $1 bills worthless all at one time, and the government would have the replacement all within their purview. Then $5's; tens.
We could also use executive orders to give government further control of the money supply by consolidating loan programs, forcing them to be repaid back to the government, rather than private institutions -like evil banks. Banks lend the money initially, but it's repaid to the federal government via executive fiat.
Of course, these are just a couple of off-the-wall examples of ways to begin this process -were the government actually inclined to do such a thing. We all know, however, that these things would never really happen. Not here. Not in America.
The MSM and lefties are LOVING this!!!
Submitted by c5then on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:06am.
They get to spout all their Marxist ideology all the time now on the TV and no one calls them on it or even questions the premis of their questions.
How about NBC add up all the salaries of all those who work on the "Today Show" and then split that amount evenly among all the workers? Does anyone think that Matt would go for that?
And even more revealing of their ulterior motives, any discusion of "income" usually quickly devolves into a discussion of net worth. So what they almost always end up talking about is wealth redistribution. The key tennent in Marxism.
This is Greece and Rome all over again. While Rome "conquered" Greece, it was the Greek culture that permeated and eventually assimilated the Roman culture. The same is happening now,. While the old Soviet Union was defeated, Marxism seems to have crept in and is permeating our society now to such an extent that it might just replace the free-market capitalism that created all the West's wealth in the first place.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Matt, you can tax the rich
Submitted by inquiringmind on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:08am.
Matt, you can tax the rich and redistribute their income all you want but given enough time a dollar will find it's way to the person who wants it the most. Does not matter what the government does, what the economy is doing or what an individual situation is, a man who is willing to overcome any limitation put on him will get that prize.
Even in communist Russia or China you have the very wealthy and the very poor.Those two are the defination of wealth redistribution and "fairness".
Dear Matt, Please start
Submitted by Jerry on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:11am.
Dear Matt,
Please start writing checks immediately to re-distribute your millions & billions. No one is stopping you. Start with all the slave labor (unpaid volunteers) that work for your show, and even write a check to Uncle Sam if you wish. Let me know when your bank account has reached a "fair" share, or shut up and stop being an Democrat opperative.
One simple answer
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:11am.
Lauer, you seem to be an idiot every day of the week. Don't you ever take time off, take a vacation?
There's one simple answer to your question about what responsibility a potus (bogus as he is) might have for dealing income redistribution: NONE.
If you want something like that, GO ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD, like Cuba, China, whatever.
-Jon
Me thinks...
Submitted by Meredith1966 on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:19am.
...it obvious that in asking this question, Matt has no expectation whatsoever that his income will be among that which is 'distributed'. I'm sure he feels exempt, as I also expect that when folks like him bring up this subject, there is an unsaid understanding that only the income of some will be distributed, and that there will be many who are in the protected class whose income is off-limits. Among them who are protected, of course, are morning show hosts, as well as professional athletes, entertainers, artists, lawyers, union bosses, and any number of trades and professions who are not classified by government as 'evil'. Entreprenuer? Evil. CEO of an oil company? Evil. And on and on and on...
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
Only $17 million/year?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:22am.
Matt. You poor baby.
Wait! . . . what? Income is
Submitted by allouchsit on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:21am.
Wait! . . . what?
Income is "distributed'? When did that happen? What did I miss? I thought I had to go to work every day and work hard for my income. Now I hear that my income is so small because it has been "distributed" unfairly and Obama is going to fix that for me.
So who does this "distribution" and how do I sign up for my fair share? Do I still have to go to work today, or can I just go fishing and pick up my share of the distribution tomorrow?
Hey - Matt - GIMME YOUR KIDS COLLEGE FUND & SHUT UP
Submitted by Annie Ashe Fields on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:32am.
Whah?
What do you mean it's your kids' college fund and you don't want to give it me? IT'S NOT FAIR that you have it. GIMME.
Whah?
You EARNED it? And by having it, you don't have to go to the government BEGGING & DEPENDENT ON THEM asking for a handout? And by being able to simply write a check for tuition for your children, it enables the university - without asking the government - to offer reduced tuition to other, deserving, but less able-to-pay students?
SCREW YOU - GIMME. THE PRESIDENT SAYS YOU DON'T NEED IT. YOU'RE HOARDING CASH AND SELFISH.
Whah?
SHUT UP. Let me quote Him "There comes a point where you've earned enough money." AND It's money you "don't need."
Whah? I don't get to DECIDE how much money you need? SCREW YOU. THE PRESIDENT SAYS THAT *HE* DOES AND YOU DON'T NEED IT AND I DO. GIMME.
Have I made my point you insufferable moron?
She's got it!
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:33am.
By golly, I think she's got the right idea about the "gimme thats!"
-Jon
"the rich are getting
Submitted by Kylerk on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:34am.
"the rich are getting richer"
This complaint coming from a man who makes $16 million a year and adds very little to our society is beyond satire.
First of all, I want these
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:43am.
First of all, I want these idiots to learn how to say "in-come." It's not "INK-ome."
OK, got that off my chest.
Now...I would guess Lauer thinks if Obama can't increase income for the "bottom" 4/5, then his responsibility is to decrease income for the top 5th.
You know, for purposes of "fairness" as Obama has said.
No one has the responsibility
Submitted by jkwtrading on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 12:11pm.
No one has the responsibility to dictate a re distribution of income.
keep it libs and we might have a liberal hunting season begin.
Matt Sweetie-
Submitted by JIMMY1660 on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 12:29pm.
Please publish your tax retuns for the last 10 years.
Lets see how much you have given back.
Lets see your bench mark for income sharing.
What a dumbass
Submitted by ThisnThat on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 1:00pm.
He asked: "What's the best way for somebody to get ahead into the middle class and to get a better paying job?"
Let me tell you -- I've never, ever asked such a question. I limit the question to: "What is the best way for somebody to get ahead?" Matt Lauer, the communist dumbass, thinks he has to qualify getting ahead
I'll give you 100:1 odds that Lauer simultaneously thinks "middle class" should be limited to $50K/year, and that he -- as a rich person -- should be exempted from anyone thinking he's rich. Due to his important position as one of the "guardians of freedom", of course.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Lauer The Miscreant
Submitted by rammingspeed on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 1:55pm.
What responsibility does Obama have regarding "income distribution?" NONE!!! Stay the eff out of the private sector, you Marxist scumbags.
Matt, gimme dat money.
Submitted by yobobbyb on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 1:58pm.
Matt, I don't make $16M per year. Nor do I deserve to....in my world. But in your world, I guess I do. So I Tell you what brudda, Send me a check for $8M and we'll call it a day. That should be fair income redistribution. For you.
Moron.
Dear government,Maybe those
Submitted by lnthomp on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 2:14pm.
Dear government,
Maybe those liberals are right after all! I mean why should I have to take care of myself or be responsible for my actions! Psychologists have been trying to tell us all our problems are due to the parenting skills our parents possessed. THEY didn't have YOU running their lives, so maybe that is why there are so many nutty and whacked out people in America today... You know they ones, they actually believe The Constitution means something, and that *GASP* we should all be responsible for our own finances and such!
I know, how ridiculous to believe THAT, when all we really need is you, the government, to take care of us all! You will provide us all money to pay rent, buy clothes, buy car and gas, and everything else we need and want! What could POSSIBLY be better than that!?
Of course, I suppose that would mean only you would be working, since all of us citizens who USED to be We The People, won't be interested in work anymore, since you will give us everything. I guess maybe President Obama could learn to patch potholes in the roads, and Biden can maybe learn to take orders and flip burgers and make ice cream cones at Mcdonald's! We WILL all still want to drive those spiffy cars you give us money for, and we will all still want those Mickey D's cheeseburgers!!
Oh, and an added bonus! We can blame YOU for all our problems, since you will be taking on the role of Mommy and Daddy to us all!
Yeah, I think those liberals really might be on to something!!
Sincerely,
Terri Thompson
P.S. Do you think you can throw in an extra stipend in my checks!? I will still be interested in crocheting, though I don't know who I will give my crocheted blankets and other items to, since you will be providing everything for all of us!
Lee T / USN(ret) /Midland, TX,
What?
Submitted by TXTRUTH on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 2:18pm.
Income distribution? What does that mean? If you work, you get paid. If Matt believes in income distribution, I say we start with his.
income disparity
Submitted by ferv888 on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 3:49pm.
What an idiot,
First of all the rich are not static the names do not always remain the same, look at Lauer himself, classic example of people moving up in life, guess what someone else fell out of the rich. Not only that, but the lowest in income had their income rise 18%.
In a down economy cash is king and this is why we see what we see.is a direct result of this. Income disparity is talked about, what about the educational disparity???? Someone out there has done a study comparing the educational levels from top to bottom. let's take a look at that for a minute, and I am sure that someone has done a study on single parent families vs. married households in terms of income.
Do not let us these no nots get us further down the socialism road, enough.
FERV888
That's right, Matty.....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 5:11pm.
Let's not have "unfair" income redistribution. Let us have equal misery for all.
At last count, Mr. Matt
Submitted by YorkvilleGirl on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 7:35pm.
At last count, Mr. Matt Lauer's yearly salary was $17 million. He does not rush into burning buildings to rescue trapped children; he is not a member of the Armed Forces, risking his life in the name of freedom halfway around the world; he does not create exquisite works of art nor does he toil ceaselessly to find a cure for cancer. He produces nothing but foul air
Yet the annual income of this ignorant, aging mannequin is the truest example of the very "unfairness" he and all the other hypocritical news louts have claimed as their latest cause du jour.
Sickening, really.
How Does it Work?
Submitted by ClarinetAndrew on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 8:40pm.
All the talk about income redistribution makes it seem like it is a one shot deal: we take from the ‘Rich’ and evenly pass it around to everyone else. I would think that it in the name of 'fairness' it would have to be an ongoing Government program.
All of us would file our tax returns on April 15th and then on June 1st the Government would either send you a check or a bill so that everyone in the country would have the exact same amount of money! There problem solved with more Government and even more shared misery!
Yeah…Right…
Liberal mind set now set to “OFF” position
Hey Matt,
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 8:52pm.
Please forgo your own damn salary, before begging the commie's to take whats left of ours.
Who Made Matt Lauer God to Decide Income Deistribution?
Submitted by Avitar on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 2:42am.
In economics we in the western world have known that uniform distribution of income was foolish and inefficient for at least 2,500 years. Our elites have been trying to design schemes to Taylor the distribution of wealth and income to their liking ever since. Plato's Republic was an income redistribution scheme. After 2,500 years of trying history records no Government that has been able to achieve results better than letting the people who make the money keep the money.
We have gotten much better after two thousand years of observation of Identifying who will make the money. The answer is we don't know except that the person who makes a lot of money is the person who is most likely to use that money to build new industries and make a lot more money.
The Pareto Principle, also called the 80/20 power law observes that in a population 80% of the desirable results will come from the 20%. As a power law it is iterative and in that 80% of results 80% will be produced by 20% of the 20%. Put another way for those who never got math story problems left alone20% of the population will produce 80% of income, 4% of the population will produce 64% of income. The top 1% left alone will be responsible for around 50% of society's income in an economy undistorted. This is rough and super achievers like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are not going to show up until they are already making money. But the best way to impoverish a society is to progressively take money from its highest earners. That is only the lesson of millennium of history.
Bad news for Matt is he will have to request that God change this law.
Hey Matt-
Submitted by gobnait06 on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 9:05am.
What steps are you taking to redistribute your undeserved wealth, you no-talent hack?
Matt-you sweet thing-Publish your tax-
Submitted by JIMMY1660 on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 3:16pm.
returns for the last 10 years-we can start there-
lets see how much you "share".
Enough said Matt.
matt lauar income dedistribution
Submitted by david5300 on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 10:23pm.
Matt how about sending me some of your millions you recive from your job.
I didn't think so.
I thought you were a reporter not a advocate for class envy
As most of the liberal media hacks you have no interest in how America became a superpower and developed a freedom and a class of living standard that is the envy of the world.
You have never learned that the only thing socialism garanttees is equal misery for all that live under it.
I would also say that the most patreotic Americans are the ones that left socialist countries to come here.
To think that we should even want to be like them is obtuse.