The Wall Street Premise:

A Corpus-based Critical Discourse Analysis

of President Obamas Narrative of Blame
for the Financial Crisis,
2009 2012

Rachel Wyman
Kings College London,
University of London
MA ELT & Applied Linguistics
2011 2012
Tutor: Mr. Kieran OHalloran
11 September 2012

ABSTRACT
This dissertation investigates how the 2008 financial crisis has been represented in President
Obamas speeches to the American public. The initial research is carried out through a corpus
analysis. This is followed by a critical discourse analysis of a speech representative of the
corpus findings.

In the aftermath of the crisis, Obama was faced with the task of designating blame. The
corpus investigation shows that the metonymic term, Wall Street, was introduced into the
Presidential Weekly Addresses after the crisis occurred, in order to encompass a group of
unspecified large financial institutions. Wall Street was then isolated as being responsible.

This narrative of blame has been used to form the premise for arguments about how to
respond to the crisis. Wall Street reform is presented as the solution to preventing further
crises and ultimately as a way to repair the economy. However, critical evaluation of this
argument within a selected speech leads to the conclusion that it is not credible. Further
critical discourse analysis examines this texts relation to the greater power structure of
society as whole, considering its role in supporting the institutions in which it was produced.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my supervisor Kieran OHalloran for his encouragement, his advice and
for introducing me to the glamorous world of corpus linguistics.

I would like to thank Rufus Vaughan-Spruce for his editing expertise.

And I would like to thank my brother Mike for always encouraging me to look at the bigger
picture

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract (ii)
Acknowledgements (iii)
Table of Contents (iv)
List of Appendices (vii)
1.

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1.

2.

LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 4.

2.1. Critical Discourse Analysis ................................................................................... 4.
2.2. Institutions and Language ...................................................................................... 5.
2.3. Institutions and Power ............................................................................................ 6.
2.4. Faircloughs Basic CDA Theory ............................................................................ 8.
2.4.1. Events
2.4.2. Practices
2.4.3. Structures
2.5. Fairclough & Faircloughs New Framework for Analyzing Political Discourse .. 11.
2.5.1. Overview
2.5.2. CDA & Practical Argumentation: The Connection
2.5.3. Outline for Analyzing Practical Arguments
2.5.4. Linguistic Analysis
2.5.5. Criticisms

3.

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 19.

3.1. Overview: Corpus Analysis and CDA ..................................................................
3.2. Corpus Analysis ....................................................................................................
3.2.1. The Data
3.2.2. The Pilot Study
3.2.2.1. Aims
3.2.2.2. The Data
3.2.2.3. WMATRIX
3.2.2.4. Method
3.2.3. The Research Questions
3.2.4. Investigating Question One
3.2.4.1. The Corpora
3.2.4.2. Corpus Analysis
3.3. Investigating Question 2: Critical Discourse Analysis ..........................................
3.4. Summary ................................................................................................................

iv

19.
19.

24.
25.

4.

ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ......................................................... 26.

4.1. Corpus Analysis Results ....................................................................................... 26.
4.1.1. Pilot Study
4.1.2. Obama Corpus Wordlist
4.1.3. Obama Corpus Keyword List Compared to Reference Corpus
4.1.4. Semantic Domain Analysis
4.1.4.1. Violent/Angry
4.1.4.2. Damaging/Destroying
4.1.5. Concordances
4.1.5.1. Wall Street Concordance/ Reference Corpus
4.1.5.2. Wall Street Concordance/ Bush Corpus
4.1.5.3. Wall Street Concordance/ Obama Corpus
4.1.6. Conclusion
4.2. Critical Discourse Analysis, President Obamas Weekly Address ...................... 35.
4.2.1. Wall Street Reform: Context
4.2.2. Evaluation of the Argument
4.2.2.1. Overview
4.2.2.2. Circumstances
4.2.2.3. Values
4.2.2.4. Alternative
4.2.2.5. Means-Goal
4.2.2.6. Evaluation Summary
4.2.3. Events, Practices, Structures
4.2.4. Institutions and Power
4.2.5. Conclusion

5.

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 48.

6.

Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 50.

7.

Appendices
Appendix A: Obama Corpus 2010 Wordlist ...................................................... 54.
Appendix B: Obama Corpus Wordlist ............................................................... 58.
Appendix C: Obama Corpus Keyword List Compared to Reference Corpus .... 63.
Appendix D: Obama Corpus Semantic Domain Analysis Violent/Angry ........... 66.
Appendix E: Obama Corpus Semantic Domain Analysis Damaging/Destroying 72.
Appendix F: Wall Street Concordance, Reference Corpus ................................. 78.
Appendix G: Wall Street Concordance, Bush Corpus ........................................ 79.
Appendix H: George W. Bush Weekly Address, September 27, 2008 ............... 80.
Appendix I: Wall Street Concordance, Obama Corpus ........................................ 82.
v

Appendix J: Extended Wall Street Concordance Lines, Obama Corpus ............. 84.
Appendix K: Extended Wall Street Concordance Lines 2, Obama Corpus ........ 86.
Appendix L: President Obamas Weekly Address, May 19, 2012 ...................... 87.

vi

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Obama Corpus 2010 Wordlist
Appendix B: Obama Corpus Wordlist
Appendix C: Obama Corpus Keyword List Compared to Reference Corpus
Appendix D: Obama Corpus Semantic Domain Analysis, Violent/Angry
Appendix E: Obama Corpus Semantic Domain Analysis, Damaging/Destroying
Appendix F: Wall Street Concordance, Reference Corpus
Appendix G: Wall Street Concordance, Bush Corpus
Appendix H: George W. Bushs Weekly Address, September 27, 2008
Appendix I: Wall Street Concordance, Obama Corpus
Appendix J: Extended Wall Street Concordance Lines, Obama Corpus
Appendix K: Extended Wall Street Concordance Lines 2, Obama Corpus
Appendix L: President Obamas Weekly Address, May 19, 2012

vii

1. INTRODUCTION
In 2008, a financial crisis impacted the world, with tens of millions of people losing their
homes, their savings and their jobs. In the U.S., the crisis doubled the already staggering
national debt and trillions of taxpayer dollars went to bailing out the banks (Ferguson
2010).

Four years later, the middle and lower classes in America continue to suffer through the
consequences of the crisis, while the wealthiest Americans have actually profited, gaining
an even larger percentage of the countrys wealth (Levine 2012). With the crisis being the
major focus of national concern, President Obama came into office in January 2009.
From his first day he was faced with the task of dealing with the repercussions of the
crisis and with the problem of how to fix the problems within the system that enabled
it. This thesis is an investigation through corpus and critical discourse analysis, into how
he has represented the cause of this crisis and consequently, how he has formulated
arguments regarding recovery from it. These arguments have led to changes in policy
during his term, which are affecting the social system in America.

According to a 2012 report by the Congressional Research Service in Washington,

unequal wealth distribution is becoming progressively more extreme since the crisis.
Following the crisis, the bottom 50% of Americans now hold 1.1% of the nations total
wealth, down from 2.5% in 2007. The wealth holdings of the top 1% of Americans have
continued to rise, hitting 34.5% in 2010 as compared to 33.8% in 2007. The wealthiest
10% now hold 74.5% of the nations wealth, up from 71.5% before the crisis.

(Levine 2012: 4).

Meanwhile, despite the fact that corporate profit rates have doubled since 1990, Federal
minimum wage (while accounting for inflation) has dropped. Average hourly earnings
have stayed stagnant for the past fifty years. The unemployment rate in the U.S., at 9%,
only includes people who are not working any hours and are actively looking for
employment. If considering those working part-time, looking for full-time work, or who
have ceased to look for work, this number is estimated at 17%, according to the U.S.
Department of Labor. The average rate of pay for a C.E.O. is now 350 times higher than
that of the average worker (Blodget 2011).

In the face of these national statistics, which have caused widespread anger, and the
Occupy Wall Street protests, Obama has created a narrative of the crisis aimed at
convincing people that it is Wall Street, a metonymic term used to lump together
Americas large financial firms, that is responsible. Representations of blame for the
crisis are important since the way that the context of action is represented (or narrated,
explained) affects which course of action is proposed, which explains the intense
competition and conflict over winning acceptance for or imposing one account
(Fairclough & Fairclough 2012: 7).

These representations are presented to the American public through speeches, or more
generally, through language. Political speeches form part of the structure of our political
system; political power is gained and lost, negotiated through language (Fairclough
2010). Institutions, such as the U.S. government, are tasked with the challenge of
maintaining their power in the face of crises. They must keep the people convinced of
their legitimacy; they do so through language. Therefore the representations of events that
our leaders present to us should be critically evaluated, rather than blindly trusted
(Fairclough 2010).

Critical Discourse Analysis is concerned with the study of how language is used to
maintain and/or abuse power (van Dijk 2001). As the gap between those with extreme
wealth and the average American becomes increasingly acute, the question of whether
the institution of the U.S. government is abusing their power or perhaps conceding too
much power to the wealthy elite, has begun to be asked by those who have lost their
homes and jobs in a crisis they did not cause. As the leader of the institution of the U.S.
government, the population look to Obama to apportion blame for the crisis and present
the perpetrators with consequences. Why did the American government fail to prevent
this crisis from happening and from harming so many of its citizens? This thesis is an
investigation into how Obama has attempted to answer this question through his
representations of blame and how these representations have been used as a basis for
arguments about the response to the crisis.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
The study of how language is used socially to communicate and formulate meanings is
called discourse analysis (DA). By looking at spoken and written texts, DA considers
how meaning is constructed, how language is used to shape our identities and how it
influences the way we think (Paltridge 2006). As Rogers (2004: 5) writes, discourse
both reflects and constructs the social world.

Building on this definition, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) focuses on how texts are
used to construct and maintain unequal power relations in society (van Dijk 2008). Since
language is so influential, it is used as a tool by those in power to spread their ideas and
preferred cultural norms to the rest of society, CDA makes the assumption that how
language affirms and normalizes is so routine language users may be unaware of the
ideological meanings which they are consuming and reproducing (OHalloran 2012: 92).
Discourse and our culture and society influence each other, and ideas and beliefs are
spread through language; therefore, analyzing this language should give us insight into
how inequality continues to play such a significant role in society (Chilton 2004).

CDA is trans-disciplinary in nature, combining methods of analysis from linguistics and

theory from the Critical Social Sciences, involving normative and explanatory critique.
Normative critique considers the question, what makes a good society? comparing our
current reality to an ideal, asking whether our beliefs and cultural practices benefit or
harm us, are good, bad, racist, and so on. Explanatory critique seeks to explain why
social realities are as they are, and how they are sustained or changed (Fairclough &
Fairclough 2012: 79). A major theme is the study of power in society. CDA incorporates
many theories within the social sciences from the work of Foucault (1967), (1972),
(1977), Gramsci (1971) and Bourdieu (1984), (1991) among others. By connecting these
theories about our society and the focus on language that CDA adds, the goal is to proffer
a more in-depth picture of how power is gained and maintained through discourse
(Fairclough & Fairclough 2012).
4

Van Dijk (2008) stresses that CDA should aim at contributing to social change by
exposing abuses of power and unfair practices within our social system. He writes that
those with power control the actions and minds of those with less power through their
resources: money, status, knowledge, control of the media, etc. However, their power is
not absolute and its balance constantly shifts. The study of these shifts over time and the
structures and institutions that uphold our society and grant or deny groups and
individuals power, is central to CDA.

In order to study power, we must examine the institutions that hold power and the
language that they use to exert, maintain and abuse it.
2.2. INSTITUTIONS & LANGUAGE
Norman Faircloughs Language and Power (1989) is widely recognized as the first book
to define CDA and lay out the basic principles behind critically analyzing texts. Its author
examines how institutions of power, such as governments, universities and the medical
field, control people through language, through power in discourse and by controlling the
power behind it.
Power behind discourse is the concept that the whole social order of discourse is put
together and held together as a hidden effect of power (Fairclough 1989: 46). Fairclough
maintains that power can be gained and lost through various language techniques, which
must be studied in order expose how the power structure works. He uses the example of
standardization, where a specific version of the English language has become accepted
as normal or correct. Power in discourse involves powerful participants controlling
and constraining the contributions of less powerful participants (Fairclough &
Fairclough 2012: 113). For example, when considering a political speech, the speaker has
the power to choose what events he mentions and omit events that he does not want to
highlight to his audience. In order to control what is discussed in discourse, one must
have sufficient power to assert his authority over others.

This is idea is linked to the concept of ideology or how beliefs and concerns which are
associated with particular social groups come to be general beliefs (2012: 100). Ideology
is spread through language by those with power in order to support their own agenda.
Gramsci (1971) uses the term hegemony to describe a state where the ruling class has
dominated the culture for their own purposes to so severe an extent that the general
population are no longer aware that it is happening. The norms and values that define the
culture are no longer critically evaluated but simply accepted as how it is.

Institutions uphold societal norms (Stubbs 1996), re-producing language in accordance

with them and simultaneously supporting the institutions that uphold them. When we
speak, we are doing so under a set of constraints that have been developed historically
through institutions; therefore, the study of language must involve the study of the
language used by institutions. As Stubbs writes, uses of language support institutions.
Institutions are networks of commitments: they are based on contracts, promises,
requests, authorizations and other speech acts More concretely, social institutions are
always defined and supported by particular text types (Stubbs 1996: 59). When studying
language we must take into account the influence and power of institutions.

2.3. INSTITUTIONS & POWER

Our language supports and is defined by institutions and similarly, our actions support
institutions. Giddens (in Stubbs 1996: 58) writes that human actions and social structure
are implicated in each other. Human agency constitutes social structure Our activities
constantly, routinely, have consequences we do not intend, and which are deeply
involved in the reproduction of social institutions. Our actions thus support and sustain
the entire social structure of our society, including the institutions that hold power. One
of the major problems within the social sciences, is analyzing this relationship between
our everyday actions (micro-analysis) and how they uphold the institutions that hold
power in our society over long periods of time (macro-analysis). One way of doing this is
by examining the texts which institutions create and use to further assert their power
(Stubbs 1996).

Since our actions support institutions, we are implicated and connected to the decisions
that they make. Fairclough and Fairclough write that often, within institutions, decisions
are made based on power, since power provides agents with reasons for action (2012:
112). When studying the decision-making process of large institutions such as
governments, we must consider that these decisions are not necessarily based on
arguments that are morally correct or even reasonable; but rather on reasons backed by
those with power, or supported by the extant power structure. The authors connect their
view of power to that of Searles (2010) theory of deontic power.
Searles (2003, 2010) theory begins with the concept of status functions. Something
has value if we give it value. Searle (2003) uses the example of money we give this
paper value because our government tells us to. The allocation of a set of rules or laws in
our society relies on the concept of status, since we need people in positions of power to
enforce these rules:

It is this feature, the distinctly human feature, to count certain things as having a
status that they do not have intrinsically, and then to grant, with that status, a set
of functions, which can only be performed in virtue of the collective acceptance
of the status and the corresponding function, that creates the very possibility of
institutional facts.
(Searle 2003: 8).

The concept of an institutional fact is one of the most basic and important theories behind
institutions and power that is, the distinction between brute facts, supported by physics,
and institutional facts, supported by institutions. For example, the fact Barack Obama is
the President of the United States would not exist if the institution of the United States
did not exist. After his election, despite the fact that many Americans did not want him to
be president, he remains so owing to support from the institution of the U.S. government.
Institutional facts can exist because of the status that we give to institutions, and because
they have status they are given certain functions. The fact that we recognize institutional

facts, allows for the creation of desire independent reasons for action through deontic
power (Searle 2003).

Deontic power is a power that gives people reasons for actions, which are not a part of
their personal motivation or desires. Governments that did not have the capacity to create
desire-independent reasons would not succeed in maintaining authority (Searle 2010).
These desires are enacted through societal norms, our everyday duties and obligations,
what we feel we need to do for reasons often unrealized by us, deontic powers are rights,
duties, obligations, authorizations, permissions, privileges, authority and the like (Searle
2003: 14). The institutions that constitute our society provide us with reasons to act; they
have the power to make us want things. They do this through texts, such as political
speeches, aimed at convincing us to support certain actions. For example, the idea that it
is our obligation as good citizens to vote is created by institutions because having a large
number of citizens voting further validates them. This action is a testament to our belief
in our governments validity. Much of what we believe is so deeply ingrained in our
minds and culture that we no longer have the ability or desire to question our beliefs: the
recognition by the agent, that is to say by the citizen of a political community, of a status
function, as valid, gives the agent a desire independent reason for doing something.
Without this there is no such thing as organized political and institutional reality (Searle
2003: 17). Our social system is constructed by the power that institutions have; it
constructs them and therefore, it constructs us.
2.4. FAIRCLOUGHS BASIC THEORY
In order to understand Fairclough and Faircloughs (2012) new approach to political
discourse analysis, we must understand Faircloughs basic theory behind CDA, which
underpins this approach.
Chouliarki and Fairclough write that CDA starts from the perception of discourse as
an element of social practices, which constitutes other elements as well as being shaped
by them (1999: vii). Based on Searles (2003, 2010) theory behind realist social

ontology, Fairclough (2010) writes that social life is comprised of three distinct levels of
reality: social events, social practices and social structures.
2.4.1. EVENTS
Texts are a type of social event. They cannot be looked at as an independent entity; they
are shaped by the practices and structures of their production. Texts are written by
individuals, or agents, but in ways which depend on the continuity of structures and
practices (Fairclough 2010: 75). At the same time, texts produce and reproduce
meaning; they are used to forward the agenda of institutions and sustain power.

2.4.2. PRACTICES
Practices are social actions. There are two types of practices, those that occur in a
particular time and place, and as what has hardened into a relative permanency a
practice in the sense of a habitual way of acting (Chouliarki & Fairclough 1999: 22).
Practices achieve this relative permanence through being upheld by institutions. For
example, the practice of law firms only hiring candidates who have passed the BAR
exam, is upheld by both the institution of education and the institution of law. Were they
to stop upholding this practice, it would no longer matter if you passed the bar and the
practice would lose its permanency.

Institutions have a vested interest in supporting the permanence of certain practices.

Individuals are also affected by practices and may have an interest in supporting or
fighting against them. Since the struggle for power is constant in social interaction,
whether or not individuals support certain institutions is also connected to which
practices they uphold. In this way the entire social structure is inter-connected
(Chouliaraki & Fairclough 1999).

When examining practices we can focus on three categories: genres, styles and
discourses. Using Bakhtins definition, Fairclough and Chouliaraki define genre as the
language used in a particular form of activity, and it is characterized by a particular
thematic content, a particular style and a particular compositional structure (1999: 49).

There are a huge number of types of text genre, some examples include political
speeches, science fiction novels, technical manuals and love poems. Certain types of
language are associated with each of these; you know what to expect to some extent when
you open a science fiction book.

Style has to do with how people use texts to construct their identities (Fairclough 2010).
When we are looking at speeches made by the President of the United States, we can
identify how he constructs his identity through his chosen words. For instance, Obama
uses authoritative language when making his Weekly Addresses; by doing so he is further
establishing his identity as a strong leader.

Discourses are ways in which people use language to represent the world (Fairclough
2010). There are endless numbers of discourses in relation to how different people view
different things. For example, when considering the issue of the financial crisis, there are
many separate discourses concerning who is to blame for causing the crisis. One
discourse represents the banks as responsible. If we adopt this view, our actions when
dealing with the crisis will adapt accordingly; our argument on how to fix it will involve
placing tighter restrictions on the banking system.

2.4.3. STRUCTURES
Structures are long-term background conditions for social life (Chouliaraki &
Fairclough 1999: 22). An example is Capitalism. Structures may change, but only over
significant periods of time. For instance, the Womens Rights Movement in America
changed the structure of Capitalism over the course of forty years to give women more
equal rights, but it was a gradual change that is still continuing. Many events, such as
feminist newspaper articles, and many practices, such as protests, led to this change in
U.S. social structure.

By analyzing events, practices and structures, we should be able to better understand how
power works in our society. Understanding this basic overview of Faircloughs

10

framework for analyzing CDA is important because his new method builds upon and
incorporates these concepts.
2.5. FAIRCLOUGH & FAIRCLOUGHS NEW FRAMEWORK FOR
ANALYSING POLITICAL DISCOURSE
2.5.1. OVERVIEW
Starting from this basic definition of CDA, Fairclough and Fairclough introduce their
new approach to analyzing political texts, Political Discourse Analysis (2012), focusing
on the idea that in political texts, the main genre is deliberation. Therefore, when we
analyze texts, this analysis should involve deconstructing the arguments used to justify
the actions being suggested. Politics is focused on the question of action, of what to do
(2012: 17). The process by which politicians, or agents, answer this question through
practical argumentation and deliberation, must be sequentially analyzed. Based on this
premise, the authors lay out a new framework for analyzing political discourse.

When examining the causes of social change, we must examine the reasons behind
human actions. Agents cause social change through their actions, but what influences
their reasons for action? Fairclough and Fairclough suggest that our beliefs, values and
desires enter into the premises of arguments over what action to take, and that the
institutions that we are part of also influence us. Analysis of practical argumentation
offers the advantage of showing how the power of social and institutional structures
manifests itself in the reasons for action that people recognize. In our view, structures
constrain (or enable) agency by providing people with reasons for action (2012: 81). In
political discourse, we are dealing with texts, often speeches, being made by political
actors working within political institutions. They are evaluating the question of what to
do about specific issues. The arguments that they make in reference to answering this
question, are the basis for decisions that often affect hundreds of millions of people.
Therefore, these arguments, particularly the premises behind them, should be evaluated
critically.

11

Fairclough and Fairclough are not the first to address the process of decision-making in
discourse. Legitimation has been examined in discourse before as a type of justification
for actions. Leeuwen (2007) lists four categories of legitimation: authorization, moral
evaluation, rationalization and mythpoesis, but he does not connect legitimation with
argumentation theory. Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) argue that Leeuwen does not
address the important point that judgments of legitimacy are always in relation to a
background of norms, beliefs and values (2012: 110). Fairclough and Fairclough are the
first to lay out a framework for CDA based on examining the structure of arguments
along with incorporating critical social theories and CDA methods for analyzing texts in
order to investigate how political power operates through discourse and how it affects
social change.

2.5.2. CDA & PRACTICAL ARGUMENTATION: THE CONNECTION

The authors (2012) write that when considering a political text, we must look at its genre,
discourse and style (interdiscursive analysis), as well as the language itself (linguistic
analysis). In doing so we can link the microanalysis of the text with the macro-level of
analysis, focused on theories behind power, dominance and inequality.

The structure of practical reasoning involves representations of reality, which are used to
make arguments about what type of action to take in response to problems in society,
such as the financial crisis. Since discourses are ways of representing reality, the studies
of discourse and of genre should be combined to form a new, more effective framework.
Ways of representing the world act as premises about what we should do. Unless we
look at arguments, and not just isolated representations, there is no way of understanding
how our beliefs feed into what we do (Fairclough & Fairclough 2012: 86-87). The way
that reality is represented in discourse such as political speeches, enter into the arguments
that the leaders of our countries make, which in turn lead to our governments actions.
These representations may be inaccurate, therefore when they aid in dictating action, the
entire political process has gone eschew. Thus, analyzing practical argumentation within
the framework of CDA should be a useful technique.

12

2.5.3. OUTLINE FOR ANALYZING PRACTICAL ARGUMENTS

Stating that practical reasoning has a cognitive-motivational structure, Audi (2006)
describes it as an inferential process, whereby agents infer judgments favoring action
from premises expressing motivation and (instrumental) cognition (in Fairclough &
Fairclough 2012: 40). It is a means-end process used to answer the question of what to
do. The practical argument begins with a premise and ends with the conclusion, or
judgment, on how to respond to the problem. Audi (2006: 96) outlines practical
reasoning:
1. major premise the motivational premise (I want X)
2. minor premise the cognitive premise: my doing A would contribute to realizing
X.
3. conclusion the practical judgment I should do A.

Audi adds that our values enter into our decisions and often influence our judgments on
why the original problem exists.

Working from this basic definition, Fairclough and Fairclough set out a structure for
analyzing practical arguments. The agent, the person making the argument, lays out a
goal, which is influenced by his values. He then takes into account the current
circumstances. Then he makes a claim for action through the means-goal, which should
meet the goals.

13

(2012: 48)

In slightly more detail, two types of premise exist, the circumstantial premise and the
normative or goal premise. The circumstantial premise takes into account the agents
context of the situation; the natural and social facts that make up his world. The goal
premise concerns what end result the agent is aiming for a future state. The goal may
not necessarily be what the agent wants, rather what they feel is normatively or morally
correct, or one they feel obligated or forced to adopt. Adopting Waltons (2006, 2007)
view, the goal premise is supported by the values of the agent. These values influence

14

potential options; the action that the agent decides upon is most desirable if it corresponds
to both their goal and their values. The authors distinguish between two types of values:
the agents actual concerns and their value commitments which are based on societal
norms (2012: 46). These values also influence the way the agent views their current
circumstances, we not only imagine goals in relation to values, but we see problems
around us in relation to our values (2012: 46). For example, the representation of the
financial crisis that involves blaming stockbrokers for the collapse of the system will
influence arguments about what action to take; most likely involving putting stricter
regulations on the stock exchange. But perhaps the agent has a personal dislike of
stockbrokers; he sees the fact that they make a lot of money as an injustice. This personal
opinion could influence how he represents the cause of the crisis and his dislike for
stockbrokers could influence how he makes his argument. This is why representations of
the crisis that are illustrated in Obamas speeches are important to consider. The meansgoal is the way in which the agent determines he can reach his goal. The claim for action
is therefore the reason for the action being undertaken.

This is the basic structure of the argument but it is not yet deliberation because it does not
yet involve considering other options in the equation. If the argument involves
deliberation we must also look at alternative suggested options and how they are
addressed. The way that different proposals are presented, considered or dismissed during
the deliberation process must also be critically evaluated. Normally the process of
deliberation involves two or more agents attempting to reach a solution but often in
political speeches, such as the Weekly Address, the speaker will deliberate with himself.
This method should be a point of critique since clearly, the speech has been structured to
reflect deliberation when true deliberation is not taking place (2012).

15

(2012: 51).

In this example, we can see that an alternative option, or counter-claim is being

considered. The agent must respond to this counter-claim in order to prove why his
argument is a better option. Normally in this case, the opponent would then respond
accordingly and the deliberation process would take place. If there is no opponent, but a
counter-claim is represented and dismissed without argument, we must question this
process.

By critically evaluating each aspect of this argument, we can affectively add to how
affective the critical discourse analysis is.
2.5.4. LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS
While there is a myriad of ways to study language through linguistic analysis, Fairclough
and Fairclough (2012) focus on specific methods that can strengthen the examination of
arguments. I will briefly expand on those relevant here.
16

Metaphor

In Lakoff and Johnsons (1980) seminal work on metaphor, the authors write that our
conceptual system defines our reality and that this conceptual system is largely based on
metaphor. We understand things as they relate to other things. For instance, part of the
definition of pig, is what a pig is not; it is not a horse or a goat. Metaphors are an innate
part of the way we think; they help us to understand our reality. But they can also skew
reality by emphasizing some features of reality and hiding others. For this reason we
should not accept all metaphors as true but view them critically. The main idea that
Fairclough and Fairclough connect to argumentation theory is that metaphors may create
realities for us, especially social realities. A metaphor may thus be a guide for future
action (1980: 156).

Metonymy

Related to metaphor, metonymy is a process that allows us to use one entity to stand for
another (1980: 34). For example, the use of the term Wall Street to represent a group of
powerful firms.

Framing

Closely related to metaphor are frames. Peoples claims for action follow from their own
descriptions of the context and may not follow from the ways in which their opponents
define the situation. Re-describing or re-framing reality in a rhetorically convenient way
is part of a strategy of action (2012: 93).

Imaginaries

Jessop (2002, 2008) describes imaginaries as ways of representing a future possible

world (in Fairclough & Fairclough 2012: 103). For instance, when we talk about the
economy, we can represent it as troubled, which leads to an argument about how to
improve it here we are describing the actual world. But if we talk about how the
economy will one day be stronger than ever before if we implement certain reforms, we
are describing an imaginary: an imagined future that may have no basis in reality. Yet,

17

imaginaries can enter into the goal premise of an argument and thus motivate people to
act in certain ways.

The main idea behind Political Discourse Analysis is the introduction of practical
argumentation analysis into CDA, and these linguistic analysis techniques can be used to
contribute to this analysis.

2.5.5. CRITICISMS
Fairclough and Faircloughs new framework incorporates a useful new technique to
analyzing texts through practical argumentation, yet not the use of corpus analysis. One
of the major criticisms of CDA is that it is biased (Widdowson 2004). Since CDA focuses
on specific, isolated text examples, it is easy to choose a section to examine which
directly proves the point that one wishes to make. Corpus Linguistics can be highly useful
when carrying out a critical discourse analysis of a text; the quantitative data can be used
to back up claims made in the qualitative analysis. As OHalloran writes, crucially, this
quantitative approach helps to reduce interpretative subjectivity in critical discourse
qualitative engagement with text (2012: 93).

Texts must be studied in context (Stubbs 1996) and an effective way to connect a text
with the context of its production, is through analyzing other texts of the same type. By
investigating corpora we can affectively do this by finding patterns in language that are
both typical and atypical and incorporating this information into the critical discourse
analysis. Had Fairclough and Fairclough used corpus analysis, I believe their
methodology would have been much stronger and more up-to-date with current advances
in the field.

18

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. OVERVIEW: CORPUS ANALYSIS & CDA

In the three and a half years that President Obama has been in office, he has made 180
Weekly Addresses to the American public. In selecting which speeches to analyze, in
order to avoid random choice, I decided to carry out a corpus study. As Stubbs (1996)
writes, patterns of language use, including systemic differences in coding practices,
across millions of words, can be documented only with computational methods.
Individual texts must be related to institutions, but also to corpora (Stubbs 1996: 60). I
wanted the texts that I analyzed to be representative of Obamas speeches as a whole and
to avoid the claim that CDA is biased with strong quantitative data, so I began my
research with a corpus study. This was followed by the selection of a representative text,
which I analyzed using Fairclough and Faircloughs new framework.

3.2. CORPUS ANALYSIS

Corpus Linguistics involves analyzing corpora, large bodies of naturally occurring
language data stored on computers, using programs which sort and categorize this data
in various ways (Baker 2006: 1). The overall aim is to identify patterns that reflect the
way people use language. After identifying these patterns, various ways of further
analyzing the specific data are used to form conclusions about how language is used.

3.2.1. THE DATA

In order to study how President Obama has represented the financial crisis in his political
speeches, I chose to examine his Weekly Addresses. The American Presidency Project
(Peters & Woolley 2012) contains records of these speeches made from 1982, when
Ronald Reagan decided to revive President Franklin D. Roosevelts (1933 - 1945) habit
of making a weekly radio address. Following Reagan, President George Bush (1989
1993) made random addresses during his term but the habit of making regular, weekly
speeches was not cemented until Bill Clinton (1993 2001) and George W. Bush (2001
2009) both did so during their combined four terms in office. President Obama has

19

continued the tradition, which under his presidency, is now filmed. The transcriptions for
all of these 4-6 minute speeches are in the archive.
I chose to use the Weekly Addresses for the following reasons:
a. They are addressed to the American people as an audience.
b. They are made regularly and have had the same basic parameters since 1982;
therefore it is easy to compare the content of one presidents speeches against
anothers.
c. The subject of these speeches is whatever political issues are most pressing at the
time, affecting the general population of the country. For example, President
George W. Bush focused on the Iraq War. Since these issues are important, their
acknowledgement and possible solutions are the focus.
d. The president presents his concerns and opinions to the American people. They
are persuasive and often focused on forwarding his agenda.
e. Alternative points of view are not represented.
Using the American Presidency Project (Peters & Woolley 2012), I conducted a pilot
study.
3.2.2. THE PILOT STUDY
3.2.2.1. AIMS
In order to choose which questions to research, I carried out a pilot study. The aim was to
identify which topic areas President Obama mentions the most frequently to look for
patterns (Baker 2006). Rayson (2003) writes that in Corpus Linguistics, the research
questions may come after examining a corpus first, since the corpus data will first show
patterns in the text that will lead to the development of the research questions. Since I
began with background knowledge (from hearing some of his speeches and watching the
news) of the fact that Obamas presidency has been focused on bringing America back
from the recession, my aim in the pilot study was to see what topics he discusses
frequently which could be connected to his argument about how to do this.

20

3.2.2.2. DATA
In the pilot study I made a corpus for President Obamas speeches from the year 2010. I
chose this year because it was his first full year in office (his first Weekly Address was
January 24, 2009) and because it was the year that major legislation supporting Wall
Street reform and health insurance reform were passed - the two most significant events
in domestic policy that have been passed under Obama. It contained fifty-one speeches
and 38,377 words. The American Presidency Project, maintained by the University of
California at Santa Barbara, has the largest searchable database of Presidential speeches,
including all of the Presidents Weekly Addresses (Peters & Woolley 2012). This was my
main source for data throughout the dissertation. I fact-checked the number of speeches
and the dates on the U.S. governments website (whitehouse.gov) but after finding that
various speeches were missing or dated incorrectly, I determined that the Presidency
Project was a better source.

WMATRIX 3 (Rayson 2009) has various corpus samples stored on the database that can
be used as comparison tools. I selected the BNC BABY Written Sample. According to
the British National Corpus website, (www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk), the BNC Sampler is a
subset of the full BNC. It comprises two samples of written and spoken material of one
million words each. This sample is comprised of written examples of data from the
British populace.

3.2.2.3. WMATRIX
I decided to use the corpus analysis and comparison tool WMATRIX (version 3, Rayson
2009), to conduct my research for the following reasons:

1. Ease of use. WMATRIX is an internet-based tool, while other corpus analysis

tools such as Wordsmith Tools (Scott 2008) are not. It is also formatted to
facilitate printing tables directly from the Internet.
2. WMATRIX has a function that allows the user to find semantic field domain
tags by applying the keyness calculation to tag frequency lists (Rayson 2008).

21

I felt that my research would be strengthened by using a domain analysis;

therefore WMATRIX was the most appropriate tool.

Throughout my research I used Wordsmith Tools to confirm my data findings on

WMATRIX.

3.2.2.4. METHOD
1. Using the Obama 2010 corpus, I created a wordlist.
2. I compared this wordlist to the BNC Baby written corpus sample, available on
WMATRIX 3 (Rayson 2009) in order to show which topics Obama mentions
most frequently in his speeches as compared to the general population sample.

3.2.3. THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Based on the findings in my pilot study, I developed two research questions:
1. Who is represented as being to blame for the financial crisis?
2. How do these representations enter into the premises of arguments about
how to fix the economy?

Question (1.) is addressed in the Corpus Analysis section (4.1.) and question (2.) is
addressed in the Political Discourse Analysis section (4.2.).
3.2.4. INVESTIGATING QUESTION 1
3.2.4.1. THE CORPORA
In the corpus analysis I focused on the first research question:
1. Who is represented as being to blame for the financial crisis?

In order to investigate this question I took the following steps:

22

1. OBAMA CORPUS
In order to investigate language patterns throughout Obamas entire presidency, I
created a corpus of his three and a half years in office, from January 24, 2009
through June 16, 2012.

2. REAGAN, CLINTON & BUSH CORPUSES

Comparing texts to others is a vital part of text analysis (Stubbs 1996). In order to
compare the Obama corpus, I compiled separate corpuses for each of the
following presidencies: Ronald Reagan (1981 1989), Bill Clinton (1993 2001)
and George W. Bush (2001 2009). I did not include George Bush Sr.s speeches
because of their infrequency. I also decided that having two Democratic
presidents (Clinton and Obama) and two Republican presidents (Reagan and
Bush), would be sufficient to compare topic areas, which tend to differ
significantly between party types.

3. REFERENCE CORPUS
I then combined the Reagan, Clinton and Bush corpuses to make a reference
corpus to compare with the Obama corpus.

This chart gives an overview of my data:

speeches

words

Obama

174

124,481

years as
president
2009 - 2012

Bush

414

251,038

2001 - 2009

Clinton

409

367,336

1993 - 2001

Reagan

334

280,322

1981 - 1989

Reference

1,157

898,696

23

3.2.4.2. CORPUS ANALYSIS

In order to investigate whom President Obama blames for the financial crisis, I used the
following corpus analysis techniques to analyze my data:

1. I created a wordlist for the Obama corpus to see which words he has used the
most frequently from January 24, 2009 June 16, 2012.

2. I created a keyword list for the Obama corpus as compared to the reference
corpus to compare what words he uses the most frequently compared with the
combined usage of the other presidents.

3. In order to investigate what Obama speaks about negatively or as a threat, I

conducted a semantic domain analysis of the Obama corpus, looking specifically
at the following semantic categories:

Violent/Angry
Damaging/Destroying

4. I made concordances for all of the high frequency keywords. My results in

answering my research question were found in the following three concordances:

Reference Corpus: Wall Street

Bush Corpus: Wall Street
Obama Corpus: Wall Street

After analyzing this data and answering Question 1, I selected a speech that was
representative of these results for my Critical Discourse Analysis.

3.3. INVESTIGATING QUESTION 2: CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Taking my corpus research into account, I selected one of President Obamas Weekly
Addresses, from May 19, 2012. This speech focuses on the argument for Wall Street
reform.

24

In my analysis of this speech, I use Fairclough and Faircloughs (2012) new method for
CDA, incorporating practical reasoning and linguistic analysis methods.

3.4. SUMMARY
By using corpus analysis to develop my research questions and support the claims I make
in my critical discourse analysis, I believe the methodology behind my research is
strengthened.

25

4. ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

4.1. CORPUS ANALYSIS RESULTS

4.1.1. PILOT STUDY (Appendix A)

The results of the pilot study show what topics Obama speaks about most frequently in
his speeches during 2010, as compared to a sample of written texts from the BNC Baby
Written Sampler (BNC Baby 2005).

In Appendix A, the words that Obama uses most frequently as compared to the sample,
are listed, under the Item heading. O1 is how many times the word under Item is
spoken by Obama in the 2010 corpus; O2 is how many times the word is spoken in the
Sample. %1 and %2 show the relative frequencies in the texts (Rayson 2009). LL
or the log-likelihood value, shows how key or how important the word is to the text.
The items are listed from highest LL or keyword value, showing which words
characterize the text (Scott 2008). The + sign indicates words that are overused in
Obamas corpus as compared to the sample.

When examining the chart in Appendix A, one must take into account the general type of
speech Obama is making to the American people. It can be assumed that he will use
words like America, country, nation, United States and folks because of whom he is
addressing, as well as words connected with government such as Republicans,
Democrats, Congress, Senate and Washington, because he is a speaking to the American
people about events taking place within the government. The President of the United
States would be using these words regularly, irrespective of the topic of his speeches. We
are looking for the words that are used to characterize the main topics or issues in his
speeches during this year - what is unique about Obamas corpus.

Based on this chart, when examining the main content words, we can see that the most
frequently mentioned topic in President Obamas speeches is the economy (line 4). This
is followed by words that are related: jobs (9), businesses (10), financial (12), Wall Street
26

(26) economic (48) and recession (54). The next set of related words have to do with the
health care industry: Medicare (41), health care (42), coverage (46), insurance (58) and
insurance companies (62). Then there are words connected with the need for change:
reform (16), reforms (32) and crisis (40). I isolated these three topics: jobs and the
economy, the health insurance industry and reform as the main areas of Obamas focus.
Since this is a small corpus and I was only looking for the general themes, I mainly
concentrated on the top sixty words.
Taking into account Obamas focus on the crisis and the need for reform, I formulated
my research questions based on patterns in the corpus of this pilot study from 2010. This
study also confirmed that the data available from Obamas speeches was easy to collect
and work with. It was also useful because it led me to consider the BNC BABY sample. I
concluded that this was not a good comparison tool for my further research for two
reasons:

1. The data was a general sample of written words of texts from a large range of
sources. A much better tool for comparison would be a corpus of other speeches
of the same type.

2. The BNC BABY sample is from the British population, rather than the
American population and there are considerable differences in language use.

Taking these considerations into account, I compiled my own corpora and carried out my
main analysis.

4.1.2. OBAMA WORDLIST (Appendix B)

After compiling a corpus of all of Obamas speeches from January 24, 2009 through June
16, 2012, using WMatrix (Rayson 2009), I found similar overall patterns to those in the
2010 corpus. The most frequently mentioned content word was jobs (30) with work (59),
workers (110) and job (110) following. Words having to do with the economy (38, 101),

27

the financial industry (64, 94, 107, 126) and the health insurance industry (97, 108, 123,)
were common within the first 150 lines.

Obama also mentioned words pertaining to the need for reform (77, 120) and the
environment (90, 139). These findings supported my earlier findings and confirmed that
Obama is focused on job loss and the economy obviously connected and on the health
insurance industry.

4.1.3. OBAMA CORPUS KEYWORD LIST AS COMPARED TO REFERENCE

CORPUS (Appendix C)

Next, I compared the Obama frequency list to my reference corpus keyword list,
composed of the combined speeches of Presidents Ronald Reagan (1981 1989), Bill
Clinton (1993 2001) and George W. Bush (2001 2009). In total this corpus comprised
1,157 speeches and 898,696 words. The resulting keyword list showed which topics
President Obama spoke about in his Weekly Address as compared to those most
commonly discussed in the Weekly Addresses of the other three combined. The result is
data that explains what Obama concentrates on compared to the norm. This list is also
clearer, as it negates the words which are generally used in this type of speech such as
Americans and thank, as well as words commonly used in Presidential speeches such as
Congress.

This keyword list reflects the wordlist results. It shows that Obama is focused on jobs
(line 12) and the economy (33) as well as words related to the financial system (13, 15,
25, 35, 49, 51, 55, 59, 72, 87). Obama also focuses on the topic of the crisis (18, 24, 61),
reform (48), and the health insurance industry (lines 42, 44, 70, 84). There is also a focus
on the environment (17, 22, 45, 46, 57).

In order to further investigate these patterns, I created concordances for each of these
words, with the exception of those referring to the environment, since this topic area is
outside the area of interest. I also created concordances for other words with high log

28

likelihood values that may relate to my research question: small (23), breaks (47),
oversight (56), common-sense (71), oil companies (88), millionaires (94) and wealthiest
(95).
I noticed that the term Wall Street (25) was used 57 times in Obamas speeches as
compared to 17 times in the reference corpus. I found this surprising since the term is so
commonly used in the media when discussing politics in the U.S. I would have assumed
that this would be a common term used in the Weekly Addresses of the previous three
presidents. To investigate how Wall Street had been used before, I created a concordance
for the term in the reference corpus.

4.1.4. SEMANTIC DOMAIN ANALYSIS

Before doing the concordances, I wanted to carry out a semantic domain analysis of the
Obama corpus to see what topics he depicts negatively in his speeches. I therefore looked
at the semantic domains referencing negative feelings and actions, isolating two semantic
domain topic areas as being the most informative:

Violent/Angry
Damaging/Destroying

4.1.4.1. Violent/Angry (Appendix D)

The semantic domain analysis for Violent/Angry revealed that Obama uses terms in
this category in reference to two industries in America: the financial and insurance
industries, as well as special interest groups.

Obama mentions the financial industry, including the banks and mortgage lenders,
negatively in lines 10, 11, 42, 46, 87, 88, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 104, 116, 135, 136 and 138.
Lines 10, 11, 46, 95, 104, 135 mention the abuses of the financial industry. Deceptive
mortgages are mentioned in lines 42 and 63, as well as predatory loan practices in lines
87, 137 and 138. Banks are mentioned in line 94. The industry has ferociously fought
financial reform (96) and unleashed turmoil (93). He specifically mentions the abuses
of the credit card companies in lines 63 and 148.
29

In order to identity what party Obama is referring to in some unclear cases, I had to
expand some of the concordance lines:
Well prevent banks from taking on so much risk that they could collapse
and threaten our whole economy.
79. There were many causes of the turmoil that ripped through our economy over the
past two years. But above all, this crisis was caused by failures in the financial
industry .
83. Of course, there were many causes of the economic turmoil that ripped through
our country over the past two years. But it was a crisis that began in our financial
system.
84. Financial firms invented and sold complicated financial products to escape
scrutiny and conceal enormous risks. And there were some who engaged in
the rampant exploitation of consumers...
92. ... the turmoil of this recession was caused by the irresponsibility of banks and
financial institutions on Wall Street.
116. We reached an historic agreement to reform the global financial system to promote
responsibility and prevent abuse so that we never face a crisis like this again.
136. ... my administration proposed a set of major reforms to the rules that govern our
financial system; to attack the causes of this crisis and to prevent future crises from
taking place.
163. And all of us have agreed on the most sweeping reform of our financial regulatory
framework in a generation, reform that will help end the risky speculation and
market abuses that have cost so many people so much.
76.

These lines show further negative references to the financial industry.

Obama also mentions the health insurance industry negatively in lines 46, 89, 127, 140
and 141. He mentions Medicare abuses in lines 58, 60, 69, 139 and 154. Medicare reform
is part of the health insurance overhaul that Obama passed in 2010. Special interest
groups are mentioned in lines 45, 47, 54, 55 and 77.

In looking at the semantic domains I was isolating who Obama speaks about negatively
but also, bearing my research question, who does Obama represent as being to blame for
the crisis? in mind, I was only interested in negatively viewed parties that could possibly
be to blame. Therefore lines referring to topics such as Gaddafi and the oil-spill were not
examined in detail.

30

4.1.4.2. Damaging/Destroying (Appendix E)

In the Damaging/Destroying semantic domain, the health insurance system was again
targeted. Lines 106, 133, 153 and 155 mention the broken health care system
describing the exorbitant costs in lines 107, 108, 124, 128, 134, 138, 145, 165 and 169.
The financial system is also targeted. Excessive risk-taking on Wall Street is mentioned
in line 82, while the banks are mentioned as threatening the economy in line 83. Line 96
connects the financial system to the crisis and job loss. Line 167 mentions the need to fix
the broken regulatory system. Lines 3-5, when expanded to show the full sentence,
reference the need for Wall Street Reform with line 4 reading, we cant afford to go back
to an era of weak regulation and little oversight; where excessive risk-taking on Wall
Street and a lack of basic oversight in Washington nearly destroyed our economy (see
Appendix L).

These two semantic domains show that Obama is mainly targeting the financial industry
and the insurance industry. They showed me who Obama refers to negatively overall; I
then made concordance for all of these parties.

4.1.5. CONCORDANCES
After examining the concordances for all of the significant words mentioned above, I
isolated the following concordances as being helpful in answering my research question.
4.1.5.1. WALL STREET CONCORDANCE, REFERENCE CORPUS
(Appendix F)
In order to see how Wall Street had been used before in the Weekly Addresses, I created
a concordance in the Reference Corpus. There were 17 instances of use.

Of the 17 times Wall Street is used in the reference concordance, 10 of these instances
include it in the term Wall Street Journal. Of the remaining 7 instances, 4 are in reference
to the place and have no negative connotation (1, 2, 9, 10). Lines 11 and 12 refer to Wall
Street in a negative way for the first time and line 13 mentions a rescue effort, leading

31

me to think that this effort was in relation to the crisis. My next step was to find out when
these last three lines were spoken in order to see if I was correct.
4.1.5.2. WALL STREET CONCORDANCE, BUSH CORPUS (Appendix G)
By conducting a concordance for Wall Street in the Bush corpus, I found that lines 11,
12 and 13 were all contained within it (along with one Wall Street Journal reference). By
expanding the concordance line to show the full text, I saw that all three lines were from
the same speech. I then did a Google search and found that the speech was made by
President Bush on September 27, 2008. The full transcript was on the American
Presidency Project website (Appendix H).

I then wanted to know if this was the first time the term had been used in the Weekly
Addresses since 1982, so I made a small concordance of the 18 Weekly Addresses that
George Bush Sr. had made during his term from 1989 1993. The results showed that he
never used the term. This fact confirmed that the term Wall Street was introduced as a
way to personify the financial system and encapsulate a group of large financial firms
under one term of reference, for the first time on September 27, 2008 by George Bush.
4.1.5.3. WALL STREET CONCORDANCE, OBAMA CORPUS (Appendix I)
The Wall Street concordance for the Obama corpus comprises 57 lines. In 18 of these, the
President uses the phrase to refer to the need for Wall Street reform (2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11,
12, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 38). In every other line with the exception of
lines 13, 43 and 54, where the mention is neutral, Wall Street is depicted negatively or as
being connected to a negative event. Even in lines 16 18, when Obama is talking about
Social Security, he represents Wall Street as a gamble.

Wall Street is mainly represented as being irresponsible (1, 34, 37, 44, 47, 52) and as
having taken excessive risks (5, 9, 30, 34). There is a need for accountability (22, 33, 35,
36, 39, 41, 49). Obama even goes so far as to blame Wall Street for treating our financial
system like a casino (1) and for using accounting tricks (55).

32

While it is clear that Wall Street is represented negatively, I am looking for who Obama
blames for the crisis. The need for accountability implies that Wall Street must be held
accountable for something but this does not necessarily imply blame for the crisis.

However, we can see that in concordance lines 10 and 30, Obama does blame Wall Street
for the crisis. In line 10 Obama states, a financial crisis on Wall Street made things more
difficult for working folks while line 30 mentions risk-taking on Wall Street that led to
this crisis.

In order to investigate the remaining lines of this concordance, it was necessary to expand
the view beyond a single line to show Obamas full sentence in each case. I did this in
Appendix J.

In Appendix J we see that lines 1, 5, 11, 19, 20, 23, 34, 36, 37, 44, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, that
Obama is blaming Wall Street for the crisis. This chart shows a condensed version of
Appendix J.

1.
5.
11.
19.
20.
23.
34.
36.
37.
44.
47.

... back from an historic economic crisis, one caused by breathtaking

irresponsibility on the part of some on Wall Street...
... excessive risk-taking on Wall Street and a lack of basic oversight in Washington
nearly destroyed our economy
... passage of Wall Street Reform. This was a bill designed to rein in the secret
deals and reckless gambling that nearly brought down the financial system.
... a Wall Street reform bill that will protect consumers and our entire economy
from the recklessness and irresponsibility that led to the worst recession of our
lifetime...
... end taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street firms. And it will finally bring the shadowy
deals that caused the financial crisis into the light of day.
... an economic crisis that happened largely because there wasnt strong enough
oversight on Wall Street.
...Wall Street firms took enormous, irresponsible risks that imperiled our financial
system...
... this crisis could have been avoided if Wall Street firms were more accountable...
The consequences of this failure of responsibility from Wall Street to Washington
are all around us...
... this recession was caused by the irresponsibility of banks and financial
institutions on Wall Street...
But much of it was due to the irresponsibility of large financial institutions
on Wall Street ...
33

48.
50.
52.

53.

It was a disaster that could have been avoided if wed had clearer rules of the road
for Wall Street and actually enforced them.
Part of what led to this crisis were not just decisions made on Wall Street, but also
unsustainable mortgage loans...
As we continue to recover from an historic economic crisis, it is clear to everyone
that one of its major causes was a breakdown in oversight that led to widespread
abuses in the financial system. An epidemic of irresponsibility took hold from
Wall Street to Washington...
... for this crisis may have started on Wall Street...

It is clear in these lines that Obama is blaming Wall Street for the crisis, yet he does not
blame Wall Street alone. In line 5 he also blames a lack of basic oversight in
Washington. In line 37 he states that the consequences of this failure of responsibility
from Wall Street to Washington are all around us.... In line 48 he admits, it was a
disaster that could have been avoided if wed had clearer rules of the road for Wall Street
and actually enforced them. Line 52 states that an epidemic of irresponsibility took
hold from Wall Street to Washington. In one case, line 50, he also mentions mortgage
companies.

In Appendix K, Obama also presents the Wall Street reform bill as a solution to the crisis,
meaning that the root of the crisis is Wall Street. Here is the condensed version:
2.
11.
19.
21.
27.
31.

...Wall Street reform with smarter, tougher, commonsense rules that serve one
primary purpose: to prevent a crisis like that from ever happening again.
...Wall Street Reform. This was a bill designed to rein in the secret deals and
reckless gambling that nearly brought down the financial system.
... a Wall Street reform bill that will protect consumers and our entire economy
from the recklessness and irresponsibility that led to the worst recession of our
lifetime.
Wall Street reform is a key pillar of an overall economic plan weve put in place to
dig ourselves out of this recession...
But my responsibility as President isnt just to help our economy rebound from this
recession its to make sure an economic crisis like the one that helped trigger this
recession never happens again. Thats what Wall Street reform will help us do.
... Wall Street reform is so important. With reform, well make our financial system
more transparent by bringing the kinds of complex backroom deals that helped
trigger this crisis into the light...

34

4.1.6. CONCLUSION
This corpus data shows that while Obama does not consistently isolate Wall Street as
being the sole cause of the crisis, he does consistently blame Wall Street for causing the
crisis and reform as a way to prevent another crisis. While he represents other parties
such as the health care industry, lobbyists and the credit card companies in a negative
light, my investigation into the concordances for these parties did not show any evidence
that Obama blames them for the crisis.

Based on these results, I selected a speech in which Obama blames the crisis on Wall
Street and I carried out my critical discourse analysis.
4.2. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS RESULTS
PRESIDENT OBAMAS WEEKLY ADDRESS, MAY 19, 2012 (Appendix L)
4.2.1. WALL STREET REFORM: CONTEXT
On July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was
signed into law by President Obama. This complex bill was aimed at overhauling the
financial system with an emphasis on consumer protection, ending bailouts with taxpayer
money and calling for more transparency overall (Koba 2012). At 848 pages long, DoddFrank was soon bogged down in the legislative process, as policy-makers, lawyers and
lobbyists, battled over the details of its long, complex list of stipulations on the floor of
Congress (Economist.com 2012). According to davispolk.com (2012), a website run by
the New York City law firm which tracks the Dodd-Frank Bills progress, as of July 18,
2012, only 123 (30.9%) of the 398 total required rulemakings have been finalized, while
141 (35.4%) rulemaking requirements have not yet been proposed. After two years,
many of the deadlines for finalizing the rules that make up Dodd-Frank have passed.

The week before this speech was made, JP Morgan Chase, currently the largest bank in
the US, reported losses of two billion dollars, contributing to the downward spiral of the
financial system (Williams 2012). In response to this situation, Obama made this speech
on May 19, 2012, as the two-year anniversary of the laws passing approached, urging
Americans to press their representatives in Congress to finish passing as much Wall

35

Street reform legislation as possible before the deadlines began to expire. To be clear, he
is not adding to the original bill; he is pushing for the Frank-Dodd Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act to finish being implemented into law.

4.2.2. EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENT

4.2.2.1. OVERVIEW

President Obamas speech focuses on the claim that finishing reforming the financial
system or Wall Street will accomplish our goal of preventing another crisis and that it
will succeed in helping the economy to recover from the 2008 crisis. The means-goal or
way to do this, is by finishing implementing the reform legislation. The alternative option
of not passing the reform bill, will result in the taxpayers suffering and even the
possibility of the economy being destroyed (line 4, 21). Obama represents his values as
being based on his belief in a fair system and the free market. Hard work should be

36

rewarded and Americas entrepreneurial spirit and rugged individualism supported

by the government (51). The circumstances under which his argument are being made
involve a severe crisis, which Wall Street caused, which harmed the middle class
specifically but also all taxpayers in general. Millions of jobs have been lost as well.

4.2.2.2. CIRCUMSTANCES
Obama begins this speech with an overview of the current circumstances we are facing as
a country. He directly blames the crisis on some on Wall Street (2-3). Wall Street is
blamed for harming this system, which in turn led to job loss, harming the middle class
and leaving taxpayers with the task of paying for the situation. In the first five lines of
this speech, Obama establishes an us against them mentality in which taxpayers, the
middle class and us as a whole, are pitted against the metonymy Wall Street. He uses
metaphor to define these circumstances and give the audience a mental picture of brokers
throwing away money at Vegas casinos, while the taxpayer is left holding the bag (5)
and on the hook for Wall Streets mistakes (17).

Obama states that the government has been implementing reforms to help the average
American, in the face of Wall Streets behavior. Claiming that weve put in place Wall
Street reform with smarter, tougher, commonsense rules that serve one primary purpose:
to prevent a crisis like that from ever happening again (7-9), he then establishes that a
new threat to this reform has emerged. This new threat is Republicans in Congress and
an army of financial industry lobbyists who are against this reform (9-12). He then
mentions JP Morgan Chases losses, which Wall Street reform saved the taxpayer from
having to pay for (13-16). Obama uses war metaphor, making it clear that we are pitted
against an army of lobbyists who are waging an all-out battle against us (10-11).

The way in which Obama represents Wall Street as causing the crisis in this set of
circumstances establishes the fact that Wall Street is a system that is not working
properly and therefore must be reformed. While he later mentions a lack of basic
oversight in Washington (20-21), Washington is not directly to blame for the crisis;
Washington did not cause the crisis, and can only be faulted for failing to act

37

aggressively enough to stop it. But narratives and explanations of the crisis cannot
function as a part of action unless they provide people with reasons for acting in
particular ways (Fariclough & Fairclough 2012: 3). By blaming Wall Street alone for
the crisis, this representation of reality enters into the argument as a reason for action.
The action is Wall Street reform. If we fix what is broken within this system, the
economy will recover. By framing these circumstances in such a way, Obamas depiction
of himself and his audience facing off against first Wall Street and now the lobbyists
enters into the minds of his listeners to further motivate them to support their President.

4.2.2.3. VALUES
The main value that Obama upholds in this speech is that of fairness. And were 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 (44-46). Here, Wall Street reform is being represented as a way to restore fairness
to the country. But is this representation accurate?

One of the aspects of the crisis that is not debatable, is that the middle and lower classes
experienced significant loss of wealth as a result, while the upper class gained an even
larger proportion of this wealth. As a result, the unequal wealth dispersion in the US is
even more severe than it was going into the crisis (Ferguson 2010, Levine 2012). By
attributing the cause of the crisis to Wall Street and depicting the middle class as the
victims of the powerful elite making up the financial sector, Obama states that his aim is
a return to an economy where everyone plays by the same rules. The issue of fairness
is at the core of why so many Americans are enraged by the crisis and the governments
handling of it; the big banks have been bailed out with taxpayer money have been given a
separate set of rules than those applied to the rest of the country. The taxpayer money
used to save these banks could have gone to a myriad of other domestic policy choices
that would have supported the Americans who were most affected by the crisis, but
instead went to the financial institutions that caused and supported it. This is a grave
injustice, at the heart of why the population is outraged with the government and Obama.

38

Obama depicts Wall Street reform as being the solution to the problem of a lack of
fairness, which is one of the most basic values upon which America has been built. But
will Wall Street Reform make the system as a whole, fair? Of course not. While it aims at
removing some degree of power from the banks, this power will be supplanted into the
hands of the government. And while some aspects of the financial system may become
more fair, restoring an America where everyone has a fair shot and everyone plays
by the same rules is an absurd idea (Blodget 2011). This America has never existed. It
is an imaginary (Jessop 2008) with no basis in reality. Reinforcing this false idea of a fair
country is also an example of ideological language. Clearly American society is unfair
but forwarding the myth that it is supports those who have a vested interest in keeping
things unfair. This dedication to fairness is represented as a further reason for why Wall
Street reform should be implemented; the idea that Wall Street reform will result in a
fairer America as a whole, is used to further support the claim for action.

4.2.2.4. ALTERNATIVE
The alternative that is mentioned in President Obamas speech is that members of
Congress not stand on the side of reform (18). The result would be returning to the old
system which involved weak regulation and little oversight and nearly destroyed our
economy (19-21). However, this is not the only other option to Wall Street reform, it is
simply represented as being the only other option here. In fact, there have been many
options proposed for fixing the crisis, involving not implementing this set of reforms any
further (Byrne 2011, Borgs 2010). This is an example of false deliberation (Fairclough &
Fairclough 2012). Obama is not comparing his idea on how to fix the crisis to those of
others, who would try to prove that their alternative is better than his. He is structuring
this argument as deliberation when no true deliberation is taking place. The alternative
is constructed to help prove his point.
Who is responsible for this weak regulation and little oversight? Wall Street caused the
crisis, but as Obama mentions in line 20-21, it was Washingtons job to control the
financial system and keep it from spiraling out of control and collapsing. Yet, no reform

39

of Washington meaning, the US government is purposed. Why will implementing

more rules for the financial sector, which Washington will implement, work, if
Washington failed to previously regulate Wall Street? Somewhere along the line, the
power structure as a whole must have failed. This includes the failure of the US
government, yet there is no indication that anything in Washington will change, except
their amount of power over the financial sector. Giving them more power to regulate the
system does not mean that the problems that stopped them from doing so in the first
place, are fixed. Obama could indicate that that the financial sector stopped being
controllable because it became more powerful than the US government, or because
certain individuals within the financial system became more powerful than their overseers
in the US government, or because the financial system and the US government are
inextricably linked and controlled by the same individuals, but he does not. Were he to do
this, it would undermine his claim that implementing Wall Street reform will fix the
economy. It would call for an overhaul of the American Capitalist system as a whole,
rather than just the financial system.

4.2.2.5. MEANS-GOAL
Will Wall Street reform really improve the economy? Obama tells us, thats what Wall
Street reform is all about, making this economy stronger for you (41-42). Yet the rules
he mentions concern dealing with the negative affects of Wall Streets mistakes: tax
dollars will no longer pay for bad decisions, they must have a will if they fail, failed
CEOs will stop receiving huge bonuses, shareholders get a say on executive salaries,
and theres better consumer protection to stop abuse (24 33). Overall, reform is aimed
at stopping the huge mistakes Wall Street made from harming the financial system
again. But the word mistake denotes a misunderstanding or a poor lack of judgment;
there is no malicious intent behind the word. Are we really to believe that everything that
led into causing this crisis were simple mistakes? The entire financial system, the
individuals with power over this system, just made some mistakes which happened to
have dire consequences? Millions of people had the life savings they worked hard for
decades to save, erased by this crisis. This money did not evaporate; it was taken from
them and put somewhere else. Current statistics on the unequal wealth distribution in the

40

United States, show that this somewhere else, was in the hands of the top 10%, the
wealthy elite. After the crisis, they hold more of the countrys wealth than they did before
the crisis, while the bottom 90% hold less (Levine 2012). Power is gained and controlled
through resources (van Dijk 2008); one of these resources is wealth. Are we to believe
that this resource shift was a random mistake?

Obama tells us that Wall Street reform is about improving the economy but the details he
describes are about preventing us from paying for more mistakes from Wall Street.
The problem here is not that taxpayer money paid for these mistakes; taxpayer money has
always paid for mistakes. The problem is that the large firms that control the financial
system, were in a position of such extreme power that their mistakes could result in a
financial collapse. The further problem is that despite this collapse, they have not lost
power. According to the statistics, they have gained power.

4.2.2.6. EVALUATION SUMMARY

The main problem with the argument in this speech, is that there is a high probability that
the means-goal of implementing Wall Street reform will not lead to accomplishing the
goal of preventing a further crisis and improving the economy. Obama tells us that the
crisis was caused by Wall Street and isolates Wall Street as being responsible. If Wall
Street is solely responsible, then reform should fix the issue. Yet there are two problems
with this premise. Firstly, fixing the economy is an incredibly complex undertaking. By
isolating Wall Street as responsible for the crisis, Obama must then support reform as an
adequate way to fix the economy, but it is not. How will Wall Street reform, which is
focused on stopping mistakes, create jobs? Secondly, how will reform stop another
crisis, without a change in the entire system? Who takes change of discouraging Wall
Street from making more mistakes and what reform has been conducted in order to
accomplish this, when the entire system so drastically failed last time?

These argument flaws exist because the premise that Wall Street is solely responsible for
the crisis, is incorrect. By claiming that Wall Street, as an isolated system within a
system, made up of some unnamed group of powerful firms and banks, is responsible,

41

Obama is really relegating blame to no-one. The metonymy Wall Street was
introduced into political discourse, at least in the Weekly Addresses, to encompass this
group of powerful entities. It has never been defined for us; those firms and banks which
are included within the term are never named. We are left to define the term ourselves.
By creating this term, Obama has given the American people someone to hate and blame
for their savings being erased and their home and job losses. The term deflects blame
from the Capitalist American system as a whole. The very idea that Wall Street is a
system within a system, which should be isolated as the party to blame and punish, does
not make sense in that it diminishes the power of the US government. This is the overall
problem that Obama must grapple with explaining; how did the financial sector gain so
much power that the government no longer had enough power to prevent them from
committing these mistakes? And even now, only 30% of the Wall Street reform
stipulations have been passed. Obama credits the Republicans and the financial industry
lobbyists for this lack of progress but it is a continuation of the same problem: the US
government, headed by Obama, has not been able to succeed in passing the most
important legislation of his term. Why has it failed? We know that the balance of power
shifts (van Dijk 2001, Fairclough 2010), but power, like money, does not just evaporate.
If the US government no longer has enough power to successfully regulate the financial
system, where, and to whom, has this power gone?

4.2.3. EVENTS, PRACTICES, STRUCTURES

This speech, or text, is an example of an event. We cannot look at this event in isolation;
texts are constructed in ways which depend on the continuity of structures and practices
(Fairclough 2010: 75). Political speeches are a common type of social practice in our
society. We depend on them to receive information from our government and make
informed decisions about which government actions to support. The practice of making
political speeches has been important since the country was founded; therefore this
practice has achieved relative permanence (Fairclough & Fairclough 2012). This
permanence has been upheld by the institutions and by Capitalism; the structure of our
current society supports these speeches. Because of this, we must consider that Obamas
speeches are written with a vested interest in upholding the system as a whole, text types

42

and genres have stability because of the social institutions in which they are used; and
social institutions have stability because of the texts which support them (Stubbs 1996:
52). It may be reasonable to assume that Obama is wants to fix the economy by truly
making it universally fair, but Obama is not acting on his own and his overall goal is not
to support a fair system. It is to uphold the structure as a whole. He is invested in the
structure because this structure has created him and given him power.

Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) claim that the main genre in political speeches is
deliberation, or false deliberation in this case. However, this does not mean that this is the
only process that defines the political speech genre. When considering the speech that
Obama is making, we must consider the tradition of Presidential speeches and the idea
that a sound definition of genre must be centered not on the substance or the form of
discourse but on the action it is used to accomplish (Miller 1984: 151). The Weekly
Addresses, traditionally called Fireside Chats are presented in the tradition of Franklin
D. Roosevelt (1933 - 1945), who began making them during the Great Depression. The
tone was intimate and commiserating, with the President inviting the nation to tell me
your troubles. In response, millions of letters arrived at the White House. These
speeches connected the President to the people in an era before television; they reassured
the populace that the hard times would pass and that their president was fighting for them
(Mankowski & Raissa 2012).

Today, since the Weekly Addresses have been resurrected since 1982, this tone is still
reminiscent. The President is speaking directly to the people and in Obamas case, largely
to the middle-class and small business owners who suffered most in the crisis. While he
focuses on current issues, this is also the platform where he sends out holiday greetings
and where he somberly leads the nation in remembering our Veterans. While these
elements of the Weekly Address are a way of unifying Americans and assuring them, we
must not forget that every word of these speeches has been planned by speechwriters in
advance for a specific purpose. These speeches are authoritative- he is telling the
American people his version of events, represented the way he wants them to be. There
are no other points of view represented, nor hard facts mentioned to back up his claims.

43

We are supposed to listen to Obama and if not question, at least respect what he is saying
because he is in a position of extreme power. But the assumption that we should do this
should also be a point of critique. As Berkenkotter & Huckin (1995) write, genres are
intimately linked to a disciplines methodology, and they package information in ways
that conform to a disciplines norms, values and ideology. These weekly speeches are an
example of Faircloughs (1989) concept of power in discourse, which constrains what
information is presented to an audience; what Obama chooses not to mention in these
speeches is just as important as what he does discuss.
We must also consider Faircloughs (2010) concept of style, through which agents
construct their identities. I would argue that a large part of the reason these Weekly
Addresses have begun to be made, is so that the Presidents can relate to the American
people the way that Roosevelt did. In an age where media makes it easy to speak to
anyone in the world by video chat; it would seem somewhat aloof if the President did not
make regular speeches to the American people. While his other speaking engagements
present Obama as an authority figure, these 4-6 minute chats directed at the American
people construct him as human. He mentions his family and his vacations. It is nice to
have your president wish you a Merry Christmas or mention that he is coaching his
daughters basketball team (Grier 2011). Yet however nice this may be, there is a larger
purpose. Obama is invested in looking like a regular guy because we trust regular guys.
In order for the political system to work, we have to put faith in our politicians (at least to
some degree) because they run our political system. From Obamas point of view, and in
the interest of upholding the Capitalist system in America, it is fine if the public loses
faith in Wall Street or even the financial system. It is not fine if the public loses faith in
the entire system because this is when protests begin and serious change happens. Serious
change, or change to the structure of the system, threatens those who currently hold
power. Part of the definition of power, is that it constantly shifts over time (van Dijk
2001, Fairclough 2010). Those in power in the political system support small power
shifts, as between the Democratic and Republican parties, but they do not support power
shifts to the system as a whole because that would threaten their own power.

44

If we consider the major social reform movements in the US that have taken place: the
Womens Suffrage Movement, Education Reform, the Civil Rights Movement, the Gay
Rights Movement; it is clear that these movements were based on the demand for more
equal rights. The nature of the demand for equality threatens those who hold power in an
unequal society; this is why these movements were, and are, so passionately fought over.
The basic premise that all humans are created equal and should therefore have equal
rights has been savagely challenged since the founding of our nation; extreme devotion to
inequality has been exhibited through gruesome crimes of violence acted on those who
have fought for equality. These acts illustrate how desperate those who hold power are to
relinquish it to any degree. These movements have changed the structure of our Capitalist
system, but these changes took decades. Changing the structure of the system is an
extremely difficult undertaking because it involves challenging our current belief system
as it applies to the status functions of those currently in power. Therefore, both the
individuals and the institutions that hold power in our society have a vested interest in
stopping this change.

4.2.4. INSTITUTIONS & POWER

Institutions have validity because we give them status and power: governmental power is
a system of status functions. We must collectively accept these status functions for the
government to sustain deontic power (Searle 2003). Since we recognize this status, we
give our institutions deontic power over us. They can therefore give us desireindependent reasons for action. We carry out desire-independent actions because we
acknowledge the authority of the institutions within our social structure and because they
have the power to present us with negative consequences if we do not. We give
institutions their power by supporting them through our direct and indirect actions.
The premise that Wall Street is responsible for causing the crisis, is an institutional
fact. It has never been proven with conclusive evidence. We are expected to trust this
claim because our government tells us to. Obamas job is to remind the American public
that the US government has deontic power, status functions can only exist as long as
they are represented as existing, and for them to be represented as existing, there needs to

45

be some means of representation, and that means is typically linguistic (Searle 2003:
20). His claim that we can return to a fair system is also an institutional fact in that the
concept of a fair system has no basis in actual fact. In order for this overall argument to
work, we have to believe that the system was fair to begin with. We have to believe that
Wall Street temporarily messed things up, but if we prevent them from repeating this, the
system will return to fairness.

The consequence of us not supporting Wall Street Reform, is that we would then need to
find someone else to blame for the crisis. This means that the American people could
blame the US government. If we blame the US government, we must conclude that either
the government made a serious mistake in allowing the crisis to hurt so many Americans
or, the government purposefully caused the crisis. Either the government is incompetent
or the government is preying upon the least wealthy 90% of Americans by further
skewing the unequal wealth ratio.
Searle (2003: 16) writes that the single most stunning political event of the second half
of the twentieth century was the collapse of communism. It collapsed when the structure
of collective intentionality was no longer able to maintain the system of status functions.
If Americans do not have someone other than the government to blame for the crisis and
their suffering, than the possibility that they may begin to lose faith in the status functions
of our government becomes real. If this happens, the government will begin to lose its
deontic power. We will begin to lose our faith in the institutions. At this point, the
structure of our Capitalist system would need to drastically change. This would threaten
those currently in power in our government. President Obama is dedicated to seeing that
this does not happen and his speeches reflect this.

4.2.5. CONCLUSION
President Obamas representation of Wall Street as being to blame for the crisis and of
our need to return to a society that was once fair, enter into his premise that Wall Street
Reform will prevent further crises and improve the economy. I do not believe that these
representations stand up to critical evaluation; therefore his argument is not valid. Wall

46

Street Reform will not do what has been promised. Considering how much power the US
government has, one would assume that they would be able to form a better argument
than the one Obama makes here. Taking into account the theories relevant to this paper,
we must be led to consider the possibility that they are not looking to present a better
answer because the overall goal of the US government and their representative, President
Obama, is not to improve the lives of the American people. Their goal is to maintain the
structure that gives them power.

47

5. CONCLUSION
One of the main tenants behind language analysis is that texts must be compared to other
texts; this is part of what defines them (Stubbs 1996). This concept should also be applied
to the norms and values that we uphold as a culture and to our society as a whole. We
must compare ourselves and our society to others and to our past. In my opinion one of
the fundamental social problems facing America today, is that we have lost our ability to
constructively do this. The result can be seen in social problems plaguing our nation such
as a health insurance system that is bankrupting our country (Rowland 2012), and lax gun
laws that have allowed for an increasing number of senseless massacres. It is also
evidenced in the decisions that our leaders have gotten away with making during the past
few decades. For instance, there was a time when the too big to fail bailout argument
was not supported by the government and when we did not invade other countries under
false pretenses. When citizens lose their ability to compare the laws that dictate their own
society to the laws and practices that dictate other societies, we have lost the ability to
assess whether they are just. In the same way, when we lose our ability to question the
premises behind our leaders claims, representations that are inaccurate and ideologically
motivated enter into discourse in a dangerous manner and remain unquestioned. This
leads to actions being taken based on false claims, which we are implicated in because
our actions support institutions and the system. When we refuse to be critical, we are
giving those in power, more power. One of the results is a society where the power
balance between the elite and the other classes is too extreme.

During my corpus research, I consistently came across patterns showing how President
Obama connects the topics that he speaks about the most: jobs, the economy, the
financial system, the insurance system and the environment (Appendix B, C). When
considering the main policies that Obama has succeeded in passing during his term in
office, (whitehouse.gov 2012) it is clear that that the patterns correspond. When
examining Obamas argument for Wall Street reform, I considered these patterns and
how Wall Street reform fits into the bigger picture that Obama presents to the American
people, or the bigger argument that connects these topics. It was impossible, considering

48

my space restraints, to research and analyze this bigger picture argument, despite my
desire to do so. The next step in this study would be to look at the overall patterns in
Obamas corpus and prove how they connect. When compared to the policy he has gotten
passed, this could present a much more thorough investigation into how representations
in political discourse manifest themselves in new policies, new laws, new wars and so on.
An even larger area of research could involve making corpuses for a series of Presidents
and identifying the major arguments that each of them presented during their terms. This
could result in profound insight into how representations through language have
constructed not only the events and practices that make up our society but the entire
structure. These insights could be used to further expose how the power system works
and accomplish CDAs major goal of contributing to social change.

Word Count: 14,999

49

BIBLIOGPRAPHY
Audi, R. (2006). Practical Reasoning and Ethical Decision. London: Routledge.
Baker, P. (2009). Obama threatens insurers anti-trust exemption. The New York Times
Online (accessed August 12, 2012).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/us/politics/18address.html
Berkenkotter, C & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary
Communication Cognition/ Culture/ Power. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Bhatia, V. K. (1997). Genre analysis today. Revue belge de Philologie et d'Histoire
(75-3): 629 652.
Blodget, H. (2011). CHARTS: heres what the Wall Street protesters are so angry
about. Business Insider.com. (accessed August 24, 2012).
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about2011-10?op=1
The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). 2007. Distributed by
Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium.
http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
The BNC Baby, version 2 (2005). Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services
on behalf of the BNC Consortium. http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
Borgs, M. (2010). Overdose: The Next Financial Crisis. Devell/Borgs.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/overdose-next-financial-crisis/
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. G. Raymond and M. Adamson
(trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bush, G. W. (2008). The President's radio address, September 27,
2008. The American Presidency Project (accessed 4 September,
2012). http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=
Byrne, T. (2011). How to fix the US debt crisis the proven, private sector way.
Forbes. (accessed September 1, 2012).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tombyrne/2011/09/19/how-to-fix-the-us-debt-crisisthe-proven-private-sector-way/

50

Chilton, P. (2004). Political Discourse Analysis: Theory and Practice. London:

Routledge.
Chouliaraki, L. & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking
Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic-Functional Linguistics. (2nd Edition).
London: Continuum.
Fairclough, I. & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis. (2nd Edition). London: Longman.
Ferguson, C. (2010). Inside Job. SONY Pictures
http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob/
Foucault, M. (1967). Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of
Reason. London: Tavistock.
Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison. London: Allen Lee.
Gramsci, A (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Q. Hoare and G. Nowell(eds./trans.). Smith. New York: International Publishers, 1971.
Grier, P. (2011). Obama talks fatherhood - and why he helps coach Sashas
basketball team. The Christian Science Monitor. (accessed September 1,
2012). http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/TheVote/2011/0618/Obama-talks-fatherhood-and-why-he-helps-coach-Sasha- sbasketball-team
Jessop, B. (2008). State Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jessop, B. (2002). The Future of the Capitalist State. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Koba, M. (2012). CNBC explains: Dodd-Frank Act. CNBC.com. (accessed 11 May
2012). http://www.cnbc.com/id/47075854/CNBC_Explains_Dodd_Frank_Act
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University
Press.

51

Levine, L. (2012). An analysis of the distribution of wealth across households, 19892010. Congressional Reseach Service, United States of America. www.crs.gov.
(accessed August 24, 2012). www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33433.pdf
Leeuwen, T. van (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse and
Communication 1 (1): 91 112.
Leeuwen, T. van & Wodak, R. (1999). Legitimizing immigration control: a discourse
historical analysis. Discourse Studies 1 (1): 83 118.
Mankowski, D. & Raissa, J. (2012). Fireside chats. The Museum of Broadcast
Communications (accessed September 2, 2012).
http://www.museum.tv/exhibitionssection.php?page=79
Miller, D.R., Maiorani, A. & Turci, M. (2004). Language as purposeful: functional
varieties of texts. Quaderni del CeSLic. Functional Grammar Studies for NonNative Speakers of English. Bologna: Centro di Studi Linguistico-Culturali
(CeSLic). (accessed August 20, 2012). http://amsacta.cib.unibo.it/866/
Miller, C. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (1984):
151-67.
Obama, B. (2012). The Presidents Weekly Address, May 19, 2012. The American
Presidency Project. (accessed September 6, 2012).
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=100858&st=&st1=
OHalloran, K. (2012). Electronic deconstruction: Revealing tensions in the cohesive
structure of persuasion texts. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 17(1):
91 124.
Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
Peters, G. & Woolley, J. (2012). The American Presidency Project. (accessed September
9, 2012). http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/index.php
Rayson, P. (2003). Matrix: A statistical method and software tool for linguistic analysis
through corpus comparison. Ph.D. thesis, Lancaster University.
Rayson, P. (2008). From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of
Corpus Linguistics. (13) 4: 519-549.
Rayson, P. (2009). Wmatrix: a web-based corpus processing environment. Computing
Department, Lancaster University. http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/

52

Rogers, R. (2004) An introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in education. Rogers,

R. (ed.). Critical Discourse Analysis in Education. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum: 1 19.
Rowland, R. (2012). The battle for health care reform and the liberal public sphere.
van Eemeren, F. H. & Garssen, B. (eds.). Exploring Argumentative Contexts.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 269 288.
Scott, M. (2008). WordSmith Tools version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.
Searle, J. R. (2010). Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Searle, John R. (2003). Social ontology and political power. Kadish Center for
Morality, Law & Public Affairs. (accessed September 1, 2012).
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/centers/kadish/searle.pdf
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and Corpus Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
van Dijk, T. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton
(eds.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell: 352 371.
van Dijk, T. (2008). Discourse and Power. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Walton, D. (2007). Evaluating practical reasoning. Synthese 157: 197 240.
Widdowson, H. G. (2004). Text, Context and Pretext. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Williams, M. (2012). Obama takes Republicans to task over battle against Wall Street
reform. TheGuardian.com. (accessed August 10, 2012).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/19/obama-republicans-wall-street-jpmorgan
(2012). The Dodd-Frank Act: too big not to fail; flaws in the confused, bloated law
passed in the aftermath of Americas financial crisis become even more apparent.
(accessed 10 August 2012). TheEconomist.com.
http://www.economist.com/node/21547784
(2012). Dodd-Frank progress report. davispolk.com. (accessed 10 August 2012).
http://www.davispolk.com/dodd-frank-rulemaking-progress-report/
(2012). The White House. (accessed September 5, 2012). www.whitehouse.gov

53

APPENDIX A: OBAMA CORPUS 2010 WORDLIST

WORD
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.

our
thats
weve
economy
americans
american
to
nt
jobs
businesses
its
financial
America
their
tax
reform
families
of
will
Ive
new
republicans
congress
Day
millions
Wall_Street
folks
country
republican
small
this
reforms
Washington
senate
im
crisis
nation
interests
veterans
cant
Medicare
health_care
President
Americas
whats

O1
471
153
91
95
91
103
1272
92
121
79
129
87
85
215
92
64
77
920
276
43
141
41
64
38
48
36
45
82
42
85
460
39
39
35
38
43
41
44
31
29
29
37
27
29
28

%O1

O2

1.30
0.42
0.25
0.26
0.25
0.28
3.51
0.25
0.33
0.22
0.36
0.24
0.23
0.59
0.25
0.18
0.21
2.54
0.76
0.12
0.39
0.11
0.18
0.10
0.13
0.10
0.12
0.23
0.12
0.23
1.27
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.12
0.11
0.12
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.10
0.07
0.08
0.08

1271
0
0
15
12
38
16611
24
111
14
228
52
49
954
77
12
57
12817
1993
0
562
0
51
0
18
0
13
173
8
197
5416
4
4
0
5
15
11
23
0
0
0
16
0
2
1

54

%O2
0.13 +
0.00 +
0.00 +
0.00 +
0.00 +
0.00 +
1.69 +
0.00 +
0.01 +
0.00 +
0.02 +
0.01 +
0.00 +
0.10 +
0.01 +
0.00 +
0.01 +
1.30 +
0.20 +
0.00 +
0.06 +
0.00 +
0.01 +
0.00 +
0.00 +
0.00 +
0.00 +
0.02 +
0.00 +
0.02 +
0.55 +
0.00 +
0.00 +
0.00 +
0.00 +
0.00 +
0.00 +
0.00 +
0.00 +
0.00 +
0.00 +
0.00 +
0.00 +
0.00 +
0.00 +

LL
1200.62
1020.60
607.03
547.17
533.76
525.49
513.66
497.16
494.00
449.20
409.95
400.33
394.58
387.46
386.33
361.49
335.00
314.91
305.72
286.84
276.63
273.49
272.67
253.48
244.15
240.14
239.40
239.23
236.78
236.08
234.55
233.83
233.83
233.47
222.93
221.62
220.63
208.99
206.79
193.45
193.45
183.05
180.11
178.76
178.15

46. coverage
32
47. help
81
48. economic
42
49. by
168
50. create
37
51. wont
25
52. more
167
53. seniors
24
54. recession
35
55. for
440
56. future
55
57. and
1342
58. insurance
41
59. United_States 29
60. theyve
22
61. cuts
31
62. insurance_companies
63. energy
35
64. steps
30
65. taxes
26
66. theyre
20
67. middle_class
22
68. security
32
69. business
50
70. companies
36
71. democrats
22
72. troops
22
73. banks
27
74. treaty
18
75. honor
18
76. corporations
18
77. led
28
78. prevent
26
79. dollars
23
80. finally
29
81. leaders
22
82. recovery
21
83. owners
22
84. bipartisan
16
85. deficits
17
86. tough
24
87. these
132
88. ads
15
89. consumers
19
90. law
35
91. special
39
92. firms
21
93. whove
14
94. taxpayers
14
95. taxpayer
14

0.09
0.22
0.12
0.46
0.10
0.07
0.46
0.07
0.10
1.21
0.15
3.70
0.11
0.08
0.06
0.09
23
0.10
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.14
0.10
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.07
0.36
0.04
0.05
0.10
0.11
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.04

55

7
282
36
1293
23
0
1319
0
22
6028
121
25245
53
11
0
17
0.06
33
18
9
0
2
33
139
52
4
5
18
0
0
0
22
16
8
29
9
7
10
0
1
17
1249
0
6
81
114
14
0
0
0

0.00
0.03
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.61
0.01
2.57
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

177.26
175.37
175.11
171.78
168.60
166.77
165.07
160.09
159.04
157.46
157.03
152.15
148.56
147.19
146.75
145.62
0.00 +
145.18
+
141.65
+
137.91
+
134.18
+
133.41
+
133.13
+
125.76
+
125.21
+
124.84
+
124.72
+
121.24
+
120.84
+
120.07
+
120.07
+
120.07
+
119.78
+
118.78
+
118.60
+
115.15
+
110.05
+
109.10
+
107.73
+
106.73
+
105.75
+
105.69
+
100.31
+
100.06
+
99.62
+
97.29
+
94.72
+
93.99
+
93.39
+
93.39
+
93.39

96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.

who
164
promise
19
workers
28
influence
19
rebuild
15
in
593
21st_century
13
politics
20
education
25
every
47
hire
20
credit
22
loans
18
breaks
16
challenges
17
also
75
oversight
14
as
181
theyll
12
isnt
12
responsibility 30
protect
24
elections
17
students
22
lets
15
continue
28
generations
16
investments
15
fiscal
13
accountable
13
come_together 14
benefits
24
worlds
11
whos
11
states
11
middle_class_families
lobbyists
11
common-sense
11
practices
16
health
34
leadership
14
decisions
19
fighting
20
afford
27
largest
14
need
88
vote
25
decades
12
nuclear
13
commitment
16

0.45
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.04
1.63
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.13
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.21
0.04
0.50
0.03
0.03
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.07
0.03
0.03
0.03
11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.09
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.04
0.24
0.07
0.03
0.04
0.04

56

1831
9
49
11
2
10563
0
15
37
206
16
24
10
5
8
546
2
2261
0
0
76
39
10
30
5
65
8
6
2
2
4
46
0
0
0
0.03
0
0
10
122
5
23
28
71
6
814
59
2
4
13

0.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.08
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00

+
93.09
+
92.23
+
89.39
+
88.11
+
87.89
+
87.28
+
86.72
+
86.70
+
85.83
+
85.56
+
85.11
+
84.81
+
84.30
+
84.04
+
82.64
+
82.25
+
81.48
+
81.12
+
80.05
+
80.05
+
79.32
+
79.19
+
78.53
+
78.08
+
77.93
+
77.70
+
76.76
+
75.37
+
75.08
+
75.08
+
74.61
+
73.42
+
73.38
+
73.38
+
73.38
0.00 +
73.38
+
73.38
+
73.38
+
72.81
+
72.06
+
71.85
+
70.57
+
70.24
+
69.88
+
69.39
+
69.31
+
68.76
+
68.71
+
68.46
+
67.78

146.
147.
148.
149.
150.

protections
world
administration
college
federal

10
40
17
29
15

0.03
0.11
0.05
0.08
0.04

57

0
196
18
95
11

0.00
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.00

+
+
+
+
+

66.71
66.24
66.21
65.45
65.43

APPENDIX B: OBAMA CORPUS WORDLIST

WORD
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.

FREQUENCY REL.FREQUENCY

the
and
to
of
a
that
we
in
our
for
this
is
will
are
i
have
it
on
their
more
but
they
can
with
as
do
be
who
thats
jobs
by

5225
4655
4129
2782
2329
2282
2075
1909
1679
1355
1327
1131
924
886
879
755
740
686
676
618
603
595
593
563
560
544
512
501
499
498
462

58

4.45
3.96
3.51
2.37
1.98
1.94
1.77
1.62
1.43
1.15
1.13
0.96
0.79
0.75
0.75
0.64
0.63
0.58
0.58
0.53
0.51
0.51
0.50
0.48
0.48
0.46
0.44
0.43
0.42
0.42
0.39

32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.

you
437
from
435
not
435
its
430
or
401
what
400
economy
399
were
398
american 389
new
385
people
381
an
379
all
362
these
346
us
339
americans 333
has
328
need
316
so
315
America
308
about
306
country
305
them
300
at
291
than
282
just
272
one
269
work
267
weve
267
congress
265
when
265
been
262
businesses 260
nt
260
if
258
why
257
families
255
now
251
get
249
help
249
was
241
tax
231
your
228
also
227
would
226
reform
217
like
210
those
208
make
207
some
205

59

0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.29
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.27
0.27
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.25
0.24
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.17

82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.

time
204
there
202
know
198
future
196
well
190
small
183
how
182
because
180
energy
179
my
174
every
171
no
168
financial 165
where
160
keep
153
health_care153
should
152
today
152
over
151
economic
151
years
151
even
149
year
148
world
148
im
145
business
145
insurance 145
put
141
workers
137
Washington 136
job
135
want
135
folks
132
most
129
many
129
back
128
week
128
nation
128
crisis
127
take
127
ive
126
health
126
here
123
have_to
123
pay
122
still
120
plan
120
government 118
create
117
cut
117

60

0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10

132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.

going_to
across
any
made
right
act
while
clean
system
into
must
cant
home
costs
same
important
millions
women
great

117
114
114
114
112
112
111
111
111
111
111
109
109
109
108
108
107
106
105

61

0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09

APPENDIX C: OBAMA CORPUS KEYWORD LIST

COMPARED TO REFERENCE CORPUS
ITEM
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.

01

thats
499
weve
267
nt
260
im
145
ive
126
folks
132
cant
109
theyre
98
its
430
whats
72
wont
67
jobs
498
businesses
260
were
398
financial
165
Americas
75
clean
111
crisis
127
isnt
46
that
2282
theres
44
energy
179
small
183
recession
96
Wall_Street
57
middle-class
44
right_now
90
why
257
youre
38
theyve
38
Ill
38
theyll
35
economy
399
-32
companies
99
lets
46
whove
30
this
1327
what
400
veterans
88
worlds
33
insurance
145

%1
0.42
0.23
0.22
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.37
0.06
0.06
0.42
0.22
0.34
0.14
0.06
0.09
0.11
0.04
1.94
0.04
0.15
0.16
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.08
0.22
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.34
0.03
0.08
0.04
0.03
1.13
0.34
0.07
0.03
0.12

02

%2

0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
1042
0
0
1406
455
1003
198
19
95
137
0
12057
0
326
345
94
17
3
82
679
0
0
0
0
1425
0
136
16
0
6878
1499
116
3
331

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.05
0.12
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.00
1.40
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.17
0.01
0.00
0.04

62

LL
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

2118.04
1133.30
1103.59
615.46
534.82
462.97
462.66
415.97
312.71
305.61
284.39
284.12
282.33
273.08
250.65
228.56
211.05
208.41
195.25
193.86
186.76
186.28
183.32
168.08
166.51
165.21
164.86
163.80
161.29
161.29
161.29
148.56
140.75
135.83
134.98
128.53
127.34
125.34
125.04
124.17
120.18
114.68

43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.

youll
27
0.02
0
insurance_cos.50
0.04
30
oil
104
0.09
187
solar
36
0.03
12
breaks
42
0.04
22
reform
217
0.18
687
banks
55
0.05
52
afford
87
0.07
147
investments
74
0.06
106
back
128
0.11
314
get
249
0.21
890
Independent
20
0.02
0
costs
109
0.09
252
oversight
24
0.02
3
wind
32
0.03
14
looking_for
41
0.03
32
business
145
0.12
412
going_to
117
0.10
292
recovery
99
0.08
220
well
190
0.16
624
whos
19
0.02
0
shouldnt
19
0.02
0
gas
61
0.05
87
do
544
0.46
2571
republicans
102
0.09
236
Michelle
20
0.02
1
youve
18
0.02
0
pre-existing
18
0.02
0
common-sense
18
0.02
0
profits
32
0.03
18
worst
47
0.04
53
plant
36
0.03
27
ideas
57
0.05
85
wed
17
0.01
0
got
75
0.06
150
owners
45
0.04
54
id
19
0.02
3
manufacturing 34
0.03
30
kids
53
0.05
85
foundation
45
0.04
61
bridges
27
0.02
17
insurance_industry 18
0.02
Chrysler
18
0.02
3
spill
14
0.01
0
credit_card
22
0.02
9
oil_companies 18
0.02
4
but
603
0.51
3133
wouldnt
13
0.01
0
al_Qaeda
13
0.01
0
hello
18
0.02
5

63

0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.10
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.30
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00

+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
3
0.00
0.00 +
0.00 +
0.00 +
0.00 +
0.36 +
0.00 +
0.00 +
0.00 +

114.60
114.03
109.74
101.88
101.52
99.89
98.47
97.94
97.33
91.43
87.67
84.89
84.72
83.80
82.86
82.10
81.81
81.46
81.18
81.05
80.65
80.65
80.53
79.42
79.20
77.11
76.40
76.40
76.40
75.08
74.75
73.65
72.33
72.16
70.18
68.36
63.89
63.50
62.83
62.04
60.24
+
59.94
59.94
59.42
58.33
56.56
56.22
55.18
55.18
53.59

93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.

weekend
millionaires
wealthiest
Intel
Gulf_coast
how
jumpstart

76
14
27
12
12
182
15

0.06
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.15
0.01

189
1
23
0
0
717
3

64

0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00

+
+
+
+
+
+
+

53.20
52.33
51.48
50.93
50.93
49.64
48.21

APPENDIX D: OBAMA CORPUS SEMANTIC DOMAIN ANALYSIS, Violent/Angry

173 occurrences.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.

falling behind . And our economy takes a

arting to come down again , but when they
they spiked over the last few months , it
more . Thats why we made Congress a handy
r turn to serve them . So thats Congresss
to go home . And our economy will take a
ctors that are often beyond our control .
lly as families are yet again feeling the
to sit and wait for the housing market to
protect working Americans from the worst
on is to protect consumers from potential
e skills , discipline , and leadership to
es about their safety , and writes , I am
he 10th anniversary of the September 11th
g strong and confident in the face of any
or all the world to seethe terrorists who
d make no mistakethey will keep trying to
he 10th anniversary of the September 11th
Well also recall how the worst terrorist
untry . And the fact is , this has been a
here to do . They did nt send us here to
ges were around long before the recession
nce the Great Depression a recession that
o help protect the Libyan people from the
lieve that when innocent people are being
ng brutalized ; when someone like Qaddafi
d ; when someone like Qaddafi threatens a
azi , a city of some 700,000 that Qaddafi

hit
spiked
hit
To-Do
To-Do
hit
Unrest
pinch
hit
abuses
abuses
attack
angry
attacks
threat
attacked
hit
attacks
attack
tumultuous
kick
hit
hit
brutality
brutalized
threatens
bloodbath
threatened

65

. The point is : teachers matter . One stu

over the last few months , it hit peoples
peoples wallets pretty hard . The crisis i
list just like the kind I get from Michell
List . But now we need them to start cross
. This Congress can not let that happen .
in the Middle East can tighten global oil
from rising gas prices . So whats happenin
bottom . I do nt accept that . None of us
of the financial industry . These are good
by the financial industry and to make sure
the defining challenge of our time : rebui
that in this country of vast resources we
. Were remembering the lives we lostnearly
. And thanks to the tireless efforts of ou
us that September morning are no match for
us again . But as we are showing again thi
. Well remember the innocent lives we lost
in American history brought out the best i
year for the economy . Weve weathered the
our problems down the road . Thats exactly
in 2007 . I ran for President because I be
our auto industry particularly hard . In t
of Moammar Qaddafi , I pledged to keep the
; when someone like Qaddafi threatens a bl
a bloodbath that could destabilize an enti
that could destabilize an entire region ;
to show no mercy , his forces have been pu

29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.

essage is clear and unwavering . Qaddafis

ach those in need . Those responsible for
own destiny . In recent days , weve seen
at a time . Its not responsible , and it
echnology has made competition easier and
e through a difficult decade ; one of new
for those who are less fortunate , whove
that todays military is an all-volunteer
days military is an all-volunteer force a
ratification . Meanwhile , further delay
oday , over sixty years later , when were
e know that its the middle class that was
The economic battle for these markets is
en fees , deceptive mortgages , and other
so it lifts up a middle class thats been
osed . The Republican leader John Boehner
ome . We see it in the flood of deceptive
. We have taken a stand against the worst
eason . That is why , any time you see an
ly 3,000 lives were lost in the deadliest
of the missing . We will never forget the
f two burning towers ; the passengers who
esolve against those who perpetrated this
ifetimes . And long before this recession
s risks and cutting corners . All of this
is summer , theyre also seeing a flood of
special interests from gaining even more
enough to cover the higher costs that are
s this fall . Its right up there on their
olvent by going after waste , fraud , and
things earlier , so treatment may be less
art through reforms that target waste and
in a place thats been one of the hardest

attacks
violence
turmoil
threatens
fiercer
threats
hit
force
force
comes at
threatened
hit
fierce
abusive
battered
attacked
attack
abuses
attack
attack
anger
stormed
barbaric
hit
came at
attack
clout
kicking in
to-do
abuse
invasive
abuse
hit

66

against civilians must stop . His forces m

must be held accountable . Moammar Qaddafi
and tragedy around the world , from change
the progress our economy has been making .
than ever before . Countries around the wo
and new trials we did nt expect when it be
a run of bad luck , or who are hungry and
a force of mothers and fathers , sons and
of mothers and fathers , sons and daughter
a cost . Every minute we drag our feet is
not only by nuclear weapons , but an array
the hardest by the recession . And not whe
, and were up against strong competitors .
practices used to tilt the tables against
for so long . But even as we focus on doin
us for it , and stood up for outsourcing ,
ads sponsored by special interests using f
of the financial industry and health insur
ad by one of these shadowy groups , you sh
on American soil in our history . We will
and sadness we felt . And while nine years
a cockpit ; and the men and women who have
act of terror and who continue to plot aga
, the middle class had been taking some ha
the expense of working Americans , who wer
ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-so
in Washington . This shouldnt be a Democra
now that baby boomers are retiring . And I
list with repealing some of the Medicare b
not by changing seniors guaranteed benefit
and less expensive . And as reform ramps u
and redirect those resources to where they
in America . In the twelve months before I

62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.

o adapt to changing times combined with a

s reform that will help put a stop to the
t the right thing to do for those hardest
heir best to cope with the aftermath of a
covery . And were going to keep competing
help wind down firms whose collapse would
our seniors . Now , I realize that simply
liminating 50% of the waste , fraud , and
. Its upended whole communities . And the
control their lives have been thrown into
lives have been thrown into turmoil . Its
ncy safety review , were putting in place
nd front porches , fire up the barbeque ,
ffalo , New York , a town thats been hard
so much risk that they could collapse and
special interests from gaining even more
the underlying problems that caused this
. Thanks . There were many causes of the
sic , common-sense rules rules to prevent
ago . There , in the wake of some of the
ate will debate a proposal to address the
, there were many causes of the economic
. And there were some who engaged in the
thout reasonable and clear rules to check
ial firms to prevent any one company from
revent predatory loan practices and other
ay the very same system that allowed this
t its not just Californians who are being
d corporations from using their financial
people can find himself or herself under
eep mess in the first place . Much of the
al institutions with funds to survive the
help close our deficits ; we are going to

vicious
abusive
hit
brutal
aggressively
threaten
kicking
abuse
fury
turmoil
brutally
aggressive
kick
hit
threaten
clout
turmoil
turmoil
abuse
fiercest
abuse
turmoil
rampant
abuse
threatening
abuses
turmoil
hit
clout
assault
turmoil
turmoil
attack

67

economic crisis brought an industry thats

practices of mortgage lenders and credit c
by the recession theyre the right thing to
recession . And while I was there , a youn
to make sure the jobs and industries of th
our entire financial system . Put simply ,
these cuts down the road another year is n
in the system by 2012 . This not only stre
people feel is not just about the money th
. Its brutally unfair . Its wrong . And wh
unfair . Its wrong . And what I told these
new operating standards for offshore drill
back with friends , and spend time with pe
in recent decades . I heard from folks abo
our whole economy . And well give sharehol
in Washington . And almost all of these re
in the first place . In short , its essent
that ripped through our economy over the p
and protect consumers . In fact , the fina
fighting of World War II , a chaplain rose
and excess that led to the worst financial
that ripped through our country over the p
exploitation of consumers to turn a quick
and protect families , markets do nt funct
the entire financial system and it would u
to ensure that consumers get clear informa
remains in place . No one disputes that .
by rate hikes . In Kansas , one insurance
to directly interfere with elections by ru
come election time . Even foreign corporat
of this recession was caused by the irresp
they helped unleash . It was a distasteful
some of the banking practices that led to

95. ial industry . Our goal is to prevent the abuse

and excess that nearly led to its collapse
96. ponsibility . So far , though , they have ferociously
fought financial reform . The industry has
97. now that he traveled to Yemen , a country grappling
with crushing poverty and deadly insurgenc
98. with those explosives and directed him to
attack
that plane headed for America . This is no
99. at war against a far-reaching network of
violence
and hatred , and that we will do whatever
100. q , which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks
, and dramatically increasing our resource
101. this-our adversaries are those who would attack
our country , not our fellow Americans , n
102. through times of trial , including those attacks
eight Septembers ago . Instead of giving i
103. d-bust and led to a financial crisis that threatened
to bring down the entire economy . It was
104. f financial reforms that would target the abuses
we have seen and leave us less exposed to
105. should be encouraged , risky schemes that threaten
our entire economy should not . We cant af
106. into all the jobs we need . Stung by this brutal
recession , businesses that have kept thei
107. o manage the crisis of the moment , while kicking
our most pressing problems down the road .
108. of Americans who lost their jobs in this turmoil
. Thats why we are reforming the health ca
109. ace where the risk of a nuclear arms race threatens
our security , and where extremists plan a
110. our security , and where extremists plan attacks
on Americas soil . And since this region i
111. ble to act swiftly and surely when it has threatening
information . And our troops must have the
112. ing his fellow soldiers . It is an act of violence
that would have been heartbreaking had it
113. o bring about its conclusion . Weve acted aggressively to jumpstart credit for families and busin
114. t jobs which not only helps folks hardest hit
by the downturn , but also encourages the
115. segment of our economy that has been hard hit
by this recession . Over the past couple o
116. stemto promote responsibility and prevent abuse
so that we never face a crisis like this a
117. uce greenhouse gas emissions , combat the threat
of climate change , and help create the ne
118. o their own people . These are the urgent threats
of our time . And the United States is com
119. irst meeting of the G-20 nations in April came at
the height of the global financial crisis
120. the road that will protect consumers from abuse
, let markets function fairly and freely ,
121. private sector jobs . But even as we take aggressive
steps to put people back to work , it is a
122. The fact is , even before this recession hit
, the savings rate was essentially zero ,
123. s can forget how we felt when those winds battered
the shore , the floodwaters began to rise
124. this anniversary , we are focused on the threat
from hurricanes . But we must also be prep
125. wildfires and earthquakes , to terrorist attacks
and pandemic disease . In particular , my
126. particular , my Administration is working aggressively with state and local governments and with
127. every day in this country , Americans are grappling
with health care premiums that are growing

68

128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.

l point-scorers in Washington are growing

to Elkhart County in Indiana a city hard
address key national priorities like the
f collapse . As a result of the swift and
assive deficits as the recession gathered
to get together with family and friends ,
endangered by festering problems we have
kdown in oversight that led to widespread
les that govern our financial system ; to
ack of strong consumer protections led to
o stop deceptive lending practices led to
are and Medicaid pose one of the greatest
ows good money after bad habits . We must
nues . Well eliminate waste , fraud , and
strict Attorney in New York , prosecuting
eals , our nations second highest court ,
journey a journey defined by hard work ,
him or herself speak far louder than any
ign oil and cap the carbon pollution that
ome of the groups who have been among the
read a credit card application . And the
d that meets their needs . And instead of
, which is why we are acting quickly and
cines all of which will help us meet this
hree months , my Administration has taken
nformation systems undermine efficiency ,
ng jobs overseas ; stopping the fraud and
nomic crisis that recognizes no borders .
energy that pollute our air and water and
will finally defeat 21st century security
strong and vigilant in the face of these
erconnected than at any time in history .
g , trained in Kandahar and Karachi , and

fiercer
hit
threat
aggressive
force
kick
kicked
abuses
attack
abuses
abuses
threats
attack
abuse
violent
grappling
fierce
attack
threatens
fiercest
abuses
abuse
aggressively
threat
aggressive
threaten
abuse
Violent
threaten
threats
threats
Threats
threaten

69

in their opposition . In recent days and w

not only by the economic crisis of recent
of nuclear weapons and extremism . At the
action we took in the first few months of
. And although the Recovery Act represents
back , and enjoy a little time off . And I
down the road for far too long : spiraling
in the financial system . An epidemic of i
the causes of this crisis and to prevent f
against consumers ; the lack of rules to s
against borrowers . This new agency will h
to our federal deficit , and could leave o
the root causes of skyrocketing health car
in our health care system , but well also
crimes in Americas largest city . After le
with some of the most difficult constituti
intelligence , and the enduring faith that
; her record makes clear that she is fair
our health and our climate . Most importan
critics of past comprehensive health care
in our credit card industry have only mult
that goes unpunished , we need to strength
. This H1N1 flu has had its biggest impact
. Finally , thanks to the work that the la
action to confront an historic economic cr
our security , and fail to serve an engage
in our Medicare program ; and reforming ou
extremism thats claimed the lives of innoc
our planet . The proliferation of the worl
like al Qaeda . So it was heartening that
. But let us not allow whatever difference
to our nations security and economy can no
countries across the globe . Cars in Bosto

161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.

ross America . The challenges of our time

nomic recovery . All of us are now moving
help end the risky speculation and market
at is where al Qaeda trains , plots , and
lots , and threatens to launch their next
ns to launch their next attack . And that
of the globe can wall itself off from the
n . Thousands of homes and businesses are
leadership on bio defense at the Nuclear
nd dramatic change , it also represents a
national debt , threw our economy into a
o struggle through unprecedented economic
to fend on their own . And adding to this

threaten
aggressively
abuses
threatens
attack
attack
threats
threatened
Threat
threat
tailspin
turmoil
outrage

70

the peace and prosperity of every single n

to get our banks lending again . All of us
that have cost so many people so much . I
to launch their next attack . And that att
. And that attack could occur in any natio
could occur in any nation , which means th
of the twenty-first century , or from the
. That is why , on Tuesday , I granted a m
Initiative , Dr. Hamburg brings to this vi
to the status quo in Washington . I know t
, and led us into this mess in the first p
. Yesterday we learned that our economy sh
, we learned this week that even as they p

APPENDIX E: OBAMA CORPUS SEMANTIC DOMAIN ANALYSIS, Damaging/Destroying

171 occurrences.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.

,000 good jobs . And instead of giving tax

long past time for Congress to end the tax
casino . Not only did that behavior nearly
ck of basic oversight in Washington nearly
onsumers , or making risky bets that could
. First , Congress should stop giving tax
are putting Americans to work and helping
of war has turned in Afghanistan . We have
lt strong Afghan Security Forces . We have
ilies have seen too much of their security
any sense . Do we want to keep giving tax
cord . And if they vote to keep giving tax
ep giving tax breaks to people like me tax
a visit , and tell them to stop giving tax
ng for a job ever since the housing market
If we had let this great American industry
s and created an unsustainable bubble that
e within 90 days . We should also stem the
and investing in America and eliminate tax
an who are serving , even as we speak , in
cting the Libyan people , and helping them
is the job creating we need right now ! It
belongs to those that want to build , not
mmunities and neighborhoods , to honor the
nd corporate jet owners to give up the tax
sk the wealthiest taxpayers to give up tax
special interests and big corporations tax
companies should keep getting special tax

breaks
breaks
destroy
destroyed
damage
breaks
break
broken
devastated
erode
breaks
breaks
breaks
breaks
collapsed
collapse
burst
corrosive
breaks
harms
break
breaks
destroy
victims
breaks
breaks
breaks
breaks

71

to companies who ship jobs overseas , Congr

for companies that ship jobs overseas , and
the financial system it cost our economy mi
our economy . We cant afford to go back to
the whole economy , you have nothing to fea
to companies that ship jobs overseas , and
our dependence on foreign oil . Congress sh
the Talibans momentum . Weve built strong A
al Qaedas leadership . And one year ago , o
over the past few decades for us to tell th
to the wealthiest Americans like me , or Wa
to people like me tax breaks our country ca
our country cant afford then theyre going t
to people who do nt need them and start inv
. But once again , were waiting on Congress
if we had let Detroit go bankrupt more than
and left millions of families who did every
influence of money in politics . The House
for companies that move jobs overseas . Its
way to protect the freedoms and security we
free from a tyrant , was the right thing to
my husbands heart when he has to let people
. Ten years ago , ordinary Americans showed
of 9/11 and to reaffirm the strength of our
that other companies do nt get . Before we
we simply can not afford under these circum
that middle-class Americans do nt get . Its
when theyre making tens of billions in prof

29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.

al with an unexpected expense if their car

m . Because if we choose to keep those tax
ater and sewage pipes , and find leaks and
, Chrysler and GM , stood on the brink of
o nt act , a rising tide of borrowing will
ts , it would also give $1 trillion in tax
an sending our military men and women into
operly spent much of the week mourning the
common cause to honor Gabby and the other
dations of our economy , and left a lot of
in Congress strongly favored permanent tax
sses , which will hurt hiring , which will
, we can not afford to continue these tax
. So those who would block this treaty are
en today , we are still digging out of the
ntry backward that we do nt go back to the
actually given billions of dollars in tax
es within our borders . We should give tax
t , a company called BrightSource plans to
the jobs we need , and repair the terrible
ries of additional steps : accelerated tax
hat failed policy . It is grounded in same
st interest on their website is ending tax
f cutting taxes for the wealthiest few tax
st a theory . We can see for ourselves how
insurance companies . Weve rolled back tax
any law will come too late to prevent the
uman capacity for good . Not the desire to
in defiance of those who would do us grave
ecurity . Companies were rewarded with tax
ir bills . Ultimately , the house of cards
, Im fighting to pass a law to provide tax
oops and veterans can keep for life . Were

breaks down
breaks
breaks
collapse
damage
breaks
harms
victims
victims
destruction
breaks
damage
breaks
breaking
damage
broken
breaks
breaks
break
damage
breaks
worn out
breaks
breaks
destructive
breaks
damage
destroy
harm
breaks
collapsed
breaks
breaking

72

. Theyre worried about layoffs . Theyre not

for millionaires and billionaires , or for
before they become expensive problems . But
. Now , we had a few options . We could hav
our economy , costing us jobs and risking o
to the wealthiest 2% of Americans an extra
way . And the United States should notand c
and remembering their lives . We also disco
, and to reflect on our shared hopes for th
and doubt in its wake . So , our fundamenta
for the wealthiest taxpayers and the wealth
our recovery . So this plan is going to hel
for the wealthiest taxpayers especially whe
President Reagans rule they want to trust ,
it unleashed on the economy . Millions of p
system we had before . Weve got to keep mov
that encourage companies to create jobs and
to American small businesses and manufactur
ground on a revolutionary new type of solar
the recession has done . Thats why Ive prop
for businesses who buy equipment now ; a pe
philosophy : cut taxes for millionaires and
for companies that ship jobs overseas . Fun
we can not afford Ive called for tax cuts f
to our democracy this can become . We see i
for companies that ship jobs overseas . And
that has already been done this election se
, but the impulse to save . That is why we
. We prove that the sense of responsibility
for creating jobs overseas . Wall Street fi
. So this Labor Day , we should recommit ou
to the folks who create jobs right here in
the claims backlog and reforming the proces

62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.

he wealth people worked a lifetime to earn

turing might for a century to the brink of
ies to go out of business which could have
reet to Washington . Instead of giving tax
t ship jobs overseas , we want to give tax
and it will take years to fully repair the
e . Thats because an economic disaster can
heyve got no problem spending money on tax
equip our troops before we send them into
of July . And to all our troops serving in
on authority to help wind down firms whose
. But gridlock as a political strategy is
iana , one of the first places to feel the
north side of Grand Isle , has likely been
ying off the shelves . But he too has been
his place . Here , this spill has not just
it will be strengthened . And if laws were
f Louisianas coast , killing 11 people and
, but for shutting it down , repairing the
here oversight of the oil and gas industry
se small businesses were some of the worst
rom taking on so much risk that they could
r ago that our country faced a potentially
s manufacturing might were on the brink of
ies and their stakeholders were willing to
elp to put an end to the cycle of boom and
There were many causes of the turmoil that
tle oversight as financial weapons of mass
losing them . We have begun to reverse the
but we have a long way to go to repair the
on it . To make sure our students do nt go
e many causes of the economic turmoil that
ies and bonuses . And through new tools to

wiped out
collapse
wiped out
breaks
breaks
damage
devastate
breaks
harms
harms
collapse
destructive
devastation
destroyed
devastated
damaged
broken
rupturing
damage
broke down
victims
collapse
devastating
collapse
break
bust
ripped
destruction
devastating
damage
broke
ripped
break up

73

in a matter of days , that no one would wan

. We did nt have many good options . On one
one million American jobs . I refused to le
to corporations that ship jobs overseas , w
to small business owners who are creating j
. But I am confident that we are finally he
families and communities just as surely as
for folks at the top who do nt need them an
way , we have a solemn responsibility to pr
way , I want you to know you have the suppo
would threaten our entire financial system
to the country . Whether we are Democrats o
wrought by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mex
by the spill . Terry Vegas had a similar st
by the decline in tourism and the suspensio
livelihoods . Its upended whole communities
those responsible will be brought to justic
an underwater pipe . The resulting oil spil
it does , and repaying Americans whove suff
. We know , for example , that a cozy relat
of the excessive risk-taking on Wall Street
and threaten our whole economy . And well g
crisis in our auto industry . Over the cour
. The rapid dissolution of these companies
with the past . They had to fundamentally r
that weve seen . And thats how after two ve
through our economy over the past two years
. Thats why through reform wed help ensure
slide , but we have a long way to go to rep
from this recession , and that will continu
just because they chose to go to college ,
through our country over the past two years
failing financial firms , it would help ens

95. s now been well over a year since the near

96. tire financial system a crisis that helped
97. idst headlines about banks on the verge of
98. our children and grandchildren , but could
99. to the act . I cant think of anything more
100. l be a priority for us until we repair the
101. irms in the world teetered on the brink of
102. he abuse and excess that nearly led to its
103. ng the speculative bubbles that inevitably
104. e FDIC , and others to prevent a financial
105. ement . Stable health care so you do nt go
106. ace for the 21st century . Were fixing our
107. g our broken health insurance system thats
108. insurance system thats crushing families ,
109. aveled to Yemen , a country grappling with
110. of Rights never made it into law . It fell
111. ps weve taken since January have helped to
112. e bailing out banks or letting our economy
113. months , the numbers were nothing short of
114. . The worst recession since the 1930s had
115. aken , were no longer facing the potential
116. ughter , or husband or wife , stationed in
117. and tough steps we have taken have helped
118. Army , and the friends and families of the
119. crime that would have horrified us had its
120. it occurred and the patriots who were its
121. ed reaction : Im supposed to be the one in
122. u . Thursdays shooting was one of the most
123. s coming in from across America as shovels
124. iscouraged from even trying because of the
125. of our largest banks were on the verge of
126. say that unless we act , these costs will
127. de are those who would bend the truth , or

collapse
wipe out
collapse
damage
devastating
damage
collapse
collapse
burst
collapse
broke
broken
crushing
eating away
crushing
victim
break
collapse
devastating
wreaked
collapse
harms
break
victims
victims
victims
harms
devastating
break
crushing
collapse
devastate
break

74

of the entire financial system a crisis tha

more than 8 million jobs and that continues
and job losses of 700,000 a month , we rece
our markets , drive up our interest rates ,
to the public interest . The last thing we
that has been done . A hundred years ago ,
, overwhelmed by the consequences of their
. Our goal is to promote fair dealings whil
. Ultimately , that is in the shared intere
. And it ignores a far greater unfairness :
just because you get sick . The chance to g
health insurance system thats crushing fami
families , eating away at workers take-home
at workers take-home pay , and nailing smal
poverty and deadly insurgencies . It appear
again and again to the same special interes
our fall , and begin to get us back on our
. And they would consolidate the consumer p
. The worst recession since the 1930s had w
havoc on the lives of so many of our fellow
of our financial system or a second Great D
way . And we say a special thanks for the s
the back of the recession , and now our eco
to honor thirteen of our fellow Americans w
been Americans of any background . But its
. The SRP is where our men and women in uni
way , not you . Thursdays shooting was one
ever committed on an American military base
ground , as needed public servants are rehi
costs of health care costs that have forced
; our credit markets were frozen ; and it w
the U.S. economy . This is the unsustainabl
it , to score political points and stop our

128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.

s quo of rising health care costs that are

p their efforts to develop weapons of mass
to jumpstart the worlds economies and help
ation has taken separately and together to
e right thing shouldnt have to worry about
we came to the brink , and perpetuate the
overage ; men and women who worry that one
e fourth anniversary of Hurricane Katrinas
oods of a great American city were left in
n public health and safety ; and repairing
omic Advisers , right now they are getting
d be stopped as a way to inflict political
an people . What Im concerned about is the
t our financial system was on the verge of
conomic storm . But once we clear away the
e right direction . We are cleaning up the
t has always led us , as a people , not to
inable health care system that is imposing
We need to protect what works , fix whats
return to the endless cycle of bubble and
of Americans have seen their life savings
ir life savings erode ; families have been
up for their interests . And while Im not
der approach to reform : we will fix whats
the road . Simply put , the status quo is
c opportunity to finally fix what ails our
I will send our servicemen and women into
of rapidly rising health care costs and a
is taking is focused on clearing away the
to it , it has more potential to cause us
it within our power to limit the potential
m for ones that do . That means ending tax
e individuals , I am confident that we can

crushing
destruction
break
break
ruinous
broken
accident
devastation
ruins
broken
crushed
damage
damage
collapse
wreckage
wreckage
wilt
crushing
broken
bust
erode
devastated
spoiling
broken
broken
broken
harms
broken
wreckage
harm
damage
breaks
break

75

our families , our businesses , and our gov

. And we will continue to stand with our al
the downward spiral that enveloped all our
the back of this economic crisis . And the
competition from unregulated and unscrupulo
system and breakdown of responsibility that
or illness could drive them into bankruptcy
of the Gulf Coast . As we remember all that
. Communities across the Gulf Coast were fo
roads , bridges and homes . And this effort
by skyrocketing health care costs . Because
on my Administration . Ill leave it to them
thats being done right now to the health of
. As a result of the swift and aggressive a
, the real question is what we will build i
of this storm . And we are laying a firmer
or cower at a difficult moment , but to fac
costs on families , businesses , large and
, and bring down costs for all Americans .
that led us to this recession . Clean energ
; families have been devastated by job loss
by job losses ; businesses large and small
for a fight , Im ready for one . The most i
, while building upon what works . If you l
. We can not continue this way . If we do n
health care system , and strengthen our eco
way only when it is necessary , and ensure
health care system . Thats why I met with r
of this recession , and building a new foun
. Unlike the various strains of animal flu
of this virus , we have a solemn and urgent
for companies shipping jobs overseas ; stop
our bad habits , put an end to the mismanag

161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.

ines we take , are safe and do nt cause us

hat the medicines they buy will cause them
% of working Americans , roll back the tax
ing over $250,000 a year , and end the tax
ican trucks . I promised to bring down the
ling roads and bridges , and repairing our
businesses . It will require reforming the
at . Thank you . Yesterday began with some
ng our fundamental economic challenges the
While the package helped avoid a financial
has our country faced economic problems as

harm
harm
breaks
breaks
crushing
faulty
broken
devastating
crushing
collapse
devastating

. That is the mission of our Food and Drug

. Protecting the safety of our food and dru
for those making over $250,000 a year , and
for corporations that ship our jobs oversea
cost of health care a cost that bankrupts o
levees and dams . Because of what we did ,
regulatory system that made this crisis pos
news with regard to our economic crisis . B
cost of health care or the inadequate state
, many are frustrated by the results -- and
as this crisis . But the strength of the Am

2000-11 UCREL, Lancaster University.

For technical queries please contact Paul Rayson : p.rayson@lancaster.ac.uk

76

APPENDIX F: WALL STREET CONCORDANCE/ REFERENCE CORPUS

17 occurrences.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

cans : The bears and the bulls were out on

on rates low . As prominent as the news on
nfirm this fine judge , referred to by the
r own hard work . In the words of a recent
th , George Gilder , wrote recently in the
e . A secret Nicaraguan memo leaked to the
mewhere between $90 and $170 billion . The
rent areas of our society . Recently , the
brink of a major collapse . Another one of
long breaking of virtually every record on
government asks you to pay for mistakes on
ossible to let every irresponsible firm on
effort we 're negotiating is not aimed at
cations company executive was asked by the
ade it go higher . They have used what the
ever be taken away . A few weeks ago , the
competing plans . And the headline in the

Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall

Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street

this week with some of the sharpest drops a

was this week , I 'm sure you are also awar
Journal as'97and again , I quote : 'the mos
Journal article , those in Congress who wan
Journal : The new bill would shift the bala
Journal and reported yesterday revealed how
Journal reported estimates of experts that
Journal reported on a survey of one of them
's favorites made headlines when he said th
for trade in stocks and bonds . No , we 're
, it does not seem fair , and I understand
fail without affecting you and your family
; it is aimed at your street . And there is
Journal how his company would respond to a
Journal , the New York Times , and others h
Journal explained our health reform to some
Journal reads : " Many Do n't Realize It 's

2000-11 UCREL, Lancaster University.

For technical queries please contact Paul Rayson : p.rayson@lancaster.ac.uk

77

APPENDIX G: WALL STREET CONCORDANCE/ BUSH CORPUS

4 occurrences.

government asks you to pay for mistakes on

ossible to let every irresponsible firm on
effort we 're negotiating is not aimed at
cations company executive was asked by the

Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall

Street
Street
Street
Street

, it does not seem fair , and I understand

fail without affecting you and your family
; it is aimed at your street . And there is
Journal how his company would respond to a
2000-11 UCREL, Lancaster University.
For technical queries please contact Paul Rayson : p.rayson@lancaster.ac.uk

78

APPENDIX H: GEORGE W. BUSHS WEEKLY ADDRESS,

September 27, 2008
Good morning. This is an extraordinary period for America's economy. Many Americans
are anxious about their finances and their future. On Wednesday, I spoke to the Nation
and thanked Congress for working with my administration to address the instability in
our financial system. On Thursday, I hosted Senator McCain, Senator Obama, and
congressional leaders from both parties at the White House to discuss the urgency of
passing a bipartisan rescue package for our economy.
The problems in our economy are extremely complex, but at their core is uncertainty over
mortgage-backed securities. Many of these financial assets relate to home mortgages that
have lost value during the housing decline. In turn, the banks holding these assets have
restricted credit, and businesses and consumers have found it more difficult to obtain
affordable loans. As a result, our entire economy is in danger. So I proposed that the
Federal Government reduce the risk posed by these troubled assets and supply urgently
needed money to help banks and other financial institutions avoid collapse and resume
lending.
I know many of you listening this morning are frustrated with the situation. You make
sacrifices every day to meet your mortgage payments and keep up with your bills. When
the government asks you to pay for mistakes on Wall Street, it does not seem fair, and I
understand that. And if it were possible to let every irresponsible firm on Wall Street fail
without affecting you and your family, I would do it. But that is not possible. The failure
of the financial system would mean financial hardship for many of you.
The failure of the financial system would cause banks to stop lending money to one
another and to businesses and consumers. That would make it harder for you to take out a
loan or borrow money to expand a business. The result would be less economic growth
and more American jobs lost. And that would put our economy on the path toward a deep
and painful recession. The rescue effort we're negotiating is not aimed at Wall Street; it is
aimed at your street. And there is now widespread agreement on the major principles. We
must free up the flow of credit to consumers and businesses by reducing the risk posed by
troubled assets. We must ensure that taxpayers are protected, that failed executives do not
receive a windfall from your tax dollars, and that there is a bipartisan board to oversee
these efforts.
Under the proposal my administration sent to Congress, the government would spend up
to $700 billion to buy troubled assets from banks and other financial institutions. I know
many Americans understand the urgency of this action but are concerned about such a
high price tag. Well, let me address this directly. The final cost of this plan will be far
less than $700 billion. And here's why: As fear and uncertainty have gripped the market
for mortgage-related assets, their price has dropped sharply. Yet many of these assets still
have significant underlying value, because the vast majority of people will eventually pay
off their mortgages. In other words, many of the assets the government would buy are
79

likely to go up in price over time. This means that the government will be able to recoup
much, if not all, of the original expenditure.
Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have contributed constructive
proposals that have improved this plan. I appreciate the efforts of House and Senate
Democratic and Republican leaders to bring a spirit of bipartisan cooperation to these
discussions. Our Nation's economic well-being is an issue that transcends partisanship.
Republicans and Democrats must continue to address it together. And I am confident that
we will pass a bill to protect the financial security of every American very soon.
Thank you for listening.

Note: The address was recorded at 7:10 a.m. on September 27 in the Cabinet Room at
the White House for broadcast at 10:06 a.m. on September 27. The transcript was made
available by the Office of the Press Secretary on the morning of September 27 but was
embargoed for release until the broadcast. In his address, the President referred to
Republican Presidential nominee John McCain; and Democratic Presidential nominee
Barack Obama. The Office of the Press Secretary also released a Spanish language
transcript of this address.

80

APPENDIX I: WALL STREET CONCORDANCE/ OBAMA CORPUS

57 occurrences.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

aking irresponsibility on the part of some on

bilize troubled banks . And weve put in place
-out battle to delay , defund , and dismantle
banks may not have been able to . And without
le oversight ; where excessive risk-taking on
whole economy , you have nothing to fear from
want to pursue higher education. Thats what
took office , we did something about it. The
, for too long , the rules werent the same on
ears ago this week that a financial crisis on
tant victories we achieved was the passage of
is only one more piece of evidence as to why
oes nt serve Main Street. That does nt serve
ionaires and billionaires ; cut the rules for
with tax breaks for creating jobs overseas .
cit while tying your benefits to the whims of
ld want to place bets with Social Security on
hose who would gamble your Social Security on
ay . Thanks . This week , I signed into law a
companies . It will end taxpayer bailouts of
the financial crisis into the light of day .
and one that demands new accountability from
ecause there wasnt strong enough oversight on
on for growth and prosperity . Thats what the
sions that are best for you and your family .
dime of taxpayer money . Getting this far on
is recession never happens again . Thats what
talk about why every American has a stake in
atory practices of unscrupulous lenders . The
worst victims of the excessive risk-taking on

Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall

Street who treated our financial system like a casino

Street reform with smarter, tougher , commonsense ru
Street reform . Recently, weve seen why we cant let
Street reform, we could have found ourselves with th
Street and a lack of basic oversight in Washington ne
Street reform . Yes , it discourages big banks and fi
Street reform is all about making this economy strong
Street reforms I signed into law are helping bring en
Street as they were on Main Street . Risky bets were
Street made things much more difficult for working fo
Street Reform . This was a bill designed to rein in t
Street Reform is so necessary . In fact , as part of
Street. That does nt serve anyone . And thats why I
Street and the special interests ; and cut the middle
Street firms turned huge profits by taking , in some
Street traders and the ups and downs of the stock mar
Street ; that everyone would understand why we need t
Street . Because you shouldnt be worried that a sudde
Street reform bill that will protect consumers and ou
Street firms . And it will finally bring the shadowy
Street reform is a key pillar of an overall economic
Street to Washington . Instead of giving tax breaks t
Street . We cant build a strong economy in America ov
Street reforms currently making their way through Con
Street reform will also strengthen our economy in a n
Street reform has nt been easy . There are those whov
Street reform will help us do . In recent weeks , the
Street reform . First and foremost , you have a stake
Street reform bill in Congress represents the stronge
Street that led to this crisis . Their credit dried u

81

31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57

ould see it happen all over again . Thats why

risk-taking in the first place . Put simply ,
t few weeks , as weve debated reforms to hold
ctor . In the absence of common-sense rules ,
. And once again I called for reforms to hold
s that this crisis could have been avoided if
uences of this failure of responsibility from
hats why Im fighting so hard to pass a set of
oo big to fail . Finally , these reforms hold
ate campaign committee met with two dozen top
osts of inaction are too great . We will hold
nto law reflects not the special interests of
illion from the TARP fund originally used for
bility of banks and financial institutions on
s hard to believe when there are reports that
o the American people . Were not going to let
onsibility of large financial institutions on
ided if wed had clearer rules of the road for
of responsibility and accountability to both
o this crisis were not just decisions made on
titors . Not surprisingly , lobbyists for big
n epidemic of irresponsibility took hold from
sential , for this crisis may have started on
lasting change to the way business is done on
sible as it is unsustainable . For years , as
as they petitioned for taxpayer assistance ,
sponsibly , from Main Street to Washington to

Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall
Wall

Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street

reform is so important . With reform , well ma

reform will bring greater security to folks on
accountable and protect consumers and small bu
firms took enormous , irresponsible risks that
accountable and to protect consumers . These r
firms were more accountable , if financial dea
to Washington are all around us : 8 million jo
reforms and consumer protections . A plan for
accountable by giving shareholders new power i
executives to talk about how to block progress
accountable . We will protect and empower cons
, but the best interests of the American peopl
and create a new Small Business Lending Fund t
. These financial firms took huge , reckless r
is going to hand out more money in bonuses and
take the money and run . Were going to pass th
that gambled on risky loans and complex financ
and actually enforced them . We cant change th
and Washington . And thats how well safeguard
, but also unsustainable mortgage loans made a
banks are hard at work trying to stop reforms
to Washington to Main Street . And the consequ
. But its impacts have been felt by ordinary A
and in Washington . We will do what is necessa
used accounting tricks to conceal costs and av
firms shamefully paid out nearly $20 billion i
. Soon my Treasury Secretary , Tim Geithner ,
2000-11 UCREL, Lancaster University.

82

APPENDIX J: EXTENDED WALL STREET CONCORDANCE LINES, OBAMA CORPUS

1.

5.
11.
19.
20.
23.
34.
36.
37.
44.
47.

For the past three and a half years, weve 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. 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.
Thats why its so important that Members of Congress stand on the side of reform, not against it; because we cant afford to go
back to an era of weak regulation and little oversight; where excessive risk-taking on Wall Street and a lack of basic oversight
in Washington nearly destroyed our economy.
One of the most important victories we achieved was the passage of Wall Street Reform . This was a bill designed to rein in the
secret deals and reckless gambling that nearly brought down the financial system.
This week, I signed into law a Wall Street reform bill that will protect consumers and our entire economy from the recklessness
and irresponsibility that led to the worst recession of our lifetime.
It will end taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street firms. And it will finally bring the shadowy deals that caused the financial crisis into
the light of day.
Were still digging ourselves out of an economic crisis that happened largely because there wasnt strong enough oversight on
Wall Street.
In the absence of common-sense rules, Wall Street firms took enormous, irresponsible risks that imperiled our financial system
and hurt just about every sector of our economy.
What is clear is that this crisis could have been avoided if Wall Street firms were more accountable, if financial dealings were
more transparent, and if consumers and shareholders were given more information and authority to make decisions.
The consequences of this failure of responsibility from Wall Street to Washington are all around us : 8 million jobs lost ,
trillions in savings erased, countless dreams diminished or denied. I believe we have to do everything we can to ensure that no
crisis like this ever happens again.
Much of the turmoil of this recession was caused by the irresponsibility of banks and financial institutions on Wall Street.
These financial firms took huge, reckless risks in pursuit of short-term profits and soaring bonuses. They gambled with
borrowed money, without enough oversight or regard for the consequences. And when they lost, they lost big.
But much of it was due to the irresponsibility of large financial institutions on Wall Street that gambled on risky loans and

83

48.
50.
52.
53.

complex financial products, seeking short-term profits and big bonuses with little regard for long-term consequences.
It was a disaster that could have been avoided if wed had clearer rules of the road for Wall Street and actually enforced them.
We cant change that history.
Part of what led to this crisis were not just decisions made on Wall Street, but also unsustainable mortgage loans made across
the country.
As we continue to recover from an historic economic crisis, it is clear to everyone that one of its major causes was a breakdown
in oversight that led to widespread abuses in the financial system. An epidemic of irresponsibility took hold from Wall Street to
Washington to Main Street. And the consequences have been disastrous.
This is essential, for this crisis may have started on Wall Street. But its impacts have been felt by ordinary Americans who rely
on credit cards, home loans, and other financial instruments.

84

APPENDIX K: EXTENDED WALL STREET CONCORDANCE LINES 2, OBAMA CORPUS

2.
11.
19.
21.
27.
31.

And weve put in place Wall Street reform with smarter, tougher, commonsense rules that serve one primary purpose: to
prevent a crisis like that from ever happening again.
One of the most important victories we achieved was the passage of Wall Street Reform. This was a bill designed to rein in the
secret deals and reckless gambling that nearly brought down the financial system.
This week, I signed into law a Wall Street reform bill that will protect consumers and our entire economy from the recklessness
and irresponsibility that led to the worst recession of our lifetime.
Wall Street reform is a key pillar of an overall economic plan weve put in place to dig ourselves out of this recession and build
an economy for the long run an economy that makes America more competitive and our middle-class more secure.
But my responsibility as President isnt just to help our economy rebound from this recession its to make sure an economic
crisis like the one that helped trigger this recession never happens again. Thats what Wall Street reform will help us do.
Thats why Wall Street reform is so important. With reform, well make our financial system more transparent by bringing the
kinds of complex backroom deals that helped trigger this crisis into the light of day.

85

APPENDIX L: PRESIDENT OBAMAS WEEKLY

ADDRESS, May 19, 2012
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

For the past 3 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. 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.
Since then, we've recovered taxpayer dollars that were used to stabilize
troubled banks. And we've put in place Wall Street reform with smarter,
tougher, commonsense rules that serve one primary purpose: to prevent a
crisis like that from ever happening again. And yet for the past 2 years, too
many Republicans in Congress and an army of financial industry lobbyists
actually have been waging an all-out battle to delay, defund, and dismantle
Wall Street reform.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Recently, we've seen why we can't let that happen. We found out that a big
mistake at one of our biggest banks resulted in a two-billion-dollar loss.
While that bank can handle a loss of that size, other banks may not have been
able to. And without Wall Street reform, we could have found ourselves with
the taxpayers once again on the hook for Wall Street's mistakes. That's why
it's so important that Members of Congress stand on the side of reform, not
against it, because we can't afford to go back to an era of weak regulation and
little oversight, where excessive risk-taking on Wall Street and a lack of basic
oversight in Washington nearly destroyed our economy. We can't afford to go
back to that brand of you're-on-your-own economics. Not after the
American people have worked so hard to come back from this crisis.

24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

Weve got to keep moving forward. Weve got to finish the job of
implementing this reform and putting these rules in place. 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. You have to write out a living will that details how you'll be
winding down if you do fail. The new law takes away big bonuses and
paydays from failed CEOs, while giving shareholders a say on executive
salaries. And for the first time in our Nation's history, 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.

34
35
36
37
38
39
40

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. Yes, it
discourages big banks and financial institutions from making risky bets with
taxpayer-insured money. 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
86

41
42
43
44
45
46

pursue a higher education. That's what Wall Street reform is all about,
making this economy stronger for you. 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.

47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56

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. Alongside our entrepreneurial spirit and rugged individualism,
America only prospers when we meet our obligations to one another and to
future generations. If you agree with me, let your Member of Congress know.
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. Thanks, and have a great weekend.

NOTE: The address was recorded at approximately 6:05 p.m. on May 16 in the Foyer at
the White House for broadcast on May 19. The transcript was made available by the
Office of the Press Secretary on May 18, but was embargoed for release until 6 a.m. on
May 19.

87